Here's an excellent post that I believe you all should read.
http://www.e-skojec.com/oldarchives/000153.html
February 18, 2004
Why Homosexuality is Wrong - A Natural Argument
I came across a discussion wherein someone wanted a non-religious, rational argument for why homosexuality is wrong.
I did my best to answer the call, and this is what I came up with:
The rational argument you are looking for is the argument from nature - though rarely do people agree on what is "natural" and what is not.
To use an objective measure I stopped by dictionary.com. The most appropriate definition in the context of this discussion was the third one listed for "nature":
Conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature: a natural death.
And nature? Two possibilities there; I'll list them both:
The forces and processes that produce and control all the phenomena of the material world: the laws of nature.
The processes and functions of the body.
So we see nature as something that adheres to order - there are "laws" of nature. We see that it involves biological processes. We see that for something to be natural, it is seen to follow a certain course. This means that any natural act would be something that is not only biologically proper to the acting being but also follows a course from beginning to end.
Trees grow toward light because they need it to accomplish photosynthesis, not because they choose to. They are acting toward the natural end of generating food. Animals are more adaptive, and have learned behaviors, and though they act according to nature, they also follow impulses with a degree of volition that plants do not have. Human beings, on the other hand, have complete volition. Though they act in accordance with the laws of nature that govern them, they have control over their impulses. We can subject our impulses and control our nature according to our intellect and will. As nature goes, we are at the pinnacle, yet we do not have the ability to circumvent it.
Many try to view the homosexual question in overly simplistic terms. They see certain homosexual behaviors in the animal kingdom, and so try to justify analagous human behavior as "natural". This is a foolish course for two reasons.
First, because what is "natural" for animals is not always "natural" for humans, and second, because animals act on ungoverned impulses that do not always follow a natural course. Monkeys throw feces. Dogs eat their own vomit. Some animals cannibalize their young. Does this mean that we should imitate this behavior?
In the question of nature, what is truly "natural" is an action that is ordered to the accomplishment of an end that is biologically necessary. This is an important distinction. "Natural" acts always serve biological self-preservation in some direct or indirect sense.
The most common natural act is eating. We eat to nourish our bodies so that they can grow and we can continue to live. We are prompted to eat by a sensation, an urge, that tells us "you need food". As humans, we can ignore that urge (unlike animals), though if we ignore it long enough, we will die. The natural end of eating is nourishment - a necessity for our own preservation.
Sex is another appetite that is naturally geared toward self-preservation. The reproductive urge is biologically explainable only as a means by which a species is maintained through offspring. The elements of attraction, courting rituals, sexual pleasure, etc., are all tangental to the purpose of the sexual act. They are means by reproduction is accomplished, not the end in itself. Animals aren't capable of knowing this. They follow an impulse, and don't logically conclude that sex will lead to babies. They want to satisfy a release of hormones in an act that gives them pleasure. (Animals view pleasure as the object of sexual activity - something that should make us realize that when we treat sex as only about pleasure, we too are being animalistic.) This means that when an animal exhibits homosexual, or inter-species sexual behavior, they are following a conditioned behavioral response that generates pleasure. (I have personally seen a large black labrador try to mate with a small (male) cat. Not only are the odds high that this would have been physically impossible, but it's also likely that it wasn't because of some strange inter-special homosexual relationship. The cat was clearly put out by the whole affair.) That does not mean that the sexual impulse in animals isn't there to facilitate reproduction. That's what the impulse is for.
Human beings, on the other hand, do know this. We are scientifically aware that the male and female sex organs are physically compatible. We know that normal attraction - I can use the term "normal" because it is an established fact that over 90% of the population is heterosexual - when manifested in (vaginal) sexual intercourse between a man and a woman leads, naturally speaking, to conception and childbearing. The parameters for normal sexual acts - according to nature - exist within the order that underlies reproduction. Regardless of how one might feel, this is the unquestionable biological reason for sex.
As humans, however, we can sublimate sex. We can't change it's natural end - though many try - but we can make sex something more than an animalistic pursuit of pleasure. It can be about love and respect and generosity and openness to life. We can consciously choose those things. Too often, we don't.
This is why there are pedophiles in the world. This is why people have sex with animals. This is why men rape women. Though the pleasure that is associated with sex is a legitimate good, when sex is reduced to primarily the pursuit of that pleasure, the "natural" result is a kind of slavery to desire. When pleasure is made to be the purpose of sex, rather than a natural means to promote procreation, pleasure becomes an end to be reached by whatever means necessary. This changes the context of what sex is, and opens it to other, disturbing possibilities. The fact is, we know that the acts I mentioned above are unnatural, no matter how "natural" the urges and desires feel to those who act them out. Yet the same is true for homosexuality.
Homosexuality serves no natural purpose, so to call it a "natural" orientation is a false use of the language. It is not procreative, and does nothing to promote the generation of children. It is sexual activity that is concerned only with pleasure, and therefore disordered - as it is not ordered to the natural sexual purpose of procreation.
I previously mentioned that the natural end of eating is nourishment. What about those poor souls that suffer from Bulemia? They eat enormous amounts of food, so that they may experience the pleasure of eating, only to purge all of it from their bodies, rendering nourishment impossible. They suffer from a disorder. Why do we call it a disorder? Because eating is ordered to nourishment. They have changed the end of eating from nourishment to pleasure, and have thus perverted the act of eating into something entirely other than what it is intended for. Should they have the right to damage their bodies that way? Could anyone reasonably argue that what they are doing is natural?
I have no more idea why the homosexual person is attracted to someone of the same sex than I understand why the Bulemic throws up all of their food. In each case, there are different reasons, some genetically predisposed, some environmentally formed, but no reason makes a perverse desire natural. Alcoholism is a genetic disorder that generates an inordinant desire for alcohol consumption. But just because it's genetic does that mean it's natural? Is alcoholism an "acceptable lifestyle", even if the alcoholic hurts no one but himself?
The State has a legitimate interest in regulating unnatural acts. If it did not, it could not make laws against self-inflicted injuries or violent acts. Those suffering from mental illnesses could not be compelled to undergo treatment. Unnatural acts pose a danger to the order of society, because they violate the order and law of nature, which is the foundation for judicial law and societal structure. Further, the State has an interest in preserving the institution of marriage and traditional families. Families are the building blocks of society. They are the centers for the reproduction and education of children, who will some day become full participants in society. For society not to protect and promote marriage and family would be destructive to the society as a whole.