We live in a day where there is monumental concern over the genetic altering of crops and the general manipulation of a fragile environment to benefit our needs. “Don’t mess with nature” is the often repeated warning. And when an environmental disaster of some type occurs due to man’s reckless miscalculation of nature’s ways, we are reminded, “You can’t ignore nature.”

What I find most odd is that many of the individuals who seek to warn us of the negative implications of manipulating and ignoring nature are the same individuals who advocate that human sexuality and gender can be manipulated to suits one’s own preferences. Stand up a naked woman and naked man next to each other and you will see what fits where and how nature designed and intended for human sexuality and gender identification to function.

I’m not addressing this issue from some spiritual or moral bully pulpit. I’m simply asking questions that any objective observation of nature requires us to make! In nature whenever and where ever we see animals functioning in ways that reduce their chances of propagating and surviving we recognize that something serious has gone wrong in it’s  development–i.e. it’s unnatural. Why? Because we recognize that it’s not natural for a species to work against the flourishing of it’s own species.

Take away all the heterosexual men and women from the planet and homosexuals die out in one generation. Whatever the cause, whatever the preconditions that may set someone up with a homosexual orientation, nature tells us something serious has gone wrong. I’m not even talking “morally” wrong. I’m just establishing a consistent pattern of identification and judgement based solely on nature. So from a naturalistic standpoint, an individual saying, “But I was born this way” doesn’t thereby impugn nature’s retort, “Something has gone wrong with your development.”[1]

If all men decided they didn’t like their bodily identity and the gender imprinted on it, and resolved to be transexual women, they too would cause the human species to die out within one generation. Why are these considerations of nature hardly considered when it comes to redefining human sexuality and gender?

Our culture today seems more and more inclined to dismiss nature’s hard-wiring and biology and instead leave it all “up for grabs”, as if it nature hasn’t spoken and thus human sexuality and gender is an open ended question for each person to make up for themselves.

We are so concerned with the manipulation of nature’s environment today. Where is the concern in messing with human nature? Why is it today that human sexuality and gender, as nature and bodily identity has given it to each person, can be so offhandedly dismissed and ignored without any thought being given to deleterious repercussions down the road? If nature and bodily identity can be so easily tossed aside to make room for “progressive thinking”, what’s to stop the next generation from accommodating and affirming all those disenfranchised, marginalized adults who simply prefer pre-pubescent little boys and girls? When a culture allows personal preference to be the highest court of appeal to justify human sexuality, a troubled world is soon to follow.

[1] As a Christian this response of nature does not equate to “And therefore you have less moral value than a heterosexual.” A person’s sexual orientation does not reduce their moral worth as a human being any more than being born disabled or with down-syndrome does. The same cannot be said about the animal kingdom where “survival of the fittest” is often the cardinal rule of worth to your species and it’s flourishing. But as a Christian I can argue that humans supersede the animal kingdom in one essential way–we are made in the image of God. Our intrinsic worth and value come not from our contributions to the human species, but that we reflect and share the image of God that distinguishes us from the rest of the creation. That being said, natural law is God’s instituted means to establish balance and order in the natural world. We rebel against it to our personal detriment.