Homosexuality unnatural?

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

So, I was having this discussion with someone.
He claims that homosexuality is unnatural because it can't lead to the creation of children.

I responded that homosexuality can be found in all kinds of animal species and that humans are nature so homosexuality is a part of it. And that like race and sex you are unable too chose it, it was "given" to you by nature.
Still, he keeps going on about it.

So, I would like to know if people who are a bit more into biology and stuff could help with arguments against this.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

The concept that reproduction is natural is a entirely human-oriented construction.There are many animals who do not reproduce in the usual manner in addition to some who have both sexes. The whole natural argument on their part is nothing but logical fallacies; this is revealed in by humanity being the only creature capable of making such a judgement; ergo it is impossible to truly know what is "natural" as the meaning as such variance.

Homosexuality occurs in all parts of the world in the vast majority, if not all, the species of animals (including humans). How is this not natural? Before you know it they are going to start talking about how having red hair is not natural. It occurs through the natural biological processes so it is natural.

These reproduction arguments always follow the same track yet they are strangely contradictory (what about the old people who can no longer reproduce, are they natural?) and ultimately lead to nothing and fail. Pseudo-theory not unlike those of yesteryear claiming various slurs about Black people.

[Sentinel]

TGU covered most of what I was going to say. I was however also going to point out the often overlooked but still very concrete fact, that many homosexuals actually indeed do reproduce (while obviously not biologically together with their same sex partner). Which makes the claim that it's unnatural for this reason even more absurd.

[JPSartre12]

I agree with Sentinel, TGU did a good job.


Homosexuality occurs in all parts of the world in the vast majority, if not all, the species of animals (including humans).

I always laugh when people point out that homosexuality is "unnatural" and "doesn't happen in nature". TGU's right, it does. As an medical student with an undergraduate degree in evolutionary biology, let me add that plants don't even have the same conceptualization of "gender" as we do. Plant gender exists along a spectrum, with varying degrees of "male"-ness and "female"-ness to each plant. A majority of plants are hermaphroditic (although the technical word used in our labs is "bisexual", but I prefer to use that word when strictly talking about sexual orientation alone) and their male-to-female gender ratio is fluid and fluctuates throughout their lives.

Also, birds have the highest rate of lesbianism of any organism on the planet (at least, as far as I know). When one bird's mate passes away and the mother has to take care of the nest, she will "merge" nests with another widowed female and the two of them will partner to raise the baby birds together. They don't even seek additional mates at that point and remain (more often than not) completely devoted to the new merged nest / co-mother.

So, of course the idea of it being "unnatural" is a complete social fabrication. Spectrums of gender and orientation exist naturally in nature.

[hetz]

Everything that exists can only exist in the natural world ( as far as I'm aware there's no other ), therefore the argument is quite pointless.

[Luís Henrique]

He claims that homosexuality is unnatural because it can't lead to the creation of children.

Masturbation is unnatural because it can't lead to the creation of children.
Sex between sterile people is unnatural because it can't lead to the creation of children.
Sex with older women is unnatural because it can't lead to the creation of children.
Sex using condoms is unnatural because it can't lead to the creation of children.
Sex while using the pill is unnatural because it can't lead to the creation of children.
Sex during the infertile period of the menstrual cycle is unnatural because it can't lead to the creation of children.
Abstinence is unnatural because it can't lead to the creation of children.

And, finally,

Messing with what other people do or refrain to do in their beds is unnatural because it can't lead to the creation of children.

Really.

Some.

People.

No, really.

Luís Henrique

[Red Enemy]

Masturbation is unnatural because it can't lead to the creation of children.
Sex between sterile people is unnatural because it can't lead to the creation of children.
Sex with older women is unnatural because it can't lead to the creation of children.
Sex using condoms is unnatural because it can't lead to the creation of children.
Sex while using the pill is unnatural because it can't lead to the creation of children.
Sex during the infertile period of the menstrual cycle is unnatural because it can't lead to the creation of children.
Abstinence is unnatural because it can't lead to the creation of children.

And, finally,

Messing with what other people do or refrain to do in their beds is unnatural because it can't lead to the creation of children.

Really.

Some.

People.

No, really.

Luís Henrique
Clothing, I bet he wears it. Also unnatural.

Alloy metals, I bet he uses them. Unnatural.

Vaccines, I bet he's gotten them. Unnatural.

Masturbation, I bet he does a lot of it. Unnatural.

I mean, is there any sense able to be spoken to a bigoted assclown like that?

[Questionable]

I never understood the context of the "natural" argument. If it happens in nature, then it's natural, isn't it? It's not like homosexuality is some impossible aberration of physical reality, it takes place in the natural world just like heterosexuality, therefore it's "natural."

[Decolonize The Left]

I never understood the context of the "natural" argument. If it happens in nature, then it's natural, isn't it? It's not like homosexuality is some impossible aberration of physical reality, it takes place in the natural world just like heterosexuality, therefore it's "natural."

Well, the whole 'unnatural' issue stems from an initial logical fallacy regarding a mind/body 'duality.' And since all religions require some form of this fallacy in order to posit beyond the 'natural world,' it is not hard to see how it has seeped into every aspect of our society.

