Can We Please Define “Natural”?
The typical conservative responses to homosexuality often rely heavily upon how “unnatural” homosexuality is. Dr. Albert Mohler of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, for example, posted these comments on his blog (posted July 30):
Our language has reached some important natural limits of meaning. A recent media report considered the increasing number of homosexual couples, both male and female, who are now “having babies.” Well, these same-sex couples are not “having” babies in the sense that language has customarily been used. When a same-sex couple “has” a baby, everyone knows that there is more to the story. A homosexual couple simply cannot “have” a baby the same way that a heterosexual couple can. This is a matter of the natural order and biology, not mere social custom.
And a little later on the same post:
This is a very important observation — and a crucial reminder that the natural order of things has a way of asserting itself in the end. Mr. Young [the author of an article to which Dr. Mohler is responding] wants people to “understand that gays are utterly normal.” And this would mean that the issue “never crosses people’s minds” — that no one notices anything unusual when two men hold hands or if a man says “meet my husband.”
Young, who is a well-known figure in Britain, became famous when he won the first “Pop Idol” contest on British television. In his view, a public acknowledgment of homosexuality should be a matter of no real interest. As he wrote, “Coming out should just be a statement of fact – I have red hair, I drink tea, I sleep with the same sex.”
It isn’t that simple, of course. And it isn’t that simple precisely because there is a deep moral instinct within us that continually reminds that sex between persons of the same sex is not natural or normal. The very fact of this difference even remains a part of the discourse among liberals who think they believe in the moral normalization of homosexuality.
Now, I agree with Dr. Mohler. Nevertheless, I think that we need to be very careful about how we use and define our words–especially when it comes to the terms “natural” and “unnatural.”
If the reaction against homosexuality rests in the fact that biology does not allow homosexuals to reproduce, for example, we are on shifting ground. Keep in mind all the breakthroughs that scientists have accomplished in just the last thirty years: the first test-tube baby was born in 1978 followed by further in vitro fertilization (IVF) advancements in the ’80s, Dolly the Sheep was born only ten years ago in 1997, and despite having falsified his original claims in 2005, Dr. Woo Suk Hwang seems to have been the most successful to date at creating embryos from a human egg without the use of sperm or extra DNA (known as parthenogenesis). It is certainly conceivable that in the not-too-distant future, homosexual couples might be able to have children that are actually biologically related to both fathers or mothers.
Similarly, if we rely upon a knee-jerk reaction against homosexuality, calling it “unnatural” just because we cannot fathom the idea of it, we are once again in an unstable position. While some heterosexuals can hardly wrap their minds around the idea of having a homosexual attraction, we need to face the fact that there are homosexuals who simply do find themselves attracted to other members of the same sex. These urges are just as natural, genuine, and unasked for as my heterosexual attraction to certain types of women. And if we are to take seriously the fact that homosexual animals actually do exist, we are quite liable to reach the conclusion that the Oslo Natural History Museum reached:
The Church Council of Nablus in 1120 AD wrote the first law where homosexuality was labeled a “Crime against Nature”. In the Renaissance, such texts found their way into the laws of many countries, leading to widespread oppression of homosexuals on the basis that it is “unnatural”.
We may have opinions on a lot of things, but one thing is clear: Homosexuality is found throughout the Animal Kingdom. It is not against nature.
“Nature” vs. “Nature”
Now, I bring this all up, not to advocate homosexuality, but to point out why we need to be careful when we use the words that are so common in this discussion. Those who would defend homosexuality as a “natural” or alternative lifestyle, use the word “natural” to describe the world as it is. And in this sense, Christians do not need to hide from news stories about gay animals or gay genes–the natural world, the world “as it is,” simply does include homosexuality.
When conservative Christians use the term “natural” or “against nature” in the context of the homosexuality debate, however, it refers to the world as God intended it to be. Simply because the world is what it is, it does not mean that the world is the way it should be. For example, almost no one would even entertain the notion that Hitler’s or Stalin’s actions are merely another lifestyle choice. I know it is an extreme example, but as Dr. Mohler argued, the point remains that we all intuitively know to draw this distinction between the world as it is and the world as it should be. Part of the problem is simply that it is much trickier to actually draw this line than we want to admit. In fact, I would argue that it is ultimately impossible to be draw this line unless we begin by listening to what God has said about what is and is not “natural.”
On the other hand, conservative Christians need to be doubly careful here–not only does everyone have a tendency to just toss around the word “nature” and assume that everyone else is using the same definition, but there is the very real danger of heterosexuals manipulating the term to let them feel that they are somehow morally superior to the gay community. “Nature” can give us a smokescreen to hide behind when we let our own heterosexual drives run more rampant than we should. It can give us a way to trick ourselves into thinking that perhaps heterosexual sins aren’t as bad as homosexual sins, since one is “natural” and the other is “unnatural.”
In reality, however, they are both just opposite sides of the same coin. Because God created a husband and his wife to be sexually attracted to each other does not give the heterosexual a carte blanche to indulge in any heterosexual attraction that comes his way. All heterosexual sins and homosexual sins alike are “crimes against nature.” There should not be room for condescending pseudo-moralism in this discussion.
Post a comment