Homosexual relations, natural or not?

heeee :m175:

So, Just Me... Your response to my question is not a response, but rather a question of your own as to my signature, my avatar and a depressed rant on history. Thanks for proving my statement about running away when faced with Blunt Rationality.
 
I fail to see the point of this thread. What excactly are you trying to prove here? That homosexuality is natural or unnatural? Who cares?
This is a social matter. It's a matter of equality. Even if someone despises homosexuals, he should be forced to treat them as equals in any social situation.

On the other hand, we cannot force people to like them either. As with every social group in this planet, anyone has the right to like them or despise them for their own reasons. We're simple humans after all, these attitudes will always exist. The point is to avoid extreme situations and conflicts,and to at least respect one another and accept homosexuals as equals,with the same rights and obligations towards society. That has nothing to do with nature. Its a matter of social fuctionality and progress.
 
I don't understand the significance of what is natural either way the argument is constructed. What was natural to us as a species 200,000 years ago running naked around the plains of Africa is of little importance to me in the artificial environment of a 21st century developed nation.

But of course that means nothing to the young earth creationist.
 
TheLastMohican said:
:crazy:
Click to expand...


Haha, that reminds me of your Avatar!

Just me, are you referring to the rapture?

"....Spiritual discourse fully satisfies our intellectual perception, because it comes from God through the energy of love. It is on account of this that the intellect continues undisturbed in its concentration on theology. It does not suffer then from the emptiness which produces a state of anxiety, since in its contemplation it is filled to the degree that the energy of love desires. So it is right always to wait, with a faith energized by love, for the illumination which will enable us to speak. For nothing is so destitute as a mind philosophizing about God when it is without Him. The unilluminated should not embark on spiritual speculations nor, on the other hand, should anyone try to speak while the light of the Holy Spirit is shining richly upon Him. For where there is emptiness, ignorance is also to be found, but where there is richness of the Spirit, no speech is possible. At such a time the soul is drunk with the love of God and, with voice silent, delights in His glory. We should therefore watch for the middle point between these two extremes before we begin to speak of God. This balance confers a certain harmony on our words glorifing God; as we speak and teach, our faith is nourished by the richness of the illuminated and so, because of our love, we are the first to taste the fruits of knowledge...."
Click to expand...
St. Diodochos of Photiki, c. 400-486 A.D.

http://www.earthportals.com/goodheart.html

"The good Heart" itself is a book written* by Tibet's current Dalai Lama at the request of Christians to discuss Jesus' Sermon on the Mount. Interesting stuff. I think from a Buddhist pesrpective, or most certainly from my own perspective, things like "Revelation" and "Rapture" are unique to the individuals, and not a one time occurance in history, which you may understand to mean that these things are in constant action all the time, and quite infinite in their meanings and demeanors.

* Written by is probably imprecise. He gives a talk. In this case I think it was a 4 day discourse. Then somebody makes it into a book with his help and approvals and inputs and stuff.
 
It it occurs in the natural world, the one we live in, it is natural.
 
I'd have to agree with you guys; I mean, how much of anything in natural anymore?

We shouldn't hold people down to what's "natural" or "not" -- what are supermodels? That thinness not natural. Look at most of the products we use; look at the things we eat; look at how we alter ourselves. We are not "natural," and to hold a certain group of people to that expectation is hypocritical, to say the very least.

We're all people. If they act like you and me, and are kind and respectful, then I don't care who the hell they fall in love with, "natural" or not.

BTW, dissonance, I love your avatar :)
 
Nope, I've always had that belief since the world began 8 years ago.
 
The words 'Natural' and 'Nature' are being misused

When one talks about the NATURE of a thing, one considers what that thing is ordered to. (eg. 'it is in the nature of man to seek knowledge.')

When it comes to human sexual function, it seems that its principal end/object to which it is ordered is the begetting of offspring. If this were not the case, if enjoyment or bonding were the principal end of human sexuality, would be equivalent to saying that reproduction is not so necessary to humans as is bonding/enjoyment.

But the most basic characteristic of all life is that it seeks food/material for growth, it grows, and that it reproduces.

In animals there is additionally sense knowledge, which involves pleasure - so that animals that have better senses and better enjoyment of sensible things are better at fulfilling the most fundamental functions of all life: animals are better at finding food, using it to grow and are better at reproducing than plants.

