SageAgainstTheMachine Posted August 5, 2010 Posted August 5, 2010 This might belong in the Prop 8 thread, but it deals with a specific question that I'm looking for some insight on. I was speaking to a right-wing friend of mine yesterday about Prop 8, and he leaned on an argument that I seem to hear a lot. I'm paraphrasing a bit, but the gist is "Being gay is wrong because it isn't natural. You don't see that in nature. How can we let them marry each other?" Can somebody (maybe somebody who thinks this way as well) help me understand the meaning behind this? Let's just assume that gay sex is unnatural (from the perspective of pragmatism, a child can't be produced from the union). How exactly does that make it WRONG? Our entire humanity is based on things that aren't "natural". Driving cars, drinking bottled water, playing organized sports, going to college, working in an office. I don't see other animals doing those things in nature. So, are they wrong? I honestly don't understand the point. Hell, even heterosexual marriage isn't natural. We don't have any deeply ingrained animal instinct telling us to be monogamous...quite the opposite actually. Why don't we just ban marriage altogether, since it isn't "natural"? Why do we draw this parallel from unnatural to wrong?
DC Tom Posted August 5, 2010 Posted August 5, 2010 This might belong in the Prop 8 thread, but it deals with a specific question that I'm looking for some insight on. I was speaking to a right-wing friend of mine yesterday about Prop 8, and he leaned on an argument that I seem to hear a lot. I'm paraphrasing a bit, but the gist is "Being gay is wrong because it isn't natural. You don't see that in nature. How can we let them marry each other?" Can somebody (maybe somebody who thinks this way as well) help me understand the meaning behind this? Let's just assume that gay sex is unnatural (from the perspective of pragmatism, a child can't be produced from the union). How exactly does that make it WRONG? Our entire humanity is based on things that aren't "natural". Driving cars, drinking bottled water, playing organized sports, going to college, working in an office. I don't see other animals doing those things in nature. So, are they wrong? I honestly don't understand the point. Hell, even heterosexual marriage isn't natural. We don't have any deeply ingrained animal instinct telling us to be monogamous...quite the opposite actually. Why don't we just ban marriage altogether, since it isn't "natural"? Why do we draw this parallel from unnatural to wrong? Just respond: "But evolution is natural. So why is it wrong?"
HopsGuy Posted August 5, 2010 Posted August 5, 2010 Your response should be, "I do not accept your premise." Homosexuality in Nature (Yeah, it's Wikipedia. But it does cite real academic papers.)
Hossage Posted August 5, 2010 Posted August 5, 2010 What isnt natural is government getting involved in personal relationships.
MattyT Posted August 5, 2010 Posted August 5, 2010 Why don't you point out a number of things in the Bible that you don't see in nature and ask him if those are wrong as well?
RayFinkle Posted August 5, 2010 Posted August 5, 2010 What does your boyfriend think of your friend's comments?
DrDawkinstein Posted August 5, 2010 Posted August 5, 2010 This might belong in the Prop 8 thread, but it deals with a specific question that I'm looking for some insight on. I was speaking to a right-wing friend of mine yesterday about Prop 8, and he leaned on an argument that I seem to hear a lot. I'm paraphrasing a bit, but the gist is "Being gay is wrong because it isn't natural. You don't see that in nature. How can we let them marry each other?" Can somebody (maybe somebody who thinks this way as well) help me understand the meaning behind this? Let's just assume that gay sex is unnatural (from the perspective of pragmatism, a child can't be produced from the union). How exactly does that make it WRONG? Our entire humanity is based on things that aren't "natural". Driving cars, drinking bottled water, playing organized sports, going to college, working in an office. I don't see other animals doing those things in nature. So, are they wrong? I honestly don't understand the point. Hell, even heterosexual marriage isn't natural. We don't have any deeply ingrained animal instinct telling us to be monogamous...quite the opposite actually. Why don't we just ban marriage altogether, since it isn't "natural"? Why do we draw this parallel from unnatural to wrong? it actually IS natural as most animals do it. if your friend says otherwise, he is uninformed and simply wrong. it's just "unproductive" as it doesnt accomplish the ultimate goal of sex, reproduction. other than that, there is nothing un-natural about it. your friend is simply choosing to believe something he was told by someone who lived thousands of years ago.
