In John Corvino's essay, "Why Shouldn't Tommy and Jim Have Sex?" » he defends his argument that gay sex is not "unnatural" from a moral point of view. However, this argument is easy to criticize if we consider the opposition from theorists of natural law, democracy, and other forward-looking ideas. For Corvino to argue that gay sex is not morally “unnatural,” he must first address several arguments. Many natural law theorists believe that sexual organs should only be used for three distinct purposes: reproduction, creating a home for children through marriage, and bonding. However, Corvino responds to this by stating that many human organs can be used for different functions. So we cannot present an argument defending only the sexual organs. In his work, he refers to this principle of what can be considered natural and unnatural by stating: "If the accusation of unnaturalness is to be more than empty rhetoric, 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 by proving that society often claims that many "unnaturally" processed products are natural. If this is the case, we cannot define a human function as "unnatural" with any moral justification. Although Corvino is generally persecuted for his beliefs, he continues to justify his reasoning in favor of gay sex by arguing against society's inconsistency in condemning sexual acts. . By this he means that society condemns sexuality which does not contribute to what natural law theorists consider to be most important: reproduction. However, he disputes that non-reproductive homosexual relations are immoral and unnatural, because the Catholic Church permits sexual relations with people who are infertile, pregnant... middle of paper ... of the same sex, regardless of race or the other. characteristics provided, will never be able to meet this biological and societal expectation of the word “marriage”. Marriage was not created solely for any relationship between humans, but is seen as something governed by human nature and therefore natural law. Each of these valid reasons contradicts Corvino's answer that gay sex is not "unnatural", proving that it clearly violates 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 sex. ethics. However, as I have argued, we cannot overgeneralize sexual ethics, encompassing same-sex sex as moral in the areas of marriage, reproduction, and homemaking. Thus, Corvino fails to provide an adequate reason to believe his claim that gay sex is not "unnatural ».”.