Whoa, there, that's a pretty thin definition of what's 'natural'. By your definition, sex after menopause or with a sterile partner is unnatural, as is masturbation. And if we're gonna get semantic about it, where do we draw the line on 'essential'? By your definition, all of society could be read as being inherently unnatural, since there are species that don't have it so it mustn't be essential. Is the definition of 'essential' allowed to vary over time as our species' lifestyle changes? The moment we as a species evolved to the point that philosophers realised 'man does not live on bread alone' did that make it so? If not, then it seems to me that your definition of 'natural' excludes a HUGE amount of what goes on in the world. Everything about human society must be somehow unnatural. Perhaps you need to redefine 'natural' based on what is, not what you want to see?BanicRhys said:Lots of stuff
Surely nature is awesome enough to contain diversity of practice, to encompass a system that generated variety and difference as a way to be strong? The reason we're not all the same is that different species evolve into different niches, and thus thrive in different environments. If diversity and variety and experimentation are all natural on a macro scale for different species, why would it be particularly different on a human scale? The things that trigger your sexual desires don't work for a homosexual person, and theirs for you, but neither one of you is unnatural.