I considered writing on this subject in my previous letter, but it didn’t really go with the subject, so I did not.

However, with another instance of this on Thursday, I really want to say something.

Two writings recently have stated that there are many species of animals that practice homosexuality.

This is natural for them, and so it must be natural for humans, and therefore, morally acceptable.

First, because it is natural for some monkeys, predatory birds or wolves, it is not necessarily natural for humans.

There is simply not a direct correlation.

What is natural for monkeys may or may not be natural for humans.

Second, and more importantly, saying something is natural is not the same as saying something is moral.

The two are not the same.

This was first brought to my attention by my philosophy 230 professor, Michael Bishop.

And I have to agree with him.

In that class, it was in the context of arguing that homosexuality is wrong because it is unnatural.

This is a fallacy, just as reasoning that because it is natural, it is moral.

It could very well be true, but it must be proven first that whatever is natural is also moral.

Dan Conner

Senior

Management information systems