I’m sorry if this has been done to death. I don’t often read GD. The enormous intellects that frequent this particular forum often intimidate the hell out of me. But I’ve read this particular argument against homosexuality on other websites, and it irks me to know end.
So, if we presuppose that homosexuality is unnatural, so what? Big deal. Aren’t most prescription drugs unnatural? And blood transfusions? And even polyester (bad example)? Is everything that is “unnatural” necessarily bad?
If, for the sake of argument, homosexuality is indeed unnatural, who cares? What does it matter if it is or isn’t natural?
The argument about homosexuality being “unnatural” from my perspective is quite subjective at best.
There are scientific issues which have been brought forth that there are other animals which have sex for pleasure as well as homosexuality.
And the VERY tired argument that the anus is a “one-way” only orifice is so sad and pathetic that I will not comment on it further, except to say: your prostate is YOUR FRIEND.
And yes, I do think this kind of topic is overdone and generally leads to hostility as the pros and cons fight it out over being right. As if the con side will generally ever approve of the pro.
sigh
You might want to search for previous threads on homosexuality.
Actually I agree. The “unnatural” argument is based on birth necessity, but what always strikes me is that homosexuality doesn’t equate with physical inability to sire/give birth, rather with preference and attraction, but so what? If a gay person wants to become a parent he/she is as capable as a straight.
Just to nitpick, the gay=unnatural argument has nothing to do with what’s actually found in nature, but instead is an argument deriving from natural law and intelligent design.
I’m bringing this up, because I think a lot of people, on both sides of the argument, tend to misunderstand it, and tend to use the natural=found in nature definition.
There is no natural law and there is no intelligent design. Why does homosexuality exist? Who knows. Perhaps it’s a birth defect. Perhaps it’s an a trait that confers ome benefit on its owner. There’s a lot we don’t know. But what we do know is that it’s silly to say that a phenomenon ought not to exist because it doesn’t fit a preconceived worldview, especially one as uninformed as the fundamentalist Christian POV.
Homosexual behavior exists, not merely in humans, but in several animal species as well and therefore it’s natural. The question I suppose we must ask is, Is homosexuality harmful or benign?
Even that may not get us very far; that something is harmful has not always represented a strong enough reason for us to stop doing it in the past, neither, for that matter have we always permitted that which is benign.
I think that we need a working definition of “natural” here. As Gobear pointed out, “natural law” and “intelligent design” are basically crypto-religious terms, without reference to any real science.
Well, right, that’s my point. The “homosexuality is unnatural” argument isn’t a scientifc argument…it’s a philosophical and religious one, originally stated by the Roman Stoics, then picked up by Paul in his “Letter to the Romans”, and developed by Aquinas and the medieval scholastic philosophers.
Obviously, if you assert “There is no natural law and there is no inherant design”, like Gobear does, then the argument becomes meaningless.
I’m always bemused by the idea that we should regulate our behavior to mirror the sexual mores of animals. The idea that all of nature is out there doing the Ward-and-June lifestyle is in itself hilariously funny. It bespeaks a bizarre, sheltered mindset with very little exposure to scientific fact, or even to the Discovery Channel.
Animal sexuality is even stranger and more varied than human; just watch octopus mating practices for a stunning example. I suspect that the prudes who advocate this “sex should be natural” approach would be happier if we all went about sex as if we were trout, though…
My usual approach to this line of thought is as follows. In which areas of behavior should humans emulate animals? If they’re to be our role models in the bedroom (oops… animals generally don’t have bedrooms. I suppose it’s off to the woods, Martha!) then which other human behaviors should be regulated by the ideas of what’s “natural” and what’s not? Why should sex be the one field in which animals determine what’s right for humans? Why not have courses in the animal method of conflict resolution? Why not look to animals when we need role models for personal hygiene, or food procurement?
I had always been under the impression that being human meant that we continually strive to be better than animals.
It’s not a mere assertion; it’s a propostition backed up by indrect evidence. If the universe were designed by an Intelligence, why was it designed so shoddily? Look at the human eye. It’s not an especially well-designed organ. Eyes are often formed with distortions in the lens, causing people to be near-sighted. Eyes have blind spots. Eyes see only in a very limited range of the electromagnetic spectrum. Surely a competent deity (or only a demiurge) could have engineered a more efficient organ of sight.
Look at how chaotic the universe is. It is not the neat, clockwork mechanism as supposed by the Schoolmen philosophers you cite. The universe is full of dust clouds, black holes, neutron stars, and other remianders of burnt out stars. Does God leave old light bulbs lying about? Closer to home, we have leftover bits of the original nebula that spawned our solar system whizzing about, as evidenced by the bits of Comet Shoemaker-Levy that slammed into Jupiter in 1994. The asteroid belt, the Kuiper Belt, and much further out, the Oort Cloud, are floating piles of celestial rubbish. If God created the universe, He apparently forgot to sweep up afterward.
And, Gobear, I generally agree with you. I’m just saying that the assumption that the “homosexuality is unnatural” argument says that, as MrVisible claims, “we should regulate our behavior to mirror the sexual mores of animals” is an incorrect statment of the argument.
Well, gobear, if you and I were shooting pool, you could complain that my break left the table a mess, with balls all over the place. (The temptation to turn that into a double entendre is strong, but I can conquer it! ;)) On the other hand, it would be cheating for me to carefully ensure that I clear the table on the break by laying things on the table that will feed every ball into a pocket.
It’s not unreasonable that God is operating much as might a scientifically oriented kid who buys a couple of hamsters and appropriate stuff to keep them in, feed them, etc., and then leaves them alone to observe what they’ll do in their new environment. The whole idea of free will in a religious context, combined with the evidence of the hard sciences, suggests that that may be exactly what He’s up to.
Well, then, please enlighten us as to how this argument can be restated so that it doesn’t make rational people giggle at you.
You’ll need to define the term “natural” though. And if you’re going to define it using arguments based on religious dogma, please keep in mind that you’re handing us one in the “win” column; we’ve long recognized that there’s nothing to the “it’s unnatural” argument other than the usual religious disdain for our orientation, but it sure would be nice to hear someone on the fundy side of the argument give in on that point.
Well, I can’t help you with that. I’m a gay atheist. The only argument I was making was that “there’s nothing to the “it’s unnatural” argument other than the usual religious disdain for our orientation”, because a lot of people, when they hear the “unnatural” argument, in my experience, assume it’s a scientific argument based on observation of the natural world. I’m just saying that it’s not.
The working definition I have for “natural” or “unnatural” is the evolution-based purpose of the trait in question, rather than “let’s screw like animals,” which I agree with Mr. Visible (ooh), makes one wonder if everyone’s watching the same Animal Planet I am…
Certainly, the natural purpose of Tab A and Slot B is quite obvious; I’m just still not sure to how many facets of modern life we can override based on unnaturality. I suppose as a rationale for “ick”, it’s borderline OK.
Turning to a side point, doesn’t the prostate feel good to promulgate elimination?
