In conclusion, this author asserts that homosexual sex is not morally evil but is morally good.
Corvino submission has, however, not gone unparalleled by opponents who feel that homosexuality is immoral. Obasola, Kehinde E., a professor in the Department of Religious Studies Olabisi Onabanjo University addresses this debate in his article titled “Ethical Perspective Of Homosexuality Among The African People.” His main argument against this practice is the abnormality that accompanies the act. For instance, human sexual bodies are developed for reproduction. Therefore, homosexuality is an acquired trait rather than innate. It is a distortion to the biological and psychological components of the body. This among several other reasons makes it to be morally unacceptable.
In my forthcoming essay on this debate, I hold the opinion that opposes Corvino’s argument in favor of homosexuality. His arguing on the basis definition of unnatural does not hold water in so far as morality is concerned. Homosexuality is unnatural, and defies the sanctity of marriage, a natural institution designed for reproduction. It is therefore immoral.
Corvino asserts that attributing homosexuality as unnatural stems from five basic interpretations of what is unnatural. In the very beginning, he objects the very idea of what is natural and its acceptance or likeableness in society. For instance, many lifestyle choices (housing, government, medicine, and even clothing) that are cherished by people at large are unnatural. On the other hand, some “natural” things are completely detested by society, such as, death, disease, and suffering. Subtly regarding “unnaturalness” as “rhetorical flourish,” Corvino challenges the very foundation of opposition (309). Corvino elaborates five different possible meanings of unnaturalness by