Homosexuality is unnatural

Great Debates
21

Six that we do under own willpower, rather. :stuck_out_tongue:

(Drinking, Eating, Sex, etc. would be while as Sneezing and Defecation wouldn’t.)

Still, the list of things that we do that aren’t natural is far longer. Monkeys ain’t got no 401k plan, they ain’t got no hospitals, they ain’t got no cars, they ain’t got no representative democracy. We gave up all the good things like picking lice off of each other and flinging poo, and even do things that are involuntary like coughing under our own volition (like at the doctor) or killing ourselves (suicide.)

Outside of putting food in our mouth, chewing, and swallowing almost everything else that humans do is unnatural, or done in an unnatural way. Arguing that we shouldn’t do something because it’s unnatural is an argument that became unviable over 10,000 years ago.

22

Exactly. Homosexuality and homophobia are both “natural”. So are famine, flood, fire, theft, murder, rape, and psoriasis, further illustrating the silliness of using of using “natural” as a synonym for “healthy and/or moral”.

23

I think a lot of human behavior is rooted in some sort of involuntary anthropological imperative. First off, I have always believed that homosexuals are born that way. They are involuntarily drawn to the same sex as I am toward the opposite one. One does not “choose” who to be sexually attracted to.

Homophobia could be a response triggered by the instinctual desire not to hinder anything that gets in the way of the imperative to reproduce.

In males, it could also be a desire to punish those who are not alpha males or at least in the running to be so. I say this because the vast majority of hostile homophobia comes from males toward other males. Males are stereotypically extremely tolerant of homosexual females…and the reaction from females toward other homosexual females seems to be disgust rather than hostility.

24

Okay, let’s say it IS unnatural. Is that a bad thing necessarily? Lots of things are “unnatural” and yet are still good. And plenty of “natural” things are bad-poison ivy and snake venom are natural, for instance.

Now, I so happen to believe that homosexuals are born that way. But even if they weren’t-SO WHAT? What does it hurt?

25

No such argument is being “put forth supporting homosexuality.” The argument is that calling something “unnatural” doesn’t mean anything. “Unnatural” human behavior is a concept which defies definition to begin with, but even if that weren’t the case, it’s still a bogus criterion for cultural acceptance or “morality,” or whatever. It could be argued that rape is “natural” but wearing shoes is not. It’s a worthless moral standard.

26

Your God also made creatures that can change sex from male to female (protandry), female to male (protogyny) and creatures that have both sets of sex organs (hermaphroditism) that can operate as either male or female.

Some examples of animals that can change sex midlife when conditions warrant: salmon, clownfish, frogs.

Some examples of creatures in possession of both sets of sex organs: some snails, slugs, and flowers.

Here is a relevant Wiki page if you don’t want to examine university journals.

Homosexual behavior has been observed in numerous animals. Read this National Geographic article for more information.

Please don’t confuse *natural behavior * with the laws of God or of man.

27

Oral sex is quite normal behavior (taking normal to mean normative). Yet it can never result in procreation.

28

I think it’s more the idea that sex is a Bad Thing and should only be used to repopulate the planet which somehow made it into Christianity. That explains the whole masturbation thing and premarital sex thing - basically, if you’re doing it and you’re not doing it to have a litter, Og will smite you.

If you go back to the days when the Bible was written, there weren’t too many humans so it might have made sense to make some more. Now, however, not so much.

In response to **pool ** asking about detectable physical differences:
Answers can be found here, here, here and bunches of other places.

29

I don’t see much of a debate. Anything that occurs in nature is natural. Homosexual behavior occurs all over the animal world. Ergo, etc., etc., etc.

30

The problem with an argument like “homophobia is natural” is that it is too narrow. What is defined as abnormal and problematic behavior varies across cultures. I’ll agree with the statement “bias is pervasive.” However, I have trouble with sole appeals to the naturalness of homosexuality, in that we tinker all the time with “natural” phenomena (like killing germs). In my opinion, it’s more useful to say that homosexuality doesn’t represent a problem or threat and should not be targeted for tinkering.

31

Well it could never directly result in procreation, but can certainly indirectly lead to it, as foreplay or lead to intercourse at a later time/day, but the couple has to be a sexually mature heterosexual couple for this to work that way.

32

Bolding mine. Do you follow this line of reasoning further? If an inability to reproduce makes one unnatural, where does that leave people who are infertile or sterile, and what about children?

33

Hooo boy, tough crowd. I should count my lucky stars I was able to transfer this conversation away from The Pit.

