# 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:** 7
**Author:** ![chris3g](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/43a26b/32.png) [@chris3g](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chris3g)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2013, 8:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-unnatural/664031/121 "2013-07-21T08:32:26Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Because a lot of of people use the “it’s unnatural” argument to mean that type of sex is wrong and that same-sex relationships are wrong or just lesser than heterosexual relationships. The concept itself is irrelevant. Quite so. [Appeal to nature" fallacy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature)", at its essence, does not, and more importantly, can not prove homosexuality is inherently good or bad. For those who can’t be bothered to read up on it, I highlight the following quotation for you. {{Julian Baggini explains that “[E]ven if we can agree that some things are natural and some are not […]**There is no factual reason to suppose that what is natural is good (or at least better) and what is unnatural is bad (or at least worse).**” In some contexts, the use of the terms of “nature” and “natural” can be vague, leading to unintended associations with other concepts. **The word “natural” can also be a loaded term — much like the word “normal”, in some contexts, it can carry an implicit value judgement. An appeal to nature would thus beg the question, because the conclusion is entailed by the premise.**"}} In layman’s term. It would be illogical to say that natural is good. It might be good in some cases, but it might not be in others. They are just two variables that in most cases, independent of one another. Furthermore, good luck defining “good” and “bad”. In the context of sexual mores, I have this suspicion that its definitions is highly volatile. I can’t be bothered to cite this, but growing up in a fundamentalist protestant environment, I’ve often heard the argument “Homosexuality” = “Not found in nature” = “Wrong”. But then as the gay right movements is slowly brought to the mainstream consciousness, it seemed be less and less of a taboo to discuss homosexuality. And I started to come across more and more documented homosexual behaviours and pair-bonds in the animal kingdoms in the news, in text books, in university class, etc, etc… Then another argument started to be employed in church and in debates, such that “homosexuality” = “found in nature” = “base and beastly” = “beneath human” = “wrong” I think that the topic of this debate would be hard to resolve, and that this following internet meme seems to capture it most aptly. “Haterz’ ganna hate”. Irregardless of the logic, or lack thereof, in their justification. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2013, 8:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-unnatural/664031/122 "2013-07-21T08:50:01Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > This again. > > **magellan01** , I don’t know why you insist upon the viability of this argument when you don’t hold this opinion yourself. It relies upon a complete misunderstanding of what evolution is and how it works. Don’t defend people who don’t know what they’re talking about. So when that’s the actual topic of the thread, he can’t talk about it? The topic of this thread is that the OP wants to know why some people think homosexuality is unnatural. (It’s also why they think this matters, but **magellan** never claimed to be answering that question.) I know the guy is extremely terse and makes it hard to understand him initially. And I know that he’s horrible at explaining himself. But he’s made himself pretty clear this time. We even had a poster above you (a gay one, at that) spell it out for you. I don’t get people’s desires to argue against propositions people aren’t actually making. **magellan** already knows the flaws in this belief. If I didn’t know better, I’d think it was because of who the poster is. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2013, 8:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-unnatural/664031/123 "2013-07-21T08:56:58Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > It’s not deliberate. I’m genuinely not understanding what connection “self lubricating” has to do with something being “more” natural. It’s certainly more _convenient_ that we evolved that particular adaptation, but we might very well have evolved with dry vaginas that needed to be lubricated with saliva before coitus. Saying that its more natural to have evolved that way is, at best, incoherent. If something is more convenient, it is, by definition, more natural for someone to do that option than another, less convenient option. There is more than one definition of “natural,” and you are apparently stuck on the wrong one. It’s not that we evolved that way because it is natural. It is natural because we evolved that way. And since we evolved that way, supposedly doing something else is wrong. (And, like the OP said, that’s stupid. But that’s the argument these homophobes are making.) ---
**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 21, 2013, 11:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-unnatural/664031/124 "2013-07-21T11:19:48Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > If something is more convenient, it is, by definition, more natural for someone to do that option than another, less convenient option. There is more than one definition of “natural,” and you are apparently stuck on the wrong one. [There are 67 definitions for the word “natural” on this page.](http://www.thefreedictionary.com/natural) Can you point out which one you’re using? I can’t seem to find it. > [@](#): > > It’s not that we evolved that way because it is natural. It is natural because we evolved that way. And since we evolved that way, supposedly doing something else is wrong. (And, like the OP said, that’s stupid. But that’s the argument these homophobes are making.) I don’t particularly need you to explain other people’s arguments to me, thanks. ---
**Author:** ![Alan\_Smithee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/2acd7d/32.png) [@Alan\_Smithee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alan_Smithee)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2013, 11:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-unnatural/664031/125 "2013-07-21T11:35:00Z")
There are several species, mostly insects, in which the male will puncture the abdomen of the female and inject semen into the abdominal cavity, where it eventually makes its way to the ovaries, if the female doesn’t die from the trauma fist. It’s called [traumatic insemination](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traumatic_insemination). Read that article and you’ll give up any idea that “nature” care about complementarity. Bed bugs reproduce exclusively in this manner, even though the females have perfectly accessible sexual tract. Does that mean that all bed bug reproduction is unnatural? ---
