Skip to content | Skip to navigation
**WARNING:: Traces of adult content.
I’ve heard the argument that gay sex is not natural. OK, that might be true. I have to ask those making that claim to identify their terms. I think that their definition of “natural,” and “Nature” might be different from mine.
I firmly believe that in talking about things “natural,” it’s imperative to consider Nature, our model. I wonder if those who hold to the “natural” arguement know what natural actually is?
Truth be told, we as a species do more to change nature, and make it fit our desires and bend to our wills, than we do to observe or preserve it. As a fact, we spend our whole lives insulating ourselves from nature: either for safety, comfort or convenience.
When we go “camping,” do we do it in a tent? Some do. Many more are likely to do it from a log cabin with electricity and running water.
We use bleach on mold to kill it. Germs certainly are natural, but do we want them?
Tigers, lions, run-away-elephants kill humans, and other animals. This is very much part of the natural cycle. But we spare no expenses to capture and contain and eliminate those animals who encroach into our living spaces. We we want rampaging elephants, or attacking bees, or even weeds growing in our gardens?
No, of course not. We need to control nature, and we do it all the time.
We as “civilized” people expect a certain level of insulation and isolation from nature, or we become uncomfortable, irratible, edgy—in essence, our primal nature takes over. It is a sense we’re not used to. We are, after all, civilized.
But in the respect of marriage, and procreation, our model is that dictated by “nature.”
Thus far, we’ve seen that “Nature” is bad. It freightens us. Is it nice to call someone “an animal?” That’s an insult, but yet these same animals are supposed to be our guides in this matter.
But doesn’t it say in your Holy Book ™, that we are to subdue the animals? Aren’t we given dominion over them?
If that’s true, than how can our subordinates be our role models? It makes no sense.
We are above the animals. We can talk. We can walk on two feet. We can rationalize, and communicate through computers. We are self-aware. Our minds are touched by the Creator of It All ™.
As such, who/what should our role model be? Nature itself, the very manifestation of The Almighty, The Embodiement of The Creative Force, or the what we believe? Because the truth be told, the average person’s belief of Nature is quite different from the actual reality of it.
I know this is so, because I commune with nature every day. Between my second job landscaping, walking the dogs, shooting photos, or just driving with my top down, it’s important for me to be in touch with Nature. I love the Natl’ Geographic, Learning, A&E, Discovery, PBS stations. I love walking barefoot, in only shorts at the beach when it’s still in the 50s.
I’ll walk my dog for miles on the beach. I let then do what they are going to do. At this point, I can detect when the basset is going to roll in poop, or something dead. It’s his nature. He’ll let me know first. He’s largely predictable, and this is a good example. It is his nature. He has a wonderful bassety nature.
But by extension with this example, I am under the knowledgement that all dogs are prone to doing that, if given a chance. The reason is that the odor of the dead thing is anathema to fleas, perhaps ticks.
To be certain, I do not want my dog exercising that nature;
---no shit, please .
I don’t want him howling, unless we’re on the beach;
---consideration of my neighbors.
I don’t want him to get out of my sight, especially if he doesn’t have his leash on;
---they’ll follow a scent, oblivious to your calling.
I don’t feed him table scraps (most of the time);
--I don’t want him fat like the majority of bassets I see.
I DO let him sleep on my bed with me;
---he thinks I’m in his pack, and that we’re best buddies (and he’s right <I am the Alpha Male, after all [I’ve had to bit him a few times to remind him…]>)
The point is, that he has a decided nature that I don’t want him expressing, for the sake of civility, politeness, or his safety.
I have guilt, and feelings, when he can’t. It is those higher orders that separate us from animals. We can feel deeper, more profoundly, more philosophically, more spiritually, more intellegently, more exstatic. We have that ability to encorporate that into our relationship. Our relationships, by extension marriage, has these factors as the most important in an enduring, eternal relationship.
This seems to be the actual reason gay marriage is shunned, not due to an alleged unnaturalness of it. Because if we accept that it is these feelings, not some stupid empty ceremony, that is at the root of marriage. Two men can most definitely develop those same identical cornerstones I’ve identified. Two men can commit themselves exclusvely to each other.
