dontamend.com

[Joe DeFuria]

Right there is all sorts of nature that we don't like or accept, including portions human nature.

That's precisely what I argued in another thread. The "naturalness" of homosexuality cannot be debated.

??

The "naturalness" of homosexuality can certainly be debated. Sabastian and Legion are not saying otherwise. They are saying the "naturlaness" of homosexuality doesn't define whether or not it's right or wrong.

Your own personal argument against it or for it is what can most certainly be argued.

Of course.

It's all intertwined though. One can define "natural" in many different ways. Depending on how it's defined, can influence the degree to which it might influence "right and wrong." Or, as webster put it, "natural" itself is simply the inherent determination of right and wrong.

I agree completely that "simply because something occurs or does not occur in nature", isn't a good guide for morally right and wrong. That's not how I defined "natural" though.

But that is a separate argument than joe's "It's not natural" argument.

Correct.

 

[Sabastian]

Right there is all sorts of nature that we don't like or accept, including portions human nature.

That's precisely what I argued in another thread. The "naturalness" of homosexuality cannot be debated. Your own personal argument against it or for it is what can most certainly be argued.

But that is a separate argument than joe's "It's not natural" argument.

I have always argued there is no good argument for homosexuality. If it is socialized then we ought not to encourage it. If it is genetic then we should try to help them with the problem. Hopefully if it is genetic we find the cure or the gene which ever comes first.

 

[Natoma]

I have always argued there is no good argument for homosexuality. If it is socialized then we ought not to encourage it. If it is genetic then we should try to help them with the problem. Hopefully if it is genetic we find the cure or the gene which ever comes first.

This is of course assuming that homosexuality is a problem. That assumption on your part is neither supported by the american and canadian psychiatric board, nor is your assumption that sexuality is socialized rather than genetic supported by studies showing that there is a very high corrolation between sexuality (hetero or homo) and genetics and said expression of those genes through hormone levels, brain structure, general body chemistry, etc.

 

[Natoma]

They are saying the "naturlaness" of homosexuality doesn't define whether or not it's right or wrong.

That's what I was saying Joe. The right/wrong argument of homosexuality is what is in contention. The "naturalness" of it can't be debated because the very definition of natural is what is found in nature. And yes, despite your example of man's influence on nature via poison or selective breeding or whatever, there have been documentated cases where man has not been a factor, where homosexuality exists quite freely in the wild.

But we've been over this ground multiple times anyway.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

That's what I was saying Joe. The right/wrong argument of homosexuality is what is in contention. The "naturalness" of it can't be debated because the very definition of natural is what is found in nature.

Sigh. BOTH can be debated. That's what I'M saying. YOUR definition of "natural" is what is found in "nature."

But we've been over this ground multiple times anyway.

And yet, you never seem to "get it."

 

[Sabastian]

I have always argued there is no good argument for homosexuality. If it is socialized then we ought not to encourage it. If it is genetic then we should try to help them with the problem. Hopefully if it is genetic we find the cure or the gene which ever comes first.

This is of course assuming that homosexuality is a problem. That assumption on your part is neither supported by the american and canadian psychiatric board, nor is your assumption that sexuality is socialized rather than genetic supported by studies showing that there is a very high corrolation between sexuality (hetero or homo) and genetics and said expression of those genes through hormone levels, brain structure, general body chemistry, etc.

I am assuming you are talking about the genetic problem of homosexuality? The science has been forced via human rights and speacial interest groups to declare that it isn't some sort of sexual deviance. On the same grounds that homosexuals gained legitiamacy so can pedophiles or whomever else has deficiancies. RE: Moral Relativism.

 

[Bigus Dickus]

Man, this discussion has become ridiculous.

Joe, if you're interested, Natoma has already explicitly stated in another thread that he would support legalization of incest. I believe he's made a similar comment about polygamy.

I can only guess that to keep his "morals" consistent (or... the lack of them) he would also support the legalization pedophilia and beastiality if push came to shove.


And about the whole natural/unatural debate... I don't think it really matters. There are plenty of diseases other than homosexuality that are completely natural.

