Homosexuality: The Voice of Nature

[abdullah masud]

Someone said, “We usually understand the right use of something by its structure. The eyes are made for seeing, not for hearing. The ears are made for listening, not for tasting. The mouth is made for speaking and eating, not for breathing underwater. In the same way, when we look at the human body, it shows a clear design — male and female are naturally complementary, fitting together in purpose and function.
Aristotle said, Nature does nothing in vain. Thomas Aquinas built on this, teaching that what goes against the natural purpose of our body is against reason itself. So when people say they don’t understand how homosexuality could be right, it’s not hate — it’s a question of nature and purpose. The structure itself speaks.”

What do you think about this speaker’s reasoning? And if someone were to disagree, what would their counterargument likely be?

[Gary Childress]

Someone said, “We usually understand the right use of something by its structure. The eyes are made for seeing, not for hearing. The ears are made for listening, not for tasting. The mouth is made for speaking and eating, not for breathing underwater. In the same way, when we look at the human body, it shows a clear design — male and female are naturally complementary, fitting together in purpose and function.
Aristotle said, Nature does nothing in vain. Thomas Aquinas built on this, teaching that what goes against the natural purpose of our body is against reason itself. So when people say they don’t understand how homosexuality could be right, it’s not hate — it’s a question of nature and purpose. The structure itself speaks.”

What do you think about this speaker’s reasoning? And if someone were to disagree, what would their counterargument likely be?

Using duct tape to mend a piece of tarp is "unnatural" and against the original purpose of duct tape. It's unholy!

[abdullah masud]

Someone said, “We usually understand the right use of something by its structure. The eyes are made for seeing, not for hearing. The ears are made for listening, not for tasting. The mouth is made for speaking and eating, not for breathing underwater. In the same way, when we look at the human body, it shows a clear design — male and female are naturally complementary, fitting together in purpose and function.
Aristotle said, Nature does nothing in vain. Thomas Aquinas built on this, teaching that what goes against the natural purpose of our body is against reason itself. So when people say they don’t understand how homosexuality could be right, it’s not hate — it’s a question of nature and purpose. The structure itself speaks.”

What do you think about this speaker’s reasoning? And if someone were to disagree, what would their counterargument likely be?

Using duct tape to mend a piece of tarp is "unnatural" and against the original purpose of duct tape. It's unholy!

It's fine, but if someone says that “Humans and other objects are not the same, so we cannot treat their ‘unnatural’ use in the same way. However, we do see in many objects that using them against their intended purpose is considered wrong. For example, a good book is meant for reading, not for other uses—damaging it would be wrong. Similarly, food, gold, and other valuable things have their proper use. If we ignore the reality, natural purpose, and structure of things, then there would be no standard to distinguish right from wrong use.”

[Gary Childress]

Someone said, “We usually understand the right use of something by its structure. The eyes are made for seeing, not for hearing. The ears are made for listening, not for tasting. The mouth is made for speaking and eating, not for breathing underwater. In the same way, when we look at the human body, it shows a clear design — male and female are naturally complementary, fitting together in purpose and function.
Aristotle said, Nature does nothing in vain. Thomas Aquinas built on this, teaching that what goes against the natural purpose of our body is against reason itself. So when people say they don’t understand how homosexuality could be right, it’s not hate — it’s a question of nature and purpose. The structure itself speaks.”

What do you think about this speaker’s reasoning? And if someone were to disagree, what would their counterargument likely be?

Using duct tape to mend a piece of tarp is "unnatural" and against the original purpose of duct tape. It's unholy!

It's fine, but if someone says that “Humans and other objects are not the same, so we cannot treat their ‘unnatural’ use in the same way. However, we do see in many objects that using them against their intended purpose is considered wrong. For example, a good book is meant for reading, not for other uses—damaging it would be wrong. Similarly, food, gold, and other valuable things have their proper use. If we ignore the reality, natural purpose, and structure of things, then there would be no standard to distinguish right from wrong use.”

If someone wants to use their sexual organs to pleasure themselves in a way that is not "natural" and it's not harming you or anyone else, why do you think it's "wrong" for them to do so?

[abdullah masud]

Using duct tape to mend a piece of tarp is "unnatural" and against the original purpose of duct tape. It's unholy!

