The Gay Debate: The Bible and Homosexuality

[BrotherAlan]

kaufmannphillips wrote:

Springboarding off Martin Luther: reason is a whore - it will turn tricks quite readily for various clients. It is no harder to cobble together a reasonable defense for homosexual activity than it is to construct a reasonable objection to such activity.

It is true that, since the Fall, man's reason has been darkened by sin (and, for this reason, God, in His compassion for us, has revealed to us many things in the holy Scriptures-- truths both above our reason but, also, truths within the grasp of our reason, eg., the existence of God, the Ten Commandments, etc.). Nevertheless, man's reason is not totally useless even after the Fall; even now, it still can, and has, come to a knowledge of certain truths.

Indeed, man is, by definition, a creature with reason (an "animal" with reason, if you will). It is man's very nature to reason. This is part of what it means to be made in God's image and likeness: God is a Spiritual Being, possessing an intelligence and free-will, and man is made in that image (and, so, man also possesses intelligence and free-will). No other creature in Scripture is described as being made in God's image and likeness; only man is (and, so, only man, among all creatures on earth, possesses reason....reason-- with free-will--is, thus, our defining trait among all creatures on earth. It is, in a sense, our "glory", among all creatures on earth).

The fact that some mis-use reason is no reason to give up on reason all-together (no need to throw out the baby with the bath-water). Many people are bad drivers; that does not mean nobody should even try to drive well.....But, if one is going to try to drive, one must learn how to drive. If one is going to try to reason well, one must learn how to reason well (this means, at the very least, learning the basic principles of sound logic and philosophy.....something that, I'm afraid, the gay-rights activists either have not done, or choose not to employ in order to promote their lustful agenda).


kaufmannphillips wrote:

An argument from nature is less than compelling. Other species display homosexual behavior. And homosexual behavior in our species can derive (ostensibly) from natural drives.

We must define what we mean by "nature". A simple definition of "nature" would be "that which makes a thing to be what it is, simply." Perhaps a synonym for nature in this sense would be the "essence" of a thing. So, when we speak about "nature" in this context, we are not, necessarily, using the word in exactly the same way we use it in simple, ordinary discussions (eg., going for walks in "nature", observing the animals "in nature", etc.).

In defining nature in this way, we can say that it is the nature of sexuality to generate offspring, for the primary end of the sexual act is to generate offspring (because the end, or purpose, of any thing determines what that thing is). This can easily be seen by simply looking at the physiology of the sexual organs in species which generate sexually: it is obvious that the organs of each of the sexes of a given species are designed to attain to union with a member of the opposite sex of that species, with the end result being the generation of offspring of the same species. Thus, since the end or purpose of sexuality is to engage in a sexual act with an individual of the opposite sex, so that generation of offspring will occur, we can say that it is in the nature of sex that it be heterosexual.

In sum, the argument from nature against homosexual acts is, very simply, the following:
1. The nature of sexual acts, among human beings, is meant, primarily, for the generation of offspring (and secondarily, as an expression of true love between a man and a woman who are married to each other).
2. But, homosexual acts cannot generate offspring (nor do they communicate true love between a man and a woman who are married to each other).
3. Thus, homosexual acts are not in accord with the nature of sex (i.e., they are un-natural).

And, this kind of argument actually is a compelling argument against homosexuality (that is, once one's reason sees that the purpose of sex is, primarily, to generate offspring and, secondarily, to unite individuals of the opposite sex, then one sees that it must be the case that anything other than heterosexual sex is contrary to the nature of sex).

And, even if it is the case that homosexual behavior exists in other species, this would not change the force of the above argument. It would simply mean that we find evidence of un-natural behavior among the brute animals, even as we find it among men. (But, having said that, I don't think we find the same kind of homosexual activity among the brute animals as we do among the active homosexuals in our culture; I'm no expert on animal behavior, but I believe that we might find occasional acts of homosexuality in the animals, but nothing like whole groups of animals living lives where they engage in only homosexual acts).

