You know this is GD, right?
If I’m wrong and my claim that it makes no sense to use the word “natural” in this context has been “blown out of the water”, feel free to explain.
What, again?
We’ve both made points, and yet we still disagree. It seems to me that the only solution is to agree to disagree, or to rephrase and build upon our points. That’s how debates work, right?
That said, I don’t think anyone has attempted to refute my claim that it’s meaningless to use the word “natural”. To put it another way, if homosexuality is natural, which existing human behaviours are unnatural?
Monogamy, marriage, birth control, vegetarianism, operating vehicles, etc…
In the context of “natural” and “unnatural” human behavior, I tend to use prehistoric man as my litmus test. If we were doing it around the time we discovered fire, it’s natural. If we weren’t, it’s contrived.
I think there were homosexual prehistoric cavemen.
Actually, “discovering fire” is too long ago. Checking wiki, it says that anatomically modern humans have been around for about 200,000 years. So I’d say anything we were doing around 20,000 years ago is natural.
It also occurs to me that I believe that there have always been and always will be homosexuals, but I can’t offer any compelling evidence to establish the claim scientifically.
A poisonous wild mushroom is as natural as you can get.
The same goes for gila monsters, quicksand, volcanoes, black widow spiders, botulinum, ostrich kicks, and coral snake venom.
The problem, Bozuit, is that it would have been equally meaningful and relevant to have posted, “You can’t say homosexuality is unnatural, because it just makes no sense to do so.” But that’s not what you chose to post. Why not?
I think you’re making a pretty esoteric semantic point. It’s certainly not one that’s particularly relevant to this discussion. That is to say, I presume that anyone who is advancing the proposition that homosexuality is unnatural will find your argument unconvincing.
I also think that your alternative assertion that we could characterize no human behavior as natural is not intuitive. Perhaps if you could elaborate on just how you might argue that point, your broader position could be made a bit clearer.
at risk - what exactly are you trying to state here?
that dangerous things are also natural things, and by extension/comparison homosexuality is a dangerous, vile, poisonous thing?
I took it almost exactly the opposite way: since lots of natural things are dangerous, it’s silly to praise or elevate heterosexuality simply for being natural.
(Although I found it surprising that Dougie Monty would be defending homosexuality.)
You’re way off. I was pointing out that just because something is “natural” doesn’t necessarily mean it is good, or bad. I was not defending --or attacking–anything.
But(to get back to the point of this exercise), when people go out of their way to say that homosexuality is “unnatural”, what message do you think they are trying to put out?
Probably that they are downright opposed to it.
yet all of your examples of other ‘natural’ things were things that were dangerous, poisonous, etc - you didn’t include any examples of natural things that were ‘good’ …
So - I fully disagree with this statement of yours.
how could he be ‘way off’ if you weren’t attacking or defending ?
Do you feel that Homosexuality is natural or un-natural?
What is your position on it?
I disapprove of it–but that doesn’t mean I’ll go around with a gun to shoot any gays I see. If there’s anything negative to do I don’t consider myself as appointed to do it.
So how do you vote (if you vote) on gay-related issues, like gay-marriage bans and such? That’s in the middle ground between just disapproving and going on a shooting spree.
This thread isn’t about ‘approval’ of homosexuality - its about whether or not it is natural or not.
what is your stance on that ?
I withdraw my question because simster’s is more on point - is there any useful definition of “natural” that excludes homosexuality that would not also exclude lots of other stuff too?
Related, HOW would such a definition be useful and to whom?
That’s just as well, Bryan, that you withdraw your question: I prefer not to discuss how I vote, in the true American tradition of the secret ballot. In fact I was a pollworker in the election we had in California on November 4. 