[Questionable]

Well, the whole 'unnatural' issue stems from an initial logical fallacy regarding a mind/body 'duality.' And since all religions require some form of this fallacy in order to posit beyond the 'natural world,' it is not hard to see how it has seeped into every aspect of our society.

Yes, I began to think after posting that it's most likely rooted in theological thinking, but most anti-homosexuals seem to be religious so I don't think this problematic stance would matter to them.

[Decolonize The Left]

Yes, I began to think after posting that it's most likely rooted in theological thinking, but most anti-homosexuals seem to be religious so I don't think this problematic stance would matter to them.

Plenty of homophobia stems from personal issues, i.e. men not being comfortable with their own sexuality, etc... not just religion. Religion simply codifies homophobia into an easy to understand and, more importantly, an institutionalized system of discrimination and hate.

But this is due not only to religion's sad reliance upon the logical fallacy of mind/body dualism, it is also due to religion's substitute of textual dogma for reason. Because religion is unable to question the dogma of the text, that is to say it relies upon positing the religious texts as fact, it is forced to impossibly reconcile out-dated beliefs with current society. In short, it cannot change as it relies upon the unchangeable for its strength.

[Luís Henrique]

it is also due to religion's substitute of textual dogma for reason. Because religion is unable to question the dogma of the text, that is to say it relies upon positing the religious texts as fact, it is forced to impossibly reconcile out-dated beliefs with current society. In short, it cannot change as it relies upon the unchangeable for its strength.

This is only true for a very limited set of religions - namely fundamentalist Islam and fundamentalist Protestantism. Most religions - mainstream Protestantism, mainstream Islam, Catholicism, Orthodox Christianity, Buddhism, Kardeckism, Judaism, all forms of Paganism - do not posit any religious text as fact (indeed Pagan religions don't even have sacred texts), are able to use reason, even in the discussion of articles of faith, and able to reconcile their beliefs with a changing society - grudgingly perhaps, but even so.

Religion =/= Westboro Church.

Luís Henrique

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

*sigh* Just slap him and move on...can't be bothered with people who make that tedious arguement about how it's not natural / not what God intended / is abnormal.
Other posters above have covered it nicely, so just making a suggestion to physically correct the individual and then ignore their point of view...if ya like.

[Let's Get Free]

A lot of things aren't "natural."

His frying pan: not natural.
His toaster: not natural.
His fridge: not natural.
His flatware and silverware: not natural.
His cup: not natural.
His carpet: not natural.
His tile: not natural.
His furniture: not natural.
His toilet: not natural.
His shower: not natural.
His shampoo: not natural.
His towel: not natural.
His toothpaste: not natural.
His razor: not natural.
His hair products: not natural.
His deodorant: not natural.
His washing machine: not natural.
His dryer: not natural.
His air conditioning: not natural.
His medicine cabinet: not natural.
His clothing: not natural.
His car: not natural.
His roads: not natural.
His hospitals: not natural.
His medicine: not natural.
His building of employment: not natural.
His sub sandwich: not natural.
His watch: not natural.
His cell phone: not natural.
His Ipod: not natural.
His computer: not natural.
His internet: not natural.
His television: not natural.
His money: not natural.

[goalkeeper]

So, I was having this discussion with someone.
He claims that homosexuality is unnatural because it can't lead to the creation of children.

I responded that homosexuality can be found in all kinds of animal species and that humans are nature so homosexuality is a part of it. And that like race and sex you are unable too chose it, it was "given" to you by nature.
Still, he keeps going on about it.

So, I would like to know if people who are a bit more into biology and stuff could help with arguments against this.

Who cares what is "natural"?

There is nothing inherently harmful homosexual relationships i.e. both participating parities enjoy it and wish to take part in it; so why does it matter?

As other posters have noted, a whole host of sexual activities could be classed as "unnatural" on the same grounds, but if people enjoy it and it doesn't directly harm anyone else, whats the problem?

[RadioRaheem84]

When I had this conversation with a more "rational" conservative, I pointed out to him that there is homosexuality found in penguins and other animals. He said that dog a will also hump your leg, does that make that rational or natural? His point was that these animals do not know what they're doing and should not be compared to humans who are capable of higher thought. Since he was a Christian, I am thinking he was tying it to morality more so than a scientific analysis. The jist I got out of it was that comparing the behavior of animals to humans was spurious. I take it he didn't believe in evolution too but for the most part I think this is where the conservative argument against homosexuality stems from. They know that animals and plants and such engage in homosexual behaviors, their argument is just a moral one. They consider it as "unnatural" or ridiculous as a monkey throwing his feces around. Should humans be subject to that kind of behavior because it's "natural" is what I think he was getting at?

Anyways, I am trying to make sense of his argument too. If anyone can chime in it would be helpful.

[DDR]

There's an all female lizzard species, wich reproduce by parthenogenesis. In common tongue: lesbian self clonning lizards.

Would you like to know more? (read it in starship troopers add voice)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teiidae


He said that dog a will also hump your leg

That argument is invalid, dogs will hump you as way of showing that they are higher in the hierarchy than you, even female dogs do it.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

The two aren't mutually exclusive. Whilst I hesitate to say anything is 'natural', since that would, as said above, merely be my extension of a human construct, it's quite obvious looking at all species, including ourselves, that we are often governed by the intuitive wish to re-produce. But why should this make homosexuality unnatural/bad/wrong or whatever? People can be bisexual, you can have some people who are heterosexual and some people who are homosexual.