Likewise, the argument that homosexual behavior is natural because, in homosexuals, it derives from "natural" drives does not refute the aforementioned argument, because it is using the word "natural" in a different sense than it is most properly used. In the pro-homosexual argument, "natural" is used to mean "what feels comfortable to me"; it is a very subjective notion of "natural". Whereas in the argument above, "nature" meant "essence", or, "that which makes a thing to be what it is" (which is a very objective notion, looking at the objective end or purpose of a thing) So, even if a homosexual's "natural" feelings incline one to engage in homosexual activity, we must say that his "natural" feelings are, actually, un-natural (in the more proper meaning of the term "natural"). Now, that may not necessarily be his fault (although, in some cases-- as with those condemned by Paul in Romans 1-- it may be). But, even if it feels "natural" (i.e., comfortable, normal) to him to engage in sexual activity with a member of his own sex, it is still wrong-- grievously wrong-- for him to do so. One's feelings does not determine the objective moral goodness of an act. A man with a bad temper might feel it "natural" to do physical harm to anyone who angers him; but, though this may feel 'natural' to him, it would still be wrong for him to act on these feelings. Self-control must be exercised...by the man with the bad temper....by the one with homosexual inclinations....by all of us (for we're all sinners with passions that need to be restrained in order to live moral lives and get to heaven!).

In Christ,
BrotherAlan

[Homer]

BrotherAlan,

Excellent post!

[kaufmannphillips]

Alan - thank you for your lengthy response.

BrotherAlan wrote:
[M]an's reason is not totally useless even after the Fall; even now, it still can, and has, come to a knowledge of certain truths. ...

Indeed, man is, by definition, a creature with reason (an "animal" with reason, if you will). It is man's very nature to reason. This is part of what it means to be made in God's image and likeness: God is a Spiritual Being, possessing an intelligence and free-will, and man is made in that image (and, so, man also possesses intelligence and free-will). No other creature in Scripture is described as being made in God's image and likeness; only man is (and, so, only man, among all creatures on earth, possesses reason....reason-- with free-will--is, thus, our defining trait among all creatures on earth. It is, in a sense, our "glory", among all creatures on earth).

The fact that some mis-use reason is no reason to give up on reason all-together (no need to throw out the baby with the bath-water). Many people are bad drivers; that does not mean nobody should even try to drive well.....But, if one is going to try to drive, one must learn how to drive. If one is going to try to reason well, one must learn how to reason well (this means, at the very least, learning the basic principles of sound logic and philosophy.....something that, I'm afraid, the gay-rights activists either have not done, or choose not to employ in order to promote their lustful agenda).

I did not claim that reason is useless, and like many other humans, I make use of reason. But reason is a tool, and like other tools, humans can use it with breathtaking skill for good and for bad. So one may sensibly characterize human reason as a whore - its proficiency (ahem) may service competitors, with equal professionalism.

One should not assume that skilled reason will always yield good conclusions; neither should one assume that persons with bad conclusions are devoid of (or even lacking in) skilled reason.

Incidentally, it would be interesting to hear your explication of how gay-rights activists have not learned "the basic principles of sound logic and philosophy."

Tangentially - it cannot be demonstrated that humans are the only organisms on earth to possess reason. Neither can it be demonstrated that we are the only organisms on earth to have free will. To claim otherwise is a product of ignorance and/or chauvinism.

BrotherAlan wrote:
We must define what we mean by "nature". A simple definition of "nature" would be "that which makes a thing to be what it is, simply." Perhaps a synonym for nature in this sense would be the "essence" of a thing. So, when we speak about "nature" in this context, we are not, necessarily, using the word in exactly the same way we use it in simple, ordinary discussions (eg., going for walks in "nature", observing the animals "in nature", etc.).

What we observe in "nature" (the sort you aren't seeking to think of) is manifestation of "nature" (the sort you are seeking to think of).

