[presscast]

I think people are talking past each other when discussing "unnaturalness". Opponents of homosexuality often use the word "unnatural" in the sense of "not in humankind's nature". This is distinct from "unnatural" as "not occurring in nature".

The argument is more like "eating dirt is okay for earthworms, but it's unnatural for humans", so appeal to the behavior of other animals completely misses the point.

This is a profoundly metaphysical debate about the nature of a life well-lived and the nature of a healthy society. Whatever one thinks of it, that's the level on which it ought to be discussed.

[balfirevic]

It should be made clear that "unnaturalness", when used by opponents of homosexuality (and in many other debates of moralistic kind), is used in a question-begging way which carries no information at all and is nothing more than a shorthand for "I don't like it and I think it's bad". But, alas, it does sound like it has some meaning beyond that, which is why it's used in debates in a first place.

[traderjane]

I think they're talking about spiritual aberration, and not merely what's biologically common for humans. By natural people mean a perspective rightness, as opposed to merely some notion of statistical frequency.

[presscast]

Sure. That's very much my point (or have I missed yours?)

"Natural" is used to mean "in the ontology of Man".