Total Posts:75|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

On the term of naturality

Jovian
Posts: 1,720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2016 7:42:15 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
There might be other threads regarding this topic but I can't be bothered to search.

I can't really wrap my head around the religious terms of naturality and about the natural law. For example, homosexual acts and birth control are often assigned as unnatural, but I haven't ever heard space travels being assigned that? That ought to be unnatural since the human body needs several man-made inventions in order to enter that void, in order to not explode of the pressure.

There is a recognized logical fallacy called "appeal to nature", saying that just because something is natural doesn't mean that it's good. It's natural to murder, since people wouldn't have done that otherwise. Everyone has had thoughts saying "God I want to kill him/her" after a quarrel with someone, but we humans have for a hundred years now learning not to react upon every thought (notice however that this is something humanity has learned very recently).

I believe that nature generally isn't something to live along with, but something to fight. Otherwise we wouldn't have created cures and vaccines against diseases, neither technology etc. People who are talking about a natural law are although distinguishing these into a fallacious appeal to nature and a natural law.

So I think we could once and for all clear out this definition. How do you explain this?
graceofgod
Posts: 5,118
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2016 7:50:55 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/28/2016 7:42:15 PM, Jovian wrote:
There might be other threads regarding this topic but I can't be bothered to search.

I can't really wrap my head around the religious terms of naturality and about the natural law. For example, homosexual acts and birth control are often assigned as unnatural, but I haven't ever heard space travels being assigned that? That ought to be unnatural since the human body needs several man-made inventions in order to enter that void, in order to not explode of the pressure.

There is a recognized logical fallacy called "appeal to nature", saying that just because something is natural doesn't mean that it's good. It's natural to murder, since people wouldn't have done that otherwise. Everyone has had thoughts saying "God I want to kill him/her" after a quarrel with someone, but we humans have for a hundred years now learning not to react upon every thought (notice however that this is something humanity has learned very recently).

I believe that nature generally isn't something to live along with, but something to fight. Otherwise we wouldn't have created cures and vaccines against diseases, neither technology etc. People who are talking about a natural law are although distinguishing these into a fallacious appeal to nature and a natural law.

So I think we could once and for all clear out this definition. How do you explain this?

well clearly homosexuality is not natural...
Jovian
Posts: 1,720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2016 8:05:58 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/28/2016 7:50:55 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 1/28/2016 7:42:15 PM, Jovian wrote:
There might be other threads regarding this topic but I can't be bothered to search.

I can't really wrap my head around the religious terms of naturality and about the natural law. For example, homosexual acts and birth control are often assigned as unnatural, but I haven't ever heard space travels being assigned that? That ought to be unnatural since the human body needs several man-made inventions in order to enter that void, in order to not explode of the pressure.

There is a recognized logical fallacy called "appeal to nature", saying that just because something is natural doesn't mean that it's good. It's natural to murder, since people wouldn't have done that otherwise. Everyone has had thoughts saying "God I want to kill him/her" after a quarrel with someone, but we humans have for a hundred years now learning not to react upon every thought (notice however that this is something humanity has learned very recently).

I believe that nature generally isn't something to live along with, but something to fight. Otherwise we wouldn't have created cures and vaccines against diseases, neither technology etc. People who are talking about a natural law are although distinguishing these into a fallacious appeal to nature and a natural law.

So I think we could once and for all clear out this definition. How do you explain this?

well clearly homosexuality is not natural...

Then you are taking yourself back to the OP. Why is it not natural and why is space travel never assigned for being unnatural? I would guess homosexuality has existed since like...bacterias existed, whereas space travel is something that was introduced in the 20th century.
Vaarka
Posts: 7,655
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2016 8:09:48 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/28/2016 8:05:58 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 1/28/2016 7:50:55 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 1/28/2016 7:42:15 PM, Jovian wrote:
There might be other threads regarding this topic but I can't be bothered to search.

I can't really wrap my head around the religious terms of naturality and about the natural law. For example, homosexual acts and birth control are often assigned as unnatural, but I haven't ever heard space travels being assigned that? That ought to be unnatural since the human body needs several man-made inventions in order to enter that void, in order to not explode of the pressure.

There is a recognized logical fallacy called "appeal to nature", saying that just because something is natural doesn't mean that it's good. It's natural to murder, since people wouldn't have done that otherwise. Everyone has had thoughts saying "God I want to kill him/her" after a quarrel with someone, but we humans have for a hundred years now learning not to react upon every thought (notice however that this is something humanity has learned very recently).

I believe that nature generally isn't something to live along with, but something to fight. Otherwise we wouldn't have created cures and vaccines against diseases, neither technology etc. People who are talking about a natural law are although distinguishing these into a fallacious appeal to nature and a natural law.

So I think we could once and for all clear out this definition. How do you explain this?

well clearly homosexuality is not natural...

Then you are taking yourself back to the OP. Why is it not natural and why is space travel never assigned for being unnatural? I would guess homosexuality has existed since like...bacterias existed, whereas space travel is something that was introduced in the 20th century.

A lot of people label things they don't like as unnatural (at least from what I've seen).
You're probably thinking right now "haha I'm a genius". Well you're not -Valkrin

inferno: "I don't know, are you attracted to women?"
ButterCatX: "No, Vaarka is mine!"

All hail scum Vaarka, wielder of the bastard sword, smiter of nations, destroyer of spiders -VOT

"Vaarka, I've been thinking about this for a long time now," (pulls out small box made of macaroni) "W-will you be my noodle buddy?" -Kirigaya
graceofgod
Posts: 5,118
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2016 8:09:49 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/28/2016 8:05:58 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 1/28/2016 7:50:55 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 1/28/2016 7:42:15 PM, Jovian wrote:
There might be other threads regarding this topic but I can't be bothered to search.

I can't really wrap my head around the religious terms of naturality and about the natural law. For example, homosexual acts and birth control are often assigned as unnatural, but I haven't ever heard space travels being assigned that? That ought to be unnatural since the human body needs several man-made inventions in order to enter that void, in order to not explode of the pressure.

There is a recognized logical fallacy called "appeal to nature", saying that just because something is natural doesn't mean that it's good. It's natural to murder, since people wouldn't have done that otherwise. Everyone has had thoughts saying "God I want to kill him/her" after a quarrel with someone, but we humans have for a hundred years now learning not to react upon every thought (notice however that this is something humanity has learned very recently).

I believe that nature generally isn't something to live along with, but something to fight. Otherwise we wouldn't have created cures and vaccines against diseases, neither technology etc. People who are talking about a natural law are although distinguishing these into a fallacious appeal to nature and a natural law.

So I think we could once and for all clear out this definition. How do you explain this?

well clearly homosexuality is not natural...

Then you are taking yourself back to the OP. Why is it not natural and why is space travel never assigned for being unnatural? I would guess homosexuality has existed since like...bacterias existed, whereas space travel is something that was introduced in the 20th century.

homosexuality is not natural for a few reasons, the most natural thing for any species is survival, homosexuality could only lead to extinction, when over 95% are normal and heterosexual clearly homosexuality is not normal...
Jovian
Posts: 1,720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2016 8:16:31 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/28/2016 8:09:48 PM, Vaarka wrote:
At 1/28/2016 8:05:58 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 1/28/2016 7:50:55 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 1/28/2016 7:42:15 PM, Jovian wrote:
There might be other threads regarding this topic but I can't be bothered to search.

I can't really wrap my head around the religious terms of naturality and about the natural law. For example, homosexual acts and birth control are often assigned as unnatural, but I haven't ever heard space travels being assigned that? That ought to be unnatural since the human body needs several man-made inventions in order to enter that void, in order to not explode of the pressure.

There is a recognized logical fallacy called "appeal to nature", saying that just because something is natural doesn't mean that it's good. It's natural to murder, since people wouldn't have done that otherwise. Everyone has had thoughts saying "God I want to kill him/her" after a quarrel with someone, but we humans have for a hundred years now learning not to react upon every thought (notice however that this is something humanity has learned very recently).

I believe that nature generally isn't something to live along with, but something to fight. Otherwise we wouldn't have created cures and vaccines against diseases, neither technology etc. People who are talking about a natural law are although distinguishing these into a fallacious appeal to nature and a natural law.

So I think we could once and for all clear out this definition. How do you explain this?

well clearly homosexuality is not natural...

Then you are taking yourself back to the OP. Why is it not natural and why is space travel never assigned for being unnatural? I would guess homosexuality has existed since like...bacterias existed, whereas space travel is something that was introduced in the 20th century.

A lot of people label things they don't like as unnatural (at least from what I've seen).

Very true.

At 1/28/2016 8:09:49 PM, graceofgod wrote:
homosexuality is not natural for a few reasons, the most natural thing for any species is survival, homosexuality could only lead to extinction, when over 95% are normal and heterosexual clearly homosexuality is not normal...

