John Corvino

Virtually everyone supports religious liberty, and virtually everyone opposes discrimination. But how do we handle the hard questions that arise when exercises of religious liberty seem to discriminate unjustly? How do we promote the common good while respecting conscience in a diverse society? This point-counterpoint book brings together leading voices in the culture wars to debate such questions: John Corvino, a longtime LGBT-rights advocate, opposite Ryan T. Anderson and Sherif Girgis, prominent young social conservatives. Many such questions have arisen in response to same-sex marriage: How should we treat county clerks who do not wish to authorize such marriages, for example; or bakers, florists, and photographers who do not wish to provide same-sex wedding services? But the conflicts extend well beyond the LGBT rights arena. How should we treat hospitals, schools, and adoption agencies that can't in conscience follow antidiscrimination laws, healthcare mandates, and other regulations? Should corporations ever get exemptions? Should public officials? Should we keep controversial laws like the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or pass new ones like the First Amendment Defense Act? Should the law give religion and conscience special protection at all, and if so, why? What counts as discrimination, and when is it unjust? What kinds of material and dignitary harms should the law try to fight-and what is dignitary harm, anyway? Beyond the law, how should we treat religious beliefs and practices we find mistaken or even oppressive? Should we tolerate them or actively discourage them? In point-counterpoint format, Corvino, Anderson and Girgis explore these questions and more. Although their differences run deep, they tackle them with civility, clarity, and flair. Their debate is an essential contribution to contemporary discussions about why religious liberty matters and what respecting it requires.

Virtually everyone supports religious liberty, and virtually everyone opposes discrimination. But how do we handle the hard questions that arise when exercises of religious liberty seem to discriminate unjustly? How do we promote the common good while respecting conscience in a diverse society? This point-counterpoint book brings together leading voices in the culture wars to debate such questions: John Corvino, a longtime LGBT-rights advocate, opposite Ryan T. Anderson and Sherif Girgis, prominent young social conservatives. Many such questions have arisen in response to same-sex marriage: How should we treat county clerks who do not wish to authorize such marriages, for example; or bakers, florists, and photographers who do not wish to provide same-sex wedding services? But the conflicts extend well beyond the LGBT rights arena. How should we treat hospitals, schools, and adoption agencies that can't in conscience follow antidiscrimination laws, healthcare mandates, and other regulations? Should corporations ever get exemptions? Should public officials? Should we keep controversial laws like the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or pass new ones like the First Amendment Defense Act? Should the law give religion and conscience special protection at all, and if so, why? What counts as discrimination, and when is it unjust? What kinds of material and dignitary harms should the law try to fightand what is dignitary harm, anyway? Beyond the law, how should we treat religious beliefs and practices we find mistaken or even oppressive? Should we tolerate them or actively discourage them? In point-counterpoint format, Corvino, Anderson and Girgis explore these questions and more. Although their differences run deep, they tackle them with civility, clarity, and flair. Their debate is an essential contribution to contemporary discussions about why religious liberty matters and what respecting it requires.

John Corvino pureutuu aiheeseen, joka on tulossa pikapuolin esille myös Suomen eduskunnassa: samaa sukupuolta olevien ihmisten suhteeseen ja avioliitto-oikeuteen. Ennen kaikkea hän tarkastelee väitettä, että homoseksuaaliset suhteet ovat moraalisesti väärin. Hän tekee selväksi, että väite on merkittävä yksilöille, yhteiskunnalle, käynnissä olevalle avioliittokeskustelulle ja muille poliittisille kysymyksille. Samalla hän kumoaa lukuisia harha- ja ennakkoluuloja homo-, lesbo-, bi- ja transihmisten välisistä suhteista, seksisuhteet mukaan lukien.

For the last twenty years, John Corvino has traversed the US responding to moral and religious arguments against same-sex relationships. In this timely book, he shares that experience - addressing the standard objections to homosexuality and offering insight into the culture wars more generally. Is homosexuality unnatural? Does the Bible condemn it? Are people born gay (and should it matter either way)? Corvino approaches such questions with precision, sensitivity, and good humor. In the process, he makes a fresh case for moral engagement, forcefully rejecting the idea that morality is a 'private matter'. This book appears at a time when same-sex marriage is being hotly debated across the U. S. Many people object to such marriage on the grounds that same-sex relationships are immoral, or at least, that they do not deserve the same social recognition as heterosexual relationships. Unfortunately, the traditional rhetoric of gay-rights advocates - which emphasizes privacy and tolerance - fails to meet this objection. Legally speaking, when it comes to marriage, 'tolerance' might be enough, Corvino concedes, but socially speaking, marriage requires more. Marriage is more than just a relationship between two individuals, recognized by the state. It is also a relationship between those individuals and a larger community. The fight for same-sex marriage, ultimately, is a fight for full inclusion in the moral fabric. What is needed is a positive case for moral approval - which is what Corvino unabashedly offers here. Corvino blends a philosopher's precision with a light touch that is full of humanity and wit. This volume captures the voice of one of the most rational participants in a national debate noted for generating more heat than light.

As the uproar over the recent New York State law demonstrates, same-sex marriage is a perennial hot-button issue, certain to impact the 2012 election. Debating Same-Sex Marriage provides a useful roadmap to both sides of this contentious matter. Taking a "point/counterpoint" approach, John Corvino (a philosopher and a prominent gay advocate) and Maggie Gallagher (a nationally syndicated columnist and co-founder of the National Organization for Marriage) consider key questions about the institution itself: What is marriage for? Is marriage meant to be a gendered institution? Why is the state in the business of sanctioning marriage? Where do the needs of children fit in? Will legalization of same-sex marriage lead to legalization of polygamy? Corvino argues that society should support same-sex marriage because of its interest in supporting stable households for all its members, gay and straight alike. Gallagher argues that government recognition of same-sex unions as marriages will disconnect marriage from its key public mission furthering responsible procreation, while stigmatizing traditional views of sex, marriage and family as bigotry. Both agree that the issue deserves thoughtful, rigorous engagement.

As the uproar over the recent New York State law demonstrates, same-sex marriage is a perennial hot-button issue, certain to impact the 2012 election. Debating Same-Sex Marriage provides a useful roadmap to both sides of this contentious matter. Taking a "point/counterpoint" approach, John Corvino (a philosopher and a prominent gay advocate) and Maggie Gallagher (a nationally syndicated columnist and co-founder of the National Organization for Marriage) consider key questions about the institution itself: What is marriage for? Is marriage meant to be a gendered institution? Why is the state in the business of sanctioning marriage? Where do the needs of children fit in? Will legalization of same-sex marriage lead to legalization of polygamy? Corvino argues that society should support same-sex marriage because of its interest in supporting stable households for all its members, gay and straight alike. Gallagher argues that government recognition of same-sex unions as marriages will disconnect marriage from its key public mission furthering responsible procreation, while stigmatizing traditional views of sex, marriage and family as bigotry. Both agree that the issue deserves thoughtful, rigorous engagement.