Homosexuality is 'unnatural'

[Mangetout]

I’m not gay either, but I do a lot of unnatural things, including typing this post on a computer.

[Voyager]

@Mangetout

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.

Many if not most animals limit sex to times of fertility. Humans however naturally are interested all the time. (Bonobos too, naturally. )Therefore it isn’t even correct to call sex without the possibility of procreation unnatural - it is how we are wired. Given that, pretty much everything is natural.

[Miller]

@Urbanredneck

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?

Have you not read a newspaper in the last five years? The gay rights lobby has been enormously successful at changing people’s minds. The public evolution on gay rights in general - and gay marriage in particular - has been faster than any other equivalent civil rights movement in American history. People are changing their mind on the subject every day by the thousands. It is, perhaps, the least intractable problem in contemporary American politics.

[John_Mace]

@Voyager

Many if not most animals limit sex to times of fertility. Humans however naturally are interested all the time. (Bonobos too, naturally. )Therefore it isn’t even correct to call sex without the possibility of procreation unnatural - it is how we are wired. Given that, pretty much everything is natural.

Well, except having to cuddle afterwards!

[tomndebb]

@magellan01

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.

Sorry,you don’t have the authority to invents “facts” by fiat.
To bring together and expand on several points already made:
Natural identifies phenomena in nature. It is not limited to phenomena or actions where you have arbitrarily decided the “purpose” or even the primary purpose.*
Homosexual behavior occurs in every primate species as well as a number of other mammalian and avian species. Declaring a phenonenon “unnatural” that occurs so widely in nature has a much better claim to Bizarro World than your unsupported assertions.
As noted, humans differ from most other animals in that we engage in sex for pair bonding, not just for procreation. Given that fact, (a genuine fact), it makes sense, and appears to be completely natural to engage in sexual activity that is not limited to procreative actions.
I am aware of no species in which sexually mature individuals routinely engage in sexual behavior with sexuaally immature individuals, so a comparison of homosexual behavior to paedophilic behavior fails. One occurs in multiple species in nature and one does not.

*It seems curious that you focus your argument on the “unnatural” aspect of penile/anal sex when many homosexual men do not engage in that behavior and many heterosexual couples do. (And, of course, it is not a practice of human female homosexual behavior.)

[Captain_Amazing]

Could I point out that, traditionally, “natural/unnatural” in this sense has nothing to do with biology? It’s a rationalist argument, not an empirical one, and the argument that homosexuality is “unnatural” comes from the Second Stoics (ie, the Roman era Stoics, particularly the Roman Stoic Musonius Rufus). So talking about what actually happens in nature is irrelevant to the argument. It’s a moral argument, not a scientific one. Technically, he condemns homosexuality, adultery, having sex for pleasure, having sex with a prostitute, and having sex with your slave.

Here’s his section on that, if you’re curious:

