Tags

, , , ,

Some religious people object to the existence of gays as full persons deserving of regular ‘human-rights’ like marriage because being gay is ‘not natural’. I wonder if they even realize what natural means in the real world. If we were to live in nature, ‘nature’ wouldn’t care whether not there were gay individuals unless it effected the survival of DNA. Maybe gay humans would not be selected for, and would die out. But if that was the case, why is the ‘gay gene’ still popping up in predictable percentages today? Maybe for the same reason that it pops up in dozens of other species. 

But of course that’s not what they mean. They obviously refer to the antiquated essentialist idea of ‘the natural order of things’ when they refer to something being natural or unnatural. 

Advertisements