That would only be the result if every single individual was homosexual, which even you say that it's clearly not how it is, not even among animals. Homosexuality was not frowned upon at all in ancient Rome, Greece and Assyria yet these cultures produced child after child.

Second, lots of things could lead to extinction if every single individual did it. And do you define unnatural as leading to extinction solely?

Third, in your terms it would be abnormal to do things like playing the violin too, since only like 1% of the world's population do that. That would follow since you seem to regard a minority as abnormal.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2016 8:53:02 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/28/2016 7:42:15 PM, Jovian wrote:
There might be other threads regarding this topic but I can't be bothered to search.

I can't really wrap my head around the religious terms of naturality and about the natural law. For example, homosexual acts and birth control are often assigned as unnatural, but I haven't ever heard space travels being assigned that? That ought to be unnatural since the human body needs several man-made inventions in order to enter that void, in order to not explode of the pressure.

There is a recognized logical fallacy called "appeal to nature", saying that just because something is natural doesn't mean that it's good. It's natural to murder, since people wouldn't have done that otherwise. Everyone has had thoughts saying "God I want to kill him/her" after a quarrel with someone, but we humans have for a hundred years now learning not to react upon every thought (notice however that this is something humanity has learned very recently).

I believe that nature generally isn't something to live along with, but something to fight. Otherwise we wouldn't have created cures and vaccines against diseases, neither technology etc. People who are talking about a natural law are although distinguishing these into a fallacious appeal to nature and a natural law.

So I think we could once and for all clear out this definition. How do you explain this?

Natural Law is an understanding that there are certain truths inherent in nature. This is because there are "natures" to things and that by acting contrary to the nature of the object is fundamentally wrong.

So take a chair. If I were to go and buy a chair, and it broke when I first sat down on it resulting in me breaking my arm. Now you'd intuitively acknowledge that i should be able to get recompense because the chair failed to act according to its "chairness".

Now if instead of sitting on the chair, I'm standing on the chair changing a lightbulb when something happens resulting in me breaking my arm. Well you'd tell me not to be so stupid and get a ladder next time (or use LED bulbs that don't burn out). The nature of a chair is not to be stood upon. So while I can use it in that manner, I am to some degree violating its proper usage.

Now, I decide to use that same chair to hold up the front end of my car while I do an oil change and the chair breaks causing the car to crush me to death. You wouldn't say that my estate should sue the chair manufacturer to get compensation for my death, you'd post my obit in the Darwin Awards. That is because I have so severely abused the nature of the chair, that nobody will defend this use.

Now I'll give a brief run down of your examples.

Homosexual/contraception acts. The only reason that God/nature/whatever (take your pick) has endowed us with a sexual drive is so that the species reproduces. God/nature/whatever has also given us sexual (male/female) reproduction that naturally results in pair bonding. So the "nature" of sex is procreation and bonding of the couple. As such natural law would state that to engage in sex that is not ordered to these 2 objectives is acting against the natural law and is therefore fundamentally wrong.

So if we look at homosexuality it is a fundamental breaking of the natural law, because it can never fulfill one of the two fundamental purposes of sex. Likewise with contraception. You are intentionally frustrating the primary purpose of sex - procreation.

Going into space. This could be moral or immoral. But let's step back for a second. We have to look at the nature of humanity. What is the purpose of life? The great question - which I won't answer here because that is a different discussion. However, our intellectual and philosophical background has brought us to the realization that according to our nature we have certain rights. These rights are commonly presented as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

So we can preserve or enhance these rights through the use of clothing. It keeps us warm and shields us from the elements. Likewise does a house, and agriculture etc... So a space suit protects us and enables us to seek knowledge and experiences which is part of our liberty and pursuit of happiness. However, I'd argue that remaining in space for too long (without proper justification) which has known negative health effects is immoral. Likewise conceiving a child and bringing it to birth in space would likely have serious effects on its development which I would argue is immoral and contrary to natural law.

Appeal to nature could argue that because we are born without clothes that it is better that we don't have clothes or houses as they do not occur in nature.

So I hope that helps you understand the difference between natural law and the appeal to nature fallacy.
Torton
Posts: 988
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2016 8:55:49 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/28/2016 8:09:49 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 1/28/2016 8:05:58 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 1/28/2016 7:50:55 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 1/28/2016 7:42:15 PM, Jovian wrote:
There might be other threads regarding this topic but I can't be bothered to search.

I can't really wrap my head around the religious terms of naturality and about the natural law. For example, homosexual acts and birth control are often assigned as unnatural, but I haven't ever heard space travels being assigned that? That ought to be unnatural since the human body needs several man-made inventions in order to enter that void, in order to not explode of the pressure.

There is a recognized logical fallacy called "appeal to nature", saying that just because something is natural doesn't mean that it's good. It's natural to murder, since people wouldn't have done that otherwise. Everyone has had thoughts saying "God I want to kill him/her" after a quarrel with someone, but we humans have for a hundred years now learning not to react upon every thought (notice however that this is something humanity has learned very recently).

I believe that nature generally isn't something to live along with, but something to fight. Otherwise we wouldn't have created cures and vaccines against diseases, neither technology etc. People who are talking about a natural law are although distinguishing these into a fallacious appeal to nature and a natural law.

So I think we could once and for all clear out this definition. How do you explain this?

well clearly homosexuality is not natural...

Then you are taking yourself back to the OP. Why is it not natural and why is space travel never assigned for being unnatural? I would guess homosexuality has existed since like...bacterias existed, whereas space travel is something that was introduced in the 20th century.

homosexuality is not natural for a few reasons, the most natural thing for any species is survival, homosexuality could only lead to extinction, when over 95% are normal and heterosexual clearly homosexuality is not normal...

https://en.wikipedia.org...
https://en.wikipedia.org...
https://en.wikipedia.org...
bulproof
Posts: 25,308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2016 8:55:59 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/28/2016 8:53:02 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 1/28/2016 7:42:15 PM, Jovian wrote:
There might be other threads regarding this topic but I can't be bothered to search.

I can't really wrap my head around the religious terms of naturality and about the natural law. For example, homosexual acts and birth control are often assigned as unnatural, but I haven't ever heard space travels being assigned that? That ought to be unnatural since the human body needs several man-made inventions in order to enter that void, in order to not explode of the pressure.

There is a recognized logical fallacy called "appeal to nature", saying that just because something is natural doesn't mean that it's good. It's natural to murder, since people wouldn't have done that otherwise. Everyone has had thoughts saying "God I want to kill him/her" after a quarrel with someone, but we humans have for a hundred years now learning not to react upon every thought (notice however that this is something humanity has learned very recently).

I believe that nature generally isn't something to live along with, but something to fight. Otherwise we wouldn't have created cures and vaccines against diseases, neither technology etc. People who are talking about a natural law are although distinguishing these into a fallacious appeal to nature and a natural law.

So I think we could once and for all clear out this definition. How do you explain this?

Natural Law is an understanding that there are certain truths inherent in nature. This is because there are "natures" to things and that by acting contrary to the nature of the object is fundamentally wrong.

So take a chair. If I were to go and buy a chair, and it broke when I first sat down on it resulting in me breaking my arm. Now you'd intuitively acknowledge that i should be able to get recompense because the chair failed to act according to its "chairness".

Now if instead of sitting on the chair, I'm standing on the chair changing a lightbulb when something happens resulting in me breaking my arm. Well you'd tell me not to be so stupid and get a ladder next time (or use LED bulbs that don't burn out). The nature of a chair is not to be stood upon. So while I can use it in that manner, I am to some degree violating its proper usage.

Now, I decide to use that same chair to hold up the front end of my car while I do an oil change and the chair breaks causing the car to crush me to death. You wouldn't say that my estate should sue the chair manufacturer to get compensation for my death, you'd post my obit in the Darwin Awards. That is because I have so severely abused the nature of the chair, that nobody will defend this use.

Now I'll give a brief run down of your examples.

Homosexual/contraception acts. The only reason that God/nature/whatever (take your pick) has endowed us with a sexual drive is so that the species reproduces. God/nature/whatever has also given us sexual (male/female) reproduction that naturally results in pair bonding. So the "nature" of sex is procreation and bonding of the couple. As such natural law would state that to engage in sex that is not ordered to these 2 objectives is acting against the natural law and is therefore fundamentally wrong.

So if we look at homosexuality it is a fundamental breaking of the natural law, because it can never fulfill one of the two fundamental purposes of sex. Likewise with contraception. You are intentionally frustrating the primary purpose of sex - procreation.

Going into space. This could be moral or immoral. But let's step back for a second. We have to look at the nature of humanity. What is the purpose of life? The great question - which I won't answer here because that is a different discussion. However, our intellectual and philosophical background has brought us to the realization that according to our nature we have certain rights. These rights are commonly presented as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

So we can preserve or enhance these rights through the use of clothing. It keeps us warm and shields us from the elements. Likewise does a house, and agriculture etc... So a space suit protects us and enables us to seek knowledge and experiences which is part of our liberty and pursuit of happiness. However, I'd argue that remaining in space for too long (without proper justification) which has known negative health effects is immoral. Likewise conceiving a child and bringing it to birth in space would likely have serious effects on its development which I would argue is immoral and contrary to natural law.

