Canada leaders accept gay marriage ruling

[arjan de lumens]

heh, oh I love it when people go to point out this extremley rare birth defect.

There is no such thing as a real hermaphrodite, none have ever reproduced.

Given that this person apparently has two sets of non-functional reproductive organs and as such cannot reproduce either way, who will it be NATURAL for this person to have sex/relationships with? A man? A woman? Or can he/she not have a NATURAL sexual relationship at all?

And another issue wrt what is natural: Is polygamy natural?

 

[Natoma]

ALL HUMAN MALE-FEMALE SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS ARE NATURAL SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS BECAUSE THERE IS A GREATER THAN ZERO PROBABILITY THAT ANY RANDOM HUMAN MALE-FEMALE SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP WILL RESULT IN OFFSPRING.

Any random human male-female sexual relationship? Well in your "random" scenario, there will be an instance that a woman who is post-menopausal will come into the equation. Or! Someone who has had a full hysterectomy. For examples. There is 0% chance of offspring there.

So no, there is not a chance that ANY random human male-female sexual relationship will result in offspring.

Care to redefine yet again with yet another qualifier? I'm waiting....

 

[Vince]

Joe, perhaps we need to finally have that "Birds & Bees" talk with him...

 

[Silent_One]

His definition of natural has been based off of that assumption. Since a homosexual relationship cannot result in the natural birth of a child based on the combined genetic make-up of the individuals in question, that homosexual relationship is not natural

I don't think he's saying that. IMHO he's only saying half of what you wrote: "...a homosexual relationship cannot result in the natural birth of a child"

 

[Natoma]

Hey he's the one making his definition. I'm just showing him where it's flawed. If he cares to redefine his definition of "natural," I'm all ears.

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

Now, whether or not something is "morally acceptable" is a different debate all together. But the fact of the matter is, it is still natural.

 

[Natoma]

His definition of natural has been based off of that assumption. Since a homosexual relationship cannot result in the natural birth of a child based on the combined genetic make-up of the individuals in question, that homosexual relationship is not natural

I don't think he's saying that. IMHO he's only saying half of what you wrote: "...a homosexual relationship cannot result in the natural birth of a child"

Then you haven't been reading this thread.....

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Care to redefine yet again with yet another qualifier? I'm waiting....

Yes, I care to to continually correct your misunderstandings.

Any random human male-female sexual relationship? Well in your "random" scenario, there will be an instance that a woman who is post-menopausal will come into the equation. Or! Someone who has had a full hysterectomy. For examples. There is 0% chance of offspring there.

Not the probability of any single RANDOM pairing will be greater than zero, I thought that was obvious.

If you flip a coin there is 50% probability of getting heads, 50% of getting tails. Right?

If you take any random male-female pairing, there is a GREATER THAN ZERO PERCENT probability that the PAIRING YOU CHOSE will be able to have offspring.

If you take any random same sex pairing, there is EXACTLY zero percent probability the pairing you chose will be able to have offspring.

 

[Sabastian]

heh, oh I love it when people go to point out this extremley rare birth defect.

There is no such thing as a real hermaphrodite, none have ever reproduced.

Given that this person apparently has two sets of non-functional reproductive organs and as such cannot reproduce either way, who will it be NATURAL for this person to have sex/relationships with? A man? A woman? Or can he/she not have a NATURAL sexual relationship at all?

And another issue wrt what is natural: Is polygamy natural?

My point is there really are no human hermaphrodites at all. Usually the individual in question can even determine if they are male or female and usually undergo re-corrective surgery to match it. AFAIK one gender is predominant in these poor saps.

I don't know if polygamy is natural or not.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

His definition of natural has been based off of that assumption. Since a homosexual relationship cannot result in the natural birth of a child based on the combined genetic make-up of the individuals in question, that homosexual relationship is not natural

I don't think he's saying that. IMHO he's only saying half of what you wrote: "...a homosexual relationship cannot result in the natural birth of a child"

Then you haven't been reading this thread.....

No, he's right. You have been (seeming purposefully) not "getting it."

 

[Silent_One]

Then you haven't been reading this thread.....

yeah, yeah, yeah...Most everyone here knows what Joe means when he says "natural". Your just coming across as stubborn now...

 

[Natoma]

Care to redefine yet again with yet another qualifier? I'm waiting....

Yes, I care to to continually correct your misunderstandings.

Any random human male-female sexual relationship? Well in your "random" scenario, there will be an instance that a woman who is post-menopausal will come into the equation. Or! Someone who has had a full hysterectomy. For examples. There is 0% chance of offspring there.

Not the probability of any single RANDOM pairing will be greater than zero, I thought that was obvious.

If you flip a coin there is 50% probability of getting heads, 50% of getting tails. Right?

If you take any random male-female pairing, there is a GREATER THAN ZERO PERCENT probability that the PAIRING YOU CHOSE will be able to have offspring.

If you take any random same sex pairing, there is EXACTLY zero percent probability the pairing you chose will be able to have offspring.

Not if you're dealing with same sex transsexuals, because then that "same sex" qualifier does not have any boundaries.

Try again.

 

[Natoma]

Then you haven't been reading this thread.....

yeah, yeah, yeah...Most everyone here knows what Joe means when he says "natural". Your just coming across as stubborn now...

Oh I know what he means. I said it's flawed. Ahem.

Hey he's the one making his definition. I'm just showing him where it's flawed. If he cares to redefine his definition of "natural," I'm all ears.

