I will demonstrate that just because a given act/behavior is beyond it’s biological purpose, it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s wrong or immoral.
Why?
I can show a whole number of acts, behaviors, and technology that go beyond the biological function of a body part or organ that no one in this forum would find objectionable. I can also show a whole number of acts, behaviors, and technology that go beyond the basic function of a body part or organ that everyone in this forum would find reprehensible. The challenge, then, is to show how those two are different.
Example. Let’s take my classic example, a pair of stylish sunglasses. The function of my nose is to smell and breathe. However, via the wonders of technology, they also provide a great support structure for my cool shades. That’s not part of the basic biological function, but it’s generally considered acceptable nonetheless.
Example. Let’s take another example, this time of something people generally consider to be wrong. Heroine addiction. The biological function of endorphins, it appears, seems to relieve pain and produce a feeling of euphoria. Without the influence of drugs, the human body produces more endorphins in response to strenous physical activity and pain. Heroine and other opiates, however, mimic endorphins. “Over time, however, the brain produces less endorphins on its own and the dose of heroine needed to produce a high increases. When repeatedly flooded with an artificial opiate, the brain eventually stops producing its own opiates, the endorphins. If the articifical opiate is then withdrawn, the brain lacks the normal level of painkilling neurotransmitters. Those who cannot or choose not to tolerate this state may pay an ultimate price - death by overdose.” (p. 207,
Exploring Pyschology 7th Edition. David G. Myers.)
Both glasses and heroine addiction take a normal human system (the nose and the neurotransmitter system, respectively) and use it for a purpose other than it’s biological function. Glasses take the nose and turn it into a platform. Heroine abuse takes the endorphin system and turns it into a playground. Both are reaching beyond the biological function of the organ. However, one is considered to be okay and the other gravely immoral.
Why? It’s not because of notions of “natural” and “unnatural”. Sunglasses are clearly artificial. Man-made creations designed to make me look good. The kind I’m wearing right now don’t even have UV protection. They aren’t even shaded that well. They don’t even protect my eyes. They just look cool. My nose wasn’t “designed” to hold up my sunglasses any more than my endocrine system was “designed” to be abused by the poppy plant.
So what’s the real difference? What *really *causes one to be immoral and the other not, if both aren’t “natural”.
One is gravely harmful. One destroys the brain’s ability to produce an important chemical and leads to painful withrawl or death. There is no other option. The other, however, is harmless.
One *causes *harm. The other does not.
Ah-ha! So that’s the real issue here. Harm.
Now let’s turn to homosexuality. Homosexuality does not serve the primary biological function of the reproductive system - reproduction. But does it cause harm? That is what you have to prove.
You must demonstrate that homosexuality causes harm to prove that it is immoral.
First note.
Correlation does not demonstrate causality. Statistics showing that homosexuals are more prone to depression, anxiety, drug addiction, and suicide only demonstrate that there is a correlation. They do not, however, demonstrate causality.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_causation
Second note.
Just focusing on anal sex is not sufficient. First of all, female homosexuality can’t have anal sex (well, I suppose they could use some sort of device, but that’s besides the point). Second, not all gay men practice anal sex. Proving that anal sex causes harm only shows that anal sex causes harm. It’s totally possible to have a male homosexual relationship without anal sex.
