The “because” goes to why I posted it. The OP was baffled and I tried to shed some light.
Ridiculous. Just the sheer incidence of individuals that engage in the behavior should show you that. That and the fact that the species could continue just fine with zero anal sex. Not true with traditional sex.
Ah, my favorite part, where the little slight of hand comes in. As you likely recall, I hold that homosexuality is naturally occurring. But the game is to glom on to the word and then—PRESTO—homosexuality os 100% as natural as breathing. Nope. It is still (pardon the word’s negative connotations, I mean it in the clinical sense) deviant behavior.
I think when some people say homosexuality is unnatural, they have in mind some sort of standard design or blueprint that human beings are constructed on, and that being homosexual runs contrary to that standard design—like having six fingers on each hand, or having one’s internal organs reversed.
Other people who talk about homosexuality being “unnatural” or “against nature” have in mind some sort of “natural law” perspective.
Well, this renders the word “natural”, a word that very many people frequently find useful in all sorts of circumstances, completely meaningless. Is it really a word you never ever use yourself (apart from mentioning it to point out its meaninglessness)? Most people, down the ages, have found it useful to have a word that will demarcate the spontaneous products of nature from the “artificial” things (which might include patterns of behavior) deliberately created by human beings.
So, in short, I think this part of your argument is bullshit. It is one of those arguments that can be seen to be fallacious because if it were sound it would prove far, far too much.
I do not have any particular quarrel with your other points, however.
As happy as I am being gay and engaging in anal sex on occaision, it’s simply not “as natural” as vaginal penetrative sex, with careful definitions of natural vs unnatural.
As noted, the female when aroused will produce lubricant to aid in penetration. The vagina typically is just much more easily penetrated than an anus. The procreative argument is compelling as well. Vaginal intercourse thus serves 2 “natural” purposes: pleasure and procreation. Anal sex only serves 1 natural purpose: pleasure. I’m simplifying things a bit, but hopefully it makes sense. The fact that the female anatomy is built to facilitate penetrative vaginal sex through natural lubrication is another point of data in favor of vaginal sex being more “natural.”
This of course is a ridiculous non sequitur because homosexuality is not defined by anal intercourse. Yes lots of gay men engage in it for sure, but by no means is it the main form of sexual activity for many gay men, and for some, it never happens at all and they are still just as much homosexual as anyone else who engages in penetrative anal sex.
I’m sure there are plenty of heterosexual couples who never engage in penetrative vaginal sex either, for any number of reasons, and this doesn’t make them any less heterosexual.
So it’s all rather a quaint and silly discussion to me anyway. But, at least I can see what magellan is saying.
Something being more common is not the same as something being more natural. Neither does something being more critical to survival mean something is more natural. The ability to filter oxygen out of the atmosphere is more important than preventing heat loss through the top of your head, but that doesn’t mean lungs are “more natural” than hair.
Homosexuality *is *100% as natural as breathing. It’s not as common, nor as vital, but it’s no less natural because of that. Anyway, I answered your question, but you didn’t answer mine. Which is the more natural function, and why?
I believe that this admission makes the point of the opponents discussed in the OP: homosexual sex isn’t natural. That doesn’t mean it’s wrong, should be illegal, should be shunned, etc., but it states the point it means to assert.
For one, you’re implied conclusion that homosexuality is way for the species to figure out a better way to procreate, especially when the one we have works just fine.
magellan01, I don’t know why you insist upon the viability of this argument when you don’t hold this opinion yourself. It relies upon a complete misunderstanding of what evolution is and how it works. Don’t defend people who don’t know what they’re talking about.
Evolution describes a process. It has no guiding intent and does not have goals or dictate laws. People who make this mistake don’t know what the hell they’re talking about and are they’re attempting to impose their values on a neutral description. It’s stupid, and while they might deserve a patient explanation of what they are getting wrong, it’s not a sound argument because it isn’t coherent or based on facts. So the claim doesn’t deserve the defense you keep providing.
I also don’t understand. A man who sticks his penis in another man’s anus will not pass on his genes to the next generation. A man who does the same in a woman’s vagina will likely do so.
Are you under the impression a guy can only have sex one time? Regardless, that has nothing to do with intent of evolution because there is no such thing. Our sex organs evolved in specific ways, but that doesn’t mean evolution intends us to do particular things with them because evolution does not have intent. Nor does it mean using them one way is more natural than using them in another way - that doesn’t even really mean anything.
It amuses me that the same people who pontificate on what’s natural and what’s not natural also tend to be the type of people who are staunchly religious, particularly of the Christian stripe.
A major part of Christianity is struggling against one’s “nature” to be a spiritual, pure person. “Natural” is often sinful. Humans aren’t supposed to take their cues from the animal kingdom. We’re supposed to be better than animals. So if a Christian makes a big deal out of homosexuality not being natural, I’d have to ask them if they think murder, the thing we’re admonished not to do in the Ten Commandments, is natural.
IMHO “natural” is value-neutral. Methyl-mercury is natural. That doesn’t mean you should eat it.
You seem to be talking in circles. If I use my arms to throw rocks at the river, I will be at an evolutionary disadvantage to a man that throws rocks at predators or prey. Likewise if my propensity is to be attracted to males, my reproductive potential is very small. Or were you talking about bisexuality?
