Canada leaders accept gay marriage ruling

[Natoma]

Let's also address the beastiality equation that some folks try to make with homosexuality:

It is stated as a well authenticated fact that if the (children) of a black man and white woman and a white man and a black woman intermarry, they cannot possibly have any progeny, and such a fact sufficiently justifies those laws which forbid the intermarriage of blacks and whites.

Apparently his reasoning was that human racial groups are so different biologically that, like horses and donkeys, certain combinations produce sterile offspring.

In 1958 — the first time interracial marriage polling was conducted — opposition was far greater than it is to same-sex marriage today. Ninety-four percent of whites disapproved of interracial marriages (Gallup). By contrast, in November 1996, just 56 percent of adults opposed same-sex marriage in a Human Rights Campaign poll.

Oh, and with regard to Sabastian's claims that the real goal of homosexuals getting the same rights as heterosexuals is to corrupt the children

Internal court documents indicate that the court became nervous about interracial marriage cases in 1954, immediately after its breakthrough Brown v. Board of Education school desegregation decision. Segregationists claimed that the court’s real goal wasn’t integrated classrooms but the “mongrelization of the white race.â€￾

People wanting rights for the sake of being equal, and for no other reasons? . Perish the thought.

 

[Natoma]

but society has taught certain values that can encourage or discourage certain behaviors.

Yes, women are taught that sex makes them sluts, and men are taught that sex makes them men. You just switched the reason from a biological one to one of society.

Indeed.

And I always hated that double standard. Along with the double standard that lesbians are generally more accepted than gay men because of the pervading heterosexual male fantasy of two or more females lusting after not only him but themselves.

See the latest budweiser commercials as an example. Tastes great! Less filling!

 

[Silent_One]

Natoma wrote:

Well then we need a definition of what's natural and what isn't. But , that's not possible is it? Society always seems to change what is natural and what isn't.

Not possible?
Well, .... which opinion do we wish to support? The definitions of natural is full of appropriate.....er...definitions....


1.) Present in or produced by nature: a natural pearl.
2.) Of, relating to, or concerning nature: a natural environment.
3.) Conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature: a natural death.
4.)
a.) Not acquired; inherent: Love of power is natural to some people.
b.) Having a particular character by nature: a natural leader.
c.) Biology: Not produced or changed artificially; not conditioned: natural immunity; a natural reflex.
5.) Characterized by spontaneity and freedom from artificiality, affectation, or inhibitions. See Synonyms at naive.
6.) Not altered, treated, or disguised: natural coloring; natural produce.
7.) Faithfully representing nature or life.
8.) Expected and accepted: "In Willie's (Natoma's ) mind (gay)marriage remained the natural and logical sequence to love" (Duff Cooper).
9.) Established by moral certainty or conviction:[i] natural rights[/i].
10.) Being in a state regarded as primitive, uncivilized, or unregenerate.
11.)
a.) Related by blood: the natural parents of the child.
b.) Born of unwed parents: a natural child

Estabilishing a definition is easy, defending it is hard

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Well then we need a definition of what's natural and what isn't. But , that's not possible is it?

It's probably not possible to come up with a universal definition. (Any more than it's possible to come up with a universal definition of "moral" and "immoral".) That's my point.

When someone claims homosexuality is "not natural", don't assume that their definition of "natural" is something in particular.

We would find such a supposition laughable today, and yet this was supported as scientifically, theologically, and societally valid morales to have at the time. What wonders progress makes eh?

I don't get your point.

My definition of "natural" is different. Do we anticipate that "the wonders of progress" will lead to one male sperm fertilizing the male sperm of another...and that male carrying the embryo to term for nine months?

So as I stated earlier, 'natural' has been up for reinterpretation many times. So before anyone can state that homosexuality is not 'natural' or should not be 'practiced,' maybe they need a thorough examination of history.

As I satated earlier, before anyone can state that "saying homosexuality is not natural is inaccurate", that someone should ask what is meant by "natural."

Oh and btw, High 5-HIAA did not state that homosexual couples could have kids. Where'd you get that little tidbit?

Sigh.

He stated that is was NATURAL. (Specifically, he said that saying it isn't natural is not accrate.)

As we are both seeming to agree, "NATURAL" isn't clearly defined. There are many definitions of natural that could be put forth. (Has it been observed in non-human species? Can it lead to natural offspring?)

And please lets not get on the "Natural is defined by the ability to have kids" route.

Huh?

Why the hell not? Why is MY definition of natual any more or less valid than something else? Christ, Natoma, I am not saying that my definition "is the right one". I'm saying it is a valid one, of which there are many.

