Comments, Human Rights, In Focus, Politics

Homosexuality and religious intolerance

The social and political discourse against equality of rights between heterosexual and homosexual couples refers to homosexual practice as “unnatural”, if not quoting religious dogma. Has there been a reduction of homosexuality in the world driven by the lack of rights that homosexuals have? Do they “correct” the unnatural side of humanity with their lack of legislation?


Macu Gavilan


Homosexuality (in all its forms) has and will always be present throughout the earth.

Whether it is hidden beneath the skirts of heterosexual marriage, practised in private or expressed freely, homosexuality is something that is in human nature.

Given that this phenomenon has been and will always be a natural thing between humans and other living beings, it is not up to politics and religion to debate whether it should exist or not on our planet Earth. It exists, period, like seaweed and lupines.

If anything it is the Creator of this world or Creators (depending on whether you believe in the existence of one or many gods) who are entrusted with the task of correcting their masterpiece’s technical errors. But at this point of creation, to put an end to homosexuality once and for all, you would have to put an end to human beings and I don’t know if that’s worth it.

When we make the terrible mistake of facing and questioning the creation of the gods, just as the Greeks did before their decline or young Hitler when he used Germany as his personal chess board, we are playing at being creators of our own kind – in addition to genocide – which is an absurdity.

As far as we know, nature is the place where we record our existence as living beings and it’s much bigger and more complex than all of our knowledge. We are simply one more thing in it, like flowers and puddles.

On the other hand, it is also natural that man has become this violent predator that now populates the Earth’s surface, just like his language skills or music awareness.

Ever since nature grouped itself together, it has buried its dead and invented its gods, and they also created norms of coexistence. Later, for mythical reasons (homosexuality is bad because God rejects it) or practical (homosexuality is a waste of semen) human beings started to place rules on one of its most instinctive aspects, sexual desire, believing themselves to be more catholic than the Pope.

But amongst all of these, the most entertaining reason is one that claims to be scientific which says that homosexuality is unnatural. It is said that man, not happy with playing the role of Creator, gives a voice to nature and believes that scientific truth runs through the ink of his pen.

This whimsical being has always sought to forget his smallness and plays at being the owner of everything that surrounds him, to the point of believing that he can even correct nature even though he does not understand it.

I do not intend to discuss the merits or evils of the existence of homosexuality with this reflection, but point out that this is a part of human nature and questioning the appropriateness of its existence is as useless as questioning the existence of air.

To all the “opponents of homosexuality”, those with mythical reasons (God will be angry because it messes up his creation), those with practical reasons (the semen that homosexuals waste makes up for China’s overpopulation) and the spokesmen for the “natural nature”, I would like to ask for a written explanation detailing their objectives denying rights to homosexuals.

Has it been proven that homosexual desire decreases in the areas where these “unnatural” human beings can’t get married? Do they think that because they can’t sign their commitment in front of a judge that they aren’t committed? Do they stop loving people when they don’t inherit a widow’s pension from their partner? How fortunate the world is, because after all, none of this happens.

Many people might accuse me of being naïve and tell me that the reason for discrimination is simply the taste for separating what is different. But no, my apparent naivety wants to expose the mythical-scientific double standard so that we can put names to the taste for cruelty. If the lack of legislation for homosexual couples doesn’t “correct” the un   natural human, what’s the point?

El arte es un juguete.

(Translated by Rachel Sharp) – Photos: Pixabay


Share it / Compartir:

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *