Total Posts:130|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Homosexuality is unnatural ? Unnatural is bad

Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2013 6:44:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
When discussing same sex marriage or homosexuality is general a common argument against is to claim "it's unnatural"

This kind of ethical frame works creates two categories, the "natural" which is presumed good and the "unnatural" which is presumed bad.

Even if we grant these assumptions, how does one determine if something is natural or unnatural ?

Some people claim that same sex marriage or homosexual acts are "unnatural" yet left handed minions of satan and red headed ginger freaks apparently get a free pass ?

Why aren't we banning left handed marriage ? or red headed marriage ? I declare these things.......................UNNATURAL.

So do you have more than just your assertion of what is natural and unnatural to support your anti gay arguments ? yeah MEDIC and SOVEREIGN DREAM I am looking at you.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2013 6:50:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
You could make it more simple for your self, and ask if animals Marry at all ? ie : is marriage even natural?

Marriage is a Human thing. so if we measure how Homosexuality is natural, then some other mammals do have homosexual behaviours.

The "Natural" argument is a failure!
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2013 7:00:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/30/2013 6:44:12 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
When discussing same sex marriage or homosexuality is general a common argument against is to claim "it's unnatural"

This kind of ethical frame works creates two categories, the "natural" which is presumed good and the "unnatural" which is presumed bad.

Even if we grant these assumptions, how does one determine if something is natural or unnatural ?

Some people claim that same sex marriage or homosexual acts are "unnatural" yet left handed minions of satan and red headed ginger freaks apparently get a free pass ?

Why aren't we banning left handed marriage ? or red headed marriage ? I declare these things.......................UNNATURAL.

So do you have more than just your assertion of what is natural and unnatural to support your anti gay arguments ? yeah MEDIC and SOVEREIGN DREAM I am looking at you.

I already explain to you what unnatural is taken to mean as far as Natural Law is concerned. Either you haven't read my response to yo, or you've just intentionally embarrassed yourself by posting such a point-missing and laughable thread. Really, that part about redheads and left-handed people? Hilarious. No, really.
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2013 7:01:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/30/2013 6:50:49 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
You could make it more simple for your self, and ask if animals Marry at all ? ie : is marriage even natural?

Marriage is a Human thing. so if we measure how Homosexuality is natural, then some other mammals do have homosexual behaviours.

The "Natural" argument is a failure!

You and Medic confuse the hell out of me. First you say homosexual behavior is unnatural and therefore immoral; then, when it is pointed out to you that homosexual behavior is in fact natural, you do a 180 and say "who cares what's natural?"

We're not saying homosexual behavior is natural and, therefore, morally permissible; we're simply pointing out to you that it is natural, contrary to your assertions. And we're the ones saying it's absurd to conclude what is or isn't morally permissible based on what is or isn't natural.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2013 7:04:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/30/2013 7:00:09 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 6/30/2013 6:44:12 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
When discussing same sex marriage or homosexuality is general a common argument against is to claim "it's unnatural"

This kind of ethical frame works creates two categories, the "natural" which is presumed good and the "unnatural" which is presumed bad.

Even if we grant these assumptions, how does one determine if something is natural or unnatural ?

Some people claim that same sex marriage or homosexual acts are "unnatural" yet left handed minions of satan and red headed ginger freaks apparently get a free pass ?

Why aren't we banning left handed marriage ? or red headed marriage ? I declare these things.......................UNNATURAL.

So do you have more than just your assertion of what is natural and unnatural to support your anti gay arguments ? yeah MEDIC and SOVEREIGN DREAM I am looking at you.

I already explain to you what unnatural is taken to mean as far as Natural Law is concerned. Either you haven't read my response to yo, or you've just intentionally embarrassed yourself by posting such a point-missing and laughable thread. Really, that part about redheads and left-handed people? Hilarious. No, really.

No you didn't.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2013 7:04:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
So Sovereign what does it mean to say something is unnatural ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2013 7:06:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/30/2013 7:01:05 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 6/30/2013 6:50:49 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
You could make it more simple for your self, and ask if animals Marry at all ? ie : is marriage even natural?

Marriage is a Human thing. so if we measure how Homosexuality is natural, then some other mammals do have homosexual behaviours.

The "Natural" argument is a failure!

You and Medic confuse the hell out of me. First you say homosexual behavior is unnatural and therefore immoral; then, when it is pointed out to you that homosexual behavior is in fact natural, you do a 180 and say "who cares what's natural?"

We're not saying homosexual behavior is natural and, therefore, morally permissible; we're simply pointing out to you that it is natural, contrary to your assertions. And we're the ones saying it's absurd to conclude what is or isn't morally permissible based on what is or isn't natural.

