Canada leaders accept gay marriage ruling

[Natoma]

i am sorry Vince, what you said makes absolutely no sense to me; could you rephrase that? more to the point, are you saying that nature considers everything a failure or are you insisting that some things are perfect? i really do not follow you.

I suggest you look into basic Darwinian Theory, usually embodied in the widely known Natural Selection and Survival of the Fittest theories.

Entities in natural that are inferior or "failures" (as you stated) are culled and die out without allowing their inferior genes to survive. Thus, Nature does infact consider things that doen't work 'perfectly' as failures and ever strives for perfection - we're just one small step in that direction.

First off, I would suggest that you engage in the same read as well. We are no longer completely beholden to natural selection and survival of the fittest. Our level of technology and civilization allows this.

There was a time in which human beings, if not strong enough, would die from a disease. There was a time in which human beings would die in the womb, or shortly thereafter, from birth defects due to the "flawed" genetic makeup of the parents. There was a time in which human beings would die because they weren't strong enough to survive the elements.

Frankly you won't see natural selection and survival of the fittest on this planet again unless some sort of holocaust knocks us all back to the stone age. Or, if colonies of humans are sent out into space and inhabit other worlds. Then you would see genetic selection take place. But on our planet with 6 Billion, and growing, strong members of the human species, I'd argue that Natural Selection and Survival of the Fittest are moot, i.e. they no longer occur.

[EDIT]
However, through genetic manipulation we can no doubt force an artificial natural selection. Though I doubt that will do anything in the long run but cause massive problems for us as a species.

For instance, take Sickle Cell Anemia. In and of itself it is a debilitating disease. However, in the context of a tropical climate, living with Sickle Cell can indeed be a godsend because the gene for sickle cell anemia also acts as a natural solution to malaria.

Nature has a weird way of coming up with solutions sometimes. But would we as humans necessarily see a solution like that? Not necessarily, which could end up in our demise in the future wrt genetic manipulation.

Just food for thought while I drift off to sleep.
[/EDIT]

 

[Natoma]

I need to go to bed. I'll pick this up in the morning.

 

[Vince]

Your line of argument is increasingly becomming more and more illogical and it's clear you're overlooking much.

Check up on the island of Tristan de Cunha. Everyone on Tristan de Cunha is related. In fact, due to extensive inbreeding over the last 200 years, any pair of islanders are as closely related as first cousins.

AFAIK, Tristan de Cuncha (which is perhaps the quintessentuial case used to show genetic drifting in humans) was origionally established by 16 soldiers and their wifes.

There is obvious genetic drifting evident (as you pointed out), but the starting population did have sufficient genetic differentiation to avoid other such problems that plagued Emily Nietzsche and countless others.

This ties into your evasive tactics that are clearly erronious from a logical PoV. For example:

1) Incest is still incest, no matter how you would like to look at it.

Your avoiding my point, which is that between 2nd cousins or the members of Tristan de Cuncha - there is significant genetic differentiation that allows for a population that has minor genetic errors or observable drift.

For example, between 2nd cousins, there is 4 heterosexual relationships providing genetic divergence. How does this compare with a father and his daughter or a son with his mother?

You're totally avoiding the fact that in each case you state as evidence that these "natural" occurances happen in nature - you fail to see that heterosexual relationships occuring at natural frequency with external genetic lines are underlying these. I want to see a population of just homosexuals surviving in nature, or just a father and daughter on an island, or two random animals.

2) Homosexuality is different from incest in that incest can produce offspring. As can certain forms of beastiality. See horse/donkey as an example. Thus, incest and beastiality have more in common with heterosexuality than homosexuality.

This is utter bullshit, I think we both know it. Take an entry level biology class if you must to see how reproduction is suppose to happen based on the ideal case ovserved in nature. Then tell me which of these deviate from the ideal - or I'll save you the time; beastiality, homosexuality, incestual relationships.

PS. Don't you find it ironic that you're using a point that I called you on (that inter-species can result in offspring) and you clearnly stated that this was a special case and pointed towards them being in the same Genus as your way out.

I suggest you end this or I'll go back and quote you and perhaps then you'll stop. But, I think you'll rember saying this.

 

[Vince]

First off, I would suggest that you engage in the same read as well. We are no longer completely beholden to natural selection and survival of the fittest. Our level of technology and civilization allows this.

There was a time in which human beings, if not strong enough, would die from a disease. There was a time in which human beings would die in the womb, or shortly thereafter, from birth defects due to the "flawed" genetic makeup of the parents. There was a time in which human beings would die because they weren't strong enough to survive the elements.

Frankly you won't see natural selection and survival of the fittest on this planet again unless some sort of holocaust knocks us all back to the stone age. Or, if colonies of humans are sent out into space and inhabit other worlds. Then you would see genetic selection take place. But on our planet with 6 Billion, and growing, strong members of the human species, I'd argue that Natural Selection and Survival of the Fittest are moot, i.e. they no longer occur.

Totally irrelevent. You think I'd post that if I wasn't correct? You, yourself, have defined the term "natural" - which I'll post here:

I go by what is defined by Webster. Webster states that anything found in nature is natural. That is a very broad definition that encompasses everything. You are trying to get a very narrow definition which fails in certain circumstances and interpretations, simply because of your own prejudices and biases.

Please Natoma, don't redefine "Nature" and what's "Natural" to serve your own biased ends that cater to only a narror definition and that fails in certain circumstances and interpretations.

You, yourself, have stated that "morality" shouldn't be considered as it's a human construct in this argument. Pleae, don't tell me you can find modern human society and our specific achievements in the natural, biological world that we're debating.

Thus, unless can you please point me towards the "naturally" growing Pentium4 w/ DDR and nearest "natural" internet connetion - I'm going to be curious how nature (not human manifestations) has ended it's relience on natural selection and survival of the fittest. Or can you find me another biological entity that has discarded these - you said it yourslf... We're all animalistic.

Your amaze me.

 

[nggalai]

Hi there,

Hola, Yet there is a fundimental biological purpose/necessity (as I subsequently stated) to heterosexual relationships in higher organisms that doesn't occur in homosexual, beastility or incestual relationships.

As mentioned before, I advise people to have a look at Dawkins's "The Selfish Gene" for a very readable (and scientifically widely accepted) overview on neo-darwinian evolution, modern genetics, and of course memetics--a theory Dawkins perhaps hasn't single-handedly created, but certainly helped appear on the scientific landscape. In short: there is no such thing as a "biological purpose" or "biological necessity," just the misinterpretation of statistical data and pure chance, as well as the implications of the anthropic principles. The same goes for concepts such as "nature's way to get rid of something." "nature's intention," or "the good of the species."

These concepts are nothing but the human mind's struggling to understand and describe mechanisms in the tried-and-tested, anthropic way--using metaphor from its own social existance to describe underlying processes. But these metaphors are not very apt to describe how "nature" really "works" as they are, well, tainted by the way humans think and the implications that resonate with terms such as "intention" and "purpose."

Apart from that, I pretty much agree with Legion I should add. There's more to humans than complete and utter genetic predetermination. As I see it, each human is given a range of potentials inside which he/she can develop, say, intelligence, sexual preferences, resistance to diseases etc. But in the end it's up to a human's upbringing (nurture) and environment (culture) what he/she will become--at least somewhat governed by the human's own cognitive processes (more with some features, less with others). Genetics might provide the spectrum of possibilities, but do not determine the exact location on said spectrum.

All IMHO, of course.

93,
-Sascha.rb

 

[Vince]

As mentioned before, I advise people to have a look at Dawkins's "The Selfish Gene"

Hmm... I know this book, I must admit I never finished it, but it seemed good.

