Homosexuality

[SuperBowser]

I think a few people have attempted to address it, so figured it's fairer not to have multiple people addressing the same thing. I also thought it would go down the objective morality/natural/relativist route which Dre. doesn't want to explain to me.

His original statement:

If homosexuality is allowed, I don't see why someone should be looked down on for watching child porn, because as all the modern people say 'as long as you're not harming someone it's ok'.

 

[Crimson King]

Well, that quote is still flawed. Child porn DOES hurt someone. In order for it to be made, there must be an abused child.

 

[Deleted member]

I called him out on it and he replied:

No he isn't, I didn't say the child is assaulted, just that by your logic a person is fine to watch child pornography. Even if the material isn't porn itself, a person could just watch kids shows for sexual gratification, is that fine by you?

 

[Sucumbio]

...

It seems as if Dre. is arguing homosexual practice as being evil because it corrupts natural law.

Phew... well that may actually be a viable standpoint based on your definitions of "evil" and "natural law" and "corruption."

I tend to disagree, however. I've found that sex among humans is an act by which we have applied our intellects (something unique to humans), and in so doing, have rationalized its purpose as being capable of more than "just to make babies." I also feel that animals who have same-sex intercourse typically are doing so to establish dominance. ****, in other words. As for the dolphins, well I believe this has been fundamentally proven, using tests on their endocrine systems. Basically they enjoy orgasm, so they have sex. But duh, that's why sex feels good (generally, there are a few exceptions in the animal kingdom where sex=death actually) good = more likely to do it, thus propagation becomes more guaranteed.

Sex for pleasure isn't only common, it's commonplace in society. It may be looked down upon in certain circles, like in Christianity, ... there's a strict moral code of "virginity" and waiting until wedlock, all this... but honestly, that's NOT because of the ramifications involved with violating natural law, or even God's law (though it's spelled out as such as a means to and end), it's honestly to do with not making a bunch of illegitimate kids. That harms society, whereas strong family units promotes a strong society (and piggy bank, strong family values=higher taxes paid).

When I was about 10 years old, and getting my hair cut, I asked my mom... "Why do people use condoms? Isn't that interfering with God? It's a man-made thing, it's blocking the ... you know... I bet he doesn't like that."

Her response: "Why, what a mature attitude to have. You're far too young, though to understand why people have sex for reasons other than procreation."

Sex as an act of love, a symbol of affection, these sorts of things, preclude the "intent" of sex for procreation. Humans have an itch to scratch. This itch does not discriminate, either. Usually it'll be for "good breeding stock" because that's what we're programmed to look for. But sometimes, it'll be a member of the same sex. On super rare (and unfortunate) occasions, it'll be for kids, or ... animals. -_-

This itch is so ... dominant in our lives that we masturbate! We actually have sex with ourselves, because we want that systemic reaction of orgasm. Pure biology at play here, even if you want to argue the emotional/mental/or yes even philosophical implications of it, it really does just boil down to plain 'ole biology.

So no, same-sex sex isn't "wrong" or "evil" or anything. It just is. It's a fact of life, Ya know lions have sex with their own offspring? Yeah... incest. The programming is in biology to do all kinds of stuff, the only reason sodomy is so looked down upon is because of the christian value system. If we recall our ancient Greek history, it was not uncommon for same-sex relationships to take place and it was certainly not looked down upon. It was an honor actually to be hooked up with a philosopher, who often would take young teenage males as their bedfellows in a ritualistic transfer of ... well everything, right down to their very souls.

Oh yeah, and why are we (or other mammals) engineered so that anal sex in males can feel good? Why is our prostate exposed in such a manner? Weeeeel as it turns out the prostate is required for ejaculation. It just so happens to be located in such a place that it can be directly stimulated through anal intercourse. This "discovery" goes back to biology. An animal will be less likely to rebel against their dominant aggressor if they experience a pleasurable sensation during ****. Not to condone the action (far from it) but women are reported to experience orgasm during ****, and often feel guilt over this. This systemic reality can be seen as the body's natural defense system. During orgasm the adrenaline levels in the blood are elevated, which can lead to a female **** victim being able to overpower her attacker, and escape.

 

[Jam Stunna]

Sex for pleasure also occurs within marriages; even married people aren't looking to have children every time they have sex.