It just has no bearing at all, it's so binary, like 'I believe that as A is good, B must be bad'. Logical fallacy of the highest order!

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

The two aren't mutually exclusive. Whilst I hesitate to say anything is 'natural', since that would, as said above, merely be my extension of a human construct, it's quite obvious looking at all species, including ourselves, that we are often governed by the intuitive wish to re-produce. But why should this make homosexuality unnatural/bad/wrong or whatever? People can be bisexual, you can have some people who are heterosexual and some people who are homosexual.

It just has no bearing at all, it's so binary, like 'I believe that as A is good, B must be bad'. Logical fallacy of the highest order!

[RadioRaheem84]

It all falls on the idea of reproduction, the vagina creates life sort of thing so that means any other forms of sex are just vices because they do not serve a purpose sort of thing. Of course it doesn't always but people are speaking in very general terms.


That argument is invalid, dogs will hump you as way of showing that they are higher in the hierarchy than you, even female dogs do it.

Really? Playing devil's advocate, I would assume a Christian conservative "scientist" would argue back that even if a dog meant it to mean that it doesn't make it right. Their arguments do not boil down to if it's natural than means it's good. Some insects eat their young, dogs eat their own feces and so on and so on. It's a moral argument, and convicing or providing an argument against this reasoning takes more than just pointing to evidence in nature.

I believe the issue over homosexality is a religious, moral and philosophical one (on their part) more so than just claiming it's natural. You would have to convince people that what's natural is "good" or "right" or whatever (even though I don't believe nature is subject to that morality).

[RadioRaheem84]

This thread died quick. No challenges to the christian conservative arguments. They would help me.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

This thread died quick. No challenges to the christian conservative arguments. They would help me.

I really do not know why you are bothering to argue with this kind of person, it is quite obvious he is never going to see the light. In any case he still doesn't have an argument (not really). He is just throwing in some extra nonsense. The claim that animals do not know what they are doing is as funny as it is false: animals have consciousness and simply because we (humans) are a slightly higher peg on the evolutionary chain doesn't mean we should be treated any differently (especially since behavior, and what constitutes normal, is greatly different from culture to culture). This person you are arguing with continues to use his religionist moralism as if it means anything: the truth is it doesn't. It is this "specieism" that holds him back in understanding and it is his religion that clouds his mind, preventing him from seeing that all creatures (human or otherwise) are different, behave differently and that there is no single definition on what constitutes proper evualation.

[RadioRaheem84]

I really do not know why you are bothering to argue with this kind of person, it is quite obvious he is never going to see the light. In any case he still doesn't have an argument (not really). He is just throwing in some extra nonsense. The claim that animals do not know what they are doing is as funny as it is false: animals have consciousness and simply because we (humans) are a slightly higher peg on the evolutionary chain doesn't mean we should be treated any differently (especially since behavior, and what constitutes normal, is greatly different from culture to culture). This person you are arguing with continues to use his religionist moralism as if it means anything: the truth is it doesn't. It is this "specieism" that holds him back in understanding and it is his religion that clouds his mind, preventing him from seeing that all creatures (human or otherwise) are different, behave differently and that there is no single definition on what constitutes proper evualation.

I just cannot accept that. I've never been that type of person that just shrugs off any arguments unless they clearly sound seriously loopy, but I give some credit to their reasoning because at some basic level it's internalizing the logic of religious moralism and trying (empahsis on trying) to explain it in a rational matter. Just brushing it off isn't going to help me. It's going to make me want to discredit it and learn more on how to create an effective argument against what they're saying.

Animals have consciousness, but why cannot we argue that we're different? What is it that you're trying to say by implying that there is no difference or nothing that can constitute as normal behavior between a chimp and a man? Why?

I do not mean to be a bother but I happen to be the type that when challenges to my worldview on things come around, I tend to take it to heart and want to research the matter quickly to have a solid grounding.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

I am no expert in the animal kingdom so I think you would ahve to find someone who has some progressive knowledge of the relationship between animals and humans.

As for the behavior that is my position: there can be no differences because "normal" is defined differently everywhere; to say something is abnormal one would need a consensus and such is impossible to achieve. Furthermore your oppononet is using s stilted view of normal: he is saying that because homosexuals have sexual relations with people of their own sex they are abnormal in the sense that they are "unhealthy" or wrong. This isn't the case. I remember from PSY101 that abnormal simply means "different" and has no negative connotations. This ties into the consensus on what constitutes a universal normal (which your adversary is desperately trying to promote).

[RadioRaheem84]

Well are there any good books, articles or lectures on the subject?

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Well are there any good books, articles or lectures on the subject?

Not that I know of (though it depends on which subject you are referring to). For resources I would look in professional journals and archives. When I was in PSY101 I exclusively searched in such places. The only tip I can say is be quite specific when entering search terms and be varied, try and place yourself into the mind of a researcher and know that their paper might be named something unusual (which might make it hard to find).

