Homosexuality

[Deleted member]

I said then I didn't understand half of it.
because IMO, the characteristics of a human and a chimpanzee are so similar that I don't see the difference.

 

[SuperBowser]

I'm surprised you don't see the problem. Your reasoning for homosexual intercourse being unnatural is because it cannot result in children. This is ignored in infertile and old aged couples and a different qualifier is applied instead. It's a logical fallacy.

With the exceptional example of circular logic you've provided for all to see, we can justify anything we like in the world.

An example: http://www.numeraire.com/download/WhatIsCircularReasoning.pdf
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A688287

 

[Dre89]

I'm surprised you don't see the problem. Your reasoning for homosexual intercourse being unnatural is because it cannot result in children. This is ignored in infertile and old aged couples and a different qualifier is applied instead. It's a logical fallacy.

With the exceptional example of circular logic you've provided for all to see, we can justify anything we like in the world.

An example: http://www.numeraire.com/download/WhatIsCircularReasoning.pdf
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A688287

No, it's because it's a sexual act which isn't aimed at procreation.

The purpose of sexual stimulation is to entice one into the act, resulting in procreation.

Homosexuality is a corruption because you are removing procreation, and changing the end to sexual gratification.

The nature of the act suggests you are only supposed to do it with somone you are willing to have kids with, meaning you are willing to commit to them.

This is different from saying that you should only have when you want to have a child. Your argument only refutes this premise, not the one I put forward.

What separates old and sterile couples from gays is that they aren't corrupting the natural act of sex.

The only thing preventing procreation in old and sterile couples is a defection ie. old age or infertility. In the homosexual act, you are corrupting the natural act itself.

Old and sterile couples-
Stimulation-act-non procreation.
As a result of a defection, the end was not achieved, yet the process was still the same. It is still a human good to have sex in the natural way, they haven't corrupted the procss at all.

Homosexual act-
Unnatural act-gratification. They are taking sexual stimulation, which was meant to catalyse the natural act and subsequently procreation, and used it to achieve a completely different end. It is a complete corurption of the sexual act.

I don't see what more there is to explain.

 

[SuperBowser]

...that is still circular.

The problem, Dre., is you have already decided homosexuality is wrong. You are then setting out to prove this is the case instead of looking at the situation rationally.

Homosexuality is a corruption because you are removing procreation, and changing the end to sexual gratification.

Can you not see that sterile and old aged couples meet this criteria?

The nature of the act suggests you are only supposed to do it with somone you are willing to have kids with, meaning you are willing to commit to them.

Can you not see that homosexual couples meet this criteria?

 

[Dre89]

...that is still circular.

The problem, Dre., is you have already decided homosexuality is wrong. You are then setting out to prove this is the case instead of looking at the situation rationally.


Can you not see that sterile and old aged couples meet this criteria?

They're not changing the goal. They still want that to be the goal, and unlike gays, they are doing everything possible to still make that goal as achievable as possible.

If they are only having sex because that goal can't be achieved, and wouldn't be having sex if it could be, then that is wrong by my criteria.

Can you not see that homosexual couples meet this criteria?

But they're not doing the act. The part about willing to have kids is to determine when you should be doing the natural act. Gays aren't doing the natural act in the first place.

Homosexuality is wrong in that it is a sexual attraction outside of the purpose of what sexual attraction is for.

 

[BSP]

Homosexual act-
Unnatural act-gratification. They are taking sexual stimulation, which was meant to catalyse the natural act and subsequently procreation, and used it to achieve a completely different end. It is a complete corurption of the sexual act.

I don't see what more there is to explain.

What is this end, and is it different from the "end" that infertile and sterile couples meet? What do sterile and infertile couples have sex for? To show their affection. What do gays do it for? The same thing correct? Their ends are the same.

 

[SuperBowser]

They're not changing the goal. They still want that to be the goal, and unlike gays, they are doing everything possible to still make that goal as achievable as possible.

What does this even mean? I don't know if you intend it, but it sounds borderline offensive. Gay people want children too. There is absolutely nothing different in a sterile person having ******l intercourse and a homosexual couple anal intercourse; neither is going to have children and both will use alternative means to acheive this. Intercourse acheives no ''goal'' that you speak of for either couple.

At risk of repeating myself again, old aged couples don't even have an intention of having children. They have intercourse for gratification. That is their end.

If they are only having sex because that goal can't be achieved, and wouldn't be having sex if it could be, then that is wrong by my criteria.

I don't think many woman who have had menopause would have sex if they could get pregnant (or rather, they would use contraception). I guess this is wrong by your standards.



I'd like if someone else could point out if they believe Dre.'s logic is curcular or not.

 

[Lore]

I'd like if someone else could point out if they believe Dre.'s logic is curcular or not.

It seems circular to me. He's just repeating the same thing over and over again and only changing the wording.

 

[Deleted member]

I wouldn't call it circular, but he's making an exception for sterile and elderly, which is okay by itself, but the criteria he poses why elderly and sterile couples are excluded, would also exclude the homosexual.

the criteria being:
-willing to have children
-commitment to stay together

elderly wouldn't even pass criteria 1 depending on how you view it.

 

[SuperBowser]

In my opinion that is precisely what exposes the cicular nature of his claims.


From my previous links:

Circular reasoning is very useful because anything at all can be proved with it, including things that are obviously false. This delightful property is easily provable, and is shown how below:

1. For example, take the statement 'Circular Reasoning can be used to prove anything.'
2. Now, clearly this statement is part of anything.
3. Therefore, because 'Circular Reasoning can be used to prove anything', the statement can be proved.
4. Therefore 'Circular Logic can be used to prove anything.'

This is of course a special case of the logical concept that 'false implies everything'. In other words, if you start with a false premise (like the premise that circular reasoning is a valid form of logical reasoning) then you can 'prove' that any statement is true.


Circular reasoning can often be used by stealth to complete proofs that would otherwise be very difficult, or indeed impossible. Don't ever say that you will assume the property you want to prove. Instead, just derive stuff from it and assume the reader knows what you're talking about. Now do several pages of obscure and fiddly maths, preferably using lots of arrows from one section to another. Finally, bring it all back together again, and say that therefore the desired property is true, and do a big 'QED' after it. Success is assured, because by this stage the reader will have forgotten what you started off by assuming, and probably be half asleep to boot.

The beauty of Dre.'s claims is we cannot refute them. His proof is his initial declaration! (the observed repetition when a flaw is pointed out) As a result, there is nothing to debate.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Dre, it's one thing if you say homosexuals shouldn't have sex because they have no intention of procreation. But then you'd also have to be against old or sterile couples having sex. If they know they can't have children, and they're still having sex, they clearly have no intention of procreation. Which, by your definition, is "a sexual attraction outside of the purpose of what sexual attraction is for."

 

[Crimson King]

Before I reply to the quote, Dre, explain the function of the clitoris. It serves only for sexual pleasure and orgasms, has no method of procreation, and is easy to stimulate. If sex for pleasure only corrupts the biological intentions for the act of sex, why does it even exist?

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.

Can you can say I forgot about Dre. *dances to Eminem*

But, no, there is no objectivity; pedophilia is predatory of children's innocence. There is no concern with happiness because it's being derived from the intentional manipulation of others and causes trauma and abuse. For the rest of their lives (and this is experience from people I know), sex is ruined for the victim).

Most important though: HOMOSEXUALITY DOES NOT CORRUPT SEX FOR YOU. If two guys or two girls want to get their swing on, how does that affect how you have sex? It doesn't. There is clearly more underlying bigotry than you are letting on, but to say homosexuality/casual sex corrupts the act for anyone is ludicrous.

 

[Dre89]

To everyone who said my argument is ciruclar:

It's not wanting to have children that makes it right, because then gays could have it too.

You guys are straw-manning my argument by claiming I said sex is ok if you want to have kids. That's not what I said.

Sex is meant for procreation, that's why it exists. Sexual pleasure is there to entice you into the act. Given the nature of the act, it should only be done with someone you are willing to commit your life too.

The infertile couples (old couples count as that too I guess) are still practicing the act the natural way, the only thing which prevents procreation is a defection (infertility), which isn't a matter of choice. Their intentions are no different to an ordinary couple, their act is no different to an ordinary couple except the for result.

I've said this a few times before, sex is an objective good, so all that is required is that humans have sex the natural way.

Also, you have to remember that natural law for humanity originated for the first humans. There was no technology back then, so infertile couples wouldn't have known that they were infertile, they probably just thought they were really unlucky. Plus people didn't live to 60 back then (the average life-expectancy of an ancient Egyptian peasant was only 35, so you can imagine what it was like before that).