Humans, moreover can understand, which gives them an advantage over all other animals, so that we can farm and get food where there is none; we can heal infirmities and grow healthier; and we can teach our children what we know so that they will have an advantage.


So, back to 'NATURE'.

Humans, as a life form, are ordered towards nutrition, growth and reproduction (ie. we are ordered towards living). Additionally, because we have senses, we are ordered towards knowledge. Furthermore, because we have an intellect, we are also ordered towards understanding. But if the higher parts/levels of our nature are ordered in contradictory ways to the lower - for example, if we decide to commit suicide (intellectual choice), it is an un-natural act, going against our more basic nature to live.

Similarly, if our senses make wrong associations, like finding toxic/poisonous plants appealing, this is un-natural. Similarly, again, if our senses draw us towards sexual activity that is not reproductive, this is un-natural.

Homosexuality is an attraction at the level of the senses towards sexual partners that are not fit/suitable for reproduction. Because it is at the level of the senses (not intellect/understanding) it is not subject to free choice. However, on account of our intellect, which is a higher faculty than sense, we can choose to act or not act in an un-natural way.

For example, if my senses were mistaken, and I were irresistably drawn to eating colorful insects (most of which are toxic) - my intellect is still capable of over-riding my mistaken senses and keeping me from acting.

In other words, homosexual attraction occurs on the level of sense, but homosexuality as an activity is a choice at the level of the intellect, so that one might have no choice in one's attractions, but one does have a choice in one's activities.

In any case, if the word 'nature' is used correctly, homosexuality is un-natural.
 
Last edited:
Flavus Aquila said:
In any case, if the word 'nature' is used correctly, homosexuality is un-natural.
Click to expand...

Correction. If people accept your definition of nature as the correct definition, then you can argue it is unnatural.

By the looks of it, you use the teleological definition of the word "nature" and thus a teleological definition for "natural".

What if the definition of natural is "that which occurs in nature"? Then homosexuality is very natural because it occurs in over 450 vertebrate species.

What if the definition of natural is "that which is in accordance with evolution"? Then homosexuality is very natural because homosexual sex has been shown in social animals such as primates to act not only as a means of reproduction, but as a social bonding agent which improves the overall fitness of the population.

Both of those definitions of "natural" are just as applicable as your teleological argument that is based on a final purpose or order.

But I can even form an alternative interpretation from your definition. What if the definition of natural is that which serves a necessary purpose? Then homosexuality is natural because it provides the practitioners with the opportunity to form romantic/sexual relationships that they would not otherwise be able to form due to their biological predispositions.

As far as "intellectual choice", what purpose is there in not choosing to do something that is prevalent in nature, is supported by evolution, and serves a necessary purpose?

By my definitions, I can make a very strong argument that homosexuality is natural. Do you care to argue why your definition of natural is more correct than my definitions?
 
Last edited:
Satya, I won't argue which definition of NATURE is better - because you seem to have a hang-up with the word UNNATURAL.

If the word 'nature' is used in a particular way, for example, as you propose, in referring to what occurs in nature, then I will agree that homosexual activity is natural.

However, I do not think that this is a good use of the word natural, because cannot function. Eventually, the use of the word nature, which you propose ends up to one of two conclusions:
1. Everything whatsoever must be called natural, even things like men deliberately dumping radioactive material on civilian populations, to divert a country's resources to medical aid. (This could be called natural, according to your definition, because it occurs in nature).
2. OR, a sharp, false dichotomy must be drawn between human life/activity and all other life or activity on earth, so that most human activity, like building houses or farming can be called natural.

Ultimately, if one adopts your use of the word nature or natural, then either absolutely everything must be called natural, or absolutely every human activity must be called un-natural.

If however, one admits that humans are capable of some acts which are contradictory of their nature, then homosexuality must be un-natural.

***looking back .... oh, I guess I have just argued which use of 'natural' is better.... whoops****
 
Last edited:
Flavus Aquila said:
Satya, I won't argue which definition of NATURE is better - because you seem to have a hang-up with the word UNNATURAL.
Click to expand...

I have a hang up with semantics.

If the word 'nature' is used in a particular way, for example, as you propose, in referring to what occurs in nature, then I will agree that homosexual activity is natural.

However, I do not think that this is a good use of the word natural, because cannot function. Eventually, the use of the word nature, which you propose ends up to one of two conclusions:
1. Everything whatsoever must be called natural, even things like men deliberately dumping radioactive material on civilian populations, to divert a country's resources to medical aid. (This could be called natural, according to your definition, because it occurs in nature).
2. OR, a sharp, false dichotomy must be drawn between human life/activity and all other life or activity on earth, so that most human activity, like building houses or farming can be called natural.