The Selfish Gene[/i]]What, after all, is so special about genes ? The answer is that they are replicators. The laws of physics are supposed to be true all over the accessible universe. Are there any principles of biology that are likely to have similar universal validity ? When astronauts voyage to distant planets and look for life, they can expect to find creatures too strange and unearthly for us to imagine. But is there anything that must be true of all life, wherever it is found, and whatever the basis of its chemistry ? If forms of life exist whose chemistry is based on silicon rather than carbon, or ammonia rather than water, if creatures are discovered that boil to death at -100 degrees centigrade, if a form of life is found that is not based on chemistry at all but on electronic reverberating circuits, will there still be any general principle that is true of all life ? Obviously I do not know but, if I had to bet, I would put my money on one fundamental principle. This is the law that all life evolves by the differential survival of replicating entities. The gene, the DNA molecule, happens to be the replicating entity that prevails on our planet. There may be others. If there are, provided certain other conditions are met, they will almost inevitable tend to become the basis for an evolutionary process.

As stated, the gene, the DNA molecule, is the replicating agent on this planet. It's job is to prevail, to suceed, to survive. As Dawkins stated: This is the law that all life evolves by the differential survival of replicating entities.

This is done threw heterosexual intercource in humans; there is a "biological purpose" (which I admit, I often bastardize to make more palletable to others) in that DNA must be preserved and replicated. I hardly feel that Dawkins, such a proponent of the primordial soup that has been preserved, replicated and advanced into us would suggest that biological entities don't have an overriding purpose to pass on their DNA.

Wouldn't you agree? and if Yes (as I'd expect, but may be surprised) then the rest of the argument just falls into place.

Ps. Forgot to say Hello..

 

[Legion]

To which I agree. Pedophilia was in fact a very natural and supported pillar of society during grecian and roman times, in order to initiate young boys into the world of men.

Was this wrong? Did those boys understand the rammifications of sex?

So yes, those actions are indeed as natural as heterosexuality, homosexuality, beastiality, et al. However, the moral objection to it is a completely different matter.

Really? Interesting. Is this one of those baseless moral objections you were describing elsewhere?

I'm not really sure how many times I can state that

As vince state you are inconsistant.

Hey I'm not the one who brought it up in this discussion.

Was i attacking you with that statement?

I said that despite our intelligence and our "civilization," we are still subject to the forces of our animalistic nature.

Please explain exactly what the tenents of "animalistic nature" are and how they apply to humans and society.

We are not completely disembodied, 100% intellectual beings.

Really? Are we 70%? 80%? 90%? 99.99%? Based on what information?

I have never stated that our instincts dominate us to the same degree as they dominate an amoeba, or a lion, or whatnot.

Then why are you arguing for a genetic predisposition to sexuality?

If we weren't driven by our animal impulses anymore, you wouldn't have adultery, obesity, the insatiable male sex drive P), etc etc etc.

I completely disagree with these statements. Sex drive is caused by chemical reactions in the brain. Human reaction and follow through is a matter of choice.

The desire to build a web? That is a means by which a spider procures food.

An instinct. Clearly genetically based.

The dog has no such need to do that

Define "need" in an evolutionary random mutational sense.

nor is it physically capable of doing such a thing.

Sense when do physical limitations and instinct go hand in hand? What is instinct and what causes it?

Dogs however have evolved the ability to hunt in packs and cooperate in dominance societies in order to increase their survival.

An instinct which is clearly partially genetically driven. Althought dogs in packs and dogs as pets demonstrate a number of different behaviors.

However they are still outgrowths of the initial basic biological need to satiate hunger.

None of this answers the questions behind human genetic disposition of sexuality.

Yes, the drive for sex does indeed express itself in varying ways of sexuality just as the hunger drive expresses itself in differing animals in varying ways.

Interesting. As it does in rats. Does it in humans? Can you prove this?

I never said or alluded to the fact that we are only driven by instinct. I merely stated that despite our intelligence and our civilization, we are still driven in large part by instinct. However, that instinct is tempered by our intellect and our civilization.

In large part by instinct? You have only mentioned very basic instinctual behaviors. You haven't addressed this "large part" or how it impacts us. You clearly seem to avoid the enviromental effects outside of instinct which may cause some one to do as they do. Clearly we are highly rational beings.

It is merely a fact of life. Kill or be killed. But never did I state that we should go out and kill simply because we are biologically hardwired to do so in order to protect our assets.

Natoma you clearly haven't proven this. Natoma shall we go over a police record and examine the murders to see what you consider an act of instinct?

The mere fact we recognize humans have the ability to choose to avoid such behaviors is an admittion (in the case of this being an instinct) that we have the ability to reason. Hence the reason we have codes; morals, laws, etc.

Natoma it appears you aren't willing to admitt there maybe me more pyshological reasons then instintual ones for murder. Are Jealousy and greed instincts? Are emmotional responses instinct?

Natoma, for quick reference do you think the way humans preceive emmotions is bio-hardwired? . Just wondering.

Our intellect and our civilization, and the natural outgrowth of that, i.e. our collective moral code, is what helps separate us from "lower" animals.

No, our ability to reason outside of instinct helped us create these structures and acquire knowledge. These societies came from somewhere Natoma. A region outside of instinct.

Wrt to the intellectual level, that was not meant to imply that if you have an IQ of 120, you can't consort with someone who has an IQ of 110. That was a general statement, and looking at my statement I apologize for not making that clearer.

I understood what you meant. Again why is it wrong?

There is a certain level at which human intelligence ceases to be human intelligence, and moves to the intellect seen in "lower" life forms.

whoa really? Levels now.

For instance, if you find a human who is mentally disabled with an IQ of 60, they are for all intents and purposes no smarter than a 5 year old child. Applying a moral code to who should engage in sexual interactions, I would say that I think someone at that level should not engage in sexual interactions with someone who has a "normal" level of intelligence due to the fact that I don't believe they can fully appreciate and understand what it is they are doing.

How eugenics esque of you. How on earth do you know what a mentally retarded person can think or feel? Personally i am disugsted by this statement. Are they some how less human then you or I? Do they not deserve to be loved the same way? Who are you to judge their capacities?

It almost becomes, in a sense, an advantage taking situation. It's one of the reasons why people in general have a negative predilection towards pedophilia, and imo rightfully so.

What is paedophilia is relative and subjective.

That is why I stated that I don't believe a woman having sex with a pig is something that would be "good."

Who are you to judge what is good or bad?

However if she wants to have sex with an intelligent pig from the planet Zoufrous, I would not be opposed to that.

Why not any other pig? Why can't she do it because she enjoys it?

Yes, and I believe that "underage" sex is something that shouldn't happen,

lol. The age limit is nothing more than an arbitrary figure. Other societies have much lower age limits. Is there something inherently wrong with this? Who are you to judge the capacity of these individuals and their understanding of sex and it's impacts?

because a great many of people having "underage" sex don't understand the full ramifications of their actions.

Plenty on the opposite end don't either. I might even venture to say the number may be equal.

Abortion is something that when completed on a child can have serious psychologically scarring effects.

Why on a child and not anyone else? Seems to me the scaring effect happens pretty much the same accross the board from the research i have seen.

The way you word this is interest. You seem to presupose the effects on children are greater then those on "adult" thought they are both guilty of sexual ignorance. By your earlier reasoning neither should be having sex.

Huh? How do they not back my beliefs wrt to beastiality and underage sex? Hopefully I've clarified that above.

No you haven't. I pointed out to you why your assertions don't back your conclusions as your assertions are based on modern subjective interpretations of reality not fact.

I thought I was clear on this point. If a woman wants to have sex with a run of the mill lower life form pig here on earth, I would be opposed due to the outlined boundaries I expressed above.

As many would be by their expressed boundaries concerning homosexuality.

If that same woman wants to have sex with an intelligent pig from Zoufrous, I see nothing wrong with that.

But you do see something wrong with having sex with a normal earth pig as many see something wrong with having sex with other men.

If that same woman wants to have sex with an AI, I see nothing wrong with that.

well gee i am sure she is glad to have your moral approval.

I completely agree. It is a difficult thing to conceptualize. I've merely stated my belief on the situation. How one would then legislate that is a completely different story.

Its interesting that you admit this though accross the board many countries have fluctuating age limits. One might even ask if it is possible to change the age limit after time. Intersting isn't it? That a society's moral structure can adjust with time to fir the changing populace. It almost serves as an admittion that age and naivty don't always go hand in hand.

As stated earlier the romans and the grecians practiced pedophilia and it was accepted in their societies as an every day occurrence and passage into adulthood.