Appeal to nature could argue that because we are born without clothes that it is better that we don't have clothes or houses as they do not occur in nature.

So I hope that helps you understand the difference between natural law and the appeal to nature fallacy.

What graveyard do the dig up these pathetic non analogies from?
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,652
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2016 9:10:01 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/28/2016 8:09:49 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 1/28/2016 8:05:58 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 1/28/2016 7:50:55 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 1/28/2016 7:42:15 PM, Jovian wrote:
There might be other threads regarding this topic but I can't be bothered to search.

I can't really wrap my head around the religious terms of naturality and about the natural law. For example, homosexual acts and birth control are often assigned as unnatural, but I haven't ever heard space travels being assigned that? That ought to be unnatural since the human body needs several man-made inventions in order to enter that void, in order to not explode of the pressure.

There is a recognized logical fallacy called "appeal to nature", saying that just because something is natural doesn't mean that it's good. It's natural to murder, since people wouldn't have done that otherwise. Everyone has had thoughts saying "God I want to kill him/her" after a quarrel with someone, but we humans have for a hundred years now learning not to react upon every thought (notice however that this is something humanity has learned very recently).

I believe that nature generally isn't something to live along with, but something to fight. Otherwise we wouldn't have created cures and vaccines against diseases, neither technology etc. People who are talking about a natural law are although distinguishing these into a fallacious appeal to nature and a natural law.

So I think we could once and for all clear out this definition. How do you explain this?

well clearly homosexuality is not natural...

Then you are taking yourself back to the OP. Why is it not natural and why is space travel never assigned for being unnatural? I would guess homosexuality has existed since like...bacterias existed, whereas space travel is something that was introduced in the 20th century.

homosexuality is not natural for a few reasons, the most natural thing for any species is survival, homosexuality could only lead to extinction

Fair point, but that would mean all males and females on the planet would not only have to be homosexual, but completely insane as well, knowing only too well that no matter what, they will propagate to allow the human species to survive, even if it means artificial insemination.

when over 95% are normal and heterosexual

That probably just shows the demographic. I doubt it's even accurate, there are most likely many more who have yet to either reconcile their homosexuality or don't want to make it public for fear of retribution from homophobes and other extremely closed minded folks.

clearly homosexuality is not normal...

Clearly you have yet to make a case for that.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Jovian
Posts: 1,720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2016 9:11:13 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/28/2016 8:53:02 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 1/28/2016 7:42:15 PM, Jovian wrote:
There might be other threads regarding this topic but I can't be bothered to search.

I can't really wrap my head around the religious terms of naturality and about the natural law. For example, homosexual acts and birth control are often assigned as unnatural, but I haven't ever heard space travels being assigned that? That ought to be unnatural since the human body needs several man-made inventions in order to enter that void, in order to not explode of the pressure.

There is a recognized logical fallacy called "appeal to nature", saying that just because something is natural doesn't mean that it's good. It's natural to murder, since people wouldn't have done that otherwise. Everyone has had thoughts saying "God I want to kill him/her" after a quarrel with someone, but we humans have for a hundred years now learning not to react upon every thought (notice however that this is something humanity has learned very recently).

I believe that nature generally isn't something to live along with, but something to fight. Otherwise we wouldn't have created cures and vaccines against diseases, neither technology etc. People who are talking about a natural law are although distinguishing these into a fallacious appeal to nature and a natural law.

So I think we could once and for all clear out this definition. How do you explain this?

Natural Law is an understanding that there are certain truths inherent in nature. This is because there are "natures" to things and that by acting contrary to the nature of the object is fundamentally wrong.

But this could be applied on humans, which inherently are homosexuals throughout their entire lives sometimes.

So take a chair. If I were to go and buy a chair, and it broke when I first sat down on it resulting in me breaking my arm. Now you'd intuitively acknowledge that i should be able to get recompense because the chair failed to act according to its "chairness".

Now if instead of sitting on the chair, I'm standing on the chair changing a lightbulb when something happens resulting in me breaking my arm. Well you'd tell me not to be so stupid and get a ladder next time (or use LED bulbs that don't burn out). The nature of a chair is not to be stood upon. So while I can use it in that manner, I am to some degree violating its proper usage.

Now, I decide to use that same chair to hold up the front end of my car while I do an oil change and the chair breaks causing the car to crush me to death. You wouldn't say that my estate should sue the chair manufacturer to get compensation for my death, you'd post my obit in the Darwin Awards. That is because I have so severely abused the nature of the chair, that nobody will defend this use.

Ah so you are talking about purposes, I get it. It would be better to stop using terms of nature about this though.

Now I'll give a brief run down of your examples.

Homosexual/contraception acts. The only reason that God/nature/whatever (take your pick) has endowed us with a sexual drive is so that the species reproduces.

God/nature/whatever has also given us sexual (male/female) reproduction that naturally results in pair bonding. So the "nature" of sex is procreation and bonding of the couple. As such natural law would state that to engage in sex that is not ordered to these 2 objectives is acting against the natural law and is therefore fundamentally wrong.

Monogamous gays use the latter one in sex too.

So if we look at homosexuality it is a fundamental breaking of the natural law, because it can never fulfill one of the two fundamental purposes of sex. Likewise with contraception. You are intentionally frustrating the primary purpose of sex - procreation.

Going into space. This could be moral or immoral. But let's step back for a second. We have to look at the nature of humanity. What is the purpose of life? The great question - which I won't answer here because that is a different discussion. However, our intellectual and philosophical background has brought us to the realization that according to our nature we have certain rights. These rights are commonly presented as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

So we can preserve or enhance these rights through the use of clothing. It keeps us warm and shields us from the elements. Likewise does a house, and agriculture etc... So a space suit protects us and enables us to seek knowledge and experiences which is part of our liberty and pursuit of happiness. However, I'd argue that remaining in space for too long (without proper justification) which has known negative health effects is immoral. Likewise conceiving a child and bringing it to birth in space would likely have serious effects on its development which I would argue is immoral and contrary to natural law.

Appeal to nature could argue that because we are born without clothes that it is better that we don't have clothes or houses as they do not occur in nature.

So I hope that helps you understand the difference between natural law and the appeal to nature fallacy.

Well I can conclude this with saying: don't use the term nature when it's not what you really mean, especially since a true honour for nature would anytime exclude space travel. I mean, if there was a purpose for humanity to go into space, we would had been able to breathe there and be there without exploding.

Also, there are so many other aspects today in us modern homo sapiens than basic biological processes, but that is going into my opinions rather than the concept of natural law.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2016 9:31:24 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/28/2016 9:11:13 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 1/28/2016 8:53:02 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 1/28/2016 7:42:15 PM, Jovian wrote:
There might be other threads regarding this topic but I can't be bothered to search.

I can't really wrap my head around the religious terms of naturality and about the natural law. For example, homosexual acts and birth control are often assigned as unnatural, but I haven't ever heard space travels being assigned that? That ought to be unnatural since the human body needs several man-made inventions in order to enter that void, in order to not explode of the pressure.

There is a recognized logical fallacy called "appeal to nature", saying that just because something is natural doesn't mean that it's good. It's natural to murder, since people wouldn't have done that otherwise. Everyone has had thoughts saying "God I want to kill him/her" after a quarrel with someone, but we humans have for a hundred years now learning not to react upon every thought (notice however that this is something humanity has learned very recently).

I believe that nature generally isn't something to live along with, but something to fight. Otherwise we wouldn't have created cures and vaccines against diseases, neither technology etc. People who are talking about a natural law are although distinguishing these into a fallacious appeal to nature and a natural law.

So I think we could once and for all clear out this definition. How do you explain this?

Natural Law is an understanding that there are certain truths inherent in nature. This is because there are "natures" to things and that by acting contrary to the nature of the object is fundamentally wrong.

But this could be applied on humans, which inherently are homosexuals throughout their entire lives sometimes.

That they are doesn't mean that it is according to their nature. "Accidents" are not a denial of nature.

So take a chair. If I were to go and buy a chair, and it broke when I first sat down on it resulting in me breaking my arm. Now you'd intuitively acknowledge that i should be able to get recompense because the chair failed to act according to its "chairness".

Now if instead of sitting on the chair, I'm standing on the chair changing a lightbulb when something happens resulting in me breaking my arm. Well you'd tell me not to be so stupid and get a ladder next time (or use LED bulbs that don't burn out). The nature of a chair is not to be stood upon. So while I can use it in that manner, I am to some degree violating its proper usage.

Now, I decide to use that same chair to hold up the front end of my car while I do an oil change and the chair breaks causing the car to crush me to death. You wouldn't say that my estate should sue the chair manufacturer to get compensation for my death, you'd post my obit in the Darwin Awards. That is because I have so severely abused the nature of the chair, that nobody will defend this use.


