This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Sodemy/Homosexuality - natural or not

Sort out your there/their/they'res.
Also, there are incidents of gay animals e.g. penguins. And black swans are often homosexuals. Natural? OUI.

Reply 381

Kreuzuerk

3

Diaz89

Did you read what I wrote I said "the issue here is not consent", not that rape is not consent.... so save your breath next time

I'm not even to going to respond to this garbage

People will apply natural=good logic on acts such as incest and beastiality.

Any act limiting the self-determination of another human being is clearly wrong. Our debate as to whether it is 'natural' or not is irrelevant. By 'natural', I simply means it is a by-product of the world we inhabit and I am not adding a value-judgment of 'good' or 'bad' to it. However, as they both limit the right of others to self-determination, I agree they are wrong. Clearly thought homosexuality between two consenting adults impacts upon the self-determination of nobody else and therefore it is utterly irrelevant as to whether we think it is 'good', 'bad' or even 'natural'. If two consenting men chose to sit down and watch the TV together, is that 'good', 'bad' or 'natural'? We can all argue different things however, they are all irrelevant because they (the two men watching TV) are of no concern to us.

Reply 382

crazyspacemonkey

11

Being homosexual and/or having anal sex is not unnatural. Neither involves anything unnatural (besides perhaps some lube) therefore it can't be deemed so.

And tough break on the negative rep OP, I imagine most of that came from this thread.

Reply 383

werd123

11

Diaz89

Did you read what I wrote I said "the issue here is not consent", not that rape is not consent.... so save your breath next time

Yes, and thats what i'm disagreeing with. The issue clearly is consent, which is why homosexuality is perfectly legal and largely accepted by society and rape is not. So to use apply blanket logic to all things animals do can't work because animals don't have the issue of consent, but we do, and whilst homosexuality is consensual, rape isn't, whcih is why your argument doesn't hold up.

Reply 384

Diaz89

3

werd123

Yes, and thats what i'm disagreeing with. The issue clearly is consent, which is why homosexuality is perfectly legal and largely accepted by society and rape is not. So to use apply blanket logic to all things animals do can't work because animals don't have the issue of consent, but we do, and whilst homosexuality is consensual, rape isn't, whcih is why your argument doesn't hold up.

Well why the hell not? if animals do it, then surely it must be natural...... :rolleyes:

Because something is consensual it doesn't make it right or moral. Incestous sex can be perfectly consensual but that does make it right. And if you argue that it is, then there is something really wrong with you.

Reply 385

speedbird

16

Diaz89

Whom justifies terrorism?

Diaz89

The issue here is not consent, it's the psyche of the rapist whom believes it's natural for him to act in the way that he does, why should we punish something they can't control if rape is then considered as natural?

This is all you need.

Reply 386

welshmun

2

Being homosexual is the way the human race is evolving.

Homosexual people understand that it is right for them to have a choice, they believe it is natural and this is down to self-invented nature.

Self-invented nature is based upon the fact that we have no nature other than the nature we create for ourselves.

The idea of self-invention is a mixture of truth and falsehood. People make many decisions that affect their developmental process and what they become in life. They might cooperate with a development process that leads to the fulfillment of what they have been designed to be, or they might cooperate with a development process that contradicts their design.

Whether something is natural (like being a homosexual) or not depends entirely upon someone's opinion and cannot fall into sections of either right or wrong.

Reply 387

Planto

16

welshmun

Being homosexual is the way the human race is evolving.

Homosexual people understand that it is right for them to have a choice, they believe it is natural and this is down to self-invented nature.

Self-invented nature is based upon the fact that we have no nature other than the nature we create for ourselves.

The idea of self-invention is a mixture of truth and falsehood. People make many decisions that affect their developmental process and what they become in life. They might cooperate with a development process that leads to the fulfillment of what they have been designed to be, or they might cooperate with a development process that contradicts their design.

Whether something is natural (like being a homosexual) or not depends entirely upon someone's opinion and cannot fall into sections of either right or wrong.

What a fat lot of rubbish.

Reply 388

welshmun

2

Planto

What a fat lot of rubbish.

I do emphaise my last point..

"Whether something is natural (like being a homosexual) or not depends entirely upon someone's opinion and cannot fall into sections of either right or wrong."

Thanks for your public opinion of my post, but your opinion doesn't fall into a total yes or no. But thanks for proving my point :biggrin:

Reply 389

Diaz89

3

Kreuzuerk

Any act limiting the self-determination of another human being is clearly wrong. Our debate as to whether it is 'natural' or not is irrelevant. By 'natural', I simply means it is a by-product of the world we inhabit and I am not adding a value-judgment of 'good' or 'bad' to it. However, as they both limit the right of others to self-determination, I agree they are wrong. Clearly thought homosexuality between two consenting adults impacts upon the self-determination of nobody else and therefore it is utterly irrelevant as to whether we think it is 'good', 'bad' or even 'natural'. If two consenting men chose to sit down and watch the TV together, is that 'good', 'bad' or 'natural'? We can all argue different things however, they are all irrelevant because they (the two men watching TV) are of no concern to us.

So in essence you ascribe to the "if it feels good,do it" belief correct?

Reply 390

Bslforever

15

How has this thread made it to nearly 400 responses? :confused:

Reply 391

Bslforever

15

speedbird

This is all you need.

Whom do you think you are?! :mad:

Reply 392

Kreuzuerk

3

Diaz89

So in essence you ascribe to the "if it feels good,do it" belief correct?