Cugalabanza Posted August 5, 2010 Posted August 5, 2010 help me understand... Let's just assume that gay sex is unnatural... How exactly does that make it WRONG? I can't really help you understand that argument because it's ultimately nonsense. It's a completely specious argument. Not only is the premise dubious at best, but the logic is garbage too. Trying to build any argument by appeal to "Nature" is always problematic. The definition of the word nature is so broad that it can be made to include whatever the hell you want. I think if you boil it down, all you're left with is "I don't like it; therefore it's wrong." Stupid. I think that anyone trying to make a case to limit personal freedom has a very serious Burden Of Proof on their side. Before they start telling people what they can & can't do with their personal lives, they're gonna have to do a lot better than this.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted August 5, 2010 Posted August 5, 2010 I think that anyone trying to make a case to limit personal freedom has a very serious Burden Of Proof on their side. Before they start telling people what they can & can't do with their personal lives, they're gonna have to do a lot better than this. With all due respect, I don't think anyone's saying that gays can't poke themselves in the poopers all they want.
Cugalabanza Posted August 5, 2010 Posted August 5, 2010 With all due respect, I don't think anyone's saying that gays can't poke themselves in the poopers all they want. Well, I think some people are saying just that. But I agree that most people concern themselves specifically with the marriage issue. The argument in question is equally inept in either case.
LeviF Posted August 5, 2010 Posted August 5, 2010 Just respond: "But evolution is natural. So why is it wrong?" What isnt natural is government getting involved in personal relationships. Agreed.
KD in CA Posted August 5, 2010 Posted August 5, 2010 I was speaking to a right-wing friend of mine yesterday about Prop 8, and he leaned on an argument that I seem to hear a lot. I'm paraphrasing a bit, but the gist is "Being gay is wrong because it isn't natural. You don't see that in nature. How can we let them marry each other?" Your friend doesn't understand the difference between "unnatural" and "abnormal". Just because homosexuals comprise a small % of the population doesn't mean their tendencies are not 'natural'. Ask him if he thinks left handed people are also unnatural and should be denied certain rights as a result. And of course you see it in nature. Humans are part of 'nature'. And homosexuality in other animals is well documented.
linksfiend Posted August 5, 2010 Posted August 5, 2010 Just respond: "But evolution is natural. So why is it wrong?" Also gotta give this the Additionally, someone just sent me a YouTube video of a chimp molesting a frog. So apparently rape and bestiality are natural acts - are they OK?
Guffalo Posted August 5, 2010 Posted August 5, 2010 Also gotta give this the Additionally, someone just sent me a YouTube video of a chimp molesting a frog. So apparently rape and bestiality are natural acts - are they OK? Not for the frog
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted August 5, 2010 Posted August 5, 2010 Agreed. And yet, you have not problem with the gubmint taking control of someone's health care, which by all accounts is probably MORE important than who they're rutting with.
LeviF Posted August 5, 2010 Posted August 5, 2010 And yet, you have not problem with the gubmint taking control of someone's health care, which by all accounts is probably MORE important than who they're rutting with. I think you have me confused with someone else. I quite like my private health care, thanks very much. Edit: Now that I've gone through every post I've made in PPP in threads about health care, I can say that I don't support, and have never supported, this "health care" bill that was rammed through congress. Now I'm really wondering where you got this idea from.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted August 5, 2010 Posted August 5, 2010 I think you have me confused with someone else. I quite like my private health care, thanks very much. Edit: Now that I've gone through every post I've made in PPP in threads about health care, I can say that I don't support, and have never supported, this "health care" bill that was rammed through congress. Now I'm really wondering where you got this idea from. May have been me confusicating all of you linguini-spined lefties into one huge amalgamated menace again.
LeviF Posted August 5, 2010 Posted August 5, 2010 May have been me confusicating all of you linguini-spined lefties into one huge amalgamated menace again. I'm no liberal. I like the constitution Edit: Wait, maybe you're getting this vibe from my Ayn Rand comments? I like Ayn Rand, just not the loonies who tote around The Fountainhead everywhere they go
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted August 5, 2010 Posted August 5, 2010 I'm no liberal. I like the constitution Oh? So you're pro- second amendment, then?
LeviF Posted August 5, 2010 Posted August 5, 2010 Oh? So you're pro- second amendment, then? I own a gun. My father owns many. Also: see my edit from that post.
Recommended Posts