What's Wrong With Homosexuality?

by John Corvino

For the last twenty years, John Corvino--widely known as the author of the weekly column "The Gay Moralist" --has traversed the country responding to moral and religious arguments against same-sex relationships. In this timely book, he shares that experience--addressing the standard objections to homosexuality and offering insight into the culture wars more generally.

Is homosexuality unnatural? Does the Bible condemn it? Are people born gay (and should it matter either way)? Corvino approaches such questions with precision, sensitivity, and good humor. In the process, he makes a fresh case for moral engagement, forcefully rejecting the idea that morality is a "private matter." This book appears at a time when same-sex marriage is being hotly debated across the U.S. Many people object to such marriage on the grounds that same-sex relationships are immoral, or at least, that they do not deserve the same social recognition as heterosexual relationships. Unfortunately, the traditional rhetoric of gay-rights advocates--which emphasizes privacy and tolerance--fails to meet this objection. Legally speaking, when it comes to marriage, "tolerance" might be enough, Corvino concedes, but socially speaking, marriage requires more. Marriage is more than just a relationship between two individuals, recognized by the state. It is also a relationship between those individuals and a larger community. The fight for same-sex marriage, ultimately, is a fight for full inclusion in the moral fabric. What is needed is a positive case for moral approval--which is what Corvino unabashedly offers here.

Corvino blends a philosopher's precision with a light touch that is full of humanity and wit. This volume captures the voice of one of the most rational participants in a national debate noted for generating more heat than light.

Genres: Nonfiction, Philosophy, LGBT, Sexuality, Politics, Psychology, Queer

192 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 2013

About the author

John Corvino, Ph.D., is professor of philosophy and the former dean of the Irvin D. Reid Honors College at Wayne State University in Detroit, Michigan. He is the author or co-author of three books from Oxford University Press (OUP)—most recently, Debating Religious Liberty and Discrimination, with counterpoint by Ryan T. Anderson and Sherif Girgis (2017). He is currently working on a book for OUP tentatively titled, The Other Side: How, When, and Why to Engage with Culture-War Opponents.

Corvino has lectured at over 300 venues worldwide on sexuality, marriage, religion, and related topics, and his online videos have received over four million views. Corvino has contributed to The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Detroit Free Press, the Huffington Post, The New Republic, Slate, Commonweal, and other popular venues.

Reviews

[Rose · Rating 4 out of 5]

Initial reaction: I'll have to think a bit on how I want to approach this review, because, like a lot of non-fiction reads I've had in the past year, it left my mind buzzing with so many jumping points that I don't exactly know where to start. Ha! I will say, for beginning notes, I thought John Corvino approaches the issues with a great helping of food for thought, sensitivity, constructive arguments and even humor (and there were more than a few times when I chuckled while reading this).

Full review:

Take note, all: the title may be very misleading, but then again, I think it's an apt summary for what John Corvino intended to show in this very enlightening account on homosexuality within our present society, attitudes taken against it, and knocking down many arguments and misconceptions made in the discussions surrounding this. I personally had exposure to many arguments Corvino makes in this narrative from my studies on gender, identity and health that I took in a few undergraduate classes at uni. For me, I think it was an eye-opening narrative with Corvino's wit, eloquence and presentation on a number of different factors concerning attitudes on homosexuality - including religious, social, health, political, historical, philosophical among other measures.

One thing I'm going to say before I delve a little further into what Corvino addresses here, is that in the dimensions of identity and health, sexuality plays a vital role, one I think is quite undervalued and often misrepresented in so many ways. Sexuality is a more complex measure than just considering the physical dimensions of it. When I'm discussing sexuality at large, I don't mean simply the factor of "who sleeps with who" or the terms that people place on it based on specific ideal constructions, which is what so many people place emphasis when bringing up the topic. Rather, I refer to the expressions of it in larger examinations of culture, expression, personal worth/value, and extensions of gender. That might sound like a mouthful, but I think it's something that people need to consider when noting the different dimensions of sexuality that exist in our society, and that understanding the root of those expressions is vital to the acceptance of how it occurs, is expressed, and ultimately valued and rooted in its diversity in our society.

I really have to commend Corvino in recognizing the multidimensional rationales here, because he does a great job of presenting very clear cut evidence that refutes arguments against multidimensional expressions of sexuality, specific to homosexuality - and it's notable in its terms of starting larger constructive conversations. He first approaches it from a personal place, as he himself identifies as gay, a gay-rights advocate, and a philosophy professor who has written and debated on the topic for more than 20 years. He then delves specifically into moral arguments that have root in religious and moral terms and how they affect public policy and attitudes. He also explores the harm of negative attitudes towards the expression of sexuality specific to same-sex relationships. Some of the examples he gives are heartbreaking because it examines how the negation of the roots of sexual identity and their expression can be harmful on a social as well as self-worth value to the individual, group, and rooted relationships.

Corvino supplements his arguments with a wit and charm that I found amusing as I perused the narrative, with specific attention to contradictions in certain arguments while still informing and educating the reader on the dimensions of the topic. I haven't read a peer narrative this intuitive on the subject matter in one concise volume. If there were a critique to give to it, I wish it were longer to expand on other expressions of sexuality to be able to give weight to the multidimensional nature of its importance and function in the dimensions I mentioned above and beyond. Still, I think it's a good starting point, and I think it's a read that people can take much from in its considerations.

Overall score: 4/5

Note: I received this as an ARC from NetGalley, from the publisher Oxford University Press.

[M. · Rating 1 out of 5]

36. A book that has fewer than 1,000 reviews on Amazon and Goodreads

I don't agree with the premise that homosexuality isn't morally wrong, but 'know thy enemies' and most importantly, 'love thy enemies' (for your justice to be superior to that of the pharisees), and how can you love someone you don't know?

Upon thinking about this a lot, I have decided to give this book one star. It's not that Corvino doesn't have the occasional good point, after all his tone is most of the time friendly and not hostile to those who hold the contrary position. However, I can't buy it.

Now, I'll be the first to admit that at least he was honest to himself, because he's not arguing to be a Catholic now. Yet there are a few problems with this book. I was going to make a detailed chapter by chapter review of it, until I realized that the thing that most bothers me keeps repeating itself: ignorance of Catholic doctrine and goalpost shifting, every single time.

Most especially in the shape of: "I'm gay but not like other gays, you know? I talk to people who oppose my existence! Also I'm not promiscuous nor engage in anal sex so that doesn't apply to me , John Corvino! Achckually you forgot about lesbians! Except I'm gonna dismiss that if I defend promiscuity and the possibility of a stable relationship as equally good I'm digging my own (logical) grave!"