And Natoma... what the hell kind of reasoning is this: "it's illegal, so your opinion on the subject is moot" and "it's legal, so your opinion on the subject is moot?" You've made both statements repeatedly. So just when is someone's opinion on something not moot, seeing as how everything is going to be either legal or illegal. It's like telling you that homosexual marriage is illegal, so your opinion on whether that is wrong or right is moot. It's illegal, end of story.

Why make such ridiculous statements? To avoid answering a simple question? I suppose so. This whole debate is about whether certain laws are right or wrong, and if they should be changed or not. What use is it to make a statement such as "it only matters what the government says, your opinion is moot?" Why even have this discussion? Why have a petition... the opnions of everyone who signs it are obviously moot.

 

[RussSchultz]

I wonder what he was saying when sodomy was illegal?

 

[Sabastian]

I wonder what he was saying when sodomy was illegal?

lol, "no! we can't do that it's illegal!".

 

[Legion]

I honestly can't see how any of the body of research done on human homosexuality can be called real science. Its nothing more than digusting missuse of science.

The reasoning so far has been "if we find some variation in homosexual group x that difference constitutes the basis of their homosexuality" or "We see homosexuality in the other facits of nature ergo that nature also applies to us."

Of course no researcher can tell you why or how a structural difference in certain homosexuals accounts for their sexuality. This along with the inability to replicate their findings serves as a constant reminder of their clear political motives.

I shouldn't have to explain to anyone let alone a psychologist why these kinds of reasoning are absurd! Text book after text book i have read through psych 101 - 103 has declared the possibility of genetic sexual orientation without providing solid grounds for their beliefs. This leads me to believe the basis for adding such information into newer text books has to to prep students for other propaganda that comes later in higher placement classes.

This same kind of psuedologic could be applied to any variation of human behavior to justify its existance.

I can't tell you how many times i have argued with a number of my friends concerning such matters. Everytime i feel completely powerless to penetrate an unseen wall ignorance that seperates us. Everytime i chip away at the wall they proceed to add to it with fallacious arguments and ass backwards logic.

For example, i remember discussing the test done by one researcher who believed the hypothalamus had something to do with sexual orientation. I refuted his research on several tiers to my friends' dismay. Oddly enough they felt like objecting to my sound reasonings:

They were concerned the researcher hadn't taken a large enough sample (the over all number of the sampled group was 40 at the time i thought it was 17) for me to properly dismiss his findings. Needless to say i was shocked. I attempted to point out to them that the researcher had left no room for grey areas. To him sexuality was black and white. Ergo his findings should be digital; either the size of the hypothalamus directly effects sexual orientation or not as its cause. How large must your sample be for your to determine eyes are associated with sight and ears associated with hearing ? Obviously not very large to do the lack of grey areas associated with the involved mechanism. However they continued to disagree with me . One of them told me the page he was reading didn't make it sound as though the researcher was dimissing grey areas. Of course the page was written to be more "fault sensitive" then the original papper by the researcher himself. Clearly the person who wrote the page had altered the language of the original piece. In doing so however the revisionist left a great number of hints to the researchers original presuppositions (ie there are no bisexuals just homosexuals and heterosexuals). I also pointed out ot them others had tried to replicate his findings. No one had succeeded in demonstrating any association with the hypothalamus and sexual orientation.

To my chagrin one of them retorted with a comment suggesting such research had been successfully on chimps . It appeared to me the individual didn't see much of a difference in the structure, size, etc in Pan and Homosapien brains.

 

[Natoma]

I am assuming you are talking about the genetic problem of homosexuality? The science has been forced via human rights and speacial interest groups to declare that it isn't some sort of sexual deviance. On the same grounds that homosexuals gained legitiamacy so can pedophiles or whomever else has deficiancies. RE: Moral Relativism.

Science has been forced. Funny one sabastian. Got another?

 

[Natoma]

That's what I was saying Joe. The right/wrong argument of homosexuality is what is in contention. The "naturalness" of it can't be debated because the very definition of natural is what is found in nature.