And why? Because that is natural for them. It is the most natural thing for me to think about having that with both a guy and gal. I may never get that, but I have something to work toward.
As Nature is our guide, there are myriad of “marriage arrangements”—and isn’t it an odd thing to think of two animals getting hitched? It’s even a special thing in our society to get married outdoors.
We have some animals that are very monogamous, and more that are promiscuous. And there are those where the male stays with the newborn, and sometimes it’s by a community, or sometimes by an syrogate parent, and sometimes they’re hatched and then left to swim to the shore, or whatever. The point being that there are so many examples of “living arangements” among those who procreate.
But then there’s this whole other section of animals masturbating, and fucking male on male, some animals that become transgendered, or other varients,
As I’ve said before, this is nature. Nature has it’s way of regulating its systems. Perhaps fags are a release valve to prevent overpopulation.
In interests of leveling the playing field, let me say this:
I expand the definition of "fag" to include any married guy who hasn't spawned offspring.
The logical tenet of this statement being that only marriages producing offspring are valid. Any sex act not siring protegies becomes sodomy. Straight men can commit it, just the same as fags.
Sometimes that thin line between gay and straight blurrs more than others. At some point the meet...in the middle is cloudy skies.
Let me play Devil's Advocate to my own arguement.
Supposing that homosexuality is not natural. Supposing that it’s entirely a choice. So what, shouldn’t I be, as an adult, allowed to make that decision for myself? Aren’t we guarenteed certain freedoms in the constitution and bill of rights? Something about “life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. “
Whether it’s a natural thing for me, or because I am allowed that decision by the Constitution, there shouldn’t be any discussion on the matter. I should be allowed to marry any adult that I choose.
But since I can’t procreate, I can’t marry.
Hmmm…that sounds like unequal protection.
But let me not go there.
Let me just say that if it were that simple, there wouldn’t be a problem.
But isn’t another argument against it that. OK, so we can’t procreate. That’s one thing. But it takes A LOT of big, huge, brass ones to say that The Gays ™ are going to ruin marriage. That’s a huge laff…I think you straights have pretty much done a good enough job by yourselves.
A 50% divorce rate?~!! are you kidding me??
I’m willing to bet that if fags were allowed to marry, the divorce rate would drop. We just want what everyone else wants: a nice life with someone we care about.
It burns me to hear that fags are the downfall, and then see show like “Who wants to marry a Millionare,” or Jerry Springer, or Divorce Court, or anyone of the myriad of television shows dealing with the abyssmal state of marriage in this country.
Actually, it would be truer to say the state of “relationships.”
As my standard for middle America, I go to Jerry. He truly has his finger on the pulse of our society. This is more than just entertainment. He is showing us the ugly, white underbelly of modern relationships. Certainly his show is absurd, but I know enough people to know that those problems do exist somewhere. As goofy as it may be, there’s no doubt in my mind that the problems themselves are real.
I watch Jerry, and Maury, and I come to the conclusion that this is human nature. This is our nature. As much as we might like the storybook notion that our partner will be faithfull, it is simply smoke and mirrors. This is Nature at work.
Again, it is the completely monogamous ones that are notable, and noteworthy. This is because it is an unnatural state of existence—or more appropriately, monogamy is an abheration. We want to try to fit our basal nature, the Id, the subconscious into a constructed reality, which we ironically call “nature”, and wonder why there are millions of divorces, and unhappy couples.
If it’s a natural state, why should men and women complain about their marriages? Why souldn’t marriages last for the couple’s lives, everytime, if it is natural? Why should the person(s) be unhappy, and unfulfilled it they are living “naturally”, by being monogamously involved with each other for the purpose of procreating?
The couple is unhappy, at least 50% of the time, because of the simple fact that this can not all be attributed to “natural” situationing. The fact of the matter, is our relationships are based in the higher orders; as stated above: “We can feel deeper, more profoundly, more philosophically, more spiritually, more intellegently, more exstatic [than our animal counterparts]. We have that ability to encorporate that into our relationship[s].”
It is for the fact that we subjugate that basal nature, of “panspermia” (having multiple partners, also called “polyamerous,” or “polygamous”), dedicating ourselves to the philosophy of monogamy, that make a covenent to live with another, for our mutual benefit, and to procreate.
