Being Gay is Unnatural?

Black Gay Men’s Blog Contributor, PeeJay takes an interesting look at homophobia and the argument that being gay is unnatural. Most black gay men have probably heard that statement more times than we care to remember. Whether it is through music, at church, during discussions with family members, when coming out, or just day to day, as we go about our business. Here is PeeJay’s take on homosexuality being unnatural – we would like to hear what you guys have to say.

Note: For argument’s sake, this editorial purposely avoids focus on Christianity or any other religion.

It’s undeniable that the topic of homosexuality is on the minds of many these days.  Every week, there’s a new rumor or allegation that a celebrity is gay, or a celebrity comes out on television, Twitter, etc.  There also has been a lot of talk about “homophobia” in the Black church and in hip-hop music and culture.  Some have argued that homosexuality is on the minds of Black Americans more often than the mainstream population.  Maybe.  Maybe not.  Either way, in my experience, we (Black people) seem to be louder in expressing our dislike (to put it lightly) towards homosexuals and homosexuality, and even more so when it comes to gay men.

With that said, I get daily emails from The Urban Daily, an online entertainment news website that focuses on Black pop culture.  Last week, there was a story posted on the website about the late Christopher “Notorious B.I.G.” Wallace’s supposed best friend, who is allegedly openly gay.  As an aside, I am not sure why this was headline news.  Then again, why are the personal/sexual lives of any celebrities headline news (other than those who attained their celebrity status based on their personal lives)?  In any case, it wasn’t the actual story that bothered me.  It was the following comment made by a reader of the article:

aaron_boy1:

I love the comments this morning because it causes people to think … I have a question and a comment as well. “Is natural better than say, unnatural (replica)?” “Is it natural for a man and a woman to have sex, is this nature’s design?” I ask that because I would think that even a gay person, as stylish as gay men are in lots of cases, would not walk into Lennox Square Mall in Atlanta, Georgia and purchase FAKE Gucci glasses when there’s a Gucci or Neiman Marcus store that has the authentic Gucci glasses, am I right? I think what us men here are saying to you gay brothers is that it’s not “nature’s way” for a man to be sexually involved with another man. It’s natural to love a man if you are a man, but it’s not natural to have sex with a man as opposed to a woman … and if you look at a man’s parts and a woman’s parts, you can see that she’s designed by nature to receive and a man is designed by nature to give. It’s just natural is all the men are saying beyond the religious and majority rule/public favor, does that make any sense to the possible gay males who may be reading or yet to read this post?

I will assume aaron_boy1 is a man.

While I got a quick laugh from the way that aaron_boy1 articulated his point through the use of a stereotypically gay-themed analogy (i.e. high-end fashion and the Lennox Square Mall in Atlanta), it opened a can of worms in my mind.  For starters, it is obvious by his “Gucci glasses” analogy that he misunderstands same-sex attraction.  I don’t claim to be the spokesperson for the entire male homosexual population, but, I can confidently say that, in general, men who have sex with other men do not view their male sexual partners as “knock-offs” of women.  To say that is to say I am actually attracted to women, but I choose men because they are a more affordable option.

He says that same-sex sexual attraction is “unnatural.” Really?  I, as I would imagine the majority of readers of this blog entry, beg to differ.  What does it mean to be “natural,” anyway?  While most dictionaries offer a number of definitions for this word, I am going to define it in based on how aaron_boy1 used it.  He used the word, “replica.”  One definition of “replica,” provided by the folks at Miriam-Webster is, “A copy exact in all details.”  While this definition fits into the Gucci glasses situation, again, I don’t think this analogy fits for describing same-sex attraction.  I believe aaron_boy1 is basically saying the same thing those toys for toddlers with the different shapes and holes they are supposed to fit into say.

Well, I absolutely cannot disagree that nature intended for a man to “give” and a woman to “receive.”  If that were not true, none of us would be here today to read this blog post.  Still, I look at one of the definitions of “unnatural” also provided by our friends at Miriam-Webster, which is, “Not being in accordance with normal human feelings or behavior.”  I believe sexuality is a core element of a human being.  So, call me crazy (and I may be), but isn’t calling my sexual attraction to men (i.e. homosexuality) “unnatural” also calling me “abnormal” or somehow less human?

While I agree and understand that everyone is entitled to his/her point of view, I often find it hard to deal with how people pick and choose what to apply their opinions to.  It’s frustrating that there are actions and behaviors of heterosexual people that do not get the same mass antagonism, condemnation, etc. that homosexuality does even if the same rules/logic should apply to them.  For example, aaron_boy1’s opinion is that, “It’s not nature’s way for a man to be sexually involved with another man.”  Okay.  I got it.  However, can we now get mainstream America to be against women who take birth control pills because, is it “nature’s way” to take a pill that basically fools the female body into thinking it’s already pregnant so that sex can be had without the possibility of her getting pregnant?  If, during heterosexual sexual intercourse, aaron_boy1 wears a condom so that he does not “give” his seed to the woman he is having sex with (whether they are married or not), is he not defying “nature’s way?”  If he has ever used the “pull-out” method during sex, isn’t it “unnatural” that he would have chosen to remove his penis from the vagina in order to avoid “giving” the woman his sperm, as intended by nature?  Has he ever performed or received oral sex?  Unnatural, right? In fact, if he has ever intentionally ejaculated any where besides the inside of a woman’s vagina, is that “natural” by his definition?  And please don’t tell me he thinks it’s natural for anyone to get their tubes tied.  Where are the coalitions against all of these acts?  Let’s make just as big a deal about them.  They are, after all, unnatural in the same respect as homosexuality.

Apparently, there are (and have been for centuries) a bunch of less-than-human folks roaming the Earth…and they’re not just gays.

I guess I should point out that I didn’t interpret the tone of aaron_boy1’s comment to be intentionally offensive.  However, living in the society in which I live – a society where people like me can hardly go a day without seeing or hearing something that reminds them that their lifestyles and relationships make them less than human in the eyes of many – I can’t resist taking some degree of offense to being told my sexual desires and/or my relationship are, “not in accordance with normal human feelings or behavior.”  People should apply the same logic, labels, descriptions, definitions, etc. consistently to all applicable subjects, and, more importantly, to themselves.  If you have time and energy to register for access to a website and comment on the “unnaturalness” of homosexuality, then take that same stance on the actions of heterosexuals that engage in activities that defy “nature’s intentions.”

Where am I going with this?  In the spirit of this blog site, my intention is to evoke thought, self-reflection, and healthy dialogue. Aaron_boy1’s analogy appears to come from a lack of understanding.  Then again, who’s to say he has an obligation to try to understand gay attraction and relationships at all?  The greater point is that we all need to be mindful of the stances we take on issues we do not understand and/or have firsthand knowledge of and, more importantly, how we express our opinions of them.

No related posts.