Essay: Answering Secular Defenses of Homosexual Behavior
A certain John Corvino is a homosexual man who is well-respected by secular people for his attempts at rational defense of homosexual behavior. He recently put out a DVD defending homosexuality called What's Morally Wrong with Homosexuality?
I take it as uncontroversial that unethical acts are the function of injuring the hapless and weak by way of a too-convenient means of seeking one’s own personal happiness. Such convenience is the prime case of ‘It’s too good to be true.’ There is no garden of Eden in any of our lives, and woe to those who try to live as if there is.
A caste system is defined as the injury of some by way of the convenience of others. On this definition, a caste system can exist between as few as two persons. Think of a bad marriage. Of course, some bad marriages are bad because each partner injures the other more-or-less equally. But, I’ll contain the present discussion to the fact that some adverse acts-of-convenience are far more injurious to the hapless than are other adverse acts-of-convenience.
Now, it is a fact that some adverse acts-of-convenience are not as obviously adverse as are others. In fact, for some such acts, the only immediate evidence of their adverse nature is a sense of subjective repulsion to them. But, some of the most adverse acts possible are acts the accompanying sense of repulsion to which are often the most subject to being overcome. And I’m not talking about things like smoking. I’m talking about the microbiological caste system so deeply produced by the worst sexual acts.
Sex is a very powerful force in the human psyche. I would even say it is the most powerful. In any case, it has the power to overcome its own rightful bounds, if not in all individuals at the same time, then in a population over time and generations. Anyone with a libido will admit that.
Certain kinds of biological acts create and deepen a caste system on the microbiological level, without respect to either social or economic status. Most importantly, the inherent adverse microbiological outcomes of certain sexual acts, in terms of everyone who is at a microbiological disadvantage, is the creation of deeper microbiological disadvantages to those already so disadvantaged.
Sexual mores are not founded on general social norms. General social norms are founded on sexual mores. And the instincts that work to protect ecologically sound sexual mores inhere in the microbiology of the individual organism. Steven Pinker would agree.
Liberals are right to abhor economic greed, for the damage such greed causes both to the human and non-human parts of the Earth. But, in how many of an individual human life’s basic features is it possible to cause disease to others?
But, many Liberals, who love to invoke the ‘butterfly theory’ of cause-and-effect, are unwilling to see past their own noses when it comes to the way in which the Earth’s ecology actually coheres as an ecology (much less as a stable ecology). Who truly is the more diseased: the one who gets the disease, or the one who causes it?
A human being cannot see, much less keep track of, the microbiological world. So, a human being does not directly know externally that disease to others is caused by certain sexual acts. John Corvino would have humanity believe that the conspiracy between two persons to engage in certain biological acts between themselves cannot inherently produce disease in the wider population.
But, what, if any, is the microbiological basis for outlawing sex/marriage between father and son? By Corvino’s logic, if there is not known to be a microbiological reason to outlaw such an act, then there is, in fact, no microbiological reason to outlaw such an act.
But, if it is a fact that the microbiology of the offspring of the union of father-and-daughter is compromised, leading to the accumulation of disease by the continuation of such a means of reproduction, then shall we assert that such a sexual act does not already inject microbiological adversity into the wider population? And, if the repulsion to the idea of full siblings mating is reducible to the adverse results to any offspring, then whence the sense of repulsion in the individual at all?
Once something becomes existentially 'natural', Corvino would have us all presume that it is rightly allowed in terms of the microbiological ecology of which we have our respective and collective being.
I suppose Corvino has a problem with Apostle Paul’s condemnation of homosexual behavior. But, Apostle Paul was simply implying that there must be many things which are unnatural and bad despite that people can become attracted to these unnatural things; And that, in fact, for every realm of human life, there are many bad things possible which humans nevertheless can become changed into enjoying—and even changed into seeming to themselves to have a perfect right to do.
I recently watched the Extended trailer for What's Morally Wrong with Homosexuality? as linked to on Wikipedia’s John Corvino page. From what that trailer contains, it seems Corvino’s logic in defense of homosexual behavior is on the level of a stand-up comic: any rebuttal one can come up with which at all seems to deflate any point made adversely to one's own favored position on a matter is automatically accounted to be the superior logic over that adverse point.
In defending his belief that homosexual behavior is rationally justified, the key rebuttal Corvino makes is that, contrary to some people's adverse point that 'the parts don't fit', ‘the parts do fit’. Corvino’s point here is that, contrary to what some homophobes say, "Homosexual sex is mechanically effective to its intentions."
I could, in stand-up comic fashion, simply ‘observe’ that, by Corvino’s logic here, lesbian behavior is less-than-ideally ineffective.
But, my serious reply to Corvino's rebuttal that 'the parts do fit' is that literally everything, according to some intention, fits together effectively. And, many of these things which ‘fit together’ no reasonable human would ever attempt (and every reasonable person would resist doing): throwing one's own baby in a trash compactor, snorting cocaine, having sex with an animal, or just plain being stupid.
Another of Corvino’s points is that virus causes AIDS (that homosexual behavior does not cause AIDS any more inherently than heterosexual sex causes aids). But, here, Corvino could be construed as saying that "the pleasure of nicotine addiction does not cause lung cancer, and that, in fact, there is nothing inherently wrong with any pleasurable act no matter how contrary it may be to the complex microbiological ecology within which we live and by which we have our own physical being."
But the worst part about the logic of John Corvino's defense of homosexual behavior is that he has had to form it in face of the emptily inbred form of Christian doctrine. That Christian doctrinal inbreeding goes like this: "You ask us why we believe that this or that is wrong? We believe that this or that is wrong because the Bible says it is wrong."
The absurdity of this inbred 'Biblicist' logic is seen by imagining someone today asking Apostle Paul so many of the questions that Christians today get asked, and then imagining Paul replying that his own words addressing those questions in the New Testament are really there in the authoritative Bible. Paul would not have been so thick. He would have endeavored to answer the questions at least as sincerely and insightfully as the person asking the questions. This is just like what Jesus himself always did, though Jesus is recorded as having had to answer mainly doctrinally inbred Jews.
So, if you think you can answer a question with wisdom, at least first try to understand who it is you are answering, and try to understand the actual subject about which they ask. Because you can't play chess with someone by insisting that they accept that you are going to be playing by the rules of checkers.