POLL: Gay Marriage and Homosexuality

Remove all ads!

Your arguement is based upon a scenerio where heterosexual sex no longer occurs, otherwise the reproduction the species continues. I am saying that I, personally, through my own sexuality, disprove that scenerio as nothing more than fantasy.

To show analogously:

If pigs learn to fly,
the price of ham would rise,
So buy pork futures.

For that arguement to be true, it has to be at least possible for pigs to fly.

 

Not really. My argument is based upon the fact that non-reproduction ensues the extinction of the species, which is an unatural behaviour. Be it possible that it becomes a majoritary pattern or not.
Do you agree to say it is the natural behaviour of mothers to look after their offspring?
If so, here it is an analogy for you as well:
A mother who has some kind of mental disorder, and likes to torture her own child. Is it the least possible that all mothers ever act like that - not more or less so than that everyone becomes a homosexual? By deducting from your own logic, a mother torturing her own offspring for granted is not un natural...

 

Lets start from the beginning. Provide a definition of "natural". I really have no idea what that word objectively means...

You can say it is the difference between a Coke can and bauxite, but what does that really mean? Any consequence that was not guided by intelligence?

And you are missing the underlying fallacy in your arguement.

Providing an impossible scenerio to prove a proposition makes the conclusion invalid.

If you don't see it as impossible that all people could be homosexuals or that all mothers could torture their children, well, that sort of absurdity of thought makes discussion...difficult.

Use arguements based in reality to prove your points.

 

I omitted a couple about music, but my personal favorite is the first: "pertaining to, existing in, or produced by nature", which can be handily summed up by "from nature".

 

According to Fellinoid's dictionary:

By this definition, I can certainly claim heterosexual behaviour is produced by nature, because the most basic natural instinctive of people is procreation and survival - which homosexualism does not ensue.
The same for mothers looking after their offspring. They do it so because their heirs are the future of the species, part of their own, and as such, ought to be protected by them. People are also inherently supporters of eugenics, even if not aware of it. Mothers look after their children to assure they will grow up healthy and fit to the enviroment.
Those are not my words, but what scientist say - biologists.
Now, if you deny the fact that a mother torturing her own child is an un-natural behaviour, then I see no reason to continue this discussion because you either 1) dont believe there is such a concept as natural, which means this discussion is without purpose or 2) you are purposedly denying the fact this is an un-natural behaviour - as backed up by Science -, ir order not to give in.

Wrong. What did I tell you about Weber's "ideal types"? They do not really exist in their pure forms in the society, are they invalid? But maybe Weber is an irrelevant political scientist.

I thought people from this thread had left behind the idea of majority/deviant behaviour as an objective definition to natural. But maybe you want to bring this back?
Considering my definition is beyond such claims, I dont see why something has to be "possible" to be claimed as either natural or un-natural.
It is like saying killing is not a destructive behaviour, because it is "impossible" that all people are killers.
An objective definition of something has to do with a logical an unbiased process of thinking that comes to a conclusion. It has nothing to do with being "possible" or not.

I think Science is pretty real.

 

Let us try this one more time:

If all humans are homosexual,
the species would go extinct,
so homosexuals are unnatural.

For that theory to be true, hence the if, all humans have to be homosexual or the species does not go extinct.

You claim that an "ideal" impossible scenerio is valid. I say it is not.

Let me show why:

If you freeze gold to absolute zero,
the gold becomes a unicorn,
so unicorns exist.

You can see why this kind of reasoning leads to problems...

I made no claims towards naturality or major/minor; those are arguements you are having with other people, hence why they fall under the headings of different names.

Edit...

You can still try to show homosexuality is "unnatural", although that particular term is meaningless to me, but using that particular arguement is not valid, as I have shown.

 

Here's a point for all of you to think on:
Nature will take its course unless acted upon by an outside force. What causes homosexuality? If there is no outside force, then it can only have come from nature and is therefore natural. Perhaps a bit odd and counter-intuitive to the process of procreation, but natural nonetheless.

The only argument I can think of is the human-imposed lack of natural selection, but anyone advocating genocide will get a close-up look at my sword. And considering how many people were beaten to death (in the past) for being gay, I'd say human nature (and selection) gave it its best shot anyway.

Now, you can think it's weird, crazy, wrong, sinful, whatever, but you cannot deny the naturality without proof. So let's hear some; what's your "unnatural cause"?

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but am I hearing the argument that because if everyone (or at least most people) in a species were homosexual, the species would go extinct, homosexuality is unnatural or aberrant?

Well, I don't doubt that, but species thrive on variation. Organisms are often attracted to those most genetically different from them. If there were no twists and turns in evolution, heck, there wouldn't be so many species. Yes, if all cavemen were exclusively homosexual (and not bisexual), we wouldn't be here, but if all cavemen, say, had a lack of body hair, we might not be here either (since they might have died off due to cold exposure when the ice age rolled around). The presence of homosexuality in certain species can help its survival, by, for example, reducing aggression among males in species with packs or schools or troops. And it can survive too, since as I've mentioned before, a "gay gene" might be on the Y chromosome.

But of course, just because something happens in nature doesn't mean it's morally acceptable; there might be a genetic basis for murder or criminal behavior (I believe the latter has been documented). But to argue that homosexually is wrong because it does not ensure the survival of a species is, I think, a bit silly. Would we then also say that abstinence would be wrong?

 

Can anyone spot the false premise?

