So anal sex is less natural than vaginal sex but more natural than, say, driving a car.
What complementary organ is “designed” to stimulate the prostate? And nipples?
Oh, you’re one THOSE! Ewww. You probably don’t even wash the sap off afterwards either?
You disgust me. :mad:
No, I’m saying that homosexuality is a result of that process, in exactly the same way that gendered reproduction is a result of that process. Gendered reproduction is a more useful result, to be sure but both things resulted from exactly the same natural process. It makes no sense to refer to one as “more” natural than the other.
I’d argue against that. The asteroid that made the Gulf of Mexico destroyed vastly more species than humans, and altered the environment (and geography) far more radically than humans have, and that was the result of entirely natural processes.
My responses, in no particular order:
-There is no burden of proof on me, because I am not making any claims. My position is neither more nor less extraordinary than yours, because I am not taking a position. The purpose of this thread is to evaluate the quality of the “homosexuality is unnatural” argument. The only point I am attempting to make is that this ARGUMENT is bullshit, at least so far as it has been presented in this thread. If the argument is valid, it should be possible to come up with a definition of “natural” that includes all forms of heterosexual sex and excludes homosexual sex. So far, no such definition has been presented. I am not claiming anything about the anus vs vagina as a home for the penis - what I am saying is that YOU have failed to satisfactorily explain why the latter is more “natural” than the former.
-So, that said, I repeat: your arguments so far boils down to “vaginal sex is required for reproduction”. So, again - is nonreproductive vaginal sex as “unnatural” as homosexual sex? What about heterosexual anal sex?
-You’ve added the element of natural lubrication to justify your position. I admit, that’s valid, as far as it goes. Vaginal sex certainly utilizes natural lubrication, and anal sex does not. But really? Is that what’s behind the whole “homosexual sex is unnatural” belief? Because they have to buy lube instead of making it themselves? Again - what about heterosexual vaginal sex that requires the help of artificial lubrication? What about heterosexual anal sex? Are those more unnatural that homosexual sex? Less unnatural? Why? If a man has a really sweaty anus that acts as natural lubricant, is it then natural for him to be penetrated by another penis? And what about lesbians, anyway?
Further, I note that you have ignored my request for clarification back in post 67. Am I to conclude from this that you concede that your evolutionary argument was incorrect? If not, why not?
I think you misheard me. I said I’m a tree hugger.
For some, Unnatural= alien.
I had this discussion with a laid back Muslim from Bangladesh back in the 1980s. He had gay friends, but thought that homosexuality was unnatural. It’s fair to say that he had a more tolerant temperament than average - my kind of guy. During our discussion he ran into the sorts of problems that Mr. Kobayashi outlined - after all homosexuality is observed in the animal kingdom (at which point he segued to “But aren’t we suppose to be above that?”)
Unlike most pushing this view, he wasn’t especially excitable. He still believed that homosexuality was unnatural at the end of the conversation, but it seemed that he wasn’t sure why he believed that. “It just is”, or so he implied: he was too thoughtful to say such a dim thing.
As for myself, I argued years ago at this board that the example of Bonobo chimpanzees blows the unnatural argument out of the water, at least for me. This book has an entry in the index under “Duration of homosexual pair bonds”. It includes references to primates, marine mammals, hoofed mammals and waterfowl. I haven’t probed further into the book.
I can actually dig what you mean with this point straight away; I think you’ve probably taken a bit of unnecessary flak on it - to expand, that heterosexual sex as part of our evolution (or design) is pleasurable to encourage reproduction and continuation of the species. On the complementary nature, I’ve always assumed that heterosexual sex generally doesn’t require as much…preparation? I guess, as homosexual sex. People with more experience please correct me if I’m wrong. However, by this argument, any sexual act beyond one intended for procreation is unnatural - would those opposed to homosexuality on this point be opposed to heterosexual anal sex? Or a blow job? The vagina’s a more natural home for the penis than the mouth, after all.
It also doesn’t explain why the prostate can be stimulated sexually - and it’s located up the male fundament. So either nature or God messed that one up if bum fun was never intended to happen.
Only in terms of a line drawn between human beings and the rest of the animal kingdom, which I believe is mostly based on solipsism. It denies the role of humanity as, for want of a better term, natural beings (‘a naked ape’) who evolved to co-exist with other life forms on Earth.
By way of example, I recall reading a critique of the US national park system. What the hell do parks have to do with gays? In that, when creating them the feds moved native Americans out of the area, who had been a part of that environment for 11,000 years - thus creating an environment that was not natural, since humans were no longer part of it. Point being it’s not the word natural I object to, just using it in a way that suggests humans are not natural, or ‘outside’ it somehow.
magellan01 somewhat has a point. It’s hard to argue that they aren’t complementary.
