# 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:** 5
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-unnatural/664031/81 "2013-07-20T22:07:19Z")
So anal sex is less natural than vaginal sex but more natural than, say, driving a car. ---
**Author:** ![Troppus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a587f6/32.png) [@Troppus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Troppus)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-unnatural/664031/82 "2013-07-20T22:07:19Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I mean for the purpose of procreation an/or pleasure. Regardless of what one thinks of homosexuality (and I do believe it is naturally occurring) one cannot ignore the complementary nature of a penis and vagina. What complementary organ is “designed” to stimulate the prostate? And nipples? ---
**Author:** ![deltasigma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e5b9ba/32.png) [@deltasigma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/deltasigma)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-unnatural/664031/83 "2013-07-20T22:14:54Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > What’s with the hatred for trees? Oh, you’re one THOSE! Ewww. You probably don’t even wash the sap off afterwards either? You disgust me. :mad: ---
**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:** [July 20, 2013, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-unnatural/664031/84 "2013-07-20T22:19:07Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > For one, you’re implied conclusion that homosexuality is way for the species to figure out a better way to procreate, especially when the one we have works just fine. No, I’m saying that homosexuality is a result of that process, in exactly the same way that gendered reproduction is a result of that process. Gendered reproduction is a more useful result, to be sure but both things resulted from exactly the same natural process. It makes no sense to refer to one as “more” natural than the other. ---
**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:** [July 20, 2013, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-unnatural/664031/85 "2013-07-20T22:22:08Z")
> [@deltasigma](#): > > Just a thought (that will no doubt be ignored), but isn’t your entire species ‘unnatural’ when it changes the climate of its home planet, causes the extinction of untold species while barely noticing and creates evidence of its activity on such a vast scale that it can be easily seen from space? (edit: Oh, except North Korea :D) I’d argue against that. The asteroid that made the Gulf of Mexico destroyed vastly more species than humans, and altered the environment (and geography) far more radically than humans have, and that was the result of entirely natural processes. ---
**Author:** ![Smeghead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f1d935/32.png) [@Smeghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smeghead)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-unnatural/664031/86 "2013-07-20T22:23:00Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Natural lubricant. Also, if you accept that for the purposes of procreation that a vagina is a more natural place for a penis to be, you accept that there is a natural complementary relationship between the two. So, we have: > > penis in vagina—natural and complementary as described above, especially for the act of procreation > penis in anus—? > > But you’re trying to switch the burden of proof. Now, you convince me why you think an anus is as natural a place for a penis as a vagina. At the very least, you’re position is the more extraordinary one. You convince me. My responses, in no particular order: -There is no burden of proof on me, because I am not making any claims. My position is neither more nor less extraordinary than yours, because I am not taking a position. The purpose of this thread is to evaluate the quality of the “homosexuality is unnatural” argument. The only point I am attempting to make is that this ARGUMENT is bullshit, at least so far as it has been presented in this thread. If the argument is valid, it should be possible to come up with a definition of “natural” that includes all forms of heterosexual sex and excludes homosexual sex. So far, no such definition has been presented. I am not claiming anything about the anus vs vagina as a home for the penis - what I am saying is that YOU have failed to satisfactorily explain why the latter is more “natural” than the former. -So, that said, I repeat: your arguments so far boils down to “vaginal sex is required for reproduction”. So, again - is nonreproductive vaginal sex as “unnatural” as homosexual sex? What about heterosexual anal sex? -You’ve added the element of natural lubrication to justify your position. I admit, that’s valid, as far as it goes. Vaginal sex certainly utilizes natural lubrication, and anal sex does not. But really? Is that what’s behind the whole “homosexual sex is unnatural” belief? Because they have to buy lube instead of making it themselves? Again - what about heterosexual vaginal sex that requires the help of artificial lubrication? What about heterosexual anal sex? Are those more unnatural that homosexual sex? Less unnatural? Why? If a man has a really sweaty anus that acts as natural lubricant, is it then natural for him to be penetrated by another penis? And what about lesbians, anyway? Further, I note that you have ignored my request for clarification back in post 67. Am I to conclude from this that you concede that your evolutionary argument was incorrect? If not, why not? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-unnatural/664031/87 "2013-07-20T22:23:49Z")
> [@deltasigma](#): > > Oh, you’re one THOSE! Ewww. You probably don’t even wash the sap off afterwards either? > > You disgust me. :mad: I think you misheard me. I said I’m a tree _hugger_. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-unnatural/664031/88 "2013-07-20T22:28:39Z")
