Lesbians, Gays, Bi's: Pleae (seriously) define "Nature". Thank You.?

Question

Now, we can all agree that "natural" is not a synonym for "everything"... So we can agree that "nature" has limits... Correct me if I am wrong... So what is "nature"? What is "natural"? Is it more likely that male/female intercourse - which "nature" "selected" for reproduction is - is closer to a consensus definition for "nature"... as opposed to same-sex sex, which seems to have been created purely for selfish reasons (pleasure, "love", etc)... If we can agree that "nature" is somewhat ambiguous, then what "ought" to be the (non-selfish) generally accepted definition...

P.S. I support letting gay people live their lives. I do not support gay people coming out of their closet and into my daughter's living room. Also, I found it disgusting that Governor McGreevey (New Jersey) completely, completely, put his feelings above those of his children and his ex-wife. He made an issue of homosexuality when the issue was his infidelity. Why did not ONE gay person disapprove?

Jen: Good answer... That's exactly the point.. "Nature" is ambiguous.. and people who call their "acts" "natural" do so arbitrarily and for purely selfish reasons.. It may be unnatural to fondle breasts, yes.. But I would call it natural for selfish reasons.. And furthermore, arguably foreplay was the vehicle selected by nature for the penis to get to the vagina.. for intercourse and reproduction (This is not meant to be a joke.) On the other hand if a female fondles another females breasts isn't that act entirely, entirely, selfish? It certainly doesn't lead to reproduction... (at least not without the aid of a third person).

TJ: Thank you. You seem to be the only answerer willing to open a friendly discussion without any animosity. Most other people seem to be I am out to inflict punishment. Please be advised I am agnostic, hence I do not believe in God (not yet at least). Hence I know I am not God. This is a forum for discussion not hate. Why do so many Gay people hate straight people? And you always take everything as a personal jab at you.. Untrue.

Answer 1

I never visit trailer parks, so no worry about me stepping into your daughter's living room.

Dude...you ask "slippery slope" bigoted questions here like the one below. I doubt people can take you seriously. Thank You.

Gays, answer this frank question, frankly. No beating around the bush please.?
Most people fear homosexuality for an undisclosed reason. I am taking that reason out of the closet now. It's called a slippery slope argument. This is not a sick hypothetical, it's not meant to hurt anyone. It is the TRUTH. People who fear homosexuality ask themselves, if we can go against nature in this manner,then were do we draw the line? Who decides were to draw the line? What in this world makes intercourse between mom and daughter improper? Between a child and a man?


Please no "you're ignorant" answers, no insults.

Gays must also understand the "other" side.

Thank you.

PS: According to your THEORY all straight people who can no longer naturally conceive due to "age" or whatever reason MUST stop having sex. BRAVO !!!

Answer 2

The question you seem to be asking is whether or not it is right to apply the argument of "Nature" or "Natural" when dealing with the actions of men and women. How loosely or tightly we define the "Natural" standard will determine what we can exclude or include as acceptable actions. Realizing that an antonym for natural is artificial we would have to say that either all actions by modern humans can be considered natural or none of them can be considered natural. What I mean is looking at your environment what do you define as natural and what do you define as artificial. For example you wear clothes, live in a home and cook your food. Would these things be considered natural? In our actions on a less physical realm we receive an education in a structured environment lasting multiple years, most of us work for a living and draw a salary, the majority of us form relationships that are best defined as serially monogamous. Would these things be considered natural? If you answered yes to these two questions then you are firmly entrenched in the idea that all things that you do are "Natural". If you can't extend this thought process to include the concept of homosexuality as being "Natural" then you are merely adjusting the definition to support your arguments.

Answer 3

Nature is what happens without your control or intent to have happen. You can't choose who you are attracted to, and you cannot make yourself attracted to someone. While you can choose what you do, how you feel about someone is something you have very little control over. Nature is simply that which happens without human intervention.

Natural is overrated nowadays, almost nothing about your life is natural, I can guarentee that. The language you speak you learned, the food you eat isn't made by your own body, and even walking you had to be taught and shown how to do it properly. Thats not even counting cars and computers and everything else we take for granted, even the most basic facts of our lives are not natural. It could even be argued that reproduction isn't natural, as not everyone can do it and it doesn't simply happen, two people have to work together in order for it to work.

Answer 4

i would think that what ever animals do is natural. how could it not be??? i mean what's unnatural is giving somebody a heart -transplant which is a good thing eventhough it's "unnatural". but where was i about the animals oh yeah you might wanna google this article called the gay animal kingdom that might give you some answers. and what else um yes we work in nature's advantage because the world is overpopulated and you're just ruining it if you bring more ignorant fools like yourself here. oh yeah and finally even if there weren't proof that homosexuality is natural i'd still choose to rather be happy than natural:)

Answer 5

While I am a big believer in protecting children I have to believe its better to have things out in the open than hidden. How come you don't assume that he talked to his children and ex wife before the speech? If your daughter is young enough to need to be shielded, then what are you doing allowing her to watch TV news? How do you know that your daughter is not a lesbian or bisexual and you have indicated to her that you find homosexuality a negative?

I am too old to procreate, at age 54, and using your premise, no one who can't have children have any right to a relationship. I am constantly amazed that heterosexuals using this argument do not see how they demean their own relationships. That makes the love of your life simply a baby maker, with no other role than to reproduce. What happens when she reaches menopause or becomes infertile in some other way? If this is what you are teaching your daughter, the least of your concerns is semantics.