Again is there anything wrong with this? Did the greeks see paedophlia as wrong? Did it hurt these individuals? Alexander the great didn't mind it to much.

My belief on the subject is obviously an outgrowth of the society I've grown up in,

ahh so you admitt your opinion is ubjective.

which lets children spend 20-25 years maturing into adults. In past times, you were an adult the moment you had your period, or the moment you first ejaculated or could hold a sword.

Interesting. Did you know objections to homosexuals and homosexual adoption, marriage etc are extentions of the enviroments people grow up in? I am amazed that you admit similiar substance to their position!

So my belief structure wrt to underage sex is most decidedly influenced by our current system of letting children spend the better part of 3 decades maturing psychologically, emotionally, and physically.

Which clearly has demostrated flaws. Why is it that such behavior is wrong now but not then? Your position lacks factual support.

Clearly people make a great deal of sexual mistakes. It seems the age limit isn't properly effecting the number of mistakes people make. If i were to compare our society with many of those in the past i could easily say our society is sexually irresponsible. Much of this comes from the sexual revolution and its undermining of personal and family values.

Asserting there is something inherently wrong with having sex at a younger ages confuses me when i examine the historicity of marriage/sexual encounters. It appears clear to me that education and moral structure are truly he basis of responsible choices. Even ancient Jews have demonstrated a great successin marriage at the age of 13. Perhaps that is because they valued what they new about sex more?

If they agree to not have children, or they get sterilized, then there would be no opposition to their marriage.

So there isn't anything inherently wrong with incest?

Wrt the partner who turns out children with mental retardations and other genetic disorders being forbidden to live together or being forced sterilized. I believe that that is most certainly something that in the future won't even need to be addressed.

The same could be said about incest. Why not answer the question as it exist now.

Btw, I'm not sure who Margrit Sanger is. Please enlighten me.

Really? A supporter of eugenics.

 

[Fred]

One has to be a little careful here. Evolution is complex, but yes the fundamental goal is to pass on ones genes (well half of them to be exact).

However that can take on many forms, and straight individual reproduction is NOT necessarily always the favored medium.

I think I mentioned the case of bees earlier. Why do so many bees exist that do not reproduce (only the queen does).

There is certain group factors that come into play, indeed all the bees in a particular hive are related, and it turns out that its favored for them to sacrifice themselves for the good of the queen (which produces multitudes of superkids, that of course share a portion of the worker bees genes) So a strange practise to account for, actually does make sense afterall.

Incest in some rare cases, is also the preferred means to pass on genes. For instance, during the plague, it was found that families that had larger percentage of immunities to the disease were far more likely to have incestual ancestors, indeed the practise became even more widespread during that point in their history. Families that did not do this, died out at a greater rate.

So the question to the evolutionary experts out there. Why is homosexuality still around? Since they don't pass on their genes, one would expect naively that practise to have died out. Or perhaps, there is a complicated group mechanism at play that actually finds a utility for the practise.

So perhaps homosexuality (if indeed there is a genetic correlation) does have a NATURAL point afterall.. Which would render much of this thread moot.

Food for fire.

(btw the nature argument in general is known as the naturalistic fallacy)

 

[nggalai]

Hi Vince,

Hmm... I know this book, I must admit I never finished it, but it seemed good.

The Selfish Gene[/i]]What, after all, is so special about genes ? The answer is that they are replicators. The laws of physics are supposed to be true all over the accessible universe. Are there any principles of biology that are likely to have similar universal validity ? When astronauts voyage to distant planets and look for life, they can expect to find creatures too strange and unearthly for us to imagine. But is there anything that must be true of all life, wherever it is found, and whatever the basis of its chemistry ? If forms of life exist whose chemistry is based on silicon rather than carbon, or ammonia rather than water, if creatures are discovered that boil to death at -100 degrees centigrade, if a form of life is found that is not based on chemistry at all but on electronic reverberating circuits, will there still be any general principle that is true of all life ? Obviously I do not know but, if I had to bet, I would put my money on one fundamental principle. This is the law that all life evolves by the differential survival of replicating entities. The gene, the DNA molecule, happens to be the replicating entity that prevails on our planet. There may be others. If there are, provided certain other conditions are met, they will almost inevitable tend to become the basis for an evolutionary process.

As stated, the gene, the DNA molecule, is the replicating agent on this planet. It's job is to prevail, to suceed, to survive. As Dawkins stated: This is the law that all life evolves by the differential survival of replicating entities.

This is done threw heterosexual intercource in humans; there is a "biological purpose" (which I admit, I often bastardize to make more palletable to others) in that DNA must be preserved and replicated. I hardly feel that Dawkins, such a proponent of the primordial soup would suggest that biological entities don't have an overriding purpose to pass on their DNA.

Wouldn't you agree? and if Yes (as I'd expect, but may be surprised) then the rest of the argument just falls into place.

Actually, I wouldn't. But that's just due to semantic differences--Dawkins is very strict in both The Selfish Gene and The Blind Watchmaker (one of the best evolutionary books I've read in years) that the impetus is not "purpose" or "job." It's just that genes appear to be, well, selfish. There's just the genes, organisms are nothing but "gene computers" or "gene vessels" so the genes can easily replicate. "Purpose" and "job" implicate a higher plan or even a creator god, both concepts Dawkins strongly rejects. It might LOOK like purpose, but it's just how things work automatically in the circumstances we're in. If they didn't work out, we wouldn't be here to discuss them.

But, apart from this minor squibble: full ack. I am just personally not very happy to see terms such as "purpose" or "the good of the species" in such discussions, as most people tend to misunderstand these terms and use them in the same meaning as you'd do with humans or animals per se. But "biological evolution" happens wholly on a genetic level, things such as "nature's intention" and "plan" don't come into it. Things just happen or they don't; the implied "purpose" is nothing much more than a quantitative modifier.

The situation with humans is a bit different from "mere animals" regarding evolution and replication / propagation. Courtly put, the human "machine" is used by two different, often competing "pilots": genes and memes. Hence, struggles may occur, resulting in lots of scenarios and acts one might not deem "natural" at first glance, but in the end appear to be "ok" and "right" in the overall picture. Suppressing incest in a population might come to mind--that's both a memetic and genetic concept, not only a biological one. In short: just because some genes would like people to procreate wildly, not all of them need to use this path of replication, and in any case memes might counter-act, too. It's the balance that makes the music.

93,
-Sascha.rb

 

[Natoma]

Your line of argument is increasingly becomming more and more illogical and it's clear you're overlooking much. <snip>

Until you learn how to read, I will refrain from responding to you. Much of what you have stated I have addressed earlier, but it's apparent you have not actually read what I have written. For instance, wrt the beastiality comment and you saying you would "quote" me from earlier threads:

Indeed, it is natural to have sex outside your species. As you have stated, it does indeed occur in nature. And I admit wholeheartedly that in earlier disputes wrt this, I got caught up with equating natural with good, which is not necessarily the case. Natural is completely separate from our moral objections of what is good.

Gee. I'm debating with air it seems. If you can't see something as simple as that, where I'm agreeing with you on this particular aspect, we can't have a debate.

 

[Silent_One]

Fred wrote:

So perhaps homosexuality (if indeed there is a genetic correlation) does have a NATURAL point afterall.. Which would render much of this thread moot.

Not really. This thread has many incomplete issues.
The original issue of Gay Marriage.
Nature vs. Nuture
The definition of "Natural"
....and many side issues.
For the record I'm not against Gay Marriage.
Regarding the definition of "Natural":
Natoma wrote:

Legion:

1) Natural was defined, according to Webster's Dictionary, as that which is found in nature. That is the accepted definition of natural, and under that definition, homosexuality is indeed natural.

The entire argument over the "natural"-ness of homosexuality started because of that assumption. Once I and others debunked the theory that homosexuality is not natural, I stated that the "moral" objections to homosexuality are the true impetus behind the disagreement over equal status for homosexuals that heterosexuals enjoy.