Not the least significant part of the life of luxury and self-indulgence lies also in sexual excess; for example those who lead [87] such a life crave a variety of loves not only lawful but unlawful ones as well, not women alone but also men; sometimes they pursue one love and sometimes another, and not being satisfied with those which are available, pursue those which are rare and inaccessible, and invent shameful intimacies, all of which constitute a grave indictment of manhood. Men who are not wantons or immoral are bound to consider sexual intercourse justified only when it occurs in marriage and is indulged in for the purpose of begetting children, since that is lawful, but unjust and unlawful when it is mere pleasure-seeking, even in marriage. But of all sexual relations those involving adultery are most unlawful, and no more tolerable are those of men with men, because it is a monstrous thing and contrary to nature. But, furthermore, leaving out of consideration adultery, all intercourse with women which is without lawful character is shameful and is practiced from lack of self-restraint. So no one with any self-control would think of having relations with a courtesan or a free woman apart from marriage, no, nor even with his own maid-servant. The fact that those relationships are not lawful or seemly makes them a disgrace and a reproach to those seeking them; whence it is that no one dares to do any of these things openly, not even if he has all but lost the ability to blush, and those who are not completely degenerate dare to do these things only in hiding and in secret. And yet to attempt to cover up what one is doing is equivalent to a confession of guilt. “That’s all very well,” you say, “but unlike the adulterer who wrongs the husband of the woman he corrupts, the man who has relations with a courtesan or a woman who has no husband wrongs no one for he does not destroy anyone’s hope of children.” I continue to maintain that everyone who sins and does wrong, even if it affects none of the people about him, yet immediately reveals himself as a worse and a less honorable person; for the wrong-doer by the very fact of doing wrong is worse and less honorable. Not to mention the injustice of the thing, there must be sheer wantonness in anyone yielding to the temptation of shameful pleasure and like swine rejoicing in his own vileness. In this category belongs the man who has relations with his own slave-maid, a thing which some people consider quite without blame, since every master is held to have it in his power to use his slave as he wishes. In reply to this I have just one thing to say: if it seems neither shameful nor out of place for a master to have relations with his own slave, particularly if she happens to be unmarried, let him consider how he would like it if his wife had relations with a male slave. Would it not seem completely intolerable not only if the woman who [89] had a lawful husband had relations with a slave, but even if a woman without a husband should have? And yet surely one will not expect men to be less moral than women, nor less capable of disciplining their desires, thereby revealing the stronger in judgment inferior to the weaker, the rulers to the ruled. In fact, it behooves men to be much better if they expect to be superior to women, for surely if they appear to be less self-controlled they will also be baser characters. What need is there to say that it is an act of licentiousness and nothing less for a master to have relations with a slave? Everyone knows that.

[BrightNShiny]

I’m just going to piggyback off of Captain Amazing here, but this is not a response to his post (since he’s just pointed out what the Stoics thought, rather than taking a view on it).

So, my view is that if we’re going to construct some overreaching philosophical argument about what is natural or not-natural, then we have to consider the possibility that homosexuality is natural. And I don’t get the impression that many people who use this natural/unnatural argument really have done that. They’ve started with an a priori assumption that homosexuality is unnatural, and then try to justify it using any ad-hoc rationalization they can come up with.

It’s similar to the evolution argument. If we want to talk about the role of homosexuality in evolution, then we at least have to consider the possibility that homosexuality is adaptive in some way. Now, maybe we rule that possibility out, but the people who make these evolutionary arguments tend not to do that, in my experience. Rather, they start with an a priori assumption that homosexuality is maladaptive and then come up with ad-hoc “scientific” explanations to justify that assumption.

[Trinopus]

I once tricked a co-worker into defining kissing as a form of sodomy.

He accepted my proposed definition of any conjunction of digestive, eliminative, or reproductive orifices other than standard penis/vagina copulation.

(Is kissing “natural?”)

[CarnalK]

@BrightNShiny

It’s similar to the evolution argument. If we want to talk about the role of homosexuality in evolution, then we at least have to consider the possibility that homosexuality is adaptive in some way. Now, maybe we rule that possibility out, but the people who make these evolutionary arguments tend not to do that, in my experience. Rather, they start with an a priori assumption that homosexuality is maladaptive and then come up with ad-hoc “scientific” explanations to justify that assumption.

I find most arguments arguing that it IS adaptive to really be reaching or fall back on “it’s still around so it’s got to be adaptive”.

[BrightNShiny]

@CarnalK

I find most arguments arguing that it IS adaptive to really be reaching or fall back on “it’s still around so it’s got to be adaptive”.

It’s still around, so it’s possible it’s adaptive is the place to start. We don’t know enough about how homosexuality occurs to say anything definitive. There’s interesting theories as to how it could be adaptive, but I’ve never run across a scientific paper claiming it’s definitely adaptive. Do you have some cites of scientific papers claiming it is adaptive?