Ultimately, if one adopts your use of the word nature or natural, then either absolutely everything must be called natural, or absolutely every human activity must be called un-natural.
Click to expand...
I agree, the definition of nature can be drawn out to the point that it becomes virtually meaningless.

If however, one admits that humans are capable of some acts which are contradictory of their nature, then homosexuality must be un-natural.
Click to expand...
Oh, so now you are arguing that homosexuality is contrary to human nature. Well then let's start it up again.

Correction. If people accept your definition of human nature as the correct definition, then you can argue it is unnatural.

What if the definition of natural is "that which occurs in human nature"? Then homosexuality is very natural because it occurs in approximately 5% of the human species and in virtually every human culture even where it is despised.

What if the definition of natural is "that which is in accordance with human evolution"? Then homosexuality is very natural because homosexual sex has been shown in social animals such as primates to act not only as a means of reproduction, but as a social bonding agent which improves the overall fitness of the population. (that one doesn't really need to be changed and you are welcome to address it rather than ignore it)

Both of those definitions of "natural" are just as applicable as your argument that natural is that which doesn't contradict human nature.

But I can even form an alternative interpretation from your definition. What if the definition of natural is that which serves human nature? Then homosexuality is natural because it provides the practitioners with the opportunity to form romantic/sexual relationships that they would not otherwise be able to form due to their biological predispositions. (didn't have to change that one too much)

As far as "intellectual choice", what purpose is there in not choosing to do something that is prevalent in human nature, is supported by human evolution, and serves human nature?

By my definitions, I can make a very strong argument that homosexuality is natural. Do you care to argue why your definitions of natural and human nature are more correct than my definitions?
 
Last edited:
Satya, the position you take in your last post leads to the conclusion that anything and everything which occurs in a population is natural to that population. For example (a sense example), if one takes statistics that a given percentage of all vertebrates are born blind, then you would have to say that blindness is natural in vertebrates. Another example (an intelect example), if a certain percentage of the population has engaged in torture, then, following your arguement, would you call torture natural?

As for your arguement about social bonding - unnatural acts are not necessarily contradictory to every aspect of a given nature, so that homosexual acts are not necessarily contradictory to the social nature of humans, but they are contradictory to a more basic charactaristic of humans - they reproduce. So, again unless you call absolutely everything humans do natural or unnatural, you have to call some things humans do unnatural.

Personally, I think that it is far more honest for people who decide to practice homosexuality to admit that they are practicing something unnatural. It might not sound as healthy/nice/appropriate/acceptable/common/reasonable/desirable etc. as doing something natural. But at least it is honest -

Its like McDonald's trying to make you feel like your not eating junk food - that you are responsibly choosing a balanced, nutritious meal. I say cut the BS and just admit that you are eating junk food - it isn't like a normal meal - it isn't supposed to be.

If indeed, you admit that you are eating junk food when you in fact are eating it, you are more likely to be able to make freer choices. (I eat junk food occasionally, because I like it, not because its just as good a normal food). Similarly, admiting that homosexual practice is unnatural makes for a freer choice - the sexual attraction in a homosexual is not towards a partner that he/she can form a natural family with. And so, the decision to practice homosexuality has many other implications. I think that calling it un-natural, is more honest than calling it natural, because it makes for a more realistic appreciation of what is actually being done.
 
Last edited:
Flavus Aquila said:
Satya, the position you take in your last post leads to the conclusion that anything and everything which occurs in a population is natural to that population. For example (a sense example), if one takes statistics and a given percentage of all vertebrates are born blind, then you would have to say that blindness is natural in vertebrates.
Click to expand...

Yes, blindness is natural. It is a property of the organism that has it.

Another example (an intelect example), if a certain percentage of the population has engaged in torture, then, following your arguement, would you call torture natural?[
Click to expand...
Yes, torture is natural. As is rape, murder, etc. I don't derive my morals from what is natural. For example, homosexuality may occur in primates, but so does infanticide. Just because infanticide is natural doesn't mean that I think it is moral.

