Defining natural

[Talendra]

Before getting all angsty and taking offence, this person, who you don't know, is male in every way apart from sex.

I'm not so much taking offense at that, she may very well have a male mind in a female body. It is more that you are, most likely unintentionally, implying that if you are homosexual you are either one sex in mind another in body or are flawed in character, just choosing to be homosexual for seemingly silly reasons.

 

[Sgt Doom]

Bah, calling something "unnatural" is just some people's way of saying "it's icky!"

 

[The Infamous Scamola]

Condoms + anal and oral sex? Not against it. But in terms of human... programming it's un-natural.
People who don't want kids? Nothing wrong with that (hell i fall into that category half the time) but again it is, in this context, un-natural.
Against sterile couples? You mean a man and a woman who cannot have babies? I don't think that's natural or un natural, i think that falls in the category of 'shit luck' - i have nothing against them.
I love sex, and I'm no father, so obviously i'm not against sex that is not meant for reproduction. It is, however, un-natural.

I don't really think you needed to ask those questions, but that's fine~

It's all cool, I respect your opinion, just wanted to get some perspective.

 

[Scobie]

DELETED

 

[Booze Zombie]

pardon; are you saying that because things aren't meant to happen then it's impossible they wouldn't happen?

Society rules people's actions in terms of lifestyle choices more than genetics - because lifestyles are social constructs.

No, I'm saying that if it wasn't meant to happen then it would not happen and that if it can indeed happen without the tinkering of the genetic code or reality, then it is natural.

 

[Booze Zombie]

Sorry, as someone studying evolutionary biology I have to butt in here. Organisms do not limit their reproduction to prevent overpopulation - that concept is rooted in the idea of evolution acting "for the good of the species", which has long been debunked. They might temporarily limit their reproduction due to lack of resources, which is related but not the same thing.

As to the original question, the whole problem with the argument is the idea that since something is "natural" it must be good. There's no reason to believe this at all and it especially annoys me since it's behind a bunch of other stuff like people being worried about GM food or "chemicals".

As for what's natural and what's not, I work on my own definition. I'd say that humanity is not really doing anything qualitatively different from any other organism, and that everything we do, we do in the natural world. So everything we do is natural. Not that it matters.

Fair points all around, though I disagree on the rather patronizing "oh, the simpletons are afraid of GM because they're filthy peasant fools" note, but that's another arguement.

Other than that...

 

[Xrysthos]

If it exists in nature it has to be natural. We are animals - whether we like it or not, so whatever we do it is "natural" on some level. We've just taken using tools to the next level. Homosexuality is abundant in nature as well, so I can't say that I find it unnatural. I do however agree that the term "natural" is in demand of being redefined - not sure about you guys, but I definitely find that humankinds constant abuse of nature, our greed and capitalist views on life and how it defines our values etc. could be defined as unnatural. I don't have exteme left wing political views, but some aspects of our consumerism really ticks me off.

 

[traceur_]

I think I can sum up the "not natural" argument with a joke.

There are 3 people on an aeroplane, 2 of them are gay guys and they start making out, the person beside them says "oh my god, stop that", one of the guys says "no", then the person beside them says "it's not natural", then one of the guys turns and says "you're flying!"

 

[The Infamous Scamola]

pardon; are you saying that because things aren't meant to happen then it's impossible they wouldn't happen?

Society rules people's actions in terms of lifestyle choices more than genetics - because lifestyles are social constructs.

No, I'm saying that if it wasn't meant to happen then it would not happen and that if it can indeed happen without the tinkering of the genetic code or reality, then it is natural.

True homosexuals are the result of genetic confusions. Popular homosexual are victims of the power of suggestion.

But that's off topic.

Men can't have babies. Therefore, male intercourse, to the point of orgasm or otherwise, is not natural.

If you continue to take me out of context, or ignore the neutral nature of my positions, i will not continue to be so elaborate in explaining my positions.

I dunno, you're pretty much dismissing homosexuality as a fad.

 

[Xrysthos]

Sorry, as someone studying evolutionary biology I have to butt in here. Organisms do not limit their reproduction to prevent overpopulation - that concept is rooted in the idea of evolution acting "for the good of the species", which has long been debunked. They might temporarily limit their reproduction due to lack of resources, which is related but not the same thing.

As to the original question, the whole problem with the argument is the idea that since something is "natural" it must be good. There's no reason to believe this at all and it especially annoys me since it's behind a bunch of other stuff like people being worried about GM food or "chemicals".

As for what's natural and what's not, I work on my own definition. I'd say that humanity is not really doing anything qualitatively different from any other organism, and that everything we do, we do in the natural world. So everything we do is natural. Not that it matters.

Fair points all around, though I disagree on the rather patronizing "oh, the simpletons are afraid of GM because they're filthy peasant fools" note, but that's another arguement.

Other than that...

