Naturally, it doesn't matter

[SuperPsyze]

The morality behind homosexuality is always going to be up to debate. Everyone will have their own justifications on whether such acts should be abhorred, condoned, or (in some rare cases) encouraged.

One common argument for and against homosexuality is its legitimacy as a "natural act". These arguments are meant to appeal to those who abide by the rules of science through studies of genetics and behavioral sciences.

One side would argue that homosexuality has no legitimate role in nature; that it serves no purpose in procreation and the survival of the human race.

Opponents would rebuttal with examples of homosexuality in nature. A pair of male penguins in Central Park Zoo have been observed to have built a nest together, so far as to put rocks in the nest in place of eggs (biologists replaced the rocks with real eggs later on). Bonobos are a society of fully bisexual primates who appear to have casual homosexual encounters regularly. Males would greet each other by rubbing their scrotum together, and females would engage in sexual touching of the vulva.

While many proponents of homosexuality have been satisfied with this rebuttal, it has never quite been convincing to me. Over the years, I found that this "Argument of Naturality" to be weak, and maybe even irrelevant to logically justify homosexuality in our society.

Here's what it comes down to. There are many "unnatural things" that we encourage in our society, and there are many "natural" things we consider abhorrent. Here are a few examples:

Rape is a natural occurrence in nature. The act helps distribute genes to many females for the next generation. [Rape Behavior in Blue-Wing Teal]

Murder is a natural occurrence in nature. Many animals kill each other for dominance. For nature, this ensures that only the strongest can breed, and that the next generation can benefit from the stronger genes. [Dawson Bees]

Abstinence/Celibacy is an unnatural act. Many cultures consider those who practice celibacy to be highly respected (such a Buddhist Monks and Christian Clerics). Such acts go against procreation, and animals would likely drop in population if those with prized genetics were to avoid intercourse.

Contraception is an unnatural act. While many animals do have sex for pleasure, they have not found use for condoms or birth control medication. Human culture, however, encourages the use of contraception (though not as a replacement for abstinence).

You may argue some of these points, and you may be right in marking one or more of them as natural/unnatural contrary to my observations. My point, however, is that we cannot use "natural" or "unnatural" as a proper basis for moral choices. The argument is weak because we can't pick and choose which attributes of nature we'll accept and which ones we'll reject. It's arbitrary unless we say "Everything that occurs naturally is moral" or "Everything that occurs naturally is immoral".

You may disagree with me (and I hope that you do so that I can test my logic), but I find the "Argument of Naturality" to be completely invalid for both sides of homosexuality argument. We may determine the morality of homosexuality through other points, but nature has no presence here.

 

[OogieMess]

I love cock me.

 

[NotThatCreative]

The problem with your logic here is that the line isn't arbitrary. The morally and sexually progressive in society tend to consider the line to be when it harms people. Contraception, despite not occurring in nature, is good for both preventing pregnancy and STDs. Rape and murder, though natural, harm the victim (obviously). There's the line.

 

[SuperPsyze]

The problem with your logic here is that the line isn't arbitrary. The morally and sexually progressive in society tend to consider the line to be when it harms people. Contraception, despite not occurring in nature, is good for both preventing pregnancy and STDs. Rape and murder, though natural, harm the victim (obviously). There's the line.

But that's the thing. Those are being gauged as moral/immoral based on a different metric (harm). Whether or not the acts are natural is completely irrelevant to their categorization.

 

[poolerboy]

The problem with your logic here is that the line isn't arbitrary. The morally and sexually progressive in society tend to consider the line to be when it harms people. Contraception, despite not occurring in nature, is good for both preventing pregnancy and STDs. Rape and murder, though natural, harm the victim (obviously). There's the line.

Unwanted harm. BDSM is typically consented to by the parties involved.

 

[TX-Beau]

All of this depends on your definition of natural.

How is that defined? Something that happens in "nature?" What is nature? Wilderness? Is it "natural" for humans to build communities? If so is what happens in those communities natural?

Seems to me that natural in this context is a value judgment that makes some moral assumptions.

Namely that what happens in nature has some kind of moral justification, and implicit rightness.

I don't think it does. We exist in an evolving ecosystem that does not operate according to a moral drive. What happens in "nature," is driven by that, without reference or context of rightness or wrongness.

It's people who apply the moral filter, to any number of behaviors that we find acceptable/unacceptable according to the context of our own human defined codes of behavior.

Homosexuality, murder, rape, in our own species and in analogs of other species is neither natural nor unnatural, it simply is. it has no moral or ethical overtones. We as humans are the arbiters of moral and immoral, and "nature," as in the ecosystem we inhabit, doesn't have an opinion.

It's only people that use "natural," as an argument for why this or that is morally wrong.

"Nature," doesn't care if you like cock. It doesn't care if you murder. "Nature," has no template or master plan.

Therefore it's pointless to ask if homosexuality is natural, it's always been there, just like predation, the only issue is how we as human communities are going to deal with that.


Now if you want to ask if there is an evolutionary advantage to having a certain percentage of your population that is homosexual.

I don't know, but I do know there is research on this out there. Perhaps someone could find it.