The exercise of the past 5-6 pages was one in which the last remaining bastion of "logical" prejudice was shot down. Now that it can no longer be argued that homosexuality is not "natural," the people against legalized homosexual marriage have nothing to fall back on save for their own prejudices, biases, and hatreds. The point of the discussion was to expose that and wash away the veneer of "tolerance" that those people have espoused, as being completely and utterly fallacious in nature.

As has been pointed out numerous times Websters, Dictionary.com, ect....all have many definitons regarding "natural".
Natoma picks the one most suited for he's purpose. He uses it to paint as broad a picture as he needs:
Natoma wrote:

Btw, my definition of natural is if it occurs in nature. That's all. That encompasses *everything*. There is no qualifier needed.

Natoma defends this definition with the following:
(answering Joe DeFuria's post)

Your definition of natural can be bent to fit any interpretation. That is one reason why it is flawed. My definition has no such flaw in it.

And yes, you can define a *description* from it's parent. What is "oily"? If it contains oil. What is "smelly"? If it smells. What is "natural"? If it occurs in nature.

Perfectly valid.

[EDIT]

This is one of the definitions of natural from dictionary.com:

"Of, relating to, or concerning nature"

See? As I said, perfectly valid.

...and....

I go by what is defined by Webster. Webster states that anything found in nature is natural. That is a very broad definition that encompasses everything. You are trying to get a very narrow definition which fails in certain circumstances and interpretations, simply because of your own prejudices and biases.

Joe's point was surmised when he said:

Yes, if your definition of natural means "observed in nature", and you define nature in a specific way.

If we define "natural" as I have, or Vince has (which I have also used EXACTLY the same argument in the past), then we say it is not in fact natural.

Now does the fact that there are many definitions of natural in dictionaries allow for different interpretations as to what is natural? Not according to Natoma:

Dictionary.com:

Natural:

"Of, relating to, or concerning nature"

Nature:

"The material world and its phenomena."

End of story. Homosexuality is natural.

So, Joe argues for "natural" sexual reproduction and Natoma argues that to use the word natural in such narrow terms in incorrect, because that shows Joe's "prejudices and biases".
So no other definition in the dictionaries can be used. Remember Natoma said-

Natural was defined, according to Webster's Dictionary, as that which is found in nature. That is the accepted definition of natural, and under that definition, homosexuality is indeed natural.

And that is the ONLY acceptable definition of "natural" according to Natoma.

Regarding Evolution. Just a quick note:

Natoma wrote:

Frankly you won't see natural selection and survival of the fittest on this planet again unless some sort of holocaust knocks us all back to the stone age. Or, if colonies of humans are sent out into space and inhabit other worlds. Then you would see genetic selection take place. But on our planet with 6 Billion, and growing, strong members of the human species, I'd argue that Natural Selection and Survival of the Fittest are moot, i.e. they no longer occur.

Simply wrong. Evolution is going on all the time throughout the Kingdom of Life. Mankind has been on the earth for a fraction of time, evolution wise. Evolution happens so slowly that it is not even noticed. Indeed it may not have happened to modern man as of yet because we haven't been here very long.

 

[Legion]

Natoma his point to you is that you are iconsistant. You make a number of clear baseless moral objections across the board concerning various sexual behaviors. You seem to lack the realization that many say the same thing about the possible damages homosexuality may cause. Many have demonstrated what appears to be valid arguments for positions against homosexual adoption.

What really makes your objections in more sound then theirs?

 

[Natoma]

To which I agree. Pedophilia was in fact a very natural and supported pillar of society during grecian and roman times, in order to initiate young boys into the world of men.

Was this wrong? Did those boys understand the rammifications of sex?

Within the grecian/roman society, no it was not wrong. And in fact, their society was geared towards those boys understanding the ramifications of sex and relationships. We see this in their writings and the annotated history that we are current privy to.

So yes, those actions are indeed as natural as heterosexuality, homosexuality, beastiality, et al. However, the moral objection to it is a completely different matter.

Really? Interesting. Is this one of those baseless moral objections you were describing elsewhere?

I will say this again. Within the moral confines of our own culture, the pedophilia expressed during grecian/roman times was amoral. Within the confines of their own culture, it was fine.

However, morality aside, pedophilia is still *natural*. And I have stated many times that natural and moral are two completely different lines of argumentation. This is truly quite simple and I have no clue why you keep trying to mix the two when I have so clearly separated them.

I'm not really sure how many times I can state that

As vince state you are inconsistant.

Quite obviously not. My line of argumentation has been quite static in this thread.

1) Natural is what is found in nature
2) Morality as applied to natural are societal constructs and do not necessarily have any bearing on what is "good" from a natural aspect.

These two basic tenets are so simple I'm really shocked that you and vince are having such a difficult time with them.

Hey I'm not the one who brought it up in this discussion.

Was i attacking you with that statement?

I never said you were. It was a joke.

I said that despite our intelligence and our "civilization," we are still subject to the forces of our animalistic nature.

Please explain exactly what the tenents of "animalistic nature" are and how they apply to humans and society.

Again, you haven't been reading. Hunger, Sex, The Need for Shelter. Everything we do extends from those basic facts that drive every organism on the planet.

We are not completely disembodied, 100% intellectual beings.

Really? Are we 70%? 80%? 90%? 99.99%? Based on what information?

The fact that we are still driven by our biology shows that we are not 100% intellectual beings. Do I know the percentage? Obviously not. No one does. But never did I state a strict percentage did I?

I have never stated that our instincts dominate us to the same degree as they dominate an amoeba, or a lion, or whatnot.

Then why are you arguing for a genetic predisposition to sexuality?

Sex *is* genetic. Just like hair color. Or eye color. Or skin color. However, it can be *expressed* in myriad ways due to hormones in the womb, and in early life I'm sure environmental factors. However, what it ends up being is an immutable expression of sexuality.

Come now this is basic biology. Gene expression was started even before my AP class.

If we weren't driven by our animal impulses anymore, you wouldn't have adultery, obesity, the insatiable male sex drive P), etc etc etc.

I completely disagree with these statements. Sex drive is caused by chemical reactions in the brain. Human reaction and follow through is a matter of choice.

:?

And where do you think the brain gets the notion to release those chemical reactions? Especially considering almost every human being's brain operates within the same way wrt "lower" brain functions. Where? Our DNA.

Human reaction and follow through is most certainly a matter of choice. If it weren't, you wouldn't have celibate priests. You wouldn't have homosexual activity. However, in both cases you *still* have sexual drive, despite the choice, or not, to inhibit that sexual drive.

Again, our intelligence layered on top of our most basic and biologically ingrained impulses.

The desire to build a web? That is a means by which a spider procures food.

An instinct. Clearly genetically based.

As is not sex?? We've been down this road before. See above. This is basic stuff.

The dog has no such need to do that

Define "need" in an evolutionary random mutational sense.

The dog has no need because it has evolved other means of procuring food. I made that clear in the next sentence, if you had quoted it together in one block of text.

nor is it physically capable of doing such a thing.

Sense when do physical limitations and instinct go hand in hand? What is instinct and what causes it?

The *expression* of those instincts is physically limiting. The instincts, as I stated quite clearly, are *still* toward the procurement of food in order to satiate hunger.

Dogs however have evolved the ability to hunt in packs and cooperate in dominance societies in order to increase their survival.

An instinct which is clearly partially genetically driven. Althought dogs in packs and dogs as pets demonstrate a number of different behaviors.

You're confusing what instinct is Legion. Dogs hunting in packs is not instinct. It is an expression of the hunger drive, as well as the drive for shelter. It is a higher form of society layered on top of those instincts, which I stated in the next sentence that you broke off and commented on as its own separate thought.

I can see why you get so confused.

However they are still outgrowths of the initial basic biological need to satiate hunger.

None of this answers the questions behind human genetic disposition of sexuality.

See above.

Yes, the drive for sex does indeed express itself in varying ways of sexuality just as the hunger drive expresses itself in differing animals in varying ways.

Interesting. As it does in rats. Does it in humans? Can you prove this?

I've just done so, myriad times and myriad ways. See above.

I never said or alluded to the fact that we are only driven by instinct. I merely stated that despite our intelligence and our civilization, we are still driven in large part by instinct. However, that instinct is tempered by our intellect and our civilization.

In large part by instinct? You have only mentioned very basic instinctual behaviors. You haven't addressed this "large part" or how it impacts us. You clearly seem to avoid the enviromental effects outside of instinct which may cause some one to do as they do. Clearly we are highly rational beings.

No one has stated we aren't rational beings. However we are still driven by our basic needs. As I stated before, a celibate priest, despite the call to celibacy, still is a sexual being. Why? Because they are being driven by their animalistic impulses. But the intelligence layered on top of the "animal man" portion of our brains stops them from going out and engaging in sexual activity.

It is merely a fact of life. Kill or be killed. But never did I state that we should go out and kill simply because we are biologically hardwired to do so in order to protect our assets.

Natoma you clearly haven't proven this. Natoma shall we go over a police record and examine the murders to see what you consider an act of instinct?

What am I trying to prove? Killing occurs naturally. But as a species we have evolved to the point whereby our civilization frowns upon wanton killing (save for wars of course. Which I find an interesting study in the human condition considering that we will denigrate a person for brutally killing another person in our society, but put that same person in a war and they come back a hero.). We are in fact biologically hardwired to protect our assets, and an expression of that biology is in fact killing. Jeffrey Dahmer was most certainly acting on his most basic impulses to procure food, for instance.

However, as I've stated over and over and over and over again, due to our level of civilization, we have moved past some of those base needs and drives. However, the point remains that we are still influenced quite strongly by them.

I would kill to protect my partner. Is it because I'm crazy? No. Because I want to protect that which is "mine" so to speak. There are many fathers and mothers that would kill to protect their child. Is it because they're crazy? No. There are many wives and husbands who would kill to protect their spouse. There are people that would kill to protect their home. Their families. Hell their car. This is all an expression of our most basic drives. Do you understand now?

The mere fact we recognize humans have the ability to choose to avoid such behaviors is an admittion (in the case of this being an instinct) that we have the ability to reason. Hence the reason we have codes; morals, laws, etc.

And never have I stated we didn't.

Natoma it appears you aren't willing to admitt there maybe me more pyshological reasons then instintual ones for murder. Are Jealousy and greed instincts? Are emmotional responses instinct?

They are outgrowths/expressions of our base instincts, yes. The sex drive most certainly fuels jealousy. The drive for shelter (shelter being possessions with which we own and surround ourselves with, be it a home, a car, etc) most certainly fuels greed, as it is an expression that wants *more*.

We have higher brain functions because we have evolved to the point whereby we can inject a certain modicum of reason into the equation. But strip that all away and we are still not that far removed from our animalistic ancestors who hunted for food and killed one another indiscriminantly.

Natoma, for quick reference do you think the way humans preceive emmotions is bio-hardwired? . Just wondering.

The perception of emotions is indeed hardwired. It has been shown in many studies that babies are able to recognize and induce emotional responses in their parents. They are hardwired to do so because it is in their interest to do so. When you are born you are completely dependent on your family to care for you.

Ever wonder why people can't seem to put a baby down for instance? It's because their bodies secrete extremely high levels of a substance called sebum which is almost a baby magnet. It produces hormonal effects in the human body and brain which make it quite pleasurable for humans to be around babies. That is a physical aspect of their need for survival, but a good example nonetheless.

So back to your original question, yes we are hardwired for emotions. However, the expression of our emotions does indeed become tempered the more we learn and evolve as human beings within our lifetime. Hence when you look at most human beings who are adults you generally don't see tantrums being thrown when they don't get what they want, or eating whenever and whatever they wish, etc etc etc. It is because those drives and emotional impulses are tempered by our intellect.

Now grant you there are people that cannot control their emotions at certain times, but generally we are far more evolved and restrained than we were as children.

Our intellect and our civilization, and the natural outgrowth of that, i.e. our collective moral code, is what helps separate us from "lower" animals.

No, our ability to reason outside of instinct helped us create these structures and acquire knowledge. These societies came from somewhere Natoma. A region outside of instinct.

Uhm, I agreed with you on this facet Legion. You're just using different language. And you snipped out the portion in which I did so.

Our intellect and our civilization, and the natural outgrowth of that, i.e. our collective moral code, is what helps separate us from "lower" animals.

However, "lower" animals also display civilization and intellect, and in some cases a collective moral code. See dolphins, primates, and elephant herds as example.

Their intelligence is what helps them create these societal structures. Even though they are "lower" animals, they still possess enough "higher" intelligence to form these structures. Even the most lowly animals such as ants possess highly structured forms of society that would rival our own.

Wrt to the intellectual level, that was not meant to imply that if you have an IQ of 120, you can't consort with someone who has an IQ of 110. That was a general statement, and looking at my statement I apologize for not making that clearer.

I understood what you meant. Again why is it wrong?

I explained it already.

There is a certain level at which human intelligence ceases to be human intelligence, and moves to the intellect seen in "lower" life forms.

whoa really? Levels now.

Uhm, yes? Or are you not familiar with IQ tests and general levels of human intelligence? Such as the fact that you are considered mentally disabled if you have an adult IQ below 70? Or the fact that the average adult human has an IQ of 100-110?

You did study psychology right? This is 101.

For instance, if you find a human who is mentally disabled with an IQ of 60, they are for all intents and purposes no smarter than a 5 year old child. Applying a moral code to who should engage in sexual interactions, I would say that I think someone at that level should not engage in sexual interactions with someone who has a "normal" level of intelligence due to the fact that I don't believe they can fully appreciate and understand what it is they are doing.

How eugenics esque of you. How on earth do you know what a mentally retarded person can think or feel? Personally i am disugsted by this statement. Are they some how less human then you or I? Do they not deserve to be loved the same way? Who are you to judge their capacities?

As I stated before Legion:

I completely agree. It is a difficult thing to conceptualize. I've merely stated my belief on the situation. How one would then legislate that is a completely different story.

I don't think it's possible to legislate or pass judgment on that. As I stated, I was applying my own moral code. But as I also stated, that is another level beyond what is natural behavior. You can also apply your own moral code to the situation.

It almost becomes, in a sense, an advantage taking situation. It's one of the reasons why people in general have a negative predilection towards pedophilia, and imo rightfully so.

What is paedophilia is relative and subjective.

I don't think I need to define pedophilia wrt today's society Legion. C'mon now I'm not going to hold your hand on everything. You will have to think for yourself at some point.

That is why I stated that I don't believe a woman having sex with a pig is something that would be "good."

Who are you to judge what is good or bad?

Why do you insist on going down this road? I stated what I'm basing my opinions on. I'm not saying here nor there that it is necessarily right. Just my opinion based on my beliefs. It's also why I surrounded good with quotes, because "good" is a subjective term. I thought you would have picked up on that, but I guess not. :?

Yes, and I believe that "underage" sex is something that shouldn't happen,

lol. The age limit is nothing more than an arbitrary figure. Other societies have much lower age limits. Is there something inherently wrong with this? Who are you to judge the capacity of these individuals and their understanding of sex and it's impacts?

Also why I put the word underage in quotes, because I agree it is an arbitrary number. Again I thought you would have picked up on that, but I suppose not.

because a great many of people having "underage" sex don't understand the full ramifications of their actions.

Plenty on the opposite end don't either. I might even venture to say the number may be equal.

I completely agree.

Abortion is something that when completed on a child can have serious psychologically scarring effects.

Why on a child and not anyone else? Seems to me the scaring effect happens pretty much the same accross the board from the research i have seen.

Children, in general, are less capable of withstanding these sort of things than adults. Not in every case mind you. However, it is a generally accepted fact that adults can make their own decisions and understand the ramifications of those decisions once they pass the magical age of adulthood. It's one reason why people generally don't care if you're an adult smoker, but if you're a teen smoker they want to stop you. But once you pass 18, all bets are off.

As stated before, it is an arbitrary number, but still a number set up within our society to help us gauge when you are a child and when you are an adult.

The way you word this is interest. You seem to presupose the effects on children are greater then those on "adult" thought they are both guilty of sexual ignorance. By your earlier reasoning neither should be having sex.