I don't recall I said it's immoral because it's unnatural ?!
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2013 7:09:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/30/2013 7:06:55 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 6/30/2013 7:01:05 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 6/30/2013 6:50:49 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
You could make it more simple for your self, and ask if animals Marry at all ? ie : is marriage even natural?

Marriage is a Human thing. so if we measure how Homosexuality is natural, then some other mammals do have homosexual behaviours.

The "Natural" argument is a failure!

You and Medic confuse the hell out of me. First you say homosexual behavior is unnatural and therefore immoral; then, when it is pointed out to you that homosexual behavior is in fact natural, you do a 180 and say "who cares what's natural?"

We're not saying homosexual behavior is natural and, therefore, morally permissible; we're simply pointing out to you that it is natural, contrary to your assertions. And we're the ones saying it's absurd to conclude what is or isn't morally permissible based on what is or isn't natural.

I don't recall I said it's immoral because it's unnatural ?!

If you didn't, then I retract any relevant accusations from my statement.
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2013 7:10:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/30/2013 7:09:18 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 6/30/2013 7:06:55 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 6/30/2013 7:01:05 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 6/30/2013 6:50:49 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
You could make it more simple for your self, and ask if animals Marry at all ? ie : is marriage even natural?

Marriage is a Human thing. so if we measure how Homosexuality is natural, then some other mammals do have homosexual behaviours.

The "Natural" argument is a failure!

You and Medic confuse the hell out of me. First you say homosexual behavior is unnatural and therefore immoral; then, when it is pointed out to you that homosexual behavior is in fact natural, you do a 180 and say "who cares what's natural?"

We're not saying homosexual behavior is natural and, therefore, morally permissible; we're simply pointing out to you that it is natural, contrary to your assertions. And we're the ones saying it's absurd to conclude what is or isn't morally permissible based on what is or isn't natural.

I don't recall I said it's immoral because it's unnatural ?!

If you didn't, then I retract any relevant accusations from my statement.

You are the second person who confuse me with Medic.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2013 7:26:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/30/2013 7:04:26 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 6/30/2013 7:00:09 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 6/30/2013 6:44:12 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
When discussing same sex marriage or homosexuality is general a common argument against is to claim "it's unnatural"

This kind of ethical frame works creates two categories, the "natural" which is presumed good and the "unnatural" which is presumed bad.

Even if we grant these assumptions, how does one determine if something is natural or unnatural ?

Some people claim that same sex marriage or homosexual acts are "unnatural" yet left handed minions of satan and red headed ginger freaks apparently get a free pass ?

Why aren't we banning left handed marriage ? or red headed marriage ? I declare these things.......................UNNATURAL.

So do you have more than just your assertion of what is natural and unnatural to support your anti gay arguments ? yeah MEDIC and SOVEREIGN DREAM I am looking at you.

I already explain to you what unnatural is taken to mean as far as Natural Law is concerned. Either you haven't read my response to yo, or you've just intentionally embarrassed yourself by posting such a point-missing and laughable thread. Really, that part about redheads and left-handed people? Hilarious. No, really.

No you didn't.

It's possible that you did in another thread but I missed it.

The only thing I recall sovereign is you saying something about something being a perversion of a faculty. I asked how you a determine if something is a perversion of a faculty.

Never the less enlighten the thread sovereign, when you say same sex marriage or homosexual acts are "unnatural" and imply that being a red headed ginger freak is "natural" what do you mean ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2013 7:33:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
And how exactly does one determine what things we should put in the box of natural and what things go into the box of unnatural ?

Till then, I declare red headed marriage as unnatural, those sick sick freaks. Maybe if they believed in Jesus then God would cure them of their red headiness. Repent of your red hair, don't give me this I was born this way crap, you turned your back on GOD !!!! and thus God turned you over to the immorality of having red hair.

Blonde and blue eyes...............Its Gods plan
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2013 7:33:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/30/2013 7:26:37 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 6/30/2013 7:04:26 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 6/30/2013 7:00:09 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 6/30/2013 6:44:12 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
When discussing same sex marriage or homosexuality is general a common argument against is to claim "it's unnatural"

This kind of ethical frame works creates two categories, the "natural" which is presumed good and the "unnatural" which is presumed bad.

Even if we grant these assumptions, how does one determine if something is natural or unnatural ?

Some people claim that same sex marriage or homosexual acts are "unnatural" yet left handed minions of satan and red headed ginger freaks apparently get a free pass ?

Why aren't we banning left handed marriage ? or red headed marriage ? I declare these things.......................UNNATURAL.

So do you have more than just your assertion of what is natural and unnatural to support your anti gay arguments ? yeah MEDIC and SOVEREIGN DREAM I am looking at you.