So I'll say it again, infertile couples are having sex in the natural way, they are fulfilling the criteria of what good sex is.

Homosexuals aren't. They are taking sexual pleasure, meant for the natural act which results in procreation, and by choice using a completely different act, an act which itself is not aimed at procreation to obtain sexual gratification.

I'm not saying you should only have sex when you want to have kids. The nature of the act, and the nature of our desire means that we should be having sex regularly. The criteria I've laid out still alows for regular sex. Sex is designed to be frequent, all that is required of humans is to have sex the way it is supposed to be done, and infertile couples aren't corrupting any of that, but homosexuals are, because they're taking sexual pleasure, which only exists for the procreation act, and seeking to obtain it in an unantural way.

I don't understand how you guys think that it is at all the same as an infertile couple. There are several distinctions. I know there's no circularity in my logic because I guarantee that if I asked any of you to lay out my argument for me you'd straw-man it, as some of you have already done when you claim I say 'gay sex is wrong because they don't want kids'.

CK:

You're just saying 'pedophilia is harmful'. Yes it is harmful, but why should we prevent it? Because it's an objective good.

In allowing things such as homosexuality, you're saying the only objective good that there is in humanity is to protect social order and not harm others.

You've yet to justify to me your belief that this is the only good in the world that 1. exists, and/or 2. is worth upholding.

I've been barraged with questions long enough so I want to see some answers from your side now.

 

[Lore]

The infertile couples (old couples count as that too I guess) are still practicing the act the natural way, the only thing which prevents procreation is a defection (infertility), which isn't a matter of choice.

Where have you heard that being gay is a matter of choice? Granted, many people do it for attention, but there are a lot if people who have disorders, etc.

 

[Dre89]

I didn't they're gay by choice, I said they do the act by choice.

My point was that infertile couples do the natural act, and it's result of a defection, not by choice that they don't procreate.

Gays make the active choice to corrupt the natural process and goal by trying to obtain sexual pleasure (which is only meant to entice one into the natural act) through an unnatural act.

But I'm done answering questions, you guys are yet to justify your premise that social preservation is only the good in the world. I want to hear the defence of that.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Dre, what I was saying was that infertile couples who have sex do NOT have the same intentions as a fertile couple. They know they're infertile. They know there will be no procreation. That is not the intent of their sex. It's for pleasure. I don't see where the difference is for homosexuals.

Now, that being said, I think I might know what you're trying to say; I think you just haven't quite worded it right. Correct me if I'm wrong, but is your stance basically "if a human is fertile, they should only have sex if they intend for procreation to occur"? If this is your stance, it would make sense that you think infertile couples having sex is okay, but fertile homosexuals having sex is not. But if this is your stance, by that definition, homosexuals who are infertile anyway should be allowed to have sex.

 

[Lore]

When has anyone ever said that it is the ONLY good? It's definitely a good thing to have, but does that make it the only good in the world? No, it doesn't.

There are many goods that are better like winning people to Jesus, saving lives, giving money to the poor, etc.

Although I don't find homosexuality to be morally right, it does not corrupt the act of sex for me. However, it definitely corrupts it for people who don't realize that there is nothing you can do to control it or that you shouldn't even try to control it.

Edit: Ipod lagged for 10 minutes while typing this, it was directed towards dre.

 

[DtJ Jungle]

Where have you heard that being gay is a matter of choice? Granted, many people do it for attention, but there are a lot if people who have disorders, etc.

Are you implying being gay is a disorder?

@werekill, i don't know what 'winning jesus' is, but do you not agree that people save lives and give money to the poor because it's what "we're supposed to do" aka preserving the social infrastructure and values that have been set in stone?

 

[SuperBowser]

I think you have changed your wording since we began, Dre., but okay. I understand your position much better now. However, your logic is still circular because we always comes back to this one sentence: The sexual act is not being practiced naturally and unnatural = wrong! Your premise is your proof. I can't have an honest debate with you unless you explain this premise. You didn't want to speak about the natural argument and objective morality because it takes a long time, but I think we have to go into it. If you refuse, you have used circular reasoning throughout this debate.

A: This man is angry.
B. Why?
A: Because he is annoyed.


I also understand your definition of natural sex differently now. From what I make of your new posts, procreation is not at all what makes sexual intercourse ''natural''. It is simply putting a p**** into a v*****. (Err, while in a long-term relationship).

