Canada leaders accept gay marriage ruling
- Thread starter Natoma
- Start date
Sabastian said:
Maybe when you're a little older it will be easier for you to follow slightly complex arguments.
Yes, in order to have children you need a female who is fertile and at the right time in her menstrual cycle and not using any form of birth control and a male who is fertile and who is not using birth control birth control to engage in sexual activity that allows the males sperm to eventuallly have contact with the female's egg. Yes, that is stipulated.
However, of all the sexual activity among all the people in the world, such is in the distinct minority. Would you brand all that sexual activity as "unnatural" simply because it can not result in procreation (actually, that's what the Catholics did before Vatican I, so you'd be consistent there)? I don't think you would. You would decide that some was natural and some was not. The point being, you are picking and choosing according to your prejudices/religious beliefs, not some logical reason or natural law.
What I find unnatural is a 12 page thread arguing about what is natural and what isn't.
Why persist in arguing what's "natural"? It's just another appeal to authority like God. The idea that whatever is in nature is correct and true, and any deviation from nature is wrong and bad. Nature is neither good nor bad, and even if you try to argue from a utilitarian standpoint what is natural for humans was evolutionary fit, the fact of the matter is, human survival is no longer dependent on the conditions that existed 1 million years ago, and we live much longer today eating diets and living lifestyles thoroughly against "nature" (I dare you to try and eat a raw potato or rice) The environment that humans live in was radically altered in a 10,000 year timespan (and way more radically in the last 300 years) , our genes haven't had time to catch up, and at this point, we simply do not know what is and isn't nature.
Perhaps given time, homosexuality would simply be a natural genetic response to overpopulation.
The hilarous thing is, conservatives reject the "nature good" argument when it comes to dealing with religio-environmentalists, but then take up the "nature good" argument when discussing gays.
Meanwhile, these same conservatives talk endless about sex being about reproduction, meanwhile, fuck like animals everynight without producing children. And performing totally unnatural unreproductive acts like fellatio, or using sex toys.
Appeal to nature is just a cowardly way out of an argument, like appealing to God. Who can argue with either?
Perhaps given time, homosexuality would simply be a natural genetic response to overpopulation.
The hilarous thing is, conservatives reject the "nature good" argument when it comes to dealing with religio-environmentalists, but then take up the "nature good" argument when discussing gays.
Meanwhile, these same conservatives talk endless about sex being about reproduction, meanwhile, fuck like animals everynight without producing children. And performing totally unnatural unreproductive acts like fellatio, or using sex toys.
Appeal to nature is just a cowardly way out of an argument, like appealing to God. Who can argue with either?
DemoCoder said:
I've only argued that what exists in nature is natural. I then stipulated that the argument of what is "morally" objectionable and what is not is something left for another debate. But the denial that homosexuality is natural is an erroneous line of argumentation.
So in essence, we agree.
High 5-HIAA said:
Ok, I (as distinguished from the rest whose arguing this) am willing to accept your terms. But, I feel that we should take a hint from the late Cardinal Bernardine who I had the personal honor of talking to and adopt a policy that would do him justice and would be seemless in composition - as opposed to this horse-shit you're stipulating.
Thus, I'll agree that Homosexuality is *natural* (eg. found in nature regardless of the probobility and/or frequency) aslong as you then claim that Beastiality is natural as it's occurance is at a much higher occurance and for much the same reasons as Homosexuality.
As should Pedophilia be considered *Natural* as interblood-line intercourse is found throught the animal kingdom, although only most notworthly in humans. Hey, that's the only way in which most lower life forms reporduce is with their offspring and related organisms!
Furthermore, since you have so clearly opened my eyes to the many forms of *Natural* sex (appearently nature has a reason for them all) I feel that dispite the many walls you've knocked down between the many fringe forms of sex such as (but not limited to) homosexuality, beastiality, and pedophilia, they still can't knock down the one wall you admit exits.That the purpose and rationality behind the sexual relationships under heterosexuality serve a fundimental biological purpose that pushes forward the progress of the organisms gene-line.
