POLL: Gay Marriage and Homosexuality

Remove all ads!

I cant believe I will have to repeat this again. The homosexual behaviour is un-natural by itself alone. Why? Because it is a behaviour that does not promote procreation, which is the most natural instinct of species, period.
There is no such a need to create imaginary scenarios. I am not discussing the results of being homosexual, and I analysing the behaviour itself. Really, is that so hard to understand?
What you are saying is this: Intolerance breeds hate, which leads to killing amongst people. However, using your logic, intolerance does not breed hate, because it is simply non-existant, as it would need to be a sentiment ALL humans share to be real. Is that sensical? I think not. Notice I am using this as an analogy, not saying you were speaking about intolerance.

No. You are creating a false syllogysm, and applying it to my reasoning, which has nothing to do with it.

If it is misused, like you are doing.

You are saying a behaviour can not be called un-natural by itself, because all people must share it for it to be "possible". Not only this is nonsensical, but it shows you are giving a numerical approach to the discussion.

You might think you did, but I am still waiting for a sensical refuting.
Meaningless or not, naturality is a scientifical and objective concept. I thought we were beyound the field of opinions here...

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

First of all, we - people who are claiming homosexualism is un natural - regard homosexual behaviour as a pattern, mental disorder, chemical alteration, or whatever.
A pervertion is by defition un-natural - modified, altered, you get the idea. I think that clears up your claim that homosexualism is natural because it comes from nature...
--------------------------------------------------

We claim it is un-natural, on that account. The wrong part is due to other reasons.
----------------------------------------------------

Exactly! But you are missing the main picture here! I say the homosexual behaviour is un -natural - again, because of the procreation issue - which, as you pointed out does not rule out the possibility that a homosexual might have a child. Is that right? Yes, 100%, but when the homosexual is having a sexual intercourse with the other gender - in order to reproduce - he is not having a homosexual behaviour, at all! He is having a heterosexual behaviour instead - even if he feels like like a gay. This is a pure objective stance on the subject.
In short: Can homos have a naturally conceived child? Yes, they do. Is the homosexual behaviour natural? No, it is not.
---------------------------------------------------

Again. Reproduction - which is natural, I think we all agree on that - requires a heterosexual behaviour. Can a homosexual person have a naturally conceived child? Yes. How? Behaving like a heterosexual. Why they do it? Because of social pressures? Maybe. Because of natural/biologic urges taking prevalence? Most likely.

 

Geez, I've never seen more talking past each other than on this thread. There seems to be two lines of thought, which are by no means mutually exclusive.

Point #1: Homosexual behavior does not lead to offspring, and thus does nothing to ensure the survival of a species.

Point #2: For a species to go extinct, a significant portion of the species would have to be practicing homosexual behavior. (Granted, there are many other reasons a species COULD go extinct, but for this example, it serves well enough.)

Both of these statements are true. The problem is that the conclusion being drawn is that homosexual behavior is either natural or unnatural, which does not logically follow from either of these true premises. I think the only thing that logically follows from these statements is that there are no flourishing species on the planet that exhibit predominantly homosexual behavior.

The issue of natural/unnatural is completely besides the point from what you're arguing, and I don't find either line of thought particularly convincing. No one is arguing that you don't need a male and a female to produce offspring. No one is arguing that a pairing of two males or two females will not produce offspring. And no one is arguing that if an insufficient number of males and females pair up to produce offspring the species is in serious trouble of going extinct. However, I don't think that gets us anywhere in terms of whether or not homosexual behavior is natural or not.

It is certainly true that it's unnatural for a species to exhibit predominantly homosexual behavior, as they wouldn't be around to observe if they did. It is also certainly true that a species as a whole will survive and potentially even flourish if homosexual behavior is exhibited by only an insignificant portion of the population, which gives the appearance that homosexualism is a natural behavior. The problem is one arguement is based on a species level, and the other on a population level. When you try to place the individual example to a population level (or vice versa) you get a completely farcical situation.

