The idea that homosexuality is unnatural is absurd

In recent months, initiatives in favor of the legalization of same-sex marriage in Mexico have been doing it has caused the internet to be flooded once again by political proclamations designed to sway opinion public.

Many of them are based on the idea that homosexuality is "unnatural."

Is homosexuality unnatural?

Of course, saying that a pattern of behavior is unnatural is something more serious and professional than saying that it is against the laws of some god or its variant, saying that acts associated with homosexuality cannot exist because they are unpleasant for some people.

It is not strange to hear people speak who, waving their cold and dispassionate tone like a flag, they merely inform us that, like it or not, homosexuality is simply unnaturalregardless of our personal beliefs and opinions. It's nothing personal, it's just that things are like that; the very term expresses it: it is nature that speaks through its mouth, not an ideology!

Hiding in science

This 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 an apparent scientific nature that is supposedly based on knowledge about the theory of evolution and the field of health mental,

it only serves to cover up 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 those ideological positions they are actually indefensible as they are based either on religious fundamentalism or on the simple defense of traditional values ​​over and above equal rights. Simply I will explain why the idea of ​​homosexuality as something unnatural does not hold nor can it be endorsed without going far beyond scientific analysis and entering fully into the realms of pure ideology.

For 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. What does the theory of evolution say what?

One of the ways to imply that the homosexuality is unnatural (and therefore bad) is simply relate this nebulous concept to the survival of our species. Unfortunately, there is no natural law that states that all human beings must behave as if the conservation of his genetic heritage was his most important objective and he only depended on them in a individual. This has a number of implications.

First, species do not thrive 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 the workers, fulfill roles that are useful for the survival of the group, among other things because they are sterile and do not 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 make 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 is always improvising and ahead of pre-established ideas: what once served to hold onto branches in the future can be used to hold a pen. What distinguishes the selection of species from a process guided by higher intelligence is that it has neither a purpose nor a plan to achieve it, and we cannot take for granted 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 We do our best to pass on our genes and to make sure that the people around us do the same. An evolutionarily 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 poor evolutionary success is unnatural..

Lastly, a semantic issue. Assuming that the existence of homosexuals led us to disappear in any possible context, neither would any natural law be breaking anything. Nature does not care enough if we become extinct or not.

2. Homosexuality is unnatural because it is against marriage

Marriage is a perfect example of social constructionIt has nothing to do with natural laws. On the other hand, the proof that homosexuality is a perfect fit for marriage is… well, gay marriages do exist. Any attempt to link the concept of marriage with the origin of the term implies falling into the etymological fallacy, and it certainly doesn't tell us anything about human biology.

3. Is homosexuality 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 gay people experience are not due to discrimination from others, which means that the differences between the quality of life of other groups of people and this have no identifiable biological causes in the individuals. On the other hand, the existence of diseases also does not conflict with what is known about nature.

4. If homosexuality is not considered a disease, it is due to political pressure

These kinds 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 natural and that ideological positions are dedicated to contaminating this knowledge with its supposed character unnatural. If someone believes that a politicized movement hinders the advancement of science, they argue it, 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 the human being in a perverse way. In this case, what is modified is a way of thinking that departs from the "normal" way of conceiving things.

This stance is a way of defending an intellectually lazy idea: behaviors that seemingly deviate from common sense (whatever that is) can be branded as unnatural. It can be applied to everything from groundbreaking dress styles to new leisure habits to misunderstood works of art and more.

Another way of looking at it is to consider that what is far 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 will never be argued why the natural order of things should correspond to what one defends oneself. and, in the case of doing so, it will either fall into religious fundamentalism or a defense of customs that cannot be justified rationally.

Various conclusions

The concept of the unnatural, far from allowing an evidence-based discussion of homosexuality, 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 nobody cares to define, its meaning can constantly change: sometimes it refers to behaviors statistically strange, others are vaguely related to the chances of survival of the species, others are linked to stereotypes related to the left and the feminism, etc.

That is why no person who participates in a conversation or debate about homosexuality should accept the use of the term "unnatural" as good.; if what you want is to learn something and really get to know other points of view without falling into the propaganda and political slogans of always, it is necessary to ask for an explanation about the meaning of the word and check that it does not change as the minutes go by.