Because, in retrospect the only tangible line that can be drawn between these forms of sexual relations are the biologically necessary reproductive aspects. And of these... only heterosexual relations would serve a purpose beyond the gratification and/or sexual desires of said parties.
So, thanks for opening my eyes to the many forms of *Natural* sex that sit parallel to homosexuality during the annals of Biological life on earth.
Natoma said:
So, let me get this strait. If I go home, bang Lauren, and then she decides to kill me and eat what's left of my body - she claim that this is justifiable because it "does indeed exist" in the animal kingdom?
Can she use PMS (Praying Mantis Syndrome) as an excuse? Perhaps say, 'if it's good enough for the Black Widow... it's good enough for me?"
AHAHA!
Natoma, lets attempt to have a serious conversation; you're smarter than this. I mean, it was allways my impression that on a philisophical level what seperates us (as humans) from lower-life forms is our ability to rise above such horrendous actions and use our rationality to make moral judgements as to what's acceptable. Appearently, you and this High 5-HIAA think that the Great Diaspora never happened... in the words of Charton Heston, "You damn dirty apes!"Vince said:
There is quite a bright line between homosexuality and pedophilia and bestiality quite apart from natural/unnatural. Homosexuality can be consensual, while pedophilia and bestiality by definition can not be. So I wish people would stop bringing up those two straw men for once and all.
Incest, on the other hand, can be consensual (among adult brother and sister, for example) although I believe such an incidence would be very very rare among humans. However, for consistency I would say that incestuous relationships should be treated no differently by the government (except that the government may have some slight interest in preventing child-bearing) than any other.
As for your final point, I would point out that the love between two men or two women can help them to be good parents just as much as the love between a man and a woman. It's the pair bond that's important for the "higher purpose" of continuing the species, not the gender of the participants.
Vince said:Natoma said:
So, let me get this strait. If I go home, bang Lauren, and then she decides to kill me and eat what's left of my body - she claim that this is justifiable because it "does indeed exist" in the animal kingdom?
Can she use PMS (Praying Mantis Syndrome) as an excuse? Perhaps say, 'if it's good enough for the Black Widow... it's good enough for me?"
AHAHA!
Again, as I've stated vince.
Natoma said:
Obviously I do not believe murder is anything but criminal in our society because as higher life forms who have a choice of taking the life of another involuntarily, we should be better than that.
Now the reason I used "involuntarily" in my sentence is because I do believe in assisted suicide when it is used to end the life of someone who is suffering great pain. But that is another point of contention for some people.
Natoma said:
So, you can justify an action that you don't partake or indulge in; yet when it comes to an action (homosexuality) that you enjoy you can find justification in lower mammals and utilize that newer evolutional feature known as the frontal-lobes to rationalize that homosexuality isn't intended my nature?
My problem steams from your justification in utilizing the animal kingdom - how do you know that the lower-animals who conduct homosexual acts have any less choise in the matter than I would if I were to be killed by her? Who are you to justify this? Who are you to confirm this? You're treding on thin ice, much to thin....
[quote="antlers"There is quite a bright line between homosexuality and pedophilia and bestiality quite apart from natural/unnatural. Homosexuality can be consensual, while pedophilia and bestiality by definition can not be. So I wish people would stop bringing up those two straw men for once and all.[/quote]
Incorrect. Natoma states that because homosexuality is seen in the *natural* world of the animal kingdom - it's a natural and acceptable practice.
Beastiality can be (and perhaps in >98% of the cases) conducted between two lower-animals in the wild. So, tell me dear antlers how you can justify two homo dogs banging eachother and not a dog on a... sheep.
Believe it or not, this is a common occurance in the wild. Or, unless you think that animals such as Lions and Tigers go around as ask eachother if their genetically compatable before getting it on.
