POLL: Gay Marriage and Homosexuality

Remove all ads!

Well ... yes. Technically, if it's "from nature", then it's natural. It's still disgusting and wrong (and I'd beat the **** out of anyone I saw trying something like that ), but it still can't be called unnatural.

EDIT: @chev:
Agree to disagree, then. IMHO, humans and their creations are the only unnatural things on the planet. (Not counting any possible interference by outside sources like aliens or deities, of course.)

[ September 21, 2005, 19:30: Message edited by: Felinoid ]

 

@T2Bruno:

Ermm... there's still ovulation and scientists claim that women's sexual preferences shift towards more masculine men during that time.

Those friends don't even have to be of the same gender. I have a female friend who's closer and cares more than any gf ever has. I could think of one or two girls who were closer to me than her bfs at some point, even neither I nor they were interested "that way".

It doesn't have to take sexual forms, though. What you describe fits perfectly in the brotherly, sisterly or even platonic love scheme. Sex is not intrinsic to it, it's added to it. Sex is also impossible in the absence of sexual drive. Remove sex from the picture and you'll have what used to be normal for same gender or even cross-gender friends before the gay issues popped up. Funny thing, it was perfectly normal for two males to kiss on the mouth or hold hands back in the ancient times. It was less normal between friends opposite genders but perfectly all right for a brother and sister. I can think of regions in Europe where it was in custom even in the 19th century and I've seen it in my life, as well. People loved their best friends, not just liked, but there was no sex in it.

@Felinoid:

I think you have a universalistic vision of what's natural. That is, if something happens in nature, it's natural. However, we humans are also a part of nature and thus whatever we do would have to be natural regardless and the whole natural-unnatural dispute would be pointless. Personally, I'm leaning towards the somewhat thomistic vision of natural or not being defined by proper use. In this example, of sexual organs. Homosexual sex only emulates heterosexual sex and can't achieve the same result even if it makes a doomed attempt. Therefore, the use is not proper. It's not the way it was intented in nature. Of course, further observation and statistics will still be useful, though more as a means of induction than deduction.

Question arises if, even if it is unnatural, the society or the government has any right to intervene. Personally, I don't believe in criminal punishment for sexual behaviour if there is full knowledge and consent. I'm only into harsh punishment for those who go around the knowledge and consent part, from rape to using deception to get laid. If I were to punish any consensual, informed and private (no public flaunting) sexual activity, it would probably be adultery (BTW, it's still a crime in the US Army and some states in the US, don't know about other countries).

I believe the state does have the right to intervene because the benefits of marriage are defined and accorded by the state and legal recognition of factual circumstances is also a matter of the state.

 

OK, this is well off topic, but you asked so I'll respond.

Simply speaking, yes. Sorry, I haven't got time to do any research so this is from memory/deductive reasoning.

Rape. I'm only aware of males raping females. Why is it natural? Because "nature" requires animals to pass on their genes. The natural instinct of some males is to do that, even if it means rape. Gang rape by dolphins is the prime example I can think of, where young male dolphins, turned out of a pod, will group together and gang rape a female - it's their only chance of procreating. Another one that pops to mind is troupes of monkeys in India - again the young males are thrown out when they become a threat to the dominant male.

Infanticide. What definition of Infanticide are you using? In Britain, I believe the legal definition is limited to mothers and their own young, though it could be expanded to the murder of young by members of their own species.
I can think of two different examples.

Firstly, as witnessed in a study with rats, the parents (and predominantly mothers) eating their own young. If I remember correctly this was seen to occur in overcrowding situations with a lack of food supply, and is a natural means of controlling population. There is not much point in the mother starving to death as the infants would not suvive afterwards. Another example is with mice, where a new constant danger becomes apparent (e.g. a cat), if she is unable to move them to safety, the mother will eat the young and move on herself. It "naturally" increases the chance of her being able to procreate in the future rather than her and all her brood perishing.

Secondly, is where fathers eat their young when otherwise a food supply is plentiful. I may be wrong, but I think it is predominantly the male ofsping that are consumed and it is a natural means of the father to ensure that he is the only one able to mate (and now the naturalness of "incest" creeps in for debate) with available females, so increasing the chances of his own genes being distributed.

Infanticide outside of family members is equally a means of ensuring that it is "your" genes that get passed on, and not someone elses.

So basically, yes they are natural. They may not be nice to our minds, but they are natural instincts for self preservation and/or procreation.

The obvious response to this is "Ah but look, you've just argued that the wish to procreate is natural so homosexuality can't be"
Sorry, but the one being true does not make the other any less so.

