Calling something natural doesn't make it morally OK

Editor,

There have been some letters in the Daily Lobo recently with an old argument attempting to morally justify homosexuality. This argument states that because animals naturally practice homosexuality, then homosexuality must be natural, and thus OK. I am not denying that homosexuality occurs in nature, and there have been many documented cases which clearly illustrate this. But I would merely like to point out a serious flaw in this argument. Just because something is naturally practiced in the animal community does not make it morally OK, or right.

Cannibalism, for instance, is practiced in nature, yet we consider this to be a morally reprehensible act. War, murder, incest, rape and infanticide are also naturally practiced in the animal kingdom. These practices are perfectly natural, yet they are also morally wrong. It does not follow that just because homosexuality is practiced in the animal kingdom, it is also morally justified or right.

Now, before I conclude this letter, I will say that I do not think homosexuals are evil, or that we should outlaw homosexuality, or burn them at the stake or anything like that. The point of this letter, then, is merely to point out a flaw in that classic argument.

Caleb Lewis

UNM student