(To be clear, "Natural is defined by the ability to have kids" is an overly simplistic summation of my definition of "natural sexual relationship", but you should get the idea anyway.)

And lets also not get on the semantical argument that senior couples and the infertile are heterosexually inclined towards procreation because the point remains that they simply cannot procreate.

We've gone down that road before. Not having the physical ability to procreate because of age or infirtility does not make my definition invalid. You are putting artificial restrictions on it.

So if natural is defined by the ability to have kids, and sex is only for procreation, then you have millions of people shit out of luck.

First of all, (as you recognized), I do not believe in the "sex is only for procreation". Just wanted to make that clear.

But my definition (and I've stated this to you SEVERAL TIMES over several threads, yet it never seems to sink in), of "natural sex" is not simply their specific "ability to have kids."

Let me again try and explain it to you.

1) A Healthy Male and a Healthy Female, both of whom are physically capable of reproduction, can have a sexual relationship that results in a child.

2) A Healty Male and a Healthy Male, both of whom are physically capable of reproduction, can NOT have a sexual relationship that results in a child.

In other words, menapause (or prepubescence for that matter), or disease / genetic disordres that result in infertility, have no bearing on my definition.

Or put another way, there can NEVER BE A CASE where ANY TWO SAME SEX INDIVUDUALS can foster a child through sexual activity. That's what makes such relationships "unnatural" to me.

You can put disease, old age, or whatever other limitations on "male - female" relationships. The fact remains that there IS A CASE where two different sex individuals can foster a child through sexual activity.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

I can sense that I know Natoma's next response...probably ignoring the point that two same-sex individuals can "never" produce offspring through sexual means, and will try and claim that I'm putting artificial restrictions on my definition by "excluding" old age or infirtile couples.

Which of course means that I'll have to explain it yet ANOTHER way.

So you hopefully nip that in the bud, here's yet another way to explain it:

On the planet earth, there are male and female humans.

If you randomly pick out a male and a female from the whole population of humans on the planet earth, and put them toegether in a sexual relationship, it's POSSIBLE to have offspring as the result. You might "pick" an infertile person (resulting in no child), a female who's 90 (resulting in no child), etc. But you WILL at some point pick a pairing that will result in offspring.

If you randomly pick out two same sex individuals from the whole population, put them in a sexual relationship, you will NEVER have offspring as the result. No matter how many pairings you choose, offspring will NEVER result.

The difference between "natual sexual relationship" and "unnatural sexual relationship", by my definition, is the difference between POSSIBLE and NEVER.

I hope that's finally clear.

 

[Fred]

".....the fact that men are biologically wired to be more sexually promiscuous than women" ? Thats a fact?'

Statistically absolutely, Evolutionary biologists have shown that to be true across the gamut. Social norms will effect it to a more or lesser degree, but there is a great deal of work that has shown a difference between sexes in humans.

Its part of a 'game theory' of evolutionary biology. Certain tendencies to pass on ones genes are favored.

However, there is a competing motive, the socalled superkid argument. In the wild, it can occur that males are not necessarily unfaithful given a right mate, as you can show a larger rate of survivability between offspring that are taken care off by 2 partners, rather than the male producing 6 or 7 offspring with multiple partners and not being taken care off. It all depends on the circumstances and evolutionary environment.

Jealousy in females is also an evolutionary mechanism to ensure the male stays with her.

 

[Natoma]

Really Joe? Then I guess you haven't heard about a recent discovery in which scientists took a sperm from one mouse and was able to get it to turn into an egg. Then they fertilized that egg with the sperm from another mouse.

It wasn't viable, but you can see the implications. A child in the future *will* be able to be born with the complete genetic traits of both parents in a homosexual male/male or female/female relationship.

So I guess in the near future, your "pick a random same-sex pair of humans and they can't procreate" argument goes right out the window.

Ahhh the wonders of science.

 

[RussSchultz]

Ahhh the wonders of science.

Refer to Mary Shelley's Frankenstien. Reflect.

 

[Natoma]

Ahhh the wonders of science.

Refer to Mary Shelley's Frankenstien. Reflect.

I prefer to refer to Star Trek and look towards the goodness in mankind. Not its evil. Maybe you shouldn't be so pessimistic. Then again people probably said the same thing when Louise Brown, the first test tube baby, was born, i.e. the Frankenstein comment.

 

[RussSchultz]

Um, I was referring you to Frankenstien to reflect on the dangers of mucking with nature for vanity's sake.

