Homosexuality is Unnatural
Out of all the arguments that I have heard in my life, if one had to make the most sense this would be the one. This is why I have chosen to address this argument first before the others. It is a very simple argument, only three words, short and to the point. However, before we really get into this argument we first need to understand what this argument is saying. If homosexuality is unnatural let us first ask ourselves what is not natural.
How can something not be natural? Nature encompasses all of existence. That includes whoever is reading this, myself, insects, computers, mountains, cars, buildings, stars, and anything that is in existence. Now I would imagine that a common rebuttal to this argument would be something along the lines of homosexuality is found all over nature. We are aware of a great many animals that have homosexual traits. An article by James Owen for National Geographic News shows us the cases of many homosexual animals including birds, sheep, beetles, fruit bats, dolphins, penguins, orangutans, ostriches, flamingos and apes. Owen cites two cases specifically, one of them being Roy and Silo who are two male chinstrap penguins at New York's Central Park Zoo. Roy and Silo have been sexually active with each other for several years while at the same time ignoring several female mates. The second case Owen cites is that of the Bonobo, an African ape. Studies have suggested that up to 75 percent of the Bonobo sex is non-reproductive and that it is a very realistic possibility that all Bonobo apes may very well be bisexual.
The example above is just one of a hundred examples that I could cite that show homosexuality is current in the animal kingdom. Now, this is not a horrible rebuttal, but I do believe that it has one major hole. It presumes that humans are not a part of nature. This is not true. Homo Sapiens interact with nature in almost every way, if not more than other animals, we like all other animals evolved from “lesser beings” (if you doubt that there is a bigger issue which is at hand), in short we are a product of nature just like everything else.
If we ask ourselves what is unnatural the answer is nothing. There is no such thing as unnatural for remember nature encompasses all of existence. The barrier that we as a civilization place between natural and unnatural is a false barrier. It is a product of our minds that look for patterns and balance. If we have win we have lose, proton and electron, night and day, up and down, good and evil, and you could go on and on. We like everything in our lives to have balance. Not so much on one side that it throws everything off. So we interpret this in the way we view our lives and the world in a general sense. It is hard for many to comprehend that there can be literally only one side to an issue regardless of what it is. In this case it is nature.
But maybe I still have not hit among the correct definition of unnatural. Perhaps your unnatural is just referring to behavior. It has nothing to do with not being a part of the natural world (even though it’s called unnatural). You could easily make an argument that it is referring to behavior and behavior alone. For that case I ask you is painting lines on a field and then trying to get people to run down the field with a ball natural? Is it natural to shoot a rifle in the air for no purpose other than to just shoot it? Is it natural to get off the ground onto a trampoline and then jump back onto the ground where you started off in the first place? Is it natural for many to gather into a building to worship a figure that they have never met? Obviously none of these behaviors could be considered natural, and yet no one thinks any of these behaviors are unnatural, evil, or immoral.
Really this is the central theme to this rebuttal. Homosexuality is not unnatural, however even if someone were to make the claim that it is, it does not make it automatically bad in any sense. I do not understand why just because someone says unnatural they automatically jump to the idea of bad, evil, wrong, immoral, or anything that is associated with a negative. An excellent example of this is whenever an agnostic, atheist, anti-theist, or free thinker of any kind comes along and says that there are a lot of basic inconsistencies that do not add up in regards to the concept of God, almost always the theist will respond by making the claim that God is outside of the realm of nature and therefore outside of the realm in which we can understand. So from that perspective if you worship a deity (of any kind) and you believe that homosexuality is evil, wrong, and immoral because it is unnatural, than that must mean you believe that your deity is evil, wrong, and immoral. After all God is not natural. However this is not how any theist views their God. Theists view their God as a loving and beautiful being which is outside the realm of nature. Since God exists outside of nature, God is unnatural. Also, since God is a good being that shows something unnatural can be good.
This is why this argument does not make much sense to me. It’s why I say it is not an argument, but a justification. As I said above, our minds look for ways to balanced out obstacles. Whenever something comes along in our lives that we cannot balance we try to make justifications for whatever it is. In this case it is homosexuality. We have this tendency in our lives to dislike anything that is off the mainstream of society. Now this does not affect everyone, however I would say this does affect the majority of society (myself included). We like things to stay in the mainstream and I know I personally do not like things that change from the norm. Society prefers things that keep our lives in check. The problem is that instead of society coming up with reasons to overcome that, we just try to make justifications for it. People say I hate homosexuality because a holy book tells us to hate homosexuality, I hate homosexuality because that it what I was brought up to believe, or in this case: homosexuality is unnatural.