If we subjugate our nature, on behalf of the relationship, and making it work, we could reduce the divorce rate. But we, men, don’t want to lower, nor subjugate ourselves.
“But what is that that you’re asking?” one might ask. Essentially, I would ask the person to subjugate his/her nature, for the betterment of society. Such repression would equally include denying gays the ability to marry, and procreate (in the form of adoption, or other human recycling).
Essentially, the best argument that homosexuality is “unnatural” is for the fact that it doesn’t biologically produce offspring. No, it doesn’t. But then oft, hetrosexual intercourse doesn’t either.
The smart politians have developed a name for such an activity. Any sexual intercourse that couldn’t (theoretically) produce offspring is considered “sodomy.”
I curb my dog so he doesn't shit on my neighbor's yard...things are peaceful--at least when I'm cautious.
But what could be th reason for denying gays the same rights, no privilege as straights? (Apparently marriage isn't a right, but a privilege in this country.)
The more I think about it, the more it's like my dog. I curb him so that he doesn't create problems with my narrow view of nature, my neighbor's grass and flowers.
But on the beach, and on the road, he can shit whereever. That is Nature. This is my guide; it is where I bring him.
As I see Nature, it doesn't care about a silly ceremony, in a white dress with somber music, and a rign, or any of the other gazillion rituals. Those are inventions of man, as is that paper certificate. Those are physical manifestations, like leaves on a tree, of that inward promise that the two, or three, people make to each other. Your personal committment, not the pomp and illusion, is what makes the union.
That's how the seagulls find each other, or the voles, and other rodents form their families.
The sub-conscious magnet that pulls us to that special other one is nearly magical. It was put there by the Great Creative Principle. It works identically for all living things.
The difference is that all other forms of life do it instinctually, and on auto-pilot. We do it by choice.
And have to learn for many years to get that process correct.
If we listen carefully, we may be priviledged enough to get a lesson tonight. I hear the bullfrogs, and mud frogs crowing loudly.
It will be one of their last nights.
These are my mentors.
For I am alive.
And I know they are too.
Once Fred Neitszche declared God is Dead, f*ck became the most important word in the English languag
This post was edited by zen on Nov 08, 2006.
“We’re talking about everything from mammals to crabs and worms,” he continued. Some animals practice homosexual behaviour rarely, he elaborated; others, including bonobos, do it lifelong.
This occurs also among birds that pair with one partner for life, as geese and ducks do, he noted: four to five percent of the couples are homosexual, and single females will lay eggs in a homosexual pair’s nest. Homosexual couple often seem better at raising the young than heterosexual couples, he added.
Animals of several species are documented as engaging in both auto-fellatio and oral sex. Although easily confused by lay-people, this is a separate and sexually oriented behavior, distinct from non-sexual grooming or the investigation of scents.
Auto-fellatio or oral sex in animals is documented in goats, primates, hyaenas and sheep.
Homosexual behaviour does occur in the animal kingdom outside humans, especially in social species, particularly in marine birds and mammals, monkeys, and the great apes. Homosexual behaviour has been observed among 1,500 species, and in 500 of those it is well documented.
Male penguin couples have been documented to mate for life, build nests together, and to use a stone as a surrogate egg in nesting and brooding
Some Male Moray Eels turn to females later in their life.
Even interspecies sex happens from time to time in the animal kingdom.
Primates can even develop fetishes like shoe-fetish or they jack of to "ape porn"
Also, there's rape. In many species, the males that wouldn't usually get a female try to rape one for reproduction. For instance bottlenose dolphins even rape in gangs.
There's necrophilia in the animal kingdom, even homosexual necrophilia has been observed.
So yes, there's about nothing related to sex that you won't find in animals.
Rather the other way around. Like penisses that are thrown of (for most octopus species one tentactle is the reproductive organ, which is thrown of to impregnate the female and later regrows), or having two vaginas and the list goes on...
and to the starting topic:
I usually dismiss the "natural" arguement on the basis that humans themselves are a product of nature, therefore natural.
P.s. examples taken from various websites and wikipedia ;)
"The wise have always said the same things, and fools have always done the opposite"-Schopenhauer
This post was edited by Magicdead on Jan 16, 2008.