I'm reading an article about marriage, and some of it seems pertinent to this conversation (especially the references to sex as an expression of love), so I'll post some of it here (you can find the whole article here):

AOL Health: Research seems to show that sex counts -- the more often couples have sex, the happier the marriage. How can couples have more sex?

TPP: Well, it's pretty specific to a couple. Remember that line from "Annie Hall" when the therapist says to Diane Keaton and Woody Allen in separate meetings, "Well how often do you have sex?" And she says, "Oh, constantly, three times a week," and he says, "Hardly ever, three times a week." And that sort of tells you, if it works for you, then it works. If it doesn't work for you, then it's not enough.

But overall, it's important for a married couple to know that it's normal for sex to decline in a marriage. You're still having more sex than a single person; there's definitely a correlation between the couple's satisfaction with their sex life and their satisfaction with the marriage. So frequency is definitely associated with a happier relationship, but it doesn't have to be frequency. It's just whether or not you're both satisfied with the amount of sex that's in the relationship.

AOL Health: What if you want to increase your frequency?

TPP: I've actually heard from thousands of readers who have talked about being in a no-sex or a low-sex marriage, and that is really a difficult problem for couples. There's a big loss, an emotional loss when your sex life goes away in a marriage, and it's a tough thing to repair. One of the pieces of advice that Helen Fisher, an anthropologist at Rutgers University who really knows a lot about love research, gives couples is that if you are having problems, have sex -- even if don't feel like it. Because just the act of having sex unlocks a lot of these bonding hormones and brain chemicals. It is a shortcut, in a way, for restoring intimacy and getting over bad times in a relationship. Even if you don't feel like it, once you get started, you do feel like it because biology sort of takes over. Sex is pretty essential. In the last chapter of the book, it's one of the main pieces of advice in terms of a prescription for marital happiness. Focusing on your sex life is not just something enjoyable, it's truly good for your marriage, for your relationship.

 

[Dre89]

Ok there's too much to answer here but I'll try answer a few main points:

Child attraction- I'm not talking about assault. Even if you consider the making of child pornography harmful (which I do), a person can just watch kids shows to derive sexual pleasure from the children. A person can also watch movies where women are hurt and derive sexual pleasure from them.

Is that ok by you people?

With regards to sterile couples, I endorse that because I said the requirement was that you are willing to have a child with your partner. I didn't say that you had to know you would have a child.

However, if you are with a partner simply because they cannot procreate then to me that is still a corruption of the act.

Also, there is a contradiction when you guys tell me that gays should just be able to participate in sexual acts anyway.

My argument is that there are objective goods, and that abstanance from corruptions of the sexual act is one of those goods that should be upheld.

However, if I am to ask that why is it that a gay should be able to practice, yet a pedophile can't, you'll reply by saying it is harmful.

But have you not realised what you're saying here? Pedophilia is not tolerated by you guys because it violates an objective good.

So pedophiles must abstain from practice as to not violate your idea of an objective good, yet I am not entitled to forbid gays from practice in order to preserve other goods?


There's just too much for me to answer to here. Also, If you just came into the debate, read the whole thread because it's likely you'll ask me questions I've already answered.

 

[Jam Stunna]

I don't think that people are disagreeing with the idea that things can be wrong. Like you pointed out, most posters think that pedophilia is wrong.

They're disagreeing (or at least I'm disagreeing) with why you consider things to be wrong. Pedophilia is wrong to me because a child cannot knowingly consent to a sex act, and because of the differences between adults and children (both physical and emotional), a relationship is always abusive.

As I understand it., you're definition of wrong is based on what you refer to as the nature of sex, and you group together pedophilia, homosexuality and even sex for pleasure. That's where the issue is, not with your willingness to declare something wrong, but why you declare it as such.

I just want to make sure I understand you completely: is it your position that sex should be had for procreation purposes only, including between married people? And as such, homosexuality is wrong because it can never result in procreation?

 

[GoldShadow]

Child attraction- I'm not talking about assault. Even if you consider the making of child pornography harmful (which I do), a person can just watch kids shows to derive sexual pleasure from the children. A person can also watch movies where women are hurt and derive sexual pleasure from them.

When people watch, obtain or purchase child pornography, it encourages the creation of child pornography. It 'legitimizes', in a sense, the production of child pornography because there is a demand or a market for it. Therefore, yes, watching child porn is wrong.

There is no such dilemma with homosexuality.

