This thread is for discussing Massimo Pigliucci's October 2003 Rationally Speaking article entitled Bush, the Pope, and gay rights.

Quote:

---

N. 42, October 2003

Bush, the Pope, and gay rights

George Bush (the Second) has recently called for legislative action to prohibit gay marriages, something that--thanks to initiatives in Canada and a few US states--is becoming a real (and apparently threatening to some) possibility in this country. Bush's position is that he "believes" that a marriage is, by definition, the union of a man and a woman. Ergo, gay marriages are an oxymoron. Of course, one could point out that definitions are arbitrary human concepts (unless they are part of mathematical proofs, which ain't the case here). But that would be pointless, since we all know where Bush gets his belief: from his reading of the Bible, apparently still shared by a majority of Americans.

In this George II is not alone. The Pope himself agrees that gay unions are abominations, but his reasoning is a bit more sophisticated (as one would expect), and yet fundamentally fallacious. John Paul II has stated that the reason gay marriages shouldn't be allowed is because they are "unnatural," and they are unnatural because they do not lead to procreation. Well, it is hard to disagree with the observation that gay unions don't produce biological offspring, although the term "unnatural" hardly applies, because a lot of unions in nature--human and not--don't yield progeny (e.g., bonobos, the pigmy chimpanzees, have sex in order to mend social relationships. If only we would follow such a wise example!). But let us concede for the sake of argument (and only as a purely intellectual exercise) that sex without at least the intent of procreation is "unnatural." To then claim that it should be prohibited because immoral, is a flagrant example of what philosophers call the naturalistic fallacy.

David Hume, in his A Treatise of Human Nature (1739), pointed out that there is no logical connection between what is (in nature) and what ought to be (in human morality). In other words, as both Bush and the Pope would probably readily admit if the point were pressed on them, just because something is not natural it doesn't follow that it is immoral. Surely, flying (in airplanes, as both George and John Paul regularly do) is not natural for human beings, but I doubt either of them is going to call for a ban on air travel on moral grounds any time soon. Closer to the moral realm, although plenty of animals engage in limited forms of altruism--usually directed at close kins--there is no natural equivalent of organized charities, on which the Catholic Church heavily depends, and which Bush thinks is the answer to anything except war.

Ironically, a similar fallacy is sometimes committed by advocates of gay rights. While initially resistant to a biological interpretation of their sexual preferences, sectors of the gay community have recently been emphasizing research purportedly showing that homosexuality has at least in part a genetic component. Such research is controversial (scientifically, not morally) in itself, since it is often based on small samples, and since the genetic component may account for only a fraction of the variation in sexual orientation in the human population. Be that as it may, an homosexual could point to genetical studies to claim that her orientation is part of the biological range of behaviors observable within the human species, and hence "natural." Furthermore, one could argue that if homosexuality is biological, than it makes no more sense to ask a gay person to "convert" to heterosexuality than it does to pretend that somebody changes race (although, of course, the letter request would be rather unpopular even among conservatives today--gosh, could we really be making progress after all?).

But such biological "defense" of homosexuality is misguided for three important reasons. First, ample research has shown that just because a trait has a genetic basis, it does not follow that it is unalterable by changes in the environment, or through behavioral shifts. For example, we have a natural craving for fats and sugars but, as hard as it often is, we can avoid walking into McDonald's, by a sheer act of will power. Second, a genetic basis for homosexuality would certainly make it "natural," but religious conservatives could still argue that it is "wrong" because it is akin to a disease. After all, sickle cell anemia is natural, but it is something to fix, not to brag about.

However, the most important reason not to advocate a biological defense of the gay lifestyle is because one would fall into the same temptation that got the Pope, and against which Hume warned us: the naturalistic fallacy. Again: just because something is natural, it does not follow that it is good. We can determine by observation and study what is natural and what is not. But we need to arrive at moral rules by agreement (when possible), and tolerance (when the alleged "immoral" behavior does not actually hurt others).

Therefore, Bush's personal beliefs about what "really" constitutes a marriage are (or should be) irrelevant, and the Pope (as well as his Protestant fundamentalist counterparts in the US) has no business deriving an ought from an is. Regardless of what biologists will continue to find out about homosexuality, rational philosophy is the best weapon in the fight for personal sexual choices.

---

"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward,for there you have been, and there you will always want to be."

I may be missing something here but I don't see how the fact that 'a lot of unions in nature--human and not--don't yield progeny' impacts on how natural something is.

