Easy Arguments and Gay Marriage
Sometimes we choose easy arguments over better arguments for the very reason that they are easy. Unfortunately, given enough time we start forgetting the better arguments. Or in other cases, the easy argument is no longer convincing. An example of the latter would be the distastefulness of homosexual relations; today people predominantly do not think a rational person would find homosexual acts disgusting. An example of the former would be offering the free speech card whenever someone demagogues a person as a bigot for arguing against gay marriage. While the free speech card is certainly legitimate, it appeals to the lowest common denominator. Those opposed to gay marriage are not served best by arguing that their arguments are entitled to the protections given to Holocaust denial, white supremacists, and art that approaches indecency.
In most circles there is an assumed illegitimacy of claiming opposition to abortion is driven by being anti-woman. This is because public concern over life in the womb is seen as legitimate even by those unpersuaded to legally proscribe abortion. The most obvious example would be a husband who beats his wife in order to induce a miscarriage. Only the most strident ideologues would claim that this act is no different in character than wife-beating. Establishing this is of course not sufficient to establish the immorality of abortion. This also is not sufficient to establish that opposition to abortion is not driven by being anti-woman. One can easily by anti-woman and not support wife-beating. At the same time, what has been established is there is a legitimate basis for concern for the unborn child that is not predicated upon being anti-woman.
Many want to argue there is not a legitimate basis to publicly proscribe homosexual marriage. This argument generally falls under the argument that there is no public warrant to regulate mutual and consensual sex acts. In Lawrence v. Texas, Justice Scalia derisively called this the sweet-mystery-of-life passage: “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” I will skip the easy arguments over polygamy (yes, I do think polygamy is easier to support on a public policy basis than gay marriage, and I also think the people who act shocked over this being brought up would not support laws targeting swingers and private orgies.), incest, bestiality, etc. I will go straight to the argument that we indeed do have public warrant to regulate mutual and consensual sex acts, because sex has consequences. That there are sex acts that are infertile by nature or by choice does not change the fact that almost all children are brought into this world through sex.
Yes, I’m familiar with the counter argument that plenty of people get married with no intention of having children and plenty knowingly or unknowingly can’t have children. That society can live with a little hypocrisy seems to be a sufficient basis for curtailing or allowing gay marriage. That is ultimately an argument over an arbitrary line. Let’s go deeper than that. One could start with child support. Certainly it makes sense for a couple sharing a household to share responsibilities for the child, but what is the basis for the compelling of shared resources? One could argue that children are more likely to grow up in poverty if they lack the financial support of a father, however there are plenty of responsible women who provide adequate support to their household that are arguably unjustly yoked to men. If public support of a child with a deceased father through the Social Security survivor benefit is legitimate, would not the freedom enhancing policy be to offer public benefits to those children who never had a father?
But with sex we needn’t confine ourselves with children. How about public health? This is allegedly the guise under which we as a society will not allow incest although the detriment to public health is exaggerated, in many cases being significantly less than the risks to children born to mothers with certain STDs and not considering couples who’ve passed their fertile years or for that matter who are gay. (Wisconsin does actually address incest and fertility for those curious. CH 765.03(1)) But we don’t just stop there. As a matter of public policy, we exhort people to limit partners, use devices to prevent disease and avoid children. All of the sudden when HPV is going around the neighborhood people think they have a right to tell me with whom I should have sex and how I should I have it. We feel comfortable as a matter of public policy telling an 18 or 19-year-old girl that they should wait before having children, but the 40-year-old attempting to get pregnant doesn’t get a PSA. About the only risk with the former is poverty and the significant risk of the latter is debilitating birth defects. Don’t claim to me we don’t have a public interest in sex. It is thorough and a lot more pervasive than we like to believe.
But much of this is immaterial regarding the prudence of homosexual marriage. It has mostly just established that societal interest in sex can be about things other than prudery or the imposition of a foreign morality on the otherwise competent. To address prudence we need to move to a rational basis. Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the federal court ruling striking down California’s constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage, explicitly used this test, and if my memory serves it also partly served as a basis for the Iowa Court’s decision. In both cases, the courts found insufficient evidence of harm to children, heterosexual couples, or gay couples themselves. Without delving into the legal minutiae, let’s suffice it to say that the sociological community hasn’t been on board in finding harms to gay marriage and they are the ones playing expert witness here. My wife while watching “The Doctors” learned today that there wasn’t a rational case for being a stay-at-home mother. They dressed this up of course as there being no demonstrated harm to children of working mothers. If you read around, you also will find divorce doesn’t harm children according to the psych and soc communities. Apparently there is a rational basis though for guns in the home doing so given that I’m interrogated regarding ownership of firearms whenever my child has to go to the doctor. Even though these claims test my own credulity, they seemed to be liked by the courts and the general public. It is time to do the hard work in this area. It is time to stop being embarrassed about discussing sex as a public issue.
Comments are closed.
It seems to me that Andrew Sullivan and even Dan Savage are doing a better job of “discussing sex as a public issue” than you are here.
As a matter of fact, I don’t think any of the proponents of “gay marriage” are bashful about “discussing sex as a public issue.” The people who are bashful about it are those with their heads so stuck in the ground that they aren’t aware they’ve already lost the debate (you, Pope Ratzinger, the blowhards at Fox News, etc.) and that modern youth have moved the culture almost wholly to a broad acceptance of “gay marriage.”
The argument is practically over; it quickly became the “civil rights issue” of the turn of the century, and then it was rapidly won among those who count–the ones who will outlive you and me.
Another example of this is Christians going into conniptions over the FCC desiring more local programming and and desiring that stations actually having personnel in the communities they serve. Instead of arguing that they actually serve the public interest rather than as a way to give a lot of mediocre talent 6-figure paydays, they argue that the government is trying to suppress free speech. Keep in mind, if one were to liberally interpret free speech, the radio airwaves would become dominated by cruder versions of Howard Stern and Tom Leykis. Were that to happen, they would then be arguing over the proper use of the airwaves, but alas exposes them to hypocrisy arguments.
I think you misunderstood the psychology today article about divorce not harming children. It is unanimously accepted in the psych field that divorce does harm children just as bad marriages, or bad parents, or bad teachers, or bad theology harms children.
What they are claiming is divorce is coincident with the harm and not causal.
Sorry M.Z. I misread it. There is harm to children when parents fight and the degree of harm is determined by the intensity and the consistency of the fights. Attachment trauma is a result of families which experience consistent stress. The only thing that heals this harm is the repair work that the parents do after the fight. I am talking about arguing and not physical or emotional abuse. If there is abuse the best thing to do is to get out of there, everyone knows that.
A child’s brain gets wired according to what the child experiences along with the influence of their particular genetic predisposition.
Mirror neurons in various regions of the brain also set up unconscious expectations with emotional and behavioral responses about self and others and one’s place in intimate relationships and in the social world.
The main point to get out of that article is the fact that children are harmed when the parents fight and it is critical for the parents to do the repair work that is necessary for their healing and, more importantly, the child’s healing.
When parents do not do repair work there is a tremendous amount of harm done to the child. I have seen this in families where there is no abuse, but then we would have to discuss the definition of abuse which can take a long time.
When she says children are resilient she is ignoring her previous statement of harm being done to the child. The child’s brain is well equipped, generally speaking, to defend itself against the conscious awareness of suffering associated with dysfunctional families and divorced families.
She never should have written the article because of its superficial treatment of something so critically important.
Digbydolben:
Are you happy about that? Do you think it’s the right outcome? Or a tragedy? Or that the outcome didn’t really matter one way or the other?
I can’t tell if you’re pronouncing victory for “gay marriage” with an attitude of triumphalism or of gloom and calamity.
Let me be as clear as I can be–as I thought I had been many times on these threads, in comments relating to this issue:
#1. I don’t believe that there is any scientifically-demonstrated human “state” called “homosexuality,” just as I don’t believe that there is any one called “heterosexuality”; I believe that all human sexual attraction is fluid, and detemined by habit, culture and conditioning, and that it sometimes varies, during a lifetime.
#2. I believe that homosexual “acts” would be morally neutral if the ethical standards of spiritual systems and the mores of a given culture allowed them to be. Same-sex attraction, however, is not frequently a choice, because of accidents that befall sensitive children in very early stages of development, and any persecution of such folks in any way (denial of equal rights, denial of the comforts of conjugal relations, denial of the right to serve one’s country, etc.) is abhorrent.
#3. The “sacramental marriage” of certain denominations belongs only to heterosexual couples, because of tradition and because of the importance of child-rearing, and, also, unfortunately, because of the historical relatively diminished status of women in the theologies of the Semitic religions.
