Welcome to the inaugural post of our Question of the Week series (Sorry for the delay, I decided recently to concentrate on my studies, but now I have some free time for blogging :-]). Our first question has to do with homosexuality. Justin writes:
I was wondering if you all can give your thoughts on Homosexuality. I would like to know why you think it is immoral (if you even do), and if ‘Homosexual Christians’ are going to Hell.
Thanks for the question! The Christian position on homosexuality is certainly a topic which can ruffle the feathers of many people in modern society. The traditional Christian view on this matter has always been that homosexuality is immoral — a corruption of God’s design plan for humans. This is enunciated very clearly within the framework of both the Old and New Testaments in the Bible.
Within the Old Testament, we see the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah for their homosexual activities. The Levitical law is clear in stating that “you shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.”1 Likewise, the New Testament is very transparent in its condemnation of homosexuality. We are told that homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God2 and that homosexual acts are degrading and unproper3.
The purpose of our sexual organs, moreover, is also clearly stated in Genesis. Their purpose lends some insight as to why homosexuality is immoral. Our sexual organs were designed to be complement those of the opposite gender — that is their natural use. Homosexuality distorts this and uses them in a way that is unnatural. It is precisely for this simple reason that homosexuality is immoral.
Now at this point you might object that this sort of reasoning commits the naturalistic fallacy. After all, isn’t it wrongheaded to infer a prescription (“Ought”) from a description (“Is”)? Not so. In order to respond to this objection, we need to highlight the distinction between “predicative” and “attributive” adjectives.4
A predicative adjective, according to philosopher Peter Geach, is something that means the same no matter what it is applied to. Roundness, for example, would count as an example. No matter what we attribute it to — a round coin, a round marble, a round ball, etc… It still has the same meaning.
By contrast, an attributive adjective has a meaning that varies depending on what we predicate it of. So for example, a bright student, a bright light, and a bright color all use different meanings of the adjective “bright.”
With this distinction in mind, good is most clearly an attributive adjective. A “good” car is obviously different from a “good” ear. But what does it mean to say that a car is good or that an ear is good? According to Geach, something is good if it functions how in the way that it should. On this understanding of good, a healthy heart is good because it is properly functioning according to its purpose, which is to pump blood. A bad heart is thus one that does not accomplish its intended purpose. This allows us then to generate a prescriptive conclusion from a descriptive premise. When something functions according to its natural purpose (description), then it is good (prescription).
As outlined before, the purpose of our sexual organs is for procreation. When homosexuals use their organs in a way which deviates from their natural purpose, then it is immoral because it they are not functioning in a way that they should be. ”If it really were impossible to derive an ought from the is of the human design, then the practice of medicine would make no sense.”5
Now, for the second part of your question — I don’t think that there can be such thing as a homosexual Christian, if by a homosexual Christian you mean one that willingly engages in homosexual practices. Certainly there are Christians who are tempted with homosexual desires, but one of the fruits of a Christian is that he try to avoid sinful behavior. Admittedly, Christians still stumble at times, but we have good reasons to doubt the sincerity of a self-proclaimed Christian who willingly continues to engage in sinful activity (Such as homosexuality). Christians who are tempted with homosexual desires should thus restrain themselves from engaging in them instead of freely and unashamedly indulging in homosexual acts (Such as many self-proclaimed “gay Christians”).
I hope this answers your question, feel free to write back!
________________
Submissions are now open for the next question of the week
- Lev. 18:22 [↩]
- 1 Cor. 6:9-20 [↩]
- Romans 1:26-28 [↩]
- Many thanks to Professor J. Budziszewski, who pointed out all the following to me in e-mail correspondence [↩]
- J. Budziszewski, The Line Though the Heart: Natural Law as Fact, Theory, and Sign of Contradiction (Wilmington, DE: ISI Books, 2009) p.13 [↩]
Tags: Homosexuality
Thanks for picking my question! But I do see several problems with your reasoning. You write:
“Homosexuality distorts this and uses them in a way that is unnatural.It is precisely for this simple reason that homosexuality is immoral.”
Now, you did respond to what I was going to say. I would have responded that heart transplants, and planes are considered ‘unnatural’, but are used for a greater good. If I would make an argument for homosexuality being for a greater good I would simply say that sex(either with a man or women), is a necessity for a healthy relationship. It relieves stress, studies show that you are able to live longer – whether you are homosexual or not. Being able to live longer can have all sorts of benefits. Along with relieving stress.
