# Homosexuality is 'unnatural' **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 20, 2013, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-unnatural/664031 "2013-07-20T13:42:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 21
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2014, 8:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-unnatural/664031/401 "2014-11-11T08:14:29Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > Wel I would say that if that theory was correct, then the genes themselves are adaptive but homosexual men are the cannon fodder for it working. While I know that won’t endear me to other gay rights supporters (because I consider myself one) I also believe it doesn’t matter what the root cause or “purpose” of homosexuality is from a rights standpoint. But when we’re talking about evolution, we’re talking about population groups as a whole. We can look at individual members, but at the end, we have to look at the population as a whole to determine whether a particular trait is adaptive or not. So, I’m not sure what you mean by “cannon fodder.” If you could separate out these non-scientific terms, it would make it clearer to me what you are saying. > [@](#): > > And there’s no way tomndebb is erasing posts. He doesn’t roll that like that. 😛 Have you tried buying him a nice bottle of wine?😛 ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2014, 11:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-unnatural/664031/402 "2014-11-11T11:44:23Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > If you want to seriously parse what I said, look at it in its totality. Here it is again: > > [QUOTE=magellan01] > Homosexuality is unnatural, when the word is used to describe a use for something other than it’s primary one. Walking on one’s hands is unnatural. Eating with one’s feet is unnatural. But for someone with no legs, walking on one’s hands is perfectly natural for him. And for someone with no hands, eating with on’e feet is perfectly natural for him. But neither of these exceptions renders that larger claims to be untrue. Note that I do not simply say “homosexuality is unnatural”. In this and countless other threads I share my belief that it is naturally occurring. So, address the above in it’s totality or don’t address it at all. [/quote] Sorry. I don’t buy your dodge. The very fact that you insist on getting into a discussion where you want to play with the term “natural” indicates that you are not making some esoteric semantic point. The words “natural” and “unnatural” have very strong connotations along with their denotations. Claiming that you are simply making in some esoteric semantic distinction while pretending that you have no intention of invoking the connotative value is not credible. Even your actual disclaimer fails. [QUOTE=magellan01] Homosexuality is unnatural, when the word is used to describe a use for something other than it’s primary one. [/quote] You choose to arbitrarily identify what the “primary” “use” might be without any actual support for your position. Humans use sexual relations for pair-bonding. Homosexuals pair-bond. There is nothing “unnatural” about that unless you want to pretend that there is some “primary” “use” that is limited to procreation. > [@magellan01](#): > > This merely points to the fact that it occurs naturally. Which I do not dispute. Of course, again, you challenge parts of what I say while ignoring the totality of it. Again, to help you along: > > [QUOTE=magellan01] > But it also **doesn’t mean that it is natural and normal the way heterosexuality is.** > The fact that this needs to be pointed out, and some people will try to argue against this, is strange indeed. Bizarro World strange. (emphasis added, because you seem to need the assistance) [/quote] I read it correctly the first time. You appear to take some odd view that procreation is the only possible way to look at sexuality or that it is in some odd way so much more primary than pair-bonding that you can simply dismiss any references to pair-bonding. When you go into your “Bizarro World” dance, it simply reinforces the accuracy of my comments. > [@magellan01](#): > > Additionally, I find the argument that homosexuality is normal, fine and dandy because we see it in the animal world really strange. Do you hold that any behavior found in the animal world gives that behavior a pass in humans? Oh, no? Good. So the constant trotting out of these fun facts will stop soon? I find your attempt to dismiss that point to be an indication that its reality bothers you on some basic level. You insist on harping on the idea that homosexuality is not “natural,” (with a fair amount of dancing around to pretend that your words have some meaning rather than the obvious one), and then you want to move the goalposts when it is pointed out that the phenomenon occurs in nature. The point was never that homosexuality occurs among an occasional species, thereby justifying it. If homosexuality only occurred among various selected species in the way that driving out dethroned alpha males occurs in some herd species or eating one’s young occurs in some species, you might be justified in dismissing that fact. The