I already explain to you what unnatural is taken to mean as far as Natural Law is concerned. Either you haven't read my response to yo, or you've just intentionally embarrassed yourself by posting such a point-missing and laughable thread. Really, that part about redheads and left-handed people? Hilarious. No, really.

No you didn't.

It's possible that you did in another thread but I missed it.

The only thing I recall sovereign is you saying something about something being a perversion of a faculty. I asked how you a determine if something is a perversion of a faculty.

Never the less enlighten the thread sovereign, when you say same sex marriage or homosexual acts are "unnatural" and imply that being a red headed ginger freak is "natural" what do you mean ?

Copypasta:

An act, according to the Aristotelian-Thomistic Natural Law theorist, is unnatural (and so immoral) insofar as it is a perversion of the body part's final cause. So, for example, the eyes are clearly aimed at seeing. It would so be bad and so immoral to cut out one's eyes purposefully to, say, start a new fashion (or some other such absurdity). You'd be irrational to deny this. Likewise, sexual organs are aimed at something, namely, procreation. The ability to reproduce is vital to the flourishing of the human. Humans, and all life, is aimed at reproduction. One that can reproduce is counted as a good example of that species, while one that can't is a bad example (note that I said can and not does). Physically, if a man were unable to get erect because he couldn't get blood flow to his penis, we would clearly say that he has a disability. Similarly, if a man's brain doesn't work in such a way that he can't get erect to have sex with a woman in order to reproduce, we should clearly say that he has a disability. And why "with a woman in order to reproduce?" Because, as I've noted, sexuality is aimed, by its very essence, at reproduction. If we consider the structure of the sexual organs (besides also serving as organs to eliminate waste), and the sexual act as a process beginning with arousal and ending in orgasm, it is clear that its final cause is to get semen into the vagina. That is why the penis and the vagina are shaped the way they are, why the vagina secretes lubrication during sexual arousal, and so forth. The point of the process is not just to get semen out of the male, but also into the female, and into one place in the female in particular. All of this exists only so that men and women will engage in the sexual act, so that in turn the offspring will be generated at least a certain percentage of the time the act is performed and so that the father and mother will be strengthened in their desire to stay together, which circumstance is nature's way of sustaining that union which children depend for their material and spiritual well-being. Every link in the chain has procreation as its final cause, whatever the intentions of the actors. As such, it would count as immoral to use a penis in such as a way as to act contrary to its final cause; namely, it would be immoral to ejaculate into something that isn't a vagina. To do so would be to willfully choose an end that is not a good (in the metaphysically objective sense) end. It would be to choose bad. Even Freud advanced such a perverted faculty argument:

"(I)t is a characteristic common to all the perversions that in them reproduction as an aim is put aside. This is actually the criterion by which we judge whether a sexual activity is perverse - if it departs from reproduction in its aims and pursues the attainment of gratification independently."
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2013 7:50:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/30/2013 7:33:36 PM, SovereignDream wrote:

Every link in the chain has procreation as its final cause, whatever the intentions of the actors. As such, it would count as immoral to use a penis in such as a way as to act contrary to its final cause; namely, it would be immoral to ejaculate into something that isn't a vagina. To do so would be to willfully choose an end that is not a good (in the metaphysically objective sense) end. It would be to choose bad. Even Freud advanced such a perverted faculty argument:

"(I)t is a characteristic common to all the perversions that in them reproduction as an aim is put aside. This is actually the criterion by which we judge whether a sexual activity is perverse - if it departs from reproduction in its aims and pursues the attainment of gratification independently."

Reproduction isn't the only aim of an orgasm in homosapians.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2013 8:02:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/30/2013 7:33:36 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 6/30/2013 7:26:37 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 6/30/2013 7:04:26 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 6/30/2013 7:00:09 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 6/30/2013 6:44:12 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
When discussing same sex marriage or homosexuality is general a common argument against is to claim "it's unnatural"

This kind of ethical frame works creates two categories, the "natural" which is presumed good and the "unnatural" which is presumed bad.

Even if we grant these assumptions, how does one determine if something is natural or unnatural ?

Some people claim that same sex marriage or homosexual acts are "unnatural" yet left handed minions of satan and red headed ginger freaks apparently get a free pass ?

Why aren't we banning left handed marriage ? or red headed marriage ? I declare these things.......................UNNATURAL.

So do you have more than just your assertion of what is natural and unnatural to support your anti gay arguments ? yeah MEDIC and SOVEREIGN DREAM I am looking at you.

I already explain to you what unnatural is taken to mean as far as Natural Law is concerned. Either you haven't read my response to yo, or you've just intentionally embarrassed yourself by posting such a point-missing and laughable thread. Really, that part about redheads and left-handed people? Hilarious. No, really.