1) He attacks the "Loving the sinner, hating the sin" distinction by arguing it trivializes sexuality's importance. But we should know where this came from, it's kind of a loose reference to Mt 5:44. Jesus wasn't exactly compartimentalizing: He was demanding a superior justice to that of the time from His followers. I'm not saying they are the same kind of sin, but if you hate that your friend is a compuslive liar, this would not mean you hate your friend as a person, even as he makes a life off lying (i.e, being an astrologist). Chastity does not exclusively mean 'do not have sex outside marriage', though that is an important part, see CCC 2338.

2) Because of it, his compartimentalizing claims fall flat, because it's not like we would start nitpicking endlessly: "living together is one thing, having sex is another" (cohabitation is strongly discouraged even for unmarried heterosexual couples for creating far more problems than solving them).

In a completely unrelated note, because he will not discuss transgenderism, he commits the mistake of equating sex and gender to then mention them separately (p. 15). You cannot have your cake and eat it, too.

Shifting goalposts, his argument is that homosexual relationships do make some people happy (by providing "meaning, grow and fulfillment", p.16), yet he immediatly backtracks and even concedes that promiscuity is not off limits (p. 17). How is that not relativist if 'meaning, growth and fulfillment' can be reached by commitment and non-commitment at the same time? Or, while he is not a hedonist, he adopted the same 'morality is a private matter' attitude he was criticizing a few paragraphs above.

While "there is no simple answer" to where morality comes from (p. 19), to imply that it is simply arrived to by social effort is misleading. Its practice is social, its principle, by definition, has to trascend people, just so we are not arguing back and forth in an utilitarian fashion (though, I am not attempting a 'God of the gaps: the morality version' getaway here).

He also seems to think that because other religions were wrong about certain specifics, then there is the possibility that all religions are wrong, by the way the Truth, in the Christian conception, is a person (Jn 16), so we shouldn't wield it against people because Jesus is not a club. Also, another way to sort through this conflict is the idea of the semina Verbi, which makes it clear there are seeds of Truth in other religions.

On page 24... he promotes the myth that goes like this "Aquinas thought masturbation was worse than rape". Except the definition of rape he was using was not forced sexual intercourse but abduction, which could happen with the woman's consent (i.e. eloping).

Reviewing Aquinas' supplements on marriage and the like... and providing the kind of citations that Corvino doesn't , cause who would, like, read Aquinas, right?

In question 154, article 7, he defines rape as "unlawful intercourse" and says that rape may happen "by seduction" or "by force":

"... force is employed sometimes both towards the virgin and towards her father; and sometimes towards the father and not to the virgin, for instance if she allows herself to be taken away by force from her father's house. Again, the force employed in rape differs in another way, because sometimes a maid is taken away by force from her parents' house, and is forcibly violated: while sometimes, though taken away by force, she is not forcibly violated, but of her own consent, whether by act of fornication or by the act of marriage: for the conditions of rape remain no matter how force is employed."

The use of violence against someone in order to obtain their sexual favours - constitutes an independent and separate sin: against justice. (q. 65, art 4). So, his definition of rape was a bit more broad than what we have nowadays

3) Despite his ignorance of Greek (as a philosopher, no less, and his disregard of the Bible as a moral authority given his status as skeptic), he points fingers at lack of unity between Christians affecting the Biblical canon and the subsequent interpretations of the most often cited passages against homosexuality. Corvino ends up embracing revisionist points of view, which he cannot justify because he... doesn't know Greek, nor he has a stake in it (as he admitted it!), because he doesn't believe, which would require him to dig deeper... so it's just to sow division.

4) The third chapter, focused on statistics, is a bit misleading. I'm not going to question using the faulty studies he pointed out to, after all he wants to persuade us, he has to show the other side is not informed of proper research. But he's failed to acknowledge that the promotion of promiscuous sex always has been more far and wide between homosexuals, and that males are more at risk no matter how "those things don't apply to him". Even while he finally concedes that promiscuity in males is a thing (just two chapters after that), he says that he fails to see how is this going to have a detrimental effect on society. Let's leave society for a while, doesn't it have a detrimental effect on men? And hasn't promiscuity been promoted as an actual good ever since the rise of, well, porn? (or anything anti Christian really, but let's not go back that much).

Evolutionary psychology as a determination of happiness and harm arguments wielded as weapons are counterproductive, I agree, but nowhere he tries to dispute the claim that the anus is not made for penetration, which would be a good, "science" backed argument in itself. The fact that heterosexual people do it, too, doesn't mean it isn't an unhealthy practice, and that it is currently being pushed on teens. Moreover, the transgender movement, which Corvino showed support for, early in the book, is pretty much arguing no sexual differences exist and therefore, homosexual people are forced to have intercourse with people of the opposite sex under "basic decency". That has to count amount the negative things homosexual people face, particualrly women.

By the way, the nonsense doesn't stop there, as always, although Corvino considers promiscuity a risk factor he keeps swinging back and forth and finally assuming it's not big deal, making ludicruous comparisons such as comparing homosexual sex with playing football, and ignoring large age gaps in homosexual relationships (sometimes even pedophilia) as being a factor as to why people who have one way or another internalized same sex attraction as a defining character trait. He also posits that since many people are ashamed of the social repercussions of their being homosexual, we'll never have sufficient data.

Well, STDs tend to be a topic either completely avoided or treated as the sole negative outcome of an unbridled sexuality (whether you're in favor of homosexuality or not, you might have noticed that in recent times, pregnancy has been equated with a STD). Also they bring shame one way or the other, and many which were thought to be disappeared are resurfacing as a result of promiscuity

5) Onto my agreements with him, I'll say that reproduction is not the only moral good of sexual acts, but by far it should be taken into account more than it actually is (without neglecting the other aspects such as the unitive and the pleasurable). That should answer his concern about infertile couples still engaging in intercourse. But no, he reduces it to "safe, healthy and consensual". Well, BDSM enthusiasts argue that words are sufficient to ensure all three. And he doesn't really engage the risks of sodomy.

He outright denies objectification, arguing that homosexual sex is a) non masturbatory and b) not seeking casual relationships necessarily (yet he continues to posit promiscuity as an alternative).

It's weird that he argues New Natural Law theorists don't focus on females while he only brings them out when it's convenient to them as his book is exclusively focused on same sex attracted men. Also, he argues "[t]here is no obvious point where one starts choosing gratification by its own sake". Really? So, what are all those talks on avoiding procreation and maximizing pleasure about?

In Chapter 5, Corvino argues there's no such thing as a 'born this way', at least in the genetic explanation of homosexuality but also steers clear from the whole constructivist theory which is some sanity. Inclinations might be part natural, part social but sometimes it's hard to draw the line.

Then he dives into his private life to conclude that even though no one was mean to him being deprived of a very specific inclination at random (that he handpicked) was sufficient to turn his back on the Church.

He's less harsh on conversion therapy than I expected him to, saying it shouldn't be banned for those who want to do it, but talks about the lack of expertise of so-called therapists, emotional scarring, etc. For sure this is a matter that should be handled with care, for we can't become constructivists when it suits us, even if it's for a good cause.

