Current Events > How come people say homosexuality is unnatural?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Marauder64 posted...

It's also "natural" for some animals to eat their young. Or kill their sex partner. Should we deem these as OK too?

Just to be clear, are you equating homosexuality with killing people?

---

darkphoenix181 posted...

And what about that makes it unnatural?
Did God teach it to them?

typically, things that don't occur naturally are unnatural. shocking, i know. you're free to argue that its natural human behavior to create but that does not make everything man-made innately natural.

Marauder64 posted...

It's also "natural" for some animals to eat their young. Or kill their sex partner. Should we deem these as OK too?

I think the better take away from the discussion is that "natural/unnatural" is a largely meaningless distinction and therefore not something we should use to decide moral behavior.

HerpToTheDerp posted...

typically, things that don't occur naturally are unnatural. shocking, i know. you're free to argue that its natural human behavior to create but that does not make everything man-made innately natural.

How did it not occur naturally?

lil_GoodOlJr_69 posted...

How long until we get warned suspended for saying this now?

Would only happen if you were using it to devalue a transgender person. But you already knew that, didn't you Jim?

Guide posted...

Just to be clear, are you equating homosexuality with killing people?

No they are saying just because something is natural doesnt mean it is always ok or acceptable.

---

Dragonblade01 posted...

I think the better take away from the discussion is that "natural/unnatural" is a largely meaningless distinction and therefore not something we should use to decide moral behavior.

Makes sense.

---

Dragonblade01 posted...

I think the better take away from the discussion is that "natural/unnatural" is a largely meaningless distinction and therefore not something we should use to decide moral behavior.

Well said.

---

darkphoenix181 posted...

How did it not occur naturally?

i wasnt around during the creation of religion to give you the specifics if that's what you're actually asking me lol. id wager someone made up a story and got others to believe it. again, just because you're capable of spreading an ideology with little resistance, that doesn't make it natural. unless of course you're going to say fundamental beliefs like anti-semitism and other racist beliefs are natural

Mistere Man posted...

No they are saying just because something is natural doesnt mean it is always ok or acceptable.

Alright, that can make sense too. I can only see the purpose of saying that, in this topic, as a way to say that homosexuality isn't ok, or shouldn't be acceptable, though.

@Marauder64 Am I wrong?

---

darkphoenix181 posted...

How did it not occur naturally?

For the record, at no point was @HerpToTheDerp arguing his own perspective on this, just explaining other prevalent views.

---

HerpToTheDerp posted...

i wasnt around during the creation of religion to give you the specifics if that's what you're actually asking me lol. id wager someone made up a story and got others to believe it. again, just because you're capable of spreading an ideology with little resistance, that doesn't make it natural. unless of course you're going to say fundamental beliefs like anti-semitism and other racist beliefs are natural

How is a person spreading a belief unnatural?
Are humans unnatural? If so, how and why?

Guide posted...

For the record, at no point was HerpToTheDerp arguing his own perspective on this, just explaining other prevalent views.

Wrong. He said religion is unnatural. That is not a view of these people. They think it is.

darkphoenix181 posted...

How is a person spreading a belief unnatural?
Are humans unnatural? If so, how and why?

I'm not saying you're trolling, but this is what I do to troll.

---

darkphoenix181 posted...

What do humans do that is unnatural?

Wear glasses

Get back surgery

Give and receive vaccinations

Engineer our food or even curate evolution to make dogs and cats that fit our needs and wants

Use screens and computers

Read and write

Wear condoms

Go to the gym/exercise

Drink milk from other animals

Wear clothes, shoes

Be vegan even though we are omnivorous

Get cosmetic surgery

Practice religion

Take medicine, cigarettes, drugs

Speak languages (animals communicate but don't have what we consider language)

Get married

Practice abstinence or be celibate

----

Being unnatural isn't proof that something is bad. And homosexuality is more natural than any of these things anyway.

Anybody harping on homosexuality being bad/unnatural or anything other than on equal footing with heterosexuality is just being a moron.

---

i do not believe religion in of itself to be natural. instead it is the means of how we create religion and other ideologies to be natural. religion is created in a response to basic human emotions which i do consider to be natural.

Religion maybe found in nature as some animals show ritual behavior or even idol worship of objects. Of course I could be mistaken as my memory isnt the best, but I think I remember reading that somewhere. Again if I am wrong I am sorry for the misinformation.

---

Guide posted...

I'm not saying you're trolling, but this is what I do to troll.

i was just going to assume that they were religious and felt attacked. it could be an extremely proactive statement in this case where i believe homosexuality to be natural since that fundamentally goes against what they believe to be natural.

