I’m posting now from my computer, not my phone, and I just have to comment that these posts look so much smaller (and hopefully my spelling will be better)!
Well, my main point was that trying to use Darwinian evolution as a moral guide is a sucky sucky idea. People who try to use nature or natural law as a moral guide almost always seem to end up trying to force the evidence to fit their preconceptions, whether ignoring the existence of hermaphroditic species or the fact that homicide, sodomy and homosexuality are all natural.
As a Thomist, I would not strictly take Darwinian evolution or naturalism as a moral guide. Teleology and final causes tend to be much more easily appreciated in biological systems, though, which is why I made the comparison. I think it would be a better counter-example (from a Darwinist perspective) if you were to speak about mothers casting out some of their young for the betterment of the rest of their brood, as that would necessitate a reply from the Thomist perspective on the differences. However, I still, thinking as a Darwinist (and I *can *put a Darwinist hat on, I was agnostic for years, and while I may be rusty on some aspects I’ve argued plenty in favor of evolution and evolutionary principles, I don’t believe I’m working with any straw men here), don’t agree with you that the primary function of sex isn’t directed towards offspring.
Asexual species reproduce differently according to their nature. Sexual reproduction is natural to humans and other sexual species. There’s no ignoring of hermaphrodite or asexual species here, but humans are not either.
But if you take sex as being ‘about’ increasing genetic diversity and try to use that as a moral guide it would follow, would it not, that anything that made sex more efficient at increasing genetic diversity was ‘moral’ by this (deeply messed up) moral philosophy.
Sexual reproduction compared to asexual reproduction does have the advantage of greater diversity. However, the very implication in sexual reproduction having greater diversity is directly related to the primary end of the act being reproduction. Great diversity
in what? The offspring. And when we’re talking about the final cause of sex, we don’t just speak of sex apart from the species, but as a function of one. What is the final cause of sex in humans? Offspring.
But a gay couple and a lesbian couple coparenting a family together would produce more diverse kids than two monogamous heterosexual couples. So coparenting homosexuals would be more in keeping with the alleged ‘essence’ of sex than monogamous heterosexuals! Likewise polygamy, infidelity or even rape would be ‘moral’!
Homosexual couples don’t produce offspring, though of course they could raise them. They would still be frustrating the final cause of the sex act, unless they were continent. But furthermore, human teleology is ordered towards a family for procreation and child rearing. The unitive nature of the act keeps the couples together for precisely that reason. Couples are naturally jealous and guarded towards their partners for this reason. It provides a stable and secure environment for the family. The existence of examples that don’t perfectly represent this doesn’t change the fact that humans are ordered towards this type of family unit.
What is to elaborate? You see, do you not, that before sex creatures did reproduce? Parthenogenesis would be a simpler and easier for a woman to reproduce. Sex just means she has to find (and put up with
) a man in order to produce a kid who is only 50% hers.
Again, biologically the advantage of sex is diversity, not reproductive efficiency.
:nope: Certainly it’s not the most efficient way to generate the most offspring possible, but the act in humans is ordered towards the generation of offspring as its first most cause.
How often in a person’s life do they have sex that brings them closer to the other person? How often do they have children? So numerically, at least, the unitive aspect predominates. Certainly there is no strong evolutionary argument against having some sex that is purely for social not reproductive purposes.
The stronger social bonds that are created due to sex are a good, but they are not it’s purpose. These bonds are directed towards keeping the couple together in the long term for child rearing, to create a stable family unit for the raising of more fit offspring. Just because they are used for other purposes doesn’t change the reason why that trait was selected for in humans. And it’s important to be clear that Thomism does not state that every sexual act must result in children. The important thing is that it be ordered to and allowed to take its natural course, that it’s final cause not be intentionally frustrated.