It also seems that you think the only ‘natural’ way to use your organs is to have sex with another women. I’m just going to guess that you also think that urinating and such is a necessity, but what about its other purposes? Not just the penis, but all of the other organs. What is the point of having hair? What is its purpose? We can’t exactly make distinctions on what, and what not our hair is used for. So simply saying that if I want to use my hair in a different way then someone else(such as donating it) is unnatural is that ultimate form of bigotry.
It seems that you also use a biblical argument. You write:
“you shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.”
Now, simply stating that since its unnatural, it should be considered an abomination is just outright ignorance. My justification for this is that our organs have many purposes. Just because I want to solve a math problem in a different way then what I’m taught doesn’t make me any less wrong. The same goes for my desired purpose of ALL my organs
You write:
“As outlined before, the purpose of our sexual organs is for procreation.”
I see no reason to only use your sexual organs for procreation. If this were the case, then we would feel no pleasure during any kind of sex. Or any use of our organs. Because we feel pleasure, it’s easy to conclude that our organs are not only for procreation.
You write:
“Our sexual organs were designed to be complement those of the opposite gender — that is their natural use.”
I see no reason to believe this. Since I am an atheist, believing this because ‘the bible says so’ is not good enough. People are able to nit-pick what they want from the bible, and have their own living standards.
It seems that after reading over your blog post, you offer no justification on why that is their natural use. And since it’s unnatural, it is immoral. You also offer no facts. However, I have facts. Ancient Rome was civilized far beyond its time. Why, you ask? The scholars of the time conducted studies on the sociality of the people, and concluded that gay people were deeper thinkers. They thought beyond physical desires.[1]
Moral claims must have a good reason to back themselves up, and moral claims are only as good as those reasons. They must also have a genuine connection with human well-being. You haven’t provided a sufficient reason(as I have outlined), and I see no reason why we have any less of a society because people are homosexuals. We are over populated, much more advanced then we could have ever imagined 50 years ago. How has homosexuality been holding us back?
-
[1] Wikipedia Justin
how is homosexuality unnatural, when it has been noted in over 1500 animal species? Joe
Justin,
I won’t have the time for a thorough discussion but some points need to clarified here:
No. You asked for his personal view and that’s exactly what was given. He later provided support of this from nature, not the Bible.
That’s a non sequitur. How does procreation require a lack of pleasure? That’s like saying our digestive system should not include the pleasure of tasting food if it’s purpose is to digest food. Why can’t both work and encourage each other?
I don’t see the point here. Being homosexual makes someone a deep thinker? Then being a heterosexual makes someone a “deeper thinker” because we have far more famous and influential philosophers who were heterosexual. Gil S
uh, what? If procreation’s exclusively for reproduction, pleasure is NOT required. Also, uh, I guess by the logic of this putrid mess of an essay, we also shouldn’t be skydiving, or swimming. Joe
Thanks for the response, Gil! But I thought there were some problems in your reasoning. You write:
“No. You asked for his personal view and that’s exactly what was given. He later provided support of this from nature, not the Bible.”
He uses clarification for his view in the bible. Almost using it as a sort of argument. That may work in bible class, but it’s not going to work here.
“That’s a non sequitur. How does procreation require a lack of pleasure? That’s like saying our digestive system should not include the pleasure of tasting food if it’s purpose is to digest food. Why can’t both work and encourage each other?”
Like Joe said, pleasure is not required for procreation. Also, homosexual acts would more then likely not happen since no pleasure is there to encourage them.
“I don’t see the point here. Being homosexual makes someone a deep thinker? Then being a heterosexual makes someone a “deeper thinker” because we have far more famous and influential philosophers who were heterosexual.”
I provided reasoning, and you ignored it. The reason why is because many philosophers are not homosexual and would benefit from being it. As the Romans concluded.
Just to extend on what Joe said, I remember reading about a species of lizard that is only female. And is actually able to reproduce(no, the are not hermaphrodites).
Here is the article: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,921830,00.html Justin
I find it particularly duplicitous and mendacious that the “argument” hinges entirely on an implicit premise of things having some inherent design. Joe
Thanks for the responses. Unfortunately, both of you have seem to have a completely distorted understanding of the argument I gave.
Justin,
Nowhere did the notion of a “greater good” play a role in my argument. My argument is completely irrelevant to such considerations, it instead rests on the premise that because homosexual acts go against the intrinsic purpose of our sexual organs, they are immoral. Actions such as heart transplants and planes are “unnatural” in that they do not occur naturally, but that is *not* how I use the term. An act is unnatural, I argued, if it uses something in a way such that it runs contrary to its natural function. The purpose of a plane is to fly and the purpose of a heart transplant is to provide an individual with a new heart. On the understanding of the term “natural” that I used, only acts can be unnatural.
