# 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:** 26
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2014, 1:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-unnatural/664031/501 "2014-11-16T13:01:42Z")
I find it both funny and ironic that people want to now move away from natural/unnatural, normal/abnormal as metrics. That has been the foundation of the argument for acceptance of homosexuality. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2014, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-unnatural/664031/502 "2014-11-16T13:09:22Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > And that is one of the ways that people who talk about homosexuality being “unnatural” are using the word. They are alleging that homosexuality is an artificial, human construct, that nobody is “born” homosexual, and only act that way due to conscious, often ideological, decision. To these people, pointing out the incidences of homosexual behavior in other animals is exactly on point. Chimps don’t have gay sex because they’re angry at God, or to undermine Christian values in America. They have gay sex because they’re naturally inclined to enjoy it, just like some humans. This focuses on a crucial point. As I’ve said, it’s easy to see how homosexuality is easily classified as natural. Especially when referring to a homosexual _act_. But that doesn’t necessarily translate to the “naturalness” of long-term exclusively homosexual relationships. ---
**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 16, 2014, 1:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-unnatural/664031/503 "2014-11-16T13:11:45Z")
I would argue that long-term exclusive relationships haven’t been established as natural, regardless if they’re homosexual or heterosexual. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2014, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-unnatural/664031/504 "2014-11-16T15:44:50Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I find it both funny and ironic that people want to now move away from natural/unnatural, normal/abnormal as metrics. That has been the foundation of the argument for acceptance of homosexuality. It is neither funny nor ironic. If people are going to argue their prejudices based on a claim that something is unnatural, the fact that it is not unnatural will be the reply. The argument that homosexuality is unnatural is, indeed, the oldest and most longstanding argument against it. When people attacking homosexuality decide that they have lost the natural/unnatural debate and decide to take a different path in order to enforce their prejudices, then those who defend gay people will adjust their arguments accordingly. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2014, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-unnatural/664031/505 "2014-11-16T17:28:36Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I find it both funny and ironic that people want to now move away from natural/unnatural, normal/abnormal as metrics. That has been the foundation of the argument for acceptance of homosexuality. No it hasn’t. ---
**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 16, 2014, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-unnatural/664031/506 "2014-11-16T18:44:32Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > This focuses on a crucial point. As I’ve said, it’s easy to see how homosexuality is easily classified as natural. Especially when referring to a homosexual _act_. But that doesn’t necessarily translate to the “naturalness” of long-term exclusively homosexual relationships. And whats so natural about long-term exclusively _heterosexual_ relationships? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2014, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-unnatural/664031/507 "2014-11-16T18:55:53Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I find it both funny and ironic that people want to now move away from natural/unnatural, normal/abnormal as metrics. That has been the foundation of the argument for acceptance of homosexuality. I’m more of a _“neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg”_ guy, actually. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2014, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-unnatural/664031/508 "2014-11-17T04:05:18Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > That’s stupid. The subject is what words are good metrics for human behavior. You need to explain first why “natural” or “normal” are ones we should use. We have many laws based soley on what is considered normal behavior. > [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Definition-wise, I’m probably happy to use the first adjectival definition for each of the words according to Merriam-Webster, and I think they work well for all sexual behaviors (not desires). If you think one of them doesn’t apply, let me know which. All of them. You’ve posted words that are routinely worked both ways in sexual behavior. > [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > What the fuck are you talking about? When someone writes with a pen, how on earth is that not a behavior? Behavior: the way in which one acts or conducts oneself, especially toward others. Penmanship is a skill. Writing a threatening letter is a behavior. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2014, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-unnatural/664031/509 "2014-11-17T04:06:32Z")
nm - duplicate post ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2014, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-unnatural/664031/510 "2014-11-17T04:11:04Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > We have many laws based soley on what is considered normal behavior. No we don’t. > [@](#): > > All of them. You’ve posted words that are routinely worked both ways in sexual behavior. What are you trying to say here? “Routinely worked both ways”? What the hell does that mean? > [@](#): > > Behavior: the way in which one acts or conducts oneself, especially toward others. > > Penmanship is a skill. Writing a threatening letter is a behavior. Oh, for fuck’s sake. Penmanship is what you do with a pen, how you write. But sure, let’s call it “writing a letter” instead. Do we use words like “normal” or “natural” as our benchmarks for writing a letter? ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2014, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-unnatural/664031/511 "2014-11-17T04:24:17Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > No we don’t. and we’re done. ---
**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 17, 2014, 5:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-unnatural/664031/512 "2014-11-17T05:49:13Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > You’ve posted words that are routinely worked both ways in sexual behavior. That’s hot. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2014, 11:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-unnatural/664031/513 "2014-11-17T11:46:10Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > and we’re done. Indeed we are. The closest you can come to provided support for your ridiculous assertions is a semirelevant Google Define result. Your argument fails even to get started. ---
**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 17, 2014, 12:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-unnatural/664031/514 "2014-11-17T12:59:53Z")
Magiver might be talking about antiquated laws that happen to still be on the books in many places. A dozen states still have (unconstitutional) anti-sodomy laws, plus there’s no doubt a bunch of blue laws hanging around. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2014, 1:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-unnatural/664031/515 "2014-11-17T13:06:55Z")
> [@EllisDee](#): > > Magiver might be talking about antiquated laws that happen to still be on the books in many places. A dozen states still have (unconstitutional) anti-sodomy laws, plus there’s no doubt a bunch of blue laws hanging around. He might be–but even if he is, the rationale for them was not, to the best of my understanding, that they got rid of unusual behavior. If that were the explanation, there’d equally be laws against people learning to juggle chainsaws, against people writing novels without the letter “e”, against people painting their houses in stripes. The rationale for the laws was that the behavior was not merely unusual or unnatural, but a “crime against nature,” an active violation of what God intended. He’s simply wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Antinor01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecae2f/32.png) [@Antinor01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Antinor01)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2014, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-unnatural/664031/516 "2014-11-17T20:28:54Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > OK, define each one and apply them equally to all sexual desires and see if it works as metrics for discussion. Personally, I think you’re just trying to avoid the subject. > > But you drove off the argument cliff when you used penmanship and carpentry as examples of human behavior. Those are skills. Sex is definitely a skill, one that many would be well served to master. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Bozuit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/edb3f5/32.png) [@Bozuit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bozuit)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2014, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-unnatural/664031/517 "2014-11-20T19:58:27Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > You seem to be fixated on the idea that the opposite of “natural” must always be “unnatural.” This is not the case. The most common antonym for “natural” isn’t “unnatural,” it is “artificial.” (Arguably, the second most common antonym would be “supernatural.”) This usage does not have to exclude all thing human related: human are natural tool users. Our tools themselves, however, are not natural, but artificial. I’ll get this out of the way first, since I’m going to be saying “natural” and “unnatural” a lot throughout the upcoming wall of text. I disagree. I think you’re not considering that the word “natural” can have multiple meanings, and hence multiple antonyms, depending on the context. “Deep” is an antonym of “shallow”, despite the fact that “steep” claims the same title. The way I see it, “unnatural” is an umbrella term meaning “not natural” (:eek:) that can be further narrowed down, depending on how the word “natural” is being used, to “artificial”, “supernatural”, etc. Sometimes we use “natural” to mean “not artificial”, but I addressed that when I said that we can either use a definition of natural that assumes humans are a part of nature, or one that doesn’t, but we can’t say some human actions are natural and some aren’t. Your tool example isn’t great because it’s easy to resolve any confusion there: making tools is natural human behaviour; the products of that behaviour are artificial. But what about something like homosexuality, where there is no product, just behaviour? > [@Miller](#): > > You’re insisting on a particular definition of “natural” that is fairly uncommon, and