On the naturalness of homosexual behavior
In the SD
I was looking at an old column by the esteemed rabbi in which he addressed the question of the naturalness of homosexual behavior. He dismisses the idea that homosexuality is against nature and calls it nonsense. I believe that his statement is too hasty. The rabbi treats the subject as a purely empirical matter (he writes that research needs to be done and is satisfied with whether this is even possible) and I think that this is where he is wrong. The claim that homosexual behavior is against nature is not primarily an empirical claim (the kind that can be proven or disproven only by observing what is happening), but a teleological claim. The homosexual makes inappropriate use of his genitals. Here the question will surely arise, “And who determines what is appropriate use of the genitals?”. I think that this question can also be answered from an atheistic perspective (for this purpose, we will probably harness natural selection to serve as a kind of “creator” and “guide”), but if we believe in God, the answer to the question is quite simple. God determines what is the proper use of the genitals (which He created for us) and He has determined that homosexual behavior is out of bounds.
This kind of perception is seemingly immune to the rabbi’s objections. For example, the rabbi asks, “Nature did not create pacemakers for us or dental implants, is that a reason to prohibit them?” I would refrain from dealing with the “prohibition,” but pacemakers and dental implants do not contradict the way of nature, since they do not contradict the will of God who created nature and who created us or did not create us. He created our body parts knowing that they might have a certain defect and did not forbid us from healing ourselves, and even gave us the intellectual tools to deal with all kinds of problems. The same applies to the comparison to a person whose height is abnormal in the statistical sense of the word. The rabbi also dismisses the claim that this is a relationship that cannot lead to fertilization and reproduction, because even a homosexual couple can nowadays procreate and multiply. Very true, but this fact should not make it difficult for us, since a homosexual couple cannot procreate and multiply as God intended, and this is the important detail that makes the act unnatural.
I believe that the words of the Torah + the negative consequences of homosexual behavior (AIDS, psychological problems, etc.) are sufficient to testify to the will of God.
Thank you in advance for your consideration.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Hello,
For me, the question of naturalness is not an unnecessary mediator, because I believe that unnatural behavior is not necessarily forbidden behavior. At most, it may not be desirable (because it makes sense that it has negative consequences). In order to reach a real prohibition, a divine command against it is necessary. In this case, there is indeed such a command, but the behavior would have remained unnatural (and perhaps even undesirable) even if there were no prohibition on male intercourse and everything else remained as it is. When I say that it is not natural for a male to do what he would do to another male, I am saying that it is not natural to use his genitals in this way, since this organ is intended – its purpose, its reason for existence – for the needs of heterosexual sex for reproductive purposes (an argument that I believe I can substantiate even without appealing to God, but such an appeal makes the matter easier).
In any case, it is clear to me that there is a disagreement between us regarding the definition of the term “natural”. Since such disputes are inherently difficult to resolve (some would say even insoluble), I will thank him for addressing the matter and will not take up any more of his time.
With greetings of Shabbat Shalom.
J. Even if we assume you are right, I don't understand how you brought the atheist in here? After all, your entire argument is based on the will of God.
Secondly, in your opinion, is it unnatural to steal, rape, eat shrimp? How is prohibition related to the concept of nature?
Third, and if it is unnatural, then what? Perforating hair is also unnatural. How is this relevant to any discussion?
(1) As a believer, I base my belief on the will of God who created the organs in the human body and designated them for a specific purpose and not for other purposes, but I noted that this approach is not the exclusive domain of believers. Atheists are also entitled to say, for quite similar reasons, that homosexual behavior goes against the course of nature. In such a case, I suppose it would be necessary to use natural selection. The atheist philosopher Michael Levine published such an argument in 1984 under the title “Why Homosexuality is Abnormal”.
(2) Did I say that prohibition is related to the concept of nature?
(3) Of course it is relevant. One side of the debate makes it sound as if the very thought is an insult to common sense worthy of all ridicule, and that is not the case.
You are just a demagogue.
If you were honest, you would claim that the illness a sick person has is the will of God. And we must not interfere.
But you are a demagogue. You presume your conclusion and ignore obvious contradictions.
And in your approach it is very difficult to distinguish between the will of God and your will. You have done His will as you wish. Or in fact it is you who determines what is appropriate and what is inappropriate, what is natural and what is unnatural.
It seems to me that there are quite a few who would say that you are a gay man who has not yet come out of the closet.
@The Last Judge,
How does the conclusion that every illness a person has stem from the will of God from the claim that the Creator intended the male genitalia for sexual relations for certain purposes and therefore it is not natural to use it inappropriately for other purposes? The conclusion does not follow, of course.
The comment about the possibility of me being a closeted gay is so pointless that I see no reason to address it beyond the mere mention of it.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
