What if being “Gay” was Natural?
Nature and Morality
Ostensibly unaware of The Gay Agenda, pro‐sodomy columnist Robert
Scheer has noted that, “Homosexuality in the vast majority of cases is a condition
that is given and not chosen, and must therefore be honored as part of the
natural order of things.” Scheer’s comments reflect a standard misconception
about sodomy and ethics: If we can find a connection between same‐sex
attraction and nature, then we must surrender our moral objections to same‐sex
relationships and sodomy as an expression of that attraction. The error is in
thinking that one has anything to do with the other. It doesn’t.
Philosophers David Hume and George Edward Moore argue that it is
impossible to produce a deductively valid argument with factual premises and
an ethical conclusion. In short, you can’t get an “ought” from an “is.” This is
called the naturalistic fallacy. In layman’s terms, just because a behavior or
feeling comes “natural” does not make it right. This becomes obvious on a
moment’s reflection. Does a natural tendency towards violence justify assault?
Does a natural desire for food justify theft? Does a natural aversion to men and
women who engage in sodomy justify “gay”‐bashing?
Ethicist C. Ben Mitchell agrees when he writes, “… even if researchers
found a so‐called ‘gay’ gene, that would not change the immorality of
homosexuality. Science cannot do moral work. That is, science does not have the
power to determine what’s right and wrong.” If, for example, a genetic link to
alcoholism is proven, Mitchell noted that it would just “make it more urgent to
avoid taking the first drink.”
Animals do what comes naturally. We are not mere beasts, but human
beings protected by morality from the tyranny of our irrational “natural”
appetites, impulses, and inclinations. The difference between “just doing what
comes naturally” and principled self‐restraint is called civilization.
Further, persisting in this line of reasoning annihilates the argument for
adoption rights for the so‐called “homosexual” couples. If sodomy is right
because it is natural, then allowing so‐called “homosexuals” to adopt must be
wrong because it is unnatural for them to have children. If nature alone dictates
morality, and the natural consequence for those who engage in sodomy is to be
childless, then it is unnatural and therefore immoral for so‐called “homosexuals”
to have and raise children. Artificial insemination of “lesbians” or adoptions by
“homosexual” couples would be wrong by their own argument. The same
principle governs both issues; they can’t pick and choose. That’s cheating.
My goal here has not been to prove that sodomy is immoral just yet;
although I am convinced that it is, but rather to refute one of its common
justifications. The morality of sodomy can never be defended by any appeal to
nature, but only by an appeal to moral rules. Nature alone can never provide us
with those. Pro‐sodomy activists will have to find another way to make their