BrotherAlan wrote:
In defining nature in this way, we can say that it is the nature of sexuality to generate offspring, for the primary end of the sexual act is to generate offspring (because the end, or purpose, of any thing determines what that thing is). This can easily be seen by simply looking at the physiology of the sexual organs in species which generate sexually: it is obvious that the organs of each of the sexes of a given species are designed to attain to union with a member of the opposite sex of that species, with the end result being the generation of offspring of the same species. Thus, since the end or purpose of sexuality is to engage in a sexual act with an individual of the opposite sex, so that generation of offspring will occur, we can say that it is in the nature of sex that it be heterosexual.

Half-truth is untruth. Part of the nature of sexuality is to generate offspring. But that is not the sum total of sexuality; nor is it even an indispensable part of sexuality.

Another part of the nature of sexuality is to develop relationships between organisms. This does not (apparently) manifest in many organisms that reproduce sexually, but it does (apparently) manifest in some organisms. Two species that come to mind are humans and bonobos. Both these species pursue sexual activity that develops social relationships, apart from activity with reproductive potential.

Now, sterile and pre-fertile bonobos have been observed to be sexually active (bonobos also manifest homosexual activity). And certainly the nature of human sexuality is not limited to the generation of offspring; otherwise, it would be peculiar for infertile couples and post-fertile couples to engage in sexual activity. This obviously is not the case. Non-fertile couples engage in sexual activity for reasons that are held in common with fertile couples: to express and to intensify affection; to express and to intensify bonds of attachment; to give and receive emotional and physical comfort; to pursue intimate discovery. All of these are common enough within human sexuality, and each may serve as a valid purpose for sexual activity, quite apart from any reproductive factor.

I will quote, in passing, the Catechism of the Catholic Church: "Spouses to whom God has not granted children can nevertheless have a conjugal life full of meaning, in both human and Christian terms." (This, coming from the Catholic Church, which is well-known for placing a high value on procreation.)

BrotherAlan wrote:
In sum, the argument from nature against homosexual acts is, very simply, the following:
1. The nature of sexual acts, among human beings, is meant, primarily, for the generation of offspring (and secondarily, as an expression of true love between a man and a woman who are married to each other).
2. But, homosexual acts cannot generate offspring (nor do they communicate true love between a man and a woman who are married to each other).
3. Thus, homosexual acts are not in accord with the nature of sex (i.e., they are un-natural).

Your argument, very simply, fails:
Human beings pursue sexual activity far more often for interrelational purposes than they actually do for procreative purposes (even within the bounds of marriage). Accordingly, interrelationality has a stronger bid for being the "primary" nature of sexual activity than procreation has.
Homosexual activity can be pursued for interrelational purposes.
Thus, homosexual activity is in accord with the primary nature of sex (i.e., it is natural).

Does this mean homosexual activity cannot be proscribed? Of course not. G-d may proscribe any number of natural things, whether for whim or for serious purpose. But you are (ostensibly) a fan of "reason[ing] well," so we should not employ an argument from nature that leaks like a sieve.

BrotherAlan wrote:
And, even if it is the case that homosexual behavior exists in other species, this would not change the force of the above argument. It would simply mean that we find evidence of un-natural behavior among the brute animals, even as we find it among men. (But, having said that, I don't think we find the same kind of homosexual activity among the brute animals as we do among the active homosexuals in our culture; I'm no expert on animal behavior, but I believe that we might find occasional acts of homosexuality in the animals, but nothing like whole groups of animals living lives where they engage in only homosexual acts).

We have at least one other species where the interrelational arguments used above for humans would apparently carry over (once again, the bonobo).

I have a personal theory that most humans are potentially bisexual - to the extent that one's sexuality becomes more driven by interrelationality and less driven by sensual preferences, to that same extent one will have more potential for a bisexual orientation. So I doubt both heterosexual and homosexual individuals when they imagine that they are immutably bound to a single orientation.