Aware that the entire GM debate might deserve a thread of it's own, but the problem isn't that we're afraid of genetically manipulated foods; the problem is that enforcing it's use for profit on third world farmers and thus reducing the natural diversity found in species that have adapted to the environments in which they live is plain wrong. In India, farmers have lost crops several times due to that the GM crops have inferior resistances to the local varieties of say cotton, corn or rice, and even though they contain enhanced nutrients they are still less nutritious than said local varieties (in some cases). GM technology can be life saving and change the entire food situation in the world, but it has to be tailored for the specific environment and conditions that it's supposed to grow in, and not for maximized profit.

 

[teisjm]

It's no more unnatural than safe sex between a man and a woman, which won't lead to kids beeing born either.

 

[clicketycrack]

I guess people say homosexuality isn't natural because there isn't any purpose to it as far as survival. If your natural point in life is to continue the human race than the thing to do would be to dedicate your life to getting as many women pregnant as possible.

 

[Booze Zombie]

True homosexuals are the result of genetic confusions. Popular homosexual are victims of the power of suggestion.

But that's off topic.

Men can't have babies. Therefore, male intercourse, to the point of orgasm or otherwise, is not natural.

If you continue to take me out of context, or ignore the neutral nature of my positions, i will not continue to be so elaborate in explaining my positions.

So, because men can't have babies with each other... it's not natural?
Why does it not fulfilling the "make more" function render it unnatural?
If it is not a natural function, why is it occurring?

Could it not simply be a recessive behavior from the cave dwelling days, when perhaps we were packs?
The man in charge suppressed the others and used them for pleasure, as well as having the females, perhaps?
"Gayness" could be the result of some of that resurfacing as an instinct...
Without a modern day pack mentality, this manifests as homosexual behavior and not a pecking order. Does that sound plausible?

This is starting to get tiring...

 

[The Infamous Scamola]

I dunno, you're pretty much dismissing homosexuality as a fad.

except in the relatively rare case of genetic homosexuality, it is~

Don't underestimate the power of suggestion - it is one of the main factors driving religion, society, politics, music tastes etc etc etc~

Do you have any proof to back up your claims?
If what you were saying was true that would mean that only Western nations who have already grown to accept homosexuality as normal would have a homosexual minority.

 

[XJ-0461]

I think I can sum up the "not natural" argument with a joke.

There are 3 people on an aeroplane, 2 of them are gay guys and they start making out, the person beside them says "oh my god, stop that", one of the guys says "no", then the person beside them says "it's not natural", then one of the guys turns and says "you're flying!"

Yep, that does sum up the "It's not natural" argument.
On topic: as people before me have said, people use the "not natural" thing as a way of saying "it's gross".

 

[Arkengetorix]

Can we get out of this idea that being homosexual means you CAN'T or DON'T have babies. This is completely asinine and stupid.

It is not a form of population control, most homosexuals throughout history have had children, being homosexual doesn't mean you magically lose the ability to understand that you need man + woman to have a baby. Homosexuality isn't anymore unnatural than farting, it's really just a factor of life, another representation of the diversity of humans.

The word "natural" nowadays seems to be a marketing tool normally coupled with the word "pure", anyone that's ever done chemistry can see the giant gaping maw of bullshit that threatens to devour our sanity.

 

[Skeleon]

Basically, what others already said:
Natural = what occurs in nature, not just in human societies.
Therefore, homosexuality = natural.

However, why people care if something is natural or not is beyond me. After all, dying from infections or being eaten by lions is natural, too, but we try to avoid those anyway, with antibiotics and zoo fences respectively.

Face it, humans aren't natural, we're above that, so whether or not something is natural should not matter to us anyway.

 

[Booze Zombie]

As for proof? Logic. Nature would not evolve homosexuality, as it is against nature and 'survival of the fittest [best reproducer]' would have rooted it out. It therefore originated in genetic defects - or you know one day some guys probably said 'u know what, you have quite a pretty, femenine face... i can't get real femenin people so why don't we satisfy each other's needs - look, you have a hole!' I mean I said it in a very simplified, harsh way [cuz' i'm lazy] but that is another possible source - along with genetics.

I mean, someone had to screw a monkey for AIDS to start~

I just re-read that, and if anyone says i'm a bigot, of homophobic, then really i reserve the right to lol@them.

urprobablyright threatens with the lol button

The fittest would get to do whatever he wants, included gratifying his sex drive on other males because he doesn't want more mouths to feed.

Homosexuality could be a survival behavior.

A "weak" being's mind acknowledged weakness, it accepts little chance of reproducing.
Two "weak" beings find each other and feel strong together, increasing their chances of survival.
Still having sex drives, but no females... they take out their pleasure on each other. Further increasing their relationship and furthering their chances for survival.

This could be argued as a direct result of nature, due to the way things are.

 

[Skeleon]

Uhm, AIDS was probably first transmitted via blood, not via sex. Many African tribes used to hunt and eat monkeys for food, it's very probable that AIDS has been around far longer than the last 50 years but had always been limited to small tribal communities without much access to the outside world.

Also, AIDS isn't a homosexual disease, the chances of transmitting it (or rather HIV) are just higher because there's more blood contact in anal than in vaginal sex. It doesn't matter whether you have anal sex with a man or a woman for the risk to be higher.
Look at Africa, most of the infected there are heterosexuals.

 

[Scobie]

DELETED