#4. Protestant and secularist societies long ago abandoned “sacramental marriage” as a norm for their cultures, which makes denial of what passes for “marriage” in those societies to the “same-sex-attracted” an unjust and cruel denial of what the founding documents of the American culture call a basic “human right” to “happiness.”
#5. I used to be in favour of “civil unions,” rather than “gay marriage,” but now, after paying attention to the ferocity of the anti-”gay” prejudice in the United States, I agree that the rights of homosexuals to equitable financial and taxation status can only be protected in such an intrinsically heretical and secularist society (in the Judaeo-Christian AND Muslim sense) by full rights to what that society deems to be “marriage.”
#6. At the same time, however, I don’t think that “marriage” will work for homosexuals any better than it has worked for heterosexuals; it will be for them, just as it is for heterosexuals in that society, nothing more than serial monogamy. Moreover, because it is particularly unsuitable for the male “homosexual self-image” (which is largely based on freedom from the restraints and responsibilities of monogamy), the ridiculous spectacle of “gay divorce” will make homosexuality far less attractive to ambivalent young males, and will thus actually serve to DECREASE the percentages of the “same-sex-attracted” in the society. This is the great irony of the Right’s over-kill in this debate over “gay marriage.”
#7. Finally–and, perhaps, most interestingly to those Fundamentalist Catholics who insist that the great Founder of their religion supported the Judaic proscription against whatever was called “homosexuality” in the ancient world, and that there is “no mention” of homosexuality in the Christian Scriptures, I believe that Jesus Christ was as eually “liberal” on this subject as He was on the subject of female emancipation (which, I think, just as much as any abstruse soterological or theological doctrine having to do with “messiahs,” won him his place on the Roman cross). To wit: I am absolutely convinced that he healed the sexual minion of a Roman centurion who was in love with his paieus, which was the legal status of any “slave” of a Roman citizen–and that He fully well knew that His acceptance of the Roman centurion’s profession of faith was a “scandal” to the Jews observing the encounter, because they were all well aware of the legal prerogatives of Roman citizens regarding sexual access to their slaves.
Now, have I made my position on this matter clear? I really don’t care if you call it heretical, because it is the result of deliberations of a full-formed and adult conscience. I will accept whatever “punishments” are reserved in the next life for those who disagree with the Roman Catholic Magisterium.
Actually, by disagreeing with RC “magisterium” in this life on this matter you are simply preparing yourself to hear, “Well done (said?), good and faithful servant.”
Thank you so much for saying that!
I think the most compelling argument is also the most objective one. This may appear cold and calculating, but it is objectively true, and irrefutable. On that basis alone it cannot be ignored.
Simply put, the sexual urge and reproductive organs have a defined and unified purpose, which is clearly disordered in a homosexual relationship. This is irrefutable.
Furthermore, if natural selection is considered the basis of the natural order, then homosexuality is clearly a mutation that is not in any way ordered toward the propagation of the species. It would be considered a negative mutation – a mutative defect that would eradicate itself naturally over time.
Now, why does this matter one iota when concerning the morality of homosexual acts? Normally, it wouldn’t, but if morality is to be defined in naturalistic terms, then an immoral action must be defined as an action contrary to the survival/thrival of the species. Since a homosexual union would eradicate itself in time through natural selection, there would be no risk to the species of propagating a negative mutation to future generations. Conclusion? Homosexuality is self-limiting and not intrinsically immoral. But there’s a catch…
Herein lies the problem – what natural selection moderated before, we overrule with technology. Homosexual couples can now use reproductive technology to pass on genetics that are not ordered toward the survival of the species. Psychological consequences of single-gender parenthood are passed on to future generations, affecting the psychological thrival of the species*. Essentially, we are compromising future generations for the benefit of the current one, which is inherently problematic, and may be considered “wrong” – in whatever sense of the term applies – from a purely naturalistic perspective.
Again, this argument is cold and lacks an equally important human element, but it is objective and justifiable to Catholics and atheists alike. Of course, the consequences of this are that any action counter to the natural and positive propagation and evolution of the species (birth control, IVF, genetic selection and engineering, etc..)should be considered inherently wrong on the same terms. Funny the consistency with Catholic teaching…
(* = I understand the afore-notated item may be a point of contention for many people. I do not wish to go into specifics here, except to say that there is no possibility that even the most perfect, loving homosexual parents can provide the necessary gender identity perspectives present when compared to equally perfect, loving heterosexual parents. Rather than derail the conversation, I would encourage consideration of my argument on the other terms if you do not agree with my conclusion on this particular point)
I haven’t seen any research to confirm your statement about same-sex parents and their children’s development.
