If someone wants to pound nails with wrenches and drive screws with butter knives, and then to prevail upon his neighbor and his tools when he needs serious work done, then shall we call him a carpenter on par with his neighbor? Some seem to be answering “yes”; and they are not just asking that we should allow their personal eccentricities, they are insisting that they are legitimate and equivalent behaviors which should be celebrated as such…and that anyone who thinks that hammers are made for nails is a wrenchophobe.
I’ve had a number of on-line debates on the issue of homosexuality. Mostly, these amount to unpacking the defenses of homosexuality and same-sex marriage, or just dealing with the ad hominem attacks against us “bigots” who are “obsessed” with this issue. However, I was recently challenged to make my own general argument against homosexuality, which I’d like to do now. I don’t presume that I will change any minds, especially given how personally invested some are in this issue in a way that transcends reason, but I’d at least like to demonstrate the reasonability of believing heterosexuality to be the norm and design for human beings.
The argument is pretty simple and straightforward, and almost so obvious it hardly needs to be spelled out. It’s why society has accepted it these long centuries, children intuitively understand it, and it takes a good dose of liberal reeducation to eclipse it. I believe it to be the foundational point of departure in the justification of homosexuality as a normal, moral, socially acceptable lifestyle.
The argument
Observe the healthy male and female bodies. Observe the intrinsic differences in the general form — size, proportions, musculature, etc. Observe the specific differences in the genitalia and reproductive organs. There are three important points that proceed from these observations.
First, physically speaking, there are two sexes. It is a binary thing. I know it has become fashionable to question this self-evident fact by appealing to psychological factors or congenital anomalies. However, one’s feelings about physical reality do not alter the truth of that reality, and what is normal is not defined by what is broken. It is simply data that nature has conspired to impart but two sexes to the human race.
Second, men and women are different. They are not interchangeable sexes. Two men, even on their best day, do not equal one woman. Each sex has distinct, functionally meaningful parts that can only be superficially counterfeited with medical intervention. Even so, the genetics remain and new reproductive capacity is not gained.
Third, these differences are complementary in nature. Men and women are custom designed for each other. Whatever other ad hoc and creative uses one may find for their sexual organs, their primary purposes involve the pairing of the two. Not only are the male/female genitalia uniquely suited to each other, but the union can produce the thing which insures the very existence of humanity: offspring. Even those who reject the opposite sex must avail themselves of them if they wish to have children of their own.
This complementarity and its necessity for reproduction are surely cues as to what nature expects for human relationships and the setting in which their offspring are to be raised. If reproduction and child-rearing cannot be considered key factors in defining conjugal and domestic praxis, then it’s not clear to what objective guide we should appeal.
Given all these things, it seems reasonable to affirm as normative that men and women should pair in complementary relationships. It also seems reasonable to find curious those who do not. Those who have not yet, cannot, or choose not to avail themselves of nature’s design are one thing, but those who entirely reject that design for another of their own making are on shaky ground in demanding the rest of society’s affirmation.
Taking the argument further depends largely upon one’s metaphysical presuppositions. Since there are a variety of perspectives on the nature of man, morality, and the origin of sexual design, one must ultimately argue these things on an individual basis. However, there are two major tracks to follow in this debate. One is theistic and the other atheistic.