Homosexuality: Against Nature?

[marieelissa]

Is homosexuality morally wrong? Of course not. When two gay men have sex in the privacy of their own home, does it, in any way, affect anyone aside from them? Does it violate anyone's right to life, liberty, thought, religion, speech, et cetera? No, of course not. I'd challenge anyone who thinks that homosexuality is morally wrong to give examples of two homosexuals violating other's rights by having sex or kissing.

Then, we come to the classic "Homosexuality isn't natural, and is, therefore, wrong" argument. It's true that we don't see homosexuality in nature, but since when does something's "naturalness," for lack of a better term, determine its morality? The same people who preach homosexuality's immorality, the Southern-Bible Belt preachers and Biblical fundamentalists, are the same people that tell teenagers not to have sex before marriage. Do we see animals undergoing marriage rituals? No, therefore marriage rituals are unnatural and wrong. The Biblical fundamentalist may retort by saying that man is "above the animals," so we have to make up such rituals. Does this seem like a double-standard to anyone else?

There are three severe flaws in the "natural equals moral" line of thinking.

1: That man is not a part of nature, and he must gauge his actions against what is nature, like how animals behave.
2: That natural behaviors actually have moral implications.
3: That anything that doesn't happen in nature is wrong.

The first flaw is the most obvious one. Man is a part of nature, because man came from nature. Just because man can modify his environment doesn't mean that he isn't a part of it, and that his survival is dependent on his environment's survival. If the Earth suddenly exploded, man would be no more. There is simply no way around it. Man is a part of nature. Therefore, using the "natural equals moral" argument, anything that man does can be considered "natural" and, therefore, morally-correct. Moreover, even rape could be justified as morally-correct. After all, many times in nature, the male simply has sex with a female of his choosing, and the female puts up no resistance. Thus, it is wrong for a woman to resist when a man wants to have sex with her, and the man is right to force himself on her, because what he's doing is only natural.

The second flaw is a little more difficult to catch. There have been many philosophers throughout history that have attempted to quantify an action's moral value as a function of it's naturalness Why should man gauge his actions against what nature does? What nature does is simply what it does. It is neither moral nor immoral. The morality of an action is dependent upon its implications on the rights of others. If what you do violates someone else's rights, it's morally wrong.

The third flaw is blatant and ridiculous. Right now, the majority of energy produced is done through burning fossil fuels. Using the line of thinking in question, this is morally wrong. Why? Nature doesn't burn fossil fuels to create energy; it uses nuclear reactions, like the fusion process that takes place in every star. Is burning fossil fuels for energy, therefore, wrong? Some may say yes, because the process introduces pollutants into the air, which may cause harmful side-effects to people and animals, but this simply means that it is our disposal of the waste product that is "wrong," not the act of burning fossil fuels. If it was feasible, we could make giant bags to suck up all the smoke and shoot them into the sun, where the pollutants would harm no one. Instead, we simply let the smoke go into the air. So, even if we could safely dispose of the air-pollutants created by fossil fuel burning,it would still be morally wrong, because nature doesn't burn fossil fuels. Does this make sense? No, of course it doesn't. The whole stance of "natural means moral" is totally nonsensical and is often used with double standards. Sometimes it's wrong to do what unnatural, other times, doing what is unnatural is justified because man is "above" nature. If more proof of the stupidity of this line of thinking is required, look no further than the ram. Whenever two rams have a dispute, do they sit down and talk it out? No, they do what their name says: they ram heads. Therefore, anytime men have a dispute, they are to ram their heads, because that is the natural and, therefore, moral thing to do. Talking out disputes doesn't occur in nature, so it is the morally wrong thing to do.

In conclusion, homosexuality is neither morally right nor wrong. It is simply an amoral act. It has no positive moral implications or negative moral implications. It is simply an act between two consensual partners of the same sex. It's morality is no different than that of the sex act between two consenting partners of the opposite sex.

[nusa29]

Homosexuality is normal,but not excepted. Is it not excepted because its not the majority and if it was the other way around than what? I believe all people are emotionaly bisexual... but not sexualy. A gay woman can love a man for the person that he is and a gay man can love a woman for the person that she is and the same goes to all people even the straight one's . A sexual attraction, an emotional attraction and a mental one are different from each other . emotionaly we all as people can love anyone and anything even material stuff not just living things. As for mental attractions those are deeper but can be more calculated. Now for the sexual attractions  no we shouldn't just go sleep with just anybody unless we can share the other two attractions with them as well, but we don't all take this route because some of us only sleep with others for pleasure and to satisfy the flesh only.  Personaly my intake on this is that love is love no matter with who it's given to and received from.  The people that have a problem with others because of the way they feel than this only shows that these person's are only not satisfied with them selve's so inturn anything out of there own beliefs will not be excepted by their narrow minds that only moves inward callapsing on itself instead of it moving outwards into the vast universe that is full with openess and possibelities....