"It just isn't natural"

By Jim Kepner

One of the most common charges against homosexuality-and one that the critic seems to feel is devastating and unanswerable-is that homosexuality is unnatural, or, as phrased in many laws, a crime against nature. To the homosexual, it may seem hard to understand how such harmless acts can be considered crimes at all-particularly against Nature. Yet even the otherwise tolerant person will come up with that old canard, "But really, it just isn't natural."

Judges, clergymen, psycho-analysts and the gutter press have set themselves up each as holy arbiters of what is and what is not "Natural." The late Dr. Kinsey had an apt warning for them. He said (in his monograph, CONCEPTS OF NORMALITY AND ABNORMALITY IN SEXUAL BEHAVIOR) that judgments about what is natural and what is not should be left to those whose business it is to study Nature. If the moralists need biological terminology to lend authority to their prejudice, then someone ought to look at the biological evidence and see if such usage is justifiable.

What is natural to man? What is not? This depends in very large part on what man's nature is. Without becoming sidetracked into theological quibbles, we can generally agree that whether or not man has a spirit, he surely has flesh, and that is, to say the least, rather fundamental to his nature -his nature is at bottom biological,

one

like the birds and the bees and the flowers. (Of course, there are in society several educated layers topping that basic animal nature.) The major Christian sects would hardly think of denying that man is flesh like other animals (but with spirit added) but still, some readers with religious bent are squeamish about calling man an animal, even so far as the flesh is concerned. It doesn't matter. Our object here is to get to the root of this notion of natural and unnatural acts. Even the most other-worldly must concede these terms do refer to the world of Nature-to the plant and animal kingdoms and their environs. A thing commonly found in Nature is, per se, natural. Even if some may still want to judge it immoral, they can't logically call it unnatural.

Our liberal critic doesn't want to concede so easily. He admits it's a shame homosexuals are mistreated, but is disturbed about the alleged purposes of nature. "Homosexuality," he says, "is unnatural because it is against the purposes of nature." This concept is most popular with those who have the least real acquaintance with Nature. If our critic would open his eyes and investigate the birds and the bees and the flowers before generalizing about them, he might be a bit more cautious.

One philosopher may say, for example, that Self-Preservation is the chief of these purposes operating in nature and inherent in every creature. An

8