It should always be pointed out that this is not an argument it is a justification. This “argument” against homosexuality does not hold up to the standards of an argument at any level. For this reason it is not a real argument and it should not be given the validation of being one.
The Point of Marriage is to Produce Children
This is arguably one of the worst claims that are made against homosexuality. Yes, it is true that one of the best things to come out of a marriage, if not the best thing is children. However, to say that this is the point of marriage is to make the claim that there are no other points that hold up as important and this is not true. First and most obvious no two marriages are the same. No two cases are the same because everyone has different lives, different families, different cultures, traditions, beliefs, which then causes different variables in every case. If this is the case then why should any person or group have a monopoly on marriage? They shouldn’t.
Even though I will repeat that this is one of the worst arguments that is held against homosexuality and that it almost is never the main argument, it always comes up in the end. Try telling this argument to someone who is sterile and see how they feel. If the only point of a marriage is to have children then why should a male or female who is sterile bother wasting their time? Everything from hormonal problems to diet and exercise has been known to either help cause or be the source of sterility (Stanford). Try telling a woman that she should not be allowed to marry on the basis of her ovaries can’t produce mature eggs.
What about people who have already past their reproductive stages in their lives? Should they all not be allowed to marry? What if a widow at old age finds someone else to love and can love back? Should the widow not even bother? Should a couple not marry just because they were not early enough in their lives to find love? What about couples who just don’t want to have kids? There are a great many of them. No one denies any of those couples the right to marry; therefore it is a hypocritical argument.
The flaw that this argument against homosexuality gives besides being hypocritical is that it makes the impression that marriage has a main point. This is not true. Although marriage may have several points, these points differ from marriage to marriage. No one is allowed to say that marriage has a certain point (regardless of what that point may be); because everyone has different relationships and no two relationships are the same. This is due to the fact that there are different beliefs about marriage all over the world, and those beliefs influence how we act. This goes for the relationship regardless if it is heterosexual or homosexual. Marriage is up to those in the relationship to decide if they are going to get married, how they are going to get married, and for what reasons they are going to get married and no one else has the right to tell them one way or the other.
It’s Hard on the Children
An argument that makes a little bit, but still not that much more sense than the argument listed above is that children could have a hard life if their parents happen to be gay. This argument can be broken down into several categories due to the fact that the subject of children has come up so much on this issue. For instance popular issues arguing against homosexuality involving children is that they will have a disorderly family and not a stable home life. Also, that it will even make the children gay. Last, that it will subject the children to bullying, racism, and an overall hard life growing up.
The first argument involving children not having a stable home life is an important one and needs to be considered. If by stating this argument you are implying that the child of homosexual parents will not receive the same love and/or attention that a child of heterosexual parents will receive then you must have information that is not available to me. I am not aware of any piece of evidence that shows that homosexuals are not capable of giving love, support, and flat out caring for someone just like everyone else. The qualities that our society would determine in a good parent on are how the parent supports the child, how that parent provides for the child, and how to help that child come into existence with the world. I want you the reader to imagine that you are a teacher of an elementary school. It is a basic school which is placed in the heart of a normal town. This town is a good town and for the most part everyone gets along. You are happy and all of your students seem to be as well with their lives. Right after all the kids go out to recess one stays behind and you can tell that this child wishes to speak to you. You ask if there is anything that this student needs. The student starts breaking down right in front of you. After this student begins drying its eyes the child begins to speak, “I hate my house. Everything is bad. Everything is bad! Please don’t make me go back there. I don’t want to go! I want to stay here! Can I stay here after school? Please don‘t make me go back!” By hearing this child speak these words it is fair to assume that this child is living with a disorderly family and it is even clearer that this child’s home is not stable. What might you as the teacher think? Maybe the child is not fed enough food and is not receiving the correct amount of nutrition or is just being flat out starved. Maybe the child is being beaten or hurt in ways that are not necessary. Perhaps I dare say that this child is being sexually abused. The point is that if you were to see a child that you knew was not living in a stable home, wondering if the child’s parents were homosexuals would be far from the first thing that you would suspect.
