Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Israfel)
    Where did anyone say that it is 'right' because it is 'natural'?
    This is my point!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by queenj)
    (Original post by Israfel)
    Where did anyone say that it is 'right' because it is 'natural'?
    This is my point!
    No, you equated 'unnatural' with 'wrong', and 'natural' with 'right'. I said homosexuality was natural, and also as a seperate issue right, or not necessarily wrong, and as zoecb says, paedophilia could be considered natural, but is wrong, for reasons having nothing to do with it being 'natural' or 'unnatural'
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Israfel)
    No, you equated 'unnatural' with 'wrong', and 'natural' with 'right'. I said homosexuality was natural, and also as a seperate issue right, or not necessarily wrong, and as zoecb says, paedophilia could be considered natural, but is wrong, for reasons having nothing to do with it being 'natural' or 'unnatural'

    So what determines what is right and what is wrong?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Homosexuality is natural.

    Paedophilia is natural.

    Homosexuality is not wrong.

    Paedophilia is.

    How much clearer must we be to make you see that whether or not something is natural does not correlate to whether or not it is right?

    The argument so far has run:

    You: Homoesecuality is wrong because it is unnatural - so is paedophilia.

    Others: Natural and right aren't the same thing - even so, homosexuality is natural so your line of reasoning is doubly flawed.

    This is where the confusion came in - you seem to have got the wrong end of the stick and think that we equate natural with right like you, thus deeming both homosexuality and paedophilia acceptable. As I explained in my previous post, we reject your premise that natural equals right and therefore it is false to say that we must accept peadophilia if we accept homosexuality.

    The rest was basically a load of crap involving you continuing to be confused and claiming that we must think paedophilia is okay (see previous paragraph) and others getting bogged down in debating whether or not masturbation/homosexuality is natural. Incidentally - you appear to have claimed that since we do not see masturbation as being immoral, we must accept that by our logic humans should have evolved the ability to ejacualte on a whim. Not entirely sure how you've come to this conclusion but it's false. Just because somehting isn't immoral or is indeed moral, does not mean that it gives us a reproductive advantage (the only criteria in determining what features we evolve over time). Take scratching an itch - this is not immoral, it is beneficial natural and desirable (not that I am implying a link between the points before and after the comma; wouldn't want you getting confused again!) - yet we have not evolved the ability to eliminate itches with a thought.

    This may seem a silly analogy, but I don't trust you to understand my point with the explanation alone.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by queenj)
    So what determines what is right and what is wrong?
    What TKR said; its about the impact on society and whether what you do imposes unnecessarily on others freedom. Now I could go off on a long rant to qualify my idea of 'unnecessarily' but that'd be slightly off topic.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by queenj)
    So what determines what is right and what is wrong?
    Please read post 811 - if you still feel it provides an inadequate explanation of (at least) my criteria for morality, then I will endeavor to make it clearer for you.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TKR)
    Homosexuality is natural.

    Paedophilia is natural.

    Homosexuality is not wrong.

    Paedophilia is.

    How much clearer must we be to make you see that whether or not something is natural does not correlate to whether or not it is right?

    The argument so far has run:

    You: Homoesecuality is wrong because it is unnatural - so is paedophilia.

    Others: Natural and right aren't the same thing - even so, homosexuality is natural so your line of reasoning is doubly flawed.

    This is where the confusion came in - you seem to have got the wrong end of the stick and think that we equate natural with right like you, thus deeming both homosexuality and paedophilia acceptable. As I explained in my previous post, we reject your premise that natural equals right and therefore it is false to say that we must accept peadophilia if we accept homosexuality.

    The rest was basically a load of crap involving you continuing to be confused and claiming that we must think paedophilia is okay (see previous paragraph) and others getting bogged down in debating whether or not masturbation/homosexuality is natural. Incidentally - you appear to have claimed that since we do not see masturbation as being immoral, we must accept that by our logic humans should have evolved the ability to ejacualte on a whim. Not entirely sure how you've come to this conclusion but it's false. Just because somehting isn't immoral or is indeed moral, does not mean that it gives us a reproductive advantage (the only criteria in determining what features we evolve over time). Take scratching an itch - this is not immoral, it is beneficial natural and desirable (not that I am implying a link between the points before and after the comma; wouldn't want you getting confused again!) - yet we have not evolved the ability to eliminate itches with a thought.

    This may seem a silly analogy, but I don't trust you to understand my point with the explanation alone.
    So what you are saying is that you are the grand high decider of what is right and what is wrong, regardless of nature and all other factors.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TKR)
    Homosexuality is natural.

    Paedophilia is natural.

    Homosexuality is not wrong.

    Paedophilia is.

    How much clearer must we be to make you see that whether or not something is natural does not correlate to whether or not it is right?

    The argument so far has run:

    You: Homoesecuality is wrong because it is unnatural - so is paedophilia.

    Others: Natural and right aren't the same thing - even so, homosexuality is natural so your line of reasoning is doubly flawed.

    This is where the confusion came in - you seem to have got the wrong end of the stick and think that we equate natural with right like you, thus deeming both homosexuality and paedophilia acceptable. As I explained in my previous post, we reject your premise that natural equals right and therefore it is false to say that we must accept peadophilia if we accept homosexuality.