I'm not quite sure all essentialists negate the cultural effect of specific things, just as I'm not sure all 'constructivists' outright deny nature, though the latter is becoming more and more common.

In the next chapter, Corvino addresses the slippery slope argument of if homosexuality is approved, why not polygamy, incest and bestiality. Well, even as he argues that places with sanctioned polygamy are intolerant of homosexuality (and I'm assuming he partly means Muslims), you do have versions tolerant of homosexuality as open relationships are basically a version of polygamy,

I'm not sure that incest will become as easily acceptable but it could potentially happen by artificial insemination (people conceived with the same sperm on different women would still be half brothers unknowingly). As for bestiality, it's much easier to rule that one out implying it will always be nonconsensual for animals lack the ability to consent to anything. Regarding man on child, though Corvino shows himself opposed, he might want to consider that some people arguing in favor of homosexuality say nothing of the huge predatory move in ephebophilia or abolition of age of consent (Foucault, Paglia and their followers, for example).

Further reading: this article

P.S. I survived the cringe.
P.S. 2. For the last time, if John Corvino ever reads this, Aquinas was not a monk, but a friar, there is a difference ("You could Google that").

[Tarynwanderer · Rating 4 out of 5]

[This review can also be found at Bookwanderer!]

I would have subtitled John Corvino's What's Wrong with Homosexuality? "How to Argue with a Homophobe--And Win!." At its core, this nonfiction treatise on gay rights outlines the most popular arguments against the gay rights movement, and dismantles them handily.

Corvino is a professor of philosophy, and it shows in his writing. He is careful, logical, and successfully follows arguments to their root by asking "why?". (It should also be said that this book is very, very readable--Corvino's style is more conversational than formal!) His approach appreciated the nuances of each argument against gay rights, including "it's not natural" and "the Bible says it's bad, so it's bad," and addressed each one from a moral standpoint. I found his arguments against biblical condemnation of homosexuality perhaps the most interesting and the most helpful, as it seems to be one of the most pervasive strains, at least in U.S. discourse. I have a very limited knowledge of Christian texts, and Corvino's ability to cite from and analyze Biblical passages was extremely helpful. One very telling part of the chapter has Corvino providing more than 10 different translations of the same passage about Sodom and Gomorrah, both showing the way the language evolves (as the translators become more and more modern) and how it can actually be quite difficult to pin down definitive definitions of certain words.

Corvino is also careful not to demonize (a word he feels strongly about) the opposition. He considers Glenn Stanton of Focus on the Family a friend, and can have civil debates with him. This absolutely boggled my mind. Not to get political, but...I'm about to get political, so look away if politicking talk makes steam shoot out of your ears. (Sorry I'm not sorry!) I consider myself a progressive liberal, and it is very, very hard for me to separate my political beliefs from my personality and identity. I do not have very many Republican or conservative friends, and those who I do have are friends from childhood whose Facebook posts I hid on my newsfeed long ago. I feel that our values differ too substantially for any sort of close or personal relationship to exist. But Corvino is somehow able to remain friendly with people who literally think he is following the will of Satan, and presses them in their beliefs without being condescending or increduous. Corvino is a stronger person than I. Pretty sure if someone told me to my face that I deserved to burn in hell, I wouldn't be too civil in my response...

This was "only" a four star read for me because I felt that race (and racism) were not treated with the same depth and respect as gay-rights supporters and the same-sex marriage struggle were. Admittedly, these were not the foci of the book, and Corvino says as much; he also explains that the book is not meant to cover the struggles of the entire LGBTQ community. And yet...I suppose it's a bit essentialist of me, but some things are always, always wrong. Sure, you can try to be sympathetic, to understand the cultural context and the societal mores of the time, but to attribute casual racism in the United States to "a blind spot" is bizarre. It's apologist, frankly, and Corvino's attributing of these views to his grandparents seems to ignore the fact that institutional and other forms of racism still exist. From an author who otherwise seems very sensitive and progressive, this "blind spot" was a hard pill to swallow.

For a well-reasoned and deeply-researched text on the moral arguments for marriage equality, What's Wrong with Homosexuality? more than fits the bill. I think it's an essential read for anyone who considers themselves allies of the gay rights movement, and a morally-imperative read for those people who think homosexuality is wrong/a choice/unnatural. I myself would definitely read more of Corvino's clear and concise philosophical arguments in the future.

I received What's Wrong with Homosexuality? free for review from publisher Oxford University Press through Netgalley. It will be published March 1, 2013.

Bookwanderer Rating: Four out of five stars
Bookwanderer Tagline: "When a taboo interferes with people's happiness with no apparent justification, it is probably time to rethink it. Traditions have value, but do too does the process of ongoing moral reflection."

[SLADE · Rating 3 out of 5]

John Corvino is obviously an intelligent and logical man. I enjoy that in an author, when the main point of their writing is supporting opinions or positions on issues.

Unfortunately, homosexuality and it's acceptance in society is still a debate raging into the 21st century. The fact that books still need to be written about it is a sad reflection of how far we have not come. The fact that books are allowed to be published about it is something to be happy about, but we need to do better.

This book is a short examination of the major arguments against homosexuality currently popular in today's world and the author's response to each.

One thing I enjoyed is that even though the author is not a religious person, he does not simply dismiss the religious objections, which would be easy to do. He gives them the same attention he gives the secular arguments.

I won't rewrite the book here and illustrate all of the points and counter points of the book, but I can say that I think he approached the matter with the right amount of attention and detail.

What I will say to Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Jews, Witches, Warlocks, Atheists, Agnostics, Italians, Blacks, Whites, Purples, Blues, Martians, Ewoks and all the other lifeforms out there, we need to learn to live with each other free of condemning the things that we do, unless we are causing harm to others.

Preach more love; Stop preaching hate.

Embrace differences; stop fearing them.

[Peebee · Rating 5 out of 5]

If you have a homophobe in your life, I urge you to buy them this book, and then refuse to debate anything dealing with homosexuality until they have demonstrated that they've read the book. Unfortunately, that probably won't happen. But if you're regularly in a position of debating homosexuality with relatives, friends, or strangers on the Internet, you want to read this book. Corvino, in a very straightforward (pardon the expression), respectful, methodical, and humorous way devastates each and every argument that you'll find in the public discourse. By taking some of these arguments seriously (when they bug the hell out of most of us to even have to address), he has marshaled the arguments you will want to have at your disposal. An excellent reading choice as we enter gay pride season.

