Homosexuality is 'unnatural'

Great Debates
121

Quite so.

Appeal to nature" fallacy", at its essence, does not, and more importantly, can not prove homosexuality is inherently good or bad.

For those who can’t be bothered to read up on it, I highlight the following quotation for you.

{{Julian Baggini explains that “[E]ven if we can agree that some things are natural and some are not […]There is no factual reason to suppose that what is natural is good (or at least better) and what is unnatural is bad (or at least worse).”

In some contexts, the use of the terms of “nature” and “natural” can be vague, leading to unintended associations with other concepts. The word “natural” can also be a loaded term — much like the word “normal”, in some contexts, it can carry an implicit value judgement. An appeal to nature would thus beg the question, because the conclusion is entailed by the premise."}}

In layman’s term. It would be illogical to say that natural is good. It might be good in some cases, but it might not be in others. They are just two variables that in most cases, independent of one another.

Furthermore, good luck defining “good” and “bad”. In the context of sexual mores, I have this suspicion that its definitions is highly volatile.

I can’t be bothered to cite this, but growing up in a fundamentalist protestant environment, I’ve often heard the argument “Homosexuality” = “Not found in nature” = “Wrong”.

But then as the gay right movements is slowly brought to the mainstream consciousness, it seemed be less and less of a taboo to discuss homosexuality. And I started to come across more and more documented homosexual behaviours and pair-bonds in the animal kingdoms in the news, in text books, in university class, etc, etc…

Then another argument started to be employed in church and in debates, such that “homosexuality” = “found in nature” = “base and beastly” = “beneath human” = “wrong”

I think that the topic of this debate would be hard to resolve, and that this following internet meme seems to capture it most aptly.

“Haterz’ ganna hate”. Irregardless of the logic, or lack thereof, in their justification.

122

So when that’s the actual topic of the thread, he can’t talk about it? The topic of this thread is that the OP wants to know why some people think homosexuality is unnatural. (It’s also why they think this matters, but magellan never claimed to be answering that question.)

I know the guy is extremely terse and makes it hard to understand him initially. And I know that he’s horrible at explaining himself. But he’s made himself pretty clear this time. We even had a poster above you (a gay one, at that) spell it out for you.

I don’t get people’s desires to argue against propositions people aren’t actually making. magellan already knows the flaws in this belief.

If I didn’t know better, I’d think it was because of who the poster is.

123

If something is more convenient, it is, by definition, more natural for someone to do that option than another, less convenient option. There is more than one definition of “natural,” and you are apparently stuck on the wrong one.

It’s not that we evolved that way because it is natural. It is natural because we evolved that way. And since we evolved that way, supposedly doing something else is wrong. (And, like the OP said, that’s stupid. But that’s the argument these homophobes are making.)

124

There are 67 definitions for the word “natural” on this page. Can you point out which one you’re using? I can’t seem to find it.

I don’t particularly need you to explain other people’s arguments to me, thanks.

125

There are several species, mostly insects, in which the male will puncture the abdomen of the female and inject semen into the abdominal cavity, where it eventually makes its way to the ovaries, if the female doesn’t die from the trauma fist. It’s called traumatic insemination. Read that article and you’ll give up any idea that “nature” care about complementarity.

Bed bugs reproduce exclusively in this manner, even though the females have perfectly accessible sexual tract. Does that mean that all bed bug reproduction is unnatural?

126

I thought someone might say this. Yeah, I know about the lemmings. But it’s not unknown. Bison will do it, if stampeding at least. I’d be very unsurprised to learn rabbits will do it, too. Some animals just can’t be trusted with their own safety.

127

There are many things that one can call not natural. Taking medicine, having surgery, being blind, lack of hearing, Living on life support, but people use it. If a person is born to be gay it is natural for that person. I don’t think anyone is forcing others to go to a gay wedding. So why does that bother anyone?. There are many things that people use religion for, and I don’t think the founders meant bigotry to be one of them>

128

Thanks, but I still don’t think I agree with your usage/definition of ‘natural’. The folks that argue homosexuality to be ‘unnatural’ are using the term in a way that makes sense - they just happen to be wrong about what is and is not ‘natural’ behaviour for human animals.

