ENOUGH!
References to the Jehovah’s Witnesses, assholes, and goatse are not pertinent to this discussion and have all the appearances of simply trying to game the system in terms of personal insults.
Knock it off.
[ /Moderating ]
Genuinely: what???
Edit: maybe you’re not aware of the expression, “Opinions are like assholes: everybody’s got one.” That’s what I was riffing off of. I thought it was a well-enough known expression that it’d be obvious. My apologies if it’s obscure.
we’re not talking about reproduction or procreation - as has been clearly pointed out, being homesexual does not preclude one from pro-creating - it may be icky for them - but they can (and many clearly have) still reproduce…
We’re not talking about what ‘gays’ assert is natural - clearly their opinion on it matters, since they are more uniquely capable of giving information from a personal level (drives, motiviations, etc) that clearly a heterosexual person will not have first hand experience with.
We’re talking about whether or not Homosexuality - in and of itself - is natural.
Would you please answer that simple question without all the blather and un-neccesary side stepping?
Using this line of thought, a person can have a sexual attraction to virtually anything 99% of the time and still reproduce. What defines unnatural or abnormal?
You tell me. More importantly, tell me why they’re important. Wedding ceremonies are unnatural; two left-handed people marrying one another is abnormal. Are “unnatural” and “abnormal” terms that matter when applied to sexual activities?
I’m not sure anything can, where sexual attraction is concerned. I suppose we could describe sexual function as “normal” or “abnormal” to the extent of “stimulation leading to ejaculation” is the former and “stimulation leading to ocular hemorrhaging” is the latter, for what that’s worth. Anyone who wants to claim homosexuality is unnatural is of course invited to answer the following questions:
- How so?
and
- So what?
IMHO it is unnatural. But then, I am not an anthropologist or a behavioral psychologist. You would do better to seek an answer from one of them, your insistence on scientific evidence being what it is.
That said, I believe I should withdraw from this discussion.
Chicken, meet egg. You can’t have a conversation without defining the words used. Whatever definition you use for “abnormal” and “unnatural” is the benchmark for all behavior.
If you’re not sure if anything be applied to the concept of normal and unnatural then “everything” becomes the standard.
I don’t know your posting history so this is a neutral question. So you agree that the argument that “gay marriage shouldn’t be allowed because homosexuality is unnatural” is a bogus argument because you can’t define “unnatural”? ETA: in a rigorous way that includes homosexuality but not also so much other stuff that makes the argument ridiculous.
I am well aware of the expression. However, with the way this thread was drifting, there was a danger that the simile was going to be expanded personally.
No, I don’t think that’s the problem. I think the problem is the over-sensitive bigotry detectors some people have had installed, and their reactions once those detectors start beeping. I resent the culture here where some people insist on finding bigotry wherever it’s remotely possible to infer it. How I phrased it is not an issue unless you’re too busy leaping to conclusions unsupported by the evidence to actually consider what I said. I shouldn’t have to provide some sort of proof that I’m not a bigot in order to participate in the debate; that should just be the default assumption until I make it clear that I am.
I particularly dislike the regularly-employed tactic of refusing to properly engage in debate, instead acting dismissive, nitpicking, answering questions with questions and going round in circles, intended to exhaust those who disagree with them until they win by default.
That was a bit of rant, but I’m really tired of it.
As for the question of why I phrased it that way, there are a few reasons.
Firstly, I disagree with both those who say it’s natural and those who say it’s unnatural, but there seem to be far more of the former, and it’s more interesting to disagree with the majority.
Secondly, the people who say homosexuality is natural are probably well-intentioned and want to challenge homophobia. I share that desire, but think arguing about the naturalness of being gay is the wrong way to go about it, again, for a few reasons:
[ul]
[li]As I think I’ve made clear, I think it’s meaningless to call human behaviour “natural” or “unnatural”.[/li][li]Most people who call homosexuality “unnatural” probably don’t mean that bonobos, dolphins and ducks never get it on with another of the same sex.[/li][li]Debating this, and trying to prove homosexuality is natural, is sinking to their level. It doesn’t matter in the slightest if it’s natural or not; it’s just completely the wrong argument. That’s not to say it shouldn’t be debated purely academically, but I don’t think we should use the debate to try to prove any point about how acceptable it is to be gay or how we should treat gay people.[/li][/ul]
I think some people see some of these points, and choose to argue that homosexuality is natural anyway because they prefer to fight homophobia than be stricly factually accurate. This is GD, so I’m going to be a pedant and pick facts over pragmatism.
I disagree. With respect to the first two sentences, I don’t think it’s particularly irrelevant or esoteric in the context of this debate, even if no one seems to yet agree. Hopefully, some of the paragraphs above this will explain why I think it’s important. As for the last sentence, honestly, I’m not trying to convince those people, but again, I think some of the paragraphs above address that.
Essentially, humans are a part of nature. We got to this state through evolution, the same as all other living things. It doesn’t matter how tall our buildings get, how fast our planes fly or how delicious our processed snacks taste, we’re still doing what’s natural for us.
Or, as I said, you can use the definition of “natural” that excludes what humans do, but then everything we do is “unnatural”.
I think you can use either definition, but trying to distinguish between “natural” and “unnatural” human behaviours requires a rather arbitrary division, in my opinion.
