This is the Good Life

My apologies for being terribly slow with follow up posts regarding this months issue of homosexuality. Please know the slowness is completely my own and not that of the C3 committee. With that said, let's jump into the issues of homosexuality and same-sex "marriage" in more detail.

Realizing these are sensitive subjects, as a reminder, let me say that we are called to judge ideas and arguments and demolish those ideas that are built up against the knowledge of God (2 Cor. 10:3-5). We are not called to demolish people in the process. We're called to love people. These blogs are mainly written to help you think through the issues and arguments. They are not so much about how to talk to people. That would take another series of posts in itself. Suffice it to say that we are to prayerfully talk with people with gentleness and respect (1 Pet. 3:15), and often times the best approach is to ask lots of questions like, "What do you mean by that?" and, "How did you come to that conclusion?" in order to encourage the other person to think through the issues along with you. Perhaps we can explore this more at a latter time.

When approaching the topics at hand, however, we could certainly appeal to the Bible to make our case that homosexual behavior is sinful and that God designed marriage to be between one man and one woman. No doubt there are those out there who attempt to argue that the Bible teaches no such thing. I don't think their arguments are successful for a number of reasons, but I would refer you to here, here, and here as good starting points to learn more. Nevertheless, as I said before, such a debate about biblical texts is important, but it holds little weight in the public marketplace of ideas where the Bible's authority is not assumed and must be argued for. Such an argument for the Bible's authority can and must be made at the proper time, but it's not needed in order to know and argue for basic objective morality. The Bible makes many issues much clearer and provides specific insights we otherwise would not have, but simply reasoning well about reality, which we all share in common, provides the groundwork for objective moral laws and the good we ought to pursue (Rom. 2:14-15). Allow me to explain.

When talking about government, laws, human rights, etc. we're ultimately talking about pursuing the common good. And in this specific debate, we must ask "What is marriage?" and "Why is it good?" But what exactly does "good" mean and why ought we pursue it? You and I, and many things in reality, have specific ends or goals (known as final causes) our various faculties are directed towards according the kind of thing we are, that is, according to our essence or nature. So, philosophically speaking, good is that which all things are directed towards according to what they are. In other words, the good for something is that which fulfills the end or purpose for something or for a specific faculty. To use a stock example, a good eye is one that sees as it should, and likewise, a bad eye is one that doesn't see as it should. Hence, the good for us is determined by our purposes or final causes. Therefore, good is completely objective and can be known. We may take other things to be good for us which are in fact bad for us, but that does not change the fact of what is actually good for us.

The fact that good is seen as undefinable, unknowable, or utterly subjective is simply based on bad thinking/philosophy. If we don't actually have human natures that entail certain purposes/goals for us and our various faculties, then we can't know what is objectively good for us and good becomes a matter of opinion. But the fact is, we do have a specific essence which we all have in common, just like almost everything that exists in nature has a specific essence as the kind of thing it is, and therefore we can objectively know what's good.

Why should we pursue the good? The short answer is, because it's the rational thing to do. We all pursue what we take to be good for us. This is an undenialbe fact (When was the last time you pursued something you knew to bad for you without having a reason to think the good of it outweighed the bad?). Reason tells us what is in fact good for us, based on the purpose of our various faculties (i.e. eating for nourishing the body, thus it is good to eat and not good to make yourself throw up for weight loss purposes). Thus, the rational person will pursue what is truly good (i.e. "be good") even when that is in opposition to what they may "feel" is good. This is when "good" becomes a "moral good." Because we can think and know what is in fact good for us, we can choose whether to pursue that or to pursue something different. For example, we know that being an alcoholic is not good on many levels. Even the alcoholic may know this, yet his desire for alcohol may be seen as a greater good than what is in fact good for him, which is not drinking in excess. If he chooses to fight his desire then that would be both morally good and rational. If he does not, then that would be bad of course. The rational thing to do, and thus the right thing to do, is to fight his desire. And notice that this remains the case even IF his desire for alcohol, and thus his alcoholism, were completely a product of his genetics.

Now, apply this same principle to homosexual behavior and same-sex "marriage." It is obvious to virtually any rational person that the purpose or final cause of sex is procreation. The fact that it feels good and tends to emotionally bond a husband and wife together are secondary to the fact that when uninhibited it naturally produces children. It feels good and is emotionally bonding so that people will form these unions, have children, and raise them together. Taken further, this is ultimately why sex is only permissible within marriage and why marriage is a life-long monogamous commitment. It's certainly a picture of Christ and the church, but we're talking about natural purposes here ("natural" meaning according to something's nature/essence).

Seen in this light, it is clear that homosexual behavior is completely contrary to the purpose of sex and cannot be considered good in anyway. That is not to say that every time a husband and wife come together they must conceive a child, or even have that in mind, but it is to say that homosexual behavior doesn't even allow that possibility because it is completely contrary to, and disruptive of, the purpose of sex. Note again that this is true whether a person with homosexual desires is "born that way" or not. Furthermore, as we've mentioned, the purpose of marriage is to unite a husband and wife in the type of relationship that can/will produce children and provide a stable environment to raise those children. And once again, same-sex "marriage" is completely contrary to this purpose and cannot be called good, or even rightly called marriage, any more than a triangle can be called a square. It's simply not that kind of thing. Doing some philosophy has helped us answer the question of what marriage is, why it's good, and why we should pursue the good.

While the above has been extremely brief, the case presented is known as natural law and is very similar to what our founding fathers built this nation on. Notice that the arguments are built on reality we all have access to and the conclusions are objectively true and do not rely on personal preference, etc. Also note how one needn't necessarily trust the Bible, or even believe in God, in order to understand and accept these arguments. Of course why we actually have purposes built into us and our various faculties, and why we have a nature/essence and exist in the first place, ultimately point back to God and provide very strong evidence for constructing arguments for God's existence. Sharing the Gospel is the ultimate goal, but helping people think well and see reality properly is crucial in even getting to the Gospel in our culture. For a few more details on natural law, I refer you to here, here, here, here, and here.

For His glory,
Adam Tucker