Guide posted...

Alright, that can make sense too. I can only see the purpose of saying that, in this topic, as a way to say that homosexuality isn't ok, or shouldn't be acceptable, though.

@Marauder64 Am I wrong?

I personally dont agree with homosexuality. To each their own.


---

I guess I was wrong. Sorry.

---

meralonne posted...

Hunt for sport? I cant think of other species that kill because they think its fun.

Spiders
Praying Mantis'

---

Mistere Man posted...

Religion maybe found in nature as some animals show ritual behavior or even idol worship of objects. Of course I could be mistaken as my memory isnt the best, but I think I remember reading that somewhere. Again if I am wrong I am sorry for the misinformation.

yeah, i ended up reading on it because of this actually. i find it fascinating, but from what ive read i dont believe ritual behavior and highly cognitive theologies to be one in the same. even if you did then i still stand by my statement that it isnt the response it self that rationalizes itself as natural but instead the emotions which then became learned behaviors.

i cannot in good faith call religion natural. if one theology is open for discussion then all by nature must be as well and since i dont believe beliefs like anti-semitism or racism to be natural then that type of thinking is off the table for me.

ZevLoveDOOM posted...

some people can be ignorant as hell. some of them believe that homosexuality is something that can be "cured" through conversion camps and shit... gimme a break!

This shit sucks. And its torture. Id burn all those places down if I wouldnt get charge with Arson. But I would. And I cant really go to jail or lose my jobs, so...

Esrac posted...

I think dolphins do, if I recall.

Dolphins are horrible animals that even sharks are scared of...

Marauder64 posted...

I personally dont agree with homosexuality. To each their own.

Wow... Ok, then...
---

all that said ill admit I'm biased. ive got a vendetta against religion since im gay myself. i hear it all the time, how "unnatural" it is and it pisses me off because the only people i hear it from are the religious types.

HerpToTheDerp posted...

yeah, i ended up reading on it because of this actually. i find it fascinating, but from what ive read i dont believe ritual behavior and highly cognitive theologies to be one in the same. even if you did then i still stand by my statement that it isnt the response it self that rationalizes itself as natural but instead the emotions which then became learned behaviors.

i cannot in good faith call religion natural. if one theology is open for discussion then all by nature must be as well and since i dont believe beliefs like anti-semitism or racism to be natural then that type of thinking is off the table for me.

Well I didnt say animals were deep thinkers, but if they ever did gain more self awareness and brain function those rituals could lead to such things.

---

HerpToTheDerp posted...

all that said ill admit I'm biased. ive got a vendetta against religion since im gay myself. i hear it all the time, how "unnatural" it is and it pisses me off because the only people i hear it from are the religious types.

I hear it from more than just religious types. My familys pretty religious, but accept my cousin and I who are both gay. And my SO works for churches in town, and they are fine with it.

That being said, I probably hear it from religious folks more...
---

Mistere Man posted...

Well I didnt say animals were deep thinkers, but if they ever did gain more self awareness and brain function those rituals could lead to such things.

yes but i stand by statement that i believe those were learned behaviors and not innate since from everything ive seen on the matter regarding specific ritual behaviors, it is not a common occurrence/recorded frequently. otherwise it looks to me like the only innate thing about them are the emotional responses.

HerpToTheDerp posted...

yes but i stand by statement that i believe those were learned behaviors and not innate since from everything ive seen on the matter regarding specific ritual behaviors, it is not a common occurrence/recorded frequently. otherwise it looks to me like the only innate thing about them are the emotional responses.

Fair enough I mean I did say may be found not is found so I agree it could be something else.

---

Everything humans do is natural. Even building computers, wearing glasses, etc. Birds make nests. Ants make anthills. Humans make things too, just like other animals. The only difference is that human creations are usually more complex. And the same goes for human ideologies and beliefs. They're all natural. Even the horrible ones. Being "natural" should not be used as a criteria to judge whether something is positive or negative. Nature can be vicious and destructive.

But nobody should be against homosexuality. Opposition to it stems from ignorance, lack of experience, and/or lack of empathy.
---

i just believe that homosexuality is not learned. nobody taught me how to be gay. religion however is taught and, unlike homosexuality, can be redirected if taught otherwise.

people are taught religion and can be taught to stop practicing.

Marauder64 posted...

I personally dont agree with homosexuality. To each their own.

I would appreciate the fact that you at least don't try to pretend you're fair to gay people, except being brazen and open about a bad and hurtful opinion doesn't actually make it any less bad and hurtful

---

Wetterdew posted...