Ah so you are talking about purposes, I get it. It would be better to stop using terms of nature about this though.

1. the fundamental qualities of a person or thing; identity or essential character

http://www.collinsdictionary.com...

I'm using it the right way. People have to learn to expand their proper use of the language.

Now I'll give a brief run down of your examples.

Homosexual/contraception acts. The only reason that God/nature/whatever (take your pick) has endowed us with a sexual drive is so that the species reproduces.

God/nature/whatever has also given us sexual (male/female) reproduction that naturally results in pair bonding. So the "nature" of sex is procreation and bonding of the couple. As such natural law would state that to engage in sex that is not ordered to these 2 objectives is acting against the natural law and is therefore fundamentally wrong.

Monogamous gays use the latter one in sex too.

That may be. They however can never properly fulfill both inherent aspects.

So if we look at homosexuality it is a fundamental breaking of the natural law, because it can never fulfill one of the two fundamental purposes of sex. Likewise with contraception. You are intentionally frustrating the primary purpose of sex - procreation.

Going into space. This could be moral or immoral. But let's step back for a second. We have to look at the nature of humanity. What is the purpose of life? The great question - which I won't answer here because that is a different discussion. However, our intellectual and philosophical background has brought us to the realization that according to our nature we have certain rights. These rights are commonly presented as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

So we can preserve or enhance these rights through the use of clothing. It keeps us warm and shields us from the elements. Likewise does a house, and agriculture etc... So a space suit protects us and enables us to seek knowledge and experiences which is part of our liberty and pursuit of happiness. However, I'd argue that remaining in space for too long (without proper justification) which has known negative health effects is immoral. Likewise conceiving a child and bringing it to birth in space would likely have serious effects on its development which I would argue is immoral and contrary to natural law.

Appeal to nature could argue that because we are born without clothes that it is better that we don't have clothes or houses as they do not occur in nature.

So I hope that helps you understand the difference between natural law and the appeal to nature fallacy.

Well I can conclude this with saying: don't use the term nature when it's not what you really mean, especially since a true honour for nature would anytime exclude space travel. I mean, if there was a purpose for humanity to go into space, we would had been able to breathe there and be there without exploding.

I'll repeat:

Nature: the fundamental qualities of a person or thing; identity or essential character

We exist in a certain environment. That we have the ability to artificially replicate that environment elsewhere does not make it moral or immoral. This preserves the natural functioning of the human body in a fancier way than putting on a coat does.

Also, there are so many other aspects today in us modern homo sapiens than basic biological processes, but that is going into my opinions rather than the concept of natural law.

The aspects of today for homo sapiens are fundamentally no different that at any other time in our existence. The concepts of natural law are just as applicable now as before.
12_13
Posts: 1,365
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2016 9:33:20 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/28/2016 7:42:15 PM, Jovian wrote:
...
So I think we could once and for all clear out this definition. How do you explain this?

I think the natural means in this that something is in accordance with the intended use. For example it is not "natural" to eat through nose, although nose has two holes to head. Most common sense people understand that mouth is for food. I think same is with all body parts, they have some function and it is quite irrational to misuse them for something that they are not meant for. And if someone would for example want to eat through nose rather than through mouth, many people would think it is irrational and also unnatural, because it is against the obvious intended purpose. I think homosexual act can be compared to that.
Jovian
Posts: 1,720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2016 9:38:57 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/28/2016 9:33:20 PM, 12_13 wrote:
At 1/28/2016 7:42:15 PM, Jovian wrote:
...
So I think we could once and for all clear out this definition. How do you explain this?

I think the natural means in this that something is in accordance with the intended use. For example it is not "natural" to eat through nose, although nose has two holes to head. Most common sense people understand that mouth is for food. I think same is with all body parts, they have some function and it is quite irrational to misuse them for something that they are not meant for. And if someone would for example want to eat through nose rather than through mouth, many people would think it is irrational and also unnatural, because it is against the obvious intended purpose. I think homosexual act can be compared to that.

Yes, but the flawed thing is that things could be extended to be used in other ways it is seemingly "intended" for. For example space travel. Whereas eating through your nose is almost not possible, at least for today. Homosexual acts are just like heterosexual ones. It is harder to eat through your nose than for men to kiss other men or for anal and oral sex to happen.
graceofgod
Posts: 5,118
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2016 9:48:44 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/28/2016 8:55:49 PM, Torton wrote:
At 1/28/2016 8:09:49 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 1/28/2016 8:05:58 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 1/28/2016 7:50:55 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 1/28/2016 7:42:15 PM, Jovian wrote:
There might be other threads regarding this topic but I can't be bothered to search.

I can't really wrap my head around the religious terms of naturality and about the natural law. For example, homosexual acts and birth control are often assigned as unnatural, but I haven't ever heard space travels being assigned that? That ought to be unnatural since the human body needs several man-made inventions in order to enter that void, in order to not explode of the pressure.

There is a recognized logical fallacy called "appeal to nature", saying that just because something is natural doesn't mean that it's good. It's natural to murder, since people wouldn't have done that otherwise. Everyone has had thoughts saying "God I want to kill him/her" after a quarrel with someone, but we humans have for a hundred years now learning not to react upon every thought (notice however that this is something humanity has learned very recently).

I believe that nature generally isn't something to live along with, but something to fight. Otherwise we wouldn't have created cures and vaccines against diseases, neither technology etc. People who are talking about a natural law are although distinguishing these into a fallacious appeal to nature and a natural law.

So I think we could once and for all clear out this definition. How do you explain this?

well clearly homosexuality is not natural...

Then you are taking yourself back to the OP. Why is it not natural and why is space travel never assigned for being unnatural? I would guess homosexuality has existed since like...bacterias existed, whereas space travel is something that was introduced in the 20th century.

homosexuality is not natural for a few reasons, the most natural thing for any species is survival, homosexuality could only lead to extinction, when over 95% are normal and heterosexual clearly homosexuality is not normal...

https://en.wikipedia.org...
https://en.wikipedia.org...
https://en.wikipedia.org...

lol should we be smelling each others butts, eating our young, having sex with our siblings....??
Torton
Posts: 988
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2016 9:56:07 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/28/2016 9:48:44 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 1/28/2016 8:55:49 PM, Torton wrote:
At 1/28/2016 8:09:49 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 1/28/2016 8:05:58 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 1/28/2016 7:50:55 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 1/28/2016 7:42:15 PM, Jovian wrote:
There might be other threads regarding this topic but I can't be bothered to search.

I can't really wrap my head around the religious terms of naturality and about the natural law. For example, homosexual acts and birth control are often assigned as unnatural, but I haven't ever heard space travels being assigned that? That ought to be unnatural since the human body needs several man-made inventions in order to enter that void, in order to not explode of the pressure.

There is a recognized logical fallacy called "appeal to nature", saying that just because something is natural doesn't mean that it's good. It's natural to murder, since people wouldn't have done that otherwise. Everyone has had thoughts saying "God I want to kill him/her" after a quarrel with someone, but we humans have for a hundred years now learning not to react upon every thought (notice however that this is something humanity has learned very recently).

I believe that nature generally isn't something to live along with, but something to fight. Otherwise we wouldn't have created cures and vaccines against diseases, neither technology etc. People who are talking about a natural law are although distinguishing these into a fallacious appeal to nature and a natural law.

So I think we could once and for all clear out this definition. How do you explain this?

well clearly homosexuality is not natural...

Then you are taking yourself back to the OP. Why is it not natural and why is space travel never assigned for being unnatural? I would guess homosexuality has existed since like...bacterias existed, whereas space travel is something that was introduced in the 20th century.

homosexuality is not natural for a few reasons, the most natural thing for any species is survival, homosexuality could only lead to extinction, when over 95% are normal and heterosexual clearly homosexuality is not normal...

https://en.wikipedia.org...
https://en.wikipedia.org...
https://en.wikipedia.org...

lol should we be smelling each others butts, eating our young, having sex with our siblings....??

Whether or not they should be done is up to the individual, but all of those are done in some capacity (in humans), so the whole 'they're just dumb animals," argument doesn't work. And none of those things is equivalent to sex between two consenting adults, gay or not.
graceofgod
Posts: 5,118
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2016 9:56:12 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/28/2016 9:10:01 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/28/2016 8:09:49 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 1/28/2016 8:05:58 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 1/28/2016 7:50:55 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 1/28/2016 7:42:15 PM, Jovian wrote:
There might be other threads regarding this topic but I can't be bothered to search.

I can't really wrap my head around the religious terms of naturality and about the natural law. For example, homosexual acts and birth control are often assigned as unnatural, but I haven't ever heard space travels being assigned that? That ought to be unnatural since the human body needs several man-made inventions in order to enter that void, in order to not explode of the pressure.