[Quail]

I've had this conversation with people a few times and I pointed out how many other animals engage in homosexual behaviour - but not only do they engage in it, it's actually beneficial to them from an evolutionary perspective. Some animals form homosexual relationships with each other to help raise offspring, others use it more for bonding purposes to keep the group close together. (I'm thinking of certain birds and primates here respectively.) So if we look to nature it seems that not only is homosexuality found throughout the animal kingdom, it serves an important function and helps to keep species alive. Reproduction isn't all there is to making a species successful.

[RadioRaheem84]

I've had this conversation with people a few times and I pointed out how many other animals engage in homosexual behaviour - but not only do they engage in it, it's actually beneficial to them from an evolutionary perspective. Some animals form homosexual relationships with each other to help raise offspring, others use it more for bonding purposes to keep the group close together. (I'm thinking of certain birds and primates here respectively.) So if we look to nature it seems that not only is homosexuality found throughout the animal kingdom, it serves an important function and helps to keep species alive. Reproduction isn't all there is to making a species successful.

Now we're getting somewhere. Essentially it's serving a purpose, not just a mindless act that can be miscontrued as 'animialistic', i.e. having or sercing no humanly purpose, barbaric, etc.

[Thirsty Crow]

Now we're getting somewhere. Essentially it's serving a purpose, not just a mindless act that can be miscontrued as 'animialistic', i.e. having or sercing no humanly purpose, barbaric, etc.
Except that animals' sexual practice, as well as humans', is "mindless", or in other words, no amount of rationalizations, convincing and argument can actually eradicate the desire.

And how does sex for pleasure not serve a human purpose? I think joy, love and pleasure are definitely "human purposes".

In the end, the point is more deep than an argument over homosexuality would suggest. It's about the dichotomy between bodily desires and reason, one which is in religious moralism of this kind resolved in favour, obviously, of an ideological phantom of the negation of the former through the elevation of the latter which takes place through faith and religious practice primarily.

The funny thing is that while proposing so exceedingly "unnatural" positions (denying and denigrating "nature" in the form of sexual drives), the person tries to spin the argument of the unnatural character of homosexuality. Here it is not even necessary to point to instances of homosexual practices in animals; it is perfectly reasonable to assume that humans have developed specific traits through evolution (but then again, the concept of what is natural will here be significantly different since the person probably rejects evolution; it could approximate something like a "divinely pre-ordained order of being"). And finally,

[RadioRaheem84]

Here it is not even necessary to point to instances of homosexual practices in animals; it is perfectly reasonable to assume that humans have developed specific traits through evolution


What specific traits? That human beings evolved and homosexuality is a trait specic to our species? Not really following, forgive me.

[Thirsty Crow]

What specific traits? That human beings evolved and homosexuality is a trait specic to our species? Not really following, forgive me.
Yes. It would of course be possible, though it is clear that it is not the case.

[Lord Hargreaves]

Animals have consciousness, but why cannot we argue that we're different? What is it that you're trying to say by implying that there is no difference or nothing that can constitute as normal behavior between a chimp and a man? Why?

The argument is that homosexuality is "unnatural". So we point out that, no, it is perfectly natural - it frequently occurs within nature.

If this guy then responds that human beings are different from nature (different from animals, in that we are fully rational and have free will etc.) that simply undermines the premise of his starting argument: far from a criticism, it must be precisely this "unnaturalness" of human beings that makes us human.

[Lord Hargreaves]

Now we're getting somewhere. Essentially it's serving a purpose, not just a mindless act that can be miscontrued as 'animialistic', i.e. having or sercing no humanly purpose, barbaric, etc.

So basically, homosexuality can be criticised for being both "animalistic" (stuck within the realm of nature, not worthy of humans) and for "serving no purpose" (being unnatural, undertaken just for narcissistic pleasure, something animals do not do).

These two lines of argument are contradictory.

And you haven't even bothered to examine the moral weight behind your starting premises: why does it matter that something is unnatural? Why does it matter that something is undertaken for fun and has no instrumental value? Explain???

[RadioRaheem84]

The argument is that homosexuality is "unnatural". So we point out that, no, it is perfectly natural - it frequently occurs within nature.

If this guy then responds that human beings are different from nature (different from animals, in that we are fully rational and have free will etc.) that simply undermines the premise of his starting argument: far from a criticism, it must be precisely this "unnaturalness" of human beings that makes us human.

This must be the duality thing that people talk about when debating with religious folk because I am trying to make sense of their arguments too.

Basically, you cant point out that it's natural by bringing up examples. The right wing guy will say that dogs also do crazy things like eat their own feces so you cannot tie in their behavior with what's natural to humans, I guess? As if saying that it may be natural for a bird to engage in homosexual behavior even though it knows not what it's doing. But for men it's not, they know it's not because of X reason (usually stuff about reproduction). So I am guessing that there is no secular argument, no rational one at least, against homsexuality. It's purely a religious moral argument against it. Because I cannot find an argument against it unless it's tied to some religious/moral one.

They just see it as a vice among the human species. Sort of like you can say killing is natural because animals kill each other all the time. Men kill each other too but they don't think it's right. Their rationale is along those lines. But then is killing as "unnatural" act? I mean the whole thing is bonkers if you ask me.

[RadioRaheem84]

So basically, homosexuality can be criticised for being both "animalistic" (stuck within the realm of nature, not worthy of humans) and for "serving no purpose" (being unnatural, undertaken just for narcissistic pleasure, something animals do not do).