Everytime you used procreation in that post, I could see no need for it. Here is an example from your last post:

My point was that infertile couples do the natural act, and it's result of a defection, not by choice that they don't procreate.

Gays make the active choice to corrupt the natural process and goal by trying to obtain sexual pleasure (which is only meant to entice one into the natural act) through an unnatural act.

Your words have only served to confuse matters till now. Werekill and KrazyGlue are going down the same line I did. If we just throw the idea of procreation out of your post, your argument becomes clear. The p**** is not going into a v*****.


I haven't made any claim about social preservation. But I'll make this claim. I believe it is only natural for humans to want to have sex. This is far more important to a human's psycholoical and physical well-being than anything you have put forward in this thread. To deny somebody something so basic, so instinctual is almost to deny them of what makes them human. That is truly unnatural -and wrong- in my eyes.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Junglefever, I believe the phrase "winning people to Jesus" means converting them to Christianity.

 

[Crimson King]

Yeah, I'm pretty much done with this debate because all we get is Dre repeating his argument without really addressing anything. There is no movement from his side to even try to understand what our side is disagreeing with.

His side maintains that purity, that is keeping things as they are supposedly supposed to work, is the primary good. I say there are multiple things that are good, not one solid line. My stance on pedophilia, for example, is more solid than my stance on murder. You say morals are objective, but I say they are subjective. There will be no changing my opinion on this.

 

[BSP]

Gays make the active choice to corrupt the natural process and goal by trying to obtain sexual pleasure (which is only meant to entice one into the natural act) through an unnatural act.

I don't know if this is relevant, but if by "corrupt the natural process", you do in fact mean the p**** going into the v*****, then both anal and oral sex become "wrong" since they're not the natural way. Then, you're telling lovers how they should and should not show their love, specifically creating boundaries for them, which isn't justified IMO.

And who said that the sexual pleasure itself is not a goal of the intercourse as well? Like CK said, if it wasn't, why would the clitoris exist? Like Werekill said, when did procreation become the major goal? (and the major goal differs from each couple)

 

[Lore]

Are you implying being gay is a disorder?

@werekill, i don't know what 'winning jesus' is, but do you not agree that people save lives and give money to the poor because it's what "we're supposed to do" aka preserving the social infrastructure and values that have been set in stone?

No, I'm not. I was implying that gay people usually don't have a choice for natural reasons, and I figured that Dre wouldn't agree with me unless I used disorders as one of my examples.

I'll find some sources later, but I'm on my Ipod right now.

Since Dre is a christian (I think) I just repeated some of the "goods" that are mentioned in church. However, you're absolutely right.

I agree with CK again. I'll be leaving this debate soon, but I'm interested to see what other people come up with.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

I don't know if this is relevant, but if by "corrupt the natural process", you do in fact mean the p**** going into the v*****, then both anal and oral sex become "wrong" since they're not the natural way. Then, you're telling lovers how they should and should not show their love, specifically creating boundaries for them, which isn't justified IMO.

And who said that the sexual pleasure itself is not a goal of the intercourse as well? Like CK said, if it wasn't, why would the clitoris exist? Like Werekill said, when did procreation become the major goal? (and the major goal differs from each couple)

Also, it should be noted that homosexuality occurs in nature, it is natural. There have been gay mallards, dolphins etc. It seems to be a different natural process than heterosexual sex, because it involves different parties and different acts.

Edit: An article that seems to show that homosexuality is relatively common in nature: http://www.timelessspirit.com/SEPT04/cristina.shtml

 

[Dre89]

There's too much here to refute, but again people have tiwsted my words.

CK- Repeating myself? I only did that because people didn't undertsand my argument. I also challenged you to show why social order is the only good. I've done my part, now I'm asking for you to defend your position.

Krazyglue- I already stated that's not what I'm trying to say.

Werekill- All those goods you mentioned fall under preservation of humanity, or social order.

SupberBowser- No I have a reason for believing that the gay act is unnatural. I covered why I believe the act is unnatural. If I wrote it in an essay with linear structure you'd see that I have a premise, whether it be right or wrong.

Mariobrouser- I explained before why sexual pleasure is meant to entice one into the procreation act.

Werekill- I'm not Christian, and even if I was, I wouldn't be using Christian ideas to conclude views about natural law, my views about natural law would lead me to belief in Christianity.

