Is Homosexuality "Natural"?

Mling said:

If you believe that, then why did you start this mess by pulling the conversation away from nature and into morals?

Click to expand...

For the life of me I can't figure out what you think I'm trying to say, let alone what I'm really trying to say. {*holds head and searches through drawer for asprin*} Let's forget it and move on.

selfinflikted said:

I suppose so. However, I've never heard of ANYONE try to argue that incest should be considered moral. I'm not so blind that I think incest doesn't occur, I've just never heard anyone pushing for it to be accepted by society.

Click to expand...

I certainly don't consider incest between consenting adults that use proper precautions to ensure no children will result to be immoral. I might find it icky, but that's not a very good basis for policy.

For the life of me I can't figure out what you think I'm trying to say, let alone what I'm really trying to say. {*holds head and searches through drawer for asprin*} Let's forget it and move on.

Click to expand...

I think you're taking my point as being more complicated than it really is. All I'm saying is that you were the one who said this:

If it is, that doesn't justify it. Everything that is natural is not Godly. Is not our sin "nature" natural?

Click to expand...

This was the first mention of morality or Godliness in this thread. It is also a counterargument to an assertion that was not made here, or anywhere, so far as I can see. It counters the assertion that natural=morally good. An assertion that nobody makes but that conservatives seem to love arguing against, because it's so obviously wrong.

I get really sick of conservatives acting like people who support homosexuals are a bunch of three-way bulbs set permanently to "dim" saying "Well, if de aminals do it...it must be all good...So lemmee alone before I start flinging my poo!"

The cycle goes like this:
Right: Homosexuality is unnatural.
Left: No. That is demonstrably incorrect. (this is where this thread picked up, in response to something on another thread)
Right: Well who cares if it's natural or not. Natural doesn't equal moral (that was your first post),
Left: Lot's of people care. Mostly people on your side who are making false claims that it's unnatural. (That was the response of several people to your post)
Right: Like....pedophilia and murder! Those are all natural too. (that was you)
Left: Yeah, so it doesn't matter...this conversation helps nobody. When I said it was natural, that was only because your ilk said it wasn't. I wasn't going anywhere with that. The point ended there. (that was a few people, including me)
Right: But there are all sorts of things that I want to do, that are natural. Should I just go out and do them, no matter what? Should I never try to restrain myself?

It's really not a difficult idea. Nobody thinks that natural=good, across the board. The only reason this argument exists is because people like you turn a very simple point into a meaningless runaround by saying "But not everything that's natural is good," and trying to force us to argue against that, by just...pretending we did, and responding as if we did.

Dear Original Poster:

To answer your question, yes homosexuality is natural.


Your's Truly


Rambot McGillicutty

Great Summary Mling, but I'll simplify even more:

If homosexuality being natural does not make it "good", then oppononets of homosexuality cannot use "unnatural" to say it's bad. I'm sure there's some sort of cause and effect rule here.

Should there be a next poll about "it doesn't produce offspring" making it evil? That's the point I usually hear next.

Mling said:

I think you're taking my point as being more complicated than it really is. All I'm saying is that you were the one who said this:

If it is, that doesn't justify it. Everything that is natural is not Godly. Is not our sin "nature" natural?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Which was my response to someone pointing out that homosexuality in nautre is natural. I agree there is a circle, but I didn't start it, this poll did. What is the purpose of asking if something you support is "natural" if you aren't contending that it's naturalness makes it acceptable (i.e. moral)?

Mling said:

It's really not a difficult idea. Nobody thinks that natural=good, across the board.

Click to expand...

Fair enough. But does the OP not imply that natural=good in the case of homosexuality?

What is the purpose of asking if something you support is "natural" if you aren't contending that it's naturalness makes it acceptable (i.e. moral)?

Click to expand...

To counter a claim that it is unnatural. According to the OP, this is a response to something said on another thread, which he didn't want to derail.

But does the OP not imply that natural=good in the case of homosexuality?

Click to expand...

No. It only asks if it is natural, for reasons I just explained. Nobody made that leap of logic except for you.

Mling said:

No. It only asks if it is natural, for reasons I just explained. Nobody made that leap of logic except for you.

Click to expand...

Oh...[Emily Litella like]...never mind.

Mling said:

To counter a claim that it is unnatural. According to the OP, this is a response to something said on another thread, which he didn't want to derail.

Click to expand...

Still, there were false claims made by someone lately. Claims that this thread did not discuss morality or godliness. Morality has been brought up and the other thread and its related discussion was linked way back in post four. The mention of Godliness had a REPLY back in post nine. I should know, since both were mine and I chose to let your inaccurate claims back a few posts go unaddressed.

BTW - the statement that same-gender sexual activity is unnatural is legitimate; despite a clear desire to claim otherwise. Your bifurcated position is illegitimate due to avoiding the varied context - which was linked as I said above.

No. It only asks if it is natural, for reasons I just explained. Nobody made that leap of logic except for you.

