Homosexuality: Is it natural?

There has been significant argument about whether homosexuality can be defined as ‘unnatural.’ However, on first glance, whether it is natural or not seems to have no ethical meaning. After all, ‘natural’ does not mean good, as can easily be seen. All one has to do is go look at the ‘natural’ world.

And the natural world is nothing we want to emulate.

What we would define as cannibalism is common in nature; what we would define as murder, rape, and theft are all common in nature, and countless other actions that, if committed by humans, would be defined as atrocities are common in nature. Obviously then, what we would say is ‘natural’ does not enter into this conversation. And is rather pointless.

However, a different definition of natural could bring about significantly different results.

Many people are into ‘natural’ foods—but obviously they don’t go around eating food infested with insects or animal dung, even though those are both natural! Apparently, a different definition of natural is being used here.

And again, when an adolescent begins to develop we recognize the changes as ‘natural’ and therefore okay. But cancer is natural, yet no one says when a loved one is diagnosed with cancer that it is ‘natural’. So what is this definition, then, and how does it affect our argument? Let’s define this version of natural as:

The intended use or purposes of an item, object or organism in the environment in which it exists.

As in the natural purpose, natural use, or the design of an object. When an object is being used how it was designed to be used. For instance, if one were to take a hammer and attempt to use it to drive a screw in—they would not be using it naturally.

This definition also omits many of the flaws of nature. For instance, the intended purpose of humans is clearly not to murder, steal, rape, or even hate. Cancer is clearly not the natural purpose of a cell. Sickness is clearly not the natural state of the body.

And of course, by this definition, homosexuality becomes unnatural. It doesn’t take much knowledge of anatomy to understand: Man is obviously meant to be in a relationship with a woman. And a woman is obviously meant to be in a relationship with a man.

Rather than go into a discussion about this, which could easily seem crude, I’ll leave assume that the reader has a basic knowledge in this subject and provide several sources. Men and women can only reproduce with one another, and thus intended purpose of sexual relations—the natural purpose of sexual relations—is between a man and a woman.

It can’t work any other way. Obviously, homosexuality does not fit into the ‘intended use’ definition above, and no one can argue that the human bodies are built for homosexuality. But does that make it a bad thing?

Not necessarily—but it clearly gives homosexuality a second seat in importance to heterosexuality. And, taking a look at the natural world, we can see that when objects and organisms act or are used outside of their intended use and purpose, there are often consequences. And homosexuality is by no means one of the exceptions to this rule. Homosexuality has been found to be very detrimental in many ways.

The design and purposes exist because that is the best use. Any other use is lesser, and perhaps even dangerous.

Advertisements

One thought on “Homosexuality: Is it natural?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s