[Adam · Rating 3 out of 5]

[John Corvino's What's Wrong With Homosexuality? is a short, concise book that debunks the most prevalent and misguided arguments against gay rights and gay marriage in modern American society, including its affects on children (there are none), the lack of similar same-sex attractions in nature (there are tons), and gay marriage as a gateway to society's moral collapse (ridiculous). Corvino, a philosophy professor, writes with a clear and often personal voice about why the arguments against gay rights have very little substance. In perhaps the book's most personal moment, Corvino discusses his own coming out story and how moments such as those can have the greatest effect at changing people's minds on this issue. In lieu of reviewing Corvino's book, which overall is very good, I offer my own story.]


I came out to my parents on a Sunday, in a moment I'd planned the entire weekend around. It was something I should've done years before--after all, I'd known since I was 12, thanks in part to a random Internet pop-up ad (long story) and an obsession with reruns of The Golden Girls that my family accepted but did not quite understand--but didn't for a myriad of reasons, the greatest of which being a complete lack of faith in my parents. I didn't know how they'd react, and gay rights--or for that matter gay people--was a topic I never heard either of them mention once, even in passing. Had they taken a stand in any direction--they were fine with gay people, they hated gay people, they didn't care one way or the other--I would've at least known was I was up against, what to brace myself for. Instead, there was total silence on this issue. And it was in that silence that I spent years falling apart--emotionally, physically, spiritually--until I decided once and for all that the only way I could save myself and be truly happy was to come out to them, the two people who raised me, the two people who I loved more than anyone else (and who loved me just as much). I needed to do this in order to be a stronger, better, healthier person, whether my parents accepted me or not. And so it was decided: I would visit my parents, come out, and be done with it.

I don't remember how the conversation began--I didn't look right, I remember my mother saying at some point, like there was something bothering me. I told her it was true, there most definitely was something on my mind...but I choked on my words and didn't go any further, didn't elaborate. Ever the worrywart, my mother began to rattle off a litany of possible tragedies that could've befallen her firstborn son--fired from my job, an accident, a health scare--a list I assume she runs through constantly like some sort of protective-mom memory game. I denied that my problem was any of those possibilities, and before she could say any more, I blurted it out--two very simple, one-syllable words, tossed out with the same speed and dispassion of someone ripping off a Band-Aid. There was no great relief like I thought there'd be, no metaphorical or metaphysical weight lifted from my shoulders...but it was done, over, resolved. There was no going back, no erasing the words--the proverbial ball was in their court. I waited for them to respond, to say or do anything that let me know, finally, how they felt.

They said nothing.

To be honest, this was not entirely unexpected. My parents are and always have been quiet people, their emotions kept close to their chests. I have countless memories of them sitting around the kitchen table saying absolutely nothing to one another for hours at a time as they paid bills, read the newspaper, or looked over their children's homework...and being perfectly content doing so. It's not because they're sad, lonely, bored, or uninteresting people--they just don't see the need to talk that much, and strangely it's one of the few traits I inherited from them. So the pall of silence that fell over the three of us in that moment wasn't unusual, and it was more of a relief than anything else: they reacted to my news in the same way they reacted to all news, so at least what I'd said hadn't shaken them into immediate verbal hysterics.

Then my dad spoke. "Just because you don't like women," he said, "doesn't mean you're gay."

Now this was unexpected. Looking back now, it's more funny than anything else--after all, not liking women, and thereby liking men, is what makes me gay, totally and obviously. It's also a clear indication of how little my dad understood about gay people or gay issues in general, which I'd never considered beforehand. Even at 12 and 13, long before I would even consider coming out to my parents, I was already immersed in what you might call gay-friendly culture...though at the time, I only knew it as something familiar and close, even if I couldn't put a name to it or explain why it was so comforting to me. Besides those reruns of The Golden Girls--I saw every one, and multiple times to boot--I also watched Match Game reruns solely for Charles Nelson Reilly, preferred baking and sewing to anything involving power-tools, and liked Madonna songs.* My father, on the other hand, was familiar with almost none of this. One of 6 kids who grew up on a small-town farm, my father played football and wrestled in high school, served in the military, watches Fox News, listens to talk radio, votes Republican, and has to my knowledge never willingly read a book; he spends what little free time he has working on his truck, riding his snowmobile, and doing random construction jobs around the house...like the attached garage he built one summer single-handedly, after my mother complained about walking to her car on ice in winter. To say that my father is a skilled and talented man would be an understatement; to say my father knew a lot about gay people before I came out to him, however, would be an overstatement.

I realize this now, years after the fact; in the moment, however, I was horrified. Luckily, my mother was, too, and for the next few minutes they debated what it meant to be gay in front of their gay son...possibly one of the most surreal moments of my life. When that conversation--and, as it happened, the overall conversation--ended, I got in my car and drove back home, leaving them to discuss it among each other in their normally quiet home.

In the years that followed, not much else was said about my announcement--there was a question, asked by my mother over pizza, and a discussion between the two of them about whether or not Mitt Romney was a "bully" for cutting the hair of a gay classmate--but the news ultimately fell away into the chasm of silence where my parents stored all news, good or bad.

What I didn't understand or fully appreciate at the time, though, was that this one act on my part, done so deliberately to better my own life, had also done something for my parents. Even though they have never said anything more about my sexual orientation, the gulf that had always existed between us--because of my doubt, because of their silence--closed...not fully, but enough that we could now begin to see each other as the people we were and are. In the months afterwards, my dad and I spoke more easily and in more than just monosyllabic groans and with tortured shrugs. We joked around, usually about politics (and occasionally about my mother, who always seemed to overhear), talked about each other's jobs, and began biking and hiking with mom. And in maybe the most awkward moment of my life, he sat down with me and watched a Kathy Griffin stand-up routine on BRAVO--a noble attempt on his part to give "gay-friendly" TV a try and cross that divide between us, but after roughly 10 minutes of coarse, uncensored vagina jokes, we both silently realized there was a limit to that, as well.

It's only been in the years since, as I've read more and more about LGBT history and issues, and as the attention paid to those issues has gone mainstream, that I realize just how significant coming out to my parents was. Sure, they're only two people, and they may have not felt too strongly one way or the other to begin with--I've still never asked, and I don't plan to any time soon--but they're also my parents, they're good parents, and they had a right to know this important fact about their son, regardless of my own doubts and insecurities. And it's because so many other gay people feel this same way that public opinion on gay rights has begun to change; there are just as many gay people as there were decades and even centuries ago, but because we live in a more open society, people are starting to realize just how many gay people they know. They work with gay people, are friends with them, have gay sisters and brothers, sons and daughters, fathers and mothers; they encounter gay people in their daily lives--as doctors, nurses, cashiers, bankers, teachers, soldiers, elected officials--and understand what they didn't before: when you hate people for their sexual orientation, for who they love, you hate those closest to you. It's easy to hate a group of people when no one from that group is around; it's harder when they live openly in your community, and even harder still when they're your own flesh and blood.