> [@Sitnam](#): > > Unnatural = icky For some, Unnatural= alien. I had this discussion with a laid back Muslim from Bangladesh back in the 1980s. He had gay friends, but thought that homosexuality was unnatural. It’s fair to say that he had a more tolerant temperament than average - my kind of guy. During our discussion he ran into the sorts of problems that Mr. Kobayashi outlined - after all homosexuality _is_ observed in the animal kingdom (at which point he segued to “But aren’t we suppose to be above that?”) Unlike most pushing this view, he wasn’t especially excitable. He still believed that homosexuality was unnatural at the end of the conversation, but it seemed that he wasn’t sure why he believed that. “It just is”, or so he implied: he was too thoughtful to say such a dim thing. As for myself, I argued years ago at this board that the example of Bonobo chimpanzees blows the unnatural argument out of the water, at least for me. [This book](http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=031225377X/scottbidstrupshoA/#reader_031225377X) has an entry in the index under “Duration of homosexual pair bonds”. It includes references to primates, marine mammals, hoofed mammals and waterfowl. I haven’t probed further into the book. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Kobayashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4af34b/32.png) [@Mr.Kobayashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Kobayashi)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-unnatural/664031/89 "2013-07-20T22:44:47Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > There is also the complementary nature of the male and female genitalia. That points to a natural intended use of each. I can actually dig what you mean with this point straight away; I think you’ve probably taken a bit of unnecessary flak on it - to expand, that heterosexual sex as part of our evolution (or design) is pleasurable to encourage reproduction and continuation of the species. On the complementary nature, I’ve always assumed that heterosexual sex generally doesn’t require as much…preparation? I guess, as homosexual sex. People with more experience please correct me if I’m wrong. However, by this argument, any sexual act beyond one intended for procreation is unnatural - would those opposed to homosexuality on this point be opposed to heterosexual anal sex? Or a blow job? The vagina’s a more natural home for the penis than the mouth, after all. It also doesn’t explain why the prostate can be stimulated sexually - and it’s located up the male fundament. So either nature or God messed that one up if bum fun was never intended to happen. > [@njtt](#): > > Well, this renders the word “natural”, a word that very many people frequently find useful in all sorts of circumstances, completely meaningless. Is it really a word you never ever use yourself (apart from mentioning it to point out its meaninglessness)? Most people, down the ages, have found it useful to have a word that will demarcate the spontaneous products of nature from the “artificial” things (which might include patterns of behavior) deliberately created by human beings. > > So, in short, I think this part of your argument is bullshit. It is one of those arguments that can be seen to be fallacious because if it were sound it would prove far, far too much. > > I do not have any particular quarrel with your other points, however. Only in terms of a line drawn between human beings and the rest of the animal kingdom, which I believe is mostly based on solipsism. It denies the role of humanity as, for want of a better term, natural beings (‘a naked ape’) who evolved to co-exist with other life forms on Earth. By way of example, I recall reading a critique of the US national park system. What the hell do parks have to do with gays? In that, when creating them the feds moved native Americans out of the area, who had been a part of that environment for 11,000 years - thus creating an environment that was not natural, since humans were no longer part of it. Point being it’s not the word natural I object to, just using it in a way that suggests humans are not natural, or ‘outside’ it somehow. ---
**Author:** ![Hershele\_Ostropoler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e47c2d/32.png) [@Hershele\_Ostropoler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hershele_Ostropoler)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-unnatural/664031/90 "2013-07-20T23:23:40Z")
**magellan01** somewhat has a point. It’s hard to argue that they aren’t complementary. I don’t think that’s a particularly relevant argument against _Windsor_ (as **drewtwo99** indirectly suggested, it’s relevant against _Lawrence_, although I disagree with it in that regard). The people arguing against him, however, are invoking the naturalistic fallacy (though it’s not strictly a fallacy, since the syllogism involved is perfectly valid). > [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > I think when some people say homosexuality is unnatural, they have in mind some sort of standard design or blueprint that human beings are constructed on, and that being homosexual runs contrary to that standard design—like having six fingers on each hand, or having one’s internal organs reversed. Though I don’t see anyone restricting the rights of people with polydactyly or situs inversus. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-unnatural/664031/91 "2013-07-20T23:27:24Z")
> [@Smeghead](#): > > I neither affirm nor deny anything. I don’t have a stake in the argument at all beyond attacking arguments that I think are not logical. I was asking you to explain why the penis and vagina are more complementary than the penis and the anus. As far as I can tell, the only answers you’ve offered so far are “it’s obvious” (it isn’t) and “you need vaginal sex to reproduce”, which is fine. That’s a perfectly valid argument. But then you need to explain why non-reproductive vaginal sex is more “natural” than non-reproductive anal sex. As a biologist you should know better that that. Depending on your field I am certain that you could tick off an entire list of traits (or have the ability to look them up) that show the complementarity of the penis and vagina as opposed to penis-anus. If you can’t you may want to consider switching fields. One could argue that anything and everything is natural. What is more “natural”, penile-vaginal sex or me blowing a hole in a stranger’s head and inserting my penis into that? Someone may enjoy doing that so I guess it’s natural. So is pedophilia, bestiality and necrophilia. All paraphilias are equally natural. Killing someone is natural. Every possible behavior that we engage in can be considered “natural”. The word “natural”, then, is all-encompassing and loses any objective meaning. Let me make it clear that I am not comparing homosexuality to any of the above. My point is that any behavior we can possibly think of would fall under the term “natural” as is being used here. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-unnatural/664031/92 "2013-07-20T23:27:30Z")
I’m reminded of a saying a friend of mine had. There are two types of men in this world. Bottoms and those who have no idea what they’re missing. Certainly any man who’s had their prostrate stimulated by a penis or a finger might question Magellan’s comments. > [@](#): > > **maggellan01** > I don’ think you read my posts. Do you deny the obvious complementary nature of the penis and vagina? Sort of like the complimentary nature of a mouth and a penis. Don’t gay men have both? ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-unnatural/664031/93 "2013-07-20T23:28:36Z")