As for your arguement about social bonding - unnatural acts are not necessarily contradictory to every aspect of a given nature, so that homosexual acts are not necessarily contradictory to the social nature of humans, but it is contradictory to a more basic charactaristic of humans - they reproduce. So, again unless you call absolutely everything humans do natural or unnatural, you have to call some things humans do unnatural.
Click to expand...
The social nature of humans is one of the most basic characteristics of humans. Why on earth would you argue that it isn't? A human being who isn't social probably couldn't reproduce. Humans are defined as social animals. It is one of the properties of all primates. And homosexuality isn't contradictory to reproduction, because homosexuals can help raise the offspring of other humans, thereby increasing the chances those offspring will survive. Thereby, the social nature of humans can replace the reproductive nature.

Personally, I think that it is far more honest for people who decide to practice homosexuality to admit that they are practicing something unnatural. It might not sound as healthy/nice/appropriate/acceptable/common/reasonable/desirable etc. as doing something natural. But at least it is honest -
Click to expand...
You haven't made a case yet for why your definition of natural is better than my definitions. And why is it important for homosexuals to admit that homosexuality is "unnatural"?

Its like McDonald's trying to make you feel like your not eating junk food - that you are responsibly choosing a balanced, nutritious meal. I say cut the BS and just admit that you are eating junk food - it isn't like a normal meal - it isn't supposed to be.
Click to expand...
What does eating junk food have to do with homosexuality?

If indeed, you admit that you are eating junk food when you in fact are eating it, you are more likely to be able to make freer choices. (I eat junk food occasionally, because I like it, not because its just as good a normal food). Similarly, admiting that homosexual practice is unnatural makes for a freer choice - the sexual attraction in a homosexual is not towards a partner that he/she can form a natural family with. And so, the decision to practice homosexuality has many other implications. I think that calling it un-natural, because it is more honest than calling it natural, makes for a more realistic appreciation of what is actually being done.
Click to expand...
So basically your argument is that if homosexuals call homosexuality "unnatural", then they might be inclined to become heterosexual. However, homosexuals can have natural families. They can adopt children or help raise their sibling's kids. Care to explain why those arrangements aren't "natural"? In primates it's very common for some members of the tribe to help raise or even adopt the offspring of other members of the tribe. And it certainly occurs in human populations.
 
Last edited:
You have never seen a female dog mount another female dog, have you?

Even if homosexuality is unnatural, what is or isn't natural is an absurdity in this day and age. Our society isn't natural. Look, we are typing to each other on computers! How absurd! It does not matter if something is natural or not. Survival is easy those of us that have the luxury of wasting time on computers. Even if homosexuality is unnatural, it is still more natural than using a computer.
 
I don't think that this debate/thread is about whether homosexuality is right or wrong. It is about whether it is natural or not.

Dragon has a point - a lot of our life is not natural (ie.unnatura)l, but my arguement is that we should at least call it what it is.

Satya, I think that if homosexuals called it unnatural, it would do nothing to incline them to heterosexuality. I just think it is a clearer, and more realistic way of speaking. That is the point. If you are going to eat junk food, call it junk food. Or if you are going to be a bit of a bast**d, admit it, and don't try to dress it up as trying to help someone learn some difficult life skills. And if you are going to practice homosexuality, call it unnatural.

My whole point is to get away from the move towards language so ambiguous or general that it becomes meaningless.

If you call absolutely anything natural, then you cannot say anything is unnatural, and ultimately, you cannot actually say or discuss anything because words begin to lose all meaning.
 
Last edited:
Flavus Aquila said:
If you call absolutely anything natural, then you cannot say anything is unnatural, and ultimately, you cannot actually say or discuss anything because words begin to lose all meaning.
Click to expand...

The thing with calling something unnatural is that it is implied that natural is better. I suppose that is true if the objective is creating kids, but how can we determine that ought to be the objective? We can't really.

All the words have already lost meaning, especially "love".
 
Flavus Aquila said:
Satya, I think that if homosexuals called it unnatural, it would do nothing to incline them to heterosexuality. I just think it is a clearer, and more realistic way of speaking. That is the point. If you are going to eat junk food, call it junk food. Or if you are going to be a bit of a bast**d, admit it, and don't try to dress it up as trying to help someone learn some difficult life skills. And if you are going to practice homosexuality, call it unnatural.
Click to expand...

Tell that to my face, seriously. Tell that to my face and convince me that it isn't natural.

This is WHO I AM, I did not choose this, I wouldn't have if I had the option. I was born this way. I NATURALLY feel this way. I get very upset when someone else tries to define who I am, and tell me the way I am is wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top