[CarnalK]

No I meant the opposite. Suggestions that it’s adaptive always seems to be based on conjecture that falls flat with me. Sure it’s possible but since there’s no obvious adaptive purpose I rest on the " it’s just this fluke that happens sometimes" side.

[BrightNShiny]

@CarnalK

No I meant the opposite. Suggestions that it’s adaptive always seems to be based on conjecture that falls flat with me. Sure it’s possible but since there’s no obvious adaptive purpose I rest on the " it’s just this fluke that happens sometimes" side.

There’s no obvious adaptive purpose to who? You? Why should anyone care what you think is obvious and what isn’t? Do you have some background in this scientific field?

[magellan01]

@tomndebb

Sorry,you don’t have the authority to invents “facts” by fiat.
To bring together and expand on several points already made:
Natural identifies phenomena in nature. It is not limited to phenomena or actions where you have arbitrarily decided the “purpose” or even the primary purpose.*

If you want to seriously parse what I said, look at it in its totality. Here it is again:

[QUOTE=magellan01]
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.
[/QUOTE]

Note that I do not simply say “homosexuality is unnatural”. In this and countless other threads I share my belief that it is naturally occurring. So, address the above in it’s totality or don’t address it at all.

@tomndebb

Homosexual behavior occurs in every primate species as well as a number of other mammalian and avian species. Declaring a phenonenon “unnatural” that occurs so widely in nature has a much better claim to Bizarro World than your unsupported assertions.

This merely points to the fact that it occurs naturally. Which I do not dispute. Of course, again, you challenge parts of what I say while ignoring the totality of it. Again, to help you along:

[QUOTE=magellan01]
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.
[/QUOTE]

(emphasis added, because you seem to need the assistance)

Additionally, I find the argument that homosexuality is normal, fine and dandy because we see it in the animal world really strange. Do you hold that any behavior found in the animal world gives that behavior a pass in humans? Oh, no? Good. So the constant trotting out of these fun facts will stop soon?

@tomndebb

I am aware of no species in which sexually mature individuals routinely engage in sexual behavior with sexuaally immature individuals, so a comparison of homosexual behavior to paedophilic behavior fails. One occurs in multiple species in nature and one does not.

I did not make the comparison you claim I did. You should be more careful in what you accuse others of doing. But maybe you think that because you are so right, and the fabrication is for the greater good, that it’s okay to do so. :rolleyes: No. I was not comparing the two. I was quite clear about that, and included the reasons why that should not be compared to each other. The fact remains, theta they both are deviations for normal human sexuality.They both are natural. That does not mean that both are normal. Or that either is normal. They each need to be judged alone. The point of the illustration is to show that simply categorizing homosexuality as natural does not mean that it automatically is on par with heterosexuality. Both are natural. One is normal, the other deviant. Mind you, I’m using the word in its clinical sense: “deviates from the norm”. If you have a better word that that communicates the same reality without the connotative baggage, I welcome it.

@tomndebb

*It seems curious that you focus your argument on the “unnatural” aspect of penile/anal sex when many homosexual men do not engage in that behavior and many heterosexual couples do. (And, of course, it is not a practice of human female homosexual behavior.)

It simply makes it easiest to illustrate the point. While lesbianism shares the same shortcomings (from normal sexual behavior), it is not as readily apparent. There is no penis being inserted into a thing other than a vagina. And to just put things in perspective, the point I am making with all this is simply to support my original claim. I’m not opposed to homosexuality, and I actually enjoy the notion of lesbianism, but as good as wonderful and beautiful as one might consider either form of homosexuality, neither of them are as natural and normal as heterosexualitiy. Arguing otherwise simply means that you need to go back and take an entry level statistics course. Or a psychology course that talks about deviant behavior.

[magellan01]

@iiandyiiii

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.

Nonsense. It’s dictated by evolution. Are you of the mind that the penis and vagina are not a result of evolution?

