‘Natural Use’ Arguments and Why They Suck
Recently, I did a couple posts with the so-called ‘natural use’ arguments against homosexuality in my sites. One can see those posts, which received wide attention from a number of SAB commentators, here and here.
At any rate, the whole ‘natural use’ argument bothers me. In short, its a crappy argument. Crappy arguments shouldn’t be allowed to circulate and influence people, so this is the third installment in my effort to undermine this particular crappy argument.
First, let’s consider some of the history behind this argument.
The latter part of the twelfth through the fourteenth centuries, however, saw a sharp rise in intolerance towards homosexual sex, alongside persecution of Jews, Muslims, heretics, and others. While the causes of this are somewhat unclear… The Church itself started to appeal to a conception of “nature” as the standard of morality, and drew it in such a way so as to forbid homosexual sex (as well as extramarital sex, nonprocreative sex within marriage, and often masturbation). For example, the first ecumenical council to condemn homosexual sex, Lateran III of 1179, stated that “Whoever shall be found to have committed that incontinence which is against nature” shall be punished, the severity of which depended upon whether the transgressor was a cleric or layperson (quoted in Boswell, 1980, 277). This appeal to natural law (discussed below) became very influential in the Western tradition. An important point to note, however, is that the key category here is the ‘sodomite,’ which differs from the contemporary idea of ‘homosexual’. A sodomite was understood as act-defined, rather than as a type of person. Someone who had desires to engage in sodomy, yet did not act upon them, was not a sodomite. Also, persons who engaged in heterosexual sodomy were also sodomites. There are reports of persons being burned to death or beheaded for sodomy with a spouse (Greenberg, 1988, 277). Finally, a person who had engaged in sodomy, yet who had repented of his sin and vowed to never do it again, was no longer a sodomite.
A nice little backstory, eh? I guess biology had advanced back then enough for the church fathers to know exactly what the natural morality was. I am impressed.
Now, for another counterargument. View beavers. They are furry little dam builders who communicate danger by slapping the water with their tale to alert fellow beavers to be aware. Tailslapping is an important aspect of beaver survival. Without tailslapping, beaver survival would be in jeopardy. Ergo, the so-called natural use of tailslapping is to warn other beavers of danger.
Unfortunately, sometimes beavers slap their tales when there is no real danger. Moreover, the success rate of the tailslapping’s correspondence to actual danger is of little significance to the beaver’s survival. In fact, if bona fide danger was present only 10% of the time the beavers slapped their tales, they’d still be safe, if not a little jumpy.
It turns out that for some things imperative to survival, overcompensation is necessary. Expecting the beaver’s to tailslap every time there is bona fide danger present and never when there isn’t bona fide danger present, for fear of committing an ‘unnatural act’… is foolish. The point is that tailslapping, is natural… if its right 10% of the time… the beavers will be safe.
Rob
Sparkie Arbuckle
Pax77
Bat One
nunez
dave
Matt
RebTex