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

Now, whether or not something is "morally acceptable" is a different debate all together. But the fact of the matter is, it is still natural.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Not if you're dealing with same sex transsexuals, because then that "same sex" qualifier does not have any boundaries.

Try again.

Yup, try again throwing more qualifiers into the mix Natoma.

A "same sex transsexual?" What's that? Someone who is physically a male but "says" he's female? A male and a female turned male transsexual can have offspring?

 

[Joe DeFuria]

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

Of course you need a qualifier. You defined "natural" with "nature". You're defining a term with itself.

First, you need to define "nature".

I still don't know what "qualifiers" you claim I keep adding to my definition that hasn't changed...

 

[Silent_One]

Natoma wrote:

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

Back to the list of definitions:

3.) Conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature:

Natoma's qualifier as "natural": same sex transsexual

Guess we have to define "nature" now

 

[Vince]

Natoma is also very good at utilizing this almost semantic twist to dichotomize and arbitarily divide groups based on genetic problems, mutations, or his definition of natural (as opposed to what Joe said).

I just find the fact that he must do such manipulations to prove this elusive biological voice that's telling him his life decisions have some tangible basis, this almost reassuring aspect to being "biologically correct" (or whatever that is).

I still think this is so strait-forward. Take the thought experiment where you have two planets: planet (a) has just homosexual males, and planet (b) has proportionate amounts of heterosexual males and females. And then check to see which is still harboring life after a completed generation.

If we assume that a goal of life is to survive and that nature (as seen by the intelligent life we've found) seems to take the path of survival of it's genetic lineage and even further this cause via the infamous Survival of Fittest doctrine where genetic information is further refined and passed on.

A very definition of biological is "Related by blood or genetic lineage" www.dictionary.com

Thus, how can you have a practice that's diametrically opposed towards this overriding goal and classify it a manifestation of the natural world (just like *normal* sexual intercourse) when it can't exist in the natural world, nor can it be furthered or refined?

I mean, lets be honest Natoma - as far as nature and biological progression is concerned, you're a dead-end.

Now, this situation becomes muddied when you bring self-reflecting, conscious being into the picture like Natoma who, understantably, want some justification that his life choices are correct and needs this feeling of vindication and collective biological goals. Not to mention a tangible barrier between his practice and other classical *taboo* practice involving family, animals, priests...

But, I just don't see it Natoma. Hey, if you wait around a few hundred year, you can jump on the bandwagon and fight the emerging incestual practicioners with us.

 

[Natoma]

Not if you're dealing with same sex transsexuals, because then that "same sex" qualifier does not have any boundaries.

Try again.

Yup, try again throwing more qualifiers into the mix Natoma.

A "same sex transsexual?" What's that? Someone who is physically a male but "says" he's female? A male and a female turned male transsexual can have offspring?

Yup. You're taking into account all same sex partnerings right? There is a *chance* that offspring could occur from a transsexual female turned male and a regular male having offspring. So yes, the chances are greater than zero that any random partnering will have offspring.

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.
[/EDIT]

 

[Sabastian]

Natoma wrote:

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

Back to the list of definitions:

3.) Conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature:

Natoma's qualifier as "natural": same sex transsexual

Guess we have to define "nature" now

*cough* a defining charactoristic of all life is that it reproduces. *cough* Just saying.

 

[Natoma]

Natoma wrote:

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

Back to the list of definitions:

3.) Conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature:

Natoma's qualifier as "natural": same sex transsexual

Guess we have to define "nature" now

Considering there are animals (fish and frogs for example) that can change sex at will? Yes, transsexuals are natural.

 

[Natoma]

Natoma is also very good at utilizing this almost semantic twist to dichotomize and arbitarily divide groups based on genetic problems, mutations, or his definition of natural (as opposed to what Joe said).

I just find the fact that he must do such manipulations to prove this elusive biological voice that's telling him his life decisions have some tangible basis, this almost reassuring aspect to being "biologically correct" (or whatever that is).

I still think this is so strait-forward. Take the thought experiment where you have two planets: planet (a) has just homosexual males, and planet (b) has proportionate amounts of heterosexual males and females. And then check to see which is still harboring life after a completed generation.

If we assume that a goal of life is to survive and that nature (as seen by the intelligent life we've found) seems to take the path of survival of it's genetic lineage and even further this cause via the infamous Survival of Fittest doctrine where genetic information is further refined and passed on.

A very definition of biological is "Related by blood or genetic lineage" www.dictionary.com

Thus, how can you have a practice that's diametrically opposed towards this overriding goal and classify it a manifestation of the natural world (just like *normal* sexual intercourse) when it can't exist in the natural world, nor can it be furthered or refined?

I mean, lets be honest Natoma - as far as nature and biological progression is concerned, you're a dead-end.

Now, this situation becomes muddied when you bring self-reflecting, conscious being into the picture like Natoma who, understantably, want some justification that his life choices are correct and needs this feeling of vindication and collective biological goals. Not to mention a tangible barrier between his practice and other classical *taboo* practice involving family, animals, priests...

But, I just don't see it Natoma. Hey, if you wait around a few hundred year, you can jump on the bandwagon and fight the emerging incestual practicioners with us.

No one is saying that homosexuals can reproduce in a same sex situation. I'm certainly not. But the fact that homosexuality does exist in nature does in fact make it natural.

*That* is my argument. Not whether or not we can reproduce within a same sex setting.