And homosexual reproduction is, clearly in my mind, an extreme exercise in vanity. The human race will survive quite well without these extreme measures. I'd certainly put it well down the list of items that science needs to address; just below genetically eradicating hairy backs.

 

[Ilfirin]

And finding your keys, right?

 

[Heathen]

Refer to Mary Shelley's Frankenstien. Reflect.

You do realise that's fiction don't you?

Science is purely a tool for men (generic useage) to use as they require. Some use it for constructive uses others for destructive uses. Sometimes the distinction between the two can blur.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Really Joe?

Yes. Really.

Then I guess you haven't heard about a recent discovery in which scientists took a sperm from one mouse and was able to get it to turn into an egg. Then they fertilized that egg with the sperm from another mouse.

No, I haven't heard of it. It's also irrelevant. How is that in any way related to two same sex species creating a child via their sexual relationship?

It wasn't viable, but you can see the implications.

Yes, the implications aret that we may be able to artificially (read unnaturally,) "splice" the genes of two same sex humans together at some point in the future. I could also see that perhaps they could ultimately incubate it again artificially, outside the male body, even all the way until the typical 9 months, and you'll have a "child."

Thank you for further illustrating my point. Lots of "unnatural stuff" in there.

Now, if scientists had discovered two male mice whohad sex, and one of them conceived and grew and nutured a "fertilzed sperm" for some significant time period in his "womb", you might have some sort of relevant point to make.

A child in the future *will* be able to be born with the complete genetic traits of both parents in a homosexual male/male or female/female relationship.

Naturally? I'd love to see a male give birth, btw, let alone actually nurture the growing fetus.

At BEST you are making a case that FEMALE homosexuality might be natural by my definition. (Or do you think MALES will EVER be able to bring a baby to term and give birth?) But that would take an egg naturally flowing out of one vagina during "intercourse", and then "fertilizing" another egg. Good luck with that.

I can't believe we're actually having this conversation...and you're serious about it.

So I guess in the near future, your "pick a random same-sex pair of humans and they can't procreate" argument goes right out the window.

I see you are again guilty of doing what you constantly accuse me of: not reading my posts and quoting things out of context, blah, blah. I did NOT say "pick a random same-sex pair of humans and they can't procreate."

I said:

If you randomly pick out two same sex individuals from the whole population, put them in a sexual relationship, you will NEVER have offspring as the result.

As a RESULT OF THE SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP, you will NEVER have offspring. Is it possible that at sometime in the Star Trek future, we might be able to do gene splicing and produce a "genetic offspring" of two male or two female "parents"? It could happen. But the point is that would not be the result of the sexual relationship...that would be the result of the interference of scientific techniques..

Ahhh the wonders of science.

Precisely. Science, not nature.

 

[RussSchultz]

Refer to Mary Shelley's Frankenstien. Reflect.

You do realise that's fiction don't you?

WHAT?! I thought it was a documentary!

Science is purely a tool for men (generic useage) to use as they require. Some use it for constructive uses others for destructive uses. Sometimes the distinction between the two can blur.

Yes, but science does not make us god's. Because we can do things, doesn't mean we should. Particularly finding new ways to have offspring. There's plenty of children in the world to go around, why spend capitol to find out ways to make more?

 

[Natoma]

That procedure would be just as natural as any other procedure. Why? Because a woman would be needed to bring the baby to term. And as we all know, babies that grow inside a woman and are birthed are certainly natural, as you stipulated earlier with regard to the potential for a lesbian birth using that procedure. But again, I'm splitting hairs.

Also, if you really want to get nitpicky with the definition of a having a child through a sexual relationship, one can very easily construe the definition of sexual relationship to include the necessary functions required for capturing the sperm of both partners for the purpose of the operation. But I'll leave that up to your imagination. No need to get into the details. See? I can twist things just as easily as you can. .

Yes, the implications aret that we may be able to artificially (read unnaturally,) "splice" the genes of two same sex humans together at some point in the future. I could also see that perhaps they could ultimately it again artificially, outside the male body, even all the way until the typical 9 months, and you'll have a "child."

Mmk. So explain to me how having a baby outside the male body is in any way shape or form unnatural or artificial? Isn't this how procreation pretty much always works in human beings? (No need to bring up seahorses, in which the males carry the babies. But that is neither here nor there).

That is of course unless you mistated something.

Also, even if having a baby through artificial means is "unnatural" by your definition, that in no way shape or form invalidates the baby or the way in which the baby was conceived. Because then you'd have to say that any test tube baby, or premie is unnatural and invalid as well. Not saying that you're making that connection, but that is a logical outgrowth of that line of argumentation and I want to squash it immediately.