> [@Mr.Kobayashi](#): > > Firstly, humans are part of nature and therefore anything we do is by definition, natural. Drawing an arbitrary line between us and the rest of Earth’s lifeforms based on our niche as the most intelligent is of itself no value in determining what is moral conduct. I have a problem with this argument (not in the specific context of homosexuality). If you’re right, then the word ‘natural’ has no meaning or utility whatever - if it applies to everything. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Kobayashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4af34b/32.png) [@Mr.Kobayashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Kobayashi)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-unnatural/664031/94 "2013-07-20T23:36:53Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > I have a problem with this argument (not in the specific context of homosexuality). If you’re right, then the word ‘natural’ has no meaning or utility whatever - if it applies to everything. See my response to **njtt** on the argument of the specific applications of the word natural as it applies to human beings, as opposed to the definition itself. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-unnatural/664031/95 "2013-07-20T23:37:40Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > As a biologist you should know better that that. Yeah, biology guy, listen to … wait, what are your qualifications here, **yorick73**? > [@](#): > > My point is that any behavior we can possibly think of would fall under the term “natural” as is being used here. Yes, which suggests that the word “unnatural” is an arbitrary and almost meaningless term that tries to use the natural word as a proxy for cultural or personal disapproval. And that happens to be exactly true. That’s why the people who are arguing that homosexuality _could_ be unnatural can’t come up with a rational basis for that claim. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-unnatural/664031/96 "2013-07-20T23:57:45Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Yeah, biology guy, listen to … wait, what are your qualifications here, **yorick73**? Well…I am a biologist. Does that matter? You don’t need to be a biologist to understand that the penis and vagina are complimentary sex organs. The layman could tick off a handful of differences between the anus and vagina to make that point. > [@Marley23](#): > > Yes, which suggests that the word “unnatural” is an arbitrary and almost meaningless term that tries to use the natural word as a proxy for cultural or personal disapproval. And that happens to be exactly true. That’s why the people who are arguing that homosexuality _could_ be unnatural can’t come up with a rational basis for that claim. Well, it suggests that the word “unnatural” has no meaning whatsoever. I suppose you could say that some people are opposed to homosexuality because it is not normal. ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2013, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-unnatural/664031/97 "2013-07-21T00:11:34Z")
The “complementariness of penises and vaginas” argument presumes some things. Like, that they are coevolved structures (which I have no trouble accepting). Or that they are optimally designed for one another. Or that they are exclusively designed for one another. Penises and vaginas may be wonderful apparatuses for delivering and receiving gametes. But if a woman’s intent is to have an orgasm, I can think of far easier means than engaging in vaginal intercourse with a penis. One could argue that just going based on utility alone, the hand is a “natural” sex toy. Does this mean that masterbation is more “natural” than vaginal intercourse? Of course not. If the clitoris could only be stimulated with a penis and the penis could only be stimulated by vaginal fluids, then maybe we could be make an argument about how they are a perfect match. For all we know, the vagina has been more shaped by the evolutionary changes in child birth and human development (biggers heads need bigger, more flexible birth canals) than heterosexual sex, and it’s just a coincidence that they seem complementary. ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2013, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-unnatural/664031/98 "2013-07-21T00:13:47Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > Well, it suggests that the word “unnatural” has no meaning whatsoever. I suppose you could say that some people are opposed to homosexuality because it is not normal. I think this is also a lame argument. There are a lot of traits and behaviors that are not normal. Red hair is not normal. Being a vegetarian is not normal. Being a saint is not normal. “Abnormal” is just like “natural”. Completely value-neutral. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2013, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-unnatural/664031/99 "2013-07-21T00:33:45Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > I think this is also a lame argument. There are a lot of traits and behaviors that are not normal. Red hair is not normal. Being a vegetarian is not normal. Being a saint is not normal. > > “Abnormal” is just like “natural”. Completely value-neutral. It’s not an argument. It’s an attempt to explain why many people, even non-religious, have a problem with homosexuality. I personally do not. Many things like red hair, missing a limb, whatever are not normal…and people will stare and be mean to others with these traits. Homosexuality, as compared to a single outward trait, may seem to change the entire person (i.e. many may consider sexual attraction and pair-bonding so fundamental to humanity that those who deviate from the norm are “sub-human” or otherwise a threat somehow) I agree that "abnormal is value-neutral. My point is that the term “unnatural” ceases to have any meaning whatsoever. ---
**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:** [July 21, 2013, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-unnatural/664031/100 "2013-07-21T00:40:07Z")
I don’t know why you’d bother refuting the “unnatural” argument. Animals don’t learn calculus, cook their food, or brush their teeth. Until fairly recently\*, we didn’t do any of those things either. Does that mean we shouldn’t? \*in biological terms. I’ve been brushing my teeth my whole life. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-unnatural/664031.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-unnatural/664031.md?page=6)