It seems Nature can only have a normative significance for our project of finding legitimacy. (Our interest is not describing human behavior in its ferral state, as such a state does not exist.) ‘Natural’ signifies what is intrinsic to the best and most fulfilling life for human beings–that is, for political beings.

The reference to ‘nature’ takes us back inescapably to nurture/culture. It is, to speak with Kant, a regulative (limit-) not a constitutive concept.

So the question might be posed: what is the ideal family structure for the raising of the next generation? In other words, what is ‘natural’ for human beings, given the end in view, namely to raise the best children possible? intelligent, resourceful, empathic, etc. To what nature are we to refer here? What significance is to be ascribed to the findings of researchers (the reality testers who, presumably, investigate that which is/nature)? Specifically, the findings that children raised by homosexuals show no deficits in psycho-sexuality, gender-identities or the human excellences/virtues? Do the indications of reality at any point enter into the informed opinionating of traditionalist, conservative family-protectors? (I’m struggling here to come up with a just description of those who oppose gay families in the name of what is natural for children.)

I remember Rumsfeld saying that you don’t fight a war with the army you want to have, but with the army such as it is. The same could be said about families and the rights of children to heterosexual parents. No one chooses them! but we make do.

If man is homo faber, the tool-user, the inventor and transformer of what is given (nature), then the orderings and hierarchies we create/inherit/cultivate are a part of human nature. We cannot refer to a non-human nature to settle the question of what is ‘against’ or contrary to [our human] nature. History is human nature. Would someone explain how an appeal to Nature aids us in deciding what is acceptable morally–say in terms of human sexual expression? How that is possible in a non-normative way?

“nature” and all its cognates (natural, naturally, etc.) have many proper meanings, just as words like “hot”, “sharp”, “set”, “cool”,”equal” and most of the basic words in any language have many meanings. Objecting that buggery is unnatural, and yet not wrong because art is unnatural, and yet not wrong, is perfectly like saying “cheddar cheese is sharp, and can cut a turkey, because this knife is sharp, and can cut a turkey” The word “sharp” has many proper meanings, just as the word “natural” has many proper meanings.

I have had an extended argument with John Rowe about the meaning of nature here:

http://www.claremont.org/weblog/000776.html#comments

My first post is about halfway down, made on nov. 20. I take up and respond to Volokh’s beliefs (articulated in an earlier article), which I take as reasonable and reasonably articulate, but deeply flawed. I will not vouch for any of the other commenters on the post beyond Mr. Rowe and myself. As one who holds that a natural law exists, I often find myself disagreeing most with those who seem to be agreeing with me (the straussians, for example, with whom I have almost nothing in common).

We could debate fruitlessly about what “natural” means for days, but let’s not. (I’d be right!)

But Shulamite let me bait you and ask what I’m missing if I fail to live according to nature? A certain special feeling? Six years off my lifespan? A mystical connection to ultimate reality? What? Why care? What if, suppose, I’m just living the way I live, enjoying my work and my family and my friends, and life seems special and precious to me, and I’m happy and I genuinely look forward to each new day? Is it possible that life can be like this while systematically violating natural law?

[ . . . ] the idea that certain forms of behavior are “unnatural” and thus to be stamped out with extreme prejudice [. . . .]

Well, maybe — just maybe — it’s that many conservatives happen NOT to think that certain “unnatural” activities ought be “stamped out with extreme prejudice,” but rather that some such things ought not be deserving of official or government approbation?? There is a difference, after all.

Your language to the effect of “stamped out with extreme prejudice” I gather simply bespeaks your (politicized) feelings of hatred for “conservatives” — among which one would have to include that not simply irrelevant paucity which happens to be both gay AND opposed to, say, same-sex marriage. Mind you, I don’t have in mind Foucault-inspired idiots (who, in any event, could by definition never qualify as “conservatives”) who are notoriously opposed to same-sex marriage. Rather, I’ve in mind those heroic few homosexuals who oppose same-sex marriage because moral wisdom has taught them a reverence for the family as it exists by nature; that a child is deserving of a mother and a father; that a mother and father bring something intrinsically unique and necessary to the happiness of a child and his fulfillment as an adult. And such homosexuals then, in your mind, bigots too, Will? Or are they just suffering from “false-consciousness”? Are they “inauthentically gay” — this, along the lines of “inauthentically black,” “inauthentically woman”, etc? Do such heterodox gays fail to come within hailing distance of your status (i.e. bereft of “prejudice”) from which you look back at those foolish dummies stuck in the cave gazing at the shifting images and shadows on the wall??

My suggestion is that you would like to blot and stamp out (with or without extreme prejudice, I don’t know) all “conservatives.” In any event, given your Rawlsian take on the moral/political distinction, you would not countenance such conservatives having any legitimate claim to moral right — moral right, such as their holding public office and, from positions of which, to vote/adjudicate in ways resonant of their moral (”religious”) conviction.

And [are] such homosexuals then, in your mind, bigots too, Will?

The few that do exist are merely mistaken–though very useful politically for the religious right. We needn’t go into the labyrinth of false consciousness at all.

As to the two definitions of the word “nature,” they are not nearly so distinct as Shulamite would claim. At various times in human history, many innocuous things have been called unnatural and therefore immoral. These include lightning rods, anaesthesia, vaccination, women’s suffrage, women’s property ownership, in vitro fertilization, birth control, and even democracy itself. All of these go to show that our historical track record has been quite poor indeed when it comes to differentiating the two alledged senses of the word “natural.”

And if certain acts really are unnatural–just as interracial marriage was said to be unnatural–then perhaps the government ought not to sanction those, either?

Uh, no not true. You’d have to take my word for it that they exist and I’ve met such people. So there, la-dee-da.

Proving that you’ve met a few of them does not contradict any of my claims, whether about their number, their fundamental mistakennes, or their usefulness to those who would sooner re-criminalize homosexuality altogether.

To reiterate: Yes, some gay people are against gay marriage on the conservative grounds you mention. As I recall, it’s a percentage in the low single digits.

Beyond that, their commonness–and their importance–is mostly a figment of your imagination.

So by not allowing same-sex marriage and homosexuals to adopt children we are thereby RE-CRIMINALIZING homosexuality? This is precisely why I find most libertarians so incredibly morally disingenuous and/or obtuse.