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 is causing 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".
Is homosexuality unnatural?
Of course, to say that a pattern of behavior or is unnatural is something more serious and professional than saying that it goes against the laws of some god or that its variant, say that acts associated with homosexuality can not exist because they are unpleasant for some people .
It is not strange to hear people speaking, raising their cold and dispassionate tone as if it were a flag, they just inform us that, like it or not, homosexuality is just unnatural , regardless of our beliefs and personal opinions. It's nothing personal, it's just that things are like that; the same term expresses it: it is nature that speaks through its mouth, not an ideology!
Sheltering in science
The above would not be serious if it were not for the fact that the label of "the unnatural" is actually a conceptual concoction that, by offering a veneer of apparent scientific character that is supposedly based on knowledge about the theory of evolution and the field of mental health, it only serves to conceal ideological positions that are increasingly difficult to defend and that to survive they need to be dissolved in labels whose only value is that they are confusing and can change their meaning depending on the situation.
I will not go into explaining why these ideological positions are in fact indefensible by basing either on religious fundamentalism or on the simple defense of traditional values over equality of rights. Simply I will explain why the idea of homosexuality as something unnatural does not hold nor can it be supported without going much beyond scientific analysis and entering fully into the domains of pure ideology.
For this I will go describing one by one the frequent meanings that are often 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 just relate this nebulous concept to the survival of our species . Unfortunately, there is no natural law that establishes that all human beings should behave as if the conservation of their genetic heritage was their most important objective and only depended on them individually. This has a number of implications.
First, species do not thrive or die out 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 who belong to the group of workers, fulfill roles that are useful for the survival of the whole 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 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 once served to grab branches in the future can be used to hold a pen. What distinguishes the selection of species from a process guided by a superior intelligence is that it has neither a purpose nor a plan to achieve it, and we can not take for granted which elements are evolutionarily advantageous and which are not .
Secondly, there is no reason to think that our happiness has to be linked with doing everything possible to transmit our genes and making sure that the people around us do the same. A species with evolutionary success does not have to be a happy species: see the case of roosters and chickens. Nor does it make too much sense to believe that our hypothetical unhappiness because of little evolutionary success is unnatural .
Lastly, a semantic question. Assuming that the existence of homosexuals led us to disappear in any possible context, nothing would be breaking any natural law. It gives nature quite the same if we become extinct or not .
2. Homosexuality is unnatural because it goes against marriage
Marriage is a perfect example of social construction , it 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 implies falling into the 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 nobody 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 on the part of others, which means that the differences between the quality of life of other groups of people and this has 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 due to political pressures
This kind 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 the natural and that ideological positions are dedicated to contaminating this knowledge with its supposedly unnatural character. If someone believes that a politicized movement hinders the advancement of science, he argues, instead of appealing to such diffuse concepts.
5. Homosexuals are an ideologized minority
This is another way of establishing a strange categorization in which the unnatural is what is manipulated by the human being in a perverse way. In this case, that modified is a way of thinking that departs from the "normal" way of conceiving things.
This position is a way of defending an intellectually lazy idea: behaviors that seemingly depart from common sense (whatever that may be) can be labeled as unnatural. It can be applied to everything from cutting-edge clothing to new leisure habits, to works of art that are not understood, etc.
Another way of looking at it is to consider that what moves away from statistical normality is an abnormality and that the abnormal is a "deviation" that goes against the natural order of things. In any case, it is never going to argue why the natural order of things should correspond to what one defends and, in the case of doing so, it will fall either in religious fundamentalism or in a defense of customs that do not it can be justified rationally.
The concept of the unnatural, far from allowing a discussion on homosexuality based on evidence, it is simply a way to present 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 nobody cares to define, its meaning can change constantly: sometimes it refers to statistically strange behaviors, other times it is vaguely related to the species' survival possibilities, other times it is linked to stereotypes related to the left and feminism, etc.
That is why no person who participates in a conversation or debate about homosexuality should consider the use of the term "unnatural" as good ; If what you want is to learn something and get to know other points of view without falling into propaganda and political slogans as always, it is necessary to ask for an explanation about the meaning of the word and verify that it does not change with the step of the minutes.