[ September 28, 2005, 20:10: Message edited by: Aldeth the Foppish Idiot ]

 

Perversions are abnormal, not unnatural; there's a difference. If it's from nature, it's natural, end of story. Even natural things can be weird, abnormal, f***ed up, or just plain wrong (the rape example), but they're still natural. Nature has nothing to do with good and bad; nature is not inherently good, 'un-nature' is not inherently bad. It doesn't work in the other direction either; just because you think it's bad doesn't make it unnatural.

Against nature may be the term you're searching for. Like "crime against nature" or something similar that describes how it goes against the normal order. But nature is not only that "normal order". To use a metaphor, nature is not only the trunk, but also the branches of the tree. It encompasses everything that it has created, not just that which created it.

Unnatural is a step farther. Machines, for example, would be the fruit from the people branch which falls upon the ground. The tree made the branches, the branches made the fruit; the tree did nothing to make the fruit other than to provide the materials. Now, if you can find some sort of gayification machine or something that some agency put in the water, I'll be all ears. (Note to chev: God would be the roots. )

 

Aldeth,

I dont get. Before you said you agreed with my defition of natural. Now you dont? Please, elaborate further.

Fellinoid,

I see, and you make a valid point. However, if we are to follow your line of thinking, everything can be regarded as natural, as a clever mind will not find any difficulty to somewhat discover a plausible link to nature - or natural creations - for everything. Thus, the concept of natural would become irrelevant - and I dont see how this would be benefitial.
Therefore, I think a line has to be drawn. Objectivelly speaking, a natural thing has to not only be a product of nature, but can not contradict - deny - the laws of nature as well. In other words, a natural behaviour - or thing - has to walk towards the evolution/continuing of nature itself, and not against it.

 

Well, I did give an example of how homosexualism could benefit a given population, but I don't have any scientific studies available to prove it. This does not make it a false assumption - no studies means no research has been conducted to prove or falsify this possibility. What I was really arguing about is you two seem to be stuck on the two principle points you each seem to be making.

1. Homosexualism cannot be natural because it doesn't ensure the survival of the species.

and

2. In order for homosexualism to endanger the viability of a species it would have to be practiced exclusively. Since this has never been observed to happen, we can't make that the sole criteria for a determination of what is natural.

All I was saying is that while both points have merit, I'm not sure if either definition is complete enough to really define the natural/unnatural question as it pertains to homosexualism. As far as I'm concerned, your definition seems to be the best anyone has come up with at the moment, but I don't think it's necessarily the best possible or only definition, as evidenced by positions made to the contrary.

As I stated earlier, I'm not sure we can draw a conclusion of natural/unnatural from either premise. However, I do not find the premises themselves faulty. (i.e., that homosexual behavior does not produce offspring, and that homosexualism on becomes a population pressure if it is widespread.)

Plus comparing the logic of the reasoning is really not a fair comparison either as you aren't even using the same method. Your method is more of an indirect proof, where you assume the opposite is true, then go on to show that it is not true, and therefore conclude that the opposite must be true. Not that the method isn't sound, it's just that we're using your definition of natural as the sole judging criteria, which can be questioned.

 

@Svyatoslav:
You got it. Describing something as natural is easy; the difficult part is how to put separation between nature and something else in order to call it unnatural. Hence my question about an "unnatural cause"; given the facility with which you can label something as natural, I believe the line should be drawn where you can or can't reasonably label it as unnatural. Think of it as "innocent until proven guilty".

The against nature argument is certainly good cause to look into it (i.e. cause for a trial), but it is not the solution in and of itself. Backwards is not an in-between step, and any chemical imbalance must be caused by something other than nature for it to be unnatural. I've been trying for a number of years to find some cause (it's a major point of disagreement with my father, as well ), but so far I've come up empty.

 

I'm still trying to figure out why we're stuck on this 'natural' issue. Has anyone else noticed how bloody, violent, cruel, and 'morally bancrupt' nature really is? In nature, children are murdered simply because they may grow up. Is this good? Should we emulate it because it is natural? The idea that something should not be outlawed simply because it is 'natural behavior' is rediculous. Humans are naturally greedy, murderous, lusting, hating creatures with only the barest spark of good in them. The entire point of law is to restrict the bad and encourage the good. That is the question we should be addressing.