Indeed I have. See above.

Huh? How do they not back my beliefs wrt to beastiality and underage sex? Hopefully I've clarified that above.

No you haven't. I pointed out to you why your assertions don't back your conclusions as your assertions are based on modern subjective interpretations of reality not fact.

You're still not making any sense Legion. I've stated how my assertions back my claims over and over again. Read above again before responding if you wish to understand.

I thought I was clear on this point. If a woman wants to have sex with a run of the mill lower life form pig here on earth, I would be opposed due to the outlined boundaries I expressed above.

As many would be by their expressed boundaries concerning homosexuality.

Most people are opposed to homosexuality because of their religious beliefs. Religious beliefs are most certainly not something steeped in logic or reason.

There are those, such as Joe, who have tried to take the logical/reasoned routed and argued that homosexuals (and please correct me if I'm wrong here Joe) should not have marriage rights and legal recognization on the same level as heterosexuals because of the fact that homosexuality is unnatural. However that has been disproven as well.

You asked for my own boundaries on the subject. My boundaries are based on intelligence and/or the ability to comprehend the actions taken. In general as a society, we superimpose those beliefs by enacting such arbitrary functions as age limits.

If that same woman wants to have sex with an intelligent pig from Zoufrous, I see nothing wrong with that.

But you do see something wrong with having sex with a normal earth pig as many see something wrong with having sex with other men.

A normal earth pig is not as intelligent as a woman, nor do they understand, wrt our level of understanding, what it is they are doing. Clearly a man having sex with another man is a completely different situation.

This is bordering on common sense and drifting into the comical Legion. You really are, I would hope, smarter and quicker mentally than this.

If that same woman wants to have sex with an AI, I see nothing wrong with that.

well gee i am sure she is glad to have your moral approval.

My "approval" is neither here nor there. You asked me what my opinion on the subject was and I provided it. Whether or not my opinion ends up being "correct" is another case altogether.

I completely agree. It is a difficult thing to conceptualize. I've merely stated my belief on the situation. How one would then legislate that is a completely different story.

Its interesting that you admit this though accross the board many countries have fluctuating age limits. One might even ask if it is possible to change the age limit after time. Intersting isn't it? That a society's moral structure can adjust with time to fir the changing populace. It almost serves as an admittion that age and naivty don't always go hand in hand.

I stated that from the very beginning though. All the references to greco-roman times for instance.

As stated earlier the romans and the grecians practiced pedophilia and it was accepted in their societies as an every day occurrence and passage into adulthood.

Again is there anything wrong with this? Did the greeks see paedophlia as wrong? Did it hurt these individuals? Alexander the great didn't mind it to much.

I stated this above. See above in this post, and earlier.

My belief on the subject is obviously an outgrowth of the society I've grown up in,

ahh so you admitt your opinion is ubjective.

I alluded to and admitted that from the very beginning. You sure are taking a long time to let all this sink in. :?

which lets children spend 20-25 years maturing into adults. In past times, you were an adult the moment you had your period, or the moment you first ejaculated or could hold a sword.

Interesting. Did you know objections to homosexuals and homosexual adoption, marriage etc are extentions of the enviroments people grow up in? I am amazed that you admit similiar substance to their position!

Just as objections to interracial marriage was once an extension of the environments people grew up in. Just as objections to voting women was once an extension of the environments people grew up in. Just as objections to free slaves was once an extension of the environments people grew up in.

So my belief structure wrt to underage sex is most decidedly influenced by our current system of letting children spend the better part of 3 decades maturing psychologically, emotionally, and physically.

Which clearly has demostrated flaws. Why is it that such behavior is wrong now but not then? Your position lacks factual support.

I never stated it was wrong. You inferred that, but I never stated it. I said it was different in the grecian/roman times. But nowhere did I state it was "wrong."

Clearly people make a great deal of sexual mistakes. It seems the age limit isn't properly effecting the number of mistakes people make. If i were to compare our society with many of those in the past i could easily say our society is sexually irresponsible. Much of this comes from the sexual revolution and its undermining of personal and family values.

Heh. You must not have studied 18th century Europe and 19th century America. Ahh the Enlightenment age. Hell, not to mention the early 20th century. The Roaring 20s anyone?

Asserting there is something inherently wrong with having sex at a younger ages confuses me when i examine the historicity of marriage/sexual encounters. It appears clear to me that education and moral structure are truly he basis of responsible choices. Even ancient Jews have demonstrated a great successin marriage at the age of 13. Perhaps that is because they valued what they new about sex more?

Again, you have inferred that meaning from my statements when I have said nothing to that effect. You are projecting your own moral code onto my statements when I have not done so unless stated explicitly.

If they agree to not have children, or they get sterilized, then there would be no opposition to their marriage.

So there isn't anything inherently wrong with incest?

There can be problems with incest, but that is not for me to judge. The United States government allows incest as long as there is enough genetic drift taken into the equation, hence the "second cousin" rule.

So wrt our government, incest is not "wrong." And please notice, again, that I am putting the word in quotes.

Wrt the partner who turns out children with mental retardations and other genetic disorders being forbidden to live together or being forced sterilized. I believe that that is most certainly something that in the future won't even need to be addressed.

The same could be said about incest. Why not answer the question as it exist now.

I can't answer that question because frankly it's not something that has occurred yet on the national consciousness. So frankly I haven't given much thought to it. However when I think about it further I'll expand on the idea.

 

[Natoma]

And that is the ONLY acceptable definition of "natural" according to Natoma.

Indeed, wrt sexuality because it encompasses the forms of sexuality we see present in the human species, and most certainly in other species

Regarding Evolution. Just a quick note:

Frankly you won't see natural selection and survival of the fittest on this planet again unless some sort of holocaust knocks us all back to the stone age. Or, if colonies of humans are sent out into space and inhabit other worlds. Then you would see genetic selection take place. But on our planet with 6 Billion, and growing, strong members of the human species, I'd argue that Natural Selection and Survival of the Fittest are moot, i.e. they no longer occur.

Simply wrong. Evolution is going on all the time throughout the Kingdom of Life. Mankind has been on the earth for a fraction of time, evolution wise. Evolution happens so slowly that it is not even noticed. Indeed it may not have happened to modern man as of yet because we haven't been here very long.

I see I should have went further into my statement.

Frankly you won't see natural selection and survival of the fittest on this planet again wrt human beings unless some sort of holocaust knocks us all back to the stone age. Or, if colonies of humans are sent out into space and inhabit other worlds. Then you would see genetic selection take place. But on our planet with 6 Billion, and growing, strong members of the human species, I'd argue that Natural Selection and Survival of the Fittest are moot, i.e. they no longer occur.

 

[Silent_One]

Silent_One wrote:

And that is the ONLY acceptable definition of "natural" according to Natoma.

Indeed, wrt sexuality because it encompasses the forms of sexuality we see present in the human species, and most certainly in other species

As Joe also said, I accept your definition if you define nature in the specific way you do. The point, again, is you do not accept any other specific definitions. As in "natural" child birth.

regarding evolution, of course wrt humans:

Simply wrong. Evolution is going on all the time throughout the Kingdom of Life. Mankind has been on the earth for a fraction of time, evolution wise. Evolution happens so slowly that it is not even noticed. Indeed it may not have happened to modern man as of yet because we haven't been here very long.

Natoma wrote:

Again, you haven't been reading. Hunger, Sex, The Need for Shelter. Everything we do extends from those basic facts that drive every organism on the planet

Need for shelter is not an instinct. Do not confuse what little remaining human instincts there are with "every organism on the planet". Adaptation can be confused with "drive" and "The Need for Shelter". Learning to get out of the cold or rain by wearing warm clothes or seeking shelter is different that organisms who's enviroment is their shelter-ie: jellyfish. Humans have few true instincts left. Maternal instincts are one (a baby suckels instinctually). Reproduction is another. Hunger is a drive in humans but not an instinct.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Way too much info for me to really catch-up on and commment in detail, but I do want to address the following:

There are those, such as Joe, who have tried to take the logical/reasoned routed and argued that homosexuals (and please correct me if I'm wrong here Joe) should not have marriage rights and legal recognization on the same level as heterosexuals because of the fact that homosexuality is unnatural. However that has been disproven as well.