Since homosexuals cannot have children,
if everyone was homosexual,
the human species would go extinct.

 

That's perfectly right, actually. If homosexuals can't have children, then if everyone is homosexual, then we go extinct. End of story. Or are you implying that homosexuals can have children, that is, if we allow them to adopt?

Awww. So in a coeducational army, sex would reduce tensions between male and female conscripts? Hehe. Really?

Abstinence doesn't entail unnatural sexual practices. Those are who just don't do it. Homosexual practices have it the wrong way and pervert it.

Rape can happen without outside force in animals. So, natural?

 

Who's going to have the children for them to adopt if everyone is homosexual?

 

Exactly.

 

LNT,
I can't stop laughing about the unicorn proof, I just knew unicorns exist. Thank you!

The false premise is the 'since'. Homosexuals can have children, their reproductory organs are intact. And quite a few of them do have children from an earlier traditional man-woman relationship.

Homosexuals as an exception merely slow down reproduction, but that again may be a hidden evolutionary advantage. It might be gainful to ponder on that, even if one doesn't like the implications.

Besides, we're talking about a relatively small group in the overall population. So birth rates in the West are not dropping because of homosexuality.
They drop due to heterosexuals not reproducing, be it for the sake of convenience or for simply being unable to finance having children or for fear of losing a job and other reasons. To have children is plannable now. That actually is much more a concern to me than homosexuals.

Earlier I made the point of homosexuality having evolutionary aspects that go beyond reproduction, like social aspects. To try to grasp that is key to break away from the circular Since homosexuals cannot have children if everyone was homosexual, the human species would go extinct.

Despite the importance of the social aspect in the evolution argument, this here is all about breeding, and that's the reason why this discussion is just marking time, and worse, ignoring elemental logic due to biases, much to LNT's palpable desperation ...

 

"If everyone were homosexual, then humans would die down," is a perfectly valid argument on its own. The reason, however, is that homosexuals can't have children with other homosexuals of the same gender. There is a mental shortcut in there, because homosexuals can have children, even with other homosexuals (of the opposite gender), so long as the man in the couple is able to have erection during intercourse with a woman despite his being homosexual. At any rate, homosexuals can't have children in a homosexual union. Should they turn outside their homosexual union for a fruitful intercourse resulting in children or use artificial methods or adopt, that would only lend proof to the argument in hand.

However, this kind of view (potential evolutionary benefits outside of procreation) is lighter on my poor nerves than the ever so popular pretending that there's no difference between a heterosexual and a homosexual union.

Note: Formally speaking, (0 => 1) = 1, anyway

 

As a matter of fact, it is not.

You base your argument on the presumption that is

• Homosexuals don't reproduce (this is objectionable. I know a number of them who in fact do have children. So there is an observation that questions the validity of the cornerstone of your argument)
• (so) if everyone were homosexual, then humans would die down

Simple enough. Your argument is built on quicksand. And your backpadeling

basically makes for a different argument that would be

• Reproduction requires both genders
• in a homosexual union there is just one gender
• thus reproduction is impossible
• thus if everyone were homosexual, then humans would die down

How surprising. Despite its logical beauty that gets us nowhere

The point that despite the inherent infertility within homosexual unions homosexuality has survived evolutions suggests, as I have done, to search for explanations beyond the issue of reproduction, because seemingly the aspect of reproduction alone cannot explain that paradox.

 

Naw. That's just an example of people being bisexual or having an unstable preference or taking time to unlearn heterosexual behaviour and start going after own gender. Only proves my argument, in fact. And there's no denying that homosexuals aren't able to reproduce within homosexual unions. Next, if everyone were homosexual and we were still to reproduce, reproduction would rely on intercourse with individuals to whom we were not attracted and would be a pain in the side.

Oh dear, just explain to me how homosexuals would reproduce if there were no heterosexual couples to spread the gay gene, supposing it at all exists.

It gets us to an unattended grave. No matter how you look at it, going exclusively homo bans from passing genes on.

 

They wouldn't. That means we don't have an explanation.

That is because this isn't about two separate groups, the homos left, and the straight ones right. The answer is, that if there is such a gene, it is spread through those crossing the line from the right to the left, or, yuck, zigzagging back and forth ....

And that is what I'm trying to tell you all along, that by only focusing on reproduction you cannot explain it, because you end up in the paradox that homosexuals in pure homosexual union cannot reproduce - and that yet they remain on the scene.

That said, we seem to need to look elsewhere. Like in fields like social and behavioural studies. Which I suggest we do.

 

Yes. *avoids rotten fruit and pointy objects* But just because it's natural doesn't make it okay. I've got two cats: one male, one female. If he tries to mount her when she's not feelin' it, I knock him on his ass (all it takes is a light push). Nature doesn't fit into such human concepts as right and wrong; it simply is what it is.

 

Heh, we already have haemophilia, which affects males and is inherited in the female line. We have a number of genetic defects which are transferred by people who aren't immediately affected. We don't call defects a normal, valid variation (like for example six toes on a foot, even if it actually requires a special gene to reduce it to five and six is the default option, so theoretically six should be natural ). Doesn't make homosexuality normal.

@Felinoid: Then, if we go by your definition of natural, even if homosexualism is termed natural, it still isn't validated.

 

@chev:
I never said it was. It's not provably valid, but I don't think it's provably invalid either. As far as I'm concerned, its continued existence demonstrates its qualification for future validation, but it's impossible to say for sure just yet. Let the culture grow, and it may just prove itself.