BrotherAlan wrote:
Likewise, the argument that homosexual behavior is natural because, in homosexuals, it derives from "natural" drives does not refute the aforementioned argument, because it is using the word "natural" in a different sense than it is most properly used. In the pro-homosexual argument, "natural" is used to mean "what feels comfortable to me"; it is a very subjective notion of "natural". Whereas in the argument above, "nature" meant "essence", or, "that which makes a thing to be what it is" (which is a very objective notion, looking at the objective end or purpose of a thing) So, even if a homosexual's "natural" feelings incline one to engage in homosexual activity, we must say that his "natural" feelings are, actually, un-natural (in the more proper meaning of the term "natural"). Now, that may not necessarily be his fault (although, in some cases-- as with those condemned by Paul in Romans 1-- it may be). But, even if it feels "natural" (i.e., comfortable, normal) to him to engage in sexual activity with a member of his own sex, it is still wrong-- grievously wrong-- for him to do so. One's feelings does not determine the objective moral goodness of an act. A man with a bad temper might feel it "natural" to do physical harm to anyone who angers him; but, though this may feel 'natural' to him, it would still be wrong for him to act on these feelings. Self-control must be exercised...by the man with the bad temper....by the one with homosexual inclinations....by all of us (for we're all sinners with passions that need to be restrained in order to live moral lives and get to heaven!).

Nature does not necessarily correspond with "good"; accordingly, something "bad" does not necessarily correspond with being unnatural. The question of naturality and the question of ethicality are distinct from one another. And a great deal of our life involves discerning ethical limitations upon what is natural.

[brody196]

Hi Kaufmannphillips,

I am just curious, does your "G-d" condone homosexuality? If so, why on earth would he object to you typing "God" instead of "G-d"? Or do you spell it that way because of something else?..Thanks!

[steve7150]

Tangentially - it cannot be demonstrated that humans are the only organisms on earth to possess reason. Neither can it be demonstrated that we are the only organisms on earth to have free will. To claim otherwise is a product of ignorance and/or chauvinism.










Neither is it so clear we really have free will since we are all influenced by many things perhaps to the point where our will is only apparently free. The ability to make choices is not necessarily free will.

[kaufmannphillips]

brody196 wrote:
I am just curious, does your "G-d" condone homosexuality? If so, why on earth would he object to you typing "God" instead of "G-d"? Or do you spell it that way because of something else?..Thanks!

"[H]omosexuality" is a broad category, and G-d may not engage all of its subcategories in the same way. Although the Torah makes the effort to forbid a woman having sex with an animal, it does not forbid a woman having sex with another woman. The Torah does forbid some homosexual activity between men; some homosexual activity between men (say, kissing) would be debatable.

Each Jewish person who is genuinely committed to the Torah will attempt to practice its explicit precepts, and will wrestle with some of the practical boundaries for doing so. (For example, eating blood is forbidden: so when does one decide that the blood has been removed adequately from a cut of meat? And if one's girlfriend bites her lip and draws blood, how long afterward before one may safely kiss her? And if a person with bleeding gums sneezes, may one eat from a salad bar in the same room? Etc.)

The Torah explicitly forbids some homosexual activity, and a committed practitioner will wrestle with the practical boundaries of that. The Torah makes no comment about other homosexual activity (apart from general obligations that might apply, like loving neighbor as self; or tangential obligations, like abstaining from adultery).


Some Jewish tradition (it is not a universal practice) uses "G-d" to avoid putting the word "God" upon media where it might be mistreated (say, thrown into garbage or stepped upon). This is an opportunity to practically express reverence.

Myself, I don't terrifically favor the word "God." In our culture, it carries with it a raftload of Christian and popular assumptions. And etymologically, it may carry an unsavory pagan taint, though this is debatable.

And yet, getting around "God" in the conversation of our culture is rather difficult. If I use "the Lord," this is potentially confusing, because Christians apply this to Jesus. I prefer to reserve the tetragrammaton for intimacy. Among Jews, I can use Hashem/HSHM, but this is still more confusing for a general audience.

