Another reflection on the debate between Douglas Wilson and Andrew Sullivan: The argument that homosexuality is “unnatural” is not going to get much steam going either. Sullivan waxed on and on about multi-sexed plants and sex-changing fish. Once one accepts Darwinian evolution, this sort of sexual variety becomes relevant to the gay marriage debate. On Darwinian premises, it’s plausible to say that “nature” is on Sullivan’s side.

This confirms the point that David Hart makes in his essay in the current issue of First Things : Natural law arguments work in favor of Christian conclusions only if we assume certain things about nature. Darwinian’s don’t assume such things, and today Darwin is the official truth (whatever the percentage of Americans who are skeptical of it).

“Unnatural” is a Pauline description of homosexual desire and activity (Romans 1), but Paul is assuming that “nature” and its patterns come from God. The argument that homosexuality is unnatural is persuasive only to those who possess a biblically-informed moral imagination, and that brings me back to the point of my earlier post.

"The original intent was never to expunge a Christian understanding of morality & law which ..."

Here Comes the Judge
"If you take the Constitution out of context, as with anything, including the bible, you ..."

Here Comes the Judge
"Our conversation has blundered into the weeds. I don’t much care to rehash Civics 101.The ..."

Here Comes the Judge
"I don't think you can say that the US Supreme Court has never relied upon ..."

Here Comes the Judge

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!