Natural Law Theory and Homosexuality

NLT and Homosexuality  As Catholic social teaching exemplifies, homosexuality is frequently condemned by adherents of NLT.  In addition to the question of finality or ordination that we observed animates the Catholic position on the issue, these condemnations typically address either the status of homosexuality as a natural kind or raise concerns about the consequences of homosexuality for the nature of our sociality.

Wilson on Homosexual Marriage  Wilson’s concerns are largely of this second sort.  In response to a book by Andrew Sullivan arguing in favor of marriage rights for homosexuals, Wilson adopts Sullivan’s argument typology, defending what Sullivan rejects and rejecting what he defends.  In the end, Wilson’s assumptions about our political situation underwrite his rejection of homosexual marriage.

Prohibitionist Arguments  As Sullivan and Wilson have it, the prohibitionist position is essentially biblical.  They both seem to acknowledge the force of the argument, though ultimately Sullivan chooses to undercut it by raising interpretive concerns.  Wilson responds with his own interpretive standards.  One questions is: is this the right ground to address this type of argument.

Conservative Arguments  This is the type of argument most closely associated with NLT, though Sullivan and Wilson focus not on finality but on the relation-building capacity of sexuality (64c2).  Wilson’s complaint in this connection is that Sullivan fails to acknowledge the absolutely fundamental importance of marriage, and the threat that homosexual marriage would pose to it (65c2).  Another question is why not focus on finality?

Liberal Arguments  The liberal viewpoint as defended by Sullivan and criticized by Wilson is that the question of homosexual marriage is ultimately a civil rights issue.  An analogy that Sullivan advances that Wilson denies is that of race.  More significant for Wilson is his invocation of a heretofore undiscussed natural function of families: childrearing.  While acknowledging there is little data to support any claim about this, Wilson insists that heterosexual couples do it best.

So what?  What conclusions should we draw from Wilson’s piece?  They are obviously limited by the context. Wilson may make reasonable criticism of Sullivan’s position, but Sullivan hardly exhausts the possible arguments in favor of homosexual marriage.  One interesting thing to observe is how strongly Wilson relies on public opinion or sentiment. What does that have to do with NLT?

Corvino ’ s Defense of Homosexuality  Corvino takes aim at those critics of homosexuality that decry it as unnatural or claim that there are special harms that accompany it.  His positive position is straightforward. Homosexual activity, like heterosexual activity, is both pleasurable and supportive of fundamental human relationships. Children are not a necessary product of either. There are no special harms resulting from homosexuality. Therefore, there is nothing immoral about homosexuality.

But it ’ s Unnatural!  Whereas Wilson wants to give a great deal of credence to what he claims is the majority opinion about homosexuality, without ever exploring its basis, Corvino confronts a common ground for the condemnation of homosexuality.  Ranging from mere revulsion to a consideration of the finality of sexual practices, many claim that homosexuality is unnatural.

Different Senses of Unnatural  One problem with this claim is that the term “unnatural” can and is used in a number of different ways.  An important step to untangling this charge is distinguishing the various senses.  With the help of Burton Leiser, Corvino does just this.

Unnatural as Unusual or Unique  Some people claim that homosexuality is unnatural because it is uncommon or because it is not part of the behavior of non-human animals.  With regard to the first of these two senses, Corvino notes that many types of behavior or uncommon, but we don’t for that reason label them as unnatural.  With regard to the second, Corvino merely notes that the claim is false.

What is not Innate is Unnatural  A more compelling claim is that behaviors that do not spring from natural human tendencies is unnatural.  One common (but mistaken) way to respond to this claim is to start arguing about whether homosexuality is in fact innate.  The real issue concerns the moral significance of the relation between behavior and tendency. All behavior, whether grounded in tendency or not is to some degree in our control. As such, the moral evaluation of the behavior is independent of the tendency.

That ’ s not what that ’ s for.  Another argument that is sometimes made is that homosexuality is unnatural because it makes use of human sexual organs in a way that is contrary to their natural function (this is an instance of the finality argument).  Of course, many of our organs admit of many possible uses. It would be arbitrary to acknowledge the appropriate use of sexual organs in a wide range of instances where procreation isn’t possible, but deny it in the context of same-sex relations.

Enough about Finality, Let ’ s Talk about Filth  Many people have objected to homosexuality on the basis of the claim that it is obscene. Corvino’s response to this claim is fairly typical.  Of note is his discussion of aesthetic revulsion that some people attest to in connection to homosexual practice.  Leaving aside the obvious psychological rejoinder (we are often strongly repulsed by that to which we feel an uncontrollable attraction), we should note that aesthetic concerns of this sort do not rise to the standard of moral condemnation.

What about the Harm Question?  Corvino considers both the possibility that homosexual behavior can harms its practitioners and that it can harm third parties.  With regard to the first, he just points out that there is no evidence to suggest any special harm from the behavior itself.  With regard to the latter, he considers the special cases of children and species existence, arguing that there are no special concerns in either case.

Question to Corvino  One thing we should note is that the conceptual analysis of “unnatural” does not directly refute the NLT position.  An evaluation of NLT based arguments against homosexuality must ultimately come down to a dispute about human nature and values and ends appropriate to it, and that’s not a discussion which Corvino joins.  A question we might have concerns the differences between Wilson and Corvino on the social consequences.