There is a recognized logical fallacy called "appeal to nature", saying that just because something is natural doesn't mean that it's good. It's natural to murder, since people wouldn't have done that otherwise. Everyone has had thoughts saying "God I want to kill him/her" after a quarrel with someone, but we humans have for a hundred years now learning not to react upon every thought (notice however that this is something humanity has learned very recently).

I believe that nature generally isn't something to live along with, but something to fight. Otherwise we wouldn't have created cures and vaccines against diseases, neither technology etc. People who are talking about a natural law are although distinguishing these into a fallacious appeal to nature and a natural law.

So I think we could once and for all clear out this definition. How do you explain this?

well clearly homosexuality is not natural...

Then you are taking yourself back to the OP. Why is it not natural and why is space travel never assigned for being unnatural? I would guess homosexuality has existed since like...bacterias existed, whereas space travel is something that was introduced in the 20th century.

homosexuality is not natural for a few reasons, the most natural thing for any species is survival, homosexuality could only lead to extinction

Fair point, but that would mean all males and females on the planet would not only have to be homosexual, but completely insane as well, knowing only too well that no matter what, they will propagate to allow the human species to survive, even if it means artificial insemination.

when over 95% are normal and heterosexual

That probably just shows the demographic. I doubt it's even accurate, there are most likely many more who have yet to either reconcile their homosexuality or don't want to make it public for fear of retribution from homophobes and other extremely closed minded folks.
you keep on believing that..lol
clearly homosexuality is not normal...

Clearly you have yet to make a case for that.
i already did, the only way a species can procreate naturally is through heterosexual sex, the most natural thing for every species is to survive it is the most basic and natural instinct..
Jovian
Posts: 1,720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2016 10:09:59 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/28/2016 9:48:44 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 1/28/2016 8:55:49 PM, Torton wrote:
At 1/28/2016 8:09:49 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 1/28/2016 8:05:58 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 1/28/2016 7:50:55 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 1/28/2016 7:42:15 PM, Jovian wrote:
There might be other threads regarding this topic but I can't be bothered to search.

I can't really wrap my head around the religious terms of naturality and about the natural law. For example, homosexual acts and birth control are often assigned as unnatural, but I haven't ever heard space travels being assigned that? That ought to be unnatural since the human body needs several man-made inventions in order to enter that void, in order to not explode of the pressure.

There is a recognized logical fallacy called "appeal to nature", saying that just because something is natural doesn't mean that it's good. It's natural to murder, since people wouldn't have done that otherwise. Everyone has had thoughts saying "God I want to kill him/her" after a quarrel with someone, but we humans have for a hundred years now learning not to react upon every thought (notice however that this is something humanity has learned very recently).

I believe that nature generally isn't something to live along with, but something to fight. Otherwise we wouldn't have created cures and vaccines against diseases, neither technology etc. People who are talking about a natural law are although distinguishing these into a fallacious appeal to nature and a natural law.

So I think we could once and for all clear out this definition. How do you explain this?

well clearly homosexuality is not natural...

Then you are taking yourself back to the OP. Why is it not natural and why is space travel never assigned for being unnatural? I would guess homosexuality has existed since like...bacterias existed, whereas space travel is something that was introduced in the 20th century.

homosexuality is not natural for a few reasons, the most natural thing for any species is survival, homosexuality could only lead to extinction, when over 95% are normal and heterosexual clearly homosexuality is not normal...

https://en.wikipedia.org...
https://en.wikipedia.org...
https://en.wikipedia.org...

lol should we be smelling each others butts, eating our young, having sex with our siblings....??

1. No one is saying that we should adapt every single behaviour in the animal kingdom when said person is showing how homosexuality is natural. It is solely done to counter the rhetoric of how unnatural homosexuality is, when it clearly isn't. If not, could you show me anyone who has said that "dogs eat their own feces, let's do this too"?

2. This kind of rhetoric you do would also include that we shouldn't perform love or compassion since dogs do it to their masters and to each other.
graceofgod
Posts: 5,118
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2016 10:11:01 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/28/2016 9:56:07 PM, Torton wrote:
At 1/28/2016 9:48:44 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 1/28/2016 8:55:49 PM, Torton wrote:
At 1/28/2016 8:09:49 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 1/28/2016 8:05:58 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 1/28/2016 7:50:55 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 1/28/2016 7:42:15 PM, Jovian wrote:
There might be other threads regarding this topic but I can't be bothered to search.

I can't really wrap my head around the religious terms of naturality and about the natural law. For example, homosexual acts and birth control are often assigned as unnatural, but I haven't ever heard space travels being assigned that? That ought to be unnatural since the human body needs several man-made inventions in order to enter that void, in order to not explode of the pressure.

There is a recognized logical fallacy called "appeal to nature", saying that just because something is natural doesn't mean that it's good. It's natural to murder, since people wouldn't have done that otherwise. Everyone has had thoughts saying "God I want to kill him/her" after a quarrel with someone, but we humans have for a hundred years now learning not to react upon every thought (notice however that this is something humanity has learned very recently).

I believe that nature generally isn't something to live along with, but something to fight. Otherwise we wouldn't have created cures and vaccines against diseases, neither technology etc. People who are talking about a natural law are although distinguishing these into a fallacious appeal to nature and a natural law.

So I think we could once and for all clear out this definition. How do you explain this?

well clearly homosexuality is not natural...

Then you are taking yourself back to the OP. Why is it not natural and why is space travel never assigned for being unnatural? I would guess homosexuality has existed since like...bacterias existed, whereas space travel is something that was introduced in the 20th century.

homosexuality is not natural for a few reasons, the most natural thing for any species is survival, homosexuality could only lead to extinction, when over 95% are normal and heterosexual clearly homosexuality is not normal...

https://en.wikipedia.org...
https://en.wikipedia.org...
https://en.wikipedia.org...

lol should we be smelling each others butts, eating our young, having sex with our siblings....??

Whether or not they should be done is up to the individual, but all of those are done in some capacity (in humans), so the whole 'they're just dumb animals," argument doesn't work. And none of those things is equivalent to sex between two consenting adults, gay or not.

lol so what animals do is not natural then, make your mind up...lol

so do you agree sex between brother and sister, or daughter and dad, mum and son, assuming everyone is over say 21 of course, is natural...
graceofgod
Posts: 5,118
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2016 10:12:46 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/28/2016 10:09:59 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 1/28/2016 9:48:44 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 1/28/2016 8:55:49 PM, Torton wrote:
At 1/28/2016 8:09:49 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 1/28/2016 8:05:58 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 1/28/2016 7:50:55 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 1/28/2016 7:42:15 PM, Jovian wrote:
There might be other threads regarding this topic but I can't be bothered to search.

I can't really wrap my head around the religious terms of naturality and about the natural law. For example, homosexual acts and birth control are often assigned as unnatural, but I haven't ever heard space travels being assigned that? That ought to be unnatural since the human body needs several man-made inventions in order to enter that void, in order to not explode of the pressure.

There is a recognized logical fallacy called "appeal to nature", saying that just because something is natural doesn't mean that it's good. It's natural to murder, since people wouldn't have done that otherwise. Everyone has had thoughts saying "God I want to kill him/her" after a quarrel with someone, but we humans have for a hundred years now learning not to react upon every thought (notice however that this is something humanity has learned very recently).

I believe that nature generally isn't something to live along with, but something to fight. Otherwise we wouldn't have created cures and vaccines against diseases, neither technology etc. People who are talking about a natural law are although distinguishing these into a fallacious appeal to nature and a natural law.

So I think we could once and for all clear out this definition. How do you explain this?

well clearly homosexuality is not natural...

Then you are taking yourself back to the OP. Why is it not natural and why is space travel never assigned for being unnatural? I would guess homosexuality has existed since like...bacterias existed, whereas space travel is something that was introduced in the 20th century.

homosexuality is not natural for a few reasons, the most natural thing for any species is survival, homosexuality could only lead to extinction, when over 95% are normal and heterosexual clearly homosexuality is not normal...

https://en.wikipedia.org...
https://en.wikipedia.org...
https://en.wikipedia.org...

lol should we be smelling each others butts, eating our young, having sex with our siblings....??

1. No one is saying that we should adapt every single behaviour in the animal kingdom when said person is showing how homosexuality is natural. It is solely done to counter the rhetoric of how unnatural homosexuality is, when it clearly isn't. If not, could you show me anyone who has said that "dogs eat their own feces, let's do this too"?
oh only certain things in the animal kingdon are natural, i get it..lol
2. This kind of rhetoric you do would also include that we shouldn't perform love or compassion since dogs do it to their masters and to each other.

love and compassion are natural emotions, they are fine....
Jovian
Posts: 1,720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2016 10:13:45 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/28/2016 9:56:12 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 1/28/2016 9:10:01 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/28/2016 8:09:49 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 1/28/2016 8:05:58 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 1/28/2016 7:50:55 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 1/28/2016 7:42:15 PM, Jovian wrote:
There might be other threads regarding this topic but I can't be bothered to search.