This issue has not been the first in the spotlight in regards of life being hard on children. The issue of interracial marriage has sadly come up in the past many times. As for society as a whole I think it is clear to say that we have moved on (remember as a whole). This type of marriage is no longer frowned upon and is no longer questioned. I myself am from a family that never had a father. Although I can say that I had a father figure, there are many children that do not have one, or in the other case a mother figure. Surely this would mean that the child of a single parent family will have less a chance of having a stable family and more of a disorderly house. However, no one questions that single parent over the right to have a child. What about families where a spouse is sent away due to the fact that they are in the military? How does one explain to a child that their mom or dad will be going away for years and they will not see him/her? How does one tell a small child that they will never see that parent again due to the fact they died in combat? Surely an event like that case would create an unstable household. If your main concern is children being raised in a stable house with a family that can care for it, do not waste time talking about homosexuals that have kids. There are other families that deserve more attention.
I am not saying that a homosexual would be automatically good, and I am not trying to give off the idea that heterosexual parents are bad. I am stating that just because a heterosexual parent is good or bad, does not mean that just because they are what we call straight. The same goes the other way around for homosexual parents. James E. Crawford who is a member of the American Academy of Pediatrics said it better than I ever could have, “Being a great (or not so great) parent has nothing to do with someone’s sexual orientation. Conscientious and nurturing adults, whether they are men or women, heterosexual or homosexual, can be excellent parents. I’ve found that it’s not what families look like – but the love they share – that makes the most difference (opposing views).”
The second argument involving children is that it will turn the children gay. There is little if any evidence to show this. The overwhelming majority of evidence suggests the contrary. The American Psychological Association has reported that, “Research suggests that sexual identities (including gender identity, gender-role behavior, and sexual orientation) develop in much the same ways among children of lesbian mothers as they do among children of heterosexual parents“. The report went on to add that children raised from homosexual parents developed incredibly similar personal conduct, formation of relationship between peers, parents, family members, and friends, and overall well being of children to heterosexual parents. The report went on to add that, “Fears about children of lesbian or gay parents being sexually abused by adults, ostracized by peers, or isolated in single-sex lesbian or gay communities have received no scientific support”.
Some reports that have appeared even show that it is possible for children raised by homosexual parents to be above average in regards to psychological strength. Abigail Garner is the author of Families Like Mine: Children of Gay Parents Tell It Like It Is. As you can guess from the title she was raised by homosexual parents and says it was a gift. She says her interviews with other children of gay or lesbian parents showed that those who shared her upbringing tend to be more empathetic and unafraid to take unpopular stands. She also stated, "I'm not surprised when I hear gay parents say their child stood up for the kid who was bullied in class or reached out to the one with a disability (CNN).”
If one truly believes that parents can turn children gay, than one has to question the massive amount of homosexuals over the years that have been raised by straight parents. Why did they turn gay? Was it due to their parents, or was it from an outside source? This is a reasonable question for I believe it is fair to say that the majority of those people spent most of their time with their parents. If you realize the fact that gay and straight parents have almost equal chances in raising children to turn out gay with the fact that homosexuality is found on all corners of the animal kingdom, it’s very likely that the answer will be found in genetics. There have been studies done on this concept and although the evidence gathered looks to be heading toward this outcome, there is nothing yet that can confirm it. I believe that in the years to come this is where the answer will be discovered.
A final argument that could be made against homosexuality that involves children is that children will be subject to discrimination as they grow up. First and most obvious, like the argument involving children discussed above, this automatically assumes that homosexuality is wrong. It does not offer any evidence for why it is wrong, it just assumes that it is. The problem is not that children would be discriminated because they are gay. The problem is the flat out discrimination. If society ever learns to accept people due to their inborn nature (which I honestly believe in time it will) then there will be no reason to discriminate. Like I said previously, children with interracially married parents are not discriminated due to the fact that mainstream society has “accepted” that into its norms. If a time ever comes for homosexuals to be “accepted” into the norms of society then I see no reason why children would be made fun of for it.
Marriage is Defined as One Man & One Woman
This definition of marriage changes from source to source. Although no two definitions will be the exact same, all of them still for the most part say the same thing. If you go to dictionary.com and type in “marriage” you will get two definitions. Here they are word for word:
a. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife be legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
b. a similar institution involving partners of the same gander: gay marriage
I am not denying the realistic possibility that the majority of definitions that define marriage may very well be like the first one. The point of this is not to put one definition up against any other. The point is to understand that we do not act the way we do because of how words our defined, words our defined due to how we behave.
