In John Corvino's essay, "Why Shouldn't Tommy and Jim Have Sex?" supports his thesis that gay sex is not “unnatural” in any moral way. However, this argument is easy to criticize when considering the opposition of theorists of natural law, democracy, and other perspectival ideas. In order for Corvino to support his position that gay sex is not morally “unnatural,” he must first answer several arguments. Many natural law theorists believe that sexual organs should be used for only three distinct purposes; reproduction, the creation of a home for children through marriage and emotional bonds. However, Corvino responds by arguing that many of the human organs can be used for different functions, so an argument cannot be made in defense of only the sexual organs. In his work he refers to this principle of what can be considered natural and unnatural when he states: “If the accusation of unnaturalness is intended to be something more than an empty rhetorical flourish, those who impose it must specify what they mean” (Corvino 84 ). He uses this statement to support his claim that gay sex is morally natural, demonstrating that society often deems many “unnaturally” transformed goods to be natural. If this is the case then we cannot define a human function as “unnatural” with any moral justification. Although Corvino is commonly persecuted for his beliefs, he continues to justify his reasons for gay sex by arguing against society's inconsistency in condemning sexual acts. . By this he means that society condemns sexuality that does not help support what natural law theorists deem most important, reproduction. However, he disputes that non-reproductive same-sex relationships are immoral and unnatural, because the Catholic Church permits sex with sterile, pregnant... middle of paper... women of the same sex, regardless of race or other. characteristics provided, will never be able to satisfy this biological and social expectation of the word “marriage”. Marriage was not just created for any relationship between human beings, but is considered something governed by human nature and therefore by natural law. Each of these valid reasons contradicts Corvino's answer that gay sex is not "unnatural," demonstrating that they clearly violate natural law. As Corvino's discussion of the naturalness of gay sex suggests, it is plausible to assume that relationships do not violate what constitutes sexuality. ethics. However, as I have argued, we cannot overgeneralize sexual ethics to include gay sex as morals in the realms of marriage, reproduction, and homemaking. Thus, Corvino fails to provide adequate reason to believe his claim that gay sex is not “unnatural”.”.