The correct, and obvious answer is that the practice is widespread and of the countless occurances only a slight few result in allowable offspring (eg. Liger).Vince said:
My question is this. Do you have a choice in being attracted to your female companion, whoever she may be? Do you have a choice in being attracted to *anyone* of the female persuasion?
Or can you equally choose to be attracted to males as *much* and as *strongly* as you are attracted to females? If you cannot answer that in the affirmative, then welcome to the majority of the population who consider themselves heterosexual.
So since you don't have the choice, what makes you think that I or any other homosexual have a choice in our attractions to men?
Vince said:
No no no!
Natoma said:
Look at it this way. Priesthood (abstinence) is unnatural. Marriage is unnatural. Both are socially evolved (memes), not genetically evolved gene behaviors. Celibacy for example is the most unnatural of behaviors, probably more unnatural than homosexuality. You could atleast argue that having sex is hardwired, and men will f*ck anything since the mechanism is set up to spread sperm as much and as often as possible. Celibacy (priesthood) is genetic suicide.
Evolutionary psychologists argue that both priesthood and marriage were evolved over time, as societies who practiced them were more resistent to disease than those who were more promiscious.
Evolutionary psychologists argue that both priesthood and marriage were evolved over time, as societies who practiced them were more resistent to disease than those who were more promiscious.
Silent_One
Newcomer
DemoCoder wrote:
So you think homosexuality is unnatural?
Is homosexuality genetic suicide?
So you think homosexuality is unnatural?
Is homosexuality genetic suicide?
No, I don't believe any sexual behavior is "unnatural" since nature is incredibly diverse, you get a googleplex or behavioral variations. I'm simply saying, if you adopt the premise of the antigays, then priesthood is even MORE unnatural than gay sex. Atleast sex is a "natural" urge to follow even if it's between two of the same sex. But astinence? The religious antigays just aren't consistent.
I think the antigays are wrong on two points:
#1 the insistance that there is one true "nature" (nature seems to try out all possibilities it can, even asexual reproduction. There is no law of nature with respect to sexual practices, and males will routinely copulate with other species that spoof pheromones or female genitalia.)
#2 the idea that being natural is good. I do not believe the concept of "natural" is an inherent human good. Nature does not care about human beings, it is amoral (smallpox anyone?). Nature is a dangerous place. Just because something evolved does not mean it is best or inherently good, for nature has no overall "plan". What we started with 1 million years ago was not the pinnacle of genetic perfection.
The idea that natural == good is the fallacy that the organic crowd falls into, leaving aside the fact that other living things don't enjoy being eaten, and in fact, much of nature is inedible for this very reason, which is why even ancient agriculture breed plants to be more palable.
So appeals to nature fall as flat with me as appeals to God. You want to convince me something is wrong? Show how it is going to hurt me or my descendants, or the future of human beings in the universe. As far as what is natural? Fuck it. People who love being natural so much should go back to living in the wild.
I think the antigays are wrong on two points:
#1 the insistance that there is one true "nature" (nature seems to try out all possibilities it can, even asexual reproduction. There is no law of nature with respect to sexual practices, and males will routinely copulate with other species that spoof pheromones or female genitalia.)
#2 the idea that being natural is good. I do not believe the concept of "natural" is an inherent human good. Nature does not care about human beings, it is amoral (smallpox anyone?). Nature is a dangerous place. Just because something evolved does not mean it is best or inherently good, for nature has no overall "plan". What we started with 1 million years ago was not the pinnacle of genetic perfection.
The idea that natural == good is the fallacy that the organic crowd falls into, leaving aside the fact that other living things don't enjoy being eaten, and in fact, much of nature is inedible for this very reason, which is why even ancient agriculture breed plants to be more palable.
So appeals to nature fall as flat with me as appeals to God. You want to convince me something is wrong? Show how it is going to hurt me or my descendants, or the future of human beings in the universe. As far as what is natural? Fuck it. People who love being natural so much should go back to living in the wild.