it's cool and all, but i don't know what this naturalness is supposed to show in terms of social values. Bonobos also engage in activities that we'd probably call pedophilia and incest, and behaviors that would be naturally described as forcible rape are observed in a number of kinds of animals, but most of us, rightly, don't generally take those observations as legitimizing those behaviors for humans.
mind you, i have no objections to homosexuality, divorce, and masturbation - i just think that the ‘entirely natural’ thing is pretty weak evidence either way.
I personally agree with you. My reason for posting this is that some people say that homosexuality, etc., is/are unnatural, while in reality they are not. On the other hand, some people say it's bestial, so yeah, I don't personally think it's a good argument.
i think that in those instances ‘unnatural’ is being used in a sense that simply doesn't mean ‘unattested in the natural world’ - basically that as used it means something like ‘especially repugnant or disconcerting’. compare ‘If thou didst ever thy dear father love... Revenge his foul and most unnatural murder.’, from Hamlet: although killing one's siblings willy-nilly is not especially adaptive, fratricide is far from unheard of among humans and presumably among a variety of other types of animals, and both Shakespeare and his audience probably knew this. likewise, i think most of us wouldn't object to describing the behavior of a human who made a practice of killing and eating her sexual partners as ‘unnatural’, but of course there are plenty of animal precedents for such conduct.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-28 04:28 pm (UTC)mind you, i have no objections to homosexuality, divorce, and masturbation - i just think that the ‘entirely natural’ thing is pretty weak evidence either way.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-28 09:30 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-29 10:59 pm (UTC)