Read my disclaimer. I feel justified in this statement, and feel that I could defend it. But I will not derail the conversation here, so I will not respond to it. Sorry. Perhaps another time.
“…the psychological thrival (sic.) of the species…”
Your logic, Dan, is about as good as your English; “thrival” is a malapropism.
To speak only of something that is doubtless beyond your ken of merely vulgar biological factors, the cultural and artistic life of the West has, for thousands of years, depended upon the contributions made from the perspective of the sexual “outsider.”
What would YOU (or, at least, your more civilized relatives) be without Plato, Sophocles, Virgil, Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, Caravaggio, Francis Bacon, Thomas Gray, Walt Whitman, Tchaikovsky, Nikolai Gogol, John Henry Newman, Gerard Manley Hopkins, E.M. Forster, Marcel Proust, Diaghelev, W.H. Auden, Gertrude Stein, and countless others, stretching through millennia? Would we have won World War II without the contribution of the brilliant scientist Alan Thuring? And have you heard the latest stories about Abraham Lincoln and the military aides stationed in the White House?
These are all people who have made far greater contributions to YOU than you will ever be able to make to your world and people like you who would limit their freedoms and subject them to humiliations of the closet, in school, at work or in the military, aren’t worthy to clean their boots!
Again, read my disclaimer. I will ignore the ad-hominem nature of this attack. Though I would appreciate civility – you are ascribing positions to me that I do not hold, and making sweeping generalizations about someone you know nothing about. Are you so certain that I am heterosexual?
If you have an issue with any of my points, other than this one, which I said I will not discuss here, please address them.
I made it abundantly clear that my argument was a cold, calculating one lacking any human element. You’re now criticizing me for not including the human factors. Of course there are other factors at work, which are important and should not be ignored. But that wasn’t the nature of my post. My post was to isolate the natural factor, which I did, and which apparently you didn’t like. But whether you, I, or anyone likes it or not is irrelevant. It is what it is.
Of course, the consequences of this are that any action counter to the natural and positive propagation and evolution of the species (birth control, IVF, genetic selection and engineering, etc..)should be considered inherently wrong on the same terms.
Dan,
It seems to me that by this logic, celibacy is inherently wrong.
David,
You are partially correct. Celibacy and homosexuality can be considered equivalent behaviors from the perspective of propagation. Natural selection deals with both in an equivalent fashion. If you don’t want to reproduce, you won’t. Whatever genetics are involved in the orientation to avoid reproducing will be eradicated naturally. The species will continue just fine.
Where the issue becomes dicey is when we start interfering with this process of natural selection, on a technological or social level. Any society that orders itself towards promotion of a lifestyle that is contrary to the survival and thrival of the species is acting in a morally negative fashion – be it celibacy, sterility, or homosexuality.
As far as I’m aware, society is not trying to structure itself toward promoting celibacy as an idealized choice. There are no tax benefits or incentives for staying celibate. Even the Church does not promote this – celibacy is reserved for a very specific subset of society, and is seen as a sacrifice for a greater good. It is well understood that reproduction is the natural end of man; marriages are expected to be fruitful (to the extent naturally possible), or they are void. If the Church were to start promoting celibacy as an idealized choice, it would be morally incorrect, in the same way as gay marriage or sterilization programs would be. Luckily, they’re not.
Upon re-reading my response, I’m not certain I made my point clearly. Basically, homosexuality and celibacy are inherently neutral. It’s the structures that protect and promote them as an equal, natural and/or ideal state of man which are problematic.
What is really wrong with your position, I see now, is the sheer, arrogant positivism of it: you are presuming to know something that you really don’t know–that so-called “homosexuality” serves no social or even scientific purpose. Actually, beyond the artistic and intellectual contributions it has made, which I mentioned above, we actually don’t know that it doesn’t benefit “natural selection,” just as we don’t know why it doesn’t extinguish itself on account of its failure to reproduce biologically. Your “cold, objective” critique is actually bogus, and it’s an attempt to hide your homophobic bias behind “science.” “Science” is not the last word in ANY human conundrum because the logic or gnosis of science is fundamentally flawed, as any good high school IB course in the “Theory of Knowledge” would have taught you. It’s based on inductive reasoning, which, in the human species is highly limited. Ethical decisions should be only partially informed by “science.”