Sigh. BOTH can be debated. That's what I'M saying. YOUR definition of "natural" is what is found in "nature."

My definition of natural is correct in every instance and cannot be debated. Homosexuality is found in nature. Your particular snippet of the definition of natural is also correct, but requires an interpretive slant on it, thus clouding the conclusions.

Whether you agree or not, homosexuality is found in nature. It is indeed natural. There is no bias or personal judgement to be made wrt that issue. Bias and/or personal judgement most certainly have to be used with your particular snippet of natural. And while "what is inherently right or wrong" does not in essence conflict with the first definition, i.e. "what is found in nature," your interpretation of "what is inherently right or wrong" most certainly does.

So as I said before. My use of natural cannot be debated. Your interpretation of what is natural most certainly can. They are completely separate.

But we've been over this ground multiple times anyway.

And yet, you never seem to "get it."

No Joe, you never do seem to get it.

 

[Natoma]

Man, this discussion has become ridiculous.

Joe, if you're interested, Natoma has already explicitly stated in another thread that he would support legalization of incest. I believe he's made a similar comment about polygamy.

I have no issue with polygamy. Never have. Actually, neither do the mormons. It has a religious context too. So you've simply got to accept it because as we all know, religion is the cats meow.

And I said I wouldn't have a problem with incest if the reasons that the government gives for banning it are removed from the equation, i.e. the deleterious effects on the potential offspring. There is no other reason the government bans incest, at least none that are put into law.

I can only guess that to keep his "morals" consistent (or... the lack of them) he would also support the legalization pedophilia and beastiality if push came to shove.

As I said earlier, if the government chooses to legalize pedophilia and beastiality, then so be it, but I seriously doubt that will occur. See later on in this post for my reasons why.

And about the whole natural/unatural debate... I don't think it really matters. There are plenty of diseases other than homosexuality that are completely natural.

And this assumes yet again that homosexuality is a disease. You have no scientific proof of that, nor do you have any psychiatric proof of that.

And Natoma... what the hell kind of reasoning is this: "it's illegal, so your opinion on the subject is moot" and "it's legal, so your opinion on the subject is moot?" You've made both statements repeatedly. So just when is someone's opinion on something not moot, seeing as how everything is going to be either legal or illegal. It's like telling you that homosexual marriage is illegal, so your opinion on whether that is wrong or right is moot. It's illegal, end of story.

The past 2-3 pages was nothing but an exercise in showing Joe the ridiculous circuitous nature of his "opinion" definition. Nothing more, nothing less.

Btw, homosexual marriage is illegal in the states. Not in canada, or in the Netherlands, or in New Zealand, or in quite a few other countries (soon to be followed by the USA). So, forming my opinion wrt Canadian law (for example), homosexual marriage is right.

Why make such ridiculous statements? To avoid answering a simple question? I suppose so. This whole debate is about whether certain laws are right or wrong, and if they should be changed or not. What use is it to make a statement such as "it only matters what the government says, your opinion is moot?" Why even have this discussion? Why have a petition... the opnions of everyone who signs it are obviously moot.

Not at all. I simply followed Joe's train of logic to it's ridiculous conclusion. It was quite fun too.

But if you really want to know my opinions on the subject, there are legitimate reasons to keep pedophilia and beastiality illegal, which have nothing to do with the downfall of society or religion.

Pedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an individual has a fixation on a prepubescent male or prepubescent female's body, but not necessarily the substance of their personage. They form intense, and sometimes very loving attachments with these children. Yet once the children have gone through puberty, the pedophile loses their fixation and fixates on another child. Healthy, long lasting, relationships cannot be formed in this manner. They end up being nothing but psychically detrimental to both the pedophile and the child.

You could almost mistake Pedophilia for a fetish (and argue that it should be legal in this manner because other fetishes are indeed legal) in the way in which the fixation takes place. However fetishism is a fixation on a particular object (whip fetishes, handcuff fetishes, etc) or nonsexual part of the body (fecal fetishes, golden shower fetishes, etc). Pedophilia is illegal in our society because of these particular facets of the pedophile relationship.