Now I'm done versing five debators at a time, Now to all you guys, it's your turn. Because you guys are pro-agy, you naturally assume my argument is bad, which is evident in your posts. But this is a debate hall, so there can be good arguments for and against.

If you guys think my arguments are so bad, to prove it's not just your personal bias affecting your opinion, I want you guys to tell me an anti-gay argument that you would have accepted as a good argument. If you can't give me one, then it's evident you guys are too biased to have an accurate opinion.

 

[Deleted member]

Right now you're the one calling us biased which would be "evident" from our posts, just pointing that out.

What do you exactly define as "sexual" pleasure? Because there are people that get "sexual" pleasure from things like bondage, where you basically only tie up the other person.

This is the (part of your) essay where you describe why humans can do "wrongs"

Here is a paragraph from a recent essay I did, it basically argues that humans are superior to animals. It also shows why humans can do 'wrongs' or unnatural things, whereas animals can't (unless manipulated by humans).

"Before we continue, this assumption must be briefly defended. The existence of levels of perfections is evidenced by the existence of various levels of superiority. These various levels of superiority are evidenced by the fact that there three are general types of beings: those which are purely means to an end, those which are created as means to an end, but flourish as ends in themselves, and that which is purely an end in itself. Beings which lack the capacity to commit moral goods and evils are purely means to ends; their goal is to contribute to an ecosystem or a natural cycle, and their individual goals or purposes cannot be altered by them themselves, only those who govern them. Humans, like all other beings, were created for a specific purpose, so they are a means to an end, but flourish as ends in themselves, for their moral capacities allow them to alter their desires and what they contribute towards - a capacity they would not posses if they were not intended to flourish as ends in themselves. Despite this capacity, humans cannot alter what true human flourishing is, only their ideal of it, so in a second way they are also means to an end. Finally, God, being self-necessary in nature, is purely an end in Himself. What is evidenced here is that certain beings relate to other beings in varying manners, suggesting there are degrees of superiority and perfection; for if all beings were equal all beings would be ends in themselves, requiring them all to have the same fundamental nature, which is not the case."

Why must all beings that lack this moral capacity you describe be purely means to an end? Why can't those beings flourish as ends in themselves?

EDIT: also, how would replacing "humans" with "monkeys" make this paragraph incorrect? because the only requirement would be the moral capacities you don't explain further.

Now correct me if I'm wrong but your argument goes as follows:

-Homosexual intercourse is providing said persons with sexual pleasure.
-This sexual pleasure is (a mechanism) is a stimulus for procreation.
-Procreation is an objective good
-Homosexuals are not using the sexual pleasure for its intended goal, which happens to be an objective good, and therefore corrupt their nature.

The first point stands or falls on the definition of sexual pleasure (see beginning), but in general I agree with the first 3 points.
The last point I can't really address since I (a probably others here too) don't know much about nature philosophy.

could you expand some more on what this corrupting of nature is, and maybe give an example or 2?
(living is and objective good therefore murder is a corruption, yes. but maybe something more subtle)

 

[KrazyGlue]

Now that I notice it Dre, you argument is circular. Q & A form:

Q: What is the natural act?
A:

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

Q: Why is homosexuality wrong?
A:

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

Q: Why is the "natural act" the only way people should have sex?
A:

The objective good I speak of is in doing the act the natural way, or the way it is supposed to be done.

There's no way for us to refute your argument. You have defined the "natural act" as a heterosexual act, then defined the natural act is an objective good. The only thing I can think of asking is who says it is an objective good? If the answer is "God", then there is no way to continue debating, because your argument would then boil down to "homosexuality is wrong because God says so".

----------------------------

On another note:

Ok, maybe I'm biased. You're right, I have no argument for your side. Now you tell me, Dre, what is one good argument you would have accepted from our point of view?

 

[Aesir]

How about he's engaged in a appeal to nature?

If I understand this correctly Dre is saying what is natural is good, yet things like Violence, Polygamy and Infanticide are natural is that to say we're to call those acts good as well?

If that's not the case for you which I'm more than positive you're just using the natural act argument to conceal the real argument which is really an appeal to tradition, which is what your argument looks more like every day.

Homosexuality happens in nature, it's a mutation that happens natural in the brain. They can't help who they're attracted too, what makes them different from polygamists and pedophiles is they act just like heterosexuals, yet instead of being attracted to the opposite sex they're attracted to the same sex. Though you could say a pedophile will be the same way with children, a child and an grown adult are completely different and really has no relevance, as homosexual couples are between two consenting adults.