fact that it occurs in every primate species along with a number of other species across multiple classes indicates that it is not just some odd feature of random species that we should choose to not emulate. (Again, you are, regardless of your twisting, insisting on an argument over “natural” phenomena.) > [@magellan01](#): > > I did not make the comparison you claim I did. You should be more careful in what you accuse others of doing. But maybe you think that because you are so right, and the fabrication is for the greater good, that it’s okay to do so. :rolleyes: No. I was not comparing the two. I was quite clear about that, and included the reasons why that should not be compared to each other. The fact remains, theta they both are deviations for normal human sexuality.They both are natural. That does not mean that both are normal. Or that either is normal. They each need to be judged alone. The point of the illustration is to show that simply categorizing homosexuality as natural does not mean that it automatically is on par with heterosexuality. Both are natural. One is normal, the other deviant. Mind you, I’m using the word in its clinical sense: “deviates from the norm”. If you have a better word that that communicates the same reality without the connotative baggage, I welcome it. Nope. I addressed the exact comparison you used in the context of this discussion. So back off on the claims of “fabrications” in Great Debates. I did not make any claim or insinuation that you were equating homosexuality or pedophilia. I noted that in the context of this discussion, revolving about what is “natural,” there is a clear distinction to be made between a phenomenon that occurs across multiple species and classes and a phenomenon that appears to occurring in exactly one species. Any inference you drew beyond that is your problem and is not what I posted. > [@magellan01](#): > > While lesbianism shares the same shortcomings (from normal sexual behavior), it is not as readily apparent. There is no penis being inserted into a thing other than a vagina. And to just put things in perspective, the point I am making with all this is simply to support my original claim. I’m not opposed to homosexuality, and I actually enjoy the notion of lesbianism, but as good as wonderful and beautiful as one might consider either form of homosexuality, neither of them are as **natural and normal** as heterosexualitiy. Arguing otherwise simply means that you need to go back and take an entry level statistics course. Or a psychology course that talks about deviant behavior. There is no “shortcoming” unless you wish to pretend that pair-bonding has not already been well-established as a phenomenon of humanity. Continuing to treat an action that is not procreative as a “shortcoming” and continuing to defend the word “normal” as you have used it, is sending a clear message, despite your denials. As to your introduction of the word “normal” to the discussion and your later attempt to pretend that you are simply referring to statistical analysis: piffle. There is no “normal” in statistics. There is a “normal distribution,” but even if that was how you meant it, it is not how you expressed it and the connotation the word carries, especially when you use it without couching it in statistical terminology, is very different from what you now claim you mean. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2014, 12:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-unnatural/664031/403 "2014-11-11T12:48:13Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Nonsense. It’s dictated by evolution. Evolution doesn’t have a purpose, and evolution doesn’t define primary/secondary/etc. purposes for organs and structures. > [@](#): > > Are you of the mind that the penis and vagina are not a result of evolution? Of course they are – and one of their purposes is definitely reproduction. But there are many other purposes, many of which are defined by individual people and not evolution. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2014, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-unnatural/664031/404 "2014-11-11T13:26:50Z")
Humans, in our present form, are obviously the result of evolution. This includes the penis, the vagina, and teh homosexuality. There’s no argument to be found there to construe homosexuality as unnatural. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2014, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-unnatural/664031/405 "2014-11-11T13:35:10Z")
Other people have mentioned it, but I’ll add to the chorus – it’s really weird how much many anti-SSM and anti-gay folks focus on anal sex. Not only do many gay male couples practice other forms of sex, but lesbian couples obviously don’t do it at all. ---
**Author:** ![EllisDee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ellisdee/32/4531_2.png) [@EllisDee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EllisDee)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2014, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-unnatural/664031/406 "2014-11-11T13:53:33Z")
I expect _some_ lesbian couples practice anal sex. Some women do actually enjoy it. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2014, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-unnatural/664031/407 "2014-11-11T13:55:41Z")