This is blatant equivocation. You are using a definition of the term “natural” that I did not use (I defined natural in terms of a things proper function, and NOT on whether or not it occurs in nature). And of course, there can be other purposes for our sexual organs apart from procreation — but nothing of significance follows from that (Since urination is also a part of our sexual organs’ proper function).
Now, your use of hair as a counter-example is not very enlightening. The purpose of hair is to both protect and insult our bodies against hot and cold environments. Moreover, even if I grant that there is no clear purpose for hair, it does not follow that there is no purpose. The same uncertainty, it seems, does not translate when it comes to our sexual organs as their natural purpose is very clear from reflecting on their structure.
Of course, organs have many purposes, but what makes you think that the proper function of our sexual organs includes homosexual acts? Ironically, it is you who is asserting without any support that homosexual acts is another way that our sexual organs can function. Why suppose that it is natural? What in the structure of our sexual organs indicates that its proper function includes homosexual acts?
How does it follow that because we feel pleasure during sex, that the purpose of our sexual organs are not for procreation? This is a complete non-sequitur. Why can’t pleasure be a beneficial product of its proper function? For example, eating is pleasurable, but it does not follow from this that nutrition is not the purpose of eating. Pleasure is merely a good that is associated with the proper function of eating.
You do not need to believe in the Bible to believe that things have proper function. What is the proper function of eating? Obviously nutrition. What is the proper function of our eyes? Obviously to see. What is the proper function of our mind? Obviously to believe what is true (Otherwise we wouldn’t be concerned about this debate). What the Bible does teach that things have purposes, it is not an exclusively religious claim. Things can be known by both reason and revelation.
This commits the naturalistic fallacy, you cannot infer a prescription from a description. Additionally, can you cite some actual statistics for this claim? Statistics that involve controlled experiments and that sample from a reliable population.
_____________
Joe,
This commits the same mistake made by Justin. By unnatural, I meant an act which is contrary to the proper functioning of something — not whether or not it is naturally occurring. Tim H.
“My argument is completely irrelevant to such considerations, it instead rests on the premise that because homosexual acts go against the intrinsic purpose of our sexual organs, they are immoral.”
That makes absolutely no sense. As I have already said, nowhere is it said in our ‘human blueprints’ that that is the intrinsic purpose. Obviously it is the desired purpose, but we are able to be with who ever we want. And the only people that can stop that are the ignorant.
“Moreover, even if I grant that there is no clear purpose for hair, it does not follow that there is no purpose. The same uncertainty, it seems, does not translate when it comes to our sexual organs as their natural purpose is very clear from reflecting on their structure.”
Oh really? Their natural purpose is sex, and urination. Nowhere I have found(except from the bible) that their ‘natural’ purpose is to reproduce. Else all other forms EXCEPT for vaginal intercourse and ONLY if you desire to reproduce. This includes ejaculation under any circumstances. Which is incredibly stupid, and meaningless.
“Of course, organs have many purposes, but what makes you think that the proper function of our sexual organs includes homosexual acts?”
You are attacking a straw man. I did not say that the ‘proper function’ of our sexual organs is homosexual acts. I simply said that our organs have many functions and this includes homosexual acts. I base this under the assumption that homosexual acts are actually beneficial(as I have explained).
“How does it follow that because we feel pleasure during sex, that the purpose of our sexual organs are not for procreation? This is a complete non-sequitur. Why can’t pleasure be a beneficial product of its proper function?”
I’m not saying that their purpose is not procreation because we feel pleasure. I am simply saying that that’s not their only function because we feel pleasure. Because pleasure is not required for procreation, so simply feeling pleasure is another function of our sexual organs.
“Things can be known by both reason and revelation.”
Then you wouldn’t be against homosexuality if that were the case.
“This commits the naturalistic fallacy, you cannot infer a prescription from a description. Additionally, can you cite some actual statistics for this claim? Statistics that involve controlled experiments and that sample from a reliable population.”
I read it awhile ago in an article, and I cannot find it at this moment. But I will inform you when I do. Justin
“You are attacking a straw man. I did not say that the ‘proper function’ of our sexual organs is homosexual acts. I simply said that our organs have many functions and this includes homosexual acts. I base this under the assumption that homosexual acts are actually beneficial(as I have explained).”
