The Vatican’s stance on homosexuality is based off of natural law theory, which claims that if an action is unnatural, it is wrong. This theory leads to the belief that sex organs have a natural, proper function and that is to procreate. Through homosexual acts it is impossible to procreate . Therefore, the Vatican views homosexuality as unnatural and wrong. I respectfully disagree with the views of the Vatican and argue that homosexuality is not, in fact, wrong. I believe this due to the fact that sex organs do not have a defined proper function, not a single other part of the human body is held to the standard that sexual organs are, and the fact that being homosexual is not a choice.
When the Vatican states that the proper function of sex organs is to procreate, it is important to analyze this statement. If there is only one function for reproductive organs, why are there so many different aspects of intercourse that do not concern procreating? One major reason people have intercourse is to connect in a physical way with no intentions of producing a baby. Sexual relations build connections in ways that intellectual relations cannot. Due to this, it is possible to argue that the true proper function of sex organs is to bring people into a closer bond. A supporter of the Vatican may respond to this with the claim that there is only one way to conceive a baby, and that is with the sexual organs. I do not find this response convincing because same-sex couples may engage in unprotected intercourse and still be unsuccessful in procreating. There are also many different ways, such as contraception, to try to prevent pregnancy. If the only proper function of intercourse was pregnancy, then that would be the only outcome from this act. Instead, there are many others, such as pleasure and expression of closeness.
Another criticism against the Vatican’s argument against homosexuality pertains to the Vatican’s views of proper functions of the body. If sex organs have a proper, natural function, then that idea should apply to every body part. This means that God created every single body part with one single function and it is a wrong for it to be used in the wrong way . If this is assumed, then how are the proper functions known? For example, if the proper function of a hand is to grab things, would it be considered a sin to clap? Clapping does not serve the same function as grabbing things, but may still be performed by the hands. If the proper function of feet is to walk or run, would it be considered a sin to jump? So many parts of the human body have different functions, so how does one decide which are right and which are wrong? A supporter of the Vatican may respond to this criticism by stating that sex organs were the only body parts made with a single function and that is why it is so important they are used correctly. The Vatican does not focus on any other body parts or organs as much as it does on the reproductive organs. This argument incudes an explanation about how God made two genders with the intention of connecting them and allowing them to make children with their different sexual organs. I do not find this response convincing because sex organs can be misused just as any other part of the body can, and that should not be considered wrong. A direct quote from the Bible states, “. . . so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it” (New International Version, 1 Corinthians 12 25-26). Even the bible states that each of the parts is equal. If the Vatican claims that sexual organs have a proper function, then all of the parts of the body need to held to same standard according to the Bible.
When still arguing against the Vatican view of homosexuality, the root of this belief should be examined. The root of the belief stems from natural law theory. This theory reflects upon how humans should act. In short, natural law theory states that any acts not seen as natural are wrong . There is an issue right away with this, though, because the meaning of the word natural may be interpreted in different ways. How does the Vatican expect people to decide if something is right based off of it is natural when the definition of natural is not given. A supporter of the Vatican may claim that being attracted to the opposite sex is natural, therefore being attracted to the same sex is unnatural. He or she may also claim the being gay is a choice. I do not find this response convincing because I do not believe people choose their own sexuality. I, personally, did not choose my own sexuality and after doing research I have discovered that although there is no specific pinpoint as to where sexuality is derived from, there are factors than can affect it. In a study conducted at the University of London, it was concluded that random environmental factors, as well as genetics, are big components in homosexual behavior. In this study one of the leading scientists on homosexuality, Dr. Qazi Rahman explains “This study puts cold water on any concerns that we are looking for a single ‘gay gene’ or a single environmental variable which could be used to ‘select out’ homosexuality- the factors which influence sexual behavior are complex. And we are not simply talking about homosexuality here- heterosexual behavior is also influenced by a mixture of genetic and environmental factors.” (University of London, sciencedaily.com). After realizing that there is no pinpoint as to where sexuality derives from, it is unfair to state that sexual preference is a choice.