These two lines of argument are contradictory.

And you haven't even bothered to examine the moral weight behind your starting premises: why does it matter that something is unnatural? Why does it matter that something is undertaken for fun and has no instrumental value? Explain???

First off, these aren't my premises. I just have never given a thought to actually defending homosexuality and am finally starting to do so. I am completely ignorant on the subject and probably have a slew of misconceptions and would not want to defend it in front of a group of well versed conservatives for fear of just butchering arguments in defense of homosexuals.

They criticize homosexuality for being unnatural as in not being part of man's nature. They seem to split man away from the rest of nature as if what's natural begins with mankind. So men have descended above animals and therefore do not engage in "animalistic" behavior like gay sex. This argument was when I told the guy that there is homosexuality in nature. When the animal does it, it's an animal not knowing what it's doing, or fully aware of what it's doing. When a man does it, it's a vice according to them. Enter morality. It serves no purpose except for pleasure, and of course to the religionists, especially of the Abrahamic faiths, it's a guilty pleasure.

My point was always from the beginning that the homosexual question among the opponents is a moralistic or religious one. Not one based in any real rational thought. I cannot quite think of any secular arguments against homosexuality at all really. I think the closest was something a libertarian once said about de-population or something.

[Lucretia]

So, I was having this discussion with someone.
He claims that homosexuality is unnatural because it can't lead to the creation of children.

I responded that homosexuality can be found in all kinds of animal species and that humans are nature so homosexuality is a part of it. And that like race and sex you are unable too chose it, it was "given" to you by nature.
Still, he keeps going on about it.

So, I would like to know if people who are a bit more into biology and stuff could help with arguments against this.

According to your acquaintance's logic, all sexual activity that doesn't have the capacity to result in biological reproduction is unnatural. This means that oral sex between a man and a woman is unnatural. Yet, because it can result in biological reproduction, artificial insemination performed on behalf of a lesbian couple is "natural." Go figure.

Sounds like he had a preconceived conclusion in his head, and is searching frantically for some kind of logic to justify it. Usually this way of constructing arguments doesn't end well.

And, by the way, can somebody please define "natural" for me. Humans are a part of nature, so the things they do are "natural" by default, right? As opposed to supernatural? In any event, it's old hat for me to point out that homosexual behavior is found all throughout the animal kingdom, increasingly so with the greater the complexity of the organism.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

I just googled and got two wikipedia articles:

Homosexual behavior in animals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals)

List of animals displaying homosexual behavior (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior)

Not natural he says?

Also from another Wiki article:

"Among animals, researchers have observed monogamy; promiscuity; sex between species; sexual arousal from objects or places; sex apparently via duress or coercion; copulation with dead animals; homosexual, heterosexual, and bisexual sexual behaviour; situational sexual behaviour; and a range of other practices."


_

[Lord Hargreaves]

They criticize homosexuality for being unnatural as in not being part of man's nature. They seem to split man away from the rest of nature as if what's natural begins with mankind. So men have descended above animals and therefore do not engage in "animalistic" behavior like gay sex. This argument was when I told the guy that there is homosexuality in nature. When the animal does it, it's an animal not knowing what it's doing, or fully aware of what it's doing. When a man does it, it's a vice according to them. Enter morality. It serves no purpose except for pleasure, and of course to the religionists, especially of the Abrahamic faiths, it's a guilty pleasure.


Yes I think you are right. They argue that homosexuality is "unnatural" when what they really mean is "immoral".

What I was trying to say in my last post was: if you are arguing about the issue with this other guy, you don't even need to accept the most basic assumptions of his position. Go on the offensive: Why is it wrong to have sex just for pleasure, just because? (disputing the Christian asceticism and puritanism behind his argument) Why does it matter that something is unnatural? (disputing the weak creationism that is really behind this idea, that nature has a given moral order). If it was me I wouldn't even bother answering his arguments, I would refuse to accept their premises.

[Thirsty Crow]

When a man does it, it's a vice according to them. Enter morality. It serves no purpose except for pleasure, and of course to the religionists, especially of the Abrahamic faiths, it's a guilty pleasure.

All pleasure of this world for this folk, at least in theory if not in practice (practical guilty pleasure, of course), is corruptive.
Really, this debate is implicitly theological and concerning beliefs in the transcendent. This is the terrain you need to shift to and criticize religious belief and its practices. And their consequences of course.

And another point is that sex isn't only a pleasurable, but also an emotional activity resulting in emotional bonding. But of course, the person will probably argue that there is no such thing between homosexual couples since their relationship is inherently tainted by the corruptive practices it is based on. And then we're back to the first paragraph of this post.


Yes I think you are right. They argue that homosexuality is "unnatural" when what they really mean is "immoral".

I don't think this is really accurate.

They do not employ the notion of the "unnatural" as a rhetorical device, a metaphor. They probably conceptualize what is natural in a wholly different way than non-religious people. Nature is already imbued with morality and a purpose - divinely preordained as I stated earlier. Sure, they need to leave space for sin and "unnatural" practices here, and then they are forced to make a cleavage within the notion of the natural - as evident in the difference made between crude and animalistic drives of animals (animals' animalistic drives wow :lol:) and the spiritual foundation of man. Nature becomes spiritualized and humans sharply differentiated from the rest of the animate and inanimate. Our nature is spiritual.