The other laws that make it illegal are child protection laws and statutory rape laws. There have been cases for instance where an 18 year old was thrown in jail because of sexual activity with a 17 year old. Ridiculous, but true.

Beastiality, also known as zoophilia on the other hand is illegal because of animal protection laws which prohibit sexual abuse, physical abuse, and mental abuse. Sexual abuse is deemed as such because animals cannot make their own decisions wrt this matter in human interactions. These laws have been made for their protection from those who would abuse for their own sexual gratification.

The laws prohibiting zoophilia and pedophilia are similar in that fashion. To prevent the non-consensual sexual abuse of another being.

 

[Dr. Ffreeze]

Natoma,

Not at all. I simply followed Joe's train of logic to it's ridiculous conclusion. It was quite fun too.

Do you enjoy only angering people or are you here to debate, listen to others ideas, share your views, and learn something? I have only skimmed this thread as it really doesn't interest me that much, but I don't see the point in saying things only to upset others, which I see "It was quite fun too" was all about.

Everyone should be treated with dignity and respect. (you, me, us, them) I learn so much more in civil threads, and you make a few very interesting points that could spawn a good discussion I think. I fear they are lost when you incite anger in others.

Just my thoughts,
Dr. Ffreeze

 

[Joe DeFuria]

My definition of natural is correct in every instance and cannot be debated.

Wrong. See Merriam-Webster that you hold so dear.

Homosexuality is found in nature.

Define "nature." If you mean "between two non-human species that have never been impacted by anything that isn't considered to be unnatural", then I'd guess you're right.

Your particular snippet of the definition of natural is also correct, but requires an interpretive slant on it, thus clouding the conclusions.

It requires an interpretive slant by definition. It doesn't cloud any conclusions. It's a simply matter of different conlcusions arising from a different definition of "natural".

It is indeed natural.

By your definition...so what's your point?

There is no bias or personal judgement to be made wrt that issue.

Wrong.

You might perhaps say that there is no personal judgement or bias made with respect to this statement:

"Homsexuality is found in Nature"

That doesn't mean there's no personal judgement required in the following statement:

"Homosexuality is Natural."

Please tell me you understand. Though I suspect more pseudo-logic concerning that "found in Nature is not debatable, therefore it is the "correct" definition of natural."

Bias and/or personal judgement most certainly have to be used with your particular snippet of natural.

Of course. THAT'S MY ENTIRE POINT. You refuse to accpet any definition that requires personal judgement. (Read: you are intolerant.)

your interpretation of "what is inherently right or wrong" most certainly does.[/.quote]

Again. Obvious. Just as obvious as your unwillingness to accept any definition that requires "judgement" to be a valid one. That's my point.

So as I said before. My use of natural cannot be debated. Your interpretation of what is natural most certainly can. They are completely separate.

Um, that's not what you said. You did not say that your use of natural can't be debated. You said:

That's what I was saying Joe. The right/wrong argument of homosexuality is what is in contention. The "naturalness" of it can't be debated because the very definition of natural is what is found in nature.

You did not previously say that "your use" of natural can't be debated. You said "naturalness" (full stop) can't be debated. If that's what you meant (that YOUR definition can't be debated), or if you are changing your mind, then fine.

Of course, I thinkg we ALL agree that just because it's "found / observed in nature" doesn't really have solid implication for right or wrong. So bravo...your definition of Natural can't be debated, which makes "your definition" of natural entirely irrelevant to the discussion of the morality of homosexuality.

 

[Natoma]

Natoma,

Not at all. I simply followed Joe's train of logic to it's ridiculous conclusion. It was quite fun too.

Do you enjoy only angering people or are you here to debate, listen to others ideas, share your views, and learn something? I have only skimmed this thread as it really doesn't interest me that much, but I don't see the point in saying things only to upset others, which I see "It was quite fun too" was all about.