I don’t think that’s a particularly relevant argument against Windsor (as drewtwo99 indirectly suggested, it’s relevant against Lawrence, although I disagree with it in that regard).
The people arguing against him, however, are invoking the naturalistic fallacy (though it’s not strictly a fallacy, since the syllogism involved is perfectly valid).
Though I don’t see anyone restricting the rights of people with polydactyly or situs inversus.
As a biologist you should know better that that. Depending on your field I am certain that you could tick off an entire list of traits (or have the ability to look them up) that show the complementarity of the penis and vagina as opposed to penis-anus. If you can’t you may want to consider switching fields.
One could argue that anything and everything is natural. What is more “natural”, penile-vaginal sex or me blowing a hole in a stranger’s head and inserting my penis into that? Someone may enjoy doing that so I guess it’s natural. So is pedophilia, bestiality and necrophilia. All paraphilias are equally natural. Killing someone is natural. Every possible behavior that we engage in can be considered “natural”. The word “natural”, then, is all-encompassing and loses any objective meaning.
Let me make it clear that I am not comparing homosexuality to any of the above. My point is that any behavior we can possibly think of would fall under the term “natural” as is being used here.
I’m reminded of a saying a friend of mine had.
There are two types of men in this world. Bottoms and those who have no idea what they’re missing.
Certainly any man who’s had their prostrate stimulated by a penis or a finger might question Magellan’s comments.
Sort of like the complimentary nature of a mouth and a penis.
Don’t gay men have both?
I have a problem with this argument (not in the specific context of homosexuality). If you’re right, then the word ‘natural’ has no meaning or utility whatever - if it applies to everything.
See my response to njtt on the argument of the specific applications of the word natural as it applies to human beings, as opposed to the definition itself.
Yeah, biology guy, listen to … wait, what are your qualifications here, yorick73?
Yes, which suggests that the word “unnatural” is an arbitrary and almost meaningless term that tries to use the natural word as a proxy for cultural or personal disapproval. And that happens to be exactly true. That’s why the people who are arguing that homosexuality could be unnatural can’t come up with a rational basis for that claim.
Well…I am a biologist. Does that matter? You don’t need to be a biologist to understand that the penis and vagina are complimentary sex organs. The layman could tick off a handful of differences between the anus and vagina to make that point.
Well, it suggests that the word “unnatural” has no meaning whatsoever. I suppose you could say that some people are opposed to homosexuality because it is not normal.
The “complementariness of penises and vaginas” argument presumes some things. Like, that they are coevolved structures (which I have no trouble accepting). Or that they are optimally designed for one another. Or that they are exclusively designed for one another.
Penises and vaginas may be wonderful apparatuses for delivering and receiving gametes. But if a woman’s intent is to have an orgasm, I can think of far easier means than engaging in vaginal intercourse with a penis. One could argue that just going based on utility alone, the hand is a “natural” sex toy. Does this mean that masterbation is more “natural” than vaginal intercourse? Of course not.
If the clitoris could only be stimulated with a penis and the penis could only be stimulated by vaginal fluids, then maybe we could be make an argument about how they are a perfect match. For all we know, the vagina has been more shaped by the evolutionary changes in child birth and human development (biggers heads need bigger, more flexible birth canals) than heterosexual sex, and it’s just a coincidence that they seem complementary.
I think this is also a lame argument. There are a lot of traits and behaviors that are not normal. Red hair is not normal. Being a vegetarian is not normal. Being a saint is not normal.
“Abnormal” is just like “natural”. Completely value-neutral.
It’s not an argument. It’s an attempt to explain why many people, even non-religious, have a problem with homosexuality. I personally do not. Many things like red hair, missing a limb, whatever are not normal…and people will stare and be mean to others with these traits. Homosexuality, as compared to a single outward trait, may seem to change the entire person (i.e. many may consider sexual attraction and pair-bonding so fundamental to humanity that those who deviate from the norm are “sub-human” or otherwise a threat somehow)
I agree that "abnormal is value-neutral. My point is that the term “unnatural” ceases to have any meaning whatsoever.
I don’t know why you’d bother refuting the “unnatural” argument. Animals don’t learn calculus, cook their food, or brush their teeth. Until fairly recently*, we didn’t do any of those things either. Does that mean we shouldn’t?
*in biological terms. I’ve been brushing my teeth my whole life.