I would be interested to know how those who say homosexuality is natural for humans would define “natural”.
To try to sharpen the line a little, would you say you’re drawing the distinction between inherent behaviour and that which is learnt, i.e. genetic versus memetic? If so, that seems a reasonable place to draw the line if there has to be one, but I would argue that our use of culture and language to communicate ideas and act upon them is such an important and defining element of humanity that we can hardly call it less natural than sex.
No objection from me. Language was well established 20,000 years ago, so would qualify as “natural” under my layman’s definition.
It’s not just language I was referring to, but the products of it, which includes art, technology, etc.
It was indeed a bit of a rant, and not a particularly relevant one.
When you disagree with the majority just to be interesting, it’s a bit lame, in my opinion. Better would have been to suggest that it’s meaningless to label anything natural OR unnatural. Then you would have been more accurate.
I think you’re wrong on several parts here, and right on others. It’s reasonable to object to the “natural/unnatural” label for a fvariety orf reasons–but there can be a distinction between natural and unnatural behavior for humans, specifically, any behavior engaged in universally can be considered natural, whereas behavior existing in some cultures but not others can be considered unnatural. Eating, defecating, socializing, singing, using tools? Natural. Playing World of Warcraft, legislating against gay people, legislating in defense of gay people, eating Moon Pies? Unnatural. The point, of course, is that there’s no tie between natural and good.
You say that folks calling homosexuality “unnatural” aren’t denying male-on-male duck sex. On the contrary, I think you’re wrong: the bigots I’ve heard using this term DO deny such things out of ignorance, or go through weird contortions to suggest such behaviors are the result of human interference.
And there’s one more thing: pointing out that it’s a “natural” behavior can deny bigots the idea that a change in culture will eliminate homosexuality. Yeah, it’s not the main argument, but it can avoid one of the eddies those arguments go into.
My statement is fairly simple, When the words “normal” and “natural” are defined they become the benchmark for discussions on human behavior (sexual or otherwise).
You can’t declare a statement or argument is bogus without defining the terms used to agree or disagree with it.
Why on earth should either of these words be the benchmark for discussions on human behavior? That seems totally wrong to me. Here are some alternative words for benchmarking behavior:
-Fair
-Compassionate
-Equitable
-Rational
-Just
-Kind
-Merciful
I’d much rather we use such words.
Moreover, I’m not at all convinced you’re correct. When we’re discussing human behavior such as military service, do we benchmark the behavior with “natural” or “normal”? Do we use these words as benchmarks for behavior like penmanship? Carpentry? Political campaigns? Of course not.
OK, define each one and apply them equally to all sexual desires and see if it works as metrics for discussion. Personally, I think you’re just trying to avoid the subject.
But you drove off the argument cliff when you used penmanship and carpentry as examples of human behavior. Those are skills.
That’s stupid. The subject is what words are good metrics for human behavior. You need to explain first why “natural” or “normal” are ones we should use.
Definition-wise, I’m probably happy to use the first adjectival definition for each of the words according to Merriam-Webster, and I think they work well for all sexual behaviors (not desires). If you think one of them doesn’t apply, let me know which.
.
What the fuck are you talking about? When someone writes with a pen, how on earth is that not a behavior?
You’ve made an assertion that “normal” and “natural” are the benchmarks for the discussion of all human behavior–but you haven’t offered the tiniest justification for that assertion. Do you have any justification for it at all?
You’re insisting on a particular definition of “natural” that is fairly uncommon, and drastically limits the utility of the word. I’m not wholly unsympathetic to your view point: I remember being in highschool, and laughing at stuff that was being advertised as “All Natural,” because, like, uranium is also natural, dude.
Oddly enough, I never made the same objection when someone on the news was speculating whether a recent brush fire was natural, or set by someone. Or when someone was described as dying of “natural causes.” Or when someone talked about the “natural beauty” of a redwood forest. Because in those instances, I could see a valid reason to distinguish between “natural” and “man-made.”
And that is one of the ways that people who talk about homosexuality being “unnatural” are using the word. They are alleging that homosexuality is an artificial, human construct, that nobody is “born” homosexual, and only act that way due to conscious, often ideological, decision. To these people, pointing out the incidences of homosexual behavior in other animals is exactly on point. Chimps don’t have gay sex because they’re angry at God, or to undermine Christian values in America. They have gay sex because they’re naturally inclined to enjoy it, just like some humans.
Another common definition among these people harkens back to what Captain Amazing wrote back in post #366. They are referring to the concept of a “natural order,” God’s plan for how the world ought to function, to which sinful man often acts in opposition. To these people, it’s worthwhile to ask, “Is the parasitic wasp part of God’s plan? Or the tongue-eating louse? Or the zombie ant fungus? Because that all seems way more horrific than two guys having buttsex.”
Obviously, the place these two arguments meet is the conclusion that “natural” and “good” are orthogonal terms, and the value of any behavior cannot be determined solely by looking how natural something is.
You seem to be fixated on the idea that the opposite of “natural” must always be “unnatural.” This is not the case. The most common antonym for “natural” isn’t “unnatural,” it is “artificial.” (Arguably, the second most common antonym would be “supernatural.”) This usage does not have to exclude all thing human related: human are natural tool users. Our tools themselves, however, are not natural, but artificial.
I laughed out loud at that. What on Earth do you think is the distinction there?