Just to edit this part, I didn’t read carefully enough on your response. So I’ll edit some parts out here:
Our organs have many functions and this includes homosexual acts. I base this under the assumption that homosexual acts are actually beneficial(as I have explained). Actually, it includes all sexual acts because we feel pleasure. Justin
Joe & Justin,
This response did absolutely nothing to rebut what I had just said and is still a total non-sequitur. Pleasure is not required to procreate but this doesn’t mean that it is therefore “unnecessary” as a whole. To return to my example, a digestive system doesn’t need the pleasure of enjoying the taste of food in order to digest it. But does that mean it has a different purpose other than digesting food?
No, that’s nonsense. The taste of food is complimentary to the digestive system. It encourages us to eat and allows us to enjoy it. There’s nothing wrong with that and the taste doesn’t take away from the digestive system’s purpose in any way. They still work together and deal with the same object – namely, the food. Your argument doesn’t follow, don’t try defending it.
Why wouldn’t this be true of heterosexual acts as well? Pleasure is there to encourage it.
This is called “question of the week” and in that question, you asked for why “HE” viewed homosexuality as immoral. Don’t take a straw man class, get with the context of your question. Tim only gave his personal reasons, which happened to be biblical, so of course you’re going to disagree. He later gave a defense from nature that would coincide with his biblical beliefs and used that as an argument for why other people (regardless of their religion) should accept it.
What you’re saying is, philosophers who are heterosexual would become even deeper thinkers if they became homosexual? How in the world does “homosexuality” somehow cause someone to think even deeper? That’s just false. We got more popular and famous philosophers than any homosexual philosopher so I think I have more good reason to think that it does NOT. In fact, I could say that being heterosexual makes you a deep thinker on that basis but I won’t because I don’t think it does either way. Gil S
If it’s not required, it’s unnecessary. In other words, it’s NOT NECESSARY.
What makes you think it has some “intrinsic purpose” or “design” to it that somehow gives credence to the notion there is one “right” way for it to be used? So what if homosexuals don’t reproduce? And by the way, “natural” doesn’t mean “how it should be used”. That means it’s immoral for you to go skydiving. Or go swimming.
It’s still bloody UNNECESSARY. It’s NOT required.
irony… Joe
Joe,
The issue I had was with Justin’s claim that procreation REQUIRES a lack of pleasure. He’s the one who claimed that it is necessary if sex is to only be for procreation but such does not FOLLOW at all. We can digest food and enjoy it at the same time. The digestive system’s purpose remains the same. Don’t try to wiggle your pants by ignoring my real points like you always do.
Tim tore that argument apart. I’m not going to address it when it was not a part of my response to begin with. Gil S
“Why wouldn’t this be true of heterosexual acts as well? Pleasure is there to encourage it.”
Yes, it would be true. But this again is a bad thing as since pleasure is involved it creates all sorts of problems.
“He later gave a defense from nature that would coincide with his biblical beliefs and used that as an argument for why other people (regardless of their religion) should accept it.”
His argument is pretty much since that’s not how it ‘ought’ to be, it’s immoral. Who the Hell actually thinks like that?
“What you’re saying is, philosophers who are heterosexual would become even deeper thinkers if they became homosexual?”
Well, not exactly. That’s just the general consensus. Sure it’s not a sure fire way of becoming smarter. But not even being necessarily homosexual, I said that it’s because they think beyond physical desires. So technically that’s the only criteria, thinking beyond physical desires.
Just to add your argument about food(or whatever, do you think that eatings only purpose is to eat to survive? Then why does food taste good? Surly that’s another purpose of eating. If you are against homosexuality, then you are against eating because you enjoy it. Justin
Joe, we do not tolerate profanity in our comments. This is your second warning. Next time, your posts will be moderated. Tim H
Tim, Gil: I think you two should look a little deeper into this area of doctrine. In our modern society, this is a very explosive issue, so it is important for Christians to be sure that they are backing the right horse. If Christians are wrong on this issue, they have the potential to lose a lot of credibility with the wider public.
In similar ways, the church has lost credibility in the past from being dogmatic on issues such as insisting that the earth was at the centre of the solar system, or insisting on a literal 7 day creation.
Increasingly science is showing that it is perfectly natural for some people to have homosexual tendencies. This would seem to contradict your interpretation of Romans 1:26-28.
