Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by naivesincerity)
    How do you know? Because it serves no reproductive/child rearing or evoloutionary purpose? Well neither does men having nipples or having an appendix, or any number of other things
    Because if it was designed to be beaten, we would have evolved the capacity to climax without the need to do anything, it would just require the thought, just as the movement of your eyes only requires the thought, if that. But then we would not mate with the opposite sex since we would not need them to fore fill our desire, which would lead to our extinction.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Beekeeper)
    lol, ANOTHER debate about homosexuality? Please, take this to the religion forum. Nobody seems to be bothered but the god followers :rolleyes:
    If you don't like it, go away, you're not forced to debate here.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by queenj)
    Animals can do acts out of the normal course of nature.

    Such as bears trained to dance, that is unnatural.
    I think what you've conveniently overlooked here with your poor example is my implication that it takes free will to go against nature, and thus the bears trained to dance are being subjected to a will that does not necessarily conform to nature. How many cases of bears spontaneously learning to dance do you know of?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by queenj)
    Because if it was designed to be beaten, we would have evolved the capacity to climax without the need to do anything, it would just require the thought, just as the movement of your eyes only requires the thought, if that. But then we would not mate with the opposite sex since we would not need them to fore fill our desire, which would lead to our extinction.
    This makes ABSOLUTELY no sense whatsoever, please try again
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by naivesincerity)
    Your argument for the fact homosexuality is perverse also makes masturbation perverse. Do you believe it is?
    Yes.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by naivesincerity)
    This makes ABSOLUTELY no sense whatsoever, please try again
    Seconded.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by naivesincerity)
    This makes ABSOLUTELY no sense whatsoever, please try again
    It makes perfect sense, read it s l o w l y.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Israfel)
    I think what you've conveniently overlooked here with your poor example is my implication that it takes free will to go against nature, and thus the bears trained to dance are being subjected to a will that does not necessarily conform to nature. How many cases of bears spontaneously learning to dance do you know of?
    How do you know homosexuality is based on free will?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Israfel)
    I think what you've conveniently overlooked here with your poor example is my implication that it takes free will to go against nature, and thus the bears trained to dance are being subjected to a will that does not necessarily conform to nature. How many cases of bears spontaneously learning to dance do you know of?
    Your definition of unnatural deems nothing unnatural.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zooropa)
    How do you know homosexuality is based on free will?
    I'm not saying that it is, in fact, I believe the gist of my argument is that it forms a part of nature
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by queenj)
    Your definition of unnatural deems nothing unnatural.
    Hmmm... possibly that might be an underlying implication, but I think what I'm trying to say is simply that the example you chose of animals going against nature was prompted by human intervention, and we'd already established that you think that humans can be unnatural... what's your definition of natural?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by queenj)
    Because if it was designed to be beaten, we would have evolved the capacity to climax without the need to do anything,
    Well first you'd have to break this bit down for me?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Israfel)
    Hmmm... possibly that might be an underlying implication, but I think what I'm trying to say is simply that the example you chose of animals going against nature was prompted by human intervention, and we'd already established that you think that humans can be unnatural... what's your definition of natural?
    Let’s look at it like this; paedophilia must be natural in your eyes, right? Shall we legalise that?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by queenj)
    But then we would not mate with the opposite sex since we would not need them to fore fill our desire, which would lead to our extinction.
    You could say masturbation means we don't NEED the opposite sex to fulfill our desires, but that doesn't stop people wanting children or having sex
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by queenj)
    Let’s look at it like this; paedophilia must be natural in your eyes, right? Shall we legalise that?
    Accepting that something exists, and is part of nature, is not the same as condoning it and saying we should have no moral guidelines
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Your argument is rediculous queenj. Just because things were designed for certain things doesn't mean they can't do other things. Detergent was designed to wash your skin but it turned out it worked better on fabric. There is no good reason why humans can't use their bodies however they like (as long as it's not to hurt others, yadda yadda yadda).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by queenj)
    Let’s look at it like this; paedophilia must be natural in your eyes, right? Shall we legalise that?
    Ye gawds, how did you ever come to that conclusion, where did I say that?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by naivesincerity)
    Well first you'd have to break this bit down for me?
    You believe in evolution I take it, therefore if masturbation was natural and beneficial, we would have evolved with the capacity to climax and have orgasms and ejaculate, without the need for interaction, yes?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zoecb)
    Your argument is rediculous queenj. Just because things were designed for certain things doesn't mean they can't do other things. Detergent was designed to wash your skin but it turned out it worked better on fabric. There is no good reason why humans can't use their bodies however they like (as long as it's not to hurt others, yadda yadda yadda).
    Indeed, as I said earlier, using the term 'natural' to argue right and wrong is irrelevant, seeing as humans at least (and maybe animals, if naivesincerity is right :p: ) are not bound by nature, and in many cases what goes on nature is considered wrong
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Everything is natural anyway. Everything that exists is part of nature. I don't think natural is the right word for whatever queenj's feeble argument is.
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: September 30, 2005
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.