Homosexuality is 'unnatural'

[Annie-Xmas]

I’ve been asking people for decades what sexual act do homosexuals do that hetereosexuals have not done at some time. I’ve yet to get an answer.

And as to jumping off cliffs, would you consider the people who jumped out of the towers on 9/11 to avoid being burned up “unnatural”?

[SanVito]

@Not_Carlson

Lesbianism is next to godliness.

We like to think of ourselves as The Chosen People.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Annie-Xmas

I’ve been asking people for decades what sexual act do homosexuals do that hetereosexuals have not done at some time. I’ve yet to get an answer.

Oral sex after the wedding day.

[Bozuit]

@Annie-Xmas

And as to jumping off cliffs, would you consider the people who jumped out of the towers on 9/11 to avoid being burned up “unnatural”?

Assuming you’re talking to me, I’m not sure “natural” or “unnatural” would be an any more useful description of the action than “red” or “green”.

[aNewLeaf]

@Annie-Xmas

I’ve been asking people for decades what sexual act do homosexuals do that hetereosexuals have not done at some time. I’ve yet to get an answer.

“Docking” is a sexual activity possible for two (uncircumcised) men and no other combination of people.
How many people actually do it is another matter. But a man and a woman can’t perform the act.

[yorick73]

@Smeghead

I’m treating this more as an exercise in logic than a biological argument. Obviously, there is a specific biological function associated with penises, vaginas, and heterosexual sex. That is a trivial point to make. And if you want to claim that sex that doesn’t make use of that function is unnatural. That is an argument that is logically sound and holds water. If that’s what you want to argue, go for it. You won’t get any disagreement from me.

However, the logical corollary to that point is that “unnatural”, as a descriptor, therefore applies to ANY form of sexual activity that does not have reproduction as its goal. Again - if you’re willing to accept that consequence as part of your stance, then go for it. Perhaps that is magellan’s point of view. He hasn’t yet clarified if it is or not; at least not that I’ve seen. However, it you’re going to claim, for instance, that heterosexual sex while using birth control is “natural” and homosexual sex is “unnatural”, then I will say that logically, that’s a very difficult point of view to justify.

I understand that you are trying to make a logical argument but, instead, you are suggesting that, biologically, there is no difference between a vagina and an anus. You’ve specifically asked for proof that there is a difference in compatibility between the two WRT penile insertion. In this case a logical argument fails.

[yorick73]

@Marley23

And they often say it’s unnatural. The statement has nothing to do with how ‘natural’ it is; it’s an expression of disapproval that they phrase in terms of the natural word to attach some false authority to the claim.

I agree that "unnatural is not a correct term here unless you consider oral sex and anal sex between hetero couples to be unnatural. The people who consider homosexual sex to be unnatural probably apply that term to the relationship between two same-sex people as opposed to where you put your penis.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

That. It’s not like the religious right supports SSM for couples who promise to abstain.

[jayjay]

@Mangetout

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.

This. I must be really weird because I just don’t even THINK about whether or not I’m having sex in some “natural” or “unnatural” way. The way I have sex is “natural” for me. You can go have whatever kind of (consensual) sex you want to have…ain’t no skin off my nose. I won’t be peeking in your bedroom window screaming “UNNATURAL!”

To me it’s all “So fuckin’ what?” and “Who fuckin’ cares?” Some of you people really overthink things sometimes…

[Smeghead]

@yorick73

I understand that you are trying to make a logical argument but, instead, you are suggesting that, biologically, there is no difference between a vagina and an anus.

No, I’m really not.

You’ve specifically asked for proof that there is a difference in compatibility between the two WRT penile insertion. In this case a logical argument fails.

I addressed this upthread. If someone wants to pin their definition of “natural” vs “unnatural” on the difference between the vagina and the anus, then fine. That’s perfectly OK. That’s a valid argument, from a logical standpoint. But, the point I was making is that IF you make the distinction there, then that leaves a whole lot of sexual activity in the “unnatural” column that is not condemned in the same way that homosexuality is condemned. Condemning the one “unnatural” act without condemning the others shows that it’s not the unnaturality that is really the cause of the objection.

[yorick73]

@Smeghead

I was asking you to explain why the penis and vagina are more complementary than the penis and the anus. As far as I can tell, the only answers you’ve offered so far are “it’s obvious” (it isn’t) and “you need vaginal sex to reproduce”, which is fine. That’s a perfectly valid argument. But then you need to explain why non-reproductive vaginal sex is more “natural” than non-reproductive anal sex.

@Smeghead

-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?

You surely can understand why someone might think you are comparing the vagina and the anus (or a hole in a tree) as just holes to insert a penis and not different in any real sense. You specifically asked for differences in complementarity between the anus and vagina.

[Lamia]

@Bozuit

Non-rhetorical question: What definition of “natural” do you (anyone) use that includes homosexuality, but doesn’t include everything else?

What definition of “natural” excludes homosexuality but includes heterosexuality?

[Renee_RL]

Perhaps we can describe it as not the norm…but I even heard of heterosexuals having oral sex…isn’t that unnatural?

[Renee_RL]

@aNewLeaf

“Docking” is a sexual activity possible for two (uncircumcised) men and no other combination of people.
How many people actually do it is another matter. But a man and a woman can’t perform the act.

Wow…I see a new market…foreskin transplants for the circumsized

[yorick73]

@Prejteach2

Perhaps we can describe it as not the norm…but I even heard of heterosexuals having oral sex…isn’t that unnatural?

Where have you heard about that?!?

[Bozuit]

@Lamia

What definition of “natural” excludes homosexuality but includes heterosexuality?

This has already been discussed upthread.

[aNewLeaf]

@Prejteach2

Wow…I see a new market…foreskin transplants for the circumsized

Foreskin restoration is a growing market. The Tugger is just one example, there’s a variety of products and services available.

[Lamia]

@Bozuit

This has already been discussed upthread.

Has it? The question of whether or not anal sex is natural has been discussed at considerable length, but if anyone has presented a definition of the word “natural” that includes heterosexuality but excludes homosexuality then I must have either skimmed past it or forgotten it already.

Could someone humor me and give this definition again? If everyone is okay with using Merriam-Webster as a reference (here’s the entry for “natural”) then I don’t even need the full definition, you could just give me the number.

[Bozuit]

@Lamia

Has it? The question of whether or not anal sex is natural has been discussed at considerable length, but if anyone has presented a definition of the word “natural” that includes heterosexuality but excludes homosexuality then I must have either skimmed past it or forgotten it already.

Could someone humor me and give this definition again? If everyone is okay with using Merriam-Webster as a reference (here’s the entry for “natural”) then I don’t even need the full definition, you could just give me the number.

If you can’t come up with a better answer to a question than more questions, perhaps you should reconsider answering at all.

[Smeghead]

@yorick73

You surely can understand why someone might think you are comparing the vagina and the anus (or a hole in a tree) as just holes to insert a penis and not different in any real sense. You specifically asked for differences in complementarity between the anus and vagina.

I don’t know how to explain my position any more clearly than I already have, but it appears not to be sinking in, so I’ll refrain from repeating myself.