Homosexuality-->Unnatural-->Wrong

[Mike182]

Thanks for the frubals by the way. I am most definitely up for the challenge .

thats quite alright m'la...m'lord (i really am sorry about that, i said it to feathers earlier and i just typed it again without thinking :banghead3 ) im up for a challenge, but im sure ive got more of a challenge than you, especially now that lilithu's involved, im never gonna win

I find three things wrong with this argument.

only three, wow, im sure i found more than that lol

1) This assumes an intention of nature, more specifically that such a concept intends for humans to procreate. However, this is not the case. It is only statistically likely that those who are able to breed and pass on their genes will be the ones that have traits that shall survive. There is no reason or rhyme here. It is merely the laws of probability. Yet homosexuality exists. Therefore either homosexuality is not genetic, the laws of evolution no longer apply to humans or homosexuality is beneficial to the statistical laws of survival that we have not yet identified.

you are right, it does assume the purpose of sex is procreation! and that is what it is mainly there for, and it is an expression of love, yet "love" would only be between two people of the opposite sex, "love" between two members of the same sex is wrong, because the attraction is brought about by a psychological problem

2) Many animals are born without the ability to breed. This is because it is actually preferable for a single animal of one sex to breed with many of the opposite sex since the family will be more closely related to the resulting offspring than had they all bred when it comes to 3 or 4 generations down the line. This is most common amongst drone animals like bees or ants.

how indignifying, are you comparing our brain capasity to that of an any?

3) Finally, homosexuals can breed. They are able to have sex and fertilise members of the opposite sex. Keep in mind that love is a human concept not an evolutionary one and it could be that this has simply be given precedence over the base feelings of pleasure that one gets from sexual intercourse. Additionally, homosexuals can breed with each other through egg fusion and sperm fusion with a surrogate mother or a aritificial womb.

so this kind of sex is only natural if you have the artificial science to go with it! again, you refer to homosexual "love" but as i have stated, this love is a psychological disorder, brought about mostly by bad parents, bullying, early homosexual abusive experiences etc

How do you define unnatural? People are either talking about the intention of nature/evolution with is a misunderstanding of the concept or they are talking about it as opposed to the supernatural (ie that which we cannot percieve with our five senses). The first concept does not exist in reality and via the second homosexuality is natural just like anything else which we experience.

the greeks came up with the concept of "natural law" which looks at the natural purpose of things, for instance, the natural purpose of a knife is to cut things, because it has a sharp blade, and a handle for safety to the user. mthe same can be applied to sex, the human race needs to continue, sex is the only way for this to happen, so sex is for reproduction!

Lol I like playing devil's advocate myself . And its m'lord to you . I just want to make absolutely certain, in this case, that there is no secular nor scientific reason for homosexuality to be immoral. There have been people on this site who have taken such a stance and I had hoped to engage them in debate and discovered what caused them to believe in such a way.

i agree wholeheartedly

By the way, it is interesting to find a Christian who is willing to state he is 100% behind homosexuality and I applaud you for it. I am of the opinion that there is no convincing Biblical evidence that homosexuality is wrong from a Christian perspective as well but I'll keep that seperate from this thread.

thankyou for your applause, however, im affraid to tell you that i have no choice in the matter, you see, if i were against homosexuality i would be a damn hypocrit where have you been? im sure half of my posts on this forum at the moment show that lol

C_P

 

[almifkhar]

hello fluffy

i don't think homosexually is unnatural
i think it is considered wrong in the wonderful world of religion because it defeats the prupose of sex. you see, homosexual sex acts are on the plane of satifaction and only about satifaction, where as hedrosexual sex acts are also about having babies. when a woman gets pregnant (in paticular) by her husband, they are in effect mimicing god in creation, just on a smaller scale.

 

[The Black Whirlwind]

The only thing i can think of that is unnatural about homosexuality is that there is no natural lubrication in the anus, so it is obvious no... long hard objects... are supposed to be put inside it. This doesn't apply to lesbians though. The other thing i would find unnatural bout it is that it has no evolutionary purpose, it doesn't allow for pro-creation (unless it is true that it is natures way of curbing population like someone else in this thread stated)

 

[mr.guy]

This doesn't apply to lesbians though.

Ha! why do we always let the lesbians off so easy?

 

[Sunstone]

Let's suppose that homosexuality is unnatural. Would that make it any more wrong than an airplane, which is also unnatural?

Or, let's suppose that homosexuality is natural. Would that make it any more right than war, which is also natural?

You can only take the natural argument so far. Whether or not something is natural or not is evidence of some sort that should be taken into consideration before making pronouncements about whether it is right or wrong. But it is not in itself conclusive evidence. We must also ask of something that is natural such questions as whether it harms us or society.