 

The reason we are all talking past one another is that we are having a debate about the word "nature". In its objective sense, it includes the entire universe, i.e. everything and all. But that is not how it is being used here. It is being used in its subjective sense; we could all have an equally interesting arguement about whether or not homosexuals are "funny" and end up spinning our wheels all over again.

So to say homosexuals should not be allowed civil unions because it is not "natural" is about as valid an arguement as saying homosexuals should not be allowed to marry because they, as married couples, are not "cute".

[ September 29, 2005, 07:38: Message edited by: Late-Night Thinker ]

 

Straight to the heart of the matter. For those of you that think man no better than the beasts you seek to emulate, then have your homosexuality, but could pure chastity, like the opposable thumb, be something that sets humans above the animals out there? I have read in the Book of Mormon that "the natural man is an enemy to God" so just because something is natural, it may not be right...

 

Why in the world is a natural man an enemy of God? What does that mean? It seems to suggest that anyone who supports their family through farming or herding (of which there were many prior to this century) would qualify, and it certainly doesn't mean that. Does it mean living like an animal? And if so, what qualifies as living like an animal? Without seeing the context from which this quote was pulled, I fail to see what it means.

 

Anyone like to consider artificial insemination in the discusion of procreation? OK, it's kinda self-defined as not natural but it can still be done in your own home. Even if all the world was homosexual, people would continue to procreate. A lesbian couple in my town made the headlines recently (but I'd better not go into details, family site & all that)

 

No, the reason is that most of us could reach an objective agreement on the definition of natural - one which has scientific bases - but some few decide to use their subjectivity to deny it.
Ironically though, their defitinion of natural leads to the subsequent annihilation of the concept of which is natural - because all is natural, meaning there is no un-natural, thus destroying the need to separate which is one and which is other. I thought concepts were formulated to make human understanding easier. Some disagree though.
-----------------------------------------------------

Do you want to create a society which is even more superficial and meaningless?
Why being homosexual, or heterosexual for the matter? Let us just live alone and use insemination to ensue our survival...

 

Wow, LNT and I actually agreed on something, kinda. He's right that the natural arguement is completely irrelevant.
If I understand it correctly, having not read the Book of Mormon, but being a Baptist myself, the 'enemy of God' issue goes something like this:
God made man perfect and sinless.
Satan twisted man and made him fall (Garden of Eden)
This fall (or the initial choice) made sin and rebellion a natural part of humanity.
Thus, the natural human is sinful, proud of his sinfulness, and thus an enemy of God.
This 'natural man' is not one who respects nature, but rather one who lives according to his own natural desires.

 

Got it. I knew it couldn't be simply someone who lives according to nature's laws like a farmer or sheperd. Now that it's been placed into context it makes more sense.

 

NOG: That's pretty much what it is. Man has certain things engrained in human nature that are sinful. Pride, sloth, lust, greed, gluttony, wrath, and envy are called the deadly sins because they lead us to do some truly bad things and they keep us from doing that which is important. I can explain it, but it may be off topic...

 

It's "context" like that that makes me ever more glad to be Jewish, and ever more opposed to politicians who use their Christian beliefs as a selling point in their campaigns.

 

I didn't say that, but those arguing that full homosexuality of the human race would mean it's extinction are, well... wrong.
I'm not saying it's a desired state of affairs, it would obviously not be "natural" and could only occur in the human race. Nonetheless, the arguments are wrong. You can have the continuation of the human race without requiring sexual acts.

 

And Statements like that make me glad that there's enough Chirstians to demand that politicians remain accountable.

 

Why? Because we goyims are not as great human beings as you are?
You know, I am always ever more glad to be Christian than whatever else.
-----------------------------------------------------

This has been discussed already, and if you missed, I will not bother to explain once again.

 

I only support gay marriges if both girls are hot