Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by benm)
    ..
    Awwwwww look everybody, the little piece of scum aka benm has a BNP link in his signature, how...... pathetic, couldn’t you find a more imaginative way of being controversial?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dajo123)
    Awwwwww, the little piece of scum aka benm has a BNP link in his signature, how...... pathetic, couldn’t you find a more imaginative way of being controversial?
    Argue with him. Don't resort to flames!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    Are you qualified to say such a comment beyond a remit of a student such as yourself? Chemists rarely no anything about the mind. In fact it is estimated we only know about 1% of this thing in our heads. Not enough to judge.
    The point I was trying to make is this: regardless of whether you are a student or a chemist, you do not brand a murderer part of nature. Nobody says that he has a genetic defect or something which causes this behaviour , unless he has some nervous disorder! Likewise then, homosexuality cannot be branded part of nature because there is nothing to prove that the reasons behind a person being gay is genetic.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jamal1425)
    The point I was trying to make is this: regardless of whether you are a student or a chemist, you do not brand a murderer part of nature. Nobody says that he has a genetic defect or something which causes this behaviour , unless he has some nervous disorder! Likewise then, homosexuality cannot be branded part of nature because there is nothing to prove that the reasons behind a person being gay is genetic.
    You cannot equate murderers with homosexuals.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jamal1425)
    The point I was trying to make is this: regardless of whether you are a student or a chemist, you do not brand a murderer part of nature. Nobody says that he has a genetic defect or something which causes this behaviour , unless he has some nervous disorder! Likewise then, homosexuality cannot be branded part of nature because there is nothing to prove that the reasons behind a person being gay is genetic.
    Again, you cannot equate murderers with homsexuals.


    Also, if a schizophrenic murders someone he is mentally ill not necessarily a murderer, hence he is not incarcerated in a prison like a murderer.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dajo123)
    You cannot equate murderers with homosexuals.
    We could ask him what is murder couldn't we?

    It would be nice to seem people with some expertise relating to this topic having studied psychology and perhaps criminology......
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dajo123)
    Awwwwww look everybody, the little piece of scum aka benm has a BNP link in his signature, how...... pathetic, couldn’t you find a more imaginative way of being controversial?
    http://www.uk-learning.net/f1.html
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by benm)
    http://www.uk-learning.net/f1.html
    Witty, there may be hope for you yet.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jamal1425)
    The point I was trying to make is this: regardless of whether you are a student or a chemist, you do not brand a murderer part of nature. Nobody says that he has a genetic defect or something which causes this behaviour , unless he has some nervous disorder! Likewise then, homosexuality cannot be branded part of nature because there is nothing to prove that the reasons behind a person being gay is genetic.
    EVERYTHING is a part of nature. There is no coincidence that the most respected scientific journal in the world is named "Nature". The physical world in which we live is what is known as Nature. Every object inside it is a part of nature.

    http://www.nature.com
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dajo123)
    Awwwwww look everybody, the little piece of scum aka benm has a BNP link in his signature, how...... pathetic, couldn’t you find a more imaginative way of being controversial?
    Do not use language like that about members, you are no better by discriminating against his views because of one link and secoundly the other link is far more worrying in my opinion.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    It's not natural to have an abortion, but those who advocate that homosexulaity is not natural think that abortion is.
    I don't want to get into technicalities here, but this was the generalisation I was referring to. No, it never said "all those", but then it never said "some of those" either. And yes languages can be very ambiguous.

    My comment seems to have been blown out of all proportion - I am not some homosexual-hating bigot, nor do I think I have the right to decide what is natural, normal, wrong or right. I was just talking about homosexuality as a feature of the human species and whether or not it could be justifiably described as a "natural" way of leading life (whatever that means). I do not think I have all the answers on this, far from it, which was why I brought it up. Hope this has settled things!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sarah101)
    I don't want to get into technicalities here, but this was the generalisation I was referring to. No, it never said "all those", but then it never said "some of those" either. And yes languages can be very ambiguous.