Everyone should be treated with dignity and respect. (you, me, us, them) I learn so much more in civil threads, and you make a few very interesting points that could spawn a good discussion I think. I fear they are lost when you incite anger in others.

Just my thoughts,
Dr. Ffreeze

I agree completely. However, if you notice the train of the thread, I spend the majority of it trying to debate logically and taking everyone's viewpoints into consideration, even when they are terribly insulting. Some people argue a point to distraction, and when there's no other way of showing them how ridiculous an assertion they're trying to make is, I will sometimes go that route. Sometimes out of true wish to bring the topic full circle, other times to simply let off steam.

In this case, it was a mixture of both.

 

[Dr. Ffreeze]

Natoma,

OK, I really hesitated to even post that. It is so easy to come off sounding wrong (judgmental) on a msg board. You might be interested that I think some of your more far out ideas have some merit for discussion. You might even more interested that most would consider me "right wing" and therefore not really on the same side of the fence as you. (man "right wing" and "left wing" sound so much like an insult of extremes).

Dr. Ffreeze

 

[Natoma]

My definition of natural is correct in every instance and cannot be debated.

Wrong. See Merriam-Webster that you hold so dear.

I did. Natural: Found in nature. Natural is also what is an inherent sense of right and wrong. As I said. You can't debate what is found in nature. You can't debate that homosexuality is natural by that definition.

You can debate whether you believe homosexuality is right or wrong. But that doesn't fit all circumstances because not everyone believes as you do. It is not a 100% situation. Homosexuality being found in nature, and by extension being natural, is 100% true.

Your particular snippet of the definition of natural is also correct, but requires an interpretive slant on it, thus clouding the conclusions.

It requires an interpretive slant by definition. It doesn't cloud any conclusions. It's a simply matter of different conlcusions arising from a different definition of "natural".

It clouds the conclusions because your conclusions are by very nature inconclusive. You can get one result while someone else can get an entirely different result.

Your interpretation of "what is deemed right or wrong" is inconclusive because it is in fact your opinion of what you deem to be "right."

There is no bias or personal judgement to be made wrt that issue.

Wrong.

You might perhaps say that there is no personal judgement or bias made with respect to this statement:

"Homsexuality is found in Nature"

That doesn't mean there's no personal judgement required in the following statement:

"Homosexuality is Natural."

If the definition of natural is "what is found in nature" how could my statement that homosexuality is natural be a personal judgement while "Homosexuality is found in Nature" is not?

Bias and/or personal judgement most certainly have to be used with your particular snippet of natural.

Of course. THAT'S MY ENTIRE POINT. You refuse to accpet any definition that requires personal judgement. (Read: you are intolerant.)

No, I said that whether homosexuality is right or wrong can be debated. Whether it is natural cannot be because of the fact that it *always* fits the definition of "found in nature." Homosexuality does *not* always fit the definition of what is right or wrong.

your interpretation of "what is inherently right or wrong" most certainly does.

Again. Obvious. Just as obvious as your unwillingness to accept any definition that requires "judgement" to be a valid one. That's my point.

No, as I've said before, Homosexuality does not always fit the definition of natural being what is right or wrong. It *always* fits the definition of what is found in nature is indeed natural.

Because it does not always fit the definition of what is right or wrong, it *can* be debated. You interpret homosexuality to be wrong, thus your interpretation of that would lead you to believe that homoesexuality is unnatural. I interpret homosexuality to be right, thus my interpretation of that would lead me to believe that homosexuality is natural.

However, our individual opinions do not impact the fact that homosexuality is always, 100%, found in nature, and always, 100%, fits the definition of natural, i.e. "what is found in nature."

So as I said before. My use of natural cannot be debated. Your interpretation of what is natural most certainly can. They are completely separate.

Um, that's not what you said. You did not say that your use of natural can't be debated. You said:

That's what I was saying Joe. The right/wrong argument of homosexuality is what is in contention. The "naturalness" of it can't be debated because the very definition of natural is what is found in nature.