It's fine, but if someone says that “Humans and other objects are not the same, so we cannot treat their ‘unnatural’ use in the same way. However, we do see in many objects that using them against their intended purpose is considered wrong. For example, a good book is meant for reading, not for other uses—damaging it would be wrong. Similarly, food, gold, and other valuable things have their proper use. If we ignore the reality, natural purpose, and structure of things, then there would be no standard to distinguish right from wrong use.”

If someone wants to use their sexual organs to pleasure themselves in a way that is not "natural" and it's not harming you or anyone else, why do you think it's "wrong" for them to do so?

Well, this argument focuses on harm—if no one is harmed, it’s fine. But that only considers consequences, not the natural purpose or design of the body. Using sexual organs entirely outside their intended purpose ignores the structure and reason built into them, which is the core of the original argument. isn't that?

[Gary Childress]

It's fine, but if someone says that “Humans and other objects are not the same, so we cannot treat their ‘unnatural’ use in the same way. However, we do see in many objects that using them against their intended purpose is considered wrong. For example, a good book is meant for reading, not for other uses—damaging it would be wrong. Similarly, food, gold, and other valuable things have their proper use. If we ignore the reality, natural purpose, and structure of things, then there would be no standard to distinguish right from wrong use.”

If someone wants to use their sexual organs to pleasure themselves in a way that is not "natural" and it's not harming you or anyone else, why do you think it's "wrong" for them to do so?

Well, this argument focuses on harm—if no one is harmed, it’s fine. But that only considers consequences, not the natural purpose or design of the body. Using sexual organs entirely outside their intended purpose ignores the structure and reason built into them, which is the core of the original argument. isn't that?

What makes you think our sexual organs have an "intended purpose" outside of what we choose to do with them?

[abdullah masud]

Using duct tape to mend a piece of tarp is "unnatural" and against the original purpose of duct tape. It's unholy!

It's fine, but if someone says that “Humans and other objects are not the same, so we cannot treat their ‘unnatural’ use in the same way. However, we do see in many objects that using them against their intended purpose is considered wrong. For example, a good book is meant for reading, not for other uses—damaging it would be wrong. Similarly, food, gold, and other valuable things have their proper use. If we ignore the reality, natural purpose, and structure of things, then there would be no standard to distinguish right from wrong use.”

If someone wants to use their sexual organs to pleasure themselves in a way that is not "natural" and it's not harming you or anyone else, why do you think it's "wrong" for them to do so?

If we focus only on harm, then technically there is no problem using an object in any way. For example, we could use a book for reading or even for cleaning something. Both would be ‘okay’ because no one is harmed. But this ignores the idea of natural purpose and intended function, which is why some uses can still be considered wrong or unreasonable.

[Impenitent]

Someone said, “We usually understand the right use of something by its structure. The eyes are made for seeing, not for hearing. The ears are made for listening, not for tasting. The mouth is made for speaking and eating, not for breathing underwater. In the same way, when we look at the human body, it shows a clear design — male and female are naturally complementary, fitting together in purpose and function.
Aristotle said, Nature does nothing in vain. Thomas Aquinas built on this, teaching that what goes against the natural purpose of our body is against reason itself. So when people say they don’t understand how homosexuality could be right, it’s not hate — it’s a question of nature and purpose. The structure itself speaks.”

What do you think about this speaker’s reasoning? And if someone were to disagree, what would their counterargument likely be?

the natural purpose? who decides that? god? "nature"? some pious marxist?

structure? have we finished mapping the brain? let alone finding the perfect model? what is the limited function of it? brains are made to be food for zombies...

-Imp

[Gary Childress]

It's fine, but if someone says that “Humans and other objects are not the same, so we cannot treat their ‘unnatural’ use in the same way. However, we do see in many objects that using them against their intended purpose is considered wrong. For example, a good book is meant for reading, not for other uses—damaging it would be wrong. Similarly, food, gold, and other valuable things have their proper use. If we ignore the reality, natural purpose, and structure of things, then there would be no standard to distinguish right from wrong use.”

If someone wants to use their sexual organs to pleasure themselves in a way that is not "natural" and it's not harming you or anyone else, why do you think it's "wrong" for them to do so?

If we focus only on harm, then technically there is no problem using an object in any way. For example, we could use a book for reading or even for cleaning something. Both would be ‘okay’ because no one is harmed. But this ignores the idea of natural purpose and intended function, which is why some uses can still be considered wrong or unreasonable.