The byproduct of sex while being procreation, it's more inclusive than that. Unless you want to say pulling out is an unnatural act.

 

[Deleted member]

he isn't using appeal to nature, but a branch of philosophy.
He even went out to explain why such acts are wrong for humans and why they aren't for other animals, see the part I quoted in my previous post.

 

[Aesir]

If I understand this correctly Dre is saying what is natural is good, yet things like Violence, Polygamy and Infanticide are natural is that to say we're to call those acts good as well?

If that's not the case for you which I'm more than positive you're just using the natural act argument to conceal the real argument which is really an appeal to tradition, which is what your argument looks more like every day.

This refutes my own point, thus it's irrelevant right now, I was approaching it from different sides.

But this idea that only humans are capable of discerning evil and good is a rigid view point. as it's been scientifically observed many animals not only display complex emotions but also have a sense of basic morality.

 

[Dre89]

Again too much to refute in one go.

Krazyglue- You skipped the reason how I concluded what the natural act is. And no it isn't God who says it's wrong , it's nature (although if you're a thiest God is responsible for nature). God has nothing to do with it, even if I was an athiest I'd still hold the same beliefs. Also, for a pro-gay argument, I would just argue there is no morality.

Aesir- I've shown before how violence etc. are actually unnatural states, and that humans are the only creatures who can cause unnatural states.

And yes it is an appeal to nature. The whole point of using nature is that I've accepted ,my indivual logic isn't going to get all the answers to the world. Instead of asking myself for answers, I ask nature, because it's a universal authority.

Can't be bothered doing any more. I'm still waiting for someone to give me an anti-gay argument they would acecpt as good, to prove you guys just aren't being bias.

 

[Evil Eye]

How about you provide a pro-gay argument you would accept as good, to prove that you aren't just being bias(sic)?

 

[Dre89]

I said it in the above post.

I would just argue that there is no morality.

Or perhaps I would just argue that social preservation is the only good in the world that exists for humanity. It'd probably be more flawed than the no-morality argument, but it'd still be appealing to alot of people.

So again, where's the anti-gay argument that you guys would have accepted as good? I'm tired of getting attacked by five debators at once, I want to be the one asking the questions for a change.

EE what we have here isn't debating, It's multiple people ganging up on me because my views conflict with their own. No one else puts forward indepth arguments of their own, Mewter is the only person in the DH who will actually play devil's advocate, or switch sides mid-debate.

He's the only one who actually understands how a debate hall is supposed to work, rather than just ganging up on people who disagree with him.

Seriously it turns me off coming here sometimes knowing that I'm going to get flooded with posts all criticising me (which is fair enough, that's pivotal to debate, but it's too one-sided and often people are asking things I've already explained before).

 

[Crimson King]

Well, you are essentially the only opposition. Same happens when I criticize socialism.

The problem most are having is your argument is circular as pointed out above. You leave no space in your argument to be swayed so there is no compromise even possible.

You are asking for definitions of objective good when you already defined it yourself and leave no room for movement.

My stance is the only prerequisite for doing something is as long as it does interfere with another person's natural right to life and happiness. Keeping this in mind murder, ****, pedophilia, and theft would still be morally wrong.

If I had to go by what is natural, I'd have to allow all of those things because **** and pedophilia results in pregnancy sometimes (natural desire to procreate), murder can result in saving resources (natural right of survival), and theft (natural right of happiness).

By acting solely by nature, we ignore reason. It's irrational to limit pleasure solely because it's not biologically intended. It's irrational to limit what people do on their own, and immoral.

These are just lexiconal disagreements.

 

[Aesir]

If you were actually arguing what is natural is good that would be one thing. But you're giving us special pleading arguments. You seem to think since humans are the only ones capable of morality (Which is wrong, and there's scientific evidence to back this up) that the things in nature you find undesirable can be over looked because we're the only ones who are moral. However you seem to think that we can get morality from nature.

You're contradicting your self here, it's just nonsensical.

early on you said this:

The nature of the act suggests you are only supposed to do it with somone you are willing to have kids with, meaning you are willing to commit to them.

This right here, what if I said I'm gay and I am completely devoted to my partner and I really do wish to have kids with them. But obviously I can't due to biological reasons.

How is this different than old couples who can't have kids anymore still having sex? or even young married couples who are incapable of having kids?