129

As a post script, celibacy isn’t natural either, but some people use that, ans they are not discriminated for it!

130

The most natural course of action is that adult male humans copulate with anything smaller and softer than themselves.
Modern humans eschewing boys and animals, that’s unnatural.

131

I didn’t say he couldn’t talk about it.

Does he? Even if he doesn’t believe that stuff he keeps defending the soundness of the argument (and has done that in probably dozens of other threads). And as I am trying to explain, he is wrong to do so because it’s not a sound argument.

132

Just as lying IS natural and they they’re not discriminated against either. :smiley:

133

Precisely why I have no problem entertaining the idea that heterosexual sex is “more natural” than homosexual sex in certain ways. Who the fuck cares what is natural or unnatural? We all do many, many unnatural things all the time, many which benefit us substantially. Like posting on an online message board!

134

I think I see your point. IOW, a scenario could occur that because of social pressure a gay man has sex (and therefore reproduces) with women a few times before realizing his natural homosexual proclivity. And since that homosexual proclivity doesn’t mean that he never reproduces, then natural selection doesn’t run against it. So it could be that homosexuality IS natural, but just not a “preferred” trait. Similar to getting heart disease in your 30s: Not something that is the best evolutionary trait, but not one that keeps you from reproducing. Am I close to what you are getting at?

I think this is really the best answer. Why is it dispositive if it is “natural” or not? I happen to think it is not, but as I said that doesn’t speak to whether it should be accepted or not.

“I’m against gays because it isn’t natural.” Well, are you against all laws regarding automobiles on the idea that cars aren’t natural?

135

Historically, it was most likely the case that people engaged in both homo and heterosexual behaviors and didn’t think to conceptualize their identities around either. All this “I’m not straight anymore. I’m gay!” stuff may be what’s “unnatural” and newfangled.

When people want to have babies, they have heterosexual sex. Penile and vaginal structures best suited for baby-making are preferred, and thus the genotypes which create these structures will have more “fitness” than those that don’t.

But homosexual sex doesn’t exert the same type of evolutionary pressure because it’s not linked to one’s ability to pass on genes. Everybody and their mama could be engaging in anal sex the moment they are born, every single day of their life. But without the direct link between the ability to have children and the ability to withstand anal sex, there won’t be any coevolution between the penis and the anus.

In short, you can’t infer from body structure how “natural” something is. If we could, we could infer that sucking on male nipples is totally natural, since why else would nature allow them to exist?

136

Yes, except instead of saying that scenario “could occur,” I’d say it has been happening on a regular basis for thousands of years.

137

So I did a google and got this

“Giraffes do it, goats do it, birds and bonobos and dolphins do it. Humans beings–a lot of them anyway–like to do it too, but of all the planet’s species, they’re the only ones who are oppressed when they try.”

Is this so - that actually it’s the repression of homosexuality that is more unnatural ?

I would guess that there would also sometimes, at least, be opposition to homosexuality in the animal world. This may give ammunition to those who oppose it in humans who would claim that if homosexuality is natural, then so is it’s repression. I would have thought primate groups would be the most obvious places to look.

A search for ‘homosexual repression in the animal kingdom’ doesn’t give anything but reams of well trodden arguments and religious conflict. So what is the straight dope here ? Or the gay dope ? (joke)

138

Why would you guess that? (Acknowledging again that defining sexual orientation, as opposed to sexual behavior, is kind of problematic when you’re discussing another species.)

139

Is that an evolutionary strategy to prevent too many babies ? Way back in our cavewoman past ?

And if so, is it possible that nature has endowed the anus with more nerve endings than it otherwise would have - just to help keep the population in check ?

140

Because we are animals and share all sorts of behaviours with our animal cousins and ancestors.