The Origin of Morality

The other day I was thinking about how California's Prop 8 and also about people's views on homosexuality as expressed in conversations I've had with friends. It seems to me that the most common justification for homosexuality goes like this: "There is nothing wrong with being gay. Nobody can help whether they are gay or not; you're either born that way or you're not." And so, if you're born gay, the logic goes, then it is perfectly acceptable to act on your feelings.

The logic is based on the fundamental idea that morality is determined by one's nature: appropriate behavior is whatever comes naturally to each individual.

The problem with that premise is that nobody actually believes it. Even those who purport to hold that belief when it comes to homosexuality do not believe the principle holds true when it comes to other situations, such as cheating on one's spouse, or throwing a temper tantrum, or sharing one's toys with others.

So that brings me to my next segment. What started me thinking about these things a couple of days ago was a show I saw on the Discovery channel the other day. I think the show was called the Science of Sex, or something similar. One of the main topics of the program was an assertion that human males, by their very nature, are driven to have sex with as many women as they can. Male bodies, with their millions of sperm, are naturally suited for reproducing hundreds of offspring during their lives. Thus, it is completely natural for males to sleep around, cheat on their wives, and just be constantly on the look out for the next opportunity to replenish the earth. Women, on the other hand, only produce one seed or egg each month. Women's bodies naturally lead them to stay committed to one male companion with whom to raise her children.

If it is natural for men to want to reproduce as much as possible, with as many women as possible, and if whatever is natural is also moral, then why do those who support homosexuality not support men who are players or cheaters on their spouses or girlfriends? Okay, I see the main difference. A man who has married has told his wife that he will forevermore deny himself of his very nature and remain faithful to her and her alone. But that objection does not apply to polygamist relationships, where the man and each of his women already understand the relationship and the commitment that they are in, wherein everyone consents that the male will have multiple wives? According to the logic described above, plural marriage is moral, just as moral as is same-sex marriage is for gay people and marriage is for straight people.

On the other hand, very few people in the United States, even those who support gay marriage, actually believe that plural marriage is moral. This is because each of those people already knows that nature does not define morality. It is not okay for a child to throw a temper tantrum, just because he is a red-head and he, along with every single one of his ancestors, had been born with a tendency toward stubborn behavior. It is not acceptable to drink alcohol excessively simply because one has an inclination to do so. It is not moral to hoard all good gifts at the expense of others simply because one has been born with a selfish gene.

The next time someone tells you they think it is okay to be gay because people are born that way, and that therefore same-sex marriage is moral, ask that person how he or she feels about plural marriage for people who were born with the tendency to be intimate with multiple companions. If that person is opposed to the idea, point out the inconsistency in his or her thinking.

Nature does not define morality. So where does morality come from? It comes from God. We do not decide what is moral and what is not. God decides. Or rather, God decided.