I just read a fascinating article written by Laurence Thomas, a man who does not think homosexuality is wrong, titled Are There Gay Animals? On Justifying Gay Behavior in Humans. (HT: Jeremy)
The basic premise of the article is pointing out the foolishness of the argument that homosexuality is found in nature so it must be natural for humans as well.
The issue is this: What might we infer about human beings from animal behavior? The answer is not much. And holding this view has nothing whatsoever to do with being for or against homosexuality among human beings. Consider, for instance, that fidelity in the animal kingdom is relatively rare. All the same, no one supposes that this is thereby a reason to eschew fidelity as an archaic notion of no relevance to human beings. Again, in most instances, though not all, the male bares very little responsibility for raising the children that he sired. Yet, we do not argue for moment that this is how human males should behave. Indeed, our sentiments are exactly the opposite. Then there is the reality that animals have little or no sense of shame with regard to when and where they relieve themselves, whether this is about urinating or defecating. I can only hope that we should not regard this as virtuous.
[...]
In the end, then, appealing to animal behavior as some form of justification for human behavior is very tricky business. If we pick some behaviors and eschew others, then we need an independent and defensible principle that explains why some animal behaviors fall on one side of the divide and other animal behaviors fall on the other side of the divide. Appealing to animal behavior as a justification for human behavior is loathsomely self-serving when it turns out that the only animal behaviors that we pick out are those that serve our own ends.
[...]
Strikingly, we humans do not think for a moment that the behavior of bears is an indication of how monkeys should behave, or conversely. Likewise for whales and dolphins. And so on across the board. So it makes no sense to me that so many are so quick to invoke behavior among animal species as an indication of how the human species should behave.
It seems to me that he makes some good points, though I encourage you to read the whole article. Remember, this article is NOT a stance against homosexuality; it is merely addressing the argument in question.
In the end, then, appealing to animal behavior as some form of justification for human behavior is very tricky business. If we pick some behaviors and eschew others, then we need an independent and defensible principle that explains why some animal behaviors fall on one side of the divide and other animal behaviors fall on the other side of the divide. Appealing to animal behavior as a justification for human behavior is loathsomely self-serving when it turns out that the only animal behaviors that we pick out are those that serve our own ends.
Perfectly correct. Which is why people who say homosexuality “just isn’t natural” are talking out of their asses*.
The appeal to animal homosexuality was only ever intended to expose this claim as a rhetorical flourish rather than an actual argument. Too many people seem to think that it stands alone – that it just goes without saying that gays are sick and perverted.
* No, I don’t know how they managed to get inside a donkey in the first place. Maybe the donkey was hungry.
Allow me for just a moment to add to Lifewish’s point about the rhetorical flourish.
I have on many occasions heard from behind a pulpit the argument that homosexuality is unnatural because the only place it occurs is in humanity.
Something to the effect of “Only mankind is so depraved…”
Truth be told, there was a time when I made this very argument from behind the pulpit. Not one of my proudest moments, but there it is.
The point that other animals do in fact engage in homosexual behavior is meant to point out the inaccuracy of that argument, not as an argument on its own.
The argument that homosexuality is unnatural because only humans do it is indeed ridiculous. Humans have a different nature than animals – we alone are rational as well as moral beings. It would be unnatural, for instance, for a human to breathe underwater or to lay eggs. Breathing underwater and laying eggs is a fish’s nature. It would likewise be unnatural for a fish to write a treatise or to feel guilt over the fact that it’s thousands of eggs were fertilized by hundreds of males.
Like I said, human nature is moral and rational in addition to the animal nature. It is unnatural for we imaggio dei to behave irrationally and immorally. Because, by several arguments, homosexual acts are irrational, and by revelation, immoral, homosexual acts are unnatural for humans, just as air-breathing is unnatural for fish.
jeruball- homosexuality is irrational and immoral according to your definitions.
I don’t consider the love I have for my partner the least bit irrational. Likewise, I don’t consider my love “wicked or degenerate”.
Because, by several arguments, homosexual acts are irrational, and by revelation, immoral, homosexual acts are unnatural for humans, just as air-breathing is unnatural for fish.
I think you would need to elucidate somewhat on those arguments. Most of the ones I’ve seen basically boil down to “it’s not what we’re designed for”. Which, of course, is the Argument from It’s Not Natural in only slightly different clothes. As best I can tell, this argument completely fails to bridge the is/ought barrier.
Disclaimer: I am not homosexual by any stretch of the imagination, but I have several friends who are. Most of them are considerably more rational and moral than the average religious person of my acquaintance.
The point is that gay animals disconfirm the hypothesis that homosexual behavior is not something which is biologically compelled, rather than the result of “original sin”, or some such nonsense. It is “natural” in the same sense that animals engage in an activity which some people claim is “unnatural”: that it is a complete perversion of the function of sex organs.
The question of the morality of homosexual relationships should be based on your ethical theory, and it shouldn’t be a single issue that stands out. If, for instance, you presuppose that causing harm for fun is wrong, then lighting firecrackers in cat’s arses is unquestionably wrong within your ethical system. You don’t dwell on that one violation.
In the same way, nothing about my ethical system conflicts with the idea of two consenting adults giving each other pleasure at no one else’s expense, and without conferring harm. Therefore, neither homosexuality, nor oral sex [whether straight or gay], nor interracial sex are immoral. Why is it that Christians stress this one “sin” so much?
Why is it that Christians try to invent arguments against homosexuality based on anything other than divine command theory, which is the basis for their [poor] ethics? Why don’t you just admit that you accept what your dusty set of scrolls of unknown origins say is wrong and right, without need of any additional rationale?
I have heard people arguing that gay sex can’t be wrong because it is natural, with the evidence that animals do it. I have also heard the parallel argument that promiscuity and non-monogamy are natural and should be embraced. Some people are more careful, but that doesn’t mean no one gives these arguments. It’s perfectly fine to point out these arguments as bad.
Similarly, some people do give the argument that since animals don’t engage in same-sex sexual behavior it must be unnatural, but this is a bad argument even if it were true that animals didn’t do this. There are lots of things animals don’t do that humans do, and some of those are what make us moral beings rather than mere animals. So of course that’s a bad argument.
None of these points should affect the real natural law argument about the purpose of sex, which has nothing at all to do with what animals do but is about what sex is for humans. That argument may or may not be successful, but it doesn’t depend on whether animals have sex with other animals of the same sex. If something is unnatural because it violates the purpose of something, you can’t look at what people or animals actually do to figure out what the purpose is. People violate the purposes of things all the time, and why might not animals also? A decent natural law theory, if it is to work, can’t follow just from what animals and people actually do.
Animals might well do things that, if a human did them, would be wrong, and this can be for either of two reasons. First, it might be that animals don’t do anything wrong because they aren’t moral creatures, so we don’t hold them responsible, but humans should be above such things. Second, it might be that certain things are wrong for humans because there are things about us that make certain behavior contrary to our nature when it is not contrary to an animal’s nature.
Basically, both sides of this issue are guilty of extremely bad arguments. I was pointing out one of them. It doesn’t do to change the subject and point out bad arguments on the other side, as if that makes the argument better, and it doesn’t do to point out that there are less bad arguments in the general vicinity of the bad arguments. My post was about one particular bad argument that I have seen people make in the way I was describing it. It should be taken as being about just the point it was about and not misrepresented as a straw man about other arguments that I wasn’t discussing.
Jeremy: Fair point. I wasn’t actually aware of anyone making the “animals do it so it must be OK” argument, but that’s probably an example of selection/confirmation bias on my part. I can see that it’s the sort of daft argument that people might make.