> [@EllisDee](#): > > I expect _some_ lesbian couples practice anal sex. Some women do actually enjoy it. Probably so. I don’t think this is the type of anal sex they’re talking about, though, when they bring up things like the “purpose” of the penis. ---
**Author:** ![Inner\_Stickler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inner_stickler/32/318_2.png) [@Inner\_Stickler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inner_Stickler)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2014, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-unnatural/664031/408 "2014-11-11T14:41:41Z")
> [@BrightNShiny](#): > > So, I’m not sure what you mean by “cannon fodder.” If you could separate out these non-scientific terms, it would make it clearer to me what you are saying. Meaning other theories somehow select for gayness, while the super-fecundity theory implies it’s a negative that simply isn’t critical enough to be selected against. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2014, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-unnatural/664031/409 "2014-11-11T16:09:21Z")
> [@Inner\_Stickler](#): > > Meaning other theories somehow select for gayness, while the super-fecundity theory implies it’s a negative that simply isn’t critical enough to be selected against. Yes that’s my meaning. And I do know that evolution can select for group benefit, BrightNShiny. The nature of homosexuality basically forces the pro-adaptation argument into that line. I just don’t find them very convincing in this case. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2014, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-unnatural/664031/410 "2014-11-11T17:16:30Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Nonsense. It’s dictated by evolution. Are you of the mind that the penis and vagina are not a result of evolution? Again - what is the primary purpose of the mouth due to evolution? ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2014, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-unnatural/664031/411 "2014-11-11T19:20:50Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I think this is an excellent post, and brings up a real problem with the language. Most of it would be fine if discussed by clinical psychologists, but many of the words have very strong lay connotations. Yet the facts beyond them remain facts. As I mentioned in my post to Tom, if you have other words that reflect the reality of the situation that carry less baggage, I welcome the suggestions. One of your problems is that there aren’t a whole lot of psychologists out there who would describe homosexuality as either abnormal or unnatural. I do agree with you on one point, which is that wether or not homosexuality is unnatural has no beating at all on wether it’s bad or not. Which is, of course, the whole point if this discussion: all sorts of shit is “natural” that we find abhorrent. It’s natural for some insects to eat their mates after procreating. It’s natural for lions to kill the cubs of other males. It’s natural for hamsters to eat their own young. If someone is assigning a moral value to the term “natural,” they need to explain why these sorts of common, natural behaviors are not also morally positive. You, of course, are assigning no moral value to the term, as you regularly reassure us. Which is great, but you still seem to be using “unnatural” in a way that makes no sense. You’ve admitted that homosexuality is naturally occurring - but how can something that occurs naturally be unnatural? I’ve noticed in later posts that you’ve started using the word “normal” instead of “natural.” Is that the term you’ve meant to be defending all along? Because it has a very different meaning than “natural.” ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2014, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-unnatural/664031/412 "2014-11-11T20:53:20Z")
> [@Inner\_Stickler](#): > > Meaning other theories somehow select for gayness, while the super-fecundity theory implies it’s a negative that simply isn’t critical enough to be selected against. But the use of the word “negative” implies a value judgment that’s being laid on top of evolutionary science. If we take the example of worker bees given earlier in the thread, is it a negative that worker bees don’t reproduce? Or, if we look at pack species, is it a negative that non-alphas are much less likely to reproduce? That some individuals are less likely to reproduce seems to be an adaptive strategy in a lot of species, so it’s possible that it’s an adaptive strategy in humans. [QUOTE=CarnalK] And I do know that evolution can select for group benefit, BrightNShiny. The nature of homosexuality basically forces the pro-adaptation argument into that line. I just don’t find them very convincing in this case. [/QUOTE] It’s not “can.” At the end of the day, you must look at the population group as a whole, or you aren’t discussing evolution. You can start by looking at individual members, but if you don’t then go look at the population group as a whole, you are going to end up with meaningless results. ---