 

[Dre89]

At Jamstunna.

Yeah, given the nature of the act, you should only be willing to sleep with someone that you are willing to procreate with. So naturally, that is someone you want to spend the rest of your life, for that's the best way to raise a child. You don't have to be officially married, but there has to be a permanent commitment, so for that reason I don't believe in divorce either.

Homosexuality is different from pedophilia of course. It isn't different to being attracted to kids though, for it is still a corruption of the sexual act.

The main difference between me and you guys is that you believe the only objective good is to presvere social order, ie. don't harm others agains their will.

I have reason to believe this is only one good that needs to be upheld. The other goods, like the ones I propose, are not doing for preservation of humanity, they are done for their own sake, they are human flourishing.

The problem I have with your position is that if human preservation is the only good, then humans just become means to and end.

In other words, it is good to preserve social order, but why? So that humans can flourish. There is no point preserving humanity if all humanity is going to do is well..preserve itself. Having no notion of flourishment defeats the purpose of being living beings in the first place.

 

[Dre89]

When people watch, obtain or purchase child pornography, it encourages the creation of child pornography. It 'legitimizes', in a sense, the production of child pornography because there is a demand or a market for it. Therefore, yes, watching child porn is wrong.

There is no such dilemma with homosexuality.

Read the sentence again.

I accepted that child porn is harmful, so I used the example of watching kids shows to obtain sexual pleasure from the children. I also used the example of watching movies where women are sadistically also to obtain pleasure.

These things weren't created for sexual purposes, but are in fact being used for that end, without harming anyone. Is that ok with you?

 

[Jam Stunna]

So does every sexual encounter need the explicit goal of resulting in procreation, or do the sexual partners only need to be willing to procreate without explicitly striving towards it?

 

[Dre89]

I guess the second suggestion is more corrrect in my eyes.

The nature of the act means that procreation is a likely consequence, and you must be accepting of that consequence.

The fact that you are willing to procreate with that person expresses the desire for a unity with that person.

However, that doesn't mean that you can bed multiple partners on the grounds that you are willing to parent all the resulting offspring, for you should only be willing to parent with one partner, for that is the best way to parent.

 

[Deleted member]

Read the sentence again.

I accepted that child porn is harmful, so I used the example of watching kids shows to obtain sexual pleasure from the children. I also used the example of watching movies where women are sadistically also to obtain pleasure.

These things weren't created for sexual purposes, but are in fact being used for that end, without harming anyone. Is that ok with you?

yes.
what is there against this besides "corrupting the act"?

 

[BSP]

With regards to sterile couples, I endorse that because I said the requirement was that you are willing to have a child with your partner. I didn't say that you had to know you would have a child.

OK, you established that the requirement is willing to procreate. If you're sterile, you can't have a child, but you have deemed it ok since they are willing.

However, if you are with a partner simply because they cannot procreate then to me that is still a corruption of the act.

But homosexuals are not with their partner simply because they can't create. If they are together, they should love each other. I'm sure most gay couples wish they could create together.

Also, there is a contradiction when you guys tell me that gays should just be able to participate in sexual acts anyway.

I think it's a contradiction if it's ok for sterile partners willing to create to participate in sexual activities, but it's not ok for homosexuals who are willing to create to participate in them. Both cases can't produce either way. What's the difference?

 

[Crimson King]

Read the sentence again.

I accepted that child porn is harmful, so I used the example of watching kids shows to obtain sexual pleasure from the children. I also used the example of watching movies where women are sadistically also to obtain pleasure.

These things weren't created for sexual purposes, but are in fact being used for that end, without harming anyone. Is that ok with you?

Perfectly fine for me because these are not real scenarios and are probably happening at home where no one is exposed to it. If a pedophile gets off to watching Barney for the kids on it, then I find that 10 times better than him stalking kids in a park, ****** kids, or viewing materials of child ****.

The desires towards children are probably ingrained, so no matter what they will exist in pedophiles, but if therapy fails, a safe outlet is at least tolerable, albeit creepy, to real victims.

There are no victims in homosexuality, save for those of homophobic abuse.

 

[SuperBowser]

Well I guess I'm late.

Dre., I'd like you to address the problem of anatomy. You claim that the purpose of sex is purely procreation, yes? I don't see the point in furthering the debate until you address such a basic discrepancy because your whole argument hinges on this one claim.