Click to expand...

Wrong.
Your explanation is flawed and only compounded in error with recent statements to another.

ChristianCenturion said:

BTW - the statement that same-gender sexual activity is unnatural is legitimate; despite a clear desire to claim otherwise.

Click to expand...

How can you continue to be so intellectually dishonest when there is tons of evidence that contradicts your statement?

selfinflikted said:

How can you continue to be so intellectually dishonest when there is tons of evidence that contradicts your statement?

Click to expand...

because its his opinion and he thinks it is facts.

What I think that Christian Centurion is trying to get at is that when people say "unnatural" they usually don't mean "doesn't occur in nature." I mean, why would they? We've never seen animals kicking around a debate on morality, yet here we are doing it.

As far as I can tell the term "unnatural" hasn't gained this connotation until recently. I think the traditionally used definition is more along the lines of "contrary to natural law" or "contrary to the purpose of an object or behavior." Aquinas, for example, certainly means the latter when he speaks of the "unnatural vice." He isn't saying that such things don't occur in nature. That's a point he doesn't address, because he doesn't consider it relevent to the issue.

I realized that that is not really the area in which scientific proofs can be offered so that'll probably upset some people, but I think that is generally what is meant.

The thing that surprises me here is the people who say "it's natural (because it occurs in nature) but that doesn't have anything to do with anything" also don't see it as relevent. So then who does see it as relevent? As far as I can tell, no one.

So what's the point of making thread about whether there are homosexual animals?

It seems only to mock a position which might not even exist.

Like some others in this thread, I have never understood the "homosexuality is bad/good/whatever because it is/is not natural" arguments.

I think a big part of the problem (and, again, as others have pointed out) is that we don't all agree as to what it means to be "natural" and, even if we did agree, what the importance of that distinction is ...

These issues are betrayed in the poll itself, which implies at least 3 different understandings of the meaning of "natural":

● The 1st option defines "natural" as that which occurs in nature;

● The 2nd and 3rd options introduce some other unspoken criteria (even if something occurs in "nature," being "natural" implies something more);

● The 4th option reflects an understanding of "natural" based on observable purpose or functionality

Pinp said:

Before another thread gets off track I'll spin off a new one.

Click to expand...

We would have to know in reference to which meaning of "natural" this question is asked.

Without further qualification I would understand "natural" as that which can be observed in nature". Nature includes mankind.. Homosexuality is observed with humans, and sexual activities are observed with other animals, too.

If however you use "natural" as in "natural vs. cultural": sexual activities can be observed with men as well as other animals, whilst e.g. marriage is a completely unnatural thing by this definition.

If you use "natural" as in "being performed by the majority", homosexuality is not natural. Driving a Volkswagen isn´t natural either, though.

If you use "natural" as in "genetically coded", I don´t know. I don´t see how this would make much of a difference in my stance about homosexuality.

If you use "natural" as a synonym for "how it´s meant to be": I don´t believe that there is an entity that has determined how things are meant to be.

If you use "natural" merely as a positive moral attribute (as many apparently do), I would prefer to discuss the basis for this notion first.

For those who claim that homosexuality is morally acceptable because of some inherited trait, surely we would not make the argument that obesity, violence, alcoholism and adultery are legitimate because there were also inherited traits.

The fact is it is immoral, whether inborn or acquired.

MoonlessNight said:

What I think that Christian Centurion is trying to get at is that when people say "unnatural" they usually don't mean "doesn't occur in nature." I mean, why would they? We've never seen animals kicking around a debate on morality, yet here we are doing it.

As far as I can tell the term "unnatural" hasn't gained this connotation until recently. I think the traditionally used definition is more along the lines of "contrary to natural law" or "contrary to the purpose of an object or behavior." Aquinas, for example, certainly means the latter when he speaks of the "unnatural vice." He isn't saying that such things don't occur in nature. That's a point he doesn't address, because he doesn't consider it relevent to the issue.

I realized that that is not really the area in which scientific proofs can be offered so that'll probably upset some people, but I think that is generally what is meant.

The thing that surprises me here is the people who say "it's natural (because it occurs in nature) but that doesn't have anything to do with anything" also don't see it as relevent. So then who does see it as relevent? As far as I can tell, no one.

So what's the point of making thread about whether there are homosexual animals?

It seems only to mock a position which might not even exist.

Click to expand...

Well, I think to argue that homosexuality is against "natural law" is bogus for a few reasons. Firstly, who decides what the criteria are for something to be considered "natural"? Secondly, what is perfectly natural to me, might not be natural at all for you. Seems to be pretty subjective to me.

Well, yes. And this is why the Founding Fathers felt that the only way a nation, such as the United States, could remain free, was if the vast majority of people living (within it boundaries at least) recognized the importanace of Judeo/Christian ethics and reasoning. A nation where plurality reigns cannot hope to stand together.... It will fall apart.