    The rest was basically a load of crap involving you continuing to be confused and claiming that we must think paedophilia is okay (see previous paragraph) and others getting bogged down in debating whether or not masturbation/homosexuality is natural. Incidentally - you appear to have claimed that since we do not see masturbation as being immoral, we must accept that by our logic humans should have evolved the ability to ejacualte on a whim. Not entirely sure how you've come to this conclusion but it's false. Just because somehting isn't immoral or is indeed moral, does not mean that it gives us a reproductive advantage (the only criteria in determining what features we evolve over time). Take scratching an itch - this is not immoral, it is beneficial natural and desirable (not that I am implying a link between the points before and after the comma; wouldn't want you getting confused again!) - yet we have not evolved the ability to eliminate itches with a thought.

    This may seem a silly analogy, but I don't trust you to understand my point with the explanation alone.
    Nice work clearing things up there :congrats:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zoecb)
    Technically speaking, peadophilia is as natural as the next thing. Hundreds of years ago it was quite natural for 12 year old girls to be married to older men. However cultures and societies change and in today's world this is completely unnacceptable because of improvements in human rights.
    Umm.....not so, I'm afraid. Look at the legal age of sexual consent around the world. In some parts of scandinavia, it's 12 years old for girls.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Israfel)
    Nice work clearing things up there :congrats:
    I concur.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by queenj)
    So what you are saying is that you are the grand high decider of what is right and what is wrong, regardless of nature and all other factors.
    I was merely trying to show where elements of confusion have clouded the direction of the thread. Obviously there are going to be differences of opinion in debate - and the criteria that I put forward for determining right and wrong are useful only in my opinion. Sorry if I didn't qualify them. However, I happen to think they're rather good criteria - as do many others. As for nature - I think the idea of right and wrong has no place in nature.

    EDIT: Namely, because right and wrong is a human concept that is inextricably linked with decisions. Since I do not accept that animals/plants/meteors have free will, I can't accept that an idea of right or wrong can be applied to them. For instance - if a cat kills a bird for pleasure rather than sustenance, we might see this as an immoral act by human standards, but the cat had no real choice in the matter - it is simply what the cat does instinctively through evolution. Thus the act is neither right nor wrong - it is amoral.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Your stance on the whole issue suggests that even if it is natural, it doesn’t make it right either.

    So we are back to square one, the only facts that we can guarantee is: heterosexuality is right.

    The End.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by queenj)
    Your stance on the whole issue suggests that even if it is natural, it doesn’t make it right either.

    So we are back to square one, the only facts that we can guarantee is: heterosexuality is right.

    The End.
    Huh? Where are you getting this from?

    I thought I had made my stance exceedingly clear! My position is that right or wrong is not determined by nature. Therefore whether or not homoexuality is natural is irrelevant. Peopla have also ventured that even if right or wrong was equivalent to natural or unnatural, homosexuality could not be deemed wrong as it is natural (i.e. seen in nature).

    I've stated what I think makes something right. I happen to beleive that expressions of homosexual desire in a legitimate context are extremely benficial to both parties. Even more so are loving homosexual relationships. Note that I don't apply labels of right or wrong to the sexuality itself - only the actions that are associated with it. It seems very odd to call any sexuality right or wrong. Only actions/decisions can be right or wrong - not who you want to sleep with - which is beyond anyone's control and does not afford them any kind of moral superiority. As you're so fond of bringing paedophilia into the debate, I'll preempt you. Yes, I would consider being a paedophile to be amoral (that is, having sexual feelings for children). It is only by acting upon those feelings, by abusing children or being complicit in said abuse by looking at photos/whatever that someone can be deemed to have done something wrong.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Your stance on the whole issue suggests that even if it is natural, it doesn’t make it right either, you have said this, and it is on record!

    So we are back to square one, the only sexual orientation that we can prove as correct and right, is: heterosexuality, FACT!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by queenj)
    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?
    no: that would be pointless. it's like living by the sea... it just takes the fun outta it if its there ALL the time (assuming that people don't go around masturbating in public :rolleyes: ) and, assuming that you have never masturbated, you really wont know how inferior it feels to actually being WITH soomeone else...?

    (Original post by queenj)
    Your stance on the whole issue suggests that even if it is natural, it doesn’t make it right either, you have said this, and it is on record!

    So we are back to square one, the only sexual orientation that we can prove as correct and right, is: heterosexuality, FACT!
    how so? you are agreeing to the point about natural not making it right, yes? then how can you deem heterosexuality to be right?? :confused: surely not because it is natural???? :rolleyes:

    oh, and for our sanity, please go look up 'consensual' and note where we use it... if a person is not able to fully consent, (and being unaware of all factors and effects of an action deem someone to be unbale to consent), then the action cannot be deemed as morally right... if everyone concerned concents, where is the immorality in that?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    So what you are saying now is that there are even more factors that define whether homosexuality is right, we are getting somewhere now. There just seems to be more and more elements to whole issue.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by queenj)
    And just for the record, suicide is a crime.
    Not in the UK it isn't.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by queenj)
    There just seems to be more and more elements to whole issue.
    :eek: an evolving debate in D&D :eek:

    whatever next? :p: :rolleyes:

    oh, and how is it a 'new element' when you were going on about 'consenting' (in big, red writing) earlier? (post #765)
    Offline

    9
    (Original post by queenj)
    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?
    You believe in evolution I take it, therefore if sex was natural and beneficial, we would have evolved with the capacity to climax and have orgasms and ejaculate, without the need for roughing it out so much, yes?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    This thread is odd to me and many others anyway, as for us there IS no debate to be had, there is absolutely nothing wrong with homosexuality and anything said against this statement is extremely easy to disagree with.
 
 
 
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.