With regards to sterile couples, I endorse that because I said the requirement was that you are willing to have a child with your partner. I didn't say that you had to know you would have a child.

This is a politician's answer to the question. What you mean to say is that once somebody knows they are sterile, it is wrong for them to ever have sexual intercourse again. Forever. In fact, you would make it illegal for them to do so. Otherwise your logic would not be consistent in banning homosexual intercourse.

Women born with Turner's syndrome.
Women with ovarian dysgenesis.
Women who suffered pelvic inflammatory disease and are no longer fertile.
Women who had cervical/endometrial/ovarian cancer.
Women who had an ectopic pregnancy.
Women with uterine anomolies.
Men born with Klinefelter's
Men who suffered testicular torsion.
Men who suffered mumps infection as a child.
Men who had testicular cancer.
Men with vasal aplasia.
Men with ejaculatory dysfunction.
Men and women who had radiotherapy or chemotherapy which damaged their reproductive organs.
Married women who have had undergone menopause.
Any form of masturbation or oral/anal intercourse.

This isn't even an exhaustive list. You are saying that all of these people must not have sexual intercourse once they are aware of their infertility because that would be unnatural or wrong. In fact, it should be illegal.


I know you've had a lot of questions but I'd still be interested in your response for this at some point:

I think the implications of this point are very important actually. If you aren't willing to defend this viewpoint, you accept that homosexual people cannot change the way they are. We can then see what your argument is really saying: you are asking these people to never have a sexual relationship in their life. Furthermore, you would make it illegal for them to do so.

(What are you suggesting for the paedophiles in your example. That we ban people from thinking?)

 

[Lore]

Read the sentence again.

I accepted that child porn is harmful, so I used the example of watching kids shows to obtain sexual pleasure from the children. I also used the example of watching movies where women are sadistically also to obtain pleasure.

These things weren't created for sexual purposes, but are in fact being used for that end, without harming anyone. Is that ok with you?

I have to agree with CK on this one.

Is it even possible to control what people do with public television? I might watch a show about a peanut butter factory, but my neighbor might... "enjoy" peanut butter more than I do. The government's control over what we do ends when the show comes on the tv screen, so he's free to do that if wants to.

If it isn't possible to restrict what people do with public tv, how should it be even slightly plausible to control something that has always been a private act that all humans can enjoy?

Personally, I find homosexuality to be morally wrong, but I'm not going to go around and yell that we need to make it illegal. What people do in privacy is their business, not mine.

When the government starts trying to control what we do in private, we have a major problem.

 

[Crimson King]

Wait, the core of this argument is to make homosexuality illegal?

The SECOND my government does that, I will start a revolution. Homosexuals have no real rights at the moment, but if it is made illegal, they crossed that line, and I'd rather die than be under a regime that would find that acceptable.

 

[SuperBowser]

Well Uganda did make homosexuality (among other things) illegal. Since Dre. defended Uganda's decision, and then went on to claim that homosexuality is unnatural because it does not result in procreation, I would assume so.

 

[TheMike]

The SECOND my government does that, I will start a revolution.

There are probably some people in Uganda thinking in doing the same thing, especially the homosexuals.

 

[Deleted member]

Well the original question was "what if it was made illegal", which was not much of a debate.
right now we're agruing of the the idea if it is "right".

 

[Lore]

Wait, the core of this argument is to make homosexuality illegal?

The SECOND my government does that, I will start a revolution. Homosexuals have no real rights at the moment, but if it is made illegal, they crossed that line, and I'd rather die than be under a regime that would find that acceptable.

The debate was originally about Uganda banning it, but now we're really arguing about the "morality" (pure opinion, really) of it.

To be quite honest, I feel like Dre is implying that it should be illegal, but that's just me.

 

[Dre89]

Hold there are alot of incorrect assumptions about me now.

I didn't defend Uganda's decision, I said if hypothetically homosexuality is wrong then it should be banned, and I was reluctant to argue my view on it because it would detract from the original point of the debate.

SuperBowser I do genuinely endorse sterile couples that are willing to have children having sex, because unlike homosexuality, they aren't corrupting the natural act.

Also, CK, you're avoiding the question I proposed to you (you probably didn't realise I gave you the question).

Your argument is essentially that anything is ok as long as you don't harm others. We'll just call this the 'preservation of social order'. The reason why you say this is because you believe social order is an objective good that needs to be upheld.