No you didn't.

It's possible that you did in another thread but I missed it.

The only thing I recall sovereign is you saying something about something being a perversion of a faculty. I asked how you a determine if something is a perversion of a faculty.

Never the less enlighten the thread sovereign, when you say same sex marriage or homosexual acts are "unnatural" and imply that being a red headed ginger freak is "natural" what do you mean ?

Copypasta:

An act, according to the Aristotelian-Thomistic Natural Law theorist, is unnatural (and so immoral) insofar as it is a perversion of the body part's final cause.

So, for example, the eyes are clearly aimed at seeing. It would so be bad and so immoral to cut out one's eyes purposefully to, say, start a new fashion (or some other such absurdity). You'd be irrational to deny this. Likewise, sexual organs are aimed at something, namely, procreation.

I don't know what you mean by "aimed" in this context. It could mean X is aimed to produces Y without or without external teleology. (Yes I have read Writer Dave and Contradictions debate.)

And we all know you can't logical infer X produces Y therefore X is the result of external teleology don't we ?

The ability to reproduce is vital to the flourishing of the human. Humans, and all life, is aimed at reproduction.

Again with the "aim" thing.

One that can reproduce is counted as a good example of that species, while one that can't is a bad example (note that I said can and not does). Physically, if a man were unable to get erect because he couldn't get blood flow to his penis, we would clearly say that he has a disability. Similarly, if a man's brain doesn't work in such a way that he can't get erect to have sex with a woman in order to reproduce, we should clearly say that he has a disability.

This just tells us what circumstances can and can't result in reproduction. It doesn't tell us what is natural or unnatural.

And why "with a woman in order to reproduce?" Because, as I've noted, sexuality is aimed, by its very essence, at reproduction.

Yeah you really need to tell us what you mean by "aim" by now :)

If we consider the structure of the sexual organs (besides also serving as organs to eliminate waste), and the sexual act as a process beginning with arousal and ending in orgasm, it is clear that its final cause is to get semen into the vagina.

How are you determining the final cause of something ?

X can lead to Y, therefore the final cause of of X is Y ?

Ebola virus can lead to the killing of children, therefore the final cause of the Ebola virus is to kill kids in Africa ?

That is why the penis and the vagina are shaped the way they are, why the vagina secretes lubrication during sexual arousal, and so forth. The point of the process is not just to get semen out of the male, but also into the female, and into one place in the female in particular. All of this exists only so that men and women will engage in the sexual act, so that in turn the offspring will be generated at least a certain percentage of the time the act is performed and so that the father and mother will be strengthened in their desire to stay together, which circumstance is nature's way of sustaining that union which children depend for their material and spiritual well-being. Every link in the chain has procreation as its final cause, whatever the intentions of the actors. As such, it would count as immoral to use a penis in such as a way as to act contrary to its final cause; namely, it would be immoral to ejaculate into something that isn't a vagina. To do so would be to willfully choose an end that is not a good (in the metaphysically objective sense) end. It would be to choose bad. Even Freud advanced such a perverted faculty argument:

"(I)t is a characteristic common to all the perversions that in them reproduction as an aim is put aside. This is actually the criterion by which we judge whether a sexual activity is perverse - if it departs from reproduction in its aims and pursues the attainment of gratification independently."

If two people use the "timing" method to avoid pregnancy to avoid reproduction, then they are clearly trying to avoid the "final cause" as thus is bad according to this view.

Are you willing to bite the bullet here ?

I would like to know how are you determine the "final cause" of something ?

I don't think you can infer X produces Y therefore the final cause of X is Y. Eg the ebola virus.

Can final cause exist without external teleology ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2013 8:04:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I've never seen a natural law theorist sufficiently explain why natural law isn't necessarily predicated on theism.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2013 8:18:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/30/2013 8:04:11 PM, Noumena wrote:
I've never seen a natural law theorist sufficiently explain why natural law isn't necessarily predicated on theism.

I have never seen a natural law theorist that doesn't already assume that X is unnatural to prove that X is unnatural.

Then again I haven't spent much time in natural law, but I think I'm going to spend some time on it now.

I smell funny business.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
llamainmypocket
Posts: 253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2013 8:25:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/30/2013 6:44:12 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
When discussing same sex marriage or homosexuality is general a common argument against is to claim "it's unnatural"

This kind of ethical frame works creates two categories, the "natural" which is presumed good and the "unnatural" which is presumed bad.

Even if we grant these assumptions, how does one determine if something is natural or unnatural ?

Some people claim that same sex marriage or homosexual acts are "unnatural" yet left handed minions of satan and red headed ginger freaks apparently get a free pass ?

Why aren't we banning left handed marriage ? or red headed marriage ? I declare these things.......................UNNATURAL.

So do you have more than just your assertion of what is natural and unnatural to support your anti gay arguments ? yeah MEDIC and SOVEREIGN DREAM I am looking at you.

First of all, left handed and red headed people are natural because they are born this way. The argument is that because people aren't born gay that they are therefore unnatural.

Second, it's not a presumption. Good is when somethings intent and result are in harmony and bad is when there is no harmony. If your car died half way to the store then that would be bad. If it gets you to the store then that is good. Good and bad can be used in different ways but this is what it means in the argument.

The argument in effect, is that because they aren't born gay then it is unnatural and therefore it is bad... Your burden would be to give logical foundation to being born gay... This is commonly assumed to appease the gay community but I've seen no evidence to suggest it's truth.

Who wants to be the first person to make the assumption that this is my argument and challenge me on their assumptions of my beliefs? You know it's going to happen! Don't do it! Definitely don't give me any rhetorical questions then presume I've abandoned reason because I'm not interested!

I wouldn't mind seeing some evidence that they're born gay. It has always seemed as a fetish to me. You're a boy who likes boys? Interesting. I like huge boobs! I wasn't born liking huge boobs. I just have a deeply rooted psychological issue that compels me to want the kind the size of DD to E size. Maybe I didn't get enough breast milk as a child, I don't know! :-)
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2013 8:29:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/30/2013 8:25:17 PM, llamainmypocket wrote:
At 6/30/2013 6:44:12 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
When discussing same sex marriage or homosexuality is general a common argument against is to claim "it's unnatural"

This kind of ethical frame works creates two categories, the "natural" which is presumed good and the "unnatural" which is presumed bad.

Even if we grant these assumptions, how does one determine if something is natural or unnatural ?

Some people claim that same sex marriage or homosexual acts are "unnatural" yet left handed minions of satan and red headed ginger freaks apparently get a free pass ?

Why aren't we banning left handed marriage ? or red headed marriage ? I declare these things.......................UNNATURAL.

So do you have more than just your assertion of what is natural and unnatural to support your anti gay arguments ? yeah MEDIC and SOVEREIGN DREAM I am looking at you.

First of all, left handed and red headed people are natural because they are born this way. The argument is that because people aren't born gay that they are therefore unnatural.

Second, it's not a presumption. Good is when somethings intent and result are in harmony and bad is when there is no harmony. If your car died half way to the store then that would be bad. If it gets you to the store then that is good. Good and bad can be used in different ways but this is what it means in the argument.

The argument in effect, is that because they aren't born gay then it is unnatural and therefore it is bad... Your burden would be to give logical foundation to being born gay... This is commonly assumed to appease the gay community but I've seen no evidence to suggest it's truth.

Who wants to be the first person to make the assumption that this is my argument and challenge me on their assumptions of my beliefs? You know it's going to happen! Don't do it! Definitely don't give me any rhetorical questions then presume I've abandoned reason because I'm not interested!

I wouldn't mind seeing some evidence that they're born gay. It has always seemed as a fetish to me. You're a boy who likes boys? Interesting. I like huge boobs! I wasn't born liking huge boobs. I just have a deeply rooted psychological issue that compels me to want the kind the size of DD to E size. Maybe I didn't get enough breast milk as a child, I don't know! :-)

It sounds as if you dispute that gays are born that way. But humor me, if gays were born that way would you agree that would make being gay "natural" ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2013 8:29:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/30/2013 8:18:23 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 6/30/2013 8:04:11 PM, Noumena wrote:
I've never seen a natural law theorist sufficiently explain why natural law isn't necessarily predicated on theism.

I have never seen a natural law theorist that doesn't already assume that X is unnatural to prove that X is unnatural.

It's mostly just intuition.

Then again I haven't spent much time in natural law, but I think I'm going to spend some time on it now.

I smell funny business.

As you should sir.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2013 8:30:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/30/2013 8:25:17 PM, llamainmypocket wrote:
At 6/30/2013 6:44:12 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
When discussing same sex marriage or homosexuality is general a common argument against is to claim "it's unnatural"

This kind of ethical frame works creates two categories, the "natural" which is presumed good and the "unnatural" which is presumed bad.

Even if we grant these assumptions, how does one determine if something is natural or unnatural ?

Some people claim that same sex marriage or homosexual acts are "unnatural" yet left handed minions of satan and red headed ginger freaks apparently get a free pass ?

Why aren't we banning left handed marriage ? or red headed marriage ? I declare these things.......................UNNATURAL.

So do you have more than just your assertion of what is natural and unnatural to support your anti gay arguments ? yeah MEDIC and SOVEREIGN DREAM I am looking at you.

First of all, left handed and red headed people are natural because they are born this way. The argument is that because people aren't born gay that they are therefore unnatural.


This is where I stopped reading. Even the (informed) natural law theorists don't say that....
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2013 8:32:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/30/2013 8:30:29 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/30/2013 8:25:17 PM, llamainmypocket wrote:
At 6/30/2013 6:44:12 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
When discussing same sex marriage or homosexuality is general a common argument against is to claim "it's unnatural"

This kind of ethical frame works creates two categories, the "natural" which is presumed good and the "unnatural" which is presumed bad.

Even if we grant these assumptions, how does one determine if something is natural or unnatural ?

Some people claim that same sex marriage or homosexual acts are "unnatural" yet left handed minions of satan and red headed ginger freaks apparently get a free pass ?

Why aren't we banning left handed marriage ? or red headed marriage ? I declare these things.......................UNNATURAL.

So do you have more than just your assertion of what is natural and unnatural to support your anti gay arguments ? yeah MEDIC and SOVEREIGN DREAM I am looking at you.

First of all, left handed and red headed people are natural because they are born this way. The argument is that because people aren't born gay that they are therefore unnatural.


This is where I stopped reading. Even the (informed) natural law theorists don't say that....

That last paragraph wasn't me.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
bulproof
Posts: 25,203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2013 8:33:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/30/2013 8:25:17 PM, llamainmypocket wrote:
At 6/30/2013 6:44:12 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
When discussing same sex marriage or homosexuality is general a common argument against is to claim "it's unnatural"

This kind of ethical frame works creates two categories, the "natural" which is presumed good and the "unnatural" which is presumed bad.

Even if we grant these assumptions, how does one determine if something is natural or unnatural ?

Some people claim that same sex marriage or homosexual acts are "unnatural" yet left handed minions of satan and red headed ginger freaks apparently get a free pass ?

Why aren't we banning left handed marriage ? or red headed marriage ? I declare these things.......................UNNATURAL.

So do you have more than just your assertion of what is natural and unnatural to support your anti gay arguments ? yeah MEDIC and SOVEREIGN DREAM I am looking at you.

First of all, left handed and red headed people are natural because they are born this way. The argument is that because people aren't born gay that they are therefore unnatural.

Second, it's not a presumption. Good is when somethings intent and result are in harmony and bad is when there is no harmony. If your car died half way to the store then that would be bad. If it gets you to the store then that is good. Good and bad can be used in different ways but this is what it means in the argument.

The argument in effect, is that because they aren't born gay then it is unnatural and therefore it is bad... Your burden would be to give logical foundation to being born gay... This is commonly assumed to appease the gay community but I've seen no evidence to suggest it's truth.

Who wants to be the first person to make the assumption that this is my argument and challenge me on their assumptions of my beliefs? You know it's going to happen! Don't do it! Definitely don't give me any rhetorical questions then presume I've abandoned reason because I'm not interested!

I wouldn't mind seeing some evidence that they're born gay. It has always seemed as a fetish to me. You're a boy who likes boys? Interesting. I like huge boobs! I wasn't born liking huge boobs. I just have a deeply rooted psychological issue that compels me to want the kind the size of DD to E size. Maybe I didn't get enough breast milk as a child, I don't know! :-)
Which brings us back to the unanswerable question
When did you choose to be heterosexual?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
the_croftmeister
Posts: 678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2013 8:38:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/30/2013 8:04:11 PM, Noumena wrote:
I've never seen a natural law theorist sufficiently explain why natural law isn't necessarily predicated on theism.
Pretty easy, natural law exists axiomatically, we just discover it through intuition and practical application. None of this requires a god to make that natural law, that's just a bad example of abduction to the most logical explanation which does nothing to demonstrate necessity.

Now, I'm not a natural law theorist, but if an atheist does not have to posit a 'cause' for the universe, then why should a natural law theorist have to posit a 'cause' for natural law?
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2013 8:41:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/30/2013 8:38:13 PM, the_croftmeister wrote:
At 6/30/2013 8:04:11 PM, Noumena wrote:
I've never seen a natural law theorist sufficiently explain why natural law isn't necessarily predicated on theism.
Pretty easy, natural law exists axiomatically, we just discover it through intuition and practical application.

I'm questioning how one can explain the genesis of teleology, not the discovery of it.

None of this requires a god to make that natural law, that's just a bad example of abduction to the most logical explanation which does nothing to demonstrate necessity.

Now, I'm not a natural law theorist, but if an atheist does not have to posit a 'cause' for the universe, then why should a natural law theorist have to posit a 'cause' for natural law?

Because we already know the universe exists?
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2013 8:45:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/30/2013 8:38:13 PM, the_croftmeister wrote:
At 6/30/2013 8:04:11 PM, Noumena wrote:
I've never seen a natural law theorist sufficiently explain why natural law isn't necessarily predicated on theism.
Pretty easy, natural law exists axiomatically, we just discover it through intuition and practical application. None of this requires a god to make that natural law, that's just a bad example of abduction to the most logical explanation which does nothing to demonstrate necessity.

Now, I'm not a natural law theorist, but if an atheist does not have to posit a 'cause' for the universe, then why should a natural law theorist have to posit a 'cause' for natural law?

I think what he is getting at with the "theism" remark is that natural law advocates argue that X should or should not be done because X was INTENDED to be that way.

Two problems....

1) It assumes that the subject in question is the result of intentionally, certainly not a given in the natural world.

2) Even if it is, it still raises the question how you are determining what was intended other than just the assertion God set it up this way, do it this way or go to hell.

X produces Y therefore it was intended for X to produce Y ? Doesn't work for me.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2013 8:56:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/30/2013 7:33:36 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 6/30/2013 7:26:37 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 6/30/2013 7:04:26 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 6/30/2013 7:00:09 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 6/30/2013 6:44:12 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
When discussing same sex marriage or homosexuality is general a common argument against is to claim "it's unnatural"

This kind of ethical frame works creates two categories, the "natural" which is presumed good and the "unnatural" which is presumed bad.

Even if we grant these assumptions, how does one determine if something is natural or unnatural ?

Some people claim that same sex marriage or homosexual acts are "unnatural" yet left handed minions of satan and red headed ginger freaks apparently get a free pass ?

Why aren't we banning left handed marriage ? or red headed marriage ? I declare these things.......................UNNATURAL.

So do you have more than just your assertion of what is natural and unnatural to support your anti gay arguments ? yeah MEDIC and SOVEREIGN DREAM I am looking at you.

I already explain to you what unnatural is taken to mean as far as Natural Law is concerned. Either you haven't read my response to yo, or you've just intentionally embarrassed yourself by posting such a point-missing and laughable thread. Really, that part about redheads and left-handed people? Hilarious. No, really.

No you didn't.

It's possible that you did in another thread but I missed it.

The only thing I recall sovereign is you saying something about something being a perversion of a faculty. I asked how you a determine if something is a perversion of a faculty.

Never the less enlighten the thread sovereign, when you say same sex marriage or homosexual acts are "unnatural" and imply that being a red headed ginger freak is "natural" what do you mean ?

Copypasta:

An act, according to the Aristotelian-Thomistic Natural Law theorist, is unnatural (and so immoral) insofar as it is a perversion of the body part's final cause. So, for example, the eyes are clearly aimed at seeing. It would so be bad and so immoral to cut out one's eyes purposefully to, say, start a new fashion (or some other such absurdity). You'd be irrational to deny this. Likewise, sexual organs are aimed at something, namely, procreation. The ability to reproduce is vital to the flourishing of the human. Humans, and all life, is aimed at reproduction. One that can reproduce is counted as a good example of that species, while one that can't is a bad example (note that I said can and not does). Physically, if a man were unable to get erect because he couldn't get blood flow to his penis, we would clearly say that he has a disability. Similarly, if a man's brain doesn't work in such a way that he can't get erect to have sex with a woman in order to reproduce, we should clearly say that he has a disability. And why "with a woman in order to reproduce?" Because, as I've noted, sexuality is aimed, by its very essence, at reproduction. If we consider the structure of the sexual organs (besides also serving as organs to eliminate waste), and the sexual act as a process beginning with arousal and ending in orgasm, it is clear that its final cause is to get semen into the vagina. That is why the penis and the vagina are shaped the way they are, why the vagina secretes lubrication during sexual arousal, and so forth. The point of the process is not just to get semen out of the male, but also into the female, and into one place in the female in particular. All of this exists only so that men and women will engage in the sexual act, so that in turn the offspring will be generated at least a certain percentage of the time the act is performed and so that the father and mother will be strengthened in their desire to stay together, which circumstance is nature's way of sustaining that union which children depend for their material and spiritual well-being. Every link in the chain has procreation as its final cause, whatever the intentions of the actors. As such, it would count as immoral to use a penis in such as a way as to act contrary to its final cause; namely, it would be immoral to ejaculate into something that isn't a vagina. To do so would be to willfully choose an end that is not a good (in the metaphysically objective sense) end. It would be to choose bad. Even Freud advanced such a perverted faculty argument:

"(I)t is a characteristic common to all the perversions that in them reproduction as an aim is put aside. This is actually the criterion by which we judge whether a sexual activity is perverse - if it departs from reproduction in its aims and pursues the attainment of gratification independently."

How many people do you know who have sex only for the mere act of reproduction?
Most of the heterosexual couples I know use prophylactics to prevent pregnancy. Is it wrong to have sex apart from procreation?
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2013 8:57:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/30/2013 8:41:41 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 6/30/2013 8:38:13 PM, the_croftmeister wrote:
At 6/30/2013 8:04:11 PM, Noumena wrote:
I've never seen a natural law theorist sufficiently explain why natural law isn't necessarily predicated on theism.
Pretty easy, natural law exists axiomatically, we just discover it through intuition and practical application.

I'm questioning how one can explain the genesis of teleology, not the discovery of it.


I think one could be an atheist and a natural teleologist - you'd just have to not be a naturalist (or a very, very liberal one like Thomas Nagel). That is, sadly, a bridge too far for many (western) atheists.

None of this requires a god to make that natural law, that's just a bad example of abduction to the most logical explanation which does nothing to demonstrate necessity.

Now, I'm not a natural law theorist, but if an atheist does not have to posit a 'cause' for the universe, then why should a natural law theorist have to posit a 'cause' for natural law?

Because we already know the universe exists?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2013 8:58:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/30/2013 8:56:04 PM, s-anthony wrote:

How many people do you know who have sex only for the mere act of reproduction?
Most of the heterosexual couples I know use prophylactics to prevent pregnancy. Is it wrong to have sex apart from procreation?

They think its naughty only if the act isn't procreative in nature. They couldn't care less if procreation actually obtains. Don't ask me why.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2013 9:03:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/30/2013 8:57:29 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/30/2013 8:41:41 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 6/30/2013 8:38:13 PM, the_croftmeister wrote:
At 6/30/2013 8:04:11 PM, Noumena wrote:
I've never seen a natural law theorist sufficiently explain why natural law isn't necessarily predicated on theism.
Pretty easy, natural law exists axiomatically, we just discover it through intuition and practical application.

I'm questioning how one can explain the genesis of teleology, not the discovery of it.


I think one could be an atheist and a natural teleologist - you'd just have to not be a naturalist (or a very, very liberal one like Thomas Nagel). That is, sadly, a bridge too far for many (western) atheists.

Please, do explain.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
llamainmypocket
Posts: 253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2013 9:08:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/30/2013 8:29:17 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 6/30/2013 8:25:17 PM, llamainmypocket wrote:
At 6/30/2013 6:44:12 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
When discussing same sex marriage or homosexuality is general a common argument against is to claim "it's unnatural"

This kind of ethical frame works creates two categories, the "natural" which is presumed good and the "unnatural" which is presumed bad.

Even if we grant these assumptions, how does one determine if something is natural or unnatural ?

Some people claim that same sex marriage or homosexual acts are "unnatural" yet left handed minions of satan and red headed ginger freaks apparently get a free pass ?

Why aren't we banning left handed marriage ? or red headed marriage ? I declare these things.......................UNNATURAL.

So do you have more than just your assertion of what is natural and unnatural to support your anti gay arguments ? yeah MEDIC and SOVEREIGN DREAM I am looking at you.

First of all, left handed and red headed people are natural because they are born this way. The argument is that because people aren't born gay that they are therefore unnatural.

Second, it's not a presumption. Good is when somethings intent and result are in harmony and bad is when there is no harmony. If your car died half way to the store then that would be bad. If it gets you to the store then that is good. Good and bad can be used in different ways but this is what it means in the argument.

The argument in effect, is that because they aren't born gay then it is unnatural and therefore it is bad... Your burden would be to give logical foundation to being born gay... This is commonly assumed to appease the gay community but I've seen no evidence to suggest it's truth.

Who wants to be the first person to make the assumption that this is my argument and challenge me on their assumptions of my beliefs? You know it's going to happen! Don't do it! Definitely don't give me any rhetorical questions then presume I've abandoned reason because I'm not interested!

I wouldn't mind seeing some evidence that they're born gay. It has always seemed as a fetish to me. You're a boy who likes boys? Interesting. I like huge boobs! I wasn't born liking huge boobs. I just have a deeply rooted psychological issue that compels me to want the kind the size of DD to E size. Maybe I didn't get enough breast milk as a child, I don't know! :-)

It sounds as if you dispute that gays are born that way. But humor me, if gays were born that way would you agree that would make being gay "natural" ?

The question seems so innocent but I suspect that you want me to play con to your pro gay argument. The problem is that I'm not interested in making gay people bad people... You asked a question and I answered it. Do you have a reason to believe that gay people are born that way? Do you deny that it looks and acts exactly like a fetish?