I can't really wrap my head around the religious terms of naturality and about the natural law. For example, homosexual acts and birth control are often assigned as unnatural, but I haven't ever heard space travels being assigned that? That ought to be unnatural since the human body needs several man-made inventions in order to enter that void, in order to not explode of the pressure.

There is a recognized logical fallacy called "appeal to nature", saying that just because something is natural doesn't mean that it's good. It's natural to murder, since people wouldn't have done that otherwise. Everyone has had thoughts saying "God I want to kill him/her" after a quarrel with someone, but we humans have for a hundred years now learning not to react upon every thought (notice however that this is something humanity has learned very recently).

I believe that nature generally isn't something to live along with, but something to fight. Otherwise we wouldn't have created cures and vaccines against diseases, neither technology etc. People who are talking about a natural law are although distinguishing these into a fallacious appeal to nature and a natural law.

So I think we could once and for all clear out this definition. How do you explain this?

well clearly homosexuality is not natural...

Then you are taking yourself back to the OP. Why is it not natural and why is space travel never assigned for being unnatural? I would guess homosexuality has existed since like...bacterias existed, whereas space travel is something that was introduced in the 20th century.

homosexuality is not natural for a few reasons, the most natural thing for any species is survival, homosexuality could only lead to extinction

Fair point, but that would mean all males and females on the planet would not only have to be homosexual, but completely insane as well, knowing only too well that no matter what, they will propagate to allow the human species to survive, even if it means artificial insemination.

when over 95% are normal and heterosexual

That probably just shows the demographic. I doubt it's even accurate, there are most likely many more who have yet to either reconcile their homosexuality or don't want to make it public for fear of retribution from homophobes and other extremely closed minded folks.
you keep on believing that..lol
clearly homosexuality is not normal...

Clearly you have yet to make a case for that.
i already did, the only way a species can procreate naturally is through heterosexual sex, the most natural thing for every species is to survive it is the most basic and natural instinct..

Why are basic biological processes so important, and why are never not-childwanting-heterosexuals and asexuals condemned for leading to extinction? Most of us modern homo sapiens are far up the Maslow's hierarchy of needs, and thus basic biological processes shouldn't be that important to us.
Jovian
Posts: 1,720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2016 10:15:15 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/28/2016 10:12:46 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 1/28/2016 10:09:59 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 1/28/2016 9:48:44 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 1/28/2016 8:55:49 PM, Torton wrote:
At 1/28/2016 8:09:49 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 1/28/2016 8:05:58 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 1/28/2016 7:50:55 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 1/28/2016 7:42:15 PM, Jovian wrote:
There might be other threads regarding this topic but I can't be bothered to search.

I can't really wrap my head around the religious terms of naturality and about the natural law. For example, homosexual acts and birth control are often assigned as unnatural, but I haven't ever heard space travels being assigned that? That ought to be unnatural since the human body needs several man-made inventions in order to enter that void, in order to not explode of the pressure.

There is a recognized logical fallacy called "appeal to nature", saying that just because something is natural doesn't mean that it's good. It's natural to murder, since people wouldn't have done that otherwise. Everyone has had thoughts saying "God I want to kill him/her" after a quarrel with someone, but we humans have for a hundred years now learning not to react upon every thought (notice however that this is something humanity has learned very recently).

I believe that nature generally isn't something to live along with, but something to fight. Otherwise we wouldn't have created cures and vaccines against diseases, neither technology etc. People who are talking about a natural law are although distinguishing these into a fallacious appeal to nature and a natural law.

So I think we could once and for all clear out this definition. How do you explain this?

well clearly homosexuality is not natural...

Then you are taking yourself back to the OP. Why is it not natural and why is space travel never assigned for being unnatural? I would guess homosexuality has existed since like...bacterias existed, whereas space travel is something that was introduced in the 20th century.

homosexuality is not natural for a few reasons, the most natural thing for any species is survival, homosexuality could only lead to extinction, when over 95% are normal and heterosexual clearly homosexuality is not normal...

https://en.wikipedia.org...
https://en.wikipedia.org...
https://en.wikipedia.org...

lol should we be smelling each others butts, eating our young, having sex with our siblings....??

1. No one is saying that we should adapt every single behaviour in the animal kingdom when said person is showing how homosexuality is natural. It is solely done to counter the rhetoric of how unnatural homosexuality is, when it clearly isn't. If not, could you show me anyone who has said that "dogs eat their own feces, let's do this too"?
oh only certain things in the animal kingdon are natural, i get it..lol
2. This kind of rhetoric you do would also include that we shouldn't perform love or compassion since dogs do it to their masters and to each other.

love and compassion are natural emotions, they are fine....

So how do you define natural? Clearly it isn't about having some kind of purpose or existing in nature. It must be some kind of favoritism?
janesix
Posts: 3,491
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2016 10:16:36 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/28/2016 8:09:49 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 1/28/2016 8:05:58 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 1/28/2016 7:50:55 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 1/28/2016 7:42:15 PM, Jovian wrote:
There might be other threads regarding this topic but I can't be bothered to search.

I can't really wrap my head around the religious terms of naturality and about the natural law. For example, homosexual acts and birth control are often assigned as unnatural, but I haven't ever heard space travels being assigned that? That ought to be unnatural since the human body needs several man-made inventions in order to enter that void, in order to not explode of the pressure.

There is a recognized logical fallacy called "appeal to nature", saying that just because something is natural doesn't mean that it's good. It's natural to murder, since people wouldn't have done that otherwise. Everyone has had thoughts saying "God I want to kill him/her" after a quarrel with someone, but we humans have for a hundred years now learning not to react upon every thought (notice however that this is something humanity has learned very recently).

I believe that nature generally isn't something to live along with, but something to fight. Otherwise we wouldn't have created cures and vaccines against diseases, neither technology etc. People who are talking about a natural law are although distinguishing these into a fallacious appeal to nature and a natural law.

So I think we could once and for all clear out this definition. How do you explain this?

well clearly homosexuality is not natural...

Then you are taking yourself back to the OP. Why is it not natural and why is space travel never assigned for being unnatural? I would guess homosexuality has existed since like...bacterias existed, whereas space travel is something that was introduced in the 20th century.

homosexuality is not natural for a few reasons, the most natural thing for any species is survival, homosexuality could only lead to extinction, when over 95% are normal and heterosexual clearly homosexuality is not normal...

Tell that to the bonobos.
graceofgod
Posts: 5,118
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2016 10:19:06 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/28/2016 10:15:15 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 1/28/2016 10:12:46 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 1/28/2016 10:09:59 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 1/28/2016 9:48:44 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 1/28/2016 8:55:49 PM, Torton wrote:
At 1/28/2016 8:09:49 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 1/28/2016 8:05:58 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 1/28/2016 7:50:55 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 1/28/2016 7:42:15 PM, Jovian wrote:
There might be other threads regarding this topic but I can't be bothered to search.

I can't really wrap my head around the religious terms of naturality and about the natural law. For example, homosexual acts and birth control are often assigned as unnatural, but I haven't ever heard space travels being assigned that? That ought to be unnatural since the human body needs several man-made inventions in order to enter that void, in order to not explode of the pressure.

There is a recognized logical fallacy called "appeal to nature", saying that just because something is natural doesn't mean that it's good. It's natural to murder, since people wouldn't have done that otherwise. Everyone has had thoughts saying "God I want to kill him/her" after a quarrel with someone, but we humans have for a hundred years now learning not to react upon every thought (notice however that this is something humanity has learned very recently).

I believe that nature generally isn't something to live along with, but something to fight. Otherwise we wouldn't have created cures and vaccines against diseases, neither technology etc. People who are talking about a natural law are although distinguishing these into a fallacious appeal to nature and a natural law.

So I think we could once and for all clear out this definition. How do you explain this?

well clearly homosexuality is not natural...

Then you are taking yourself back to the OP. Why is it not natural and why is space travel never assigned for being unnatural? I would guess homosexuality has existed since like...bacterias existed, whereas space travel is something that was introduced in the 20th century.

homosexuality is not natural for a few reasons, the most natural thing for any species is survival, homosexuality could only lead to extinction, when over 95% are normal and heterosexual clearly homosexuality is not normal...

https://en.wikipedia.org...
https://en.wikipedia.org...
https://en.wikipedia.org...

lol should we be smelling each others butts, eating our young, having sex with our siblings....??

1. No one is saying that we should adapt every single behaviour in the animal kingdom when said person is showing how homosexuality is natural. It is solely done to counter the rhetoric of how unnatural homosexuality is, when it clearly isn't. If not, could you show me anyone who has said that "dogs eat their own feces, let's do this too"?
oh only certain things in the animal kingdon are natural, i get it..lol
2. This kind of rhetoric you do would also include that we shouldn't perform love or compassion since dogs do it to their masters and to each other.

love and compassion are natural emotions, they are fine....

So how do you define natural? Clearly it isn't about having some kind of purpose or existing in nature. It must be some kind of favoritism?

it is a tricky subject actually as it does become tainted by what we also consider acceptable behaviour I suppose and of course acceptable behaviour can be very much down to the individual.. but i would argue when over 95% do it one way, it can be considered natural and normal...
Jovian
Posts: 1,720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2016 10:24:05 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/28/2016 10:19:06 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 1/28/2016 10:15:15 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 1/28/2016 10:12:46 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 1/28/2016 10:09:59 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 1/28/2016 9:48:44 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 1/28/2016 8:55:49 PM, Torton wrote:
At 1/28/2016 8:09:49 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 1/28/2016 8:05:58 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 1/28/2016 7:50:55 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 1/28/2016 7:42:15 PM, Jovian wrote:
There might be other threads regarding this topic but I can't be bothered to search.

I can't really wrap my head around the religious terms of naturality and about the natural law. For example, homosexual acts and birth control are often assigned as unnatural, but I haven't ever heard space travels being assigned that? That ought to be unnatural since the human body needs several man-made inventions in order to enter that void, in order to not explode of the pressure.

There is a recognized logical fallacy called "appeal to nature", saying that just because something is natural doesn't mean that it's good. It's natural to murder, since people wouldn't have done that otherwise. Everyone has had thoughts saying "God I want to kill him/her" after a quarrel with someone, but we humans have for a hundred years now learning not to react upon every thought (notice however that this is something humanity has learned very recently).

I believe that nature generally isn't something to live along with, but something to fight. Otherwise we wouldn't have created cures and vaccines against diseases, neither technology etc. People who are talking about a natural law are although distinguishing these into a fallacious appeal to nature and a natural law.

So I think we could once and for all clear out this definition. How do you explain this?

well clearly homosexuality is not natural...

Then you are taking yourself back to the OP. Why is it not natural and why is space travel never assigned for being unnatural? I would guess homosexuality has existed since like...bacterias existed, whereas space travel is something that was introduced in the 20th century.

homosexuality is not natural for a few reasons, the most natural thing for any species is survival, homosexuality could only lead to extinction, when over 95% are normal and heterosexual clearly homosexuality is not normal...

https://en.wikipedia.org...
https://en.wikipedia.org...
https://en.wikipedia.org...

lol should we be smelling each others butts, eating our young, having sex with our siblings....??

1. No one is saying that we should adapt every single behaviour in the animal kingdom when said person is showing how homosexuality is natural. It is solely done to counter the rhetoric of how unnatural homosexuality is, when it clearly isn't. If not, could you show me anyone who has said that "dogs eat their own feces, let's do this too"?
oh only certain things in the animal kingdon are natural, i get it..lol
2. This kind of rhetoric you do would also include that we shouldn't perform love or compassion since dogs do it to their masters and to each other.

love and compassion are natural emotions, they are fine....

So how do you define natural? Clearly it isn't about having some kind of purpose or existing in nature. It must be some kind of favoritism?

it is a tricky subject actually as it does become tainted by what we also consider acceptable behaviour I suppose and of course acceptable behaviour can be very much down to the individual.. but i would argue when over 95% do it one way, it can be considered natural and normal...

As I showed you, then it would be abnormal and unacceptable to do things like playing violin or playing whist, since impossibly more than 1% would do these things.
Torton
Posts: 988
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2016 10:24:10 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/28/2016 10:11:01 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 1/28/2016 9:56:07 PM, Torton wrote:
At 1/28/2016 9:48:44 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 1/28/2016 8:55:49 PM, Torton wrote:
At 1/28/2016 8:09:49 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 1/28/2016 8:05:58 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 1/28/2016 7:50:55 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 1/28/2016 7:42:15 PM, Jovian wrote:
There might be other threads regarding this topic but I can't be bothered to search.

I can't really wrap my head around the religious terms of naturality and about the natural law. For example, homosexual acts and birth control are often assigned as unnatural, but I haven't ever heard space travels being assigned that? That ought to be unnatural since the human body needs several man-made inventions in order to enter that void, in order to not explode of the pressure.

There is a recognized logical fallacy called "appeal to nature", saying that just because something is natural doesn't mean that it's good. It's natural to murder, since people wouldn't have done that otherwise. Everyone has had thoughts saying "God I want to kill him/her" after a quarrel with someone, but we humans have for a hundred years now learning not to react upon every thought (notice however that this is something humanity has learned very recently).

I believe that nature generally isn't something to live along with, but something to fight. Otherwise we wouldn't have created cures and vaccines against diseases, neither technology etc. People who are talking about a natural law are although distinguishing these into a fallacious appeal to nature and a natural law.

So I think we could once and for all clear out this definition. How do you explain this?

well clearly homosexuality is not natural...

Then you are taking yourself back to the OP. Why is it not natural and why is space travel never assigned for being unnatural? I would guess homosexuality has existed since like...bacterias existed, whereas space travel is something that was introduced in the 20th century.

homosexuality is not natural for a few reasons, the most natural thing for any species is survival, homosexuality could only lead to extinction, when over 95% are normal and heterosexual clearly homosexuality is not normal...

https://en.wikipedia.org...
https://en.wikipedia.org...
https://en.wikipedia.org...

lol should we be smelling each others butts, eating our young, having sex with our siblings....??

Whether or not they should be done is up to the individual, but all of those are done in some capacity (in humans), so the whole 'they're just dumb animals," argument doesn't work. And none of those things is equivalent to sex between two consenting adults, gay or not.

lol so what animals do is not natural then, make your mind up...lol
Never said it wasn't natural.
so do you agree sex between brother and sister, or daughter and dad, mum and son, assuming everyone is over say 21 of course, is natural...
You're not asking if it's natural, your asking if I think it's acceptable. And yeah, I do. As long as two people are above the age of consent, there's no real harm being done.
Torton
Posts: 988
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2016 10:26:13 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/28/2016 10:24:10 PM, Torton wrote:
At 1/28/2016 10:11:01 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 1/28/2016 9:56:07 PM, Torton wrote:
At 1/28/2016 9:48:44 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 1/28/2016 8:55:49 PM, Torton wrote:
At 1/28/2016 8:09:49 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 1/28/2016 8:05:58 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 1/28/2016 7:50:55 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 1/28/2016 7:42:15 PM, Jovian wrote:
There might be other threads regarding this topic but I can't be bothered to search.

I can't really wrap my head around the religious terms of naturality and about the natural law. For example, homosexual acts and birth control are often assigned as unnatural, but I haven't ever heard space travels being assigned that? That ought to be unnatural since the human body needs several man-made inventions in order to enter that void, in order to not explode of the pressure.

There is a recognized logical fallacy called "appeal to nature", saying that just because something is natural doesn't mean that it's good. It's natural to murder, since people wouldn't have done that otherwise. Everyone has had thoughts saying "God I want to kill him/her" after a quarrel with someone, but we humans have for a hundred years now learning not to react upon every thought (notice however that this is something humanity has learned very recently).

I believe that nature generally isn't something to live along with, but something to fight. Otherwise we wouldn't have created cures and vaccines against diseases, neither technology etc. People who are talking about a natural law are although distinguishing these into a fallacious appeal to nature and a natural law.

So I think we could once and for all clear out this definition. How do you explain this?

well clearly homosexuality is not natural...

Then you are taking yourself back to the OP. Why is it not natural and why is space travel never assigned for being unnatural? I would guess homosexuality has existed since like...bacterias existed, whereas space travel is something that was introduced in the 20th century.

homosexuality is not natural for a few reasons, the most natural thing for any species is survival, homosexuality could only lead to extinction, when over 95% are normal and heterosexual clearly homosexuality is not normal...

https://en.wikipedia.org...
https://en.wikipedia.org...
https://en.wikipedia.org...

lol should we be smelling each others butts, eating our young, having sex with our siblings....??

Whether or not they should be done is up to the individual, but all of those are done in some capacity (in humans), so the whole 'they're just dumb animals," argument doesn't work. And none of those things is equivalent to sex between two consenting adults, gay or not.

lol so what animals do is not natural then, make your mind up...lol
Never said it wasn't natural.
so do you agree sex between brother and sister, or daughter and dad, mum and son, assuming everyone is over say 21 of course, is natural...
You're not asking if it's natural, your asking if I think it's acceptable. And yeah, I do. As long as two people are above the age of consent, there's no real harm being done.

Correction.
Jovian
Posts: 1,720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2016 10:28:38 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/28/2016 10:26:13 PM, Torton wrote:
At 1/28/2016 10:24:10 PM, Torton wrote:
At 1/28/2016 10:11:01 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 1/28/2016 9:56:07 PM, Torton wrote:
At 1/28/2016 9:48:44 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 1/28/2016 8:55:49 PM, Torton wrote:
At 1/28/2016 8:09:49 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 1/28/2016 8:05:58 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 1/28/2016 7:50:55 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 1/28/2016 7:42:15 PM, Jovian wrote:
There might be other threads regarding this topic but I can't be bothered to search.

