Andrew Sullivan talked about this a few days ago. Harry Jaffa et al. (antihomosexual natural law proponents) take note. One reason why I think Jaffa's argument against homosexuality is so wrong is that it rests on a clearly erroneous factual premise. Jaffa writes:
Of all the distinctions in nature from which morality can be inferred, nothing is more profound than the distinction between male and female, which runs not only for human nature but through all nature.
This errs as much as 2+2 = 5. There is no question that "the distinction between male and female...runs not only for human nature but through all nature," and as this article shows, when we look at "all of nature" we commonly see such distinctions blurred. Hence it is false to assert that gender distinctions in nature are more profound than distinctions between man and beast or man and God. The distinction between man and God has never been blurred or observed in nature (other than Jesus, if He really were God and man; but that is something natural reason cannot answer). Likewise, blurred distinctions between man and beast (meaning all non-human life) are not at all found in nature (though such chimeras are being created in non-nature and may raise some ethical dilemmas in the future). Gender, on the other hand is commonly blurred in nature. As I wrote in my original post:
First, not all species reproduce heterosexually. Some reproduce asexually. Some creatures have both male and female genitalia. And some species naturally and spontaneously “switch” genders in their lifetime.
Although many of these examples are in animal nature, Hermaphroditism exists within human nature. Because of what we know about how gender differences arise in nature, it shouldn’t surprise us that nature often blurs the line.
I then quoted James Q. Wilson discussing how "[a]ll fetuses begin as females; only in the third month of gestation does masculinization begin. And when it does begin, it sometimes is a process prone to error, leading to all manner of deficiencies and abnormalities...."
As a matter of psychology (and I accept the premise of biological "male" and "female" brains) gender purity doesn't exist; even the straightest man has some "female" in him and vice versa. Think of the "Tomboy" whose stereotype has long been accepted as a "normal" gender variation, even in conservative times, provided she eventually married a man. When it comes to gender, gleaning nature informs that variation is the rule. A better norm thus would be let a thousand flowers bloom, not the absurd conclusions of the natural law that homosexuality, masturbation, and contraception are all "unnatural" and thus wrong, or even worse, Jaffa's notion that homosexuality is wrong along the same lines as genocide and slavery.
Indeed, let a thousand flowers bloom, a thousand bisexual flowers even.