To the editor:

In response to Bob Francois’ letter which posed the question asking if it is against the laws of nature to be born homosexual, I would like to propose this argument, which is completely void of references to God and is scientifically proven fact.

Human nature, just like that of animals in the wild, is concerned with the the survival of the species. In order to survive, a species must reproduce in some manner, whether asexually or sexually.

For the human race, a female egg and a male sperm are needed to procreate.

Since homosexuals obviously cannot perform this procedure normally, (in other words, not counting adoption), what does this say about the “nature” of such acts?

If nature wanted homosexual relationships, why didn’t it give homosexuals the means to have children and thrive. Doesn’t this make you wonder whether homosexuality is something nature intended?

I personally have no problem with homosexuals, and I don’t think that one isolated picture of a gay couple was in my face.

What I would like is to have someone in the gay community or scientific community argue the question I have just proposed, aside from the common cop-out response, “Oh that’s real original.” I’m looking forward to hearing your input.

Mark Bialota

Graduate student

English and political science