Wednesday, April 25, 2012

Homosexual Sex


Two boys and their dog were walking along the shore of Lake Michigan in the Spring.  The clear waters, crisp and calm lap with a kind hand, grasping the singing sands under the bare feet.  (The sands along this shore really do sing--it's one of seven areas of the world where this is so).  The dog, a golden retriever, dances on the bank to discover a rotten carp.  The fish's large scales give way to decaying flesh underneath.  The dog sniffs it, takes a bite, and begins to feast upon the carcass.  "Don't do that!" says the younger boy, his nose crinkled and mouth furled at the smell.  "Why not? says the older.  "He can eat what he wants.  Besides, it's part of the natural process of the dog to get rid of nature's trash."  "No," says the younger boy.  "Dogs like ours shouldn't eat this garbage.  This is fit only for racoons, and foul birds."  "Foul," says the other boy and laughs.  "Did you mean that as a pun?"  "What?" says the other, not understanding.  "Never mind," replies the older.  "Why not include the dog as part of nature to clean up nature?  Why only racoons and nasty birds for this rotten fish?"  He too, held his nose over the stench.  By this time, the dog had had enough, and left the fish to rot on the shore.  "Because, you see?  The dog doesn't want it.  And besides, he's a better animal than racoons and gross birds.  He knows better than to eat this...stuff."  "Well, he didn't seem to know that much," laughs the older.  "He's eaten some of it, all right."  "Yeah, well--now he's learned: he needs fresh fish.  Rotten fish is nasty and good for only nasty animals whose job it is to clean up.  Then the flies, and then nothing."  The younger boy calls the dog, and the three keep traipsing through the singing sand, picking up pieces of driftwood, and leaving the dead fish and its odor behind them. 

Is there a purpose to sex, beyond one's personal taste and pleasure?  Should humans consume whatever they see along the shore of life and partake of what is has to offer?  Are their guidelines for us to follow?  Must we resort to sacred writings to build an edifice of sexual ethics and norms, or can we walk along the shore of the natural world and learn how things should be?



Not wanting to be hoisted upon my own petard, venturing into the waters of sexual ethics and offering any  kind of advice or imprimatur whatever is risky business these days: "let me have my sex the way I want it, and don't you dare tell me what to do with my body."  This is the quintessential axiom and sentiment in Western culture, if not worldwide (think: the sex slave trade and other forms of prostitution).  Nevertheless, reason demands that we charter out and cast our nets for a catch. Will there be a message in a bottle along these shores, giving us in our feeble, depraved, and yet noble condition something in which to imbibe, to live by?  Can we do so and still be fulfilled as humans, eking out a meager existence, obtaining pleasure before life is over?  In short: are there laws regarding sex, and do these laws preclude happiness and joy?  

In this post, the discussion will center upon one particular sexual act, and that is homosexual sex.  A better term for homosexual sex is rather "bi-andro-sex," because homosexual sex is sex between two people of the same gender.  (Homosexual should probably be called homogender sex as well, as gender denotes maleness or femaleness and sex denotes the act of intercourse).  So, biandrosex.  Most people reading this will know that the author is a Christian, but no recourse to holy writ will be presented, as such a source is dismissed out of hand by its own nature.  Rather, an appeal to the natural world will be made.  It is the contention here that a study of the natural world excludes biandrosex from an activity that should be deemed natural or normative.  On the contrary, the attempt is made here to show that such activity is out of accord with nature, purely from a natural perspective. 

Evolution and Naturalism

A Darwinian perspective on biological evolution teaches us that natural selection acts upon random mutations producing genetic sequencing for the survival of the fittest among a species.  Homo sapiens must reproduce or die out as a species, and therefore must produce.  But if biandrosex is genetically predetermined in the human genome, then the homo sapien animal engaging in this behavior will not pass along his genes, and will die out.  A biandrosexual gene would be a "non-mating" gene, and would predetermine that animal from reproducing. Heterosexual sex would not even enter into the natural instinct (or mind, if you will) of the animal, and hence his "species within the species" would die out, leaving only the heterosexually active animals available in the gene pool.  Now, one might argue that the biandrosexual gene is a recessive gene, and exists en masse in the heterosexually active animals.  But where is such a gene?  This argument is ad hoc, and serves only as a weak recourse to justify biandrosex.  If Darwinism is true, biandrosex is counter to the selective process.  Even if a biandrosexual gene were recessive, it would only be active in the animal when dominant.  And if it becomes dominant, then the animal will die off, not passing along his biandrosexual gene--whether recessive or otherwise.  And over millions and millions of years of biological evolution, surely such a gene would be cast out of the pool.  Therefore, those who espouse biandrosex as viable for human activity must either deny the Darwinist concept of biological evolution, or they must come to terms that they are living in direct contradiction to it. 


