Homosexual relations, natural or not?

[mayflow]

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.**

I am single. You seem to be dissing being single? Why? I like it pretty fine. I mean in deeper essence I am one and inter-related with everything. So what's so bad about that to you?

I can be a single thing and and everything too! I find it pretty cool.

 

[Satya]

HAha yay someone takes the naturalist approach (I used to to this too) and Satya hates it

"Naturalist" isn't the correct term for it Pristine. It's called Teleology. It's the theological concept that holds all things to be designed for or directed toward a final result; that there is an inherent purpose or final cause for all that exists. It's based on ideals, which means conforming to an ultimate standard of perfection or excellence, not on reality or what actually occurs. By definition "nature" is the essential qualities or characteristics by which something is recognized, not imagined standards by which people like yourself and Flavus Aquila think the world should conform to.

I find teleology to be a sickening and ignorant philosophy because it requires people to ignore what actually occurs for how they think things should occur. For you, you imagine that gay couples should be less capable of being adequate parents than straight couples, even though that isn't what happens in reality. For Flavus Aquila, he imagines that gay couples should be less happy than straight couples, even though that isn't what happens in reality.

Do you know what it means when you hold a belief even when it clearly isn't true in reality? It means, by definition, that you are delusional.

Do I hate it when people sacrifice their intellect and common sense for a delusion? Yes, I find it utterly pathetic, and it pisses me off to no end.

 

[Pristinegirl]

"Naturalist" isn't the correct term for it Pristine. It's called Teleology. It's the theological concept that holds all things to be designed for or directed toward a final result; that there is an inherent purpose or final cause for all that exists. It's based on ideals, which means conforming to an ultimate standard of perfection or excellence, not on reality or what actually occurs. By definition "nature" is the essential qualities or characteristics by which something is recognized, not imagined standards by which people like yourself and Flavus Aquila think the world should conform to.

I find teleology to be a sickening and ignorant philosophy because it requires people to ignore what actually occurs for how they think things should occur. For you, you imagine that gay couples should be less capable of being adequate parents than straight couples, even though that isn't what happens in reality. For Flavus Aquila, he imagines that gay couples should be less happy than straight couples, even though that isn't what happens in reality.

Do you know what it means when you hold a belief even when it clearly isn't true in reality? It means, by definition, that you are delusional.

Do I hate it when people sacrifice their intellect and common sense for a delusion? Yes, I find it utterly pathetic, and it pisses me off to no end.

Ooh I expected a big lash out on me but not quite like this. I am sorry I was not looking for trouble nor interviene. My form did not take on teleology, you are right about that NOTE: I would like to correct you: "I imagineD" (past tense, I used too).

I'm actually with you on this one, I cannot see any reason to why straight should be more happy than homosexuals? :S

 

[Satya]

Ooh I expected a big lash out on me but not quite like this. I am sorry I was not looking for trouble nor interviene. My form did not take on teleology, you are right about that NOTE: I would like to correct you: "I imagineD" (past tense, I used too).

I'm actually with you on this one, I cannot see any reason to why straight should be more happy than homosexuals? :S

Hm...okey dokes.

I think I might create a thread on teleology. It seems to be the biggest culprit behind prejudice. I've encountered it with you, just me, and now Flavus Aquila. Most people who practice it, don't even seem to be aware that they are doing so. Maybe if I bring it to light I can crush it.

 

[Pristinegirl]

But you SEE I NEVER TOOK ON THAT. STOP BEING OBSESSED WITH LABELING and being super ultra objective about MY behaviour. I know best how, what and why I do certain things. You are being very judgemental to say that I'm like that in the first place when I'm not. I was reasoning and rationalizing when we had that debate. I decided to question your 'study' because they cannot be fully trusted. NOTHING MORE. I was not set to an absolute stubborn judgement, but rather leaning towards one side more than the other.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

Mayflow - you said it.

I posted on this thread because the starter topic was interesting to me.

But instead of being able to look at the topic from different points of view, it turned into accusations (against myself and others) of being small-minded and intollerant.

I think that you just can't discuss some topics because open discussion will not be tolerated and you'll just end up being accused of being intolerant.

(if anyone reads this and wonders what I'm talking about - you could read the thread so far, but it might be a waste of time in my opinion)

 

[Quinlan]

Drama aside, what is natural anyway? I'd say it's anything that occurs in the physical world, homosexuality occurs in the physical world, therefore it is natural. /thread

 

[Flavus Aquila]

Quinlan - but absolutely everything that ever happens occurs in the natural world. So if you use the word 'natural' in the way you are saying, it cannot have any meaning, because it makes not distinction.

My arguement is that merely from a language point of view, some things have to be called unnatural, if the word natural can mean anything.

 

[Quinlan]

Quinlan - but absolutely everything that ever happens occurs in the natural world. So if you use the word 'natural' in the way you are saying, it cannot have any meaning, because it makes not distinction.

My arguement is that merely from a language point of view, some things have to be called unnatural, if the word natural can mean anything.

Well how do you define natural? Microsoft word says Natural is "relating to nature" and defines nature as "the physical world".

 

[Flavus Aquila]

Things in the physical world have natures too.

In common speech, you notice it when things are said like: 'it is in the nature of man to be curious.' <without being teleological> What something is - and how it functions as a consequence of what it is - gives a sense of its nature.

In my first class of my science degree I remember three characteristics of life being noted (to distinguish life from non-living things). Living things nourish themselves, grow and reproduce. So you could say that it is in the nature of all living things to grow, to nourish themselves and to reproduce.

So, for a living being to deliberately starve itself to death would be unnatural. (because of a contradiction against its nature)

 

[Quinlan]

Things in the physical world have natures too.

In common speech, you notice it when things are said like: 'it is in the nature of man to be curious.' <without being teleological> What something is - and how it functions as a consequence of what it is - gives a sense of its nature.

In my first class of my science degree I remember three characteristics of life being noted (to distinguish life from non-living things). Living things nourish themselves, grow and reproduce. So you could say that it is in the nature of all living things to grow, to nourish themselves and to reproduce.

So, for a living being to deliberately starve itself to death would be unnatural. (because of a contradiction against its nature)

But that definition is only given meaning by humans, it's arbitrary. We can define "life" however we like really. To me, a soldier ant having never reproduced, using it's own body as a bridge for his fellow soldiers to cross at the cost of it's own life is as natural as any birth.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

Its in the nature of ants to live in colonies. The colony (which is a single family of one mother, with lots of children) functions as a living organism. A solitary worker ant is an anomaly. You could say that it is unnatural for a worker ant to live alone.

 

[Silently Honest]

No more here. Take all related compalints to this thread.

 

[Quinlan]

Its in the nature of ants to live in colonies. The colony (which is a single family of one mother, with lots of children) functions as a living organism. A solitary worker ant is an anomaly. You could say that it is unnatural for a worker ant to live alone.

Its in the nature of humans to live in groups. The group functions as a living organism. Satya described a theory whereby homosexual males stayed behind (rather than hunting) to defend the tribe and help care for the young. This would benefit the group, reproduction would be more successful for the overall group (better survival rate for young if masculine physiques are at home to protect them), therefore for some members of the group to be homosexual would be more natural than all of the to be heterosexual.

 

[Zero]

In retrospect to the topic, I once asked my youth minister if a man was raised on an island without ever reading or hearing about the bible, could he still go to heaven without knowing God in the Christian sense? According to the Christian bible no.

But he did not have an answer. That's why I turned away from religion. A merciful God would not punish such a man.

In the same sense, a merciful God would not punish his creations based on their sexuality.

I personally think God is just something we evolved within our minds. Before our structured left-brain was able to do analytical procedures to figure things out, the things we could not explain were simply "God's doing". God is the ultimate connection of unknown and known. The funny thing about that is so are our brains, because we have the ability to intuit the future, we therefore have the ability to see the paths that are possible, we build from the known to make the unknown.

God is all-knowing by this concept, because God is inside of us and therefore all we know, he will know. All we do not know is in our power to know if we work hard to figure it out. Man used to think the world was flat, do you think people back then questioned God knowing the world was round? No, the churches back then would have agreed that God viewed the world as flat.

This explains again why Galileo was exiled. To say that there was something higher than the heavens(sky), something beyond them, was to deny that God created the heavens.

Of course this is just a theory, one that takes looking at God as a product of ourselves rather than a supreme being.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

I don't know, is it more part of human nature to live in a tribe or village than in a family? I would guess the family, because lots of people grow up in remote areas and seem to develop normally. ??

 

[Quinlan]

I don't know, is it more part of human nature to live in a tribe or village than in a family? I would guess the family, because lots of people grow up in remote areas and seem to develop normally. ??

I think it's obvious, nuclear families are relatively new concepts. A nuclear family will not last long out in the wilderness. Apart from modern societies (which are often incredibly unnatural) tribal living seems to be the overwhelmingly common way of life for humans.

 

[NaeturVindur]

I don't know, is it more part of human nature to live in a tribe or village than in a family? I would guess the family, because lots of people grow up in remote areas and seem to develop normally. ??

Definitely a village atmosphere. What about mating/romantic partners? those don't come from a single family.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

Zero - your points are interesting, but I think it is only fair if you are going to represent someone's views that you be accurate. The opinions through history which you raise have been held by individuals, but not by the Church (I have had to study a lot of history by neccesity, not by choice). It isn't fair/honest to characterise a religious group of people in a given time in history according to some rare, outlandish opinions from that time in history.

 

[Zero]

Zero - your points are interesting, but I think it is only fair if you are going to represent someone's views that you be accurate. The opinions through history which you raise have been held by individuals, but not by the Church (I have had to study a lot of history by neccesity, not by choice). It isn't fair/honest to characterise a religious group of people in a given time in history according to some rare, outlandish opinions from that time in history.

You're right, it is not. I didn't mean for it to come out in such a way.

Just don't get me started on Catholics please