I recently discovered Alan Keyes, the man who Republicans should have chosen to beat Obama instead of McCain and that lady who can see Russia from her house. Keyes is pretty awesome: He is a solid conservative, clear spoken, intelligent, and a man of God. And it gets even better – he’s Catholic. I’m left smitten by this man, though in a totally non-gay way, of course.
Anyways, that brings me to my topic: Is homo “sex” really sex? Check out what Keyes said in a speech from 2004:
Sex itself only exists in relation to procreation. That’s one of the reasons why I sometimes object — and it’s just a theoretical objection, but it’s worth thinking about — to the whole notion that one calls what people of the same sex do “sexual relations.” As a matter of fact, they have precisely turned their back on sexual relations, in order to engage in acts of mutual pleasure that have nothing whatsoever to do with sexuality.
We have these two different understandings of human sexuality: the hedonistic, self-indulgent understanding, the self-interested one; and the one that has procreation at its heart, and that is characterized by the need to acknowledge responsibility and obligation. And just so no one will miss the point: the reason that homosexuality epitomizes the [first] one is that homosexuals are not haunted by the prospect or possibility of procreation — because they’re simply not capable of it. I think this is pretty obvious, isn’t it? And it was understood in human society at one point that if you’re not capable of procreation, marriage doesn’t have anything to do with you, because marriage is about procreation.
Keyes is right. Let me explain why. Aristotle taught us that in knowing a thing, we know its 4 causes. That is, we know its material, efficient, formal, and final cause. Applying this Aristotelean idea, I’d say that the natural ends of our primary sexual organs are pretty obvious – they’re for making babies. Just think about it – you’ll see the point, I’m sure. Let me sketch out some crude biology.
Penises erect when men are aroused. But they don’t erect into triangles or squares, no. Instead, the erect into the sort of shape that suites a vaginal canal and with the rigidness necessary to penetrate a vagina. So we say that the erected penis has a structure and form fit for the vaginal canal and vaginal penetration. Now consider the penetrative act. The insertion of the penis into the vagina and the following thrusts causes some awesome sensations, which then lead to orgasm. Upon orgasm, semen is ejaculated from the penis. That semen contains sperm, which is exactly the sort of thing necessary and sufficient to fertilize the female’s egg. But what’s more, the sperm are able to reach the egg after being ejaculated from the penis, provided that there is no use of contraception. In fact, the egg is that which the sperm cells seem directed toward – they seem swim and race toward the egg, congregating around it, burrowing their heads into it until one of them penetrates the egg, which thus results in fertilization.
Now consider vaginas and such. Vaginal canals are shaped in a form that suites an erected penis. Upon arousal, the vaginal canal lubricates, allowing for easy penetration and thrusts. If the woman is ovulating, her cervical fluid changes: It changes from a substance that is a barrier for sperm to one that protects and nourishes the sperm, which then increases the chances of a sperm reaching her egg. In addition, during times of ovulation, women report a higher interest in sex and better orgasm while men find women more attractive during their ovulating periods (see here). The timing should not be understood as coincidental – the period of time during ovulation is “prime time” for baby making. In fact, there is even evidence to show that women who do not ovulate (via birth control pills) have no peak periods of attractiveness from men while ovulating women do (see here). Thus, male sexual attraction increases during periods of fertility and not otherwise, which, again, suggests a procreative end for sex.
I could go on, but unless you have something against teleology (though you should not – see here), it is evident and commonsensical that our sexual organs have a natural end pointed toward procreation. Penises and vaginas are like keys and locks. In addition, that fact conforms well with the huge disparity between the prevalence rates of heterosexual and homosexual desire. For last time I checked, well over 90% of people had dominantly heterosexual desire. That sort of dominance is expectable if the end of human sexuality is procreation, because only sex between a man and woman can be procreative. In contrast, if human sexuality had some other end, if it were not directed toward procreation, then that sort of dominance seems inexplicable. It would have no known end, no known natural purpose, or at least none that I can conceive as tenable. Hence, this dominance is evidence for the procreative end of human sexual desire, too.
Supposing that I am right on this, we can add to our knowledge about sexuality and our sexual organs, because we know their natural ends. We know that we have sexual inclination or desire so that we interested in having sex with members of the other sex. We also know that we have sexual pleasure and orgasms encourage us to have sex for the end of fertilization – orgasms are a great impetus and expel the sperm from the man. And finally, we know that our sexual organs exist so that we can procreate. Hence, we can say, with good confidence, that human sexuality and our sexual organs are thus naturally directed toward procreation. That is, they all exist for the sake of procreation. Human sexuality and sex are thus procreative by their very nature.
Knowing this, we can infer that no sexual-like act can be properly considered sex if it is essentially non-proceative. Hence, male-male anal penetration is not sex properly considered. Likewise, whatever the hell lesbians do (what do lesbians considered sex?) cannot be considered sex. We can also say that no homosexual act is a proper expression of human sexuality either, for the act and the unity of the persons involved are essentially non-procreative. These actions are sex-like, no doubt, but that’s about all they are. They remain distortions of what human sex and human sexuality actually are. (1) Note that this doesn’t suggest that barren women cannot have sex with men. Such sex is only incidentally non-procreative, not essentially so; their sex remains potentially procreative even if their sex will never result in a pregnancy (see the distinction between act and potency).
So then what are these homosexual acts? Aside from distortions, they are largely what Keyes said: self-indulgent acts for mutual pleasure. This might seem harsh, I know. I regret that. I don’t mean to deny that some homosexual couples feel a love for each other and that their sex-like acts are sometimes taken as an expression of that love. I get that, but their act cannot go beyond the realm of that indulgence for mutual pleasure and affection – it points to nothing beyond that; hence, their act cannot ever be sex properly considered. This is not a mean-spirited statement but something that flows from the proposition that human sexuality has procreation as its natural end. We might not like that conclusion, but if we accept teleology and the aforementioned points, we have little choice but to accept it.
I conclude that we need to stop thinking about sex as exemplified in whatever sex-like act choose to do with our penises and vaginas, and affirm its true nature and end as something existing solely between men and women. Hence, homosexual persons do not have sex with each other, properly speaking.
I recommend conservative thinkers start arguing like this, challenging people to rethink how they conceive sex. Otherwise, sexuality will remain an open bag, one left open to the whims of the precarious and rebellious age.
(1) None of this is to make a moral judgement, of course. I am just saying that these acts do not conform to what human sexuality actually is.
- Whatever Happened to Christian Crusader Mentality? - September 24, 2017
- Brooke Baldwin, CNN and Boobies: Who Really Demeans Women? - September 19, 2017
- More on transgender ideology, cisnormativity, sex change and sexual orientation - September 15, 2017
- The Nashville Statement: A Rant About the Religion of Progressivism and the Failure of Protestantism - September 6, 2017
- On Alan Keyes: Is Homosexual “Sex” Really Sex? - August 26, 2017
- Is White Nationalism Racist? Is Racism a Defeater? - August 18, 2017
- “Unite the Right” and Richard Spencer’s Alt-Right - August 14, 2017
- A Hulkly Response to Bernstein’s Rejoinder - August 3, 2017
- Bernstein on the Death Penalty - July 26, 2017
- Responding to Some Pro-Abort Feminist Bloggers - July 21, 2017