There are plenty of behaviors we don’t share (like inventing the device you’re typing on). I don’t think any animals have the concept of sexual orientation, nevermind the concept of being offended by the sexual orientation of another being. If you’re an ape and another ape wants to have sex with another male instead of competing with you for females, I think you probably wouldn’t be unhappy about that.
Why does everything have to be an “evolutionary strategy”?
Doesn’t have to be, just asking. Although evolution is the major paradigm which we seem to see the world through.
Would seem logical, I agree. Then again it would seem logical for a praying mantis not to chew it’s partners head off when she’s had him - but they still do it.
If you should come across an insightful search result for homosexual repression in the animal kingdom, let us know cos I can’t find it, but I’ll wager it’s there.
Several months ago a man cracked my chest open like a fucking lobster, turned off my heart and lungs, extracted veins from elsewhere in my body, used these veins (in addition to a cow’s heart valve), to fix what was wrong with my heart, then restarted my heart and lungs, closed up my chest, and received a lot of money for doing all of that. Is that more or less natural than when my partner pleasures me with his “self-lubricating” mouth?
You’ll like this article. 
I can’t believe it’s from 1999. I read your post and it was the first thing that sprang to mind.
Ok, so you’re saying then that anything other than “pissing” or “fuck(ing) a woman.”
Does that mean that masturbating is unnatural?
After all, it’s not being done for either purpose yet probably most men have masturbated on multiple occasions.
On the other hand, if you do consider that masturbating isn’t unnatural then why do you consider homosexual sex to be “unnatural”?
Finally, since you feel that it’s natural to use the penis to “fuck a woman” do you consider a man getting a blow job to be “fuck(ing) a woman” also?
If so, then would you concede it’s perfectly natural for gay men to engage in oral sex since a man’s mouth isn’t substantively different from a woman’t mouth.
Is kissing unnatural? The mouth is only for breathing, eating, or speaking.
Is touching the nipples with one’s hands unnatural? The nipples are only for nursing.
OK, first up, I’d just like to emphasize that you should never put mothballs in your mouth.
As to magellan’s point on the complementary nature of the penis and vagina, I think that is entirely valid. The vagina self-lubricates to aid penetration and the structure and environment of the uterus and fallopian tubes accommodate passage of sperm from the penis to the ovaries.
The anus, which in biological terms is not a sex organ, seems designed* to carry wast out of the body rather than let things into the body.**
So, for purposes of reproduction, it could be argued that nature seems to be saying, "Pop nob in fanny. Not up the arse’.
BUT, not everything in nature is about sexual reproduction.
As has been pointed out by many posters, nature provides numerous examples of various social relations of varying complexity among other species that are not based on the drive to pass on genetic information.
The problem is that when we talk about sex (baby), we are often not doing so in terms of biology, but in terms of intimacy.
Attraction, affection, and the rubbigof tigly bits against each other are elements of an intimate connection not reliant on reproductive instinct.
The arguement that says “because same-sex couples can’t reproduce, such relations must be unatural” is ridiculous, because it is founded on the premise that there can be no intimacy outside of a gene-swapping relationship.
If two men can feel an affinity for each other and enjoy sharing a beer at the pub or going hunting together or whatever, is that also considered “unnatural”? Why then is it considered unatural for two men or two women to share a romantic relationship?
*(Not intended as a loaded term.)
**(I am not a biologist, and I know from experience that shit can in fact emanate from other parts of the body besides the anus; such as the mouth or fingertips. So I’m quite willing to be corrected.)
And yes, I know male homosexuality is not defined by the act of anal sex.
Just playing along with the whole “P in V = natural, P in A = unatural” line of arguement.
Except that female parts are also highly compatible with female. They go together quite nicely.
Almost all the “natural” arguments fail when applied to lesbians. Remember when AIDS was widely cited as proof that God hated gays? Lesbians get AIDS less often than heterosexuals do.
Lesbianism is next to godliness.
Tell me, what is the “primary function” of a hand? Is every other function “unnatural”?
Did you read my earlier post or the link I included? Are bed bugs unnatural?
Stampeding bison running off a cliff is suicide?
People dying in a stampede for the only exit in a building fire just can’t be trusted with their own safety. Obvious suicides.
I lol’d!
If we’re only to use things for their ‘primary function’, we shouldn’t eat because the primary function of the mouth must surely be breathing - if you disagree, ok, eat - don’t ever breathe through your mouth again, including to sing, speak, whistle or cool down your soup - those things are wrong, because they’re not the primary function.
Actually, no, I didn’t.
I have now. Very interesting.
Now, I have to ask, did you read my post, to the end?
Because I didn’t say that non-vaginal sex is unnatural (if that is what you interpreted my post to mean).
I didn’t say that anything is unnatural.
I do think it’s valid to point out that in the human species, the vagina is better equipped to accommodate a penis than the anus is.
Yep, that’s how our species procreates alright.
But, . . . so what?
That doesn’t make other forms of sexual intercourse unnatural.
Nor does it make non-heterosexual relations unnatural.
Are we in disagreement on any of this?
Anyhoo, thanks for the information on traumatic insemination.
And thanks for the nightmares I’ll be having tonight.
Or in other words, all these arguments fail the ‘so what?’ test.
X is unnatural - ok, but so what? Bread is unnatural.
X is not the primary function of Y - ok, but so what? When did it become wrong for things to be multi-purpose, or even used profitably for something completely alien to their intended purpose? The purpose of horse hair is not to make violin bows.
Sorry, I did misread your post as implying that non-vaginal sex was somehow less natural than vaginal sex. I did understand that you didn’t extend that logic to homosexual relations and weren’t implying that non-vaginal sex is bad, but I thought you were conceding the point about it being unnatural.
Non-rhetorical question: What definition of “natural” do you (anyone) use that includes homosexuality, but doesn’t include everything else?
The difference between my scenario and yours is pretty clear when you actually think about it.
If you don’t believe that animals ever kill themselves or otherwise cause themselves harm through simply not understanding the implications of a situation or not being “programmed” to deal with something uncommon, that’s OK.