    My comment seems to have been blown out of all proportion - I am not some homosexual-hating bigot, nor do I think I have the right to decide what is natural, normal, wrong or right. I was just talking about homosexuality as a feature of the human species and whether or not it could be justifiably described as a "natural" way of leading life (whatever that means). I do not think I have all the answers on this, far from it, which was why I brought it up. Hope this has settled things!
    The thing with teh word "natural" is that it is so ambigious. It seems to imply "how things were meant to be" or "how things is supposed to work" whereas in reality Nature takes no regard of value judgements. Nature doesnt care about purposes, meanings, right or wrong. What happens happens. This is why it becomes so ambigious to say that some sort of behaviour is not natural. Discussing whether homosexuality is natural or not is sort of like discussing whether a circle is a pretty shape. Its rather meaningless and doesnt really help anyone out. This is why I atack it. Most people on these pages are teenagers or in their early twenties, and undoubtly it can be a rather difficult experience to find out that you are homosexual. Branding it as "unnatural" or "against human nature" will only make the situation more difficult. Thus as I cant see any particular benefit of classifying homosexuality as unnatural, why not just classify it as natural? Natural or unnatural is inthe end only subjective opinions anyways, so why not recognise homosexuals as a natural part of humanity. They deserve to be treated with the same respect as everyone else without being branded as unnatural.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by benm)
    Thus there is something wrong when the ultimate cause is not satisfied, and in fact contradicted, by the proximate cause. Homosexuality is not natural.
    Rhetoric rather than evidence really, you'll need to provide some of the latter if you wish to be taken seriously. I can't see that most people would regard sex which does not result in procreation as unnatural though, frankly. Do you view a heterosexual coupling which doesn't result in procreation as unnatural? What about post-menopausal women having sex, or infertile people? I'm always interested to hear the views of people who think homosexual sex is unnatural (a ludicrously subjective term) on these three things.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Incomplete)
    Do not use language like that about members, you are no better by discriminating against his views because of one link and secoundly the other link is far more worrying in my opinion.
    You are quite right, i am very much discriminating against him
    I am generally quite an objective person, but it’s in my nature to despise members of the BNP and a vast array of equally ignorant fools (sexists, xenophobes etc). I will not be diplomatic to people who affiliate themselves with such violent and racist degenerates, you may feel different (BTW i think scum was the one of the nicer words i could have used )
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lala)
    Rhetoric rather than evidence really, you'll need to provide some of the latter if you wish to be taken seriously. I can't see that most people would regard sex which does not result in procreation as unnatural though, frankly.
    I didn't say that, either you misunderstood me or you are using a straw man argument.

    (Original post by lala)
    Do you view a heterosexual coupling which doesn't result in procreation as unnatural?
    No, because the coupling still enables procreation to take place.

    (Original post by lala)
    What about post-menopausal women having sex, or infertile people?
    It is not possible to tell whether somone is post-menopausal or infertile.
    However, if there was a 'sexuality' whereby someone was only attracted to post-menopausal women or infertile people, assuming they were able to identify them as such, then yes, this would be unatural.

    EDIT: Please note the keyword 'sexuality' that I used. Don't try and use an example of a couple staying together after a partner finding out their lover is infertile; in such a scenario many other evolutionary cognitive functions would also need to be included and the causation for their coupling would be significantly blurred.

    (Original post by lala)
    I'm always interested to hear the views of people who think homosexual sex is unnatural (a ludicrously subjective term) on these three things.
    Again, I affirm that I was not merely arguing that because the sex does not lead to procreation it is unnatural, but that it is unnatural because the 'sexuality' and the desire for sex with people of the same sex actively prevents procreation from taking place.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by benm)
    No, because the coupling still enables procreation to take place.
    What is your stance on test tube babies and babies born when the mother has recently died?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by benm)
    I didn't say that, either you misunderstood me or you are using a straw man argument.
    No, because the coupling still enables procreation to take place.
    It is not possible to tell whether somone is post-menopausal or infertile.
    However, if there was a 'sexuality' whereby someone was only attracted to post-menopausal women or infertile people, assuming they were able to identify them as such, then yes, this would be unatural.
    EDIT: Please note the keyword 'sexuality' that I used. Don't try and use an example of a couple staying together after a partner finding out their lover is infertile; in such a scenario many other evolutionary cognitive functions would also need to be included and the causation for their coupling would be significantly blurred.
    Again, I affirm that I was not merely arguing that because the sex does not lead to procreation it is unnatural, but that it is unnatural because the 'sexuality' and the desire for sex with people of the same sex actively prevents procreation from taking place.

