{"id":3299,"date":"2017-07-17T16:27:51","date_gmt":"2017-07-17T23:27:51","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.ourthoughts.ca\/?p=3299"},"modified":"2017-07-17T16:27:51","modified_gmt":"2017-07-17T23:27:51","slug":"but-its-not-natural","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.ourthoughts.ca\/2017\/07\/17\/but-its-not-natural\/","title":{"rendered":"\u201cBut it\u2019s not natural . . .\u201d"},"content":{"rendered":"
If your Facebook News Feed was anything like mine during the second week of July, you probably saw a lot of posts about Teen Vogue<\/em>\u2019s article on anal sex<\/a>. Most of it probably in opposition to the article. There were even progressive voices criticizing it<\/a>.<\/p>\n But this post isn\u2019t about anal sex. Well, not really.<\/p>\n Last week, I was discussing the article after a Facebook friend posted a popular video of a woman criticizing the article. In this discussion, someone labelled anal sex as unnatural, using phrases like \u201cagainst how the body is constructed\u201d and \u201cthe anal (sic) is not made for that purpose\u201d.<\/p>\n And it\u2019s that idea of nature that I want to discuss.<\/p>\n This is a common tactic of members of the LDS church, specifically when it comes to sexual issues.<\/p>\n For example, a 1974 article<\/a> published in\u00a0The Ensign<\/em> refers to gay and lesbian relationships as being unnatural. President Kimball called<\/a> homosexuality \u201cunnatural\u201d. \u00a0The current administrative handbook of the church<\/a> counts \u201chomosexual and lesbian relations\u201d as \u201cunnatural\u201d. The current family home evening manual<\/a> quotes President Kimball in labelling anything outside of heterosexual relationships as \u201cunnatural\u201d. The\u00a0Marriage and Family Relations manual<\/a> goes so far as saying even simple affection \u201ctoward persons of the same gender\u201d is unnatural.<\/p>\n On the topic of marriage equality, in background material<\/a> sent to all bishops and branch presidents of the church in 2015, the current First Presidency quoted the handbook when they claimed that \u201chomosexual behavior (sic) . . . is contrary to the purposes of human sexuality\u201d. In original wording in that backgrounder, the First Presidency also stated that \u201cmothers and fathers matter, and they are not interchangeable.\u201d In an Ensign<\/em> article published earlier this year<\/a>, Elder Lawrence called \u201csame-sex marriage . . . counterfeit\u201d, adding as justification that they do not \u201cbring . . . posterity\u201d.\u00a0In an October 1999 general conference talk, President Hinckley, in discussing \u201cso-called gays and lesbians\u201d, implied that a \u201cso-called same-sex marriage situation\u201d makes light of the purpose of marriage: \u201cthe rearing of families.\u201d<\/p>\n That\u2019s probably enough for the examples, but the point is that the church likes to use the idea of nature as a way to oppose sexuality that they don\u2019t like. Which is weird when you think of it.<\/p>\n Take a look at this Ensign<\/em> article<\/a> about the \u201cnatural man\u201d. Or this conference talk<\/a> on the \u201cnatural man\u201d. Or this Sunday School manual<\/a>. Or this Institute manual<\/a>. Or this Seminary manual<\/a>. Or this\u00a0New Era<\/em> article.<\/a><\/p>\n You get the point.<\/p>\n For a church that so commonly talks about putting off what is human nature, it seems anachronistic to defend what is (according to them) human nature when it comes to sexuality.<\/p>\n Christianity (and arguably other religions) has created this narrative that marriage is, by nature, between a man and a woman. This narrative is perpetuated through stories such as Noah\u2019s ark, in which Noah brought male and female animals to mirror human relationships and form couples to produce offspring.<\/p>\n But this isn\u2019t reflected in actual nature, at least not exclusively. For example, in his book\u00a0Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity<\/em>, biologist\u00a0Bruce Bagemihl identified around 500 species that scientists had documented engaging in same-sex behaviours, including\u00a0sexual activity, courtship, affection, pair bonding, and parenting.<\/p>\n Seven years later,\u00a0The Natural History Museum at the University of Oslo opened an exhibition dedicated to homosexuality in the natural world, and they indicated that the number of species had now tripled to 1,500.<\/p>\n Clearly, homosexual activity is not unnatural.<\/p>\n So where does all this lead us? Well, at best, the idea that we should oppose something that is unnatural is hypocritical, at best. How can we defend what is natural while also opposing what is natural?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" If your Facebook News Feed was anything like mine during the second week of July, you probably saw a lot … Continue reading \u201cBut it\u2019s not natural . . .\u201d<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":3300,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[115,10],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3299","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-lgbtq","category-marriage"],"yoast_head":"\nPutting off the natural man<\/h2>\n
What is actually natural?<\/h2>\n