All I would be doing is restating points that were made earlier in this thread by other posters. It would be one thing if you had read this thread and were seeking clarification about something, or if you were bringing a new counter-argument to the table. But I don’t get the impression that you read this thread at all before you started posting. Why should I spend time correcting you, when you can’t even take the time to read this thread?
Nature made bees so only a small percentage of them are fertile. Nature made humans so that a small percentage of them are attracted to the same gender, instead of the opposite gender. Neither is any more unnatural than the other.
Good. And since no human created homosexuality it evolved naturally, just like > 100 IQs and skin color. Genetic diversity is important for species survival, so if you think anything further than 1 or 2 sigma from the norm is unnatural you don’t understand evolution. Given that people did not create homosexuality, and it falls within normal genetic diversity, you can only conclude that homosexuality, like IQs > 110, is natural.
Agree?
Where is the prostate located?
What would naturally stimulate the prostate during a sex act?
How many heterosexual couples practice anal sex?
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.
But this idea of whether something can be classified as natural and that such a classification frees it form any moral judgment is nonsensical. It is not necessarily good, nor necessarily bad. But is not automatically neutral either. Take pedophilia. From everything I’ve read and heard, it’s hard-wired, and that pedophiles cannot change their attraction. So, while the desire might be “natural” for certain individuals, that hasn’t stopped society from saying classifying it as both “natural” and something we as a society view as a negative…something we want to see much less of.
I bring up that example to illustrate a point, not to equate pedophelia with homosexuality. They are worlds different, starting with the notion of two consenting adults and the lack of a victim, or abuse. But they are both unnatural, both are deviations from what is a natural and normal expression of human sexuality. That is just a fact. But it does not mean that homosexuality is something we should seek to minimize. It hurts no one and pleases the two people involved, so more power to them. 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.
::shrug::
Really this subject is a waste of time. The gays out there I’m sure have worked thru and rationalized away any objection of “un-natural” anyone can think of. Same as those who support them. Those that see homosexuality as being wrong are equally steadfast.
So basically you have 2 sides that no argument will sway.
So why argue the point? Dont we all have times when we are around certain people who have their own opinions and you just have to “agree to disagree” and drop the issue?
I don’t know how the body evolved and why the prostrate is where it is. Do you?
And I don’t see why some people finding anal sex enjoyable has anything to do with recognizing the primary and complementary purposes of penis + vagina. Again, we’re into Bizarro World.
Well, aadi, it looks like we are going to rehash all these idiotic arguments (see the post before mine). If that’s the case, feel free to post whatever you want and you can ignore what I said.
No it’s not. What’s “natural and normal” about human sexuality is not a matter of fact.
You’ve failed to support your assertion that homosexuality is not “natural and normal”.
How? “Natural and normal” could vary extremely widely. It’s even been argued (not that I’m convinced yet) that a small number of homosexuals is beneficial to the species and gene propagation by providing a small number of adults who will assist their brothers and sisters with child-rearing and other tasks without being burdened with their own children.
This is more “because I say so” argument. “Primary and complementary” purpose for anything implies a motive and a creator – it’s fine to believe this, but this isn’t a scientific statement. For some people, the primary and complementary purpose is one thing – for other people, the purpose is different. People can decide what the purpose of parts of their bodies are.
What is the primary use of the mouth, for humans? I’d guess that from a historical perspective, it’s for eating. Yet we talk, too. Or hum. Or smile. Or sing (or try to :p)! I wouldn’t say any of those things were unnatural.
you clearly haven’t heard me sing.
The primary use of the penis is urination so sex is unnatural, right? :rolleyes:
CMC fnord!
That’s a flawed rationalization that would be irrelevant except that incorrect use of loaded terminology can have unfortunate consequences. “Natural” means, by definition, “occurring in nature”. Homosexuality occurs in nature, not just among humans but in other species. That resolves the OP’s question. What more is there to say, and why is it so important to some?
Here’s why I think it’s important to some. We have an innate tendency to distrust and dislike those who are different from us. Different cultures, religions, and races have always been a basis for conflict. And the more emotionally connected that difference is, the more power it has among those dominated by these knee-jerk reactions instead of rational thought. And language is a powerful way of reinforcing these prejudices. Meaningless terms like “unnatural acts” and “acts against God and Nature” are thrown around by sanctimonious moralists to justify their visceral reactions, and have sometimes actually been enshrined into laws that prescribed draconian penalties for harmless things that society just didn’t like at an emotional level. Furthermore, suggesting that something isn’t “natural and normal” – to use your own phrase – also carries the connotation that remediation is necessary to “correct” or “cure” it, and we all know how well that’s worked out.
And that’s why it matters how we use loaded language, and why your defective rationalization promotes discrimination, whether or not you intended it that way.
Except for urolagnia, which I’m sure magellan01 will agree is the most natural kind of sex, involving as it does one of the primary purposes of the penis as listed in the “Do’s and Don’ts” section of the Your Penis and You handbook that all males are all given at birth.
I dont think it can be denied that the biological purpose of a penis is to deposit sperm in a vagina, so in that sense, PIV sexual intercourse is functionally natural.
But then we always seem to go racing off and attaching value judgments to the term ‘natural’ and ‘unnatural’, seemingly ignoring the fact that humans do a great many unnatural things every day.
I think I could earnestly argue that playing the guitar or driving a forklift truck is more unnatural than any act of homosexual sex, but where are the people campaigning to shut those things down.
If your anything like me, it started depositing sperm all over the damn place long before vaginas entered the picture.
Why does unnatural and not a bad thing have to be mutually exclusive?
The natural function of an anus is expelling feces, so anal sex is unnatural. But there is nothing wrong with that.
If you state that you are playing the devil’s advocate, and then it turns out that you’re really just giving your own heartfelt opinion, does that mean you are…
THE DEVIL?
-
You’ve conflated “wrong” with “un-natural”, which is largely the point. Argue one or the other, but don’t try to confuse one for the other.
-
Isn’t your second sentence really just an alternate way of saying that “the gays” have a better argument? “Damn, boys, them gays pre-out-thunk us!”
-
I don’t happen to be gay, but I appear to have pre-out-thunk the “homos is unnatural” crowd. What do you make of that?