Homosexuality: The Voice of Nature

[Gary Childress]

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?

You seem to indicate that homosexuality isn't the "proper" "intended" use of our sexual organs. I've asked you repeatedly who says so and you seem to have ignored the question. Am I to conclude that you don't know what the specific "proper" uses of sexual organs are? Or am I to conclude that it is improper because you say so?

[abdullah masud]

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?

You seem to indicate that homosexuality isn't the "proper" "intended" use of our sexual organs. I've asked you repeatedly who says so and you seem to have ignored the question. Am I to conclude that you don't know what the specific "proper" uses of sexual organs are? Or am I to conclude that it is improper because you say so?

To your first question: can a wise player join a football game without even knowing what football is? As for the second: that’s up to you.

[Gary Childress]

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

You seem to indicate that homosexuality isn't the "proper" "intended" use of our sexual organs. I've asked you repeatedly who says so and you seem to have ignored the question. Am I to conclude that you don't know what the specific "proper" uses of sexual organs are? Or am I to conclude that it is improper because you say so?

To your first question: can a wise player join a football game without even knowing what football is?

How does that relate to homosexuality? Are you saying homosexuals don't know what their sexual organs are?

[abdullah masud]

You seem to indicate that homosexuality isn't the "proper" "intended" use of our sexual organs. I've asked you repeatedly who says so and you seem to have ignored the question. Am I to conclude that you don't know what the specific "proper" uses of sexual organs are? Or am I to conclude that it is improper because you say so?

To your first question: can a wise player join a football game without even knowing what football is?

How does that relate to homosexuality? