posted
The whole Brokeback Mountain thing has re-awakened a pet peeve of mine (which I know I share with a few others here. That is, what is natural and what is unnatural.
quote: NATURAL 1. Present in or produced by nature: a natural pearl. 2. Of, relating to, or concerning nature: a natural environment. 3. Conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature: a natural death. 4. 1. Not acquired; inherent: Love of power is natural to some people. 2. Having a particular character by nature: a natural leader. 3. Biology. Not produced or changed artificially; not conditioned: natural immunity; a natural reflex. 5. Characterized by spontaneity and freedom from artificiality, affectation, or inhibitions. See Synonyms at naive. 6. Not altered, treated, or disguised: natural coloring; natural produce. 7. Faithfully representing nature or life. 8. Expected and accepted: “In Willie's mind marriage remained the natural and logical sequence to love” (Duff Cooper). 9. Established by moral certainty or conviction: natural rights. 10. Being in a state regarded as primitive, uncivilized, or unregenerate. 11. 1. Related by blood: the natural parents of the child. 2. Born of unwed parents: a natural child. 12. Mathematics. Of or relating to positive integers, sometimes including zero. 13. Music. 1. Not sharped or flatted. 2. Having no sharps or flats.
That's just the first entry on Dictionary.com, because I'm lazy.
You could maybe make a case for homosexuality being "unnatural" by definitions 8 or 9, but not really any of the others, I think.
I was involved in a genetics experiment involving fruit flies. We stored them in containers in the fride when we weren't breeding them. The experiment had to do with the color of the eyes of successive generations, so we had to observe who mated with whom and what color their eyes were. The more generations we had, the more crowded the ventillated tupperware got. The more crowded it got, the more male friut flies seemed to try to mate with other males (they are easy to tell apart because of size).
We all noticed it, because it reduced the population of successive generations, and, well, there were jokes okay? We weren't there to study gay fruitflies, so I have no hard data, but it seems reasonable to assume the behavior was natural, as no one was holding wee guns to their little heads.
I came to think that population pressures might have some effect on behavior, but I've never tried to follow through with a controlled study. Not my major.
Anyway, homosexuality is natural, in that it occurs in nature across a broad spectrum of species.
To argue whether something is good/bad or right/wrong based on whether it is natural is kinda dumb. As rivka pointed out recently, arsenic is natural, so are any number of things that are harful to humans.
"All-Natural and Sugar-Free" can be truthfully written on a bag of used cat litter, after all.
Whether or not something is harmful(to a person or to society, to wingnuts or carrots) is a completely different issue from whether-or-not it is natural.
quote:Whether or not something is harmful(to a person or to society, to wingnuts or carrots) is a completely different issue from whether-or-not it is natural.
Can we agree on that?
I don't think so.
They are definitely different issues, but they are not completely different. In certain instances there can be some connection between the two.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the usage of "unnatural" that you object to comes from the expression "what nature intended," which anthropomorphises nature and attributes intent to it. In my experience, people making this argument are always theists.
Added: I should clarify. What I mean is that since theists attribute the creation of the universe to a deity, who clearly had intentions of some sort when deciding to make the universe, it is, er, natural for them to state it in that manner.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
One of my friends' and my favorite stock expressions in high school was, "But that--that ain't natrul."
It's a handy and mildly amusing phrase to have in your arsenal. But you've gotta do the accent right (cf. "Ol' Jo' Smith an' his Goldun Bible!").
Posts: 1068 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know a lot of atheists who make the "what nature intended" argument. It seems to be a way of trying to make "ew" sound more mature and valid. FWIW.
Posts: 2762 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Belle, I edited to clarify. My point is that "it's unnatural" is a shorthand for "I don't think god intended it."
Lissande, you should smack those atheists upside the head. Attributing intent to nature when you don't believe in the supernatural is absurd.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't personally have a problem with the existence of "gay cowboys eating pudding" movies, I just don't think they're something I would watch. Of course, you could say the same thing for "Sisterhood of the Travelling Pants" and about anything they show at an indie film festival. I don't get the hubbub. I'm a theist, I don't particularly like the practice, but ya know what? It ain't my business. And I'm fair certain it's not being used as a recruiting tool, although I could be naive.
Posts: 880 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is pretty ridiculous, twink - they have no genuine moral ground to stand on, and can't back up their statement with anything more than, "But it's...weird! I don't like it!" And unfortunately, making you uncomortable isn't a valid reason to believe homosexuality is wrong.
If it were, pantyhose, scary movies, and Pat Robertson would all be immoral.
Posts: 2762 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lissande, that's an unfair characterization. There are who have objections based on much more than "Ewww...I don't like it!" Some of us base our objections to things on our religious beliefs that are sacred to us and that we honor. You may not agree, and that's fine, but it's unfair to characterize everyone who has an objection to homosexuality the way you have.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Belle, if I read Lissande correctly, she's talking exclusively about atheists who use the "not what nature intended" argument -- a group I didn't even think existed. An atheist who thinks nature has intentions should perhaps reconsider his or her belief structure. Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would assume it would depend on the male/female percentages, as well as higher population densities.
Posts: 880 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:they have no genuine moral ground to stand on, and can't back up their statement with anything more than, "But it's...weird! I don't like it!" And unfortunately, making you uncomortable isn't a valid reason to believe homosexuality is wrong.
Straw. Man.
There are a lot of people that have much more moral ground for believing that homosexual relations are wrong than just "I don't like it."
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Belle, I'm not characterizing everyone who objects to homosexuality; I object to it myself. I'm talking about the specific people who have expressed that view to me - atheists (ruling out, I would say, "religious beliefs that are sacred to" them) whose only objection to homosexuality is that it is weird.
I have also met some atheists who objected to homosexuality on other grounds, some moral and some not. There are also, of course, theists who object to and others who do not object to homosexuality, on various grounds. All those things are fine: what is not fine to me is to say that something is wrong because I don't like it. That is unfair.
Maybe I've been gone so long that you've forgotten where I stand - that's certainly fair enough. Posts: 2762 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
To Scott R - Reliable data would be very hard to get, I think. People are often reluctant to admit to something when the admission could get them killed. Go figger. Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Olivet: You could maybe make a case for homosexuality being "unnatural" by definitions 8 or 9, but not really any of the others, I think.
I would argue that Homosexuality might also be considered unnatural by definition 3
quote:3. Conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature:
Although homosexual behavior is observed repeatedly in nature, it would be very difficult to maintain that it is the usual or ordinary course of nature. In nature, heterosexual behavior is the rule (at least among all species with gender) and homosexual behavior is the exception.
But that is really neither here nor there. I couldn't agree with Olivet more that whether something is moral/ethical and whether it is natural are completely different questions.
In fact, the Book of Mormon claims that
quote: the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man . . .
Which suggest, at least for LDS people, that natural and moral/ethical are more likely to be antithetical than synonymous.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
mph, everyone, please read twinky's post. And then mine again. I am talking about a very select group of atheists who are not able to justify their antipathy to homosexuality in any way other than, and I quote several specific people now, "It's just weird."
Other atheists and all theists were not addressed at any point in my initial post. I hope this is clear.
edit: mph, sorry, things are going too fast for me and I didn't see your last post before posting my last, oops! won't delete this entirely though so as not to create further confusion.
Posts: 2762 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think "It ain't natural" is just a more powerful way of saying "It isn't normal" (see Rabbit's post about #3. In it he appears to argue that biologically normal is what is meant by natural.)
In other words, it doesn't conform to someone's view of the world.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can see that #3 might be seen as " it doesn't conform to someone's view of the world" but I don't think nature only expresses itself in a single way, just as no apple is exactly like other apples, even on the same tree (you have to have grafts to ensure conformity).
I believe uniformity in nature is something of an illusion, a helpful way our minds make sense of things for us.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
After some thought, I realized that you could also make a case for monotremes being 'unnatural' under definition #3, since things with fur don't usually lay eggs. I like that, actually.
I have another question, but perhaps it would best be asked elsewhere.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, not to wade into a water over my head, but here goes..
Atheists claiming homosexuality is "unnatural"; isn't one of the premises of Darwinian evolution that everyone's trying to procreate? Isn't then the practice of not-procreating (exclusionary homosexuality) defeating of Darwinian evolution? And if evolution is the core of "nature" (biology) would that make exclusive homosexuality unnatural?
This isn't a view I hold, it's just one I've often wondered about. Particularly when people argue evolutionary "purposes" for homosexuality or that homosexuality is an adaptation to prevent overcrowding. It doesn't make sense to me; homosexuality seems at its root to violate an essential condition for evolution. But I'm certainly no macrobiologist, so what do I know.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's a couple posssible evolutionary purpose for homosexuality:
For the first one, let's assume that homosexuality is at least partially influenced by a sinlge gene. Perhaps in women this gene adds a survival benefit, increasing the chances of that gene being passed on through women. But in men, it makes them more likely that they will be homsexual, thus decreasing the chances that it will be passed on through men.
For the second possible purpose, let's suppose that homosexuality is determined by a complex combination of genes. Each one of these genes, individually, bestow a survival or procreative benefit on the host. But when taken together in a specific combination, they cause homosexuality.
I'm not saying that these are true or even likely. I'm just saying that just because something appears to work against darwinian evolution, it doesn't necessarily.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint (this is me talking out my ear, mind you) from a population control point of view. That is, survival atthe species level. If populations become too dense, then other population control factors come into play, such as disease, famine and armed conflict. (I read one study that suggested armed conflict is more likely in populations where young males outnumber available females, but who knows?)