That doesn't mean that people don't still try. Bullying is a major issue in schools, a vast majority of states and countries still don't have gay marriage, you can still lose your job in certain places because of your sexual orientation, and LGBT teens are still being abused and kicked out of their homes for who they are. And as much as I love and appreciate my parents, and as warm and accepting have been about me, there's still that small, nagging voice in the back of my head saying, "Just wait." I can't predict the future, even one involving my often predictable mother and father, but just being myself allows me to debunk people's expectations and preconceived notions. It's a small battle, often waged in living rooms and kitchens across the country--across generations--between a handful of people. But these battles are slowly being won, peacefully, and with the best of outcomes...and someday, hopefully soon, we will live in a society so progressive in its attitude towards gay rights and gay people that books like the ones written by John Corvino--a serious book that debunks seriously-held misconceptions about gay men and women--will seem like awful relics of an era that is long and thankfully gone.


*Thankfully, I am far less stereotypical as a gay adult, though not by much.

This review was originally published at There Will Be Books Galore.

[Adam Ross · Rating 4 out of 5]

John Corvino is gay, and a moral philosopher. He travels around the country frequently debating Focus on the Family and so on. This book is the fruit of many years of thinking carefully about this issue. What is valuable about the book is his ability to clearly (and calmly) parse through the rhetoric regarding same-sex marriage and activity in order to come to the deeper issues, and he does so with warmth, reasonableness, and wit. He tackles the seven biggest claims against same-sex relationships (i.e., "It isn't natural," "If we approve of this, we'll have to accept pedophiles and beastiality," and so on). Unlike many same-sex advocates who simply refuse to believe that conservative voices can ever have anything constructive to say, Corvino does not spare his side any less than the other when it comes to sloppy thinking and poor reasoning. Conservatives are sure to be comforted by the fact that Corvino often points out counter-claims to his own side which they themselves have used. For example, Corvino sounds like fundamentalists when he says that the morality of an action has nothing to do with genetic predisposition and gay activists who appeal to genetic causality (as most of the science currently suggests) as a basis for the morality of the behavior have not proven their point, since many disordered impulses are genetic as well.

But for all the wrangling, the book is surprisingly clear and easy to read, and it does much to cut through the confused landscape and provide compelling philosophical and moral reasons for accepting same-sex relationships and marriage. As an agnostic, the weakest chapter by far in the book is the chapter on the Biblical arguments, but that is neither here nor there to the other arguments in the book.

[Mark Flowers · Rating 5 out of 5]

SLJ review:

* CORVINO, John. What’s Wrong with Homosexuality?. 224p. notes. Oxford Univ. Mar. 2013. Tr $22.95. ISBN 9780199856312.
Adult/High School–Corvino has been debating the title question with hundreds of people since his teens, and here he collects what he sees as the most common and most powerful arguments he’s seen against homosexuality and sets about to absolutely demolish each in turn. Starting with what would seem to be the most intractable argument, the argument from Biblical authority, and moving through arguments about the supposed risk of homosexual activity, natural law, genetics, and the slippery-slope argument, Corvino offers succinct examples of his opposition’s position and then lays out counter arguments grounded in basic logic and rational reasoning. He admits that his arguments are highly unlikely to change the minds of the most committed opponents of homosexuality, but for those who are questioning, or simply have an open mind, this book should be an eye-opener. Meanwhile, for those already committed to gay rights. who may think, as Corvino puts it, that “we shouldn’t even be having this discussion,” the author explains why the conversation is still necessary, offers a view into just what opponents see as so bad about homosexuality, and gives allies some excellent rhetorical tricks to use. Finally, for teens who have not be introduced to formal logic, this book is an easy first introduction to the basic concepts of how to construct a logical argument. A must read.–Mark Flowers, John F. Kennedy Library, Vallejo, CA

http://blogs.slj.com/adult4teen/2013/...

[Chris Boutté · Rating 5 out of 5]

A gay philosopher who uses logic and philosophy to dismantle arguments against homosexuality? I was sold as soon as I learned about this book. John Corvino is a treasure, and I can't wait to read more of his work. It's so rare that people have rational conversations around these subjects, but as a philosopher, Corvino knows that you need to be able to debate interlocutors in a calm, mature way if we ever hope to make any progress. Not only did the book make fantastic arguments, but I enjoy John's sense of humor throughout. The humor would often catch me off-guard and legitimately make me chuckle.

[Rayna · Rating 4 out of 5]

John Corvino is a gay man who has spent 20+ years passionately endorsing gay rights. I like his approach to defending homosexuality. As a philosopher, he doesn't engage in simplistic, dismissive arguments of moral relativism, but rather addresses and analyzes why the moral objections to homosexuality are based in ignorance, faulty logic, poor reasoning, and all too often, blatant lies. In this way, he carefully tears apart every imaginable argument against homosexuality, from the religious to the secular. Finally, Corvino doesn't just argue that homosexual relationships aren't morally bad, but that they are morally good—seeing as they offer homosexual people meaning, fulfillment, and happiness just as heterosexual relationships do for heterosexual people.

The book is divided into chapters based on the different arguments he addresses: Chapter 1 is about why morality does matter in the debate about homosexuality (as morality matters in any debate about human rights). Chapter 2 tackles biblical arguments against homosexuality, with the added caveat that the Bible isn't necessarily a reliable source on morality to begin with. Chapter 3 is about the alleged risks of the "homosexual lifestyle," in which he debunks some badly conducted studies, including one that attempted to show that the average gay man's lifespan was 30 years shorter than the average straight man's. Chapter 4 gets into the first part of the nature vs. nurture arguments, where he criticises the oft-cited claim by both religious and nonreligious gay rights opponents that gay sex is "unnatural" because it does not result in procreation. He also criticises the "appeal to nature" logical fallacy where "natural" is equated with "good" and "unnatural" is equated with "bad." Chapter 5 continues the nature vs. nurture argument, the "born this way" view of sexual orientation and the failures and harms of conversion therapy. Chapter 6 discusses the "slippery slope" fallacy whereby gay rights opponents claim that acceptance of homosexuality will lead to acceptance of polygamy, incest, and bestiality. Chapter 7 concludes with a hopeful entreaty for more fair and honest dialogue that does not treat gay people as evil or disgusting. He cites as an example the anti-gay organisation, Focus on the Family, which described homosexuality as a "particularly evil lie of Satan" on their website. Corvino explains how characterising homosexuality this way hurts teens who are just discovering their same-sex attraction.

Now on to some quotes.

The NNL [New Natural Law] theorists insist that in non-coital sex, "the physical activities (stroking, rubbing) are chosen merely as extrinsic means of producing an effect (gratification) in consciousness, the only thing chosen for its own sake." But they give absolutely no evidence for this strange claim, and it is not the sort of thing one can know from one's armchair.
This point raises another question, about how to determine exactly which acts NNL prohibits. The example just cited relates to female orgasm, about which natural law theorists say very little. Instead, following [Thomas] Aquinas—and nearly every other philosopher who writes on these matters—they tend to focus on male orgasms and semen. (As legal philosopher Andrew Koppelman notes, "The possibility of female orgasm appears to be an embarrassment to the theory.")