drastically limits the utility of the word. I’m not wholly unsympathetic to your view point: I remember being in highschool, and laughing at stuff that was being advertised as “All Natural,” because, like, uranium is also natural, dude. I’m not insisting on any particular definition; I’ve clearly suggested two. But in this context, most people seem to switch between both, arbitrarily deciding some things are natural and some are unnatural. I’d like people to be clear about how they’re using the word “natural” and to mentally put it to the test to determine whether their statements really fit a given defintion of “natural”, or if they’re just feeling their way through using Schroedinger’s Definition. > [@Miller](#): > > Oddly enough, I never made the same objection when someone on the news was speculating whether a recent brush fire was natural, or set by someone. Or when someone was described as dying of “natural causes.” Or when someone talked about the “natural beauty” of a redwood forest. Because in those instances, I could see a valid reason to distinguish between “natural” and “man-made.” Because context made it clear they were using one of the definitions of “natural” I’ve explicitly accepted: “not artificial”. > [@Miller](#): > > And that is one of the ways that people who talk about homosexuality being “unnatural” are using the word. They are alleging that homosexuality is an artificial, human construct, that nobody is “born” homosexual, and only act that way due to conscious, often ideological, decision. To these people, pointing out the incidences of homosexual behavior in other animals is exactly on point. Chimps don’t have gay sex because they’re angry at God, or to undermine Christian values in America. They have gay sex because they’re naturally inclined to enjoy it, just like some humans. > > Another common definition among these people harkens back to what Captain Amazing wrote back in post #366. They are referring to the concept of a “natural order,” God’s plan for how the world ought to function, to which sinful man often acts in opposition. To these people, it’s worthwhile to ask, “Is the parasitic wasp part of God’s plan? Or the tongue-eating louse? Or the zombie ant fungus? Because that all seems way more horrific than two guys having buttsex.” If someone believes that homosexuality is against God’s order such that no non-human animals would ever do such a thing, perhaps examples of animal “homosexuality” (the individuals largely appear bisexual, right?) would help convince them. But wouldn’t it be better to focus on the congenital nature of homosexuality in humans? It seems like it to me, but I’m quite ignorant of homophobes’ ignorance, so I don’t know. I’ve heard people say that realizing being gay is not a “lifestyle choice” has changed their attitudes, but never ethology. > [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > When you disagree with the majority just to be interesting, it’s a bit lame, in my opinion. Better would have been to suggest that it’s meaningless to label anything natural OR unnatural. Then you would have been more accurate. That’s a misrepresentation. I don’t _disagree_ with the majority just to be interesting; I disagree because, well, I disagree. And I didn’t state my disagreement just to _be_ interesting; I did so because (among other reasons) it makes the debate more interesting. Let’s not pretend we’re not here for our own amusement. And I think after the first requests for clarification I made it pretty clear that I was saying it’s meaningless to call homosexuality either natural or unnatural. > [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > I think you’re wrong on several parts here, and right on others. It’s reasonable to object to the “natural/unnatural” label for a fvariety orf reasons–but there can be a distinction between natural and unnatural behavior for humans, specifically, any behavior engaged in universally can be considered natural, whereas behavior existing in some cultures but not others can be considered unnatural. Eating, defecating, socializing, singing, using tools? Natural. Playing World of Warcraft, legislating against gay people, legislating in defense of gay people, eating Moon Pies? Unnatural. The point, of course, is that there’s no tie between natural and good. What is it about playing World of Warcraft, legislating against/in defence of gay people, and eating Moon Pies that’s unnatural? Playing games, making rules and eating are all natural for humans, if anything is. I think the main difference between your “natural” list and your “unnatural” list is the latter was a lot more specific and the limitation is often not human desire but the potential to actually engage in those activities. Having fun playing World of Warcraft may be more universal than many activities you consider natural, but many people have either not had the chance to play it, or have effectively had it crowded out by other possibilities - I’ve never played it myself, but almost certainly would have done if I didn’t have thousands of other games to pick from. Is reading scripture more natural than reading War and Peace? > [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > And there’s one more thing: pointing out that it’s a “natural” behavior can deny bigots the idea that a change in culture will eliminate homosexuality. Yeah, it’s not the main argument, but it can avoid one of the eddies those arguments go into. That’s actually a good point I hadn’t really considered (although **Miller** also said something similar). But I still think we can do better on this board than “it’s natural, and here’s the proof, the end”, which seems to me to be conscious simplification for the sake of making it more convenient to argue with fools. And I still think pointing out that homosexuality exists and existed in all human cultures would be a better way to demonstrate that culture is not the cause of homosexuality. ---
