Why is it against 'nature'?
O YoungPublished: Oct 8, 2010 3:13 AM | Updated: Oct 8, 2010 3:51 AM
COMMENT Heterosexism is just like racism, perpetuators claim their beliefs or prejudice to be “true”. More and more people today understand that we are not to impose our religious beliefs on others; therefore, instead of appealing to religious texts to condemn homosexuality, some people appeal to “nature”.
COMMENT Heterosexism is just like racism, perpetuators claim their beliefs or prejudice to be “true”. More and more people today understand that we are not to impose our religious beliefs on others; therefore, instead of appealing to religious texts to condemn homosexuality, some people appeal to “nature”.
One of the most common sayings that people have employed to oppose homosexuality is that homosexuality is against nature, or that it is unnatural. I find this saying to be problematic and troublesome, as much as I feel uncomfortable with the saying that homosexuality is not a problem simply because it has existed throughout human history.
To say that homosexuality is justified merely because it has always been in the natural world is to justify certain horrible crimes like murder, because they have always existed in the natural world. One needs to say something more than that in order to justify homosexuality or to condemn homosexuality; simply by appealing to nature or to assert that it is against nature or unnatural, is almost meaningless.
To say that homosexuality is wrong because it is against nature or is unnatural is to assume that “nature” is normative or right. Thus, anything against it or different from it, is wrong.
But, the question is, what is “nature?” Does it mean the natural world? Or does it refer to how the majority behaves or what the majority believes? When one says, “it is natural for a dog to bark at strangers,” does the word “natural” mean the same thing when one says “his father died a natural death?”
It is natural for dogs to bark, but it would be against nature for a cat to bark; it is natural for cats to meow as it is their nature to meow. In these cases, “nature” or “natural” is used in a non-evaluative sense, to describe the attributes that characterise dogs and cats. So, when we talk about “nature,” whose “nature” we are talking about?
“Nature” could also mean the “natural world”, as in the saying of “I am amazed by the beauty of nature.” Most people, when they say that homosexuality is against the nature, say so regardless of what one means by “nature”. The underlying assumption is that nature is good, and that it is something prescriptive; hence anything that is against nature is wrong or bad.
If “nature” means the “natural world”, such as a tornado, a hurricane or an earthquake, are in the nature, but are they good? Bacteria and viruses are in nature, too; are they all good? Or better still, is it “natural” for a human to have a blood transfusion? Is it “natural” for human beings to have kidney transplants, or hip replacements made from titanium?
‘Natural’ equated with ‘morally good’
I suspect that when most people say that it is unnatural for a man to have sex with a man, what they meant to say is that it is not their nature to have sex with the same sex. Homosexuals tell us that it is natural for them to be attracted to the same sex, and that it is their inclination and tendency, as homosexuals, to be attracted to the same sex. Who are we to tell them that it is unnatural for them to fall in love with the same sex?
When people say homosexuality is unnatural, they most often equate “natural” with “morally good.” Nature and morality, however, are two separate concepts. In other words, a demonstrable quality is required to explain why the natural is morally good, and the unnatural is morally bad.
Unfortunately, most people when they assert that homosexuality is unnatural or morally bad, fail to demonstrate what is morally wrong with homosexuality. The best they can say is, “because my religious text tells me so.”
In this context, to argue that homosexuality is wrong or unnatural is a religious belief instead of a moral issue. Every reasonable person should know that we are not to impose our religious beliefs on anyone. Some would say, “homosexuality is wrong, because most people do not do that.” If they were right, by the same token, one could also conclude that being left-handed is against the nature and wrong, because the majority is right-handed.
Obviously, this line of reasoning is troublesome because the majority does not mean “right,” nor does the minority mean wrong.
Some might say that homosexuality is against nature because homosexuals cannot procreate. For the sake of argument, let us assume that this statement is right, because in reality, many gay couples could make arrangements to have biological children.
One should note that, to regard procreation as the sole purpose of sexuality, however, is a moral judgment, which is not the “naturalness” itself. If we really want to make procreation a moral obligation, then heterosexuals who refuse to procreate or cannot procreate, are morally wrong or against nature.