How is this different?

While you ponder that, why is it nature is the moral authority? Nature is morally neutral, which houses organism that act in a moral way. For instance humans as I'm sure you have no problems admitting that. However many animals are also moral as well; Diana Monkeys, Wolves, Rodents, ect.... All have a sense of morality and empathy within them. So where you get this idea that we're the only ones capable of morality is far fetched.

At the end of the day though, my argument coincides with CK's.

 

[KrazyGlue]

So again, where's the anti-gay argument that you guys would have accepted as good? I'm tired of getting attacked by five debators at once, I want to be the one asking the questions for a change.

Honestly, we don't need to provide you with an argument. If I argue that the reason weather changes happen is that little purple fairies have a station in the sky where they control it, would you be biased if you couldn't provide an argument from my point of view?

And by the way, your argument is still irrefutable. Your argument is now "homosexuality is wrong because nature doesn't want it to exist, and if nature doesn't want something to exist it is objectively wrong". What are we supposed to say to that?

 

[CStick]

procreation is driven by instinct. It is not driven by your urges versus sexual orientation.

Since I highly doubt that we can prove that homosexuals are not humans in the same biological, physical, etc. (especially since they are, no matter what the bible says) way as the rest of us, we can also assume that their urges work the same way.

Going off of my sex life and experiences: With all that in mind, if sex without an intention to procreate is a slight or corruption, then masturbation, birth control, condoms, etc. are all corruptions of sex.

Which leads to what Dre is unintentionally getting at: sex is corrupted in the human species apparently - depending on your perspective. Oh well.

But to touch on the original question on what would happen if other countries banned homosexuality:

any proposed legislation would instantly be met with disdain by most of the modern world. But of course, many countries that are in my opinion backwards and barbaric (Uganda most likely being one of them) with deep religious influences are the only ones who may ever consider legislation like this.

I doubt that they'll go as far as to propose a homosexual holocaust or anything like that, but you would definitely see people fleeing to other countries to escape persecution and segregation.

 

[Sieguest]

And by the way, your argument is still irrefutable. Your argument is now "homosexuality is wrong because nature doesn't want it to exist, and if nature doesn't want something to exist it is objectively wrong". What are we supposed to say to that?

That what is natural does not equate to what is good.
I'll take an exchange I had with Dre in the abortion thread as an example.

Flying is a natural process, but it's not natural for humans to fly, yet we have airplanes
In that sense, the airplane is wrong.
The goal of flying is transportation, transportation is natural goal for humans.
In that sense, the airplane is acceptable.

The mere fact that the idea of the airplane is contradictory following "natural goods" should make it evident that what is natural doesn't equal what is good.

 

[blazedaces]

procreation is driven by instinct. It is not driven by your urges versus sexual orientation.

Explain to me the difference, biologically speaking, between "instinct" and "sexual urges"...

And C-Stick... I don't want a philosophical jargon explanation like Dre would want to give... I want you to try and explain it from a physiological point of view.

And Dre... this is nothing to do with your argument... but please, please, please stop either refusing to repeat points or refusing to pursue an argument because it's hard to argue with a lot of people... or it's hard to explain.

Your actions have consequences correct? Simple truth right? Well, this IS a debate hall forum... what exactly did you expect was going to happen posting in here? If you want to have a one-to-one dialogue go outside and talk with friends... but you have to expect more than one person to disagree with you on this forum... and you have to expect to have to repeat yourself. You are the ONLY PERSON though who is making statements like "oh, I already said this another thread" and "I can't handle being attacked by 5 people at once"...

-blazed

 

[CStick]

Well, I could just pull out the fact that many animals - including primates and humans among others - don't purely use sex for the intention of procreating and also use it for gratification, stimulation, and enjoyment.

With that in mind, Dre's argument holds no weight. Where is this view of homosexuality being a corruption of sex coming from?

Explain to me the difference, biologically speaking, between "instinct" and "sexual urges"...

Dre was saying how homosexual acts are corrupt because there is not an intention to procreate.

What I'm trying to say is that both homosexual and heterosexual people share that same instinct regardless of whether or not there is an ability to procreate. There is no corruption of anything since such a view is 1) relative, and 2) biased. It's nature regardless of your opinion, fair and simple. Both share the same basic urge, and saying that sex is only done solely because of the need or instinct to procreate by higher lifeforms is not entirely true.