Well, let me first humbly preface my argument by stating that it’s far from set in stone, as I sometimes believe homosexuality and the Catholic Church’s teachings on sexuality in general, are perhaps misguided. Well, I am lucky to have been educated by Jesuits who always placed a high value on thinking for oneself, within reason.

My largest source of information on Catholic sexually probably comes more from C.S. Lewis (particularly The Four Loves), rather than the Catechism, although I have read the Catechism before. Also, if anyone wishes to learn more about my beliefs in a well-written and elegant fashion, then I encourage you highly to read This article.

Also, I am a 23 year old horny male. Let me just say in all honesty, that if we play the ad huminan… ad hominen… ad something… well if you try to disprove my argument by showing how I have failed to live up to my ideals, then you will be correct in a sense…

Ok, now I’ll attempt to explain myself again in my own words. Homosexuality in my mind, all relates to the central Catholic principle of sex being unitive and procreative. My usage of the word natural was only in reference to unitive and procreative sexual acts being the most natural in acccord with how God created humans before The Fall. My usage of the word natural has little to do with monkeys in nature, or even the sense of natural in a societal sense. I suppose I picked a poor word to represent my ideas…

Because sex in the Catholic mindset should be procreative and unitive, that rules out not just homosexuality but also pre-marital sex, masturbation, bestiality, and a slew of other ‘deviant’ practices. If anyone needs a cite, I can look it up on the Catechism later, or find the relevant segment from Pope JPII’s “Theology of the Body.”

The largest question that immediately comes to mind is why, if non-procreative sex is out, then why is sex ok with infertile couples of all kinds. My first response was to play the symbolism card, but as I have seen before, that can be equally used to justify homosexual sex.

I honestly am trying to produce a rational defense of the Church’s beliefs, but I think I am being forced to fall back on the tried-and-true “Homosexuality is intrinsically disordered” argument that is brought up so often. Of course you can see the problem; that is the very same argument we are discussing right now. I cant prove Homosexuality is unnatural by merely twisting the word around a little bit.

So I guess in a debating contest, I must ceed the floor to a Catholic with more experience than myself. Perhaps I shall ask some of my professors to join the fray.

As aside, many people have thrown in that homosexuality is from birth, thus it must be ok. Well, I cant say this is how I feel for sure, but let me just say that there are many negative things that can stem from birth also. From a biological standpoint, having a orientation that does not lead to reproduction could arguably be seen as a “bad thing.” I dont have enough experience in biology to really discuss this further, but I’m just saying that I dont think the “from birth” argument is particularly strong.

There, I’m done. You may proceed to rip me to pieces :smack:

34

Not sure what your mind has to do with what other people have a right to do though. Short of being able to find a way it hurts the world, it seems to be a hard argument to make that it matters that you find it oogy, or even find it sinful.

35

It seems it would also rule out recreational sex between married couples. And this would mean most sex would be ruled out, since I really doubt that married people have baby-making on their mind whenever they have sex.

All that talk about “procreation” is just cover, a way to make sexual relations more sacred than they have to be.

36

And therein, I believe, lies the answer. While I still indentify as Catholic because it was through the Church and the people I met there that I embarked on my own spiritual path. I cannot (and will not) ignore the fact that humans are fallible, and that, since Jesus died an awful long time ago, many many humans have interceded beetween the origins of the Church and where it is today. And while I have every respect for the Popes (most of them) and their earnest devoutness, I still cannot escape the fact that they were also human and therefore prone to error.

Given that Jesus encouraged us to love, to forgive, and to not judge others, I think that is irreconcilable with the Church’s current position on homosexuality, and I’m confident that that exclusionary and non-loving position will change in coming years.

37

Unless you’re in prison. Then you can fling poo like crazy.

38

So once a married woman enters the menopause, having sex with her husband is ‘deviant’?
Interesting Church you have there.

39

Well, that’s your problem right there. Religious beliefs can’t be defended rationally (religious practices might be, though) nor can they be disproved rationally. The rational approach to the question “is homosexuality natural” is to observe nature, find instances of homosexuality and conclude yes, it is.

I also don’t get how you conclude that this “tough crowd” has you under siege and is eager to rip you “to pieces”. It’s a smart crowd, made up of people happy to challenge unsupported claims presented as fact. Any religious organization expecting (or needing) followers to blindly accept dogma will get little traction, here. Your church’s position is one countered by easily available evidence. That’s not our fault.

40

Feel free to ignore this hijack if you wish. What would constitute unreasonable thinking for one’s self?