1) I will correct you. I have not argued that homosexuals shouldn't have marriage "rights". I see no reason why a "homosexual union" shouldn't be recognized by the state. Though I don't think it should be called a "marriage". Marriage, to me, is "one man and one woman."

And to be clear, as I've stated before, I don't think the state should specifically recognize "marriage" anyway. There should be a generic "legal union" recognized by the state that is entered into by one man and one woman, or two same sex partners, or multiple partners, etc.

(I see no reason why polygamous unions shouldn't also be recognized as legal unions.)

In other words a "marriage" (union between man and woman) is only one type of legal union that should be recongized by the state.

2) I have argued that I think homosexuality is "wrong". I have made the argument about it being "wrong", in the context of homosexuality not being able to result in the natural proliferaion of the human race. (That is how I defined "natural sexual relationship." )

To be clear, I do NOT think that "all unnatural things are wrong" or all "natural things" are right. But in this case of what is unnatural not resulting in human race proliferation, I say it's wrong.

3) Just because I think something is "wrong" doesn't mean I think there should be legislation against it. When there is a moral question between right and wrong, and wrong doesn't "directly hurt or harm" anyone else, that should be left as a personal choice, and the state should not interfere. (Just as with religion in general.)

 

[Legion]

Within the grecian/roman society, no it was not wrong. And in fact, their society was geared towards those boys understanding the ramifications of sex and relationships. We see this in their writings and the annotated history that we are current privy to.

Then you realize there is nothing wrong with such relationship as they can easily be beneficial.

I will say this again. Within the moral confines of our own culture, the pedophilia expressed during grecian/roman times was amoral. Within the confines of their own culture, it was fine.

Within the moral confines of our culture there are many objections to homosexuality.

Who's culture was right ours or theres?

However, morality aside, pedophilia is still *natural*. And I have stated many times that natural and moral are two completely different lines of argumentation. This is truly quite simple and I have no clue why you keep trying to mix the two when I have so clearly separated them.

Well ok then if it is natural then it is acceptable.

You have demonstrated that morality is relative and subjective based clearly on foundational societal constructs of the era. Therefore any moral objection isn't inherently sound.

Quite obviously not. My line of argumentation has been quite static in this thread.

1) Natural is what is found in nature
2) Morality as applied to natural are societal constructs and do not necessarily have any bearing on what is "good" from a natural aspect.

These two basic tenets are so simple I'm really shocked that you and vince are having such a difficult time with them.

I am sorry but you can't seem to see that it isn't. You apply moral constructs to various sexual behavior you consider morally wrong yet object to those of whom objecto to your homosexuality. You are talking out of both sides of your mouth.

Again, you haven't been reading. Hunger, Sex, The Need for Shelter. Everything we do extends from those basic facts that drive every organism on the planet.

Really? Is that so? So I play half life on my PC because of which of the following; desire for food hunger, desire for sex, or desire for shelter?

Natoma psychologist don't agree with you. I don't think you will find anyone but biological reductionists claiming nature over nurture for 100% of our actions. Of course none of these scientists can explain what gene makes them believe what they do.

The fact that we are still driven by our biology shows that we are not 100% intellectual beings. Do I know the percentage? Obviously not. No one does. But never did I state a strict percentage did I?

What body of psychology agrees with you Natoma? Come on be serious. Are you trying to dispute over 100 years of psychological research? Are you denying enviromental effects entirely? This isn't sound reasoning. You have implied those basic needs drive us. that implies a strict figure.

Sex *is* genetic. Just like hair color.

Sex drive and phsyical sexual orientation is genetically related? Really Natoma? I didn't know that.

However, what it ends up being is an immutable expression of sexuality.

You haven't yet proven this statement and the body of psychological research states otherwise.

Come now this is basic biology. Gene expression was started even before my AP class.

Apparently you failed that class as you have logic 101. You are making baseless assumptions. Prove to me that sex is the determining factor in sexual orientation aside from enviromental effects.

I have been waiting for you to answer this and my response to your claims of human instincts for a while now.

And where do you think the brain gets the notion to release those chemical reactions? Especially considering almost every human being's brain operates within the same way wrt "lower" brain functions. Where? Our DNA.

??? You point? Again what does this have to do with ones sexuality?

Human reaction and follow through is most certainly a matter of choice. If it weren't, you wouldn't have celibate priests. You wouldn't have homosexual activity. However, in both cases you *still* have sexual drive, despite the choice, or not, to inhibit that sexual drive.

Are you deliberately avoiding my question Natoma? I asked you to prove a genetic link to sexuality. You haven't even come close to do this yet.

Again, our intelligence layered on top of our most basic and biologically ingrained impulses.

which futher demonstrates the lack of instinctual effects.

As is not sex?? We've been down this road before. See above. This is basic stuff.

Natoma i have to ask are you reading what i am saying to you ? Again i stated to you you haven't proven a link between genetics and sexuality. I never stated there wasn't a link between genetics and sex drive. Infact i can be quoted as saying sex drive has a genetic proponent.

The *expression* of those instincts is physically limiting. The instincts, as I stated quite clearly, are *still* toward the procurement of food in order to satiate hunger.

Lol how so? Why can't an animal come up with other means to fufill instincts?

You're confusing what instinct is Legion. Dogs hunting in packs is not instinct. It is an expression of the hunger drive, as well as the drive for shelter. It is a higher form of society layered on top of those instincts, which I stated in the next sentence that you broke off and commented on as its own separate thought.

Really? How much research have you done on the pack instincts of dogs? Can i consider you an expert.

No one has stated we aren't rational beings. However we are still driven by our basic needs.

Lol who on earth has objected to this Natoma ? Please, you aren't answering my questions. As i stated you have yet to demonstrate the level at which Instinct effects humans. You keep repeating the rhetoric over and over again without answering my questions to you.

As I stated before, a celibate priest, despite the call to celibacy, still is a sexual being. Why? Because they are being driven by their animalistic impulses.

Lol How do you know the person can't surpress his animalistic sexual desires? Have you ever studied monks Natoma or the effects of their practices?

You haven't even realized the enviromental proponet to sexuality and sexual arousal yet.

But the intelligence layered on top of the "animal man" portion of our brains stops them from going out and engaging in sexual activity.

Is it ok if i don't consider you an expert for obvious reasons ?

What am I trying to prove? Killing occurs naturally. But as a species we have evolved to the point whereby our civilization frowns upon wanton killing (save for wars of course.

lol! We have evolved a stricter morality? Are you arguing that morality is now a proponent of genetics?

Which I find an interesting study in the human condition considering that we will denigrate a person for brutally killing another person in our society, but put that same person in a war and they come back a hero.). We are in fact biologically hardwired to protect our assets, and an expression of that biology is in fact killing. Jeffrey Dahmer was most certainly acting on his most basic impulses to procure food, for instance.

Have you even researched jeffrey Dahmer? Obviously not. The reason he consumed those people was purely for sexual gratification.

Natoma will you please open up a psychology book and address for me whether or not there is an enviromental proponent to sexual gratification?

I would kill to protect my partner. Is it because I'm crazy? No. Because I want to protect that which is "mine" so to speak. There are many fathers and mothers that would kill to protect their child.

LOL so what part of genetics plays in abortion? Please don't try and tell me you will protect your partner because of instinct Natoma. We can look around for occassions where partners have decided not to defend their significant others. Clearly the drive to protect them is a measure of their worth to them.

Is it because they're crazy? No. There are many wives and husbands who would kill to protect their spouse. There are people that would kill to protect their home. Their families. Hell their car. This is all an expression of our most basic drives. Do you understand now?

Nope. You haven't clearly linked humans with any more than basic instincts therefore you are venturing the slippery slope fallacy by making one baseless assumption after the other. You assume that because we have some basic instinct that some how they play into our every decision. Of course you can't explain this for any of the occassions but would have it such that people assume you are right because instinct could possibly affect people's decisions. Such reasoning is clearly fallacious. You must demonstrate this to be fact. You obviously can not.

