Is heterosexuality natural?

After reading many topics I thought this would be interesting. I am not asking for anyone to compare it against homosexuality or tell me why homosexuality is unnatural or natural, just heterosexuality please.

So discuss and allow me to observe haha!

After reading comments I have decided to add on: please do not use comparison as an argument and only tell me why heterosexuality is natural,normal or acceptable. That argument is immensely overplayed loooool

Does it mean doing what the body is designed to do? If so... designed by who?

What definition of the word "natural" are you using?

To say that the body is "designed" to do something doesn't necessarily require the existence of a designer, because the word "designed" is being used in a loose sense.

For example, regardless of whether or not one believes in a God, one might say that dolphins are "designed" to live in water, rather than on land. Even though theoretically, a dolphin could live on land if it wanted to, it is not a matter of coincidence that its body is specifically suited for movement, propulsion and communication in water. This may be the result of many years of evolution, but the effect is that dolphins' bodies are "as though" they were designed to live in water. It is based on this that you could say that one lifestyle is in a sense, more "natural" than the other.

Well, I would think that it's kind of natural because the only way you can reproduce is through the good old coitus (e.g a penis and a vagina)

But there's a lot of animals out there that are homosexual

You might use the word loosely but I think if you literally believe in a design, you have to assume the existence of a designer.

If all that 'designed' means is 'what the body is suited to do' then I suppose you're in the same loop where one can just respond by asking "suited for what"?

Suited for survival? Heterosexuality probably is not all that helpful in this sense. I mean it might form bonds with people that make survival more likely, safety in numbers and all...

Suited for reproduction? I suppose heterosexuality could be seen as this, although it isn't a necessary or sufficient condition.

Happiness... yes I suppose so...

I could go on with speculations about what this 'natural' means but I think my agenda is pretty clear. I have absolutely no idea what people mean when they talk about how being gay is not natural. I am not entirely sure that they know what they mean either.

I gave an example in my earlier post didn't I? I presume you understood what I meant when I suggested that it is natural for a dolphin to live in water rather than on land? Or that it is natural for lions to eat meat, but not for sheep to eat meat?

Regardless of whether or not someone consciously designed the human body, the point is that certain body parts have obvious functions. The function of the legs is for standing and walking. The function of the hands is not for standing and walking, even though some people might train themselves to be able to do this. Similarly, there is no body part which has been "designed" (or has evolved) specifically for the function of having sex with the same gender, whereas the fact that the penis fits into the vagina, that both have nerve endings for sexual pleasure, that this act can lead to pregnancy etc. is no coincidence, but an evolutionary inevitability.

Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "heterosexuality is not a necessary nor sufficient condition for reproduction". If we're discounting, "unnatural" (artificial, man made) forms of conception, then heterosexual intercourse is certainly necessary for conception. And the heterosexual orientation exists specifically because it incentivises this.

"I gave an example didn't I?" You gave an example of some bodily functions being more 'suited' for certain activities e.g. a dolphin living in water. It is clear in the case of the dolphin that living in water suits the mammal’s comfort, chances of survival and reproduction. My question with regard to whether the human body is more suited to heterosexuality is (and was in my previous post): suited for what purpose? It isn't clear to me that it's a necessary or sufficient condition for survival, reproduction or happiness.

What about bestiality and paedophilia? Are they natural?


Posted from TSR Mobile

Well, I would think that it's kind of natural because the only way you can reproduce is through the good old coitus (e.g a penis and a vagina)

But there's a lot of animals out there that are homosexual

Well I suppose people can't help bing pedophiles then


Posted from TSR Mobile