The Bible also condemns many aspects of our current society and permits slavery. Rather than taking the Bible literally, one must consider the historical context and then adapt to today's standards. Corvino is right to defend the morality of homosexuality, because homosexuality is morally sound. This essay has a very strong argument. The majority of the essay is devoted to pointing out the opposition's flaws, rendering the opposing arguments void. I appreciate Corvino's argument because by rendering all opposing arguments invalid, readers are led to one conclusion: homosexual sex is morally healthy. A point made by Corvino is that although homosexuality is not natural, it would not be correct to say that homosexuality is immoral. Let's assume that homosexuality is unnatural in all respects. Corvino's statement would still be true, homosexual sex would be moral. As mentioned in the essay, “unnatural” has various definitions. Deviating from the norm would still be morally insignificant, innate desires still do not constitute good judgment or morality, and sexual organs continue to serve more than just procreation. The only argument Corvino makes that could be debated would be the comparison with animals. If homosexuality does not exist in the natural world, then humans should not practice it and are therefore