What if homosexuality is wrong on purely atheistic and evolutionary grounds? What if it is wrong simply because it is a teleologically infertile form of sexual practice (that is, as a prescribed form of sexual practice it can never produce life necessary for evolution)?
Here are a couple of arguments:
Argument 1:
1. Natural human behavior involves the behavior necessary for the survival of the species.
2. Any behavior that would destroy the species is unnatural.
3. Homosexuality, if taken to be normative, would result in the sterilization of the species.
4. Homosexuality is unnatural.
Or ... Argument 2:
1. If evolution has so composed humanity as to procreate heterosexually, then the only behavior that comports with nature's design plan is heterosexual behavior.
2. If heterosexual behavior is the only behavior that comports with nature's design plan, then homosexual behavior is an act of violence against nature's design plan.
3. Therefore, if nature built us to be heterosexual to survive, then to be homosexual is to live unnaturally.
Perhaps the objection to this is that nature could have produced human beings capable of homosexual reproduction "if that were the will of evolution." But this is the trouble in evolutionary theory--namely, how to determine what is natural and what is unnatural. In one sense, evolution makes no preferences, and so everything is natural, including the pedophile's predilections. And so we are led to a dilemma in arguments based in naturalistic evolution. Which to prefer...
Argument 3:
1. Nature gives us no guidance as to what is "natural" and what is "unnatural."
2. We determine these labels through a dialectic process (discussion and group consensus).
3. But group consensus can often be wrong (i.e. racism, the flat earth, etc.).
4. Since nature makes no preferences, and since our conclusions are merely fallible human judgments, it is reasonable for us not to make preferences with respect to sexual behavior.
5. We should not prefer any form of sexuality over another, to include bestiality, necrophilia, pedophilia, polygamy and the whole colorful spectrum of sexual behaviors.
6. (Or... We should prefer whatever form of behavior we think natural and demonize the rest, since we cannot arrive at "truth" in these matters through dialectic, and since nature is giving us no guidance.)
Is it "right" that nature has produced human beings that reproduce in a rather limited way--that is, heterosexually? It is "right" in the sense that it is clearly the "will of evolution," and in that sense it could be argued that the will of evolution is heterosexuality, which brings us back to Argument 1.
Homosexual couples dedicated to having children must wholly rely on resources not available to them naturally. In that sense, no homosexual family can ever be purely homosexual. It must borrow from the opposite sex the necessary equipment for human reproduction. Even if it were to become possible to chemically transform sperm into eggs, it would necessarily recreate the conditions naturally required for reproduction, which are heterosexual conditions.
Another way to think of this is that in reproduction the genetic code of the parents is preserved in the child. The child is an expression of both of them. But this can never be the case with any gay couple. The child will never be an expression of merely their union. It will perhaps be an expression of one of them, and an unknown heterosexual partner. Should this be considered natural? Perhaps if we decide so, but what if we don't? (Argument 3)
Argument 3:
1. Nature gives us no guidance as to what is "natural" and what is "unnatural."
2. We determine these labels through a dialectic process (discussion and group consensus).
3. But group consensus can often be wrong (i.e. racism, the flat earth, etc.).
4. Since nature makes no preferences, and since our conclusions are merely fallible human judgments, it is reasonable for us not to make preferences with respect to sexual behavior.
5. We should not prefer any form of sexuality over another, to include bestiality, necrophilia, pedophilia, polygamy and the whole colorful spectrum of sexual behaviors.
6. (Or... We should prefer whatever form of behavior we think natural and demonize the rest, since we cannot arrive at "truth" in these matters through dialectic, and since nature is giving us no guidance.)
Is it "right" that nature has produced human beings that reproduce in a rather limited way--that is, heterosexually? It is "right" in the sense that it is clearly the "will of evolution," and in that sense it could be argued that the will of evolution is heterosexuality, which brings us back to Argument 1.
Homosexual couples dedicated to having children must wholly rely on resources not available to them naturally. In that sense, no homosexual family can ever be purely homosexual. It must borrow from the opposite sex the necessary equipment for human reproduction. Even if it were to become possible to chemically transform sperm into eggs, it would necessarily recreate the conditions naturally required for reproduction, which are heterosexual conditions.
Another way to think of this is that in reproduction the genetic code of the parents is preserved in the child. The child is an expression of both of them. But this can never be the case with any gay couple. The child will never be an expression of merely their union. It will perhaps be an expression of one of them, and an unknown heterosexual partner. Should this be considered natural? Perhaps if we decide so, but what if we don't? (Argument 3)
In conclusion then, we see two issues here: One, the epistemological issue that frees the evolutionist to define "natural" however he may choose (Argument 3); and two, the reasonable conclusion that, in evolutionary models, what is natural is what is necessary for survival (Arguments 1 and 2).
Perhaps the best way to understand these two points is to join the evolutionist in his dilemma. If he cannot rely on philosophical speculation to answer what is natural and what is unnatural, then he must turn to nature itself for the answer. But, as we have seen, nature gives no guidance here except the behavior that tends to the survival of the species or undermines it. Thus, we cannot rely on human opinions of sexual behaviors to determine whether they are "right or wrong" or even "natural or unnatural."
So what is the solution, from a strictly evolutionary perspective? One option is that there can be no "right or wrong" with respect to human sexuality, or at least if there is we cannot know it. But this leads to all manner of complications, such as giving up the right to condemn pedophilia and a whole host of other "perverse" sexual behaviors.
Perhaps the evolutionist can claim that we can't know that it is wrong, but we must manage human sexuality nonetheless, and so we can't permit certain behaviors. Indeed this would solve some problems, but it does nothing to say that the child molester is wrong; it only says that we can't tolerate his "natural" and "normal" behavior. His kind of nature just doesn't work well with the group, but it surely cannot be morally wrong. You may note that an unintended consequence of this kind of thing will be mob rule. What if society came to believe that everyone belonged to everyone else sexually and that marriage was a kind of destructive and possessive egoism (something like Huxley's vision)? And what if that society decided that marriage was no longer legal? Is morality only a matter of consensus? If it is, one loses any right to claim that another persons behavior can ever be wrong.
And so the evolutionist is, in my estimation, paralyzed by his epistemology. He can only work with what is and not what ought to be. The moment he uses the word ought, he claims authority, but why should we listen to his authority and not those with whom he disagrees? But surely in turning to what is, he finds no solution to this simple question, "is homosexuality natural or unnatural?" For nature is what is and not what ought to be. It seems foolish, in the evolutionary sense, to claim that nature ought to be other than it is. Human beings ought to have three arms, ought to have telekinetic powers, ought to be able to reproduce homosexually, etc. Foolish! Nature has made us as we are, and there seems no point in arguing these things.
Is the homosexual then something like a cheetah born with only three legs? Or is he more like the cheetah born with wings--that is, something that looks unnatural, but is really the next step in evolution? Can one turn to human deliberations on these matters to solve such a question? Of course not, because of the epistemological problem already enunciated. The only way to adjudicate this matter is to turn again to what is and not what ought to be. Currently the reality is that human beings propagate heterosexually, and so nature is telling us that the homosexual is a cheetah with 3 legs (back to Arguments 1 and 2).
Or if you like it in one sentence: Homosexuality runs counter to the manner in which natural selection has fashioned us to reproduce.