Pot, meet kettle.
I’m going to point out three things wrong with your post, and then abandon this forever, as your emotions on this matter apparently prevent you from discussing the matter calmly and objectively.
1. You seem to be equating the argument I made with some sort of closet homophobia. I see no basis for this, except your own defensiveness. You know nothing of my opinion on homosexuality. I presented an argument, which could very well be independent of my actual opinion. You’re free to disagree with it. But you are not in any position to judge my motives, intentions, or opinions based on the content of one post.
2. Why you continue to flog the “artistic and intellectual contributions [homosexuality] has made” is puzzling to me. First of all, that assertion is nonsensical. Homosexuality is not a creative endeavor. People create. Orientations do not. Second of all, I’ve never disagreed with your point on that matter – as a matter of fact I agree with it. I fully recognize that there is often a high degree of creativity associated with homosexuals, and such endeavors have my full respect and applause.
3. Ethical decisions should only be partially informed by science. But you’re throwing the baby out with the bathwater and dismissing them entirely. That’s precisely why I framed my argument as I did. Without anything standing around it, we could debate it on its own merits (or lack thereof). There is another side to the coin. Just because I didn’t present it doesn’t mean I don’t recognize it.
Dan,
What you are advocating sounds a lot more like eugenics than morality. Also, medical technology today routinely interferes with the “survival of the fittest.” We actually don’t know whether homosexuality is heritable, but we do know of many diseases that are (e.g. cystic fibrosis, diabetes, etc), and it is not considered immoral for medical science to extend the lifespan of people with these diseases, allowing them to reproduce and “pollute” the gene pool with their genes.
Also, you seem to be contradicting yourself in that (a) you are saying that a homosexual “lifestyle” works against procreation, and yet (b) what you object to is the fact that gay people are reproducing!
There is almost no data on the percentage of gay offspring of gay parents versus straight parents. I have seen claims that although most biological children of gay parents are straight, gay parents have a higher percentage of gay children than straight parents do. If you seriously wanted to make a case that the “gay lifestyle” and gay parenting threatened the existence (or quality) of the human race — something that seems extraordinarily dubious at first glance — you would have to make a far more detailed case than you do here.
The Church has always promoted celibacy as an idealized choice going back to St. Paul (who said it was better not to marry, but better to marry than to burn with passion). It is a doctrine (if not a dogma) of the Catholic Church, defined by the Council of Trent: “If anyone says that it is not better and more godly to live in virginity or in the unmarried state than to marry, let him be anathema.”
What you are advocating sounds a lot more like eugenics than morality.
Not really. I’m actually arguing the opposite – we shouldn’t intervene with natural selection, especially in sensitive areas like reproduction, which are critical to the survival of the species. Eugenics are an interference in this process, and would be equally immoral.
The treatment of disease does not directly correlate to reproduction, so that argument is invalid. A more appropriate argument would be whether someone who is aware of genetic flaws should have children. But since I am not claiming that eugenics are moral, the answer isn’t relevant.
Also, you seem to be contradicting yourself in that (a) you are saying that a homosexual “lifestyle” works against procreation, and yet (b) what you object to is the fact that gay people are reproducing!
I’m sorry. I’ve read this three times and I don’t understand the contradiction within the context of what I posted. Can you clarify?
It is a doctrine (if not a dogma) of the Catholic Church, defined by the Council of Trent: “If anyone says that it is not better and more godly to live in virginity or in the unmarried state than to marry, let him be anathema.”
I feel I addressed this in a previous post, but I will re-iterate. My problem is not with the individual – but the social structures involved. If the Church endorses celibacy, it is only at the individual level, not a societal one. The Church has never encouraged that societies structure themselves to prevent reproduction. Their teachings on marriage are quite the opposite.
Yes, indeed I AM “throwing the baby out with the bath water”–because THIS “baby” MUST be thrown out!
There are “scientific” explanations, having to do with genetics, I’m told, for higher intelligence in some groups; there are also correlations between strength, stamina and athletic ability and genetic make-up; there’s an argument to be made that, in some populations, there is an inherited emotional and psychological tendency to sociopathy. However, NONE of this so-called “data” should be referenced as a basis for discrimination or public policy-making regarding ANY of those groups.
To use any of that “data” ia an unethical misuse of “science”–which is what you’re attempting to do with your interpretation of the danger to the species posed by so-called “homosexuality.” Frankly, it reminds me of the eugenics “studies” of the previous century: it’s barbaric and immoral.
