Summary Of Homosexuality By David Corvino

Corvino’s essay “Homosexuality and the PIB Argument” elaborates on the disagreements between certain parties, such as natural law lawyers and other philosophers, pertaining to homosexuality and the notion that allowing same sex marriage will permit others to practice polygamy, incest, and bestiality (PIB). Corvino insists that when looking upon this argument, one will need to recognize and comprehend all sides of the dispute and thus be able to scrutinize such arguments proficiently. Through the process of analyzing all sides of this notorious disagreement, Corvino hopes to clarify and refute homosexuality and the PIB argument as well as give his own analysis and position on the subject (3). Corvino begins his debate by explaining the PIB

The PIB argument claims that if we, as a society, consent to homosexuality, we will also end up permitting polygamy, incest and bestiality. Slippery slope arguments have a common structure: If we allow P then allow Q, and if we allow Q then also we allow R. However, if R is unacceptable, then P must also be unacceptable and so forth. This type of argument, however, is taken aback by causal or logical restrictions within the confines of homosexuality. In Corvino’s first example, one is to view the connection as causally. In other words, to say that P causes Q and Q causes R. A slippery slope that is causally linked is only as strong as the evidence for the alleged causal connections it puts forward. Therefor, as Corvino states that there is very little evidence [statistically] that the moral acceptance of gay marriage will incite those to partake in incestual relationships (5). Another example of this type of causal relationship not meeting the means statistically is one such issue as this: Ice cream sales are quite abundant in the summer, as are murders, therefore ice cream causes people to go on murderous rampages. The facts just do not add up properly and requires more research and thought. Corvino then gives the reader an idea which leans towards a more logical manner of the PIB argument, which to Corvino is a more sound and concise argument than the previous causal type. This

But what is it that makes some non-procreative heterosexual relationships good and homosexual relationships (which obviously can’t procreate through sex) so bad? The answer: Our social mores as a society. Many may state that heterosexual relations (sex) cause bonding, are pleasurable and nature, and allow for growth and development with one another. The same argument, however, can be said for homosexual relations as well. Therfore, Corvino sees no reason as to why we can’t say (as one opposing the PIB argument) that the moral basis for favouring non-procreative relations also entails moral favouring of homosexual