Answer 6

No, sorry, you aren't correct.
Sexual activity for pleasure and bonding is every bit as natural for gays and lesbians as it is for heterosexual people. There is no difference, no matter how hard you attempt to redefine it to suit your bias.
By attempting to set sexual pleasure aside from the reproductive functions you effectively invalidate any sexual activity which is not for the purpose of reproduction, that would include heterosexual sex as well as homosexual.

Frankly I don't care what you support as far as people "coming out" goes or your thoughts about McGreevey. That is nothing but another jab and has nothing to do with your original subject.

Answer 7

nature created breasts, which we can agree, are for the nutrient feeding of infants.

so.....why do grown men wish to be unnatural and fondle and suck on women's breasts, designed for infants? why do approx 35% of grown men have regular anal sex with their female partners?? i can go down the list of unnatural acts that straights do regularly. straight men masturbate a LOT. nature didn't select "jacking off" for reproduction, either...

GROW UP!!

what gives us pleasure in life, and what we find attractive in other people is not in our control. why not worry less about what others do, why not stop trying to ill-define love, put your foul bible down, and stop hating people that don't live within your narrow cult definitions!!

there are many straight couples who cannot reproduce, no matter how much or often they try. what do we do with them? what about couple who get married in their 60's or 70's? they can no longer reproduce? what about those straight couples that choose not to procreate, but have a lot of sex? THAT isn't natural for reproduction, is it?

As far as McGreevey goes, his situation is why more and more people disapprove of people like YOU and not HIM. He was always gay. He was forced to live a straight lifestyle by hateful, judgmental people in his life, people like you. And finally, some people reach a breaking point and cannot go on living a lie, and finally come out. You have hateful christains and others, like yourself, to thank for people who have a horrible life and horrible decisions like McGreevey has had to deal with.

Answer 8

Because we can't play God just like you can't. You can have your opinions but just because that dude came out doesn't mean there is going to be a stampede of gays breaking down the Governors door. There are many different definitions of nature and if you ask 10 people you will get 10 different answers. All people are equal and you cannot do anything but deal with it and how people differ. If someone wants to come out who am I to judge or say anything? Its none of my business and people are going to do what they want to. If they embarrass their family and friend and country then that's what they are going to do. It doesn't mean that I'm going to have a personal vendetta against them for doing something that doesn't even effect me living my everyday life.

Answer 9

Let's look at the definition of natural, according to Dictionary.com...

Natural has several possible definitions, amongst them are the following:
1. Present in or produced by nature
--- Is homosexuality present in nature? Yes, it has been observed to occur amongst a variety of animal species in nature. Is it produced by nature? That's still up for debate, but most gays and lesbians would argue that yes it is.
2. Of, relating to, or concerning nature
3. Conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature
--- Does homosexuality conform to the "usual" or "ordinary" course of nature? Considering that most beings are heterosexual, the answer to that would have to be no. Or would it? Left-handedness is also not "usual" or "ordinary", but does that mean it's not natural? Let's face it, variation is as much a part of the usual course of nature as following the norms.
4. a. Not acquired; inherent
b. Having a particular character by nature
c. Biology. Not produced or changed artificially; not conditioned
--- again, most gays and lesbians would argue that homosexuality is inherent and is not conditioned, and that any attempt to be heterosexual on their part would be an artificial change, and hence "unnatural" for them.
5. Characterized by spontaneity and freedom from artificiality, affectation, or inhibitions.
--- along the same vein as the previous, most gay and lesbians would argue that removing all artificiality, affectation and inhibitions (brought on by society), homosexuality is "natural" inclination for them
6. Not altered, treated, or disguised
--- again, could a gay or lesbian who attempted to alter or treat their behavior be considered "natural"?
7. Faithfully representing nature or life.
--- as I stated above, I believe variation is present in all aspects of nature and life, and therefor it would seem that homosexuality does faithfully represent nature and life.
8. Expected and accepted
--- clearly homosexuality is seldom expected and often not accepted. this definition deals only with peoples view, however, and not with any inherent qualities themselves.
9. Established by moral certainty or conviction
--- I believe morality to be subjective, but if I hold any moral convictions, one of them would be that it is wrong to judge others. I on the other hand do not have a moral conviction against loving and engaging in sexual activity with the same sex. Therefor to me homosexuality is far more "natural", in this sense, than homophobia.
10. Being in a state regarded as primitive, uncivilized, or unregenerate
--- I find this definition interesting. It almost seems to contradict some of the other definitions, particularly the one immediately above, at least according to most people's "moral" standards. Most people would consider the terms "primitive" and "uncivilized" to be quite negative, and yet we usually would consider the term "natural" in a positive light. When we ask if homosexuality is "natural", we're usually thinking of "natural" as being something good. And btw, as a lesbian, I find lesbian sex good and "natural", and hetero sex unenjoyable and "unnatural" -- for me.

Answer 10

As a straight, I am speaking out of turn, but I am compelled to chime in.

Nature is simply the fallacious attribution of human characteristics to the imagined impetus behind the series of events that take place in the universe. Philosophically, the term "nature" simply gives god-like qualities to these events, as though there were some driving force (intelligence, will, etc.) behind them.