I would appreciate the fact that you at least don't try to pretend you're fair to gay people, except being brazen and open about a bad and hurtful opinion doesn't actually make it any less bad and hurtful

I mean, he came into a topic about what constitutes a natural thing just to say that he doesn't think being gay is acceptable. Maybe I could find appreciation if he had the capacity for topicality.

---

TheOnionKnight posted...

Everything humans do is natural. Even building computers, wearing glasses, etc. Birds make nests. Ants make anthills. Humans make things too, just like other animals. The only difference is that human creations are usually more complex.

I appreciate the attempt to put all human things on the same level...but this just isn't true. The word "natural" means "existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind." And the word unnatural means "not existing in nature; artificial." Wearing glasses, using condoms, using screens and computer apps, taking medicine/vaccinations, reading, writing, operating vehicles, etc. are absolutely not natural. And it's ok. Natural isn't synonymous with good.

---

Wetterdew posted...

I appreciate the attempt to put all human things on the same level...but this just isn't true. The word "natural" means "existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind." And the word unnatural means "not existing in nature; artificial." Wearing glasses, using condoms, using screens and computer apps, taking medicine/vaccinations, etc. are absolutely not natural. And it's ok. Natural isn't synonymous with good.

The dichotomy between "natural" and "unnatural" is a false one that humans created to separate themselves from nature. We're not better than or separate from nature. We're part of it, and the things we create are part of it too.
---

Where the encompassing definition stems from is how all that stuff is a result of humans, which are a result of nature. I like yours better on the count of it being more useful, but I wouldn't dismiss the other.

---

i disagree. i think it's natural for us to be curious and to problem solve using our creations. however, despite arguing creating to be human nature, i do not think that automatically makes whatever we make natural.

LinkPizza posted...

Dolphins are horrible animals that even sharks are scared of...

Mostly because dolphins travel in large numbers and sharks typically do not. Sharks would eat dolphins all day if they could. They love big fatty animals like seals.

---

Tyranthraxus posted...

Mostly because dolphins travel in large numbers and sharks typically do not. Sharks would eat dolphins all day if they could. They love big fatty animals like seals.

Apparently not. They put chum in the water and the shark goes toward it. They did it again, but with a silhouette of a dolphin next to it, and the shark was like, Nope... They apparently wont even mess with one dolphin... Seals probably dont fight back the same way a dolphin does, I guess...
---

HerpToTheDerp posted...

i disagree. i think it's natural for us to be curious and to problem solve using our creations. however, despite arguing creating to be human nature, i do not think that automatically makes whatever we make natural.

Humans are animals. When every other animal creates something, it's considered natural. Why are humans the only animals with the capability to create unnatural things? It's because humans don't really consider themselves animals; there's a mindset that humans are a step above nature, a level removed from it. Which is false. We're part of it. Computers and beehives are both natural products created by animals.

In common usage, the words "natural" and "unnatural" have their places in conversation, but when you're getting into a deeper conceptual discussion about whether certain behaviors are appropriate because they are or aren't natural, I think it's important to take a step back and realize humans aren't special.
---

I don't think the argument from Christians is that it's unnatural

Sex between men and women is natural but according to Christians that's still a sin unless they're married.

TheOnionKnight posted...

The dichotomy between "natural" and "unnatural" is a false one that humans created to separate themselves from nature. We're not better than or separate from nature. We're part of it, and the things we create are part of it too.

It's no more a false dichotomy than the dichotomy between even and odd numbers. We have a label for things that exist without humankind, and another word to describe things that exist because of humankind. The fact that this distinction exists doesn't imply anything about one being better than the other. and whether or not you like the distinction, it still exists. And regardless of your opinion on the implications of recognizing what's natural and what isn't, the words have meanings and this is how we use them.

natural: existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind
unnatural: not existing in nature; artificial

If you were talking about the words "normal" and "abnormal" then it would be up to question--and sometimes "unnatural" is used synonymously with "abnormal." But that's not the usage I'm talking about.

Anyway, how do you distinguish between natural and unnatural? You tell me what you think the words mean. If you think "natural" means "exists in reality" then I would agree that wearing glasses and using computers falls under your working definition of the word. (but not the common usage)

---

We are a part of nature. Anything we do is included in things that "occur naturally."

You could define natural and unnatural exclusively by specific things that only humans seem to do; but not only is the term arguably inappropriate for making that distinction, it also only pertains to whether one specific part of nature (humans) is the originator and not another part.

coh posted...

