First, I should probably describe what a law in science is:
Scientific Law, in science, principles that are taken to be universally applicable. Laws (for instance, Boyle’s law and Newton’s laws of motion) form the basic theoretical structure of the physical sciences, so that the rejection of a law by the scientific community is an extremely rare event. On occasion a law may be modified, as was the case when Albert Einstein showed that Newton’s laws of motion do not apply to objects traveling at speeds close to that of light. (From Encarta, additional definitions can be found here)
I’m not sure where these individuals got the idea that scientific law is also somehow also a prescription for human behavior, unless they think that nature is intelligent and cares about our existence. Because if nature is intelligent and created the law of reproduction, it like other deities I could name seems to contradict itself. I mean there are sexually transmitted diseases capable of killing or even sterilizing you. Then there is the fact that 10-25% of all clinically recognized pregnancies end in miscarriage, or that according to a report from the march of dimes, about 8 million children are born with serious birth defects annually. And if that’s not enough to tell you that the universe is indifferent to human existence:
Anyway, scientific laws are generally invariable, meaning they aren’t subject to change. Animal sexual behavior is highly variable. There is no universal constant even in terms of reproduction. In fact from evolutionary perspective its guaranteed not every member of a species will reproduce, because not every member of species will be “fit”, meaning adapted enough to its environment to make it successful enough to procreate. But not all sex is for procreation. Many animal species engage in sex acts that are not for the purposes of sexual reproduction. If perhaps there was a physical barrier or an inability to resist the urge to procreate perhaps I could agree that such a law exists-maybe. Big maybe.
The notion that sex is for procreation is primarily a religious one. The most notable religion that promotes this idea is the judeo-christian tradition, in the commandment from Genesis 1:28, with variations on the theme in chapters 9 and 35, “God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it” (That last part has been extremely problematic). However, it’s not entirely a religious notion. The advent of agriculture in the development of human civilization increased the demand for labor and the cheapest labor came from your loins. It is therefore, no wonder that emphasizing procreation and controlling sexuality became important. However, as time changes so does understanding and circumstance. We no longer live in a world where our prosperity is tied to the number of offspring we can produce. We understand now that sex is for more than procreation. So the idea that sex is or should only be for procreation can now only find support in religion, which again further supports the notion that tofu dashikiists, like the Black atheists of Atlanta, share more in common with conservative christians and white supremacists than they care to acknowledge. But getting back to history… The Black Atheists of Atlanta seem to think that homosexual activity was only practiced by Europeans… but
it existed elsewhere too, including ancient Egypt, where we find this lovely couple, Khnumhotep and Niankhkhnum. Well in truth, it’s not known whether these two had a sexual relationship but the closeness of the embrace depicted here as well in at least one other scene, seems to suggest an intimate relationship. Similar suggestions about the relationship between Amenhotep and Smenkhare also exist. There is also a tale of the god Seth seducing Horus, there are actually two versions but the original version dates back to the Middle Kingdom. One story that was written in the later part of the New Kingdom about King Neferkare and General Sanset is actually attributed by many to King Pepi II of the 6th dynasty. But according to these tofu dashikiists homosexuality was not practiced or permitted in Egypt because a reference made to one of the 42 negative confessions in the Ma’at, “I have not committed adultery, I have not lain with men.” Of course as we all know, once you write something down governing human behavior, we are unable to behave otherwise ((eyeroll)). In the book, “Boy Wives and Female Husbands” the author, Will Roscoe, discusses homosexuality in some cultures in Africa and how many had a tolerant attitude towards homosexuality. For example, among the Bafia:
“young women were strictly segregated to avoid unplanned pregnancies; at this stage, they were known as “ngon”, or sexually inactive virgins. Young men usually engaged solely in homosexuality during this stage and were known as “kiembe”, youths who don’t yet sexually associate with females. Many young men would develop a boyfriend type of relationship with a special lexan or “bosom buddy”. (taken from Wikipedia)
Ultimately, what one learns. from studying many cultures, including Native American, Asian, and cultures in the South Pacific, is that homosexuality was in fact, tolerated. Some cultures even held that homosexuals and transgendered people had special powers or gifts. What changed primarily was the spread of Christianity through European Colonialism. It is after this period that you find legal prohibitions and extreme homophobia becoming the norm particularly in Africa. So not only does this notion of the law of reproduction fail as a scientific law but it fails in light of historic evidence as well. Homosexuality is not a social custom and it is not unnatural. And whether its a choice or not, it’s just one part of the spectrum of sexuality which has multiple dimensions. Human sexuality is more than homosexuality and heterosexuality its bisexual, asexual, etc (I’m not sure what else I missed but just in case…) and that is what makes it so fascinating.
So is homosexuality immoral? Well if you define morality as a set of prescribed behaviors given by a supposedly divine authority- then moral behavior is simply doing what you are told. But if you are a thinking individual, which I like to think most human beings are, then morality constitutes a set of behaviors, intentions, or attitudes, that seek to promote the greatest good. For example, most of us don’t need to be told that killing people is immoral, because we generally can put ourselves in other people’s shoes (i.e. empathy). Most of us don’t want to be killed so we can understand why others wouldn’t want to be and therefore, we generally see murder as immoral. But sex, regardless of “type”, is not immoral provided it is consensual, because sex is pleasurable, it makes people happy, it can cements bonds, etc. Who really wants to argue against that? Oh right… (expletive of choice here)!