When I use "G-d," it is generally intelligible to most readers, but it introduces a measure of Jewish connotation (for those who are familiar with the practice), and it allows me to take a ritualized hair-step away from fully applying the term "God" to HSHM.


Back to "God" as possibly tainted by Christianization or pagan etymoplogy - there is an explicit command in Torah: the remembrance of the names of other gods shall not be heard from one's mouth (Exodus 23:13). So how does one sketch out the practical boundaries of this?

Writing the word "God" does not violate the explicit commandment, because the commandment addresses the spoken word ("heard from one's mouth") and not the written word. I do avoid using the word verbally, though one could make a passable argument for allowing even its verbal use. But I suppose my general discomfort with the word has had something to do with my usage of "G-d" in writing.

This might be analogous to some practitioner of Torah abstaining from male homosexual kissing: though it is not explicitly forbidden in Torah, it is close enough to the forbidden that it might engender some discomfort. Actually, using "G-d" might be like kissing on the lips, but abstaining from french kissing.

[brody196]

Thanks for the interaction Kaufmann,

In reading your response, I couldn't tell whether or not that homosexuality is sinful in your worldview. You seem to suggest that the issue is complicated, but you never came out and said what you think.

So maybe if we can narrow it down to a "yes or no", as that would be a good starting point for further discussion. Is homosexuality/Lesbianism a sin in your worldview?

[BrotherAlan]

kaufmannphillips,
Thank you for your considered reply!

You wrote:

Human beings pursue sexual activity far more often for interrelational purposes than they actually do for procreative purposes (even within the bounds of marriage).
Accordingly, interrelationality has a stronger bid for being the "primary" nature of sexaul activity than procreation has.

You/we are now getting to the "crux" of the matter here: namely, what is the (primary) purpose of sex? The whole question about whether homosexuality is natural or not depends upon the answer we give to this more fundamental question of, "What is the primary end of sexual activity?" Answering this question well will not only help us to make a proper judgment concerning homosexual acts, but to also judge properly with regard to all other matters related to sexuality, as well.

Now, correct me if I am wrong, but you have proposed that building relationships is the primary end of sexual activity. Your reason for holding this position is that those who engage in sexual activity usually do so with the intention of building relationships (and, so, it would seem that building relationships is the primary end of sexual activity). Is this a correct understanding of your position?

While I agree that building a strong relationship with another is one of the ends of sexual activity, I do not believe that it is the primary end (I do believe, though, that it is a secondary end, but one that is subordinated to the primary end). I believe that the primary end of sexual activity is generation of offspring.

The following are three arguments in favor of the position that the purpose of the sexual faculty (i.e., the sexual/reproductive organs) is the generation of children.

Argument 1 (in favor of the position that the sexual faculty is for the generation of children):
If a natural thing has a distinctive work, then to perform it well is its natural purpose (eg., the distinctive work of the eye is to see; seeing well is, thus, the eye’s natural purpose).
The sexual faculty’s distinctive work (i.e. what it alone can do among the parts of human nature) is to produce children.
Hence, the sexual faculty’s natural purpose is to produce children.


Argument 2 (in favor of the position that the sexual faculty is for the generation of children):
Natural things are structured in such a way so as to fulfill their purpose (eg., the heart is structured in such a way so as to pump blood to the rest of the body).
But, the reproductive organs are structure in such a way so as to produce children.
Thus, the purpose of the reproductive organs are to produce children (and, thus, the name, "reproductive" organs).


Argument 3 (in favor of the position that the sexual faculty is for the generation of children):
The noblest thing which a thing can do is its purpose.
The noblest thing the sexual faculty can do is to produce a human being.
The purpose of the sexual faculty is to produce a human being.

Again, these three arguments have argued that the end of the sexual faculty (the sexual/reproductive organs) is to produce children. We can then give a final argument to support the position that the primary end of sexual activity is the generation of children.


