Author: johncorvino

Marriage-equality opponents often argue that same-sex marriage proposes a threat to traditional marriage. John Corvino exposes how this unsubstantiated claim is highly implausible.

A 2012 study by sociologist Mark Regnerus aims to show that children of same-sex parents fare differently—and indeed, markedly worse—than children in “intact biological families.” John Corvino explains the study’s major flaws.

Some people oppose letting same-sex couples marry on the grounds that “children need a mother and father.” John Corvino shows that this argument proceeds from what is not true (about child welfare) to what does not follow (about marriage law).

Opponents of same-sex marriage often ask, “If we allow gays to marry, why not polygamy? Why not incest?” and so on. Here, John Corvino exposes the fallacy in this slippery-slope argument.

Opponents of same-sex marriage often claim that same-sex “marriage” is impossible by definition: that marriage just MEANS a man and a woman. Here, John Corvino shows how this argument misunderstands both history and language.

What does it mean when people call same-sex relations “unnatural,” and why should that judgment matter anyway? Philosopher John Corvino takes apart this claim, demonstrating that, in the usual cases, it’s empty rhetorical flourish.

Many marriage-equality supporters believe that it’s a mistake to engage opponents— that these opponents are bigots, and that engaging them tends to legitimize bigotry. John Corvino explains why it’s important to keep the conversation going.

Some people wonder why the fight for marriage rights is important to gays and lesbians, given marriage’s spotty history. Others wonder why it’s important to call it “marriage” — aren’t “civil unions” enough? John Corvino explains why the rights and responsibilities of marriage are important, and how “separate but equal” never really ends up being… Continue reading Why Marriage? (Why not Civil Unions?)