By my definition, to behave naturally is to behave according to one's design. We are 'designed' (thats shorthand) to have sex for a reason and its not for our own pleasure.

"We are 'designed' (thats shorthand) to have sex for a reason and its not for our own pleasure."

Baloney.

I assume from your "shorthand" comment that you accept that it is highly unlikely that we were "designed".

More importantly though, if the only purpose was procreation, why are humans able to have sex whenever they want instead of when it is most likely that the result will be offspring? That's a lot of wasted energy that most of the animal kingdom doesn't bother with. What is the purpose of pleasure in the act and the fact that sex can take quite a bit more time than is neccessary? Again, a quick look at the animal kingdom demonstrates that efficient procreation is apparently not our forte.

If humans were 'designed' to have sex purely for procreation, we were 'designed' very poorly indeed.

Humans are an intellectual, social animal. Our 'natural' behavior went out the window when we discovered that we could create tools to alter our environment. It's not 'natural' for hairless primates to live in far northern latitudes, but we figured out how to overcome our physical limitations by crafting warm clothing. It's not 'natural' for clawless, short-toothed, relatively slow and weak humans to be the most formidable predator on the planet. It's not 'natural' for wingless creatures to fly through the sky, but that's no problem when you can invent an airplane.

gotta go...

You think that the reason sex came into being has nothing to do with reproduction?
The first and primary function of sex is/was to allow for reproduction. We wouldn't be having sex today if it wasn't.

What isn't natural, is anything that hinders us from surviving and/or reproducing, that has not its cause in our genetic make-up. Celebacy is not natural. Homosexuality is not natural. To use contraceptives is not natural. Suicide is not natural.

Perhaps you believe that we are something other than smart animals but I don't. Whats natural for humans is to survive, to reproduce as often as possible and then to die.

"You think that the reason sex came into being has nothing to do with reproduction?"

Nope, I certainly didn't say that. Perhaps I misread your post, but I thought that your point was that the ONLY reason for sex was reproduction.

"The first and primary function of sex is/was to allow for reproduction."

Yes and no - it can be used for much more than just that. Humans certainly do use sex for more than that. In other primates, the Bonobo monkeys always serve as a good example of the additional benefits of sex play. They use sex for many things and it often serves to cement the group together. The gender of the partner or partners doesn't matter.

"What isn't natural, is anything that hinders us from surviving and/or reproducing, that has not its cause in our genetic make-up. Celebacy is not natural. Homosexuality is not natural. To use contraceptives is not natural. Suicide is not natural."

Surprisingly, there are plenty of good arguments as to why your first sentence here does not contradict the concepts in the last four. The question is whether the drive to survive is primary on the individual level or the group/familial level. One can argue that excessive reproduction will hinder the survival of all through overpopulation.

For example, human children require a lot of care to grow to adulthood. Tribes (for lack of a better term for now) with non-reproducing adult members have more resources to take care of themselves than tribes where all of the members reproduce. In pack animals, an alpha male is the only one who can mate. The other males help support the group. This strategy seems to work well throughout the animal kingdom, including us.

Similarly, suicide (not that I'm advocating it) can function as a way for a group member to remove himself from the group when he perceives that he is merely a drain on resources. The value that we place on people that could be viewed this way is a societal thing. In tribal societies, the elderly often served as the history and wisdom of the tribe. While they couldn't "pull their weight" in a physical sense, their contribution was just as valuable to the success of the children.

"Perhaps you believe that we are something other than smart animals but I don't."

I'm not sure where you got that notion. I figured that you might be looking at humans as something more than big-brained primates with opposable thumbs from your 'designed' comments.

"Whats natural for humans is to survive, to reproduce as often as possible and then to die."

I don't agree. If that was the case, what is the point of life after menopause for women? It serves no purpose from an individual standpoint. Again, humans require a lot of care to grow up. humans with more support generally are more successful over generations than humans with less support. Check the success rate - GNP perhaps - of countries with high population growth versus countries with low population growth.

The whole notion of what is 'natural' implies that we are somehow able to do things that are not 'natural' - in effect that we can exist somehow outside of nature. It depends on how you want to define natural. Again, I can cite the mundane everyday world as being quite 'unnatural' for humans. Humans aren't built to travel at speeds in excess of 70mph - and yet I did just that this morning on my way to work - how 'unnatural'.