I don't think the argument from Christians is that it's unnatural

Sex between men and women is natural but according to Christians that's still a sin unless they're married.

But they usually consider gay marriage unnatural, as well...
---

Basically, I think they are saying than if a little chimp makes a hammer, its consider natural. And if thats true, then things animals make are natural. If thats true, then anything we make should be natural, as well. We may make a hammer differently, but we are still making a hammer like them...
---

Wetterdew posted...

Anyway, how do you distinguish between natural and unnatural? You tell me what you think the words mean.

Nothing is unnatural. The concept of being "unnatural" is a human invention, designed to separate some parts of nature from other parts of nature, but it's a false separation. When applied to human behaviors and inventions in particular, it's also tied into the fact that humans think too highly of themselves and consider themselves to be above nature, which they are not.

What I'm talking about isn't something that can be settled by consulting the dictionary, since I'm basically saying the dictionary is wrong. And my viewpoint is not popular, which is why the words "natural" and "unnatural" exist in the first place! But like I said, when something like homosexuality is being condemned based on whether it's natural, I think it's important to really stop and think about how humans fit into nature. I won't keep yammering on, though. I think I made my point, and I don't want to drag down the thread!
---

Dragonblade01 posted...

We are a part of nature. Anything we do is included in things that "occur naturally."

SMH

This topic is about people who think being gay is unnatural, as opposed to natural. And implying that unnatural things are inherently worse and that therefore being gay is worse.

If we are going to try to determine whether something is NATURAL or UNNATURAL then we need to know what the people mean by one or the other, according to how the words are defined. Coming in to say "ackchyually ALL THINGS exist in the material world" is irrelevant since that has no bearing on what these homophobes are getting at.

The distinction they draw between natural and unnatural (which is what they try to use to denigrate gay people) is that natural things are not caused or made by humans, and unnatural things are caused by / made by humans.

That's the difference between "natural" and "unnatural" as defined by their common usages. That's what we should examine.

And here you are coming in with "well ackchyually nature has a definition that means "the material world," and technically humans ARE a part of the material world, therefore they're all natural"

YES there is a usage of nature that means "the material world" but you are getting hung up on it. That definition is irrelevant here. Because you know as well as I do that when people say "gay isn't found in nature" they aren't talking about the same definition y'all are trying to pull out. They are using THIS definition of nature:

"the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations."

---

Wetterdew posted...

SMH

This topic is about people who think being gay is unnatural, as opposed to natural. And implying that unnatural things are inherently worse and that therefore being gay is worse.

If we are going to try to determine whether something is NATURAL or UNNATURAL then we need to know what the people mean by one or the other, according to how the words are defined. Coming in to say "ackchyually ALL THINGS exist in the material world" is irrelevant since that has no bearing on what these homophobes are getting at.

The distinction they draw between natural and unnatural (which is what they try to use to denigrate gay people) is that natural things are not caused or made by humans, and unnatural things are caused by / made by humans.

That's the difference between "natural" and "unnatural" as defined by their common usages. That's what we should examine.

And here you are coming in with "well ackchyually nature has a definition that means "the material world," and technically humans ARE a part of the material world, therefore they're all natural"

YES there is a usage of nature that means "the material world" but you are getting hung up on it. That definition is irrelevant here. Because you know as well as I do that when people say "gay isn't found in nature" they aren't talking about the same definition y'all are trying to pull out. They are using THIS definition of nature:

"the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations."

I'm aware of how the terms have been and are used. The reason I say "well actually" is precisely because I find certain usages of natural and unnatural to be antiquated relics that do more to hinder our understanding of the world we live in than help.

Also, with regards to homosexuality, that definition is still incorrect.

Wetterdew posted...

Because you know as well as I do that when people say "gay isn't found in nature" they aren't talking about the same definition y'all are trying to pull out.

My point is that these people are operating with a false premise that ought to be demolished. Easier said than done, of course. People don't like to change their minds.
---

TheOnionKnight posted...

I won't keep yammering on, though. I think I made my point, and I don't want to drag down the thread!

your point seems to be that you don't like that the word "unnatural" exists or that people have a word to distinguish between things that exist with and without humankind. Sorry, but we do actually have a word for that. The dictionary isn't "wrong," because it isn't prescribing a usage for the word, it's just describing how people use the word. Except you I guess

When people call homosexuality unnatural, they are trying to imply it's a human perversion not found in other creatures. If you go "ackchyually everything exists in nature" then the homophobe would just groan and say "my point was that it's a human perversion not found in other animals" and you've done nothing to actually respond to them meaningfully

---