The Observer is a Student-run, daily print & online newspaper serving Notre Dame & Saint Mary's. Learn more about us.



It feels natural

| Tuesday, April 30, 2013

(Note the issue is not about the morality of homosexuality; rather, it is about homosexuality being part of Nature’s design.)
“For non-believers, homosexuality also clearly defies the laws of nature,” Mr. Carter Boyd says (“Somewhere Over the Rainbow,” April 10). I must have missed something, because this point is not so clear to me.

Consider this:

One of the things that distinguish humans from other animals is humans have souls and animals do not. This is a widely-accepted theory. This theory states humans can and do meditate on the morality and rightfulness of their actions, while animals cannot. Animals act wholeheartedly, as nature made them.

For example, both humans and animals have a natural inclination for killing and eliminating their competitors. While animals just kill that which threatens them, humans refrain from killing because they are aware of the moral implications of the action.

You may ask what this has to do with homosexuality.

Homosexuality is a behavior that has been found in more than 1,000 species, including Homo sapiens. How is it a sin against nature? As established above, animals have no souls, which means they act just as nature made them. It follows then that homosexuality must be a natural orientation. Animals do not think about the moral implications of their doings – they simply do. Similarly, animals do not think about the moral implications of having sexual relations with the same sex. They simply have sex … because it is part of their nature.

Moreover, Mr. Boyd, you have argued heterosexuality has survived this long because it is the only natural sexual orientation. I must admit I fail to understand this point and must request that you clarify. There have been many organisms that have gone extinct and this does not mean they were unnatural. Dinosaurs once existed and I do not think one can argue they were not natural beings since they did not survive.

Also, I do not see how the survival of heterosexuality relates to homosexuality, because as far as I am aware, homosexuality has also survived in humans and more than 1,000 other animals. Indeed, just because humanity has survived because of heterosexuality, it does not instantly reveal that anything that is not heterosexual is unnatural.

I suppose I am a bit cautious not to dismiss your point entirely because I do not understand it. I am interested and would love to see the point more clearly explained if you are willing to explain.


Patrick Ntwari


Keough Hall

April 29