**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 20, 2014, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-unnatural/664031/518 "2014-11-20T20:22:26Z")
> [@Bozuit](#): > > I disagree. I think you’re not considering that the word “natural” can have multiple meanings, and hence multiple antonyms, depending on the context. I’m not sure how you can think that, considering that the part of the post you just quoted is explicitly describing multiple ways the word “natural” can be used. > [@](#): > > Your tool example isn’t great because it’s easy to resolve any confusion there: making tools is natural human behaviour; the products of that behaviour are artificial. But what about something like homosexuality, where there is no product, just behaviour? It’s exactly the same. Homosexuality is completely natural. Gay bars, cock-rings, and Grindr are artificial tools we invented to facilitate the natural behavior. > [@](#): > > I’m not insisting on any particular definition; I’ve clearly suggested two. But in this context, most people seem to switch between both, arbitrarily deciding some things are natural and some are unnatural. Which people, specifically, in this thread, are doing this? Because I don’t think it’s a thing that’s actually happening here - at least, not on the pro-gay rights side. I agree that it’s a common feature of homophobic arguments to throw around the words “natural” and “unnatural” with little thought as to whether it makes sense in the circumstances, but you’ve made a point of specifically attacking the pro-gay side of the argument for doing this. > [@](#): > > I’d like people to be clear about how they’re using the word “natural” and to mentally put it to the test to determine whether their statements really fit a given defintion of “natural”, or if they’re just feeling their way through using Schroedinger’s Definition. I’m not familiar with the term “Schroedinger’s Defintion.” Is this mean to be an oblique reference to “Schroedinger’s Cat?” Because that doesn’t really make any sense in this context. > [@](#): > > If someone believes that homosexuality is against God’s order such that no non-human animals would ever do such a thing, perhaps examples of animal “homosexuality” (the individuals largely appear bisexual, right?) would help convince them. But wouldn’t it be better to focus on the congenital nature of homosexuality in humans? You seem to think we can only do one thing at a time. It is possible to make more than one argument for gay rights at the same time, and making one argument does nothing to disparage any of the other potential arguments in favor of gay rights. Now, you may (or may not) have noticed that this thread was created for the specific purpose of examining one specific argument against gay rights, which explains why, in this thread, other arguments in favor of gay rights are in relative short supply. But just because those arguments aren’t being made in this thread, does not mean they are not being made at all, or that the “natural/unnatural” argument has any particular pride of place in the pro-gay argument. > [@](#): > > What is it about playing World of Warcraft, legislating against/in defence of gay people, and eating Moon Pies that’s unnatural? He just said what the difference is, explicitly: “any behavior engaged in universally can be considered natural, whereas behavior existing in some cultures but not others can be considered unnatural.” Everybody eats: not everybody eats Moon Pies. Everybody is interested in social rules: not everybody things there should be rules regarding homosexuality. Everybody engages in play, not everybody play World of Warcraft. Honestly, this conversation is going to go a _lot_ smoother if you start actually reading posts before you reply to them. > [@](#): > > That’s actually a good point I hadn’t really considered (although **Miller** also said something similar). But I still think we can do better on this board than “it’s natural, and here’s the proof, the end”, which seems to me to be conscious simplification for the sake of making it more convenient to argue with fools. And I still think pointing out that homosexuality exists and existed in all human cultures would be a better way to demonstrate that culture is not the cause of homosexuality. Again, this was a thread created to specifically discuss _one aspect of the debate_ about homosexuality. If you want to discuss the other aspect of the debate about homosexuality, start a new fucking thread, already. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2014, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-unnatural/664031/519 "2014-11-20T20:35:09Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > We have many laws based soley on what is considered normal behavior. Can you give an example of such a law? ---
**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 20, 2014, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-unnatural/664031/520 "2014-11-20T23:59:26Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > We have many laws based soley on what is considered normal behavior. > [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Can you give an example of such a law? Well, I assume _Jude_ Law was created in the quote normal unquote manner. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-unnatural/664031.md?page=25) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-unnatural/664031.md?page=27)