Why The Idea That Homosexuality Is Unnatural Is Absurd, In 5 Reasons
In recent months, the initiatives in favor of the legalization of same-sex marriage in Mexico have caused the Internet to be flooded again by political proclamations designed to influence public opinion.
Many of them are based on the idea that homosexuality is “unnatural.”
Of course, saying that a pattern of behavior is unnatural is something more serious and professional than saying that it goes against the laws of some god or its variant, saying that the acts associated with homosexuality cannot exist because they are unpleasant for some people. .
It is not strange to hear people speak who, raising their cold and dispassionate tone as if it were a flag, they simply inform us that, like it or not, homosexuality is simply unnatural, regardless of our personal beliefs and opinions. It’s nothing personal, it’s just that things are that way; The term itself expresses it: it is nature that speaks through its mouth, not an ideology!
Hiding behind science
The above would not be serious if it were not for the fact that the label “the unnatural” is actually a conceptual concoction that, by offering a veneer of an apparent scientific nature that is supposedly based on knowledge about the theory of evolution and the field of mental health, It only serves to cover up ideological positions that are more difficult to defend every day and that to survive they need to be dissolved into labels whose only value is that they are confusing and can change their meaning depending on the situation.
I am not going to explain why these ideological positions are actually indefensible as they are based either on religious fundamentalism or on the simple defense of traditional values over equal rights. Simply I am going to explain why the idea of homosexuality as something unnatural does not hold up nor can it be supported without going far beyond scientific analysis and entering fully into the domains of pure ideology.
To do this, I am going to describe one by one the frequent meanings that are usually given to the concept of the unnatural when talking about homosexuality. Let’s start with a classic.
1. That the theory of evolution says what?
One of the ways to imply that homosexuality is unnatural (and therefore bad) is limit ourselves to relating this nebulous concept to the survival of our species Unfortunately, there is no natural law that establishes that all human beings must behave as if the conservation of their genetic legacy were their most important objective and depended only on them individually. This has a number of implications.
First of all, species do not prosper or become extinct depending on what individuals do A very clear example of this is found in the species of insects that live in colonies: some individuals, those that belong to the group of workers, fulfill roles that are useful for the survival of the group among other things because they are sterile and do not They worry about leaving offspring. What characterizes the evolution and selection of species is that there are no fixed rules that restrict or facilitate the options of making certain genetic traits pass on to the next generation: it depends on group phenomena and the environmental context that occurs in each moment.
The existence of X percentage of homosexuals in a population can make it grow or decrease depending on how they fit into the social dynamics. Evolution always improvises and goes ahead of pre-established ideas: what one day served to hold onto branches can in the future be used to hold a pen. What distinguishes the selection of species from a process guided by a higher intelligence is that it has neither a purpose nor a plan to achieve it, and We cannot assume which elements are evolutionarily advantageous and which are not
Second, there is no reason to think that our happiness has to be linked to doing our best to pass on our genes and making sure that the people around us do the same. An evolutionary successful species does not have to be a happy species: see the case of roosters and chickens. Nor does it make much sense to believe that our hypothetical unhappiness due to lack of evolutionary success is unnatural
Lastly, a semantic question. Assuming that the existence of homosexuals would lead to our disappearance in any possible context, no natural law would be broken either. Nature doesn’t really care if we become extinct or not
2. Homosexuality is unnatural because it goes against marriage
Marriage is a perfect example of social construction, has nothing to do with natural laws. On the other hand, the proof that homosexuality fits perfectly with marriage is… well, that gay marriages exist. Any attempt to link the concept of marriage with the origin of the term involves falling into etymological fallacy, and certainly does not tell us anything about the biology of the human being.
3. Homosexuality is a disease
The bad thing about defending this idea is that no one is able to explain why it should be considered a disease There is no sign that the problems experienced by homosexual people are not due to discrimination by others, which means that the differences between the quality of life of other groups of people and this one have no identifiable biological causes in the individuals. On the other hand, the existence of diseases does not conflict with what is known about nature.
4. If homosexuality is not considered a disease, it is because of political pressures
These types of statements refer to the previous point On the other hand, it is very strange to consider that science is responsible for unearthing knowledge about what is natural and that ideological positions are dedicated to contaminating this knowledge with its supposed unnatural character. If someone believes that a politicized movement hinders the advancement of science, he argues so, instead of appealing to such diffuse concepts.
5. Homosexuals are an ideological minority
This is another way of establishing a strange categorization in which the unnatural is that which is manipulated by humans in a perverse way. In this case, what has been modified is a way of thinking that deviates from the “normal” way of conceiving things.
This position is a way of defending an intellectually lazy idea: behaviors that apparently deviate from common sense (whatever that is) can be labeled as unnatural. It can be applied to everything, from groundbreaking ways of dressing to new leisure habits, to works of art that are not understood, etc.
Another way of looking at it is to consider that what deviates from statistical normality is an abnormality and that the abnormal is a “deviation” that goes against the natural order of things. In any case, one will never argue why the natural order of things should correspond to what one oneself defends and, if one does so, one will fall either into religious fundamentalism or into a defense of customs that do not. can be rationally justified.
Various conclusions
The concept of the unnatural, far from allowing a discussion about homosexuality based on evidence, It is simply a way of presenting a scarecrow that represents everything that is considered bad and that can be linked to the behaviors that one rejects, regardless of the reasons. As it is such an abstract label and that no one cares to define, its meaning can constantly change: sometimes it refers to statistically strange behaviors, other times it attempts to relate vaguely to the survival possibilities of the species, other times it is linked to stereotypes. related to the left and feminism, etc.
That is why No person participating in a conversation or debate about homosexuality should accept the use of the term “unnatural.” ; If what you want is to learn something and really get to know other points of view without falling into the usual propaganda and political slogans, it is necessary to ask for an explanation about the meaning of the word and check that it does not change with time. passing of the minutes.