This one is always a winner. All those homophobic arguments about how homosexuals "use their genitals against the natural order" by which they mean penis-in-vagina sex ignore the differences between male and female sexuality. They simply put reproduction on a pedestal without regard for the other very obvious reasons that people have sex in the first place. The sole purpose of the clitoris is pleasure, so you can easily argue that lesbian women are indeed using their genitals as God/Nature intended. As a matter of fact, the subject of female homosexuality + female orgasm could have been a chapter of its own.

Corvino actually introduced a new dimension to the "nature vs. nature" debate that I had never thought of before.

1. How do people become gay? (By genetics? Hormones? Early environment? Some combination of the above?)
and
2. Can they change it (i.e., choose to be otherwise)?
...[T]he question conflates an etiological issue (what's the cause or origin of sexual orientation?) with a phenomenological one (how do you experience your sexual orientation?). These two issues vary independently. My hair color is genetically determined, but I can change it. The fact that I understand English is environmentally determined, but I can't change it. (Of course I could learn a new language, but it would never subsume my native one at this point.) Some "choices" can be undone, some cannot; some biologically "hardwired" attributes can be "re-wired," some cannot. That an attribute feels deep and fixed tells us little about how it got there.
[...]
The crucial point is that the leap from "I don't choose my feelings" to "I was born this way" is a nonsequitur. It forces a decision between (A) voluntarily chosen and (B) genetically hardwired, without entertaining possibilities like (C) acquired but nonvoluntary.

Corvino says that he doesn't know why he's gay and doesn't really care, but he does know that he's always been that way and can't change it. Which is fine. But I wish that he explored the idea of sexual orientation being "acquired but nonvoluntary" further. He explicitly rejects the notion that homosexuality is caused by early experiences with parents like domineering mothers or absent fathers, but what early experiences could form sexual orientation? And how would they differ between homosexual people and heterosexual people? For if homosexuality is an acquired trait, then so is heterosexuality. I firmly believe that I was born lesbian. Since both gay and straight people go through every possible combination of life experiences and environments, I don't find the idea that sexual orientation is caused by environment (or partly by environment) convincing. But I respect Corvino's willingness to consider the possibility without undermining the realness and stability of sexual orientation.

I also wish Corvino had criticised the homophobia of queer theory, since he brought it up in the "Born This Way" chapter.

All in all, this book is a solid defense of homosexuality that leaves opponents with little leg to stand on. I found the nature vs. nurture debates the most interesting, and although I agree that our rights shouldn't hinge on why we're homosexual (and that it shouldn't matter any more than why heterosexuals are heterosexual) I would actually be curious to know more about it. The heteros will never make us disappear, no matter how hard they search for a "gay gene."

[Cece · Rating 4 out of 5]

I picked this book up to arm myself with arguments to use against my homophobic family members. I was not left disappointed (though I cannot say for sure whether I can recite them perfectly from memory and without crying out of frustration). There were some parts of the book that I had to mull over more carefully, especially those that involved more philosophical thinking and logic, but overall, the book was easily comprehensible and enjoyable to read, thanks to the author's sense of humor. I also appreciated that he included his personal narratives, such as his coming out story, because I found it very relatable.

[Norah Bradley · Rating 4 out of 5]

"A gay relationship, like a straight relationship, can be a significant avenue of meaning, growth, and fulfillment. It can realize a variety of genuine human goods; it can bear good fruit." (pp. 16–17)

In this short book—one of the first philosophy books I ever read years ago, which inspired me to get more interested in the subject—public philosopher and gay rights advocate John Corvino provides a rigorous, accessible, and respectful critique of the most prominent desperate attempts at coming up with secular, rational arguments against the morality of homosexuality.

There's no good reason to think that there's anything wrong with being gay, and it's one of the easiest things to defend in all of moral philosophy. When someone "de-converts" from a conservative/fundamentalist religion, it's usually the first thing they change their mind about—because once you can't rely on dogma and tradition, and you're forced to actually employ reason and evidence, you've got nothing.

But even if that wasn't the case, even if he wasn't playing softball here, Corvino would still hit it out of the park with this book. He applies an impressive degree of philosophical analysis and seriousness to the subject, systematically dismantling every major category of anti-gay "argument"—from ones based on harm/risk, to nature, to slippery slopes, and beyond.

The only critique I really have is with Corvino's writing style and sense of humor, which can at times go from being quirky and endearing to being "cringe," as the kids say. But that's a subjective stylistic issue which doesn't affect the book's structure or substance, so I don't think it should discourage anyone from reading it.

I'd enthusiastically encourage everyone to do so—along with philosopher Chris Meyer's book The Moral Defense of Homosexuality, which explores many of the same topics and arguments in more detail (and from the perspective of a straight person, whose arguments can't be so easily dismissed with bad-faith accusations of being "biased" or having a "conflict of interest").

Here are some points from the book that I thought were interesting:

"What philosophers can do is clarify and elaborate. When I say that same-sex relationships 'make people happy,' I don't simply mean that they're pleasurable. That's true (and important at some level), but there's much more to it. A gay relationship, like a straight relationship, can be a significant avenue of meaning, growth, and fulfillment. It can realize a variety of genuine human goods; it can bear good fruit. This is the sort of thing we celebrate everywhere from great literature to trashy TV shows: finding a special someone, falling in love, building a life together. It's the sort of thing most people want for themselves and their loved ones. In a word, it's the sort of thing we value. If you have a 'special someone' in your life, imagine your life without that person. That's what's at stake for gays and lesbians in this debate." (pp. 16–17)

"Some football players, drivers, and coal miners are indeed more reckless than others. So are some sexually active heterosexuals, for that matter. But we don't cite statistics about their problems and conclude that no one should ever engage in any of these activities in any form. [...] The point is not that football is more or less risky than gay sex. The point is that 'riskier than the alternatives' does not entail 'morally wrong.' If it did, then no one should ever drive when they could walk, play football when they could play checkers, or have sex of any sort when they could remain celibate." (p. 62)

"The very same things that make non-coital sex valuable for heterosexual partners—expression of affection, experience of mutual pleasure, physical and emotional well-being, and so on—make it valuable for same-sex couples as well." (p. 96)

"[T]he question ['Do you think homosexuality is a choice, or is it biological?'] conflates an etiological issue (what's the cause or origin of sexual orientation?) with a phenomenological one (how do you experience your sexual orientation?). These two issues vary independently. My hair color is genetically determined, but I can change it. The fact that I understand English is environmentally determined, but I can't change it. (Of course I could learn a new language, but it would never subsume my native one at this point.) Some 'choices' can be undone, some cannot; some biologically 'hardwired' attributes can be 're-wired,' some cannot. That an attribute feels deep and fixed tells us little about how it got there." (p. 100)

