Being Gay, what IS the unnatural reason then?

[Karis]

I was only making a comment in response to the post referring to anatomy. By stating a fact,and not making reference to any "some scholar"with one interpretation. Just referring to what we know of science.

 

But you said it was unnatural if it wasn't the 'traditional' form of love making (that which nature "intended").

 

There are many heterosexual positions and themes which your scientist would consider to be unnatural because they deviate from what you defined as the act for which they were intended.

 

So you simply can't say that any physical act between two consenting adults is unnatural as it is, by its very act, entirely natural.

[Jessica23]

But culture and the morals we draw from that culture lead us to do things that are 'unnatural', like imposing the age of consent - morally right, in my opinion yes - but not something that would be observed without culture and the morals therein.

 

So we then get led onto a further quandry, and one I am hesitant to get into (on account of there not really being an answer to it).

 

That is what is nature, is it the 'default' position that comes from being a part of this planet? For example do we say that trees, flowers, gentlemen chimps humping other gentlemen chimps, lions eating antelope etc are natural, and when humans 'create' things found nowhere else in nature (paracetamol, GM crops, crank shafts, moral laws etc) then that is not natural.

 

OR do we say that everything humans create is also a part of nature because we are natural and therefore by default our creations are too, which would mean that nothing is unnatural. So both the view that homosexuality is right and the view that homosexuality is wrong would both be a natural position?

 

I put both terms in inverted commas because I don't think they're at all useful. You might want to say that lions eating antelopes are natural, but what about when the lions start eating zebra instead because a new town was built that forced the lions to move away from the antelopes? It's at best a slippery distinction and at worst a false one.

 

I don't think there's a question about whether a view on homosexuality can be natural or unnatural. But for what it's worth, prejudice is taught rather than innate and can be just as easily unlearned by those willing to try.

[PaliRichard]

Behaviour is an easier area to think about than some of those examples.

 

If we observe a behaviour in wild animals that we also see in ourselves, then it's pretty obviously natural I'd say.

There isn't much point in defining anything we do as natural (because we are a product of the natural world) because that encompasses everything we do. So we normally distinguish based on whether we would historically have done that thing before we got lucky and discovered a few tricks like fire, agriculture, domestication and industry.

For example, living in massive groups in brick buildings hundreds of metres in the air. We wouldn't have done this without the discoveries I mentioned, so probably not natural.

 

Alas some posters on here seem unable to distinguish between what you would refer to as 'natural'. Hence the question, what do we define as 'natural'. Like I said I don't think there is a right or wrong answer as such, but my opinion is in line with your concept of 'natural' (and I would suspect, the general concept as held by 'most' people).

[PaliRichard]

I put both terms in inverted commas because I don't think they're at all useful. You might want to say that lions eating antelopes are natural, but what about when the lions start eating zebra instead because a new town was built that forced the lions to move away from the antelopes? It's at best a slippery distinction and at worst a false one.

 

I don't think there's a question about whether a view on homosexuality can be natural or unnatural. But for what it's worth, prejudice is taught rather than innate and can be just as easily unlearned by those willing to try.

 

Agreed, but if I may play devils advocate a little here, could we not also say that we ourselves are prejudiced because we disagree with paedophilia which is itself 'natural'. Could the fact that we have put a label of morality on it in fact just be there to cover up our own prejudice?

 

I'll leave that one with you, it's going a little off topic I think but it is relevant to your post.

[Karis]

Agreed, but if I may play devils advocate a little here, could we not also say that we ourselves are prejudiced because we disagree with paedophilia which is itself 'natural'. Could the fact that we have put a label of morality on it in fact just be there to cover up our own prejudice?

 

I'll leave that one with you, it's going a little off topic I think but it is relevant to your post.

 

Fascinating question and one that leaves me starting to think: if that (paedophilia) is mental illness, then that is a scary road to go down...

 

I do think that there's a moral line drawn when considering having intimate relations with some young people. One 16 year old may be mature enough at 14, while another 18.

 

But this is going wildly off topic.

[janie48]

But you said it was unnatural if it wasn't the 'traditional' form of love making (that which nature "intended").

 

There are many heterosexual positions and themes which your scientist would consider to be unnatural because they deviate from what you defined as the act for which they were intended.

 

So you simply can't say that any physical act between two consenting adults is unnatural as it is, by its very act, entirely natural.

 

But where have i said it was unnatural? and when you say "your scientist" what does that refer to,don't you accept the biological science of anatomy and physiology?

[Jessica23]

Agreed, but if I may play devils advocate a little here, could we not also say that we ourselves are prejudiced because we disagree with paedophilia which is itself 'natural'. Could the fact that we have put a label of morality on it in fact just be there to cover up our own prejudice?

 

I'll leave that one with you, it's going a little off topic I think but it is relevant to your post.

 

Relevant how?

[Suffragette1]

natural sex? you mean "once a fortnight, only on a Saturday night, in the missionary position?"

 

After MOTD in the football season, lights off.

[Suffragette1]

Ahh. You see, I simply can't see it that way as, without getting too detailed, I've played around with all kinds of food (chocolate mousse being particular favourite).

 

... Has it suddenly got warm in here or is it just me?

 

><

 

Food and sex are a great combination.

[Jessica23]

Let's draw a parallel between paedophilia and homophobia.

 

Unless and until those states are acted on (by the sexual abuse of a child, by the public dissemination of damaging untruths), they don't effect me, or anyone else, and are not causing harm.

 

There's no way of knowing that anyone is either a paedophile or a homophobe until they act on it - and cause harm.

 

Once they've done that, then the way we feel towards them is driven by their actions and thus can't be thought of as a prejudice. It's a considered response to behaviour that is damaging.