"Nature had created sexual organs merely for reproduction and hence naturally they should be used merely for reproduction" I believed that I've grown immune to this sentence, years ago when I started writing about homosexuality I would often get these type of comments from conservatives. I would get agitated easily and ask them to tell, what is so natural about airplane technology and so on (read my earlier ranting here)
Recently I was given the same reason, but the difference was that the person who stated this was pro-LGBT. Needless to say, that person agreed that airplane technology is unnatural but acceptable nonetheless.
The argument put forward was that homosexuality should be accepted because of the free will of individual rather than it being a natural thing. The purpose of sex is the reproduction and homosexual relationship doesn't fulfill this purpose, we have to look into the matter in an objective and scientific way without getting emotional on the issue. Masturbation and contraception are equally unnatural and even though it is unnatural it is accepted as a person is exercising the free will of an individual.
But I have several problems with this stand which I would like to point out here,
Firstly, the argument of homosexuality being unnatural historically is put not to explain the sexual behavior of human under scientific curiosity and there is hardly a question of objectivity but more about that later. That 'Homosexuality is unnatural' was put to dehumanize and demean homosexuals as Deviant or sick people. Using the word 'unnatural' today would still have a negative impact and would not generate acceptance in society.
On the other hand, saying one have free will and one becomes deviant is an ideology that is appropriate for church.
The god does not like homosexuality but gave us free will and due to satanic temptations, some come to like it and hence they are evil is the Christian theology. Homosexuality is a sin, we don't hate sinner who having free will have fallen to Satan's plan but hate the sin which is satanic' this is an age old logic put forward by the conservative.
When the western world became disillusioned with the church, the state and church were separated and so was the people approach to look at things, but it couldn't be said that it cut the chord that instant with the culture, which the church governed and imposed its ideology upon for centuries. They desperately needed a new vocabulary to justify their innate homophobia and invented words like unnatural, Deviant etc. homosexual were not sinner now but diseased and homosexuality was not satanic but sickness. The conservative felt validated by these scientific 'findings"' and quickly adapted to this rational sounding argument.
What was it, if not a mere change of words?
Somehow a person could still accept the homosexual as equal healthy being just because they have free will within this unnatural framework is very surprising, I must congratulate the person, but I doubt many would be able to do the same.
Secondly, In terms of being objective in our approach to discover what is the purpose of sex, I must say this is a futile work. Nature being inanimate, it could not validate any objective reason for purpose of sex which then is given to it by the human being without its consultation subject to human understanding.
Even so within human understanding, an objective approach would want for evidence which would not support the theory that the sex is essentially for reproduction. Throughout history sex has been used for several purposes, expression of love, fulfilling the marital duty, a manipulating tool, an intimidating threat, reproduction, sexual gratification, violence and harassment, spiritual awakening, religious rituals and even as a currency are few examples among many others. Choosing one as the real purpose of sex is oversimplifying the complex nature.
Another way to look into it is to ask whether anything is unnatural at all? The human psyche itself is the product of nature. If natural selection has not eliminated homosexuality should we question the "naturality" of the way human beings are evolved? A better approach to it would be to try to understand how homosexuality has a part to play in human existence which may make us realize it is not the only reproduction that is responsible for our species continuous existence.
A homosexual relationship is real, in terms of existence, I will go back to my original stand if it exists it is natural just because it does not fulfill the expected notion of the purpose of relationship in direct way would not mean it serves no purpose at all. A Scientific approach would mean to look for evidence, and the existence of heterosexual relationship could not discredit the existence of homosexuality. They both exist, they both must have a purpose, in strictly scientific terms of course.
Should homosexual accept the label unnatural even when many negative connotations are involved in it? Do you think there would ever be an objective and scientific response of what is the purpose of sex? Is free will? and individual freedom enough to grant rights to an individual? Let me know what readers responses are to these questions.
Recently I was given the same reason, but the difference was that the person who stated this was pro-LGBT. Needless to say, that person agreed that airplane technology is unnatural but acceptable nonetheless.
The argument put forward was that homosexuality should be accepted because of the free will of individual rather than it being a natural thing. The purpose of sex is the reproduction and homosexual relationship doesn't fulfill this purpose, we have to look into the matter in an objective and scientific way without getting emotional on the issue. Masturbation and contraception are equally unnatural and even though it is unnatural it is accepted as a person is exercising the free will of an individual.
But I have several problems with this stand which I would like to point out here,
Firstly, the argument of homosexuality being unnatural historically is put not to explain the sexual behavior of human under scientific curiosity and there is hardly a question of objectivity but more about that later. That 'Homosexuality is unnatural' was put to dehumanize and demean homosexuals as Deviant or sick people. Using the word 'unnatural' today would still have a negative impact and would not generate acceptance in society.
On the other hand, saying one have free will and one becomes deviant is an ideology that is appropriate for church.
The god does not like homosexuality but gave us free will and due to satanic temptations, some come to like it and hence they are evil is the Christian theology. Homosexuality is a sin, we don't hate sinner who having free will have fallen to Satan's plan but hate the sin which is satanic' this is an age old logic put forward by the conservative.
When the western world became disillusioned with the church, the state and church were separated and so was the people approach to look at things, but it couldn't be said that it cut the chord that instant with the culture, which the church governed and imposed its ideology upon for centuries. They desperately needed a new vocabulary to justify their innate homophobia and invented words like unnatural, Deviant etc. homosexual were not sinner now but diseased and homosexuality was not satanic but sickness. The conservative felt validated by these scientific 'findings"' and quickly adapted to this rational sounding argument.
What was it, if not a mere change of words?
Somehow a person could still accept the homosexual as equal healthy being just because they have free will within this unnatural framework is very surprising, I must congratulate the person, but I doubt many would be able to do the same.
Secondly, In terms of being objective in our approach to discover what is the purpose of sex, I must say this is a futile work. Nature being inanimate, it could not validate any objective reason for purpose of sex which then is given to it by the human being without its consultation subject to human understanding.
Even so within human understanding, an objective approach would want for evidence which would not support the theory that the sex is essentially for reproduction. Throughout history sex has been used for several purposes, expression of love, fulfilling the marital duty, a manipulating tool, an intimidating threat, reproduction, sexual gratification, violence and harassment, spiritual awakening, religious rituals and even as a currency are few examples among many others. Choosing one as the real purpose of sex is oversimplifying the complex nature.
Another way to look into it is to ask whether anything is unnatural at all? The human psyche itself is the product of nature. If natural selection has not eliminated homosexuality should we question the "naturality" of the way human beings are evolved? A better approach to it would be to try to understand how homosexuality has a part to play in human existence which may make us realize it is not the only reproduction that is responsible for our species continuous existence.
A homosexual relationship is real, in terms of existence, I will go back to my original stand if it exists it is natural just because it does not fulfill the expected notion of the purpose of relationship in direct way would not mean it serves no purpose at all. A Scientific approach would mean to look for evidence, and the existence of heterosexual relationship could not discredit the existence of homosexuality. They both exist, they both must have a purpose, in strictly scientific terms of course.
Should homosexual accept the label unnatural even when many negative connotations are involved in it? Do you think there would ever be an objective and scientific response of what is the purpose of sex? Is free will? and individual freedom enough to grant rights to an individual? Let me know what readers responses are to these questions.