"Although race is in some sense 'an immutable, non-behavioral characteristic,' racism is all about chosen behaviors. The racist doesn't simply object to people's skin color: he objects to their moving into 'our' neighborhoods, marrying 'our' daughters, attacking 'our' values, and so on. In other words, he objects to behaviors, both real and imagined. What's more, discriminating on the basis of race—dividing up the world according to skin color and treating people differently because of it—is most certainly a chosen behavior. Calling race 'non-behavioral' misses that important fact. At the same time, calling homosexuality 'behavioral' misses quite a bit as well. Yes, homosexuality (like heterosexuality) is expressed in behaviors; some sexual, some not. But one need not be romantically active to be kicked out of the house, fired from a job, or abused verbally or physically for being gay. Merely being perceived as 'queer' (without any homosexual 'behavior') is enough to trigger discrimination. Even where chosen behaviors trigger it, it doesn't follow that they warrant it. And that's the main point of the analogy: Both traits subject the bearer to discrimination, oft en in the name of 'nature' or 'God's law,' without good justification." (p. 119)

"Arguments about the morally appropriate  number of sexual partners are logically distinct from arguments about the morally appropriate gender of sexual partners." (p. 126)

"[S]ome of the same people who endorse polygamy also endorse same-sex marriage, and that they invoke the same 'civil rights' language in both cases. This is true but entirely inconclusive. Some of the same people who oppose abortion also oppose capital punishment and invoke the same 'sanctity of life' language, but that’s no reason to conclude that one movement leads to the other. In fact, the vast majority of the world's polygamy supporters are religious fundamentalists who strenuously oppose homosexuality, and the practice tends to appear in U.S. states (like Utah, Nevada, and Texas) with the lowest support for gay rights. Indeed, to the extent that the gay-rights movement promotes an egalitarian view of the sexes, it will likely undermine common forms of polygamy." (p. 133)

"When a taboo interferes with people's happiness with no apparent justification, it is probably time to rethink it. Traditions have value, but so too does the process of ongoing moral reflection. We should not confuse reasonable caution with obstinate complacency, which can sometimes be a cover for bigotry[.]" (p. 137)

"This debate doesn't happen in a vacuum. When someone calls homosexuality a particularly evil lie of Satan—right on the internet, on the Focus on the Family website—the statement has a profoundly harmful impact on gay and lesbian teens. Sloppy theology aside, and good intentions notwithstanding, here's what these kids will hear: Your deep longings for intimacy are not merely immoral or unwholesome, but demonic. Many of these kids pray desperately (but unsuccessfully) to be free from same-sex attraction. True, their heterosexual peers have similarly been told that Satan is behind their stubborn desires to masturbate or fornicate or view pornography. But from a gay teen's perspective, those heterosexual desires look like 'normal' temptations, the ones that Satan visits on 'normal' people like their schoolmates and pastors: The 'particularly evil' desires must be reserved for particularly evil people." (p. 145)

[Gerhard · Rating 2 out of 5]

I am a bit ambivalent about this book: if the aim is to win over the right-wing minded, then I think John Corvino’s slightly supercilious and mildly condescending tone (bear in mind this is solely my impression) could be off-putting, while I think other people might wish for some more depth and less jokes (not all work; some are real clunkers).

What this book does highlight quite starkly is the dearth of proper research and scientific study, both academic, psychological and sociological, into all matters gay. What I also found quite jaw-dropping is the number of prominent people in the US, from the church to politicians, scientists and academics, who spout a variety of anti-gay dribble.

I think the title of the book could be different, because it casts Corvino’s argument in the light of apologia. Should gay people go cap in hand to the straight community and ask for forgiveness and tolerance? I am from a generation more likely to say fuck them.

However, Corvino does play a significant role in not only bringing disparate factions together, but getting them to debate gay issues intelligently and (somewhat) dispassionately. This book is invaluable in that it is a good primer of current thinking about gay issues, and Corvino provides a good reading list and ample references. Well worth reading and digesting.

[Fred Kohn · Rating 2 out of 5]

When I saw this book sitting on the public library shelf, I almost passed it up, thinking, "What more could possibly be said about the subject?" Nevertheless I found myself picking it up and leafing through it. When I saw that the author was a philosophy professor who happened to be gay, and that the few passages I happened upon seemed to be fairly insightful and original, I decided to take the plunge. Alas, those few passages were not representative of the entire book. Don't get me wrong: the writing is clear and the logical argument is sound. If you are one of those who has been living under a rock for the past decade and needs an introduction to the standard anti-gay arguments and their debunking, this is a very fine book indeed.

[Kat Ice · Rating 5 out of 5]

I loved this book!! I recived this from netgalley and was so excited to read it. This is a professor that debates gay rights. He talks about all of the arguements against gay rights and says how they are wrong! I think everyone should read this. It is a really short but important book!!

[William Kuevogah · Rating 4 out of 5]

This helped me understand what's at stake in the gay-rights debates.
A few takeaways, off the top of my head: homosexuality is not unnatural, if by that you mean it's 'not found in nature'; homosexuality is not a 'lifestyle' in the same way that one chooses a style of....anything; people don't 'become' homosexual anymore than they become heterosexual—they just are; it's a gross misunderstanding to simply equate homosexuality with same-sex sexual activity of any kind, be it anal or oral sex, for the same reason that no one simply equates heterosexuality with sex—period.
“Like their heterosexual counterparts, [same-sex relationships] can be an important avenue of human well-being.”
Anyway, read it for yourself, then decide.

[Rob · Rating 5 out of 5]

While I disagree with the author's conclusion about homosexuality, I give him five stars because of the sensitive, respectful way he presents his case. I can talk with someone like this, and I hope I am as sensitive and respectful in how I present my case.

[Cheyanne · Rating 5 out of 5]

I was raised in a doctrinally conservative church and this book gave me so many answers and so many more questions. I absolutely loved it. One of my all-time favourites.

[Harper · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of the best introductions to deconstructing religious and secular opposition on the subject.

[Peter Dodds · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book single handedly cured my homophobia.

