Fit, Form, & Function

Having worked as engineer for 30 years, I know something about design.

A design begins with a need or desire to be met. That leads to functional requirements which determine the form, fit and features of the end product. Once those specifications are defined and the architecture drafted, engineering and construction can proceed.

But however well a product is made, its reliability and service will be less than optimal if not used in accordance with its designed specifications.

Take a car, for instance. Cars are carefully engineered to provide owners the benefits of efficient and reliable transportation. But to enjoy those benefits, an owner must operate his vehicle within the bounds of its design, and maintain it according to the manufacturer’s specifications. Making my Honda Civic serve as a farm tractor guarantees poor performance and shortened life. The same is true for human sexuality.

Misusing our physiology in ways it doesn’t fit, or for which it wasn’t designed, is unhealthy or injurious. This is readily borne out by the disproportionate rates of disease and mortality among homosexuals—not to mention their increased risks for substance abuse, mental health problems, and suicide.

A Naturalistic Perspective

From a naturalistic perspective, homosexuality may be natural, but it’s a natural loser. According to Darwin, the “winners” are those with “survival value”—life forms adept at getting their genes into the next generation. Whereas heterosexuals are inherently fertile, homosexuals are inherently sterile. In an ecosphere shaped by natural selection, the fundamental deficiency of homosexuality raises the question, “If homosexuality is 'natural,' how did nature select it?”

The only answer for the naturalist is by way of a mutation that is intrinsically detrimental or, at least, unhelpful in the evolution of the species. Witness that despite millions of years of natural selection, only a few percent of the population are homosexual.

The general revelation of nature is clear: the “form, fit, and features” of a man and woman are complementary to fulfilling a basic function of life that no single individual, or same-sex pair, can—reproduction. It’s a point that special revelation is clear on as well.

Biblically Speaking

In the opening chapter of Genesis, God forms two types of creatures—male and female—born out of his desire to create and fill the universe. God could have given Adam a male “helper.” Instead, He gave him one whose design was such that, when joined with his in perfect fit, enabled them to accomplish the first divine command given to man: “Be fruitful and multiply.”

Because of their harmonizing architecture, Adam and Eve were more than the sum of their parts. For when they came together, they became one; but in their oneness, they produced a third, and then a fourth. Such is the mystery of biblical math.

Same-sex couplings, by contrast, can never be unitive or multiplicative because they lack the complementary features to do so. Consequently, the biblical reproach of homosexual sex is not some religious relic proved false by modern science; it’s a timeless judgment against behavior that is contrary to our God-given design and purpose.

Jesus reaffirms the human design in the Gospel of Mark: “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one.”

This would have been an opportune time for Jesus to be inclusive and expand marriage to other constellations of relationships (man-man, woman-woman, groups, human-nonhuman, etc). Instead, He expands the reach of the Law. (Evidently, He didn’t foresee the revelations of twentieth century science!)

In a series of “You have heard... but I tell you,” Jesus informs his audience that not only is adultery wrong, even lustful looks are wrong. Notice that Jesus does not limit this teaching to married people, but to those who entertain desires for someone other than their spouse. Since there is no biblical provision for same-sex marriage, all unrestrained homosexual desire would also be, in Jesus’ judgment, sinful. (But then, Jesus probably wasn’t aware of modern insights from “personal experiences” either.)