Final Argument (in favor of the position that the primary end of sexual activity is the generation of children):
The primary end of sexual activity is determined by the purpose of the sexual faculty/organs.
But, the purpose of the sexual faculty is the generation of children.
Therefore, the primary end of sexual activity is the generation of children.

[Notes on this argument:
The second premise of this argument was the conclusion of the three arguments above.
The first premise may be evidently true to some; but, we can also reason further to this premise by saying that the primary end of any activity is determined by the purpose of the things used in that activity. Since the things used in sexual activity are the sexual organs, the primary end of sexual activity is determined by the purpose of the sexual organs).
The conclusion of this argument follows from the two premises.]


So, in conclusion, sexual activity is, by nature, primarily for the sake of children.


Now, if one denies this position outright, seeing reasons will likely not be persuasive. But if one already knows this position to be true (even in a vague way), or if one is, at least, open to seeing this, then seeing reasons gives one a fuller understanding.

Note: I am here speaking about the objective end of the sexual activity. That is, I am speaking of the objective end of sexual activity, regardless of what are the subjective intentions of those who engage in the act. It very well may be true that most who engage in sexual activity (even among married couples) do not always have in mind the idea of procreating; very well, perhaps that is true for most people who engage in sexual activity (though, I'm sure this is not always the case). Nevertheless, that does not change the fact that, objectively speaking, the act has, as its primary end, procreation. For, the natural end of things remains the natural end of things, even if we are not aware of it. (Note: we can observe this in other areas of life....eg., the primary end of eating or drinking is to be nourished, even if one does not realize that this is the end; eg., a baby who is being nourished by food or milk does not realize that the primary reason why he is being fed is to nourish his body, even though that is, objectively speaking, the primary reason).

Some final notes.....these are arguments to show that the primary (and objective) end of sexual activity is the generation of children. These do not deny that there are secondary (though subordinate) ends to sexual activity, such as the deepening of the union of love between spouses (as that one quote you gave from the Catechism of the Catholic Church correctly indicates). In fact, it is because there are these secondary ends to sexual activity that those married couples who are, seemingly, unable to bear children can still legitimately (and meritoriously) engage in sexual activity (so long as they remain open to the primary end of generating children). For, in their case, they are not acting contrary to nature (as is the case with those who engage in homosexual activity); but, rather, they are acting in accord with nature (but, unfortunately, nature, is, so to speak, "failing them")....And, from this we can say that the fact that homosexuals cannot generate children is not due to a fault in nature, but to their incorrect use of nature (just as it is not the fault of nature that the ear cannot see, even if one were to try to use the ear for such activity). That some married couples (i.e., heterosexual couples) cannot conceive children is not due to a fault in them, but to a fault in nature (just as a blind man cannot see not because of his own fault, but because of a fault in nature).

Peace....

In Christ, the Savior,
BrotherAlan

"Jesus Christ is Lord!" (Phil. 2:11)

[kaufmannphillips]

brody196 wrote:
In reading your response, I couldn't tell whether or not that homosexuality is sinful in your worldview. You seem to suggest that the issue is complicated, but you never came out and said what you think.

So maybe if we can narrow it down to a "yes or no", as that would be a good starting point for further discussion. Is homosexuality/Lesbianism a sin in your worldview?

Like most human behaviors, there are circumstances under which homosexual behavior can be sinful. I am open to the possibility that not all homosexual behavior is sinful.

The same holds for orientation. There are circumstances under which the persistent orientation of a sufficiently plastic individual can be sinful. I am open to the possibility that not all homosexual orientation is sinful.

[kaufmannphillips]

kaufmannphilips wrote:
Human beings pursue sexual activity far more often for interrelational purposes than they actually do for procreative purposes (even within the bounds of marriage). Accordingly, interrelationality has a stronger bid for being the "primary" nature of sexual activity than procreation has.