Digby,
The biblical scholarship on “pais” you cite is not accurate and cannot be taken seriously by any believer. That particular attempt to find affirmation of homosexuality in this story falls well short.
1) This took place in Galilee where regular Roman troops were not even stationed. The auxiliary troops that would have been stationed in Galilee were from a differnt culture than Roman officers in Jerusalem. No evidence of homosexual relations with boys were found among this group of officers.
2) This account is paralleled in Luke 7 where the offical was referred by Jewish officials. Homosexuality was abhorrent to the Jewish culture in the time of Jesus.
3) The use of pais is generally meant to be mean son, daughter or young slave as aprt of a household. There is only one reference of the use of the word pais to mean young homosexual and the refernce was closer to rape than relationship.
4) The use of pais connotes youth. Are you saying that Jesus approved not only homosexuality but also pederasty? That is blaphemous.
5) If it was a slave master relationship, that would also be akin to rape due to the power relationship. Again, not something that Jesus would accept or accomodate.
No biblical scholar or even casual reader of the bible can take that interpretation seriously.
Kimberly,
There may be no indication of homosexuality, but the boy is clearly a servant or a slave. I see no reason to conclude that Jesus tacitly approved of a homosexual relationship, but he does seem to have approved of a master-slave relationship. There is further apparent approval of slavery in the New Testament, with several instances of slaves being told to obey their masters.
But, indeed, it IS taken seriously, nowadays–especially after the close studies of “bisexuality in the ancient world” and the discovery that Roman law and custom DICTATED that the pais HAD to be available for the sexual satisfaction of his master, and generally was. The Biblical text explicitly says “Roman,” and it is a well-known FACT that there were MANY Romans stationed in Judaea, as well as Greek-speaking Syrians. The Greek-speaking Syrians shared the same Graeco-Roman mores and culture as the Romans, and, if they were Roman citizens–as many of them were, viz. Paul–then they had the same rights over their slaves as Romans. As far as your ridiculous stretch that Jesus was advocating “homoesexual rape” (remembering that “rape” is, in this context, a legal definition and that, therefore, there could be NO “rape” legally), please ALSO remember that, in Christian ethics, context and intention are ALL-IMPORTANT; the Roman office obviously LOVED his pais, and that seemed to be good enough for Christ–no matter what were the implications of “scandal to the Jews.”
I maintain my position absolutely.
I will be available only intermittently today. Updating comments will occur accordingly. Good day.
Moreover, I think you should look at p. 216 of this e-text:
http://books.google.co.in/books?id=1ha9GgWNmy0C&pg=PA216&lpg=PA216&dq=Jesus+homosexual+Roman+officer's+slave&source=bl&ots=MJOwp8pTHj&sig=lMSlSw6aFX78y0AJz6aBia56hGk&hl=en&ei=8Qv9TJzKIc_NrQeeoLywCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false
Digby, I am glad you brought up the aspect of LOVE and the intent of love in this example. The act of sex is associated with intent. The “natural” intent is a part of the natural law of the sexual act and that is what needs to be explored rather than the act itself.
In the January 8th issue of The (English)Tablet, Clifford Longley (no starry-eyed liberal, he!) writes about the Archbishop of Westminster, Vincent Nichols, raising this specific issue:
“Because I think what is at one level in the broad perspective clear, is that there is an
intrinsic link between procreation and human sexuality. Now how do we start from that principle, not lose it, and have an open, ongoing conversation with those who say, well, that’s not my experience?”
Longley then cautions that Nichols has “ — set out on what could be a collision course with those for whom only a narrow interpretation of the Magisterium is good enough. For them, there is nothing to explore: the archbishop is flirting with trouble.”
If you can get hands on a copy of this issue of The Tablet, read the entire article. I think this is the valuable portion of what he had to say:
“With an evolutionary understanding, the intrinsic link between sex and reproduction is still
there, and anyone who threatened seriously to sever it would be threatening the survival of Homo sapiens. But homosexuals are a small minority, so their lack of fertility hardly represents a danger to the species. Homosexuality may even have had evolutionary value.
Does it matter that they have found other uses for their sexual organs than the reproductive purpose for which they evolved, as recorded in the book of nature? Evolution proceeds by trial and error: hands no doubt evolved for climbing trees were adapted millennia later to hold tools, and now, millennia further on, we can use them to play the piano. Is that wrong simply because it isn’t what nature originally intended?”