Why Homosexual Behavior Is More like Consensual Incest and
Polyamory than Race or Gender
A Reasoned and Reasonable Case for Secular Society
Part 4: Responses to Counterarguments
by Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D.
May 21, 2009
To
print a clean copy with proper formatting and pagination go to the pdf
version here.
There are three main
counterarguments against my overarching thesis in Parts 1-3; namely, that
adult-committed incest and polyamory are better analogies to homosexuality
and transgenderism than are race and gender. None of them are convincing,
in my view.
First, supporters of
homosexual unions will sometimes argue that there are no significant
sexual differences between men and women, often appealing to a strict
social-constructionist philosophy. The problem is that most people don’t
live in accordance with such a perspective, including most persons who
identity as “gay” or “lesbian.” Why is it the case, for example, that the
vast majority of homosexual men would not (or claim not to) be fully
satisfied with a sexual relationship involving a woman, even a
particularly gender-nonconforming, masculinized woman? Why do they regard
themselves as a “category 6” on the Kinsey spectrum? Could it be that they
tacitly recognize that there is an essential maleness to men that not even
a gender-nonconforming woman can successfully reproduce?
If there were
nothing essential or significant to male-female differences then we should
expect nearly the whole American population to be bisexual rather than
“unisexual.” Yet, as it is, over 98% of the population (possibly over 99%)
is strongly disposed to sex only with members of one sex, whether the
other sex (heterosexuals) or the same sex (homosexual).
There must then be a fundamental difference between maleness and
femaleness that, in turn, constitutes a radical difference between
heterosexuality and homosexuality. The former is sexual arousal for the
sex that one is not but which complements one’s own sexuality. The latter
is sexual arousal for what one already is as a sexual being and does not
truly complement one’s sexuality. They are not simply two different sexual
orientations that are otherwise of equal developmental naturalness and
soundness. One is intrinsically disordered and it’s not heterosexuality.
The second potential
argument against my thesis is that congenital causation factors for some
homosexual development (which factors, in any case, are neither total nor
deterministic) make homosexual desire and behavior “natural.” This
argument misunderstands the elementary point that persons can have innate
or involuntary desires for behaviors that remain unnatural on other
grounds. Pedophiles, for example, don’t “choose” to be pedophiles in the
normal meaning of the term “choice.” Even so, the absence of choice does
not make sexual intercourse with children “natural” in the truest sense of
the word because children are structurally or formally incompatible for
sexual intercourse with an adult. My point here is not to claim that in
all respects homosexual practice is as bad as pedophilia but rather to
make the singular point that the innateness of a sexual orientation does
not make the behavior arising from the desire “natural.”
Moreover, we all
know that innate urges are unreliable guides for moral behavior. An
argument for homosexuality based on biological causation is not an
effective moral argument because, as even admitted by two
scientists who have studied extensively biological causation factors for
homosexuality and who support homosexual causes: “No clear conclusions
about the morality of a behavior can be made from the mere fact of
biological causation, because all behavior is biologically caused” (so J.
Michael Bailey of Northwestern University and Brian Mustanski of Indiana
University).
The third argument
is that homosexual practice cannot be compared to incest or polyamory
because the latter two intrinsically produce harm while any harm arising
out of the former is attributable primarily to societal “homophobia.” Such
an argument is based on false premises and inaccurate information.
First, as we have
noted above, male homosexuality and female homosexuality both produce
higher rates of measurable harm but do so differently and in a manner that
corresponds to male-female differences. It is thus not possible, in my
view, to blame the lion’s share of problems on so-called “homophobia.”
Incidentally, what would “incest-phobia” or “polyphobia” be and to what
extent does societal disgust for these behaviors trigger higher incidences
of measurable harms?
Second, there are no
scientific studies demonstrating intrinsic, scientifically measurable
harm for adult-committed incestuous unions, much less traditional
polygamous unions. Oprah Winfrey, an American cultural guru, had on one of
her television programs a year or two ago a group of intelligent,
attractive, wealthy women in polygamous relationships in Arizona. By the
end of the program Oprah was telling viewers that society might be
painting with too broad a negative brush the phenomenon of polygamy. Even
as regards pedophilia, two APA studies have indicated (one argued, the
other conceded) that a child who has sex with an adult often grows up
exhibiting no measurable harm. If that is true of pedophilia, how much
more of adult-committed incestuous and polyamorous bonds?
After hearing a
reasoned case for why homosexual practice of an adult-committed sort is
more like adult-committed incest or polyamory than the conditions of race
or gender, most avid supporters of homosexual unions will express great
outrage. However, outrage is not a substitute for reasoned argumentation,
though the former is often practiced with great effectiveness by those
promoting a homosexualist cause. It might be time for those who have good
arguments for believing that homosexual practice not be endorsed by
society to become equally outraged.
Nor is it “hateful”
to make such an analogy, unless one wants to argue that it is acceptable
to hate and do physical harm to persons who engage in adult-consensual
polyamorous or incestuous relationships. Love can only be exercised
rightly when based on correct knowledge. If indeed incest and polyamory
are closer analogues to homosexual practice and transgenderism than are
race and gender, then it can hardly be loving for society to provide
incentives for such behavior through “sexual orientation” and “gender
identity” laws.
For Part 1:
The Initial Case go here.
For Part 2:
What Disproportionately High Rates of Harm Mean go
here.
For Part 3:
The Illogic of Homosexual Unions go
here.
Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D. is
associate professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary,
author of The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics
(Abingdon Press) and co-author of Homosexuality and the Bible: Two
Views (Fortress Press).