Some books make good kindling and if someone thinks the book is garbage, then they might want to use it for kindling in the absences of something else. Is it "wrong" for them to do so? And again, who is "intending" that sexual organs be used in a specific way other than what the one who possesses the sexual organs wants to do with them?

[abdullah masud]

If someone wants to use their sexual organs to pleasure themselves in a way that is not "natural" and it's not harming you or anyone else, why do you think it's "wrong" for them to do so?

Well, this argument focuses on harm—if no one is harmed, it’s fine. But that only considers consequences, not the natural purpose or design of the body. Using sexual organs entirely outside their intended purpose ignores the structure and reason built into them, which is the core of the original argument. isn't that?

What makes you think our sexual organs have an "intended purpose" outside of what we choose to do with them?

Just like when we get gold, we try to understand its proper use and what is considered the right way to use it, we can look at men and women together to understand the intended purpose of the sexual organs. Their structure and complementarity show a natural purpose that reason can recognize, just as we recognize the proper use of valuable things like gold.

[Gary Childress]

Well, this argument focuses on harm—if no one is harmed, it’s fine. But that only considers consequences, not the natural purpose or design of the body. Using sexual organs entirely outside their intended purpose ignores the structure and reason built into them, which is the core of the original argument. isn't that?

What makes you think our sexual organs have an "intended purpose" outside of what we choose to do with them?

Just like when we get gold, we try to understand its proper use and what is considered the right way to use it, we can look at men and women together to understand the intended purpose of the sexual organs. Their structure and complementarity show a natural purpose that reason can recognize, just as we recognize the proper use of valuable things like gold.

And what is the "proper" use of gold to you?

[abdullah masud]

Someone said, “We usually understand the right use of something by its structure. The eyes are made for seeing, not for hearing. The ears are made for listening, not for tasting. The mouth is made for speaking and eating, not for breathing underwater. In the same way, when we look at the human body, it shows a clear design — male and female are naturally complementary, fitting together in purpose and function.
Aristotle said, Nature does nothing in vain. Thomas Aquinas built on this, teaching that what goes against the natural purpose of our body is against reason itself. So when people say they don’t understand how homosexuality could be right, it’s not hate — it’s a question of nature and purpose. The structure itself speaks.”

What do you think about this speaker’s reasoning? And if someone were to disagree, what would their counterargument likely be?

the natural purpose? who decides that? god? "nature"? some pious marxist?

structure? have we finished mapping the brain? let alone finding the perfect model? what is the limited function of it? brains are made to be food for zombies...

-Imp

I think reason can help us differentiate between right and wrong. Let’s forget about the brain for now. We can look at men and women together to understand the intended purpose of sexual organs. Their structure and complementarity show a natural purpose that reason can recognize.

[abdullah masud]

What makes you think our sexual organs have an "intended purpose" outside of what we choose to do with them?

Just like when we get gold, we try to understand its proper use and what is considered the right way to use it, we can look at men and women together to understand the intended purpose of the sexual organs. Their structure and complementarity show a natural purpose that reason can recognize, just as we recognize the proper use of valuable things like gold.

And what is the "proper" use of gold to you?

A proper use of gold would be mixing it into food and eating it, because it contains many essential nutrients for our body and brain, like proteins, calcium, and other important elements. Don’t you agree?

[Gary Childress]

Just like when we get gold, we try to understand its proper use and what is considered the right way to use it, we can look at men and women together to understand the intended purpose of the sexual organs. Their structure and complementarity show a natural purpose that reason can recognize, just as we recognize the proper use of valuable things like gold.

And what is the "proper" use of gold to you?

A proper use of gold would be mixing it into food and eating it, because it contains many essential nutrients for our body and brain, like proteins, calcium, and other important elements. Don’t you agree?

But it is not true that Gold contains essential nutrients for the body and brain, like proteins and calcium. Wouldn't you agree that using it for food is not a "proper" use of gold? Or do you believe that it is a "proper" use of gold?

[abdullah masud]

And what is the "proper" use of gold to you?

A proper use of gold would be mixing it into food and eating it, because it contains many essential nutrients for our body and brain, like proteins, calcium, and other important elements. Don’t you agree?

But it is not true that Gold contains essential nutrients for the body and brain, like proteins and calcium. Wouldn't you agree that using it for food is not a "proper" use of gold? Or do you believe that it is a "proper" use of gold?

Could you clarify what exactly you’re asking, and how it relates to the original argument here?