I’ve just posted about Fr. Jim Martin’s reflections on the statement of Pope Benedict in Portugal that same-sex marriage is an incomparable threat to the common good, on a par with abortion.
Even before Benedict reiterated this claim (which has now become a persistent theme of his papacy), I have already been thinking through one of the central arguments of some Catholics who oppose revision of the church’s stance on gay lives and gay relationships. This is the argument that homosexuality is in and of itself an obvious threat to the continuation of life, because, as some bloggers put the point on Catholic blogs I read regularly, “We wouldn’t be here without heterosexual intercourse.”
Even before Benedict reiterated this claim (which has now become a persistent theme of his papacy), I have already been thinking through one of the central arguments of some Catholics who oppose revision of the church’s stance on gay lives and gay relationships. This is the argument that homosexuality is in and of itself an obvious threat to the continuation of life, because, as some bloggers put the point on Catholic blogs I read regularly, “We wouldn’t be here without heterosexual intercourse.”
The blogger making this argument also maintains that the cause of all alternative sexualities is heterosexuality—since “all humans are made the same way . . . reproduction.”
I am certain that for many people of faith (and many who approach these issues from a standpoint not informed by faith), these claims about the biological and moral normativity of heterosexuality appear intuitively correct. Unanswerable. And so why are we even having these discussions? For God’s sake, people, we wouldn’t even be here without heterosexuality and heterosexual intercourse!
Whether such assumptions lie behind Benedict’s recent (and persistent) claim that same-sex marriage is an incomparable threat to the common good on a par with abortion, I can’t say. I do suspect, however, that even if such assumptions don’t inform the pope’s thinking about this issue, they definitely inform many Catholics’ approach to the moral assessment of homosexuality. And I suspect that when many Catholics hear the pope claiming that same-sex marriage is, with abortion, at the top of the list of “today’s most insidious and dangerous threats” to the human race, they hear something like the argument that “we wouldn’t be here without heterosexual intercourse.”
And so I’d like to offer some critical reflections on what seem to me to be the major moral claims this argument seeks to advance, and the presuppositions on which it rests. I don’t by any means propose that this list of critical points is exhaustive. These are simply the most salient responses that leap to my mind, when I hear the “we wouldn’t be here without heterosexual intercourse” argument.
1. The claim that homosexuality is morally unacceptable (and that toleration of gay persons and relationships is unwise) because we wouldn’t be here without reproduction implicitly rests on the assumption that if homosexuality is tolerated—if it is made normative and placed on a par with heterosexuality as a God-given sexual orientation—the human race will put itself out of business. Because reproduction will diminish or cease.
But that presupposition is wildly incorrect. No evidence at all suggests—no credible evidence suggests—that societies which tolerate gay people and gay relationships stop reproducing. In societies that have decriminalized homosexuality and recognized the legal legitimacy of gay unions or marriages, reproduction continues. And every indicator suggests that it will continue despite growing toleration of gay people and gay lives in many societies.
2. A corollary of the argument that gay-tolerant societies will put themselves out of business is, I suspect, the presupposition that tolerance of same-sex marriage will threaten heterosexual marriages, such that heterosexual people will increasingly choose not to marry if gay people are permitted to marry.
Again, no empirical evidence suggests that this is the case. To the contrary, as studies in a number of areas have shown, heterosexual marriages are proving to be more stable and perduring in places (e.g., Massachusetts) that permit gay marriage than they are in places (e.g., my state of Arkansas) strongly resistant to same-sex marriage. If there’s any correlation at all between heterosexual marriages and what happens to them, and legal acceptance of same-sex marriages, the correlation appears to be that accepting same-sex marriage strengthens marriage in general.
Far from putting the human race out of business, and far from proving an incomparable threat to the common good, acceptance of same-sex marriage appears to consolidate social bonds of both heterosexual and homosexual people. There is a spillover effect from tolerance of gay people and gay lives that benefits society as a whole. The acceptance of same-sex marriage can be shown to have stabilized rather than destabilized societies that have moved in this direction. Contrary to what Pope Benedict has just claimed, acceptance of same-sex marriage appears—based on the data available to us at present from societies that have accepted this institution—to serve rather than threaten the common good.
3. The argument that “we wouldn’t be here without heterosexual intercourse,” and homosexuality is therefore intuitively unnatural, undesirable, and a threat to the common good, illicitly moves from an observation about how nature behaves to an observation about what human beings ought therefore to conclude (and do) morally. This argument takes the “is” statement of biological fact and seeks to transform that statement into an “ought” statement of moral imperative.
But nature is full of “is” statements that we would, I suspect, not want to translate into “ought” statements governing human morality. In many species, either the mother or the father or both eat their newborns soon after their progeny is born. Cheetahs leap naturally on gazelles and tear them to bits. Large fish swallow smaller ones as part of the natural cycle of life. Nature is red in tooth and claw . . . .
Simply noting that nature does thus and so does not a moral argument make, it seems to me.
4. Finally, the claim that heterosexuality ought to be enshrined as morally normative because it is naturally normative seems to me a strange line of argumentation to push in a religious tradition in which celibacy—in which the deliberate choice of many people not to reproduce—has long been upheld as a core value. It is rather difficult to sustain both arguments simultaneously, it seems to me: that there is an over-riding ethical imperative to procreate, since that’s what gets us all here and the human race would vanish otherwise; and that those who consider the path of holiness ought seriously to consider that they may be called to a life of celibacy.
When all is said and done, the Catholic argument against acceptance and inclusion of gay people and gay relationships—based as it is on biologistic readings of natural law—seems increasingly incoherent, increasingly absurd to many people of good will who think carefully about this argument and its claims. Perhaps it’s time for us to return to the drawing board in the Catholic church, vis-a-vis sexual ethics.
And to start taking seriously the experience and reflections of lay Catholics, the large majority of whom in the developed parts of the world reject what the magisterium teaches about sexual matters, along with the biologistic readings of natural law on which this teaching is based. Because this teaching and the “reason” it advances do not appear rational at all to many Catholics today.
I am certain that for many people of faith (and many who approach these issues from a standpoint not informed by faith), these claims about the biological and moral normativity of heterosexuality appear intuitively correct. Unanswerable. And so why are we even having these discussions? For God’s sake, people, we wouldn’t even be here without heterosexuality and heterosexual intercourse!
Whether such assumptions lie behind Benedict’s recent (and persistent) claim that same-sex marriage is an incomparable threat to the common good on a par with abortion, I can’t say. I do suspect, however, that even if such assumptions don’t inform the pope’s thinking about this issue, they definitely inform many Catholics’ approach to the moral assessment of homosexuality. And I suspect that when many Catholics hear the pope claiming that same-sex marriage is, with abortion, at the top of the list of “today’s most insidious and dangerous threats” to the human race, they hear something like the argument that “we wouldn’t be here without heterosexual intercourse.”
And so I’d like to offer some critical reflections on what seem to me to be the major moral claims this argument seeks to advance, and the presuppositions on which it rests. I don’t by any means propose that this list of critical points is exhaustive. These are simply the most salient responses that leap to my mind, when I hear the “we wouldn’t be here without heterosexual intercourse” argument.
1. The claim that homosexuality is morally unacceptable (and that toleration of gay persons and relationships is unwise) because we wouldn’t be here without reproduction implicitly rests on the assumption that if homosexuality is tolerated—if it is made normative and placed on a par with heterosexuality as a God-given sexual orientation—the human race will put itself out of business. Because reproduction will diminish or cease.
But that presupposition is wildly incorrect. No evidence at all suggests—no credible evidence suggests—that societies which tolerate gay people and gay relationships stop reproducing. In societies that have decriminalized homosexuality and recognized the legal legitimacy of gay unions or marriages, reproduction continues. And every indicator suggests that it will continue despite growing toleration of gay people and gay lives in many societies.
2. A corollary of the argument that gay-tolerant societies will put themselves out of business is, I suspect, the presupposition that tolerance of same-sex marriage will threaten heterosexual marriages, such that heterosexual people will increasingly choose not to marry if gay people are permitted to marry.
Again, no empirical evidence suggests that this is the case. To the contrary, as studies in a number of areas have shown, heterosexual marriages are proving to be more stable and perduring in places (e.g., Massachusetts) that permit gay marriage than they are in places (e.g., my state of Arkansas) strongly resistant to same-sex marriage. If there’s any correlation at all between heterosexual marriages and what happens to them, and legal acceptance of same-sex marriages, the correlation appears to be that accepting same-sex marriage strengthens marriage in general.
Far from putting the human race out of business, and far from proving an incomparable threat to the common good, acceptance of same-sex marriage appears to consolidate social bonds of both heterosexual and homosexual people. There is a spillover effect from tolerance of gay people and gay lives that benefits society as a whole. The acceptance of same-sex marriage can be shown to have stabilized rather than destabilized societies that have moved in this direction. Contrary to what Pope Benedict has just claimed, acceptance of same-sex marriage appears—based on the data available to us at present from societies that have accepted this institution—to serve rather than threaten the common good.
3. The argument that “we wouldn’t be here without heterosexual intercourse,” and homosexuality is therefore intuitively unnatural, undesirable, and a threat to the common good, illicitly moves from an observation about how nature behaves to an observation about what human beings ought therefore to conclude (and do) morally. This argument takes the “is” statement of biological fact and seeks to transform that statement into an “ought” statement of moral imperative.
But nature is full of “is” statements that we would, I suspect, not want to translate into “ought” statements governing human morality. In many species, either the mother or the father or both eat their newborns soon after their progeny is born. Cheetahs leap naturally on gazelles and tear them to bits. Large fish swallow smaller ones as part of the natural cycle of life. Nature is red in tooth and claw . . . .
Simply noting that nature does thus and so does not a moral argument make, it seems to me.
4. Finally, the claim that heterosexuality ought to be enshrined as morally normative because it is naturally normative seems to me a strange line of argumentation to push in a religious tradition in which celibacy—in which the deliberate choice of many people not to reproduce—has long been upheld as a core value. It is rather difficult to sustain both arguments simultaneously, it seems to me: that there is an over-riding ethical imperative to procreate, since that’s what gets us all here and the human race would vanish otherwise; and that those who consider the path of holiness ought seriously to consider that they may be called to a life of celibacy.
When all is said and done, the Catholic argument against acceptance and inclusion of gay people and gay relationships—based as it is on biologistic readings of natural law—seems increasingly incoherent, increasingly absurd to many people of good will who think carefully about this argument and its claims. Perhaps it’s time for us to return to the drawing board in the Catholic church, vis-a-vis sexual ethics.
And to start taking seriously the experience and reflections of lay Catholics, the large majority of whom in the developed parts of the world reject what the magisterium teaches about sexual matters, along with the biologistic readings of natural law on which this teaching is based. Because this teaching and the “reason” it advances do not appear rational at all to many Catholics today.
The graphic is Carl Sagan's diagram, developed as an etching to be placed on the U.S. Pioneer 10 satellite launched in 1972 as a message to the cosmos about how things are arranged on planet Earth.
