There is no good reason that homosexual acts should be considered immoral simply because they are homosexual. One certianly has the right to not engage in homosexual thoughts or behavior if he or she has strong homosexual tendencies, but it is not neccessary. I respect those that for religious reasons chose celibacy, including homosexually-oriented men and women who feel it’s immoral to act on thier desires. However, I disagree with thier reasons for doing so.
The “Natural Law” argument is flawed on the basis that just because a human being’s disposition, trait, or body part is obviously ordered towards one thing, it doesn’t
neccessarily mean that alterations to one’s “natural” disposition, transcendence beyond “normal” traits, or different uses for those body parts are immoral or wrong. For example, it is not by the nature of the mouth obviously being ordered towards eating that makes trying to eat a spoon an incorrect and dangerous action. It’s the fact that you would choke and possibly die. Furthermore, the nose, for instance, is obviously ordered towards breathing and smelling, not for holding one’s glasses. However, no “Natural Law” theorist has ever made the case for the immorality of wearing glasses. Natural Law theory is too simplistic for the modern world in which we live in today.
From a strictly secular point of view, the Bible is not a reliable source for solid moral teachings. Perhaps if the Bible did not have God commanding the slaughter of hundreds of innocent human beings, including women and children (Such as the Battle of Jericho in the book of Joshua, Chapter 6), the Bible might be a reliable moral guide. However, with these and other glaring examples of the Biblical injustice I find it very difficult to accept arguments based on the authority of scripture.
And as far as the authority of the Catholic church goes, I don’t think “homosexuality is wrong because the Church is right about everything” is a respectable viewpoint. The morality of homosexuality ought to be determined true or false without invoking the authority of the church. The Church is right about a given moral statement because that moral statement can be objectively proven true, not because the Church said that it’s true. In class, for instance, the professor speaks the truth not because the professor speaks it, but because he or she can show that it’s true. He has evidence that validate his claims. Let us say that I disagree with my professor on a given issue. What if he responded: “I’m the professor! By virtue of my authority as a teacher, and because I only teach the truth, what I say must be true!” I think we’d probably laugh at him. When intelligently dealing with moral issues, we work with real evidence, not claims of authority.
Changing one’s sexual orientation is possible, but unneccessary. So called “reparative” therapy is expensive, unreliable, and is widely considered unethical. For many, it is an attempt to reconcile irrational beliefs with no basis in verifiable fact. I have never heard of an unreligious person with homosexual tendencies ever undergoing reparative therapy. It is for religious people who want to conform to their religion’s standards and expectations for their followers.
“The most important fact about ‘reparative therapy,’ also sometimes known as ‘conversion’ therapy, is that it is based on an understanding of homosexuality that has been rejected by all the major health and mental health professions. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Counseling Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, and the National Association of Social Workers, together representing more than 477,000 health and mental health professionals, have all taken the position that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and thus there is no need for a ‘cure.’ …health and mental health professional organizations do not support efforts to change young people’s sexual orientation through ‘reparative therapy’ and have raised serious concerns about its potential to do harm.” (
American Psychological Association, 2006)