Why is it hard to believe that value is added to society - to the tribe if you will - by those who do not reproduce for one reason or another? Also, do you believe that this is always a choice that these individuals make? If so, the implication is that you or anyone else could also make that choice.

I've always believed that the drive to survive is on the individual level (selfish genes and all that). I've never really read anything that made me take the idea of individuals putting the group before themselves for non-selfish reason on a serious level, but if you have any suggestions, I'd appreciate if you posted them.


what is the point of life after menopause for women?

I've always found that an interesting question. I suppose though, in the species' history, its never been a issue until now. it was rare that anyone would reach such an age and women just outlast their supply. . Perhaps its something of an error. Perhaps its just that it increases the chance of survival in women and so it increases the chances of survival for her children.

Perhaps the left hand just doesn't know what the right hand is doing.

I don't really know, because nobody knows just yet. Either way, its not something that convinves me that not reproducing or surviving is natural.

''Check the success rate - GNP perhaps - of countries with high population growth versus countries with low population growth''

There are two many variables that could skew those stats, I would be unwise to use that info for forming an opinion.

My definition of behaving naturally is pretty simple:
Acting according to ones design.
That 'design' (once more I point out that the word is used for the sake of convenience) is the result of evolution. Evolution is not purposeful itself though and on that level, I suppose you could argue that there is no such thing as natural, but I'm not talking about anything on that level.

Anyway, to get back to my 'point', travelling at 70mph in a mechanical contraption does not qualify as going against your nature. Why? Because it doesn't stop you from surviving or reproducing. Evidently, while you were driving, you were also surviving. If you had decided to drive your car off a cliff in order to kill yourself, then that would have been unatural, as it was you drove to work, got paid, bought some food and continued on suriving. Nothing unnatural.

'Why is it hard to believe that value is added to society - to the tribe if you will - by those who do not reproduce for one reason or another? Also, do you believe that this is always a choice that these individuals make? If so, the implication is that you or anyone else could also make that choice. '

Ouch, we're spiraling here, though it may be interesting.
First off, you had better define value, so that we can understand each other. Second, we will have to decide upon what level we wish to discuss choice on.
Homosexuality s not a choice. It is not genetic, although there may be genetic influences. When something isn't genetic, its most likely to be environmental. It is something that is learned. Then of course there are hormonal influences. Either way, what I'm saying is that someone does not get up on morning and decide to be gay, bi or straight.

It sounds like we agree much more than we disagree. Where we break is at the individual/group level.

You said: "I've always believed that the drive to survive is on the individual level (selfish genes and all that). I've never really read anything that made me take the idea of individuals putting the group before themselves for non-selfish reason on a serious level, but if you have any suggestions, I'd appreciate if you posted them."

I'm not sure where I can point you to be honest. That opinion of mine has evolved through time and experience.

I think we would agree that parents will often put the survival of their children before their own. I'm sure that this does not fall into a "non-selfish reason" in your opinion though. What of your relative's children? How far do you take that attitude? Neices, nephews, brothers, sisters, parents, friends' children - perhaps even friends themselves may all fall into the category of being put before oneself in an either/or situation.

Would you risk your life to save the child of a stranger? How about an adult? People do and don't every day. Many believe that the closer we perceive our relationship to another, the more likely we would be to risk ourselves to help them. Hard data is difficult to come by though. Not to mention the phenomenon of the "kindness of strangers".

Now, I can't cite them off the top of my head, but I do recall many studies that showed that the amount of attention given to young children by the adults in their lives has a direct relationship to their later success - at least academically. Again, non-reproducing adults often help out those they are close to with their children. As you said, homosexuality is not a concious choice regardless the actual cause. I contend that people similarly do not "choose" not to reproduce, but that the tendancy exists for some people to see this path as more "natural" for them. The group as a whole then benefits.

No more time now...

Niall

I strongly suggest you read Howard Bloom's "The Lucifer Principle" if you want to delve deeper into this subject. It was our November & December 2002 book selection here at BookTalk, and one of the best books I've ever read in my life.

Not everyone here at BookTalk appreciated Bloom's ideas as much as me. Bloom is an advocate of group selection. Check out the BookTalk forum where we discussed the book.

The Lucifer Principle

A great thread within the forum...

We might have Howard Bloom back as our guest in 2004.

Chris

"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward,for there you have been, and there you will always want to be."

I've read the thread and I have to say that it sounds rather interesting. I'll give it a look