Philosophy professor Corvino, who’s gay and in a long-term relationship, answers the question of his book’s title with, essentially, Nothing, if you think about it. For this entry in the Philosophy in Action series, he scrutinizes six different arguments about homosexuality, from We Shouldn’t Even Be Having This Discussion (i.e., homosexuality is a private matter) to the dehumanizing Man on Man, Man on Dog, or Whatever the Case May Be, aka the slippery-slope-to-the-moral-sewer line about what gay marriage leads to. Corvino also dissects the Bible-tells-me-so, lifestyle, natural-law, and born-this-way arguments (the last drives a nature-nurture squabble). He writes in plain language leavened with wit, sentiment, and personality—a manner that reflects the book’s origins in Corvino’s half of a debate over gay marriage that he and Focus on the Family speaker Glenn Stanton have presented on college campuses throughout North America. In the last chapter, Corvino discusses his friendly relations with Stanton and other debating opponents and why friendship, much less tolerance, isn’t enough. Rather, civil equality with heterosexuals is what’s needed. --Ray Olson

"Whatever might be wrong with homosexuality, John Corvino rebuts, in this concise, thorough and chatty book."--Mark Vernon, Times Literary Supplement

"[Corvino] writes in plain language leavened with wit, sentiment, and personality-a manner that reflects the book's origins in Corvino's half of a debate over gay marriage that he and Focus on the Family speaker Glenn Stanton have presented on college campuses throughout North America."
--Booklist

"[Corvino's] work is unfailingly patient and laced with humor...an essential and accessible read for any interested parties." --Publishers Weekly

"Corvino's book is an exemplar of public philosophy. It is an entertaining and rigorous read."--Justin P. McBrayer, Social Theory and Practice

"[F]or anyone interested in the topic this is an absolute page-turner. Corvino's style is eminently engaging and peppered with jokes and anecdotes. But mostly, this is simply a hugely important book."--Mark Flowers, School Library Journal

"Corvino's writing style is readable and informed by intelligence and wit. He is also respectful of opposing views and deals with them fairly. Well worth reading, this book sensibly organizes ethical objections to homosexual behavior, takes the time to refute them, and clarifies how defenders of
homosexual rights should respond to them."
--Library Journal

"John Corvino has written a wonderful, deeply exhilarating book. Its virtues of rigor, fair-mindedness, subtlety, and clarity should be everywhere in our public culture, but in fact they are sadly rare. Read Corvino not only to learn about moral arguments concerning homosexuality -- and you will
learn a lot, regardless of your ethical starting point -- but also to be reminded that it is possible for people who deeply disagree to argue respectfully, fairly, and with empathetic imagination and even a sense of humor. This is public philosophy at its very best."--Martha C. Nussbaum, Ernst
Freund Distinguished Service Professor of Law and Ethics, University of Chicago

"John Corvino's new book, What's Wrong with Homosexuality?, is stunning in its clarity and logic. Corvino's is that rare combination of a brilliant and logical mind, and a warm and human heart. He is particularly adept and helpful in critiquing the natural law arguments against homosexuality, and
teasing apart the various nature/nurture approaches to the question of whether gay people are "born that way." Most impressive is his combining his rational, philosophical arguments with his own (and others') experience of being gay and partnered. Anyone interested in seriously arguing against the
acceptance of gay people and our relationships will have to contend with the brilliantly articulated, rational and coherent case made in this book."--The Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson, IX Bishop of New Hampshire

"John Corvino is a philosophically sophisticated, lucid writer who makes a serious effort here to engage those (like me) with whom he disagrees. He argues aggressively, to be sure, but does not resort to calling his critics names or impugning their motives. Moreover, he is commendably willing to
come to grips with challenges to the presuppositions and implications of the position he holds. He is, in short, a worthy intellectual opponent in the debate over the ethics and meaning of sex and marriage."--Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence, Princeton University