You seem to put so much emphasis on what is natural and what is not natural. Please.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Natoma,

Stop this. You are just getting totally whacko on me. It's kinda scary.

That procedure would be just as natural as any other procedure.

So now how are you defining "natural?" Last time I checked scientific "interference" was pretty much the direct opposite of "natural" by anyone's definition.

Why? Because a woman would be needed to bring the baby to term.

And "naturally", someone other than the genetic parents of the child brings it to term? Come on...

And as we all know, babies that grow inside a woman and are birthed are certainly natural...

No, babies that do not have the genetic make-up of the woman who births them are not "naturally" conceived, nurtured, and born. Unless science interferes, no woman is going to bring a baby into this world that is not of her genetic make-up.

Also, if you really want to get nitpicky with the definition of a having a child through a sexual relationship, one can very easily construe the definition of sexual relationship to include the necessary functions required for capturing the sperm of both partners for the purpose of the operation.

Again....that's not NATURAL. You are talking ultimately about an operation here. Medical science.

Do you realize you are trying to argue about the "natualness" of something, by virture of scientific methods being required to sustain it? Do you see the lunacy?

But I'll leave that up to your imagination. No need to get into the details. See? I can twist things just as easily as you can. .

How am I twisting things? My definition is and has always been consistent and constant. You're the one finding new ways to twist it into something that you believe you have an argument against.

Mmk. So explain to me how having a baby outside the male body is in any way shape or form unnatural or artificial?

Read above. NATURALLY, a baby is brought to term in the host that is part of its genetic make-up.

Isn't this how procreation pretty much always works in human beings.

No, naturally a baby is brought to term:
1) By the mother who makes up 1/2 the genetics of the off spring
2) In the same body in which it was conceived

That is of course unless you mistated something.

Or you are bastardizing "natural" to now include "science" and "artificial."

Also, even if having a baby through artificial means is "unnatural" by your definition....

Read what you just wrote.

OF COURSE artificial is unnatural I would have thought that the very definition of artificial is "not natural." Isn't that obvious?

...that in no way shape or form invalidates the baby or the way in which the baby was conceived. Because then you'd have to say that any test tube baby, or premie is unnatural and invalid as well.

Test-tube babies are NOT naturally conceived. That doesn't mean they are invalid. Premies have nothing to do with the naturalness of how they were conceived and birthed.

I'm not making any moral arguments at this time about the validity of potentially "spliced offspring." No one argues whther or not cloning is "natural" or not. IT'S NOT. There's no debate about it. Just as I don't understand how you're trying to make an arguemnt that "homosexual offspring" would be natural. THEY WOULD NOT BE. But if there is a cloned human, or "spliced human", I don't think anyone would argue that it's not "valid" and therefore we should kill it off.

You seem to put so much emphasis on what is natural and what is not natural. Please.

Hello?

My only "emphasis" is that a homosexual relationship is NOT A NATURAL SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP. (Natural as I described several posts above.) What kind of emphasis is that? That's a statement of my opinion.

What I don't understand, is your argumentation against my definition of "natural." It's a valid definition, among several other definitions. I wiould expect you to argue all you want about whether or not homosexuality is "ok" despite it not being natural by my definition....but you continue to try and invalidate my definition of "natural."

And you do this by saying I don't account for scientific and artificial means in my definition of natural?!

 

[Natoma]

But again, I'm splitting hairs.

See? I can twist things just as easily as you can.

That should have given you a hint about my last post. You're sitting here trying to argue semantics with me with regard to what is natural and what is not. And to a certain extent, why that makes certain relationships "invalid" and others not. Yadda yadda yadda.

All I did was take that to its extreme and logical conclusion.

To put it bluntly, it was an exercise in the game of semantics that you so much like to play.

p.s.: In other words I was busting your balls.

 

[notAFanB]

I do not understand your post.

 

[antlers]

"Homosexuality isn't natural, therefore it's OK for governments to discriminate against homosexuality"

...various examples of homosexuality in nature...
...examples of government-sanctioned relationships that can't result in children...
...examples of the possibility of a homosexual couple engaging in child-rearing, either through adoption or more exotic technological means...

"That's not my definition of natural."

"What's your definition of natural?"

"That which isn't homosexual."

Circular arguments are always air-tight. I wonder why Natoma bothers to argue with you.

 

[Silent_One]

To put it bluntly, it was an exercise in the game of semantics that you so much like to play.

p.s.: In other words I was busting your balls.

That's find and dandy Natoma, but...as Joe uses the word "naturally" he is correct, yes?