You did not previously say that "your use" of natural can't be debated. You said "naturalness" (full stop) can't be debated. If that's what you meant (that YOUR definition can't be debated), or if you are changing your mind, then fine.

Then I say that in full detail now. The definition of natural that I use, which cannot be debated because it is always, 100%, true, is what cannot be debated. Your definition, which is not always true, can indeed be debated.

Of course, I thinkg we ALL agree that just because it's "found / observed in nature" doesn't really have solid implication for right or wrong. So bravo...your definition of Natural can't be debated, which makes "your definition" of natural entirely irrelevant to the discussion of the morality of homosexuality.

Thank you for finally seeing that. Now maybe we can move past the "It's not natural" argument and into why you think it's right or wrong, excluding the "it's not natural" argument, because as you've admitted, the implication of right and wrong is separate from what is natural and what is not wrt this issue.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

As I said earlier, if the government chooses to legalize pedophilia and beastiality, then so be it, but I seriously doubt that will occur. See later on in this post for my reasons why.

What do you mean...so be it? You mean if the governemnt chooses to legalize them, you'll have no moral objection to them?

So, forming my opinion wrt Canadian law (for example), homosexual marriage is right.

No, because you don't live under Canadian jurisdiction. Move to Canada.

Not at all. I simply followed Joe's train of logic to it's ridiculous conclusion. It was quite fun too.

Indeed, you have quite an odd sense of "fun."

But if you really want to know my opinions on the subject, there are legitimate reasons to keep pedophilia and beastiality illegal, which have nothing to do with the downfall of society or religion.

You keep skirting the quesiton.

Are you personally morally opposed or not to these issues?

Pedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an individual has a fixation on a prepubescent male or prepubescent female's body, but not necessarily the substance of their personage.

Says who? And what if pedophile DOES have a fixation on the "substance of their personage?"

Why isn't homosexuality is a disorder in which an individual has a fixation on a member of the same sex, but not necessarily the substance of their personage?

Hell, you can define hetersexuality the same way.

They form intense, and sometimes very loving attachments with these children. Yet once the children have gone through puberty, the pedophile loses their fixation and fixates on another child.

And? Once "normal" men and women get older people often lose their fixation on that indivdual as well.

Healthy, long lasting, relationships cannot be formed in this manner. They end up being nothing but psychically detrimental to both the pedophile and the child.

The same can be said of any relationship. People "fall out of love" for whatever reason.

Pedophilia is illegal in our society because of these particular facets of the pedophile relationship.

Says who? You keep on coming up with the "reasons why" certain things are illegal. Hogwash. They can be illegal because a enough people came to gether and said "we just don't like it...it's 'wrong.'"

Beastiality, also known as zoophilia on the other hand is illegal because of animal protection laws which prohibit sexual abuse, physical abuse, and mental abuse. Sexual abuse is deemed as such because animals cannot make their own decisions wrt this matter in human interactions.

Why the hell do we have pets at all then? Who are we to make decisions for animals wrt who they live with, their living conditions, their obedience, etc. Sex is not a human interaction.

Or are you saying all beastiality acts are done "aginst the will" of the animal? Tell that to the male dog humping the porn star...

The laws prohibiting zoophilia and pedophilia are similar in that fashion. To prevent the non-consensual sexual abuse of another being.

Surely, there are both cases of consensual and non-consensual pedohile sex and beastiality. Surely, there are NON sexual acts, that are just as "against the desire of another being" that are NOT legislated against. (Do dogs really want to go to obedience school? Do cats and dogs want to be spayed and neutered? Why is that?

 

[Natoma]

Natoma,

OK, I really hesitated to even post that. It is so easy to come off sounding wrong (judgmental) on a msg board. You might be interested that I think some of your more far out ideas have some merit for discussion. You might even more interested that most would consider me "right wing" and therefore not really on the same side of the fence as you. (man "right wing" and "left wing" sound so much like an insult of extremes).

Dr. Ffreeze

It's fine. I know what your intent was in posting and I consider it commendable that you would take the time to do so. Think nothing of it.

If you have time (lord knows it can be time consuming at times), join in.