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.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.
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:
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.).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.
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