[RadioRaheem84]

Excellent points menochio. The difference is the soul or spirit in man that animals don't share. And this soul/spirit is what separates us. So the differences are going to pretty much up the order of the said faith.

[RadioRaheem84]

I just googled and got two wikipedia articles:

Homosexual behavior in animals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals)

List of animals displaying homosexual behavior (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior)

Not natural he says?

Also from another Wiki article:

"Among animals, researchers have observed monogamy; promiscuity; sex between species; sexual arousal from objects or places; sex apparently via duress or coercion; copulation with dead animals; homosexual, heterosexual, and bisexual sexual behaviour; situational sexual behaviour; and a range of other practices."

H
_

Very interesting. Shows you animals are not all that different from us. But the argument would still be that all that besides a monogamous straight relationship is unnatural or going against an order or a standard normal defined by not only religion but even I bet a secular notion of only reproductive sex being the truly natural thing. Everything else religionists and nonreligionists just consider a vice.

So it boils down to a perceived social and natural order people presuppose.

[noble brown]

Ive looked into this alot. At least from a scientific and social issue. I haven't really looked into the religious arguments against. I suppose I always thought the premise of their arguments were that God said it was wrong therefore it is. I have come across the unnatural argument quite a bit and their take is usually an attempt to root the morality of homosexuality in natural behavior or its efficacy in a utilitarian model. Previous posters have done a decent job of countering these arguments so I wont add anything here. What I would like to add though is that sexuality as an identity is purely a social construct and a fairly recent one at that. In Roman and pre-roman cultures sexual identity was unheard of. If you wanted to sleep w a same sex partner then no one really cared and it was never a part of your identity.
That being said, sexual acts are now understood to be much more then an act of reproduction. Lets think about this for a second. Reproduction through sex is a very resource intensive act when compared to asexual reproduction. So why did evolution select for sexual reproduction where it did? Matt Ridley wrote a pretty good essay on this.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/sex/advantage/index.html

and

http://www.biologyreference.com/Se-T/Sexual-Reproduction-Evolution-of.html

a couple of references. Theres lots out there. This merely explains sexual reproduction from an evolutionary stand point though. The social advantages explain the variety of sexual behavior within any given sexually reproducing social species. Im not aware of any sexual variety within non-social sexually reproducing species. Sex is a demonstrable social tool across species, no doubt of this. Thats why we can observe even extreme social behaviors like rape in say dolphins.

maybe this will help too.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13674-evolution-myths-natural-selection-cannot-explain-homosexuality.html

[Luisrah]

The concept that reproduction is natural is a entirely human-oriented construction.There are many animals who do not reproduce in the usual manner in addition to some who have both sexes. The whole natural argument on their part is nothing but logical fallacies; this is revealed in by humanity being the only creature capable of making such a judgement; ergo it is impossible to truly know what is "natural" as the meaning as such variance.

Homosexuality occurs in all parts of the world in the vast majority, if not all, the species of animals (including humans). How is this not natural? Before you know it they are going to start talking about how having red hair is not natural. It occurs through the natural biological processes so it is natural.

These reproduction arguments always follow the same track yet they are strangely contradictory (what about the old people who can no longer reproduce, are they natural?) and ultimately lead to nothing and fail. Pseudo-theory not unlike those of yesteryear claiming various slurs about Black people.

I fail to understand why isn't reproduction natural. Perhaps your definition of natural is quite different from mine and certainly from the person in question.

However, as you say, it is quite normal for some species to have homossexual behavior.

But more important than it being or not natural is: Why does it matter if it is natural?
Most of the things in our life aren't "natural".
Light bulbs? There's not supposed to be light at night.
Cooked food? That's not supposed to happen, atleast not with the regularity it happens today.
Cell phones? It's not "natural" to speak to a person that is miles away from you.
Clothes? You shouldn't have those either!
Electricity, planes, cars, boats, money whatever!

None of that emerges in the nature so it's not "natural". If none of it is prohibited because it is not natural, then why should homossexuality be?

[RadioRaheem84]

None of that emerges in the nature so it's not "natural". If none of it is prohibited because it is not natural, then why should homossexuality be?


I don't understand how saying a cell phone is not natural is supposed to diffuse arguments dealing with human behavior and sexuality as unnatural?

I don't think I would use this argument when dealing with opponents of homosexuality. The question is the behavior natural. If it's not, then it's wrong for whatever reason. It's wrong in the sense that it's behavior that is "vice", a guilty pleasure, etc. It's a vice because it's not natural, not natural because it goes out of the order of things; man/woman reproduction, the majority being hetero etc.

This argument is clear cut in it's own reasoning. I still don't get what other are arguing against in here. I mean instances of it in nature, other useful things being unnatural like cell phones? These are all unconvincing to even secular opponents of homosexuality who have a pretty basic and simple outlook of the majority being hetero, man and woman producing life, and the minority being homosexual. Of course they're going to have a simple surface level observational approach to it and think of it as a vice, a sexual preference, etc.......leading to such things as "hey buddy, what you do in your own bedroom is up to you. Just leave my kids out of this" sort of talk.