A second argument consists in a close look at the human body.  This section may sound a bit crude to some with sensitive eyes, yet it is necessary to discuss parts of the body in their nomenclature in order to think about the issue at hand.  Anal tissue is specifically designed for eliminating waste.  This waste is primarily made of bacteria.  Feces, as the waste product of the body, is carried along the colon and rectum and issued out via the anus as part of nature's perfect design for getting rid of this riddance, riddled with microbes harmful to the human body if ingested though the mouth or the blood stream or though the opening of the penis.  
We also note that the anus is simply not designed for sexual intercourse, as the vagina is.  The penis and the vagina compliment each other perfectly and the production is typically life: a human being.  There is no life in biandrosex.  There is disease, however.  From Wiki:

"Unprotected receptive anal sex is considered the sex act most likely to result in HIV transmission. Other infections that can be transmitted by unprotected anal sex are human papilloma virus (HPV) (which can increase risk for anal cancer and typhoid fever), amoebiasis; chlamydia; cryptosporidiosis; E. coli infections; giardiasis; gonorrhea; hepatitis A; hepatitis B; hepatitis C; herpes simplex; Kaposi's sarcoma-associated herpesvirus (HHV-8); lymphogranuloma venereum; Mycoplasma hominis; Mycoplasma genitalium; pubic lice; salmonellosis; shigella; syphilis; tuberculosis; and Ureaplasma urealyticum."

That is a lot of different diseases.  Any wonder, as feces is 80% bacteria.  

Now, one might argue that vaginal sex and oral sex may also offer disease.  This is true, but according to the Center for Disease Control, unprotected receptive anal sex is 50 times more probable in the acquisition of HIV than among those who engage in oral sex, or vaginal sex (receptive).  The science does not lie.  Anal sex is just not the design of nature, and medicine shows it.  

It is abundantly clear, then that the way the body is made, as anal tissue is subject to tearing, and designed for eliminating waste, and also from the science of medicine, that anal sex is not nature's way.  

Lastly, let us take an elementary look at the other animals in the world around us.  We see natural course of things in male/female reproduction.  That's the way it works.  Are there asexual animals that reproduce?  Yes.  But that is asexuallity.  Not biandrosexuality.  

Conclusion: Will This Argument be Believed?  

Perhaps.  But people are not mere animals.  People have emotional ties.  And homosexual couples who love each other are not going to be deterred by a short blog post about biological evolution, disease and an appeal to the simple observation of nature.  Why?  Is it because good arguments do not work?  No.  It is because humans have passions, desires, relationships, hopes, longings, and a whole host of other mental and emotional states tied into their wills, consciences, belief systems, and worldviews.  If anything, this post might nudge someone in a direction they are already in: that biandrosex is contrary to the natural order, and that if Darwinism is true, then biandrosex should not exist, and only as an aberration if it does.  Biandrosexual proponents will no doubt try to make an appeal to a theistic framework that the Creator has made them as such.   Or, they might hold fast to the "recessive gene" argument.  Or, they may bypass the facts of medicine and biology and make an emotional appeal to carrying out their desires of biandrosex based solely upon personal passion.  The attempt here has been to approach the subject at hand with as much objectivity as possible, and I hope that has been done.  The only way forward in this discussion is to be ready and available to accept one's views and respect them, something missing on both sides of the controversy.  One final remark should be noted: biandrosexual proponents often chide those who relegate said sexual activity to the shoreline of a rotting fish, decrying such demarcation as judgmental and out of line.  However, we do well to remember John Lennox's question to Richard Dawkins in reply to Dawkins' injunction to Lennox that people stay out of the others' business when it comes to sex.  Lennox: "Tell that, Richard, to all the children who've been abused."  We do well to construct a sexual ethic.  The protection of the human race depends upon it. 



No comments: