The question I posed in Part 1 is this: "What is actually, categorically wrong with two adults of the same gender (and/or sex) engaging in a physical expression of their love for one another within the boundaries of a committed relationship?"
My answer: Absolutely nothing. And I honestly have never heard a compelling reason to change my answer. Here's why (Part 2):
When arguing about (homo)sexuality...
1. ..."nature" isn't really helpful...
1a. ...because all kinds of sex happens in "nature," too. First of all - humans are a part of "nature," right? Among the human species, persons with the same genitals do happen to couple. So - I guess it's "natural" after all.
(It also, btw, happens with great regularity in the non-human world - bonobo chimps [very close cousins of ours] get all kinds of freaky.) The conversation about what is "natural" often devolves into a middle school sensibility of "which parts fit where." And, to be frank, lots of parts fit together in lots of different ways. That may sound crude, but I'm not the one who started the conversation about what is a "natural" way for parts to be joined.
1b. ...and, so what? Just because something occurs "in nature" does not make it right or wrong. Cancer is "natural." It also really sucks. Alcoholism has genetic markers. Same-gender attraction probably does, too (the science is inconclusive, but some of it is quite compelling). EO Wilson famously argued that homosexuality actually provides an evolutionary benefit, as it frees up some gay aunts and uncles to help their breeder siblings raise their kids. Some animals eat their own children - in nature. Some of these are good. Some are bad. Some have outlived their evolutionary value. But they're all "natural."
And there are lots of "unnatural" things that are actually quite beneficial and morally good - as in, like, nearly all the contributions of the medical sciences.
This cuts both ways: Folks on the proverbial "right" cannot claim that same-gender sexual behavior is "unnatural," unless appealing to procreation (see below). Folks on the proverbial "left," however, also cannot claim that just because it might be "natural," therefore means that it is also morally acceptable.
In philosophy, this is known as the "is-ought gap." You cannot make a moral argument (what "ought" to be) simply from what "is." You have to bridge the gap. You have to explain why this phenomenon is or is not morally commendable. These are called "bridge principles," which help organize various sources of evidence into reasonable moral categories.
E.g.: Alcoholic behavior is wrong - but it is not unnatural... so why is it wrong? (Because it endangers the life of the individual and the whole community, etc.)
This is where I simply have not heard any compelling bridge principles to make any argument against lgbtq sexual expression meaningful. I'm still waiting. (More on that in Part 3).
Often, the last resort is babies...
1c. ...and the fact is, children happen - or not - in lots of different ways. Procreation seems to be the last bulwark for those who defend a position that excludes lgbtq folks from moral legitimacy. They argue that sex should at least carry the possibility of producing children. That's only "natural."
Except, of course, the vast majority of sexual activity does not result in pregnancy - even when the parts are complementary. Only unprotected sex that happens in a 5-7 day window (give or take) each month between young, fertile, heterosexual couples carries the possibility of producing children.
That's a fairly narrow plank on which to build a sexual ethic for a whole diverse community.
Ask a couple who have been trying to get pregnant for years, to no avail. This argument and its ritual celebrations (e.g., Mothers' Day) can be profoundly demeaning and dismissive.
Ask a couple who still enjoys one another's bodies after menopause has closed the door on producing children.
I could, of course, go on and on.
Sexuality is much more full and complicated than the few days each month that young straight folks can make babies. (And, often, they really shouldn't be.)
On the other hand, people with similar genitals are having children. It takes a little more effort, perhaps, but surrogacy, adoption, in vitro, donors, and many other techniques and technologies are helping couples of all genders and ages enjoy the horrible/wonderful journey of raising children.
And people with complementary genitals are choosing not to. And they've got all kinds of technologies to help them avoid it. And that doesn't mean they should stop having sex, or that the physical expression of their love is somehow disordered, dirty, or deranged. In fact, almost no one makes that argument. Which is exactly why it's wrong to apply it to couples of the same gender.
Unless we want to get all medieval (or "officially Roman Catholic") on this one, we're going to have to accept that "procreation" is no longer the guiding norm for what we can call "legitimate" (i.e., "legal") coupling. And even our most conservative Roman Catholic friends are incapable of offering a legitimate argument for limiting non-procreative sex to heterosexual couples... because it just doesn't make any sense.
And that leaves us with the matter of choice.
2 ..."choice" matters... but not the way you think it does.
2a. ...because everyone makes choices about her/his sexual behavior.
Invariably, the first line of argument from someone who loves her gay son (or his lesbian sister) is something like this: "Being gay really sucks. No one in her right mind would choose to be gay. Therefore, it must not be a choice. And, therefore, it's okay." Basically: Gay people must be naturally predestined to be gay, because they'd have to be completely crazy to want this life for themselves. It's a kind and loving gesture, but it's not at all helpful.
The problems with this (albeit well-intentioned) argument are myriad, even beyond the fact that it is incredibly demeaning.
First, you're right: being gay often sucks in a heterosexist culture - to be sure. But many lgbtq folk I know happen to love being "gay" (or, at least, they earnestly love their partners). They just wouldn't mind if everyone else would leave them the hell alone...unless, of course, they're ready to celebrate the fact that another lonely person has found love in this big scary world. Wouldn't that be novel?
Look, the fact is that everyone - everyone - "chooses" who to love (or not). I was not biologically predestined to marry the person I married - I chose to... and I continue to affirm that choice every morning. (Some mornings are harder than others. Some mornings it just comes, well, "naturally.")
Simply being pre-disposed to a desire for one kind of sexual behavior over others does not take "choice" out of the equation. Some people like tall skinny people. Others like short and soft ones. Some like smart folks - others want brawn. Some will only marry Swedish Lutherans... others are open to Irish Catholics...others, to people of other "races" (!). And yeah, some people seem to be naturally predisposed to having sex with children - and choose to act on it.
(And, btw, that's a whole other ball of wax. Pedophilia and homosexuality do not belong in the same conversation. Period. More on that in Part 3.)
Some of these choices are cute, some quirky, some beautiful, and some just downright abhorrent. And delineating the differences between acceptable and unacceptable choices is the careful, thoughtful work of a community doing ethics.
Is it okay for a 20yo man to marry a 12yo girl? Why or why not? His "nature" seems to be really into it... but does that make it right?
Is it okay for a 40yo woman to marry a 38yo woman - to find some way to rear children - to grow old together and care for one another through disease and death? Why or why not? It's certainly her "choice" to do so. No one is making her (indeed, lots of forces stand in her way).
What's the difference between these scenarios? Lots. That's where ethics begins. And that's where this conversation should actually be taking place.
See Part 3.
No comments:
Post a Comment