 

[Fluffy]

In Catholic theology sex is both for pleasure and procreation. If either of them are taken out of the equation then we raise a flag.

Whilst I appreciate the Catholic stance on the matter, please note that this thread is about secular arguments for and against homosexuality.

thats quite alright m'la...m'lord (i really am sorry about that, i said it to feathers earlier and i just typed it again without thinking :banghead3 ) im up for a challenge, but im sure ive got more of a challenge than you, especially now that lilithu's involved, im never gonna win

Lol don't worry about it . I'm used to it .

you are right, it does assume the purpose of sex is procreation! and that is what it is mainly there for, and it is an expression of love, yet "love" would only be between two people of the opposite sex, "love" between two members of the same sex is wrong, because the attraction is brought about by a psychological problem

Hmmm what you say is an argument that I might have decided to use about a year ago but now I believe I have found a better one. I now argue that something which is not alive cannot have a purpose unless you wish to use that term interchangeably with 'result'. Based on this logicaly, I obviously disagree with your first sentence. I then disagree with your second in a similar fashion but this time because the personification is being attributed to the cause of the existence of sex and since this is secular I will assume that this is evolution. Again, evolution cannot have purpose so sex is not there for anything.

Something is only a problem if it is creating a negative effect for one or more people or has the potential for doing so. If homosexuality was purely psychological this does not imply that it is harmful just different.

how indignifying, are you comparing our brain capasity to that of an any?

Lol Ants don't have brain capacity or a brain for that matter so not quite. I am showing that since there are examples of asexual, non-sexual and homosexual creatures in nature, and there are clear advantages to each of these over the standard, from an evolutionary viewpoint, there is no reason why homosexuality couldn't serve a purpose for an animal either.

so this kind of sex is only natural if you have the artificial science to go with it! again, you refer to homosexual "love" but as i have stated, this love is a psychological disorder, brought about mostly by bad parents, bullying, early homosexual abusive experiences etc

No sex between homosexuals can only produce offspring if science is involved. This does not make it more or less natural. Additionally, the scientific techniques I describe might be 'artificial' but this does not make them less 'natural' since they are a product of the universe just like everything else. It is only man's arrogance that creates the arbitrary distinction.

the greeks came up with the concept of "natural law" which looks at the natural purpose of things, for instance, the natural purpose of a knife is to cut things, because it has a sharp blade, and a handle for safety to the user

I fully agree that if I designed a knife with the intent of using it to cut something, then the purpose of that knife would be to cut things. However, if the knife were randomly creating via friction, extreme heat and erosion, why would the same still be true? It is my intent that gives it purpose not its nature.

mthe same can be applied to sex, the human race needs to continue, sex is the only way for this to happen, so sex is for reproduction!

Why does it need to continue? It really doesn't. There is no secular reason for this. Again, reproduction can happen between homosexuals. Again, sex is not for anything. If I intend to have sex for pleasure, then the purpose of that sex is for pleasure. If I intend to have sex for procreation, then the purpose of that sex is offspring.

thankyou for your applause, however, im affraid to tell you that i have no choice in the matter, you see, if i were against homosexuality i would be a damn hypocrit

where have you been? im sure half of my posts on this forum at the moment show that lol

Lol yes I'm sure I must have fruballed you for some of them before. Still it is always good to see Christians who are able to challenge tradition in this area.

The only thing i can think of that is unnatural about homosexuality is that there is no natural lubrication in the anus, so it is obvious no... long hard objects... are supposed to be put inside it. This doesn't apply to lesbians though. The other thing i would find unnatural bout it is that it has no evolutionary purpose, it doesn't allow for pro-creation (unless it is true that it is natures way of curbing population like someone else in this thread stated)

Okay but that doesn't make it unnatural. In the abscence of intelligence, ie before humans evolved, concepts of "should" and "supposed to", "goal" and "purpose", did not exist. Therefore we cannot 'back-date' these ideas simply because of the limitations of language and are curious way of interpreting the world.

Let's suppose that homosexuality is unnatural. Would that make it any more wrong than an airplane, which is also unnatural?

I don't think its even necessary to give that much ground Sunstone. You'll get people replying to that with ideas like "pollution... blah blah... non-renewable energy source blah blah", misunderstanding the point completely. There has yet to be presented a convincing argument, on this thread, for why anything, let along homosexuality, should be classed as unnatural.

I fully agree with the rest of your post as well, along with Almifkhar (to a certain extent).

 

[lilithu]

i have often walked down the street, seen someone who i thought was a friend, looked again, and it has turned out to be a complete stranger! this is a fault with the brain translating the signals from my eyes (one of my sense perceptions) - so my question is this - can you trust the knowledge you gain from the things you percieve? can you trust that you know the truth about those things you claim to eb able to percieve?