[Peter · Rating 5 out of 5]

I really loved this book. I always thought I was one of those weird gay people who didn't care what science or psychology had to say about homosexuality as it related to the acceptance of homosexuality. Don't get me wrong - I love psychology and science and am very interested as to what they say about homosexuality in general, but, I never thought the acceptance of homosexuality should be based upon whether there is a gay gene or not. Even if there were a gay gene, that wouldn't automatically mean all our "acceptance" issues would go away. Many argue that there are genes that promote us to do a variety of negative things. Those who oppose homosexuality would just argue that very point if a gay gene were to be found. In my eyes - I don't care if homosexuality is determined by nature or nurture or both. My opinion, closely related to the opinion of the author, was always that one should look at the ending results of homosexuality to make an opinion on whether to accept it or not: it makes gay people happy to have homosexual relationships, it does not harm heterosexual relationships, homosexuals are capable of having stable families, etc... The author talks about many other things that homosexual opposers bring to the table about homosexuality: it being a mental disorder, a non-reproducing way of sexual expression, an unbalanced dynamic, a higher rate of STDs, etc... He effectively argues his side on all these points. John Corvino (the author) is a college Philosophy professor and he routinely debates well known people who are indifferent to homosexuality.

[Mike · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is a well written and charitable defense of a pro-homosexuality position. It is worthwhile to read if you think there is something wrong with homosexuality and if you do not.

The section on the "born this way" argument is very important for LGBT rights activists and supporters to acquaint themselves with, hopefully this book can put that canard to rest. It is unnecessary for support of the pro-gay position as well as destructive.

I intentionally us the term "pro-gay" to describe this book because, finally, someone has offered a positive account of the goods homosexual relationships achieve, rather than merely offering a "don't bother me" argument. For this alone, the book should be read by everyone who claims to have a steak in this issue.

If you think there is something wrong with homosexuality, this book's argument is your target. If you are able to faithfully sustain your position in light of this devastating criticism, then you have countered the best formulation of the pro-gay position. (Note, the "faithfully" here is to be understood as "faithful to principles of reason and accepted standards of rational argumentation, as opposed to faithful to a position regardless of evidence and support.")

In many respects this book reminds me of Andrew Sullivan's "Virtually Normal," but I liked this one even more. Give yourself a treat and read this book!

[Bonnie McDaniel · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an interesting little book. It's not, as one might assume from the title, an anti-gay religious screed; rather, it's an intelligent, reasoned, head-on debate against those who would condemn homosexuality, gay people, and (to a lesser extent) same-sex marriage, written by a gay man who has been debating his opponents for twenty years.

The author expertly tackles the main objections to homosexuality: religious (which shouldn't even enter the equation, in my opinion; this country is governed by the Constitution, not the Bible or any other religious text), harm, natural law, scientific research, nature/nurture, slippery slope, and the culture wars. He logically eviscerates all these arguments, and does so without demeaning (or demonizing) his opponents in the least. (As a matter of fact, he's far more patient and forgiving of them than I would be.)

This book is short--only 170 pages including bibliography and index--but it packs a powerful punch. Any opponent of gay people and/or same sex marriage who can approach the subject with an open mind is well-advised to read it.

[Yooperprof · Rating 3 out of 5]

I liked it!

But I guess I didn't "really like it"!

Maybe it's just me, but there's something almost quaint about writing a _philosophical_ defense of homosexuality in 2013. On the one hand, Ellen has been winning this battle on the tube for more than 15 years now. On the other hand, the fact is that the _philosophical_ arguments aren't holding up very well these days, and haven't been for quite some time. There's not a lot of "heavy lifting" here.

This isn't an academic work of ethics. There are plenty of pop culture and contemporary references (Lady Gaga, Rick Santorum), as well some revealing autobiographical reflections. Corvino comes across as a very nice guy, a philosopher you would want to have dinner or a beer with. And kudos to him for getting this book published by the Oxford University Press. It's telling, though, that he covers all of his major points in a small format book of just 150 pages - in spite of the 3000+ year heritage of homophobia in Western culture.

[Destynie · Rating 3 out of 5]

Despite being very well-rounded, well-researched, and well-written, this book didn't really present anything new to me. It reiterated that there's nothing wrong with homosexuality from the various standpoints opponents usually argue from - religion, morality, biology, etc. If you're gay, you probably already know this and are familiar with the typical arguments opposing your existence and prepared to refute them, but if you're not, this is a solid introduction. I'd recommend this book to anyone who actually believes there's something inherently wrong with homosexuality, although I don't know that those people would care to read about how fallible their beliefs are or that it would be successful in changing them. Props to John Corvino for not losing his mind over the course of two (three now?) decades having these tired and outdated debates with people who can't seem to understand.

[Chris · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is a concise summary of the moral arguments for and against homosexuality and it's various forms of individual and collective social behavior. While it does not break any new philosophical ground, the book can serve as a concise reference and as a "playbook" to those actively engaged in the public debate. Although John Corvino is gay, he does maintain objectivity in the presentation of the arguments. Nevertheless his goal is clear: to build a positive moral case for homosexuality from first principles as well as by debunking the opposition's case. Yes, this is a philosophy book, but there are frequent personal anecdotes, autobiographical details, and humor. I don't think you would be bored reading this book if you are at all invested in the debate.

[Mark Schlatter · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very lively and engaging treatise on the arguments for the moral value of same-sex relationships. I'm a fan of good philosophical writing anyway, but Corvino makes his explanations even better through the use of his personal stories (both recounting his life as a gay man and his time debating gay-rights opponents on the lecture circuit). Make no mistake --- the stories do not supplant the reasoning (he's not arguing by anecdote), but definitely enhance the flow of the writing. There are sections on Biblical reasoning, the origins of homosexual behavior (and whether a genetic basis is important for arguments), and critiques of the "slippery slope" argument. It's a quick read (I finished it in less than a day), but still full of detail, rhetoric, and argumentation.

[Jacqueline · Rating 5 out of 5]

A fantastic look at homosexuality that is fair to both the right, the left and gay men and women. Corvin never lectures, just presents the facts as they are and lets people make up their own mind. I enjoyed reading about his friendships with people from the "other side." and laughed out loud when I realized even people who disagree with gay rights sometimes think their supporters are a little nuts.

A must read for anyone who feels passionately about gay rights no matter what side you are on.

*I received this book as a digital download ARC from NetGalley and this review is my opinion and should be taken as such.*

[Paul · Rating 4 out of 5]

A real breath of fresh air. Corvino rips the name calling and misconceptions on both sides of the issue. He points out that people on either side of this and many other social issues think that other views are morally wrong and harmful. Our future together is best served by learning to respect and understand the other side (as opposed to dismissing them as haters and bigots). His scriptural analysis is thin, but he was very persuasive with respect to social and philosophical arguments. For instance, he argues that the question on whether people are born gay is irrelevant, since no one is born religious yet it's important to protect the rights of religious people.

[Avril · Rating 5 out of 5]

A carefully detailed philosophical argument that concludes that, despite the title, there is actually nothing intrinsically wrong with homosexuality. I'm not sure that this book will change anyone's mind, but it definitely provides the philosophical language with which to challenge the common arguments made to 'prove' that homosexuality is immoral. My concern is that I believe that for many people opposition to homosexuality has less to do with reasoned argument than with a gut-reaction of disgust, usually to anal sex, and reasoned counter-arguments aren't going to change that.