A parable
I enjoyed this post over at A Few Voices:
What's That Blue Thing DOing Here?
I don't understand the so-called "argument from nature," which is basically an assertion it is unnatural to be gay because (1) not many people are, and (2) we weren't built that way.
As Jennifer illustrates with the above story, our ideas of what is and isn't natural come mostly from our upbringing and from those things to which we are (or aren't) exposed. "Natural" is largely a construct, much like "pretty" and "funny." Basically, the more lesbians you know, the less weird it is to see two women walking down the street holding hands. When someone you know and love tells you he is gay, it can cause you to rethink what is and isn't natural (alternatively, you can dig your heels in and refuse to budge). The more often you hear someone say "you guys" instead of "y'all," the more you get used to it (though you may continue to say "y'all" until the day you die).
The second part of the argument from nature is more complicated and goes beyond whether your skin crawls when you think of two men having sex. It is the "argument from design/creation/biology" (aka the "Adam and Steve" argument ). I don't want to go into this too much (the post would become a book). Instead, as food for thought, I want to quote J. Burton's post from Greg Kendall-Ball's blog:
That being said, I do have a comment about sex qua penetration and the argument of nature. I assume that when we speak of nature, we are speaking of the way God created us. And so the nature argument seems to boil down to the idea of Adam’s penis fitting inside Eve’s vagina to produce mutual sexual pleasure. This seems like a tidy argument, but I think it only seems that way because we want it to be. I should point out before anyone else does, that God did not, in fact, create Adam and Steve. But does that mean that we should assume that there is no room for homosexuality in our world? I don’t think so. It’s easy to forget, but the creation story in Genesis was written for a specific purpose (and one which other portions of the Hebrew Bible do not seem to mesh), and for a specific people. And it happens to be a people for whom, as GR has mentioned in his blog, homosexuality was not expedient. But if we believe Adam and Eve were created compatible, then we should also acknowledge the fact that mens’ prostates have been created to be readily stimulated from the rectum. And women have been created to be able to attain clitoral orgasm without (sorry guys) the presence of a penis. Sex qua penetration is the locus of a certain kind of pleasure that grows from relationsihp, and, it seems, is not confined to male-female participants.
It seems as though arguments from nature/design/biology/creation are very easily dismissed as either (1) stemming from a lack of exposure to the thing deemed "unnatural" or (2) bases on a misunderstanding of biology, and the history and function of the Genesis creation narrative. Am I missing something here?
What's That Blue Thing DOing Here?
I don't understand the so-called "argument from nature," which is basically an assertion it is unnatural to be gay because (1) not many people are, and (2) we weren't built that way.
As Jennifer illustrates with the above story, our ideas of what is and isn't natural come mostly from our upbringing and from those things to which we are (or aren't) exposed. "Natural" is largely a construct, much like "pretty" and "funny." Basically, the more lesbians you know, the less weird it is to see two women walking down the street holding hands. When someone you know and love tells you he is gay, it can cause you to rethink what is and isn't natural (alternatively, you can dig your heels in and refuse to budge). The more often you hear someone say "you guys" instead of "y'all," the more you get used to it (though you may continue to say "y'all" until the day you die).
The second part of the argument from nature is more complicated and goes beyond whether your skin crawls when you think of two men having sex. It is the "argument from design/creation/biology" (aka the "Adam and Steve" argument ). I don't want to go into this too much (the post would become a book). Instead, as food for thought, I want to quote J. Burton's post from Greg Kendall-Ball's blog:
That being said, I do have a comment about sex qua penetration and the argument of nature. I assume that when we speak of nature, we are speaking of the way God created us. And so the nature argument seems to boil down to the idea of Adam’s penis fitting inside Eve’s vagina to produce mutual sexual pleasure. This seems like a tidy argument, but I think it only seems that way because we want it to be. I should point out before anyone else does, that God did not, in fact, create Adam and Steve. But does that mean that we should assume that there is no room for homosexuality in our world? I don’t think so. It’s easy to forget, but the creation story in Genesis was written for a specific purpose (and one which other portions of the Hebrew Bible do not seem to mesh), and for a specific people. And it happens to be a people for whom, as GR has mentioned in his blog, homosexuality was not expedient. But if we believe Adam and Eve were created compatible, then we should also acknowledge the fact that mens’ prostates have been created to be readily stimulated from the rectum. And women have been created to be able to attain clitoral orgasm without (sorry guys) the presence of a penis. Sex qua penetration is the locus of a certain kind of pleasure that grows from relationsihp, and, it seems, is not confined to male-female participants.