 

[TX-Beau]

I think it’s a mistake to anthropomorphize an ecosystem. Successful survival strategies are not premeditated. “Nature,” doesn’t asses the context and deliberate a response. There are always variations that exist simultaneously and the successful ones are simply the variants that are – well, successful.

If you apply that to homosexuality, it could be argued that overpopulation is as much of a problem as under population – and in tandem with that, that having more working adults with a controlled number of children is a more successful situation than having all adult members of a given group all reproducing.

Especially in a species where predation and attrition are not checking a population explosion. Maybe societies that allow homosexuality are responding to context one way, where societies that don't are taking a different path. It certainly benefits the far more tolerant west to be less overcrowded than less tolerant countries with huge population problems. Maybe things like contraception and acceptance of homosexuality has something to do with that, a different evolutionary variant. Maybe not. Just a thought.

Certainly there have never been human societies where homosexuality was so prevalent that it endangered the population. The amount of people on the planet is testament to that.

 

[NotThatCreative]

But that's the thing. Those are being gauged as moral/immoral based on a different metric (harm). Whether or not the acts are natural is completely irrelevant to their categorization.

It's being measured on both, I think. Not that it much matters. To me, the real problem with the "it exists in nature" argument is the obvious question: "Since when did we take our cues on morality from nature?" It's not some line that may or may not be arbitrary that makes the argument a problem, but rather that we don't take our lessons on morality from lesser animals.

 

[AsianDream]

The problem with your logic here is that the line isn't arbitrary. The morally and sexually progressive in society tend to consider the line to be when it harms people. Contraception, despite not occurring in nature, is good for both preventing pregnancy and STDs. Rape and murder, though natural, harm the victim (obviously). There's the line.

I agree 100% that the Natural/Unnatural concpet of morality has no validity at all.

I think the best guide to right and wrong is to "first do no harm" - then to do whatever you can to help others - while also respecting the freedom of adults to follow any path they chose provided this causes no harm.

 

[AsianDream]

Unwanted harm. BDSM is typically consented to by the parties involved.

There's still an argument that a level of minor temporary harm in consensual BDSM is OK - but that this should not cross the line into causing permanent damage - even if consented to.

But this is a very grey area and one where society should only make laws in the most serious of cases.

So making a law against motor sports would be wrong - even though this can cause serious injury and damage to some people - though motor racing is definitely a dangerous activity that only consenting adults should be permitted to do.

 

[Lord Booticus]

Natural is just a term people are using to mean "different to what I'm use to and/or expect". A lot of people don't understand homosexuality, they can't understand someone thinking differently and desiring such different things. They're just desiring what comes naturally to them; pussy! So to them not wanting pussy is un-natural.

Its not really whats in "nature" just whats different to what people feel natural doing.

 

[Jacquemar]

I absolutely love your post! It's well thought out and enlightening. I had often pondered the idea many times myself.

In regards to the "natural" purpose of homosexuality, the Greek historian Thucydides states that pederasty (the only acceptable form of homosexuality at the time) was introduced on the island of Crete for the purposes of controlling the population. Obviously, men aren't going to be banging their wives as often if they have another outlet for their sexual desires leading obviously to less children being produced. This was beneficial in an area where there was such limited farmland. Maybe Mother Nature had a similar intention when she created homosexuality??

 

[conrad]

The day before my first lover and I initiated each other into the ranks of the world's cocksuckers in the 69 position we would have both expressed revulsion at the very idea of anyone actually sucking another guy's cock. We were just fifteen and had bonded in friendship/love to the point where we recognized that the close contact of wrestling made us both hard. Things were changing for us.

We had finished a big lawn and were both sweating, so a shower was in order. He went first and I followed and found him bare-assed naked on his double bed. That did it for me. Almost as if by pre-arrangement we found ourselves facing each other's cock. I think I was a milisecond ahead of him but I had to put my tongue to that beautiful cock. I think we took it slowly as we both needed time to reflect on the fact that we were sucking cock and the experience was fantastic and later we concluded that what we had done was fantastic because it confirmed the bond between us and it came about NATURALLY and seemed so right.

Over the last two years of high school we two learned by doing and we assumed that our peers were probably having similar experiences.

I have loved many men but have been sexually intimate with just three. With all of them we came to view our sexual activities as right and natural for us. Yet, in the back of our minds was the expectation that we would one day marry. We all did. My teen lover and I are still very happily married husbands and fathers. MY college roommate and my housemate in Seattle were complete virgins when I met them. Their marriages ended in divorce and both of them are in discreet, long-term, gay relationships. Heterosexual relationships obviously came to be seen as unnatural for them.

Interesting questions, but I doubt we will have any answers that will be widely accepted.

 

[clicker]

Two words: Pleasure and bonding between two males. That alone is justification for homosexuality, nature or not.

 

[Kulindahr]

I only hear the "natural" argument advanced by those who claim that homosexuality is wrong, and claim it "isn't natural". The rebuttal isn't meant to establish that homosexuality is okay because it happens in Nature, but to falsify their proposition.

That argument shows up less and less, though, as more and more species are found to have not just homosexual activities, but long-term relationships. What's replacing it is the assertion that well, Nature is corrupted because of man's sin, so of course this sin shows up in Nature, too. Of course that's a bit circular, but the whole game is about grasping at straws.