**Author:** ![aldiboronti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@aldiboronti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aldiboronti)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2014, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-unnatural/664031/413 "2014-11-11T21:27:43Z")
I don’t get why it’s so important to some gays to assert that it’s natural. Why not just admit it’s not the norm of nature but, hey, it’s fun. Who gives a shit? ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2014, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-unnatural/664031/414 "2014-11-11T21:33:19Z")
> [@aldiboronti](#): > > I don’t get why it’s so important to some gays to assert that it’s natural. Why not just admit it’s not the norm of nature but, hey, it’s fun. Who gives a shit? Because, generally speaking, the people asserting that it’s unnatural care _very intensely_ about gay sex, who’s having it, and how to make them stop. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2014, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-unnatural/664031/415 "2014-11-11T21:57:49Z")
> [@aldiboronti](#): > > I don’t get why it’s so important to some gays to assert that it’s natural. Why not just admit it’s not the norm of nature but, hey, it’s fun. Who gives a shit? 1. “Natural” and “Norm” do not mean the same thing, as has been pointed out. 2. The instant such a thing is “admitted”, what will be heard is not “the norm”, but “normal”, as in, “Aha! So you admit that you are not normal!” ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2014, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-unnatural/664031/416 "2014-11-11T22:29:33Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > It’s really amazing that even in GD, when someone explains that he is using a word in its clinical sense, people point and say “Oh look at the bad word you’re using!” > > Sigh. I have not seen you use any word in its clinical sense, with the possible exception of deviant, but given your odd interpretations of natural and normal, it is understandable that some readers might conclude that your use of deviant is also not a clinical usages. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2014, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-unnatural/664031/417 "2014-11-11T22:38:18Z")
> [@aldiboronti](#): > > I don’t get why it’s so important to some gays to assert that it’s natural. Because it is? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2014, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-unnatural/664031/418 "2014-11-11T23:37:45Z")
> [@aldiboronti](#): > > I don’t get why it’s so important to some gays to assert that it’s natural. Why not just admit it’s not the norm of nature but, hey, it’s fun. Who gives a shit? One extremely frequent argument against homosexuality is that it is “unnatural.” Noting that such an argument is without a basis in fact undercuts that attack, removing one argument from those who would legislate laws against homosexuality. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2014, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-unnatural/664031/419 "2014-11-12T01:05:09Z")
Let’s assume that by some definition of “natural”, homosexuality is unnatural. So what? We already have whole legal structures based on things that are far _less_ natural, like motor vehicles, so unnaturality in and of itself means nothing. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2014, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-unnatural/664031/420 "2014-11-12T01:20:44Z")
> [@aldiboronti](#): > > I don’t get why it’s so important to some gays to assert that it’s natural. Why not just admit it’s not the norm of nature but, hey, it’s fun. Who gives a shit? To be boring and flip it around; Why is it so important for some people to ask the question? I personally think it’s no less natural than many things, including heterosexuality/heterosexual sex. The reason I tend to argue the point rather than just leave it, though, is that oftentimes (as people have already said) the point behind the word is a “…and therefore it is bad.” one. Or a separation one. It’s unnatural, therefore it is bad. It’s not normal, therefore we needn’t cover it with the same protections. It isn’t worth arguing about so much for what the argument itself is, but what the argument often ends up being used to support. That’s not true of all people, of course. I confess for my part, though, I don’t understand the non-homophobe reasons for bringing the question up, which seems to be a question of grammar and definitions. It really seems to get people’s goats that, to them, words like “natural” and “normal” are being used wrongly. And just as an aside, using “admit” there is somewhat unpleasant. It seems to suggest that those who disagree with the point don’t _actually_ disagree, but are trying to dodge or not answer the question. I disagree with the idea. Please don’t suggest, even inadvertently, that people like me are lying. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-unnatural/664031.md?page=20) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-unnatural/664031.md?page=22)