Philosophy 220
Corvino on the ‘Naturalness’ of
Homosexuality
Corvino’s Defense of
Homosexuality
• Corvino takes aim at those critics of
homosexuality that decry it as unnatural or
claim that there are special harms that
accompany it.
• His positive position is straightforward.
o Homosexual activity, like heterosexual activity, is both
pleasurable and supportive of fundamental human
relationships.
o Children are not a necessary product of either.
o There are no special harms resulting from homosexuality.
o Therefore, there is nothing immoral about homosexuality.
But it’s Unnatural!
• Corvino is responding to a common ground
for the condemnation of homosexuality.
• Ranging from mere revulsion to a
consideration of the finality of sexual
practices, many claim that homosexuality is
unnatural.
o One problem with this claim is that the term “unnatural” can and is used in
a number of different ways.
o An important step to untangling this charge is distinguishing the various
senses.
o With the help of Burton Leiser, Corvino does just this.
Unnatural as Unusual or
Unique
• Some people claim that homosexuality is
unnatural because it is uncommon or because it
is not part of the behavior of non-human
animals.
• With regard to the first of these two senses,
Corvino notes that many types of behavior or
uncommon, but we don’t for that reason label
them as unnatural.
• With regard to the second, Corvino merely notes
that the claim is false.
What is not Innate is
Unnatural
• A more compelling claim is that behaviors that do
not spring from natural human tendencies is
unnatural.
• One common (but mistaken) way to respond to this
claim is to start arguing about whether
homosexuality is in fact innate.
• The real issue concerns the moral significance of the
relation between behavior and tendency.
o All behavior, whether grounded in tendency or not, is to some
degree in our control.
o As such, the moral evaluation of the behavior is independent of the
tendency.
That’s not what that’s for.
•
•
Another argument that is sometimes made is that
homosexuality is unnatural because it makes use of
human sexual organs in a way that is contrary to
their natural function (this is an instance of the
finality argument).
Of course, many of our organs admit of many
possible uses. It would be arbitrary to acknowledge
the appropriate use of sexual organs in a wide
range of instances where procreation isn’t possible,
but deny it in the context of same-sex relations.
Enough about Finality, Let’s Talk
about Filth
• Many people have objected to homosexuality on
the basis of the claim that it is obscene. Corvino’s
response to this claim is fairly typical.
• Of note is his discussion of aesthetic revulsion
that some people attest to in connection to
homosexual practice.
• Leaving aside the obvious psychological
rejoinder (we are often strongly repulsed by that
to which we feel an uncontrollable attraction),
we should note that aesthetic concerns of this
sort do not rise to the standard of moral
condemnation.
What about the Harm
Question?
• Corvino considers both the possibility that
homosexual behavior harms its practitioners
and that it can harm third parties.
• With regard to the first, he just points out that
there is no evidence to suggest any special
harm from the behavior itself.
• With regard to the latter, he considers the
special cases of children and species existence,
arguing that there are no special concerns in
either case.
Corvino and NLT
● One thing we should note is that the
conceptual analysis of “unnatural” does
not directly refute the NLT position.
● An evaluation of NLT based arguments
against homosexuality must ultimately
come down to a dispute about human
nature and values and ends appropriate to
it, and that’s not a discussion which
Corvino joins.