Admittedly, I haven’t done a lot of research into this, but as far as I am aware, there are interpretations of scripture that make allowance for a sexual gay relationship within the bounds of marriage. I will direct you to this site, and let you make that judgement for yourselves.
http://www.gaychristian101.com/does-romans-126-condemn-lesbians.html Steve
Judging an act as wrong simply because it is unnatural is silly. For example, I believe that we can agree that the chin was never meant to manipulate external objects in a controllable manner. Yet primitive prosthetic arms were controlled in part by a lever upon which the chin rested. Were the people who used these mechanical limbs “bad” Christians because they used their chin in a way other than the one it evolved for?
I modified a quote from your essay: “When amputees use their organs in a way which deviates from their natural purpose, then it is immoral because it they are not functioning in a way that they should be.”
Just because an organ evolved to do one thing does not mean you can’t put it to work doing something else. Sine_Nomine
This is just absurd to claim it’s “immoral” to act upon homosexual desires because it’s not… what- not part of its purpose? So what? Again, he hasn’t dealt with the bloody point. I guess heterosexual sex isn’t “moral” either, then? Since most of the time it DOESN’T result in procreation.
Also, let’s say it’s true. Let’s say what Tim says is sound, and it’s okay. What does that lead us? That god is a prick? I mean, you have this guy who creates you TO DESIRE SUCH THINGS, and then to PUNISH them for acting in the said desire? That’s sadistic. Joe
Justin,
I see what you mean but I’d still say that pleasure is not intrinsically evil. Wouldn’t you agree?
Honestly, I am not defending that argument. I personally have my doubts on how successful this really is so I can certainly understand where you’re coming from. For now I want to understand the argument in its entirety and ask Tim some questions before I say anything about it.
Ah I see. But I’d be careful here because correlation does not mean causation. If for example, all the smart and popular philosophers ate some form of candy then I wouldn’t attribute their knowledge and success to candy. Heterosexuals seem to have potential for thinking beyond physical desires as well. Or am I wrong?
Ultimately, that is the digestive system’s purpose from a strictly natural perspective. The pleasure of food is simply an instrument or means to which the food is digested, it is not a goal or purpose in itself. This doesn’t imply that we cannot “intend” to take pleasure in the taste for the sake of it but that’s our intentions, not the properly functional goal of the digestive system itself. Does that make any sense?
Steve,
That’s an excellent concern. We need to be sure that the position we’re adopting is true to what Scripture intends to say. A major mistake like that can hurt the public’s perception. I am rather skeptical of people who try to explain passages away, however. I’ll have to see how well of a case they present there. Gil S
I’d be interested in seeing your thoughts on that. Unfortunately, I don’t speak Greek or Hebrew, so I’m in no position to offer any insight into how well they’ve translated those verses. Steve
“I see what you mean but I’d still say that pleasure is not intrinsically evil. Wouldn’t you agree?”
That was never the argument, and of course I agree that it’s not.
“For now I want to understand the argument in its entirety and ask Tim some questions before I say anything about it.”
Fair enough.
“Heterosexuals seem to have potential for thinking beyond physical desires as well. Or am I wrong?”
Yeah, they do.
“This doesn’t imply that we cannot “intend” to take pleasure in the taste for the sake of it but that’s our intentions, not the properly functional goal of the digestive system itself. Does that make any sense?”
Exactly what I was getting at, and I think it’s something Tim should really think about. Justin
Why this argument is complete bull: there is no such thing as “intrinsic” purpose — “purpose” is a subjective notion based on the intentions of the person making the judgment. A shovel doesn’t have the “intrinsic” purpose of digging holes, even if the shovel-maker fashioned the shovel imagining that that was how it would eventually be used — for the same reason that the shovel wouldn’t have the “intrinsic” purpose of breaking people’s legs, if that instead had been what the shovel-maker imaged it would be used for while fashioning it. Thus, because the notion is so completely subjective, you could use this asinine and (literally!) prejudiced “argument” to support any possible conclusion whatsoever. Cutting your hair short is an immoral affront to God, because the “intrinsic” “purpose” of hair is clearly to keep our heads warm! French kissing is an immoral affront to God, because the “intrinsic” “purpose” of the tongue is clearly to allow us to talk and chew food! Cock-eyed, half-baked rubbish this is. Lyszandor L’amour
I brought it up to make a point. Pleasure itself does not need to lead to problems at all. It’s only when you introduce intentional agents that such problems occur.
Point taken. My original complaint was with your assertion that if our sexual organs were only for procreation, then there can’t be any pleasure. What you’re saying now is different. Gil S