Just out of interest, in a court of law which definition of "natural" do you think the court would follow (biases notwithstanding) I would think you are more likely to get expert witnesses

 

I don't know if one can put forth a definition of "natural", without incorporating some type of societal value/religious belief into the equation. Surely, there are examples we can find of animals doing all sorts of things. Then there are things that we will only find humans doing. So what's the criteria here? Is being "natural" something that must be caused by instinct alone?

Is something "natural" only if animals do it in addition to humans? That doesn't make any sense either. In that case, something like reading would be considered "unnatural". So any arguement regarding what is and what is not natural must start from some societal norm or some religious belief, and we're never going to get into agreement on which one specific definition we can use here.

 

Only the one that fits you? Sorry, but this is the most basic rule of logic: Two opposing things can not be both true or false.
That is why relativism is so stupid. It is illogical to begin with.
That said, the assertion that "humans are naturally prone to procriate" and "non-procriation behaviour is part of human nature" can simply not cohexist.
Thus, there is a mistake in the building of your standpoint.
--------------------------------------------------

That is why we have Science for. It is mostly a scientific matter to determine what is natural and which is not.

 

Actually you could argue that all things are natural.

 

You could argue anything. The hard part is proving them.

 

True, but only if you are using the assertion in the same context both times, and clearly, Carcaroth was not. (Incidently, I believe the correct spellings are procreate/procreation.) Taken at a species level, it is most definitely true that procreative behavior is necessary for the survival of the human species and thus, part of human nature. We wouldn't be here today to discuss this if that were not true. However, it is equally true that on an individual level, procreative behavior is not required for the survival of the species, and thus, individually, not part of human nature. One thing that your logic does prove however, is that non-procreative behavior would be detrimental if it was both widespread and simulataneously practiced exclusively in a given population. Any study I have seen shows the homosexual population to represent fewer than 10% of the total population, so that criteria doesn't fit here.

Well how is this for an admittedly oversimplified proof: Actions taken by natural creations are considered "natural". All humans are natural creations. Therefore actions taken by humans are considered "natural".

Believe me, as a chemist, I am very much of a supporter of science being used as a determining factor in a great many areas. However, I don't think science can help us here. I think this falls outside of the realm of what science does. Based on my very simple proof above, one can see how almost any action could accurately be defined as "natural", and no amount of science can show us where we should draw the line between "natural" and "unnatural".

EDIT: Actually, the more I think of this, how could it even be possible for science to articulate such a claim as to what is or is not natural? That seems like a pretty bald assertion the more I look at it. Could you perhaps explain how you envision this could take place?

[ September 22, 2005, 18:28: Message edited by: Aldeth the Foppish Idiot ]

 

I've allways found the "homosexuality is wrong because it's unnatural" argumentation amusing and equally absurd. There is not much natural in the industrialized capitalistic society today so I find it completely ridiculous for someone who lives in an industrialized society to use unnaturality as an argument. It's just an lame excuse for some religious fanatics to try and find unreligious arguments for legistlating their religious dogma.

 

Natural or unnatural -- wouldn't that be like the 4 out of 5 dentists thing....

A group of scientists sitting around...

'Look's natural to me.'
'Yeah, me too.'
'Let's vote on it -- all believing this is natural say yea...'
'YEA.'
'Opposed...'
'Nay'
'Harold said nay.'
'Why in the Sam Hill would you say nay to THAT?'
'He's just a bloody physisist, what does he know about natural. I'M A BIOLOGIST, I KNOW NATURAL.'
'Well, it just doesn't look like it's natural to me.'
'Fine. Four for. One against. It's final then, four out of five scientists find it natural.'
'Bad enough having a damned physisist in this, those creationist nuts would really make this process difficult....'

 

I think gay people should be able to do what they like in private, but I am totally opposed to gay marriage. It says in the Bible that the purpose of marriage is to procreate, and obviously gay people can't procreate, so God evidently thinks it's not normal either.
I just wonder how far the liberals are going to go-what's next? Before you know it paedophiles will be allowed to marry young children

 

Shell, the pedophile comment is a bit of a stretch.

 

Thank you shell for introducing the second absurd aspect in many of those who speak against homosexuality. They usually start yelling around how it will soon end up in society accepting marrying animals, children or inanimate objects. Of course this sort of argumentation in itself is allready the wrong way to go. Claiming that issue X can't be allowed because then they'd go further and require us to allow issue Y is fundamentaly wrong, because no such conclusion can really be drawn unless they allready require us to allow issue Y which they in this case most certainly don't.