Good question! Here's another question: who do you know that you were wrong the first time and right the second time?

What ever the answer is to that second question, that is how one knows that one can (usually) trust one's senses.

 

[Mike182]

Hmmm what you say is an argument that I might have decided to use about a year ago but now I believe I have found a better one. I now argue that something which is not alive cannot have a purpose unless you wish to use that term interchangeably with 'result'. Based on this logicaly, I obviously disagree with your first sentence. I then disagree with your second in a similar fashion but this time because the personification is being attributed to the cause of the existence of sex and since this is secular I will assume that this is evolution. Again, evolution cannot have purpose so sex is not there for anything.

Something is only a problem if it is creating a negative effect for one or more people or has the potential for doing so. If homosexuality was purely psychological this does not imply that it is harmful just different.


Lol Ants don't have brain capacity or a brain for that matter so not quite. I am showing that since there are examples of asexual, non-sexual and homosexual creatures in nature, and there are clear advantages to each of these over the standard, from an evolutionary viewpoint, there is no reason why homosexuality couldn't serve a purpose for an animal either.


No sex between homosexuals can only produce offspring if science is involved. This does not make it more or less natural. Additionally, the scientific techniques I describe might be 'artificial' but this does not make them less 'natural' since they are a product of the universe just like everything else. It is only man's arrogance that creates the arbitrary distinction.


I fully agree that if I designed a knife with the intent of using it to cut something, then the purpose of that knife would be to cut things. However, if the knife were randomly creating via friction, extreme heat and erosion, why would the same still be true? It is my intent that gives it purpose not its nature.


Why does it need to continue? It really doesn't. There is no secular reason for this. Again, reproduction can happen between homosexuals. Again, sex is not for anything. If I intend to have sex for pleasure, then the purpose of that sex is for pleasure. If I intend to have sex for procreation, then the purpose of that sex is offspring.


Okay but that doesn't make it unnatural. In the abscence of intelligence, ie before humans evolved, concepts of "should" and "supposed to", "goal" and "purpose", did not exist. Therefore we cannot 'back-date' these ideas simply because of the limitations of language and are curious way of interpreting the world.

you have a style of argument that leaves the other party in the debate completely baffeld in what is being said lol :help:

this has been insightful, however, i got too annoyed whilest researching evidence for these points of view that i actually had to go for a walk and shout at a tree :verymad:

frankly fluffy, their is no argument that can stand up to scrutiny that claims homosexuality is unatural! i think it is time for me to jump back into my usual seat of argumentation, but i might respond to my own post, as it is very flawed in many key places, for one, where is the evidence? their isn't any! psychological disorder? define disorder! and again, the evidence is?

the only evidence i could find however was all 60 years our of date, and anyone who claims that this would be suitable in a modern context is off their rocker!

C_P

 

[lilithu]

but i might respond to my own post, as it is very flawed in many key places, for one, where is the evidence? their isn't any! psychological disorder? define disorder! and again, the evidence is?

the only evidence i could find however was all 60 years our of date, and anyone who claims that this would be suitable in a modern context is off their rocker!

Unfortunately, C_P, there is movement within the American Psychological Association (APA) to once again define homosexuality as a psychological disorder in the next DSM (diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders). Once again, it all comes down to who is defining what is "normal."

 

[Angama]

Unfortunately, C_P, there is movement within the American Psychological Association (APA) to once again define homosexuality as a psychological disorder in the next DSM (diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders). Once again, it all comes down to who is defining what is "normal."

Very interesting. You wouldn't have a source handy, would you?

AA

 

[lilithu]

Very interesting. You wouldn't have a source handy, would you?

AA

Actually, I know about it because I have a couple of friends who are professional psychiatrists, and one of them actually agrees that homosexuality should be considered a disorder.

I did a quick google search and what I found was mostly sights by conservatives who are claiming that the diagnosis got dropped in the first place because of liberal pressure and are in favor of changing the diagnosis back. I couldn't find anything from a neutral site, independant od the APA, but granted other people's ideas of what is neutral may vary.

The history of the thing is that in both DSM-I and DSM-II, homosexuality was defined as a psychological disorder. (Remember, the DSM is a manual of symptoms and guidelines by which clinicians decide whether someone has a psychological disorder or not.) In DSM-III, the APA changed its criteria to say that behaviors that are not "normal" are not necessarily psychological disorders. That to qualify as a disorder, it must 1) cause the person long-term stress; and 2) interfere with social function. Conservatives point out that by these criteria, other things like S&M wouldn't be considered disorders either.