It seems as though arguments from nature/design/biology/creation are very easily dismissed as either (1) stemming from a lack of exposure to the thing deemed "unnatural" or (2) bases on a misunderstanding of biology, and the history and function of the Genesis creation narrative. Am I missing something here?
posted by GR at 8/12/2005 05:42:00 AM
9 Comments:
Another post I enjoyed re: natural/unnatural from gkb's blog. This by jtb:
"An argument from design, take two:
Only a woman has a uterus. Only a woman lactates. Clearly, God has designed woman for the express purpose of childbearing. It is, therefore, unnatural for a woman to not have children. It is, therefore, unnatural for a woman to do anything except have children.
Since we’ve already demonstrated the opacity of the internet for heavy sarcasm, shall I point out that I have no children, am pursuing a vocation which makes it at least questionable that I ever will, and yet don’t consider myself a freak of nature?
Hopefully the above makes it clear that my complaint is how easily the categories of natural/unnatural are abused and how an “argument from design” can be constructed in ways that are, hopefully, clearly both ridiculous and terrifying. And historically familiar to boot. We need to be careful with this one. It’s been used shamefully too many times before to be sanguine about employing it here."
Sorry I keep quoting people instead of posting my own thoughts but, well, why write something when you can cite people who write better?
GR, you've just made my day!
Hey, mine too! Doubly. Posted by GR, and in the company of JTB! My blog-posting career could end here, and I'd be happy (but not as happy as everyone else, and, no, you aren't going to be so lucky...)
I guess I just don't understand what is so compelling about arguments from nature. Perhaps this is because my sexuality just seems so natural to me that I can't imagine it as something 'unnatural.' Perhaps I'm just not bright enough to understand the argument. I don't know.
And I guess part of my problem stems from a lack of appreciation for why an argument from nature should matter at all, regardless of how tight the argument may be. Why does nature matter in a denomination that is supposed to be all about the Bible?
I would assume an argument from nature holds water because the Bible begins with the premise that God causes nature.
But that's also always been one of those paradoxes, where 'Satan' comes in quite handy. On the one hand, nature means that only males and females should love each other. If we can, however, prove that homosexuality is quite natural, don't sweat, because we have the old 'Satan ruined it for everyone' back-up plan.
So it seems to come down to the problem of finding a hermeneutic that yields consistent results.
Yes, but there seems to be some difference between "Nature" (created by God, stuff like flowers, mountains, and the human body) and "Natural" as a sort of normative principle.
I mean, we (Christians, or at least the Western incarnations with which I'm most familiar) don't seem to give much of a hoot about nature, except insofar as we can exploit it for our own benefit. Additionally, so much of avoiding sin has to do with fighting what seems natural (selfishness, lust, etc, etc).
Example: it's natural to go kill an animal and throw it on the fire, yet in Leviticus, God commands not to eat meat with blood still in it. I'm missing the link, I think, between creation as an act of God and creation as a command from God.
Where does this link between nature and the law come from? Is it just a creation of Augustine and Aquinas?
Just thinking out loud.
No, wait. Augustine dismissed natural law, right?
This is why you should never listen to anything I say. I'm usually wrong.
Yes, it seems that we define nature by what we think is natural, but we have fooled ourselves into thinking that it works the other way around. We think we know nature by what we experience as natural, but, really, we define nature by what we experience as natural.
But this is difficult to accept for most. Hence, we get a fairly inconsistent interpretation of scripture pertaining to sexuality that argues for nature as prescriptive of our actions when, really, our own actions are the only experience we have to define that nature. And someone whose sexuality differs from the natural is threatening, then, to the whole order of nature and should be squashed or somehow made to not exist.
I wanted to say more, but I have to go for now.
Post a Comment
<< Home