If it is 'good' for the person in question and does not limit the self-determination of anyone else, then yes, that is what that person should do. But be careful not to incorrectly summarize my position; I am not advocating a total call for wanton excess but rather, it is up to the individual to decide for themselves as to what they want.

Reply 393

werd123

11

Diaz89

Well why the hell not? if animals do it, then surely it must be natural...... :rolleyes:

Animals don't have social rules or expectations to adhere to though do they? :wink:

The argument that homosexuality is natural because animals do it holds up because it is merely showing that it is not a concious choice, and it is something that alot more species have, but this by no means says that rape and cannibalism are acceptable because by our social rules and expectations, regardless of whether these are natural or not (which technically they are), they're morally wrong for a modern society.

People aren't denying rape and cannibalism are natural for animals, because like I said, technically they are, but they dont fit in a modern day society, and in essence, the fact that rape and cannibalism are natural means homosexuality is also natural, which can fit perfectly well into a modern day society, as demonstrated by the Western World in general.

Because something is consensual it doesn't make it right or moral. Incestous sex can be perfectly consensual but that does make it right. And if you argue that it is, then there is something really wrong with you.

Incestual sex can have bad consequences though, homosexuality cannot (relatively, ofcourse you can contract STD's etc but they come with straight sex aswell), so once you've agreed that both are consensual, you have to look at them and work out if they're detrimental. One could also argue that if incestual sex is done with the consent of two parties, is in a private residence and appropriate contraception is used, it has no detrimental effect on society.

And no, there is nothing "really wrong" with me for saying that, and i'm merely pointing out that under certain circumstances incestual sex could be acceptable. Another view is that the state shouldn't play a role in what we do in the bedroom, so if it is consensual and done responsibly, and doesn't break the law (ruling out rape and cannibalism) it isn't the state's business to decide what we can and can't do, just saying.

Reply 394

userFN-2187

10

100% natural and 100% SUPER!

Reply 395

Flying Cookie

19

katebushfan

Exactly this. Well said.

Thanks there.

I realise it is naive to expect people to fix their deeply rooted attitudes - I observe this on myself; I think and I know that e.g. the impressions I get about people are not necessarily correct, but I always, always use first impressions to judge others. I do however try hard to rid myself of baseless, destructive attitudes and prejudices. It's not even about bad things e.g. "I bet that guy is a selfish prick", but also the good ones "They look like cool people", because they all tend to lead me to do silly things based on false assumptions. I mean, I'm gay, but if I try to imagine myself being disgusted by gays, I easily can! Why? Because the hints necessary for it are so readily available in popular culture e.g. "It's gross, unnatural, immoral, etc.", that it's no longer a matter of reason and logic whether I end up believing those things, so it works a bit like "If you repeat it enough times, they'll beliee it even though it's false".

Reply 396

speedbird

16

Bslforever

Whom do you think you are?! :mad:

I am whom I am, and whomever says otherwise is UNNATURAL, I mean to say wrong, according to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, whom will judge us after we die.

Reply 397

Diaz89

3

werd123

Animals don't have social rules or expectations to adhere to though do they? :wink:

Excellent, this basically agrees with what I'm saying.

The argument that homosexuality is natural because animals do it holds up because it is merely showing that it is not a concious choice

Right you're essentially saying that homosexuals have no self control hence they behave as they do.

and it is something that alot more species have, but this by no means says that rape and cannibalism are acceptable because by our social rules and expectations, regardless of whether these are natural or not (which technically they are), they're morally wrong for a modern society

.

Excellent, then we cannot pick and choose what traits animals exhibit and compare them to humans because they are in essence morally wrong?

People aren't denying rape and cannibalism are natural for animals, because like I said, technically they are, but they dont fit in a modern day society, and in essence, the fact that rape and cannibalism are natural means homosexuality is also natural, which can fit perfectly well into a modern day society, as demonstrated by the Western World in general.

I'm sorry I completely disagree with you there

Incestual sex can have bad consequences though, homosexuality cannot (relatively, ofcourse you can contract STD's etc but they come with straight sex aswell), so once you've agreed that both are consensual, you have to look at them and work out if they're detrimental. One could also argue that if incestual sex is done with the consent of two parties, is in a private residence and appropriate contraception is used, it has no detrimental effect on society.

What if they're homosexuals incestual sex as in between two brothers, or a father and a son, or even with protection between a male and female?

And no, there is nothing "really wrong" with me for saying that, and i'm merely pointing out that under certain circumstances incestual sex could be acceptable. Another view is that the state shouldn't play a role in what we do in the bedroom, so if it is consensual and done responsibly, and doesn't break the law (ruling out rape and cannibalism) it isn't the state's business to decide what we can and can't do, just saying.

You think it's conducive or looks right upon a society that tolerates and will inevitably celebrate incest?

Reply 398

Diaz89

3

Kreuzuerk

If it is 'good' for the person in question and does not limit the self-determination of anyone else, then yes, that is what that person should do. But be careful not to incorrectly summarize my position; I am not advocating a total call for wanton excess but rather, it is up to the individual to decide for themselves as to what they want.

OK, I guess me and you ascribe to very different moral beliefs.

Reply 399

Mahyor

Whether homosexuality is natural is irrelevant. There are many things in the world, such as french kissing, office work and heart transplants, that are unnatural; yet, however, I doubt there are many people who complain about those things. Then are many things that are natural, such as jealousy and anger, that we usually do not encourage.

The point I am trying to make is that whether something is natural or not is irrelevant to whether it is good or not.

Sodemy/Homosexuality - natural or not

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you