Paedophiles can't marry childern because the childern are victims and can't marry with full consent until they are fully grown, and when they are fully grown they have the full right to marry a paedophile if they want. Homosexual marriage is a union between two grown adults who can make their own decisions and have full responsibility over themselves, if you can't see a difference then there is something seriously wrong with your thinking.

 

Agreed Morgoroth. Plus, if we're only going by the Bible, then maybe only Christians shouldn't be allowed to enter into a gay marriage. Of course, even if we allowed gay marriage, it's not like churches would be required to abide and marry two members of the same sex.

 

I'm kind of wondering if it wouldn't be better to completely re-work the government institution of marriage. Rename, re-law-ify, or, whatever. You know, just screw the idea of a government sanctioned religious institution like marriage and make all 'marriages' something else. If a religious couple wants to get married by their religion's definition of marriage, then let them go to their religious officials for it.

Of course I don't know how much that would actually solve anything. Ok, forget that, put it before the people as a proposed constitutional amendment. If it passes, that's the will of the voters. If it doesn't, that too is the will of the voters.

 

There is a man in our town who married his dog, and divorced it

 

As absurd as marrying animals now seems, marrying a person of the same gender used to seem. We just haven't reached that stage of progress. Remember when it was impossible for humans to fly or to record motion? We've already heard voices in favour of lowering or removing the age of consent and decriminalising zoophilia and necrophilia.

 

Shell, you're just loving this aren't you? Big, fat cheshire cat grin wondering who's going to be spun up the most....

 

That is not the point. Both assertions can not be at the same time "natural". The two of them can be "true" in the sense that both happen in the real World, but one has to be the norm, and the other one has to be the deviation.
Plus, I think your differentiation between individual and colletive behaviour does not proceed. There is no such a thing that is natural when considered collectively, and neutral in individual level. It only means the individual is a deviation of the standard, or, in other terms, un-natural.

This is pure syllogism! Things dont work like that.
Regardless, not all human behaviour can be considered natural. This is the whole point of the argument. I think homosexuality is un-natural.

Yes, but yourself being a scientist, you should know syllogisms have no bearing in any decent scientifical thinking.
The line can be drawn, which is what we have Science for.

A biologyst is more up to the task than I am. However, I can firmly say the Universe is structured in such a way that is quite clear there is a natural order to things. We only need to use our logic to unveil it's unique truth and order. The fact our logic does not grasp the whole of it, does not mean this order is nonexistant, but rather that we are not evolved enough to reach it.
--------------------------------------------------

You are confusing things. Just because we live in a industrialized society it does not mean naturality is no more.
You seem to have a big problem with "religious fanatics", who seem to be everyone who does not comply with your NWO agenda.

This is the common argumentation the likes of you use. However, things dont pass as smoothly in the real world.
I can certainly see in the future relativism advocates supporting pedophilia, zoophilia, etc.
People dont learn with History, that much is clear. Both Nazism and Communism are products of minds which thought everything is ok. However, neither came out of the blue, but were rather consequences of a particular line of thinking, which you seem to share with.
Plus, I am fairly sure most relativism supporters dont go out deffending pedophilia, zoophilia - among other things - because it is still too much for our society, but as things get even worse, they will slowly get out of their closets.

Marrying a pedophile? Well, if you are old enough to marry, then you are free to do so, but then he would not be a pedophile anyway...

---------------------------------------------------

You are talking about civil union between two people of the same sex then?

[ September 23, 2005, 03:11: Message edited by: Svyatoslav ]

 

I think it's pretty obvious from my posts that I support a secular society where we have a decent separation of church and state and this separation is constitutionally protected. If you want to live in a theocracy then I'm not going to stop you from voting to live in one, just don't expect us to follow your example.

I really don't get what the problem is in understanding the difference between two grown adults agreeing upon a legal agreement of partenrship known as marriage (as I've said earlier the Church has no monopoly on the term) and an agreement where you only have the consent of one part. The first is an mutual agreement, the second might as well be slavery.

Ain't it allways easy to shrug off the arguments of others and instead just call them nazis and commies? It makes the whole thing so much easier don't you think? Now considering that both communism and nazism are totalitarian systems I find it strange that I who advocate a liberal society would be sharing similar line of thinking which nazis or commies. Perhaps you'd like to elaborate exactly how you came to that conclusion?

No? Then explain to me why some of the pedophiles caught here and elsewhere around the globe have been married men? Marriage offers no magical cure to the urges you know.