I think it is possible. Rabbits can re-absorb their fetuses when food is scarce, which seems to be a biological strategy for survival rather than counter-evolutionary.
Again, no degrees here, just talking out loud about what seems to makle sense to me.
Also, KarlEd, Telp, Black Magic- I did not mean to insult your personhood by talking about homosexual bugs, it just seemed an interesting angle.
quote:It makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint (this is me talking out my ear, mind you) from a population control point of view. That is, survival atthe species level. If populations become too dense, then other population control factors come into play, such as disease, famine and armed conflict. (I read one study that suggested armed conflict is more likely in populations where young males outnumber available females, but who knows?)
From an evolutionary standpoint, how would not passing on genes because of homosexuality be better than not passing on your genes because of war or starvation?
quote: Rabbits can re-absorb their fetuses when food is scarce, which seems to be a biological strategy for survival rather than counter-evolutionary.
That's pretty different. Re-absorbing the fetus keeps the mother alive so that she can procreate later instead of dying now.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hope this isn't stalkerish, but I recall a thread in which KarlEd posited that there is no God because of the particularly vicious way in which one creature (I think it was some ants) killed another (caterpillar?).
So I would say that something being natural doesn't make it in any way good.
And nature isn't actually nature, due to the fall (from what we have apparently come to call the theistic standpoint). I don't know if everyone who believes in God necessarily believes in the fall (apart from people who don't really understand the bible for whatever reason).
I read the movie spoiler on Brokeback Mountain. I think the keeping of painful secrets was probably as damaging as other more obvious situations. Then again... I don't know. Would someone who has seen it care to discuss it on email?
It is difficult to produce something about secrets without getting distracted by the subject matter that the secret is concerning.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"From an evolutionary standpoint, how would not passing on genes because of homosexuality be better than not passing on your genes because of war or starvation?"
Because it helps to prevent overpopulation which can lead to massive depopulation due to disease, famine or whatever, creating an environment where others can successfully pass on their genes. (Not that we aren't probably headed for a massive, decimating plague anyway.)
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: I hope this isn't stalkerish, but I recall a thread in which KarlEd posited that there is no God because of the particularly vicious way in which one creature (I think it was some ants) killed another (caterpillar?).
KarlEd and Robert Frost:
"What but design of darkness to appall?-- If design govern in a thing so small."
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Olivet: [QB] After some thought, I realized that you could also make a case for monotremes being 'unnatural' under definition #3, since things with fur don't usually lay eggs. I like that, actually. /QB]
Under definition #3 one could also make the case that human triplets are "unnatural" or perhaps that giving birth in a Taxi cab is "unnatural". Or if we really want to twist semantics, we could argue that having a epidural during childbirth is as "natural" in our society as "natural child birth".
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
I see a sickle-cell analogy behind your response. I can accept that.
Olivet-
This is exactly the sort of argument I find logically difficult. I don't see how the mechanism of evolution could accomplish homosexuality as an overpopulation safety valve. Relatedly, I'd be interested in seeing if the ratio of homosexual couplings increased in your (and, evidentally, Sagan's) experiment or if there were just more homosexual couplings observed because there were more fruitflies to observe.
Also, does anyone know if there are exclusive homosexual relationships manifested in animals besides humans? I often hear that homosexuality is evidenced in nature, but wonder if it's more what would be termed bisexuality in humans? Just for curiosity sake.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Homosexuality is natural. At least, it says so in the New Testament (see v. 24-32). The bible doesn't have any commandments against people flying because until this century it was considered improbable.
posted
There are dozens of gay penguin couples that are exclusive. This is odd because many of them have been mated for years and years. If they had been hetero couples, their mating would have naturally ended when the chick became self-suficient.
Those are in zoos, though.
Perhaps evolution is the wrong term. Maybe it is a response to environmental factors. I don't know. If it happens in nature, though (and keeps happening) then it isn't much of a stretch to think there may be some value in it to the various species.
Also, I am willing to concede that sexuality in humans is best described as points along a continuum with fully hetero and fully homo being extremes (though most of the population falls closer to one extreme than the other, as it is the most advantageous to passing along one's genes).
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is the sickle cell analogy referring to knowing how to pick clothes and being sensitive and enjoying being touched and having rhythm, or are you talking about not breeding and overcrowding?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: If it happens in nature, though (and keeps happening) then it isn't much of a stretch to think there may be some value in it to the various species.
Are there any examples of this occuring in nature?
I ask because I don't know, not to try to score points.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pooka -- those who are carriers of one sickle-cell gene, but not two (and thus being just carriers of the gene but not afflicted with anemia), are more resistent to malaria, giving it a survival benfit.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah. I forget the type of monkey that has orgy trees, where young males gather to do each other. I've seen it in cats, dogs. I mentioned penguins.Rats, mice, fruitflies. I'll see what I can dig up, but homosexual behavior has been observed across many species.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