REV O YOUNG is an ordained Christian minister at MCC New York. He holds two masters degrees in both sociology and theology. Currently he lives in New York city and teaches sociology at St Peter’s College. He has published 20 books on sociology, theology and sexuality. He is also a columnist for Sin Chew Daily. He is currently finishing his doctoral degrees in sociology and theology.
One of the most common sayings that people have employed to oppose homosexuality is that homosexuality is against nature, or that it is unnatural. I find this saying to be problematic and troublesome, as much as I feel uncomfortable with the saying that homosexuality is not a problem simply because it has existed throughout human history.
To say that homosexuality is justified merely because it has always been in the natural world is to justify certain horrible crimes like murder, because they have always existed in the natural world. One needs to say something more than that in order to justify homosexuality or to condemn homosexuality; simply by appealing to nature or to assert that it is against nature or unnatural, is almost meaningless. To say that homosexuality is wrong because it is against nature or is unnatural is to assume that “nature” is normative or right. Thus, anything against it or different from it, is wrong.
But, the question is, what is “nature?” Does it mean the natural world? Or does it refer to how the majority behaves or what the majority believes? When one says, “it is natural for a dog to bark at strangers,” does the word “natural” mean the same thing when one says “his father died a natural death?”
It is natural for dogs to bark, but it would be against nature for a cat to bark; it is natural for cats to meow as it is their nature to meow. In these cases, “nature” or “natural” is used in a non-evaluative sense, to describe the attributes that characterise dogs and cats. So, when we talk about “nature,” whose “nature” we are talking about?
“Nature” could also mean the “natural world”, as in the saying of “I am amazed by the beauty of nature.” Most people, when they say that homosexuality is against the nature, say so regardless of what one means by “nature”. The underlying assumption is that nature is good, and that it is something prescriptive; hence anything that is against nature is wrong or bad.
If “nature” means the “natural world”, such as a tornado, a hurricane or an earthquake, are in the nature, but are they good? Bacteria and viruses are in nature, too; are they all good? Or better still, is it “natural” for a human to have a blood transfusion? Is it “natural” for human beings to have kidney transplants, or hip replacements made from titanium?
‘Natural’ equated with ‘morally good’
I suspect that when most people say that it is unnatural for a man to have sex with a man, what they meant to say is that it is not their nature to have sex with the same sex. Homosexuals tell us that it is natural for them to be attracted to the same sex, and that it is their inclination and tendency, as homosexuals, to be attracted to the same sex. Who are we to tell them that it is unnatural for them to fall in love with the same sex?
When people say homosexuality is unnatural, they most often equate “natural” with “morally good.” Nature and morality, however, are two separate concepts. In other words, a demonstrable quality is required to explain why the natural is morally good, and the unnatural is morally bad.
Unfortunately, most people when they assert that homosexuality is unnatural or morally bad, fail to demonstrate what is morally wrong with homosexuality. The best they can say is, “because my religious text tells me so.”
In this context, to argue that homosexuality is wrong or unnatural is a religious belief instead of a moral issue. Every reasonable person should know that we are not to impose our religious beliefs on anyone. Some would say, “homosexuality is wrong, because most people do not do that.” If they were right, by the same token, one could also conclude that being left-handed is against the nature and wrong, because the majority is right-handed. Obviously, this line of reasoning is troublesome because the majority does not mean “right,” nor does the minority mean wrong.
Some might say that homosexuality is against nature because homosexuals cannot procreate. For the sake of argument, let us assume that this statement is right, because in reality, many gay couples could make arrangements to have biological children.
One should note that, to regard procreation as the sole purpose of sexuality, however, is a moral judgment, which is not the “naturalness” itself. If we really want to make procreation a moral obligation, then heterosexuals who refuse to procreate or cannot procreate, are morally wrong or against nature.
REV O YOUNG is an ordained Christian minister at MCC New York. He holds two masters degrees in both sociology and theology. Currently he lives in New York city and teaches sociology at St Peter’s College. He has published 20 books on sociology, theology and sexuality. He is also a columnist for Sin Chew Daily. He is currently finishing his doctoral degrees in sociology and theology.
View Comments0