Homosexual relations, natural or not?

Flavus Aquila said:
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.
Click to expand...

The moment you equated homosexuality to junk food, and made the value judgment that homosexuals should call homosexuality "unnatural" so that they might make "freer choices", I think you crossed the "right or wrong" line. It's pretty damn clear where you stand on that position.

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.
Click to expand...
Your argument is that people should accept your conception of what it is. Not what actually occurs, not what is reinforced by biology and evolution, not what is best for the people who do it, but what you personally think.

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.
Click to expand...
What is realistic about denying every other definition of natural so that you can push a teleological one because you personally feel homosexuality is wrong? What would be realistic is you admitting that you subjectively feel that it is unnatural based on your moral beliefs.

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...
Sorry, but the junk food and homosexuality doesn't fly. You are trying to insinuate that junk food is bad for you, and so is homosexuality, and so it is best to call them both unnatural, but its just coming off as irrational and bigoted because homosexuality is not comparable to junk food.

My whole point is to get away from the move towards language so ambiguous or general that it becomes meaningless.
Click to expand...
So we should go so specific as to accept just your particular definitoin of natural? Yeah, that doesn't make any sense.

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...
I'm calling properties of things natural. It is natural for a fish to have fins, it is not natural for a bird to have fins. It is natural for a dog to have four feet, it is not natural for a human to have four feet. That is the definition of natural, because it defines things by their nature, and the nature is defined by the properties of the organism. You teleological definition is only good for supporting your theological beliefs, not reality.
 
Last edited:
Dragon, good point.

"Natural" does seem strongly to imply "better". For example, accepting as true that it is better to live than not to live, and accepting that it is the nature of humans to live, the inference is immediately made that suicide, as an unnatural act is bad, or at least worse.

However, I think it would be supremely honest for a homosexual to say that a happy heterosexual couple is better off than a happy homosexual couple.

(in reply to Satya - the comparison of homosexuality to junk food was not to draw inference that they are similar, but rather they were examples of where people don't speak directly and clearly about what they are doing.)

(Furthermore, this thread is NOT about morality, it is about whether homosexuality is natural or not - now you and I may immediately make moral conclusions about what we are discussing, but this thread is about what something is ... not about whether something should be.)
 
Last edited:
Flavus Aquila said:
Furthermore, this thread is NOT about morality, it is about whether homosexuality is natural or not - now you and I may immediately make moral conclusions about what we are discussing, but this thread is about what something is ... not about whether something should be.
Click to expand...

Well then I think by now it is pretty clear that homosexuality is natural, because homosexuality is a property of social animals, it is a property of primates, and it is a property of humans. Just as some humans are right handed and some are left handed, some humans are heterosexual and some humans are homosexual. And by the way, the science has shown that genetics go further in determining sexual orientation than they do in hand dominance, so when you start arguing that left handed people are "unnatural" then you might have a case, but until then, you might want to consider trading in your outdated definition for a more realistic one.
 
Thank you, but why would a homosexual couple be less happy than a heterosexual couple?
 
Not necessarily happier. But heterosexual couples are better off for two reasons:

They enjoy complimentarity: males and females are complimentary (as far as sexes go, as for personality that is another topic)

They can share a life of raising their own children as family. (families are just about the best thing socially and otherwise).
 
I agree that 'natural' means anything that happens in Nature, pretty much making it a useless word. The only reason we've had it in the first place is because our culture has elevated ourselves above Nature, creating a false dichotomy. I much prefer the words 'adaptive' and 'maladaptive'.

Nature is a dance. It's the ultimate improvisation game. Adaptive or maladaptive, it's all natural. The fact that homosexuality exists after millions of years of evolution and occurs in numerous species tells me that it's adaptive.

What's important is that we're social animals, and homosexuality does play a part in social cohesion.
 
Flavus Aquila said:
They enjoy complimentarity: males and females are complimentary (as far as sexes go, as for personality that is another topic)
Click to expand...

If homosexuals were attracted to a "complimentary" partner, then they wouldn't be gay, would they? In fact, a homosexual would probably not enjoy being with a "complimentary" partner, because they would only be attracted to a "similar" partner.

Basically you are arguing that heterosexuality is inherently superior, and anything other is less satisfactory. It's a useless value judgment based on absolutely nothing.

They can share a life of raising their own children as family. (families are just about the best thing socially and otherwise).
Click to expand...

Or they could adopt children and still get all the same benefits of raising a family. Or are you arguing that adoptive families in general are inferior to families where the children are the genetic offspring of the parents?

I'll recognize that you have ignored me and ran away from this thread as a sign that you are reconsidering your definition.
 
Flavus Aquila said:
Not necessarily happier. But heterosexual couples are better off for two reasons:

They enjoy complimentarity: males and females are complimentary (as far as sexes go, as for personality that is another topic)

They can share a life of raising their own children as family. (families are just about the best thing socially and otherwise).
Click to expand...

Why is a male/female pair better? I don't see how that is better.

What if you dont want children or a family?
 
A male/female pair is inherently better because a male has nothing that interests me. Whereas a female has breasts.

