One of the hot button issues in our culture is homosexuality and the related issue of same-sex marriage. I have offered a non-religious argument against both (here and here). As I have continued to reflect on these issues, however, I am persuaded that a non-religious case against homosexuality is much more difficult to make than the case against same-sex marriage. One reason for this is the fact that the case against same-sex marriage can be made purely on policy grounds without any recourse to moral judgments. One could believe homosex is morally irrelevant and still be opposed to the government regulating same-sex relationships. Moral judgments, however, are not so easily divorced from one’s view on homosex.
Take for example the argument from natural law. We argue that the natural purpose of our sexual organs requires heterosexual sex. To use our sex organs in such a way that their natural purpose cannot be realized is morally wrong. There are a few reasons why this will not be convincing to many who think homosex should not be opposed.
First, most people today are completely unfamiliar with the concept of natural law. While we may bemoan this fact as an intellectual shame, it remains a fact nonetheless. If people are not familiar with natural law, they are unlikely to see the force in natural law arguments.
Even if someone understands the natural law argument, if they do not believe in God or if they are a moral relativist, they can still reject the force of the natural law. After all, while the natural law can show us the natural biological purpose for human sexuality, if there are no moral facts and if there is no God to be morally accountable to, who cares if we ignore the dictates of natural law? We are not behaving immorally for doing so, and there is no one to judge us for it either.
Why should anyone think there is a moral dimension to the natural law? If I buy a computer to use it as a paperweight, there is no question that I am not using the computer for its intended purpose, but clearly I have not done anything immoral. I just spent a lot of money on a paperweight! While that may speak volumes about my intellect, it doesn’t say anything about my moral character. Why couldn’t the same be said of homosex? One could agree that homosex is unnatural, and yet argue that there is no moral dimension to it. Homosex may be unwise, pointless, or even inferior to heterosex, but that does not make it immoral. It’s just two bodies clashing together.
Also, what about sexual activities like oral sex or masturbation? Many who oppose homosex on the basis of natural law see nothing wrong with oral sex and masturbation. If the natural purpose of our sexual organs is only fulfilled by vaginal sex, and we have a moral obligation to use our sex organs according to their natural purpose, then not only is anal sex unnatural and hence immoral, but oral sex and solo sex are unnatural and immoral too. [Graphic content alert] The same natural law that tells us the natural function of the penis cannot be realized when inserted into an anus is the same natural law that tells us the natural function of the penis cannot be realized when inserted into someone’s mouth or hand.
The natural law proponent could bite the bullet and admit that oral sex and masturbation are also unnatural and hence morally wrong, but not all would be willing to do so. Those who aren’t willing to cede this could respond by arguing that what makes a sex act unnatural is not merely the fact that one is using their sexual organs in a way other than that for which it was intended, but the fact that they only use them in a way they were not intended to function, thereby thwarting the fulfillment of their natural purpose. So if the only kind of sex acts one engaged in were oral and solo sex, they would be violating the natural law.
While this refinement works to show why sexual behavior that is exclusively homosexual in nature is wrong while oral and solo sex among heterosexuals is not, it is powerless to show why homosexual behavior is wrong for bisexuals who engage in both homosexual and heterosexual acts. They, like their heterosexual counterparts, have not prevented their sex organs from fulfilling their natural purpose, and thus their homosexual acts are no more unnatural than oral sex acts among heterosexuals. Would any of us who are opposed to homosex admit that homosex is morally acceptable as long as one also engages in heterosex at some point in their life? No. Does this mean, then, that the natural law argument begs the question (unless one is willing to say that the only moral form of sexual activity is sexual intercourse.)? Not necessarily. The natural law proponent might respond that to obey the natural law one needs to do more than merely engage in heterosexual intercourse at some point in his/her life. Rather, one must be capable of engaging in and actually engage in heterosexual intercourse with every partner with whom s/he engages in sex acts. Since there is no way for two people of the same sex to fulfill the natural law in their sex acts, two people of the same-sex should not be engaging in any sex acts together. This is reasonable, but one might be hard pressed to defend the claim that otherwise unnatural sex acts are morally acceptable in a sexual relationship so long as one is also engaging in natural sex acts in that same relationship. One would have to provide a principled reason for this requirement to avoid the charge that it is ad hoc.
In the end, the best reason to oppose homosex is because God is opposed to it. Homosex is a violation of His creative purposes for humankind and human sexuality, and as such, He commands us to avoid homosexual behavior. As a proper moral authority, God has the right to make such a command, and we have a moral obligation to obey it whether we like it or not.
I don’t think our non-religious arguments against homosex will persuade those who are not already inclined to agree with our conclusion. Atheism and moral relativism undermine the cogency of the natural law argument, and even among theists and moral objectivists, the force of the argument is often lost. This is not to say that the natural law argument is a bad argument, or that there are no good non-religious arguments against homosex. I think it is a good argument, and that it is one of several good non-religious arguments against homosex. I just don’t think their force is such that they will compel the opposition. While our arguments may not be so compelling that people would have to be irrational to disagree, our arguments at least demonstrate to the non-Christian that the Christian position on the morality of homosex is a rational position rooted in something deeper than religious dogma or animosity. And that is quite an accomplishment!
What are your thoughts on the matter?
August 18, 2012 at 12:59 am
My first thought on the matter is that a person may choose to be a virgin their whole life, and maintain celibacy, in every aspect of their life, up to, and including masturbation.
Couldn’t one argue then, that they are not using their sexual organs naturally (i.e. as the law of nature intended) since they aren’t using them at all?
My second thought on the matter is that this argument doesn’t address fornication, sexual abuse/rape, STD’s, or pornography. The (moral) issue isn’t just about hetero-vs.homo-sex, it’s also about sex acts committed within or outside of marriage, consent between (married?) partners vs. rape/abuse, intentional spreading of disease, the financial implications and profiteering of the sex industry, including prostitution, and etc.
A Christian worldview, if properly informed, should be against hetero-sex acts between non-married people, (including rape, abuse, and pornography) just as much as against homo-sex acts between two people (whether “married” or not). The question then is, does an appeal to the law of nature include this?
If not, I would say that these two issues are additional strikes against an appeal to the law of nature.
August 21, 2012 at 9:12 am
Thanks for the topic Jason. I haven’t had time to finish it yet so I will reserve comment for now. However, do have a question concerning your [Graphic content alert].
You know that I love and respect you so I don’t think that I have to sell you on that.
I would like to know if you have posted anything on your views on the limit that Christians are allowed to go to in their method of verbal or written expressions without going into the area of the inappropriate.
I have always felt the need to limit myself to the least graphic expression that I can, and still manage to get my point across with clarity. I am curious that you with your religious background seem to be less apprehensive about such things as per your [Graphic content alert].
Has something in your secular or religious experience brought you conclude that there is no necessity for discreetness in word use when communicating in a secular forum?
August 23, 2012 at 11:55 am
I fully agree with your analysis of your subject. I would only add, I think discussing the natural law without including the medial consequences associated with homosexual sex that is a clear violation of human safety and wellbeing further weakens it as a useful argument.
Although homosexual controlled psychological institutions, homosexually infiltrated medical organizations, activist homosexuals and pro-homosexual activists, have put as much time and effort into covering up the true extent of homosexual sex on health as they have on denying the possibility of homosexuals changing their orientation, honest researchers like Dr. Paul Cameron, (Family Research Institute), has established the frightening medical consequences of homosexual sex and the effect of that orientation on society.
http://www.familyresearchinst.org/2010/08/effect-of-homosexuality-upon-public-health-and-social-order-2/
That added focus seems to add potency to the natural law argument, which is one reason I think homosexuals are in denial about the medical aspects. They generally tell me that there are NO medical issues whatsoever and accuse me of being a liar ad mean for even daring to mention the topic.
August 27, 2012 at 11:15 am
Danzil,
No, I have not written anything on that topic. This is first time I have even issues such an alert in written discourse.
I can only speak for myself, but I wouldn’t even consider what I wrote to be graphic. I spoke in technical jargon regarding sexual acts that were relevant to the purpose of the post. The only reason I even issued such an alert was because I have learned by experience that many Christians are very uncomfortable with any explicit, public talk of sex. Personally, I don’t think that what I said was graphic at all.
If I had a guideline for when to discuss such matters, and how to discuss them, I would say it should only be for informational purposes, not entertainment. One should report the relevant facts rather than irrelevant details that serve no real communication purpose. Also, I think it’s best to speak in more technical terms when they are available, rather than street slang. But even this can change depending on the audience.
Jason
August 27, 2012 at 11:17 am
Danzil,
Good point about the health risks associated with homosex. That is one aspect of the natural law that cannot be avoided: bad behaviors have bad consequences, and good behaviors have good consequences. If we look at the consequences of homosex and see that they are negative, then that should tell us something about the behavior that caused them.
Jason
August 27, 2012 at 1:53 pm
Graphic content alert.
Thanks for that clarification Jason. I understand your points and I appreciated the warning.
August 27, 2012 at 2:11 pm
Jason, while you are on this topic, I hope you have the time to address their “born that way” argument and how it has been used to gain support and acceptance. Even though it is known even among homosexual activist that it is not true. Also, dichotomy of how they treat and view ex-homosexuals.
A discussion on the psychological, political, judicial, educational and cinematic activism tactics that they have used to gain acceptance and main stream appeal would be useful as well.
Two articles on this page link are revealing, one on the agenda of Martha Nussbaum to remove the “ick” factor from homosexual sex, and the other about the homosexual activists infiltration into major comic book companies to influence children.
http://newschristianview.weebly.com/articles.html
August 27, 2012 at 2:45 pm
Danzil, I addressed the biological determinism argument back in May 2009: http://theosophical.wordpress.com/2009/05/18/the-myth-of-homosexual-biological-determinism/.
Jason