**Author:** ![Bozuit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/edb3f5/32.png) [@Bozuit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bozuit)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2013, 12:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-unnatural/664031/126 "2013-07-21T12:41:49Z")
> [@Kenm](#): > > If you’re referring to lemmings, they don’t hurl themselves off cliffs. That was [**fiction invented by Walt Disney**](http://www.snopes.com/disney/films/lemmings.asp) to flog a movie. I thought someone might say this. Yeah, I know about the lemmings. But it’s not unknown. Bison will do it, if stampeding at least. I’d be very unsurprised to learn rabbits will do it, too. Some animals just can’t be trusted with their own safety. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2013, 12:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-unnatural/664031/127 "2013-07-21T12:51:25Z")
> [@Mr.Kobayashi](#): > > If you ask most people who are opposed to gay marriage, or simply homosexuality in general, why they oppose it they with inevitably say that homosexuality is somehow ‘not natural’. > > This has always baffled me as it seems patently false on several levels, which I have yet to hear an adequate refutation from those who claim it. > > 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. > > Secondly, even if you reject the first premise, homosexuality has been observed to occur in the animal kingdom, including our close primate cousins. Its conduct is therefore natural, it occurs in nature. > > Thirdly, if you reject the first two premises; why is something that is unnatural automatically bad? Flight, for example, is completely unnatural for humans, yet I don’t see those opposed to homosexuality campaigning to close all airports; special pleading if ever I saw it. Hemlock and anthrax, totally natural yet not as good in my opinion as, say, the automobile which doesn’t occur in nature. > > I’m normally quite good at playing devil’s advocate but for the life of me can’t figure out why opponents use an argument so obviously without worth. Is it simply lack of imagination that ‘anything not like me = unnatural’? Do you think it’s unnatural and can explain why, or help me understand why this argument is trotted out so often? There are many things that one can call not natural. Taking medicine, having surgery, being blind, lack of hearing, Living on life support, but people use it. If a person is born to be gay it is natural for that person. I don’t think anyone is forcing others to go to a gay wedding. So why does that bother anyone?. There are many things that people use religion for, and I don’t think the founders meant bigotry to be one of them\> ---
**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 21, 2013, 12:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-unnatural/664031/128 "2013-07-21T12:52:54Z")
> [@Mr.Kobayashi](#): > > 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. Thanks, but I still don’t think I agree with your usage/definition of ‘natural’. The folks that argue homosexuality to be ‘unnatural’ are using the term in a way that makes sense - they just happen to be wrong about what is and is not ‘natural’ behaviour for human animals. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2013, 12:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-unnatural/664031/129 "2013-07-21T12:57:08Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > There are many things that one can call not natural. Taking medicine, having surgery, being blind, lack of hearing, Living on life support, but people use it. If a person is born to be gay it is natural for that person. I don’t think anyone is forcing others to go to a gay wedding. So why does that bother anyone?. There are many things that people use religion for, and I don’t think the founders meant bigotry to be one of them\> As a post script, celibacy isn’t natural either, but some people use that, ans they are not discriminated for it! ---
**Author:** ![aNewLeaf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ac91a4/32.png) [@aNewLeaf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aNewLeaf)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2013, 1:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-unnatural/664031/130 "2013-07-21T13:06:22Z")
The most natural course of action is that adult male humans copulate with anything smaller and softer than themselves. Modern humans eschewing boys and animals, that’s unnatural. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2013, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-unnatural/664031/131 "2013-07-21T13:17:59Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > So when that’s the actual topic of the thread, he can’t talk about it? I didn’t say he couldn’t talk about it. > [@](#): > > I don’t get people’s desires to argue against propositions people aren’t actually making. **magellan** already knows the flaws in this belief. Does he? Even if he doesn’t believe that stuff he keeps defending the soundness of the argument (and has done that in probably dozens of other threads). And as I am trying to explain, he is wrong to do so because it’s not a sound argument. ---
**Author:** ![deltasigma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e5b9ba/32.png) [@deltasigma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/deltasigma)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2013, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-unnatural/664031/132 "2013-07-21T13:40:32Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > As a post script, celibacy isn’t natural either, but some people use that, ans they are not discriminated for it! Just as lying IS natural and they they’re not discriminated against either. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![drewtwo99](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/d07c76/32.png) [@drewtwo99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drewtwo99)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2013, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-unnatural/664031/133 "2013-07-21T17:55:53Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > 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. Precisely why I have no problem entertaining the idea that heterosexual sex is “more natural” than homosexual sex in certain ways. Who the fuck cares what is natural or unnatural? We all do many, many unnatural things all the time, many which benefit us substantially. Like posting on an online message board! ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2013, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-unnatural/664031/134 "2013-07-21T18:12:24Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > I’m not. Perhaps you should stop and think about some of the fine points here, but basically you’re assuming that because something has evolved, evolution _intended_ it to evolve. That’s not true because evolution doesn’t have intent. It just describes what’s happening. It’s not prescriptive. I think I see your point. IOW, a scenario could occur that because of social pressure a gay man has sex (and therefore reproduces) with women a few times before realizing his natural homosexual proclivity. And since that homosexual proclivity doesn’t mean that he never reproduces, then natural selection doesn’t run against it. So it could be that homosexuality IS natural, but just not a “preferred” trait. Similar to getting heart disease in your 30s: Not something that is the best evolutionary trait, but not one that keeps you from reproducing. Am I close to what you are getting at? > [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > 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. I think this is really the best answer. Why is it dispositive if it is “natural” or not? I happen to think it is not, but as I said that doesn’t speak to whether it should be accepted or not. “I’m against gays because it isn’t natural.” Well, are you against all laws regarding automobiles on the idea that cars aren’t natural? ---
**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, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-unnatural/664031/135 "2013-07-21T18:39:52Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > I think I see your point. IOW, a scenario could occur that because of social pressure a gay man has sex (and therefore reproduces) with women a few times before realizing his natural homosexual proclivity. And since that homosexual proclivity doesn’t mean that he never reproduces, then natural selection doesn’t run against it. So it could be that homosexuality IS natural, but just not a “preferred” trait. Similar to getting heart disease in your 30s: Not something that is the best evolutionary trait, but not one that keeps you from reproducing. Am I close to what you are getting at? Historically, it was most likely the case that people engaged in both homo and heterosexual behaviors and didn’t think to conceptualize their identities around either. All this “I’m not straight anymore. I’m gay!” stuff may be what’s “unnatural” and newfangled. When people want to have babies, they have heterosexual sex. Penile and vaginal structures best suited for baby-making are preferred, and thus the genotypes which create these structures will have more “fitness” than those that don’t. But homosexual sex doesn’t exert the same type of evolutionary pressure because it’s not linked to one’s ability to pass on genes. Everybody and their mama could be engaging in anal sex the moment they are born, every single day of their life. But without the direct link between the ability to have children and the ability to withstand anal sex, there won’t be any coevolution between the penis and the anus. In short, you can’t infer from body structure how “natural” something is. If we could, we could infer that sucking on male nipples is totally natural, since why else would nature allow them to exist? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2013, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-unnatural/664031/136 "2013-07-21T19:12:14Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > I think I see your point. IOW, a scenario could occur that because of social pressure a gay man has sex (and therefore reproduces) with women a few times before realizing his natural homosexual proclivity. Yes, except instead of saying that scenario “could occur,” I’d say it has been happening on a regular basis for thousands of years. ---
**Author:** ![MrQwertyasd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9d8465/32.png) [@MrQwertyasd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrQwertyasd)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2013, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-unnatural/664031/137 "2013-07-21T20:18:13Z")
So I did a google and got [this](http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,990813,00.html) “Giraffes do it, goats do it, birds and bonobos and dolphins do it. Humans beings–a lot of them anyway–like to do it too, but of all the planet’s species, they’re the only ones who are oppressed when they try.” Is this so - that actually it’s the repression of homosexuality that is more unnatural ? I would guess that there would also sometimes, at least, be opposition to homosexuality in the animal world. This may give ammunition to those who oppose it in humans who would claim that if homosexuality is natural, then so is it’s repression. I would have thought primate groups would be the most obvious places to look. A search for ‘homosexual repression in the animal kingdom’ doesn’t give anything but reams of well trodden arguments and religious conflict. So what is the straight dope here ? Or the gay dope ? (joke) ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2013, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-unnatural/664031/138 "2013-07-21T20:20:08Z")
> [@MrQwertyasd](#): > > I would guess that there would also sometimes, at least, be opposition to homosexuality in the animal world. Why would you guess that? (Acknowledging again that defining sexual orientation, as opposed to sexual behavior, is kind of problematic when you’re discussing another species.) ---
**Author:** ![MrQwertyasd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9d8465/32.png) [@MrQwertyasd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrQwertyasd)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2013, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-unnatural/664031/139 "2013-07-21T20:26:28Z")
> [@](#): > > There are in fact far more American adults who’ve had heterosexual anal sex at least once in their lives than there are American adults who’ve ever had any type of sex with a same-sex partner. Yet I’ve never heard anyone suggest that heterosexuality is unnatural just because heterosexuals engage in anal sex with each other. Is that an evolutionary strategy to prevent too many babies ? Way back in our cavewoman past ? And if so, is it possible that nature has endowed the anus with more nerve endings than it otherwise would have - just to help keep the population in check ? ---
**Author:** ![MrQwertyasd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9d8465/32.png) [@MrQwertyasd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrQwertyasd)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2013, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-unnatural/664031/140 "2013-07-21T20:28:21Z")
> [@](#): > > Why would you guess that? Because we are animals and share all sorts of behaviours with our animal cousins and ancestors. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-unnatural/664031.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-unnatural/664031.md?page=8)