[SDarbo]

I remember long ago a person trying to get a person who happened to be homosexual to admit that homosexuality was a neurosis. The person put upon to admit that homosexuality was a neurosis said " Of course it is, but as well its a sin which makes it all the more delicious"

Modeling from other mammals we know homosexuality occurs. The exact evolutionary point of homosexuality is unclear. The exact evolutionary point of many human inclinations and behaviors is unclear.

The idea that being in accord with nature or evolution, both of which require a great deal of unnatural human interpretation-please excuse my sentence fragments- Naturality or our interpretation of evolutionary imperatives- this is no basis for excluding people or criminalizing behaviors.

If consensual behavior between consenting adults creeps me out I quit observing what they are doing and put my binoculars away for the night. If what they are doing gets proven to tear a hole in the space time continuum I might take have a very different attitude.

[BrightNShiny]

@magellan01

Nonsense. It’s dictated by evolution. Are you of the mind that the penis and vagina are not a result of evolution?

And your background in evolution is?

[magellan01]

@wolfpup

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.

I think this is an excellent post, and brings up a real problem with the language. Most of it would be fine if discussed by clinical psychologists, but many of the words have very strong lay connotations. Yet the facts beyond them remain facts. As I mentioned in my post to Tom, if you have other words that reflect the reality of the situation that carry less baggage, I welcome the suggestions.

[grude]

@magellan01

This merely points to the fact that it occurs naturally. Which I do not dispute. Of course, again, you challenge parts of what I say while ignoring the totality of it. Again, to help you along:

(emphasis added, because you seem to need the assistance)

Additionally, I find the argument that homosexuality is normal, fine and dandy because we see it in the animal world really strange. Do you hold that any behavior found in the animal world gives that behavior a pass in humans? Oh, no? Good. So the constant trotting out of these fun facts will stop soon?

I did not make the comparison you claim I did. You should be more careful in what you accuse others of doing. But maybe you think that because you are so right, and the fabrication is for the greater good, that it’s okay to do so. :rolleyes: No. I was not comparing the two. I was quite clear about that, and included the reasons why that should not be compared to each other. The fact remains, theta they both are deviations for normal human sexuality.They both are natural. That does not mean that both are normal. Or that either is normal. They each need to be judged alone. The point of the illustration is to show that simply categorizing homosexuality as natural does not mean that it automatically is on par with heterosexuality. Both are natural. One is normal, the other deviant. Mind you, I’m using the word in its clinical sense: “deviates from the norm”. If you have a better word that that communicates the same reality without the connotative baggage, I welcome it.

It simply makes it easiest to illustrate the point. While lesbianism shares the same shortcomings (from normal sexual behavior), it is not as readily apparent. There is no penis being inserted into a thing other than a vagina. And to just put things in perspective, the point I am making with all this is simply to support my original claim. I’m not opposed to homosexuality, and I actually enjoy the notion of lesbianism, but as good as wonderful and beautiful as one might consider either form of homosexuality, neither of them are as natural and normal as heterosexualitiy. Arguing otherwise simply means that you need to go back and take an entry level statistics course. Or a psychology course that talks about deviant behavior.

While A not being as common as B and C might be true, it is a sort of meaningless statement. If you are doing all this just to justify calling homosexuality deviant, well the English language grows and moves.

[magellan01]

In my less evolved state I was almost a liberal.

[CarnalK]

@BrightNShiny

There’s no obvious adaptive purpose to who? You? Why should anyone care what you think is obvious and what isn’t? Do you have some background in this scientific field?

No I don’t. I am speaking as a lay person. You yourself said you know of no scientific papers positing an adaptive purpose. Just “interesting theories”. On a recent episode of The Nature of Things discussing homosexuality the only theory backed by a real study suggested the genes that cause homosexuality are related to ones that increase fecundity in women. Which would suggest that the genes are very useful to pass on even with the occasional less useful expression of them in males.