So in preventing pedophilia, you are preventing the pedophile from achieving happiness because it violates what you consider to be an objective good, that is, social order.

The difference with me is that I'm arguing that are other objective goods that need to be upheld aside from social order. So if I can prove that these are in fact objective goods, don't I have a right to forbid homosexulaity if I believe it violates an OG? Because that's what you're doing with pedophilia.

Secondly, the only reason your OG is in fact just that, is to allow for my OGs. What my my OGs are are 'human flourishing', that is, being good for it's own sake.

If social order was the only OG, apart from the fact that it's unlikely there would only be one OG in the world, it defeats the purpose of being living beings. What good is the preservation of humanity if all it is going to achieve is...the preservation of humanity?

Yes preserving humanity is good, but why? So that there can be human flourishing.

In other words, the whole point of why social order is a good, is to allow for the kinds of goods I am proposing.

If that's too abstract here's a more simple example. Think of a car, the purpose of a car is transportation, let's call that its 'flourishing'. If the car breaks down, its owner takes it to the mechanic, to 'preserve' it, so this is the equivalent of preserving social oder in humanity. Obviously, the reason why the owner maintains the car is so that it will flourish, ie. he can drive it. He doesn't keep it alive...just so it can survive.

But that's what I think you are doing with humanity, you are just letting it survive..so it can survive.


Also, the problem with these debates is that everyone seems to forget what the point of the DH is. People gang up on me trying to prove me wrong, but that's not the point of the DH, it's to try and articulate well-structured arguments, for and against. But that's clearly not what people are interested in here, they are clreay are here for personal agendas of trying to prove a view that opposes theirs wrong.

 

[SuperBowser]

SuperBowser I do genuinely endorse sterile couples that are willing to have children having sex, because unlike homosexuality, they aren't corrupting the natural act.

How? They knowingly take part in an act that cannot produce children.

By your very definitions this is a corruption of what is natural.

Dre., I think the problem is you have made several controversial claims in this topic rather than anything personal going on. When somebody makes as many as you have, I guess it's difficult for people to keep silent. I hope you haven't construed anything I have said as a personal attack.

 

[Deleted member]

I thought the structured debate was a means to express (and convince others) of your PoV.

I have a question. is a social good something everyone HAS to do?
also, and I'm bringing up the collecting stamps again, what is the difference between homosexual sex and collecting stamps, because they both aren't objective goods right?

 

[Dre89]

Superbowser- The nature of the act suggests you are supposed to do it with someone who you are willing to have a baby with. That is the natural way to do the act. Even if the couple is sterile, as long as they are genuinely willing to have a child, they aren't corrupting anything.

I'm not saying you should have sex only when you want to have a child, I'm saying it should be with someone you are willing to have a child with. They are two different things. What you consider a flaw in my argument only applies to the first one, but I'm arguing the second.


Vi Veri- A social good, as in preserving social order is something everone ahs to od, for it is an objective good.

Collecting stamps is different from homosexuality in that doesn't corrupt any natural process or natural goal. With homosexuality, you are taking the sexual act and manipulating it into an unnatural form to attain sexual pleasure. You aren'tdoing anything of the sort with collecting stamps. Collecting stamps isn't an objective good in that it isn't morally good, but it isn't morally wrong either, homosexuality is mroally wrong however because of the aforementioned corruption.

 

[SuperBowser]

Superbowser- The nature of the act suggests you are supposed to do it with someone who you are willing to have a baby with. That is the natural way to do the act. Even if the couple is sterile, as long as they are genuinely willing to have a child, they aren't corrupting anything.

Homosexual couples aren't willing to have children?

Women who have undergone menopause and already have a completed family aren't willing to have more children.

 

[Dre89]

I edited my post so read it again.

Homosexuals do the act in order to attain pleasure. They aren't doing it in the way or for the purpose it is clearly designed for.

The sterile couple who are willing to procreate are in no way corrupting the natural act. The only way they would be corrupting the natural act is if they were only having sex because they couldn't procreate.

And what do you mean by a 'completed family'?

 

[SuperBowser]

Do you know what menopause means?

Women stop ovulating after they reach a certain age (~ 51 years). They can physically no longer become pregnant. By this point most women have completed their families. The only reason they continue to have sexual intercourse with their married partner (and the majority do) is to ''attain pleasure'' as you would put it.