The idea behind that is that heterosexuality is the neutral sexuality, putting all others; LGBT on the defensive.

[Luís Henrique]

Perhaps it could be useful to bring promiscuity into discussion. Dogs are notoriously promiscuous, so it cannot be argued that promiscuity is unnatural. Does your interlocutor think we should be promiscuous? Probably not, I'm guessing. So why does he bring "nature" into discussion? Perhaps because he is not concluding that homosexuality is wrong because it is not natural, but is inventing the argument that it is not natural because he has already decided it is wrong?

Luís Henrique

[RadioRaheem84]

Perhaps it could be useful to bring promiscuity into discussion. Dogs are notoriously promiscuous, so it cannot be argued that promiscuity is unnatural. Does your interlocutor think we should be promiscuous? Probably not, I'm guessing. So why does he bring "nature" into discussion? Perhaps because he is not concluding that homosexuality is wrong because it is not natural, but is inventing the argument that it is not natural because he has already decided it is wrong?

Luís Henrique

Promiscuity is seen as a vice too. He could argue that it's because of the correlation between that and sexual diseases, the emotional turmoil it takes on people because of feuds, lost relationships, etc.

Point is a dog could be as promiscuous as he wants, a man acting like a dog is still bad whether is unnatural or not. A dog also chases his own tail and humps a persons legs, those acts can be seen as a natural too, doesn't make them sensible.

This is how opponents of homosexuality view the act. It's vice, a pleasure, a guilty one, that serves no real purpose, not sensible and is clearly a taste. That's why many of them see homosexuality as a "choice". Even opponents of homosexuality defend homosexuals "choice" to lead a gay life while still thinking of it as wrong.

What part of this is not making sense? Opponents have all the surface level observational and societal norms as a bulletproof vest against any rational discourse on homosexuality. Men and women reproduce, homosexuals are the minority, heteros the majority. They are the neutral sexual orientation and everyone else is a copy of that original order. You can talk about artificial insemination, adoption, and what not for gay couples to match the family unit, you can talk about penguins engaging in homosexual behavior, you can talk about cell phones being unnatural and question their premise about why something that is unnatural being wrong, and more until you're blue in the face.

What we have here is a fundamental notion of order that we first have to tackle.

I don't mean to sound combative but it seems like this topic is going in circles because we keep dismissing the other sides arguments as irrational, religious or just not worthy of discussion. Science may be on our side but this question may be larger than that.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

I haven't read the whole thread but as far as "natural" behavior goes one could use the example of the bonobo. Bonobos, like humans, are highly sexual and unlike their close relatives the chimpanzee, appear to have an egalitarian social structure. This comes about from bonobo sexuality. Female bonobos have sex with other females very often.This seems to create a type of bonding and solidarity among females which subverts the aggresive harem behavior common in chimps and gorillas.This probably has a survival value for bonobos.

Taking this a bit further the Marxist anthropologist Chris Knight in Blood Relations posits some sort of early "sex strike" among early humans which created the spark which led to human culture.

http://www.amazon.com/Blood-Relations-Menstruation-Origins-Culture/dp/0300049110

Also the "natural" arguementr is basically a form of sociobiology. The Prehistory of Sex by is a good refutation to this.We are not controlled by our genes, nor should we be.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Prehistory-Sex-Million-Culture/dp/055337527X

The plays of Shakespeare (who was bi) aren't "natural", not the philosophy of Sartre (prob bi) nor that of Plato, Aristotle, etc.

[RadioRaheem84]

any quick links or articles written by marxists or leftists?

[Lenina Rosenweg]

http://amerikanbeat.net/tag/homosexuality-is-unnatural/

http://articles.latimes.com/2004/mar/07/opinion/op-zuk7


Kinda long and academic but has a few nuggets.

http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/gayleft/marxismandhomsexuality.htm

[Comrade #138672]

The concept that reproduction is natural is a entirely human-oriented construction.There are many animals who do not reproduce in the usual manner in addition to some who have both sexes. The whole natural argument on their part is nothing but logical fallacies; this is revealed in by humanity being the only creature capable of making such a judgement; ergo it is impossible to truly know what is "natural" as the meaning as such variance.

Homosexuality occurs in all parts of the world in the vast majority, if not all, the species of animals (including humans). How is this not natural? Before you know it they are going to start talking about how having red hair is not natural. It occurs through the natural biological processes so it is natural.

These reproduction arguments always follow the same track yet they are strangely contradictory (what about the old people who can no longer reproduce, are they natural?) and ultimately lead to nothing and fail. Pseudo-theory not unlike those of yesteryear claiming various slurs about Black people.Well, I mostly agree with you, except that I would say reproduction, in its broadest sense, is quite natural. Without reproduction, life could not exist. Although it doesn't really matter how life is reproduced. It isn't self-evident that 'males' and 'females' should mate only with each other, or should mate at all. Also, sometimes there are no 'males' and 'females'.

Unfortunately, because of reproduction being necessary for life, homophobics wrongly conclude that homosexuality is, therefore, unnatural, but that is indeed a logical fallacy. Just because some reproduction is necessary for life to sustain itself, that does not mean that every organism should reproduce itself. Also, it does not mean that life itself should reproduce itself. Finally, if two homosexuals want to reproduce themselves using technology, why shouldn't they be allowed to do this?

Homophobics tend to have a very simplistic view on this. They fail to grasp how dynamic life actually is.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

But more important than it being or not natural is: Why does it matter if it is natural?
Most of the things in our life aren't "natural".
Light bulbs? There's not supposed to be light at night.
Cooked food? That's not supposed to happen, atleast not with the regularity it happens today.
Cell phones? It's not "natural" to speak to a person that is miles away from you.
Clothes? You shouldn't have those either!
Electricity, planes, cars, boats, money whatever!

None of that emerges in the nature so it's not "natural". If none of it is prohibited because it is not natural, then why should homossexuality be?

All of those are natural, however. True you cannot find a cell phone growing on a tree but the base materials in which we use to create such items are found in natural, hence, it is natural. This in turn brings me back to my first post where this line of thinking can become very tedious since what is defined as "natural" is open to such wide interpretation.

[RadioRaheem84]

Well, I mostly agree with you, except that I would say reproduction, in its broadest sense, is quite natural. Without reproduction, life could not exist. Although it doesn't really matter how life is reproduced. It isn't self-evident that 'males' and 'females' should mate only with each other, or should mate at all. Also, sometimes there are no 'males' and 'females'.

Unfortunately, because of reproduction being necessary for life, homophobics wrongly conclude that homosexuality is, therefore, unnatural, but that is indeed a logical fallacy. Just because some reproduction is necessary for life to sustain itself, that does not mean that every organism should reproduce itself. Also, it does not mean that life itself should reproduce itself. Finally, if two homosexuals want to reproduce themselves using technology, why shouldn't they be allowed to do this?

Homophobics tend to have a very simplistic view on this. They fail to grasp how dynamic life actually is.

They faily to grasp it because they grip to the simplicity of heterosexual reproduction, man+woman = life/baby. That to them is natural because it's so easily seen. Using technology like artifical insemination for homosexuals to copy the family unit, is seen as an immitation of the "real thing".

Whether or not you believe that it should or not, the point still stands that it can and for some reason that is enough for them to always have this moral high ground.

[RadioRaheem84]

All of those are natural, however. True you cannot find a cell phone growing on a tree but the base materials in which we use to create such items are found in natural, hence, it is natural. This in turn brings me back to my first post where this line of thinking can become very tedious since what is defined as "natural" is open to such wide interpretation.

My guess is that they see it as going back the very basics. If a group was out in the wild, it would be necessary for there to be a hetero majority to reproduce life and continue human existence. Heteros thus equal the neutral party.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

My guess is that they see it as going back the very basics. If a group was out in the wild, it would be necessary for there to be a hetero majority to reproduce life and continue human existence. Heteros thus equal the neutral party.

Exactly but this is where their logic fails since they seem to be under the impression that sexual orientation is,for all,fluid; a factor which can be whimsically altered thus placing humanity in danger of going extinct (like the countless species before us). What I mean by this is that they equate sexual activity as something which needs to be enforced in order to continue the race when it is actually a inborn trait that emerges once one reaches a certain level of developmental maturity.

In short: they see Queer acceptance as accepting extinction, as courting something that leads to our destruction when in reality is something beyond our control.

[human strike]

Reducing all human activity to serve production; isn't that capitalism?

I think there is a debate to be had over whether homosexuality is a social construct, whether it is a result of socialisation, but that debate can (and should) be had just as equally of heterosexuality and indeed any sexuality.

[Lucretia]

The notion that being able to physically/biologically reproduce is the same as being evolutionarily adaptive is a form of biological reductionism. Humans are social beings, and certain sexual behaviors might serve to increase survivability on the basis of social bonds formed, even if said activity doesn't literally make babies. In fact, a lot of recent research has looked at same-sex pair bonding from this very perspective.

[Luís Henrique]

it would be necessary for there to be a hetero majority

Hm, no. It would be necessarily to have heterosexual intercourses - and indeed quite few of them; women won't get pregnant much more than once a year, and they don't need thousands of sexual relations to get pregnant. Whether people abstain from sex when they are not trying to reproduce, or whether they go for more heterosexual sex or engage in perpetual homosexual binges, is really of very little import for reproduction.

Heck, there is nothing that impeaches homosexual behaviours being directly implicated in reproduction, in a Margaery Tyrrel-style solution.

Luís Henrique

[Jimmie Higgins]

Frankly I think it's pointless to an extent to worry about the arguments of people that bigoted. It's not "wrong" for any particular reason, it's wrong and they find reasons for it so the unnatural argument falls apart with a soft push.

Why, for example, is homosexuality the number one threat to them when masterbation is a non-reproductive sexual act that is far more common than gay or straight sexual acts - in fact it's most likely an "unnnatural" act they themselves have participated in. Why don't bigots go to military funerals with signs saying: "the God we thank/kills US troops when you wank"? Why don't they protest Viagra or attack doctors who persribe these pills for "unnatural" non-reproductive sex... which come to think of it, is medically enduced so it's literally unnatural.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

its such a pointless debate that asks the most rudimentary question: is the fundamental function of sexual intercourse for procreation? no, human beings are able to enjoy sexual activity on all kinds of levels. tell the idiot to read foucault's history of sexuality