Homosexuality is 'unnatural'

Great Debates
201

Several people have fallen back on the argument that if procreative self-lubricating sex is not distinguished from non-procreative sub-optimally self-lubricating sex by the word “natural”, then the word “natural” has no meaning. This is simply a very, very silly argument.

Of course the word “natural” retains its meaning. It retains many meanings. In fact, to the contrary, it seems quite impossible to me to construct some functional definition of “natural” that is based entirely on human behavior. I invite any of those advancing the “but, but, as a result natural loses any meaning” to tell me what the human-behavior-based definition of “natural” is.

The very point of this exercise is to show how the application of the word “natural” to the characterization of homosexuality is nonsensical. In fact, the only relevance that the word “natural” can have that distinguishes homosexuality from heterosexuality is in regards to this definition: “based on an inherent sense of right and wrong <natural justice>”. Here, you might found a point of defense, but I would argue this is one of the weakest and least useful definitions of the word.

There are otherwise any of a number of definitions, in fact, that suggest that homosexuality is by definition perfectly natural. To wit:

a : occurring in conformity with the ordinary course of nature : not marvelous or supernatural <natural causes>

b : marked by easy simplicity and freedom from artificiality, affectation, or constraint

c : having a form or appearance found in nature

d : existing in or produced by nature : not artificial <natural turf> <natural curiosities>

e : of, relating to, or operating in the physical as opposed to the spiritual world <natural laws describe phenomena of the physical universe>

f : having a physical or real existence as contrasted with one that is spiritual, intellectual, or fictitious <a corporation is a legal but not a natural person>

g : having or constituting a classification based on features existing in nature

h : having a normal or usual character <events followed their natural course>

202

The problem for me is that describing complex behaviours like human homosexuality as “natural” does leaves very little (perhaps nothing) outside the scope of what is “natural”, if you back your claim up with the behaviours of other animals. Alternatively, we could be using “natural” to mean “natural for humans”, which is probably what we’re normally talking about, until we start trying to defend against claims like “homosexuality is unnatural”. What is natural for humans is clearly quite subjective and depends on what arbitrary percentage of individuals you decide needs to exhibit a certain behaviour before it is considered natural. Then you don’t really have any answer to claims that homosexuality is unnatural, other than to say “that’s your opinion, but I disagree”.

I think it’s best to reject “natural” and “unnatural” as meaningful descriptions of human homosexuality, rather than arguing one side or the other.

203

You need to define natural first before you can start qualifying it as for this or for that. Your further response seems to veer towards statistically normal or typical, which is an arguable but imperfect definition, easily undone by pointing to any number of activities that relatively fewer people engage in that still would ring untrue for most people’s connotation of unnatural.

Well, yes. That’s the point. I would go further and suggest that the terms are not meaningful as applied to any human behavior.

204

Uh, no, actually I don’t see that you weren’t asking for a list of dictionary definitions. You asked what definition of “natural” anyone might use that includes homosexuality but doesn’t include everything else. I provided you with a list of relevant definitions from a widely used English dictionary, the one that I personally turn to most often when I want to look up a definition. Were you expecting a thorough explanation written in my own words? That clearly would have been a waste of my time, as you’ve now revealed that you don’t even consider your own question to be relevant:

So I guess the real reason you’ve been complaining at me is because, while I was foolish enough to take your “non-rhetorical question” at face value, I didn’t fall for this little prank in a sufficiently amusing manner.

205

I think for most people, the prevailing thought is natural ~ normal. Obviously that’s not correct, but most people don’t spend much time on the nuances of the topic.

206

This thread was more interesting when you all were debating buttsecks.

Just sayin’.

207

There are many thing that occur among humans that are rare , or limited to a very small % of people, but still completely natural. Calling homosexuality unnatural is a ridiculous argument.

208

Snopes does not say that Disney invented the story. They refer to it as a widespread belief and they state that the Disney film crews staged a re-inactment of the expected behavior.

209

Infanticide is very natural; a great many species practice it.

So, logically…

210

A discussion on buttsex and no mention of pegging? Or did I just miss it?

211

Well, pegging with an artificial object is unnatural.
I suppose you could use your toe or something.

212

Why is pegging unnatural? Humans and animals use specific tools to achieve their goals all the time.

213

I think natural = normal is a big factor, but as I mentioned before I suspect that many people who call homosexuality “unnatural” means that it’s somehow chosen or learned.

This in and of itself wouldn’t explain why they think homosexuality is bad – people choose/learn all kinds of things that are considered good or at least neutral – but for someone who already thinks homosexuality is bad then the question of whether it is natural or learned might make a difference in how they feel gay people should be treated.

214

While people do use it that way, it’s still stupid. Being unnatural is in no way a valid reason to do or forbid anything. Like how driving a car is clearly unnatural. So what? Nobody would ever think to ban cars for that reason because being unnatural or behaving unnaturally is wholly irrelevant to anything.

Attacking the idea of unnatural is stupid. And all the weak attempts at showing how (whatever) is in fact natural are embarrassing. Attack the relevance of unnatural, which is nil. List a bunch of other things that the hypothetical fundie holds dear that are clearly and undeniably unnatural.

I’d thought that point was driven home by the driving a car example, but apparently not.

215

See, that’s my argument about buttsecks. Butts is butts.

216

No matter how embarrassed you are, calling something that takes place throughout the animal kingdom is unnatural is pretty stupid. A bunch of people have complained about the twisting of the world “unnatural,” but I think that’s a more severe abuse of the word.

217

And what’s a hermaphrodite supposed to do? What’s “natural” in that case? Guess they’re damned if they do…

218

How about “natural” as opposed to “normal”?

Homosexuality is natural in that it occurs without artificial man-made intervention such as from culture or chemicals or technology.

Then again homosexuality is not normal in that the human reproductive system is designed by nature to function in a particular way for a particular reason and yet here we have scattered examples of radically different functioning.

So while being born with a disability is not the same thing in terms of being severely undesirable and limiting, it could also be characterized as “natural but not normal” and one has to establish a different way of doing things in order to get closer to normal functioning.

219

I said “you (anyone)” to mean any reader could answer based on what definition they’re using. I could, perhaps, have made it clearer, but I don’t see how anyone could have taken it to mean I was asking what definition anyone “might” use. Why would I do that when I could just look in a dictionary? And why would you supply me with a list from a dictionary, if you thought that’s what I wanted? Surely you would not wish to indulge such laziness on my part. Is it that you actually didn’t think I wanted a list from a dictionary, but you thought it would be a clever response anyway?

Yes, that’s exactly what I wanted, if you would argue homosexuality is “natural”.

No, I actually said I don’t think “natural” or “unnatural” are meaningful descriptions of homosexuality. Since no one was able/willing to explain why describing homosexuality as “natural” had any real meaning (i.e. by telling us how they mean the word “natural”, used in this case), I posted my “conclusion”, partly in the hope that someone would challenge it. At no point did I say my question was irrelevant.

You took my question at face value? I thought you took it as an opportunity to post “smart” comments without ever actually answering the question posed, perhaps in an attempt to derail any discussion on said question. Perhaps that’s why I’ve been complaining at you.

220

Given your terms, would it be accurate to swap in “an unnatural way of doing things” for “a different way of doing things” in that last sentence?