I can assure you homosexual couples want children as much as any other couple. You have not demonstrated a difference between a homosexual couple that wants to adopt or an infertile couple.

 

[Dre89]

Yes I know what menapause is.

But you're still missing my point.

The heterosexual act without contraception is the natural way to do it.

The objective good I speak of is in doing the act the natural way, or the way it is supposed to be done. The objective good isn't the result which occurs from it.

To say that it's the result that is the OG would be stupid because then I would be saying that the only good sex is that which results in offspring, which is silly. Good sex is all sex which is done in the natural way, which is the heterosexual act with no contraception, willing the occurence of offspring.

Homosexuality isn't anything like that. It doesn't matter if they want kids, they're not having sex for that, their sexual act has nothing to do with children. They are still corurpting the natural sexual act.

 

[Deleted member]

As superbowser said, is homosexual could procreate they would. you're also implying that sex for procreation and any other for of sex are mutually exclusive, which is, of course, far from the truth.

people don't take sex and make it into something different, they built upon it.

EDIT:
this is also something to note:
"or the way it is supposed to be done."
why is it "supposed to be done" like that? with emphasis on the why.

 

[SuperBowser]

What?

An infertile couple's sexual act has nothing to do with children.

A 60 year old couple's sexual act has nothing to do with children.

 

[Dre89]

Vi I'm not sure I completely understand what you're trying to say but I'll give it a shot-

It is supposed to be done that way because it is evident it is the natural way. It is an instinctual act in which we are enticed into by sexual stimulation.

The sexual act is only fulfilled once ejaculation occurs, and the ****** is the only place where the ejaculation has any effect or purpose, and conveniently men instinctively ejaculate into that place.

As for the purpose, it's procreation.

 

[Dre89]

What?

An infertile couple's sexual act has nothing to do with children.

A 60 year old couple's sexual act has nothing to do with children.

It's still the natural act, and they're still willing to have children with that person.

You may say they're not willing to have children at that age, but the point is that if you're willing to have children, you're willing to commit the rest of your life to that person, which the old couple are.

So rephrase it better-

60 year old couple: Natural act+ commitment= permissable.

There is no part of the process they are corrupting, whereas homosexuals are corrupting the act.

 

[Deleted member]

so you say we only feel sexual stimulation in order to procreate?
because, though holding true for animals, humans have the ability to take this way of pleasuring oneself and turning it into an act of love.

How can one possibly say it "has to be" solely for procreation where millennia of casual sex would beg to differ (first example that come to mind are Roman prostitutes)

It's still the natural act, and they're still willing to have children with that person.
You may say they're not willing to have children at that age, but the point is that if you're willing to have children, you're willing to commit the rest of your life to that person, which the old couple are.
So rephrase it better-
60 year old couple: Natural act+ commitment= permissable.
There is no part of the process they are corrupting, whereas homosexuals are corrupting the act.

Homosexuals are willing to have children and are willing to spend the rest of their life together, raising children if they can (adoption?), how is that ANY different from old couples, besides the age (which really isn't a factor).

 

[SuperBowser]

The homosexual act is unnatural because it cannot result in procreation.

The infertile and old aged couples' acts are natural because they want to spend the rest of their life together.

Your logic is circular.

 

[Dre89]

Let me make sure I understand this correctly, are you saying that my idea that stimulation is only to entice you into procreation is wrong because everyone has casual sex?

I've covered this before with my argument about the nature of humans and their objective goods. The casual sex is a corruption of a good, for as I've said before, humans are the only creatures which can corrupt their own natures.

 

[Deleted member]

and they can do that because?

iirc correctly you basically said humans are the only creatures that can corrupt their own nature because they are human.

 

[Dre89]

The homosexual act is unnatural because it cannot result in procreation.

The infertile and old aged couples' acts are natural because they want to spend the rest of their life together.

Your logic is circular.

The homosexual act is wrong because it corrupts the natural act.

The old and infertile couples don't corrupt the natural act.

Sex is meant for procreation. The objective good is doing the act in the right way, not whether it happens to result in offspring or not.

I don't know why you keep referring to this I've already explained this.

 

[Dre89]

and they can do that because?

iirc correctly you basically said humans are the only creatures that can corrupt their own nature because they are human.

What?

Humans can corrupt their own natures as result of their specific characteristics. This was all covered previosuly in the thread, I'm not going to go over it all over again.