Read Time: 4 minutes

Introduction:

This is not an attack on anyone. Many people today view homosexuality as simply a normal variation of human relationships. In this article, I intend to show why that perspective is wrong, not because of some arbitrary rules, but because it is based on reason.

Is homosexuality natural?

One of the most common arguments for homosexuality, or at least its acceptance. This is probably one of the best arguments. Here is the argument:

“Homosexuality is natural because we observe it in the natural world; therefore it is just a natural variation of human sexuality and, by extension, not morally wrong.”

The Objections:

The real problem with this argument comes from these three questions.

First Question: What is natural?

This question may sound ridiculous to some, but it is important. There are two types of natural.

Empirical Natural (Observed Reality) – This is what we observe in nature and the world as a whole.

Normative Natural (Rational Order) – This is the idea that things have a built-in rational structure, based on how they actually work in human society.

Second Question: Does an act being empirically natural mean the behaviour is moral?

No, just because a behaviour happens in nature does not make it right or morally good. For example, in nature, there is cannibalism, non-consensual sex (Rape) and infanticide, to name a few examples. We are against this due to rational order and due to the development of ethics.

I know homosexuality isn’t like Rape, but I used an extreme example to make it easier to see the difference between observed reality and rational order.

Third Question: Is homosexuality really natural in any way?

To answer this question, we need to look at sexual reproduction and social bonding.

The Procreative end:

Sexual organs are biologically made for the procreation of offspring. You can’t procreate with the same sex because the sex organs are biologically meant to be used with the opposite sex organ. So, by this logic, homosexuality cannot be for the procreative end of sexual intercourse.

The Unitive end:

The unitive end of sexual intercourse does not exist in all creatures. It exists in creatures ordered toward long-term companionship, such as human beings. This is because human children are highly dependent and require a stable environment. Sexual intercourse is one of many ways couples strengthen this bond; this applies even for opposite sex couples who can’t bear children, beacuse there are ordered towards having children.

Homosexual sexual activity is different; there is no unitive end, because in all cases there is no possible way to produce children through sexual intercourse. Even if their sexual activity has an emotional bond or is pleasurable, those are natural consequences of sex, not the unitive end itself. For example, if your eatiing a delicious dish, the purpose of eating is to nourish your body, not for the pleasure itself.

What about Non-Sexual Homosexuals?

At that point, it isn’t really homosexuality because you’re basically friends or roommates who may happen to live together and may have same sex attraction (SSA). I recommended that people with SSA not with eachother cohabit. Homosexuality, by its very nature, is sexual, but that doesn’t mean they don’t do non-sexual things together because that’s just how relationships work. Being a homosexual requires you to be living out your SSA; if you don’t live it out or don’t want to be homosexual. You just suffer from SSA.

For example, a husband may have same sex attraction but doesn’t live it out and stays loyal to his wife; he isn’t a homosexual. He just has SSA, which is just feeling attracted to the same sex; this can be somewhat common if you have a desirable trait in somebody.

Observed Outcomes of Homosexually:

• More likely to get STDs.

• Increased risk of suicide and self-harm, by exaction meatal health issues. This is often said to be due to lack of acceptance, but this narrative falls apart when you find out most people in Western countries don’t see homosexuality as wrong or, at least, they are tolerant of the idea.

Conclusion:

All these factors together, not any single one in isolation from the others. These make a coherent non-religious case against homosexual behaviour.