    I'll go though it point by point.
    You said there was something wrong when the ultimate cause, procreation, was not satisfied. Now that seems fairly conclusively to mean that sex where the end result is not procreation is unnatural, but if it actually wasn't what you meant, work on your expression.
    ok. Would you feel the same if contraception was used?
    I'm not quite sure what this next statement means, you put it badly. I assume you don't mean that its not possible to tell if someone is infertile (nobody is so stupid as to think this, medical science quite clearly gives us that ability) but rather that it isn't possible to differentiate. Well we can tell the difference between post-menopausal and infertile, but either way that has nothing to do with anything. I'm using the example I do because it is relevant: you claim that gay sex is unnatural because it cannot result in procreation, well neither can many acts of heterosexual sex. Evidently you think there is a difference but I want to know what your justification for this is.
    Since no objection to gay sex based on reproduction alone which does not also apply to some straight couplings can possibly be sustained, it seems that your objection is on moral not biological grounds. Would you agree?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    What is your stance on test tube babies and babies born when the mother has recently died?
    I haven't really given much thought to test tube babies.

    If a baby is produced artificially from a dead womans eggs, then I would disagree with that. Is that what you mean though?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by benm)
    I haven't really given much thought to test tube babies.

    If a baby is produced artificially from a dead womans eggs, then I would disagree with that. Is that what you mean though?
    That as well as a mother died whilst trying to give birth to the child and so the doctors perform a caesarian to help release the unborn child. I used the sentence quite vaguely so people will think of several situations, some which I may not know myself.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lala)
    I'll go though it point by point.
    You said there was something wrong when the ultimate cause, procreation, was not satisfied. Now that seems fairly conclusively to mean that sex where the end result is not procreation is unnatural, but if it actually wasn't what you meant, work on your expression.
    Again, I affirm that I was not merely arguing that because the sex does not lead to procreation it is unnatural, but that it is unnatural because the 'sexuality' and the desire for sex with people of the same sex actively prevents procreation from taking place.

    (Original post by lala)
    ok. Would you feel the same if contraception was used?
    Again, I affirm that I was not merely arguing that because the sex does not lead to procreation it is unnatural, but that it is unnatural because the 'sexuality' and the desire for sex with people of the same sex actively prevents procreation from taking place.

    (ie. No.)

    (Original post by lala)
    I'm not quite sure what this next statement means, you put it badly. I assume you don't mean that its not possible to tell if someone is infertile (nobody is so stupid as to think this, medical science quite clearly gives us that ability) but rather that it isn't possible to differentiate.
    You were right the first time, I did mean it is not possible to tell if someone is infertile. I did not mean this on a thought-processing level as though a concious decision is being made whether or not you find someone attractive, as we all know this does not happen. I meant it in the sense that when you look at a random person and make a judgement about how attractive they are, it is impossible to take into consideration whether or not they are fertile.

    (Original post by lala)
    Well we can tell the difference between post-menopausal and infertile, but either way that has nothing to do with anything. I'm using the example I do because it is relevant: you claim that gay sex is unnatural because it cannot result in procreation, well neither can many acts of heterosexual sex. Evidently you think there is a difference but I want to know what your justification for this is.
    Again, I affirm that I was not merely arguing that because the sex does not lead to procreation it is unnatural, but that it is unnatural because the 'sexuality' and the desire for sex with people of the same sex actively prevents procreation from taking place.

    (ie. If somebody has solely a desire for a type of sex that can occur in a heterosexual relationship and which does not lead to procreation, so much so that it could be considered a 'sexuality', then this would be unnatural. If a concious decision is made to particpate in heterosexual acts that do not lead to procreation, as a result of a primative attraction to someone and to fulfil a proximate desire for sexual pleasure, then this is not unnatural.)

    (Original post by lala)
    Since no objection to gay sex based on reproduction alone which does not also apply to some straight couplings can possibly be sustained, it seems that your objection is on moral not biological grounds. Would you agree?
    Again, I affirm that I was not merely arguing that because the sex does not lead to procreation it is unnatural, but that it is unnatural because the 'sexuality' and the desire for sex with people of the same sex actively prevents procreation from taking place.

    (ie. Incorrect.)
 
 
 

5,265

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process
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.