Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Aribaderche
Just a clarification - I believe the "Natural Law" argument typically used in the legal system has to do with the principle of "function by design". So, homosexuality would become unideal for the reason that the human body was not designed to do it, even if it can be made to. This is similar to the reason we use to outlaw bestiality and paedophilia - the individuals are not designed to be ideally compatible (though in all cases above such things can be forcibly accomodated).
So, it's not per say a matter of citing what happens "in nature". For instance, it is very "natural" given the design of the Bonobo that it would mate 24/7 with all kinds of partners. the sexual potential of a Bonobo is immesnsely greater than a human being. Interestingly, AIDS is killing several primates at a rapid pace... Bonobos I believe are included.
Think of this analogy, though faulty, as a means of understanding the argument.
1. We're looking to draw fences around our societal "ideals".
2. "Ideals" are those things which function "the best" or "the most efficiently."
3. Homosexuality is not efficient since it does not function by design. There are highly increased rates of diseases, tissue problems, rectal problems, etc. associated with said behavior.
Societal taboos therefore are drawn around these sorts of behaviors. You don't have to like it, but that's the way it always works. Homosexuality, for a variety of reasons, does not seem like a potentially ideal situation, so society taboos it.
|
I think you're trying to justify a taboo after the fact with a nice sounding rationalization. Homosexuality was a taboo long before it could be linked with disease rates(since before the concept of disease existed). Rectal problems only result from not knowing how to have the anal sex.
"Function by design" doesn't really mean anything, since the human body doesn't come with an instruction book there is no credible way to say whether something is supposed to function as it is being used. I would argue that if humans stuck to using their bodies as they were "designed" to be used, we'd still be flinging shit in the woods. We certainly wouldn't be using our opposable thumbs to type phone numbers into cell phones.
Even if certain members of a species are using body parts in ways contrary to their accepted functions, that doesn't mean that the new usage is automatically "unideal", or even that being unideal will have a negative effect on the species in question.