I can't really wrap my head around the religious terms of naturality and about the natural law. For example, homosexual acts and birth control are often assigned as unnatural, but I haven't ever heard space travels being assigned that? That ought to be unnatural since the human body needs several man-made inventions in order to enter that void, in order to not explode of the pressure.

There is a recognized logical fallacy called "appeal to nature", saying that just because something is natural doesn't mean that it's good. It's natural to murder, since people wouldn't have done that otherwise. Everyone has had thoughts saying "God I want to kill him/her" after a quarrel with someone, but we humans have for a hundred years now learning not to react upon every thought (notice however that this is something humanity has learned very recently).

I believe that nature generally isn't something to live along with, but something to fight. Otherwise we wouldn't have created cures and vaccines against diseases, neither technology etc. People who are talking about a natural law are although distinguishing these into a fallacious appeal to nature and a natural law.

So I think we could once and for all clear out this definition. How do you explain this?

well clearly homosexuality is not natural...

Then you are taking yourself back to the OP. Why is it not natural and why is space travel never assigned for being unnatural? I would guess homosexuality has existed since like...bacterias existed, whereas space travel is something that was introduced in the 20th century.

homosexuality is not natural for a few reasons, the most natural thing for any species is survival, homosexuality could only lead to extinction, when over 95% are normal and heterosexual clearly homosexuality is not normal...

https://en.wikipedia.org...
https://en.wikipedia.org...
https://en.wikipedia.org...

lol should we be smelling each others butts, eating our young, having sex with our siblings....??

Whether or not they should be done is up to the individual, but all of those are done in some capacity (in humans), so the whole 'they're just dumb animals," argument doesn't work. And none of those things is equivalent to sex between two consenting adults, gay or not.

lol so what animals do is not natural then, make your mind up...lol
Never said it wasn't natural.
so do you agree sex between brother and sister, or daughter and dad, mum and son, assuming everyone is over say 21 of course, is natural...
You're not asking if it's natural, your asking if I think it's acceptable. And yeah, I do. As long as two people are above the age of consent, there's no real harm being done.

Correction.

Just let it be non-reproductive sex too, and no harm will be done.
graceofgod
Posts: 5,118
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2016 10:29:37 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/28/2016 10:24:05 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 1/28/2016 10:19:06 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 1/28/2016 10:15:15 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 1/28/2016 10:12:46 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 1/28/2016 10:09:59 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 1/28/2016 9:48:44 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 1/28/2016 8:55:49 PM, Torton wrote:
At 1/28/2016 8:09:49 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 1/28/2016 8:05:58 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 1/28/2016 7:50:55 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 1/28/2016 7:42:15 PM, Jovian wrote:
There might be other threads regarding this topic but I can't be bothered to search.

I can't really wrap my head around the religious terms of naturality and about the natural law. For example, homosexual acts and birth control are often assigned as unnatural, but I haven't ever heard space travels being assigned that? That ought to be unnatural since the human body needs several man-made inventions in order to enter that void, in order to not explode of the pressure.

There is a recognized logical fallacy called "appeal to nature", saying that just because something is natural doesn't mean that it's good. It's natural to murder, since people wouldn't have done that otherwise. Everyone has had thoughts saying "God I want to kill him/her" after a quarrel with someone, but we humans have for a hundred years now learning not to react upon every thought (notice however that this is something humanity has learned very recently).

I believe that nature generally isn't something to live along with, but something to fight. Otherwise we wouldn't have created cures and vaccines against diseases, neither technology etc. People who are talking about a natural law are although distinguishing these into a fallacious appeal to nature and a natural law.

So I think we could once and for all clear out this definition. How do you explain this?

well clearly homosexuality is not natural...

Then you are taking yourself back to the OP. Why is it not natural and why is space travel never assigned for being unnatural? I would guess homosexuality has existed since like...bacterias existed, whereas space travel is something that was introduced in the 20th century.

homosexuality is not natural for a few reasons, the most natural thing for any species is survival, homosexuality could only lead to extinction, when over 95% are normal and heterosexual clearly homosexuality is not normal...

https://en.wikipedia.org...
https://en.wikipedia.org...
https://en.wikipedia.org...

lol should we be smelling each others butts, eating our young, having sex with our siblings....??

1. No one is saying that we should adapt every single behaviour in the animal kingdom when said person is showing how homosexuality is natural. It is solely done to counter the rhetoric of how unnatural homosexuality is, when it clearly isn't. If not, could you show me anyone who has said that "dogs eat their own feces, let's do this too"?
oh only certain things in the animal kingdon are natural, i get it..lol
2. This kind of rhetoric you do would also include that we shouldn't perform love or compassion since dogs do it to their masters and to each other.

love and compassion are natural emotions, they are fine....

So how do you define natural? Clearly it isn't about having some kind of purpose or existing in nature. It must be some kind of favoritism?

it is a tricky subject actually as it does become tainted by what we also consider acceptable behaviour I suppose and of course acceptable behaviour can be very much down to the individual.. but i would argue when over 95% do it one way, it can be considered natural and normal...

As I showed you, then it would be abnormal and unacceptable to do things like playing violin or playing whist, since impossibly more than 1% would do these things.

if you put it into brackets of playing card games or playing a musical instrument or a wider bracket of entertainment , the percentages would be huge, so it depends on ow you look at it but as a species we seek social interaction and amusement i would consider them as natural and normal..
Jovian
Posts: 1,720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2016 10:32:11 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/28/2016 10:29:37 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 1/28/2016 10:24:05 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 1/28/2016 10:19:06 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 1/28/2016 10:15:15 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 1/28/2016 10:12:46 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 1/28/2016 10:09:59 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 1/28/2016 9:48:44 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 1/28/2016 8:55:49 PM, Torton wrote:
At 1/28/2016 8:09:49 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 1/28/2016 8:05:58 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 1/28/2016 7:50:55 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 1/28/2016 7:42:15 PM, Jovian wrote:
There might be other threads regarding this topic but I can't be bothered to search.

I can't really wrap my head around the religious terms of naturality and about the natural law. For example, homosexual acts and birth control are often assigned as unnatural, but I haven't ever heard space travels being assigned that? That ought to be unnatural since the human body needs several man-made inventions in order to enter that void, in order to not explode of the pressure.

There is a recognized logical fallacy called "appeal to nature", saying that just because something is natural doesn't mean that it's good. It's natural to murder, since people wouldn't have done that otherwise. Everyone has had thoughts saying "God I want to kill him/her" after a quarrel with someone, but we humans have for a hundred years now learning not to react upon every thought (notice however that this is something humanity has learned very recently).

I believe that nature generally isn't something to live along with, but something to fight. Otherwise we wouldn't have created cures and vaccines against diseases, neither technology etc. People who are talking about a natural law are although distinguishing these into a fallacious appeal to nature and a natural law.

So I think we could once and for all clear out this definition. How do you explain this?

well clearly homosexuality is not natural...

Then you are taking yourself back to the OP. Why is it not natural and why is space travel never assigned for being unnatural? I would guess homosexuality has existed since like...bacterias existed, whereas space travel is something that was introduced in the 20th century.

homosexuality is not natural for a few reasons, the most natural thing for any species is survival, homosexuality could only lead to extinction, when over 95% are normal and heterosexual clearly homosexuality is not normal...

https://en.wikipedia.org...
https://en.wikipedia.org...
https://en.wikipedia.org...

lol should we be smelling each others butts, eating our young, having sex with our siblings....??

1. No one is saying that we should adapt every single behaviour in the animal kingdom when said person is showing how homosexuality is natural. It is solely done to counter the rhetoric of how unnatural homosexuality is, when it clearly isn't. If not, could you show me anyone who has said that "dogs eat their own feces, let's do this too"?
oh only certain things in the animal kingdon are natural, i get it..lol
2. This kind of rhetoric you do would also include that we shouldn't perform love or compassion since dogs do it to their masters and to each other.

love and compassion are natural emotions, they are fine....

So how do you define natural? Clearly it isn't about having some kind of purpose or existing in nature. It must be some kind of favoritism?

it is a tricky subject actually as it does become tainted by what we also consider acceptable behaviour I suppose and of course acceptable behaviour can be very much down to the individual.. but i would argue when over 95% do it one way, it can be considered natural and normal...

As I showed you, then it would be abnormal and unacceptable to do things like playing violin or playing whist, since impossibly more than 1% would do these things.

if you put it into brackets of playing card games or playing a musical instrument or a wider bracket of entertainment , the percentages would be huge, so it depends on ow you look at it but as a species we seek social interaction and amusement i would consider them as natural and normal..

Yes but homosexual acts could easily be put into the same brackets of all sexual faculties. Pedophilia and beastiality too however, but those are not consensual sex acts.