:m146:
 
Shai Gar said:
A male/female pair is inherently better because a male has nothing that interests me. Whereas a female has breasts.

:m146:
Click to expand...

Well with that logic I could say that a Male/Male pair is better because females have nothing that interesing, and other males have a penis :tongue1:

EDIT: by that sentance, it implies that I don't have a penis, when infact I do.
 
I meant, heterosexual couples are better off according to NATURE

(PS I am not married and have no intention to marry, but I don't have any difficulty saying that marriage is better - according to NATURE - than temporary relationships, bachelorhood, or homosexual relationships)
 
Why do we have to define things by nature? I mean, it is an argument of semantics at this point. why cant we go by things, that just feel right? (so long as it doesn't harm others of course).
 
Indigosensor - I know what your saying. I was just interested in the starter question of this thread.

In part, because people just won't come right out and own what they do - that bugs me. The only thing that bugs me more is people trying to tell others what to do (which some may have inferred from my posts - I don't think that saying something is better is the same as saying "you should do something that is better.")
 
Flavus Aquila said:
Indigosensor - I know what your saying. I was just interested in the starter question of this thread.

In part, because people just won't come right out and own what they do - that bugs me. The only thing that bugs me more is people trying to tell others what to do (which some may have inferred from my posts - I don't think that saying something is better is the same as saying "you should do something that is better.")
Click to expand...

You believe homosexuality is inferior based on your personal conception of nature. You want homosexuals to admit that they practice an "inferior" lifestyle to your own. You certainly want homosexuals to do something, namely start calling their lifestyle "unnatural", even if they aren't changing their sexual orientation. I kinda find that highly offensive and hypocritical. You tell people what you think they should do and then argue that you don't like being told what to do.

Is anyone noticing a pattern emerging with these gay basher types?
 
Last edited:
I don't have a hang-up with the word UNNATURAL.

And I don't have any problems with admitting that other people's way of living is better than mine.

But, if you are going to talk about NATURAL and UNNATURAL in respect of homosexuality, then I do have hang-ups with people trying to avoid calling a spade a spade.

I don't and wont go around telling homosexual couples that what they are doing is unnatural. But in a discussion on the topic I will insist on using the terms in a way that actually carries some meaning and I will not agree to calling absolutely everything NATURAL, because that would simply void the word of any meaning.
 
Flavus Aquila said:
I don't have a hang-up with the word UNNATURAL.
Click to expand...

Neither do I. What I have a hang up with is you trying to impose a label on others because they don't live up to your personal standard.

And I don't have any problems with admitting that other people's way of living is better than mine.
Click to expand...

So you have no problem admitting that some gays have a better way of living that you do?

But, if you are going to talk about NATURAL and UNNATURAL in respect of homosexuality, then I do have hang-ups with people trying to avoid calling a spade a spade.
Click to expand...

A spade by your personal standard.

I don't and wont go around telling homosexual couples that what they are doing is unnatural. But in a discussion on the topic I will insist on using the terms in a way that actually carries some meaning and I will not agree to calling absolutely everything NATURAL, because that would simply void the word of any meaning.
Click to expand...

I don't call everything natural, so I don't know why you keep bringing it up. As I have said, I call the properties that are typically exhibited by the organisms as natural. I don't call a dog with fins natural. I don't call a horse with four eyes natural. That is the definition of natural, because it defines things by their nature, and the nature is defined by the properties of the organism.

But you know what, I think you have an unnatural definition of natural. What you have is a personal ideal, a standard by which you expect everyone else to live, not a representation of reality.
 
The thread topic was: homosexual relations: natural or not?

As for your question about my way of life: things a good/better or bad/worse in relation to something.

In terms of company and social support, homosexual couples live better than a single.

In terms of nature - neither single nor homosexual is too good. (without re-posting, using the word nature I have argued for).

As for a comparison between single and homosexual in reference to nature (permitting my use)- well one is unfulfillment and the other is contradiction. Unfullfilment, because being single with intention to remain so does not begin to fulfil the third characteristic of all life (nourishment, growth, reproduction). Contradiction, because it in part resembles one of the three acts of living nature, but in a way that excludes the possibility of the completion of that act/characteristic.

**looks at watch !! have to get going.**
 
Last edited:
Flavus Aquila said:
The thread topic was: homosexual relations: natural or not?
Click to expand...

And I think it is pretty clear at this point that you are arguing a personal standard you have and not an actual definition for natural.

In terms of my personal standards - neither single nor homosexual is too good. (without re-posting, using the word nature I have argued for).
Click to expand...
There, I fixed it.


You basically avoided the reality of all this. You have to impose a label on people. It isn't really all that different from calling a black man a nigger. It's all about control. As you said, it "bugs you" if you don't do it. You have to impose some sort of label which denotes that your way of life is "superior" to gay people. You justify it with baseless assumptions that a homosexual couple would be less happy than or get less satisfaction than a heterosexual couple. In fact, I'm done with the discussion now. Everyone can see exactly where you stand, and I feel kind of sorry for you so I don't see any point in dragging this out any longer.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top