They are outgrowths/expressions of our base instincts, yes.

Prove it. Prove that every murder is instinctually driven.

The sex drive most certainly fuels jealousy. The drive for shelter (shelter being possessions with which we own and surround ourselves with, be it a home, a car, etc) most certainly fuels greed, as it is an expression that wants *more*.

Natoma these are not arguments these are assumptions. You can't demonstrate such instincts effect people's everyday choices on a choice to choice basis.

Natoma certain drives may effect people's emmotions however people have the ability to choose their reactions. Ergo instincts aren't clearly a driving force for the majority of decisions we make.

The perception of emotions is indeed hardwired.

Now this is just bs. Do some research on the differences in perceptions of emmotions (especially happiness and anger) and come back and tell me if you think perception is genetically hardwired.

It has been shown in many studies that babies are able to recognize and induce emotional responses in their parents. They are hardwired to do so because it is in their interest to do so. When you are born you are completely dependent on your family to care for you.

There are basic emmotional features howeever many of the perceptions of emmotion are infact determined by experience.


[Omitting baseless rants moral rants]

 

[antlers]

2) I have argued that I think homosexuality is "wrong". I have made the argument about it being "wrong", in the context of homosexuality not being able to result in the natural proliferaion of the human race. (That is how I defined "natural sexual relationship." )

And not to let Joe off the hook here, I have argued that many types of sexual relationships are unable to result in the natural proliferation of the human race and so are, apparently, just as "wrong" as homosexuality, except that Joe attempts to distinguish among them with circular reasoning.

 

[Legion]

Natoma i have come to the conclusion you aren't going to bother answering my questions to you as you are constantly dodging them.

You haven't yet proven anything of what you have stated and if this how you argue there is no point to continuing these conversations.

Natoma let me make these points simple for you as you clearly haven't grasped them in the numerous post i have made.

1. Natoma Sex drive and Sexuality are not the same thing.

If you do not grasp the difference between Sex drive, sex, and sexuality there is no way anyone can debate logically with you.

sexuality is an expression of the sex drive. As you can see humans alone have a myriad of ways of doing so. Are these ways genetically determined? If so then prove it by providing links to research.

You have dodged this question over an over again so i am going to assume you can't answer it.

2. You are inconsistant.

Your arguments are full of baseless assumption you never validate.

examples; Instinct is the driving force in ever day decisions, sexuality is genetically determined, how genetics effect instinct, how instinct effects people.

Ultimately you prove nothing by stating instinct effects people's decisions as they clearly have the ability to reason. Logically one could say instincts effect our decisions based on the reasoning we choose not to obey them. Rendering the absence of their fufillment the driving force behind some one's decisions.

Is it also possible one's moral repulsion could also effect the impact of instinct such that even basic instinct (ie sex drive) can't be experienced? Your premise clearly denies the possibility of enviromental effects more so then instinct are the driving factors in our decisions.

Notice this discussion started around the objection to sexuality being a genetically determined. Some how, by reasons of logical fallacies, you ended up reciting your beliefs that instincts widely effect our decisions. What have you proven? Considering you haven't establish a link to instinct and homosexuality or sexuality in general your statements are nothing more than psuedopsychological filler.

3. You use moral objections to argue against various forms of sexuality.

Natoma you have suggested that religious moral conclusions about homosexuality are baseless. What makes your moral conclusions substanitive? You through your rambelings haven't yet provided anything i can't object to or poke holes in by demonstrating the moral relativism behind your reasonings. There are no moral absolutes Natoma ergo your moral conclusions are equally baseless as those of christian objectors to homosexuality.

examples:

There can be problems with incest, but that is not for me to judge.

There can be problems in many sexual behaviors especially homosexuality.

I can't answer that question because frankly it's not something that has occurred yet on the national consciousness. So frankly I haven't given much thought to it. However when I think about it further I'll expand on the idea.

You are dodging answering a simple question.

You made the claim Incest should be considered objectable do to the possibility that mutations could occur within offspring. I addressed this by comparing it to any occassion in which a person knowingly has sex with some one who could carry on a sexually transmitted mutation. I suggested to you that people involved in incest of all forms could be required to sterilize themselves. If so what is inherently wrong with incest? Abolutely nothing.

Aside from this i pointed out to you that since mutations were ultimately the cause of your judgement against such behavior you ought to also object to allowing anyone else who could carry on a sexual mutations having children.

This leads you to make this statement:

Wrt the partner who turns out children with mental retardations and other genetic disorders being forbidden to live together or being forced sterilized. I believe that that is most certainly something that in the future won't even need to be addressed.

which prompted me to ask you this:

The same could be said about incest. Why not answer the question as it exist now.

Which now leads us to the first comment discussed above.

Clearly your response was a nonanswer. Logically if you object to incest by reason of mutatation then you should also object to anyone who is carrying a mutation because they could pass it on to their children as well. For some reason you couldn't answer the question. Could it have been because of the eugenics esque nature of your forced reponse?


4. Instinct

You seem to have a bizzare take on the impact of genetics on the average man. You try and link every decision some one makes to some form of instinct. Of course you can't prove this but you seem to think you have by making claims. I you can't provide evidence for your claims then you haven't proven anything. If you don't see the fallacies in this then carrying on logical debates with you is futile. I am not interested in arguing with some one who thinks they are correct because they have an argument.

examples:

Their intelligence is what helps them create these societal structures. Even though they are "lower" animals, they still possess enough "higher" intelligence to form these structures. Even the most lowly animals such as ants possess highly structured forms of society that would rival our own.

Are you saying that ant's intelligence is the producer of their society? This is silly Natoma and i think you know this. Ants are driven by series of reactions to pheromones which yeild various responses within their program to cause them to fufill tasks. How then can you call them intelligent when what they operate on is very similiar to a computer pathing program?

[qoute]What am I trying to prove? Killing occurs naturally. But as a species we have evolved to the point whereby our civilization frowns upon wanton killing (save for wars of course. Which I find an interesting study in the human condition considering that we will denigrate a person for brutally killing another person in our society, but put that same person in a war and they come back a hero.). We are in fact biologically hardwired to protect our assets, and an expression of that biology is in fact killing. Jeffrey Dahmer was most certainly acting on his most basic impulses to procure food, for instance.[/qoute]

Our evolution has some how determined our ethics? Examing the fluctuating murder rates, deaths in wars, etc i don't see how you can say we as humanity are some how less violent in nature now then we ever have been or for that matter it has something to do with our instincts.

Jeffrey Dahmer most clearly acting on his basic impulse to feed himself? Clearly? Well hate to tell you but you are clearly wrong. Jeffrey Dahmer provided the reason for why he consumed people: he did so for sexual sexual experience. He considered his actions sexually gratifying.

side note; what gene causes people to acquire sexual gratification via cannablism?

 

[Joe DeFuria]

And not to let Joe off the hook here, I have argued that many types of sexual relationships are unable to result in the natural proliferation of the human race and so are, apparently, just as "wrong" as homosexuality, except that Joe attempts to distinguish among them with circular reasoning.

I will try and explain it this way. (I have done it this way in the past, but not in this thread):

If two people, who are individually capable of sexual reproduction, enter into a relationship where sexual reproduction is not possible, that is "wrong."

There are a few interesting offshoots of wording it that way:

1) First of all, this doesn't explicity say how to handle "individuals who are not capable of sexual reproduction." But I believe it's logical to say that any situation where this occurs via "natural or uncontrollable" circumstances (such as menupause, disease, or genetic disorder), should fall back to "if the individual was 'healthy', and was capable of sexual reproduction....."

2) That leaves the open question of "what if someone chooses to make themselves incapable of reproduction?". As far as this being "right and wrong", This can have a topic of it's own. But "choosing" to make yourself incapable of reproduction is certainly not "natural".

So, whether or not one believes that homosexuality is a "choice" or not, is irrelevant, and my definition would hold.

Edit: Addition...

Using my definition, one could conclude that "homosexual relationships" are not wrong, if they argued that homosexuality was in fact a disease or disorder.