Wikipedia has a discussion of the history of the DSM:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSM-IV

And this webpage, albeit with an obvious bias that I don't share, discusses the pov of those who favor reinstatement:
http://www.narth.com/docs/normalization.html

Here's the APA's current stance:
http://www.apa.org/pi/reslgbc.html

 

[mr.guy]

That to qualify as a disorder, it must 1) cause the person long-term stress; and 2) interfere with social function.

I think by this criteria, i can declare society a disorder.

 

[lilithu]

I think by this criteria, i can declare society a disorder.

Well, that is one logical problem with using criteria that are relative instead of absolute. It's the classic dilemma between "conservative" and "liberal", whether it be religion, politics, or psychological diagnoses. If you use an external, absolute standard the question is who gets to decide the standard and why should the views of the majority be imposed upon the minority? If you use an internal, relative standard, the question is how do you say anything definative about anything? Does the minority always get to veto the majority? Both views have merits and both views have flaws.

 

[gordon]

Homosexuality is essentially abnormal. It's thought of as unnatural, and it's not what God said he wanted. He made us to reproduce and correct me if I'm wrong, a male and a male cannot create offspring. Nevermind though, some people choose to be this way. There is help available to persuade one to make the right decision regarding their sexuality. However if that person is determined enough to engage in certain acts with the same gender then there's little that can be done for them, because at the moment, it is still legal. The trouble is it's a much more difficult illness to treat than most because it is primarily a psychological condition. One thing is that people should try not to make homosexuals feel inferior to others. I hope you will find this thread of use.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

It is impossible to keep the arguement religous free. There is no secular argument against homosexulaity. Only religious ones. You can dance around the subject pro and con but at the heart of the matter is a god full of vengence and spite.

Rob,

I really don't think that you are right about this. Do you mean to say that there is no one on earth who has ever argued against homosexuality for non-religious reasons? Secular sexual ethics has been with humanity for quite a while, and even the concept of homosexuality is very new.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Nothing can be unnatural. Everything is natural.

Is it natural to put your hand in a blender or to drink gasoline?

 

[Popeyesays]

Rob,

I really don't think that you are right about this. Do you mean to say that there is no one on earth who has ever argued against homosexuality for non-religious reasons? Secular sexual ethics has been with humanity for quite a while, and even the concept of homosexuality is very new.

In European law it was illegal until the last few decades. Same thing in most of the states of the United States.
The statute was usually based on the fact that it was a challenge to the social order and public immorality.

The whole furor, of course, is because western societies have this thing about thinking that "love" in religious text has everything to do with "eros", rather than "agape".

Romanctic love and the garbage and baggage attached to it is a HUUUUUUGE impediment to the advancement of western civilization.

Regards,
Scott

 

[mr.guy]

... and even the concept of homosexuality is very new

Did Moses put the "don't be a ***" clause into the OT just on the off chance that men might spontaneously start screwing each other in the distant future? Please explain what you mean by this.

Is it natural to put your hand in a blender or to drink gasoline?

For once, darkdale's said something sensible. You could ask leamings if it's natural to drown themselves en masse every couple years. Let's not confuse what's natural with what's just a ****ty idea.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Did Moses put the "don't be a ***" clause into the OT just on the off chance that men might spontaneously start screwing each other in the distant future? Please explain what you mean by this.

For once, darkdale's said something sensible. You could ask leamings if it's natural to drown themselves en masse every couple years. Let's not confuse what's natural with what's just a ****ty idea.

No problem. The idea of "heterosexuality" and "homosexuality" and the spectrum of different types of sexuality and transgendered people is the result of modern and post-modern psychology, physiology, philosophy, and social ethics. People in the Bible may have "struggled with their sexuality" but they did not understand that there was more than one type of sexualities. They of course understood that the sexual universe is vast, but the complex divisions of sexuality that we have today would be foreign to the ancient world.

It was said that "everything is natural." That is far too broad a statement to be applicible in logic.

EDIT: BTW, it is perfectly natural for lemmings to drown themselves ever couple of years. I illustrated perfectly that humans have the unusual characteristic of doing things that is unnatural, like putting their hands in blenders, drinking gasoline, and other ****ty ideas.

 

[mr.guy]

Thanks for response, A.E.

It was said that "everything is natural." That is far too broad a statement to be applicible in logic.

Agreed. I'm inclined to say everything's natural in a reactive fashion, i have to admit. But you must agree that what's conceptually considered natural is definitavely hijacked for damn near everyone's cause. My inclination, is often bent towards revealing the absurdity of making such conveniant boundaries on the universe to prove our piddly little points. In short, it seems i'd invalidate the use of the word almost entirely; but perhaps that needed doing anyway.