BrotherAlan wrote:
Now, correct me if I am wrong, but you have proposed that building relationships is the primary end of sexual activity. Your reason for holding this position is that those who engage in sexual activity usually do so with the intention of building relationships (and, so, it would seem that building relationships is the primary end of sexual activity). Is this a correct understanding of your position?

My position is that interrelationality is the primary nature of sexual activity. It is always and inextricably an element of legitimate sexual activity. Procreation is not always an element of legitimate sexual activity, and it is an extricable element of said activity.

Brother Alan wrote:
While I agree that building a strong relationship with another is one of the ends of sexual activity, I do not believe that it is the primary end (I do believe, though, that it is a secondary end, but one that is subordinated to the primary end). I believe that the primary end of sexual activity is generation of offspring.

The following are three arguments in favor of the position that the purpose of the sexual faculty (i.e., the sexual/reproductive organs) is the generation of children.

Argument 1 (in favor of the position that the sexual faculty is for the generation of children):
If a natural thing has a distinctive work, then to perform it well is its natural purpose (eg., the distinctive work of the eye is to see; seeing well is, thus, the eye’s natural purpose).
The sexual faculty’s distinctive work (i.e. what it alone can do among the parts of human nature) is to produce children.
Hence, the sexual faculty’s natural purpose is to produce children.

It would be a fallacy to assume that a natural and distinctive purpose of a thing must be its singular or even primary purpose.

Let us imagine that I regain consciousness after a terrible disaster and find myself in a post-apocalyptic society. Happily enough, I am able to locate a brand-spanking-new toolkit that my father gave me last December. One of the tools in the kit is a fine Stanley claw hammer.

Now, looking at my kit, I notice that there is no other tool that is well-suited for prying nails out of wood. But there are several other tools that I could use for pounding a nail into wood. Should I therefore deduce that the purpose of my Stanley claw hammer is to remove nails, and not to pound nails? Should I imagine that the purpose of my hammer is primarily to remove nails, and only secondarily to pound nails?

BrotherAlan wrote:
Argument 2 (in favor of the position that the sexual faculty is for the generation of children):
Natural things are structured in such a way so as to fulfill their purpose (eg., the heart is structured in such a way so as to pump blood to the rest of the body).
But, the reproductive organs are structure in such a way so as to produce children.
Thus, the purpose of the reproductive organs are to produce children (and, thus, the name, "reproductive" organs).

It would be a fallacy to assume that things have only one natural purpose.

The reproductive organs are constituents of a human physiological/psychological system. Their structure naturally contributes to physiological/psychological processes that often have no bearing on procreation, yet these processes often have bearing on important human interrelations.

People who lack reproductive organs can still have productive and fulfilling sexual activity. Thus, these organs are not essential to human sexual activity.

BrotherAlan wrote:
Argument 3 (in favor of the position that the sexual faculty is for the generation of children):
The noblest thing which a thing can do is its purpose.
The noblest thing the sexual faculty can do is to produce a human being.
The purpose of the sexual faculty is to produce a human being.

The noblest thing a fine Stanley claw hammer could do is deal a lethal blow to the cranium of the mutant who is moments away from devouring a thousand human infants.

Or maybe not. How do we ascertain the most noble potential of a thing?

But for the sake of argument, let us say that is the most noble thing a fine Stanley claw hammer can do. Is that really its singular purpose? Is that even its primary purpose?

BrotherAlan wrote:
Final Argument (in favor of the position that the primary end of sexual activity is the generation of children):
The primary end of sexual activity is determined by the purpose of the sexual faculty/organs.
But, the purpose of the sexual faculty is the generation of children.
Therefore, the primary end of sexual activity is the generation of children.

Given the flaws of the preceding arguments, the final argument fails.

Brother Alan wrote:
Now, if one denies this position outright, seeing reasons will likely not be persuasive. But if one already knows this position to be true (even in a vague way), or if one is, at least, open to seeing this, then seeing reasons gives one a fuller understanding.

If one already "knows" the position to be true, then one may not give due scrutiny to the "reasons" proffered.