One of the best things about our culture is that it changes. It has changed in the past, it is changing in the present, and it will continue to change in the future. This is because of a better understanding of our universe, science, technology, medicine, and with an understanding of others. The world has not become smaller. Technology has become bigger. While it has become bigger we now have the ability to do things that our ancestors literally would not have been able to dream of. Because of this are appreciation of other cultures and society has also grown with this technology. It is vital that this continues, considering that we still have a lot to learn, and interaction between cultures is guaranteed to continue due to the speed in which our technology is increasing. It is vital that the two try to grow as fast as they can with each other.
We are not only witnessing this now, but we have witnessed this first hand since the invention of modern science. Because technology has made interaction more common we now have a greater understanding for others. What is the point of all this? The point is simple. Our way of living is currently changing, and will continue to do so. Our moral zeitgeist has improved from burning witched to diplomacy, slavery to laws promoting safety in the workplace, and racism and bigotry to free speech. As our way of life changes, the definitions that make up our lives will change with us. This can be seen in the example above with definition b. Fifty years ago no one could have imagined the definition of marriage even referring to two of the same sex.
If we are to say that homosexuality is wrong due to the fact that it does not fit into the definition of marriage, than we have yet to realize that our lives are not meant to be based off of definitions but the other way around. This definition may also be true in a legal sense as well. The argument is no different. At one time voter was defined as white male. This is not the case anymore. Why? Because the moral zeitgeist has changed and it must continue to change for our society to appreciate others for whom they are. The case of homosexuality is no different. Those who say that any issue (even the ones that are not in the spotlight or not being debated) should never be changed due to tradition, scripture, definitions, and so on are absurd in every sense and need to open their eyes to reason and evidence.
Homosexuality Hurts the Institution of Marriage
This rebuttal will be mostly, if not all opinion. Also, if there is an argument that I least understand this would be the one. I am openly welcoming any opinions on this paper. Regardless if those opinions are good or bad, any questions, comments, or concerns that the reader has are free to respond to this in the comment section. I say this during this part of the paper because I would like an explanation for this argument. In a way this is not even a rebuttal, but more of a cry for help in regards to an explanation.
I have heard several times that homosexuality hurts the institution of marriage. This on the most basic of terms fails to make even a little sense. Take this example: an adult is straight, this adult can see getting married in the future, gets married, and then a homosexual couple moves in next to this adult couple. How would the marriage be in jeopardy? Would they fight more? I see no reason why. Would they get a divorce? Once again I see no reason why they would. Would their children be at risk? Why on earth would heterosexual marriages be in jeopardy if homosexuals could all of a sudden marry?
Imagine two individual coworkers that you know and have been working with for several years go off and secretly get married. You wouldn’t know it, so how would you be affected? You wouldn’t. So why should that change if they are open about it. The only thing that would change is you would know. They would not throw you lies about your spouse to make you fight. They would not pretend to make it seem as though your spouse is cheating on you. They wouldn’t tell your children to do drugs or corrupt them. So how is a couple that really has nothing to do with you or the decisions you make hurt your marriage? If homosexuals could marry that does not mean that heterosexuals wouldn’t be able too. In fact, the only thing that would be different for your two coworkers is how they fill out their taxes, insurance, other legal documents, and what they do in the privacy of their own home… none of which would affect you or your marriage.
Religion
Now any fair minded person knows that not all arguments against homosexuality are religiously motivated and certainly not all who oppose homosexuality are religious. Nevertheless, that does not change the fact that the majority of opposition for homosexuality are the religious (in America most cases being Christian conservatives) and in most cases find their motivation from religion. Because of this it is important that we understand how “Christian” marriage has come about to what it is today and understand what the argument itself is.
Now for those who say that marriage is sacred, it is against the teaching of my religion, my holy book says it is immoral, and homosexuality is a sin, they are choosing to argue from a religious perspective. So it is important to understand all of these arguments. Luckily the majority of them can be grouped into the categories of tradition and authority. These arguments being that marriage is sacred, against its teachings, what your holy book says, and it’s a sin are the ones that people are so willing to throw out there. Before I hit on all of these arguments at once I wish to go into depth on how the religious view marriage as sacred.
The church did not even declare the sacred institution of marriage sacred and official until 1215 (Coontz). This was hundreds of years after the founding of the church. Before then everything from the church to two individuals exchanging marital vows in the bar down the road next to a drunk was considered well enough for the church. What does the Bible say in regards to marriage? If you were to ask the Apostle Paul you would not get an answer anything like the idea of a marriage today (Stedman). Paul’s feelings about marriage range from many points of view including promoting widows and the unmarried to stay single:
To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do. (1 Corinthians 7:7-8 RSV)
Marriage after a divorce is considered adultery:
And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery. (Matthew 19:9 RSV)
Promoting eunuchs:
For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it. (Matthew 19:12 RSV)
To arguing that marriage wastes devotion to spouses and family when it could be given to God:
I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband. (1 Corinthians 7:32-34 RSV)
To be honest, pointing out that there are different opinions even within the church that reflects marriage is beside the point. This is the reason for that. If your argument against homosexuality involves religion even to the smallest extent it is irrelevant. The American Constitution strictly demands that laws that are made hold a neutral position in regards to religious beliefs. If evidence was found that showed homosexuality to support any of the first arguments and was secular, yes the government could deny homosexual rights. Until then, if your argument(s) involves religion do not waste your time. This is why such arguments like marriage is sacred, homosexuality it is a sin, and it is against my belief system do not hold up in a court of law, and more importantly never will.
I have said above I believe it will be found that the reason for homosexuality in nature will be discovered in genes. There have been serious studies from all aspects of the research world in regards to the gene claim. Many of the studies have supported the claim, but not all. Yes, there have been serious studies done that have reported against homosexuality being caused by genes. The reason I bring this up again is that in the end I do not believe the real issue is homosexuality being found in our genes or not. The issue is not if homosexuality is part of nature, or if it does not fit into our “traditional” idea of marriage. The issue that we should be focused on is asking ourselves can homosexual parents give the same love, time, and devotion to raise a loving stable family. I will repeat if you do not believe that homosexuals can offer these things, than you must have information that is not available to me, as well as the world of academics and research.
The fact is that families in America are not all made up of moms, dads, aunts, uncles, grandmas, grandpas, sons, and daughters. Many are made up of single parents who work well over 40 hour weeks to support their family. Many are made up of foster parents. Many are made up of older brothers and sisters who have to help support their family because their parent(s) can’t do it alone. Many are made up of friends of the parents who check in to make sure the family has enough food at the end of the week. A family does not have to be a mom, dad, son, and daughter. A family is a group of people who love each other, support each other, help and/or prepare each other in regards to life, and are always there when you need someone to fall back on. Now if homosexuals can do all of these things and it appears that they easily can, I see no reason to deny them these rights. Homosexuals have no right to tell me how to live my life, and for this reason I have no right to tell them how to live theirs.
Works Cited
Cnn, John Blake. "'Gayby Boom': Children of Gay Couples Speak out - CNN.com CNN.com - Breaking News, U.S., World, Weather, Entertainment & Video News. Web. 17 July 2010. http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/wayoflife/06/28/gayby/index.html
Coontz, Stephanie. "Taking Marriage Private." Ney York Times. 26 Nov. 2007. Web. 19 July 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/26/opinion/26coontz.html.
Crawford, James E. "Are Children with Same Sex Parents at a Disadvantage." Opposing Views. Web. 17 July 2010. http://www.opposingviews.com/arguments/kids-with-gay-parents-grow-up-just-as-happy-and-well-adjusted.
"Marriage." Dictionary.com Find the Meanings and Definitions of Words at Dictionary.com. Web. 18 July 2010. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marriage.
Owen, James. "Homosexual Activity Among Animals Stirs Debate." National Geographic (2004). Web. 15 July 2010. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html
Sexual Orientation, Parents, & Children. Rep. Vol. 60. American Psychologist, 2004. Ser. 5. American Psychological Association. Web. 17 July 2010. http://www.apa.org/about/governance/council/policy/parenting.aspx.
Stedman, Ray C. "Life Without Marriage 1 Cor 7:7-38, Mat 19:5-12 RayStedman.org." RayStedman.org
Authentic Christianity. Web. 31 July 2010. http://www.raystedman.org/thematic-studies/christian-living/life-without-marriage.
What Causes Female Infertility. Rep. Stanford. Web. 17 July 2010. http://www.stanford.edu/class/siw198q/websites/reprotech/New%20Ways%20of %20Making%20Babies/Causefem.htm.
No comments:
Post a Comment