Is Homosexuality Natural, or Supernatural?

Religious people usually claim that homosexuality is a choice. If this is true, then how does one account for the Bonobo chimpanzee? These close relatives of ours use sex as a social lubricant (no pun intended), with both sexes engaging in frequent homosexual activity. Is this a lifestyle choice? Do they have “free will,” or is their behavior natural?

If it is natural in the Bonobo, then there is good reason to believe that it is natural in humans (not to mention the other species that exhibit the behavior). This would refute the “choice” hypothesis. It would also mean that God, as the creator of all things, must have created homosexuals and intended them to be that way.

If it is unnatural, then it must be the opposite of natural, since a behavior cannot be both natural and unnatural. The opposite of natural is supernatural. This, too, would mean that God created homosexuals and intended them to be that way.

Which position would the religious prefer to deny? Unless they wish to present some other hypothesis, they must decide if homosexuality is natural or supernatural. The only solution to this riddle, as I see it, is to grant free will to those other species, which raises a whole new set of questions that will need answering.

Note to Vegetarians

The argument for vegetarianism on ethical grounds is a logical fallacy, because it pretends that there are no instances where one could consume an animal without killing it (or having it killed). This is clearly false: one could consume an animal which has died of natural causes, for example. Note that some vegetarians employ similar scenarios to justify their use of animal products (e.g., leather shoes), and rightly so.

Instead of arguing for vegetarianism on ethical grounds, vegetarians should instead be arguing against the killing of animals on ethical grounds. This may provide them with less opportunity to evangelize their dietary choices, although it need not, if they can work vegetarianism into the conversation in a non-fallacious manner (i.e., if they simply present vegetarianism as one option in a grab-bag of assorted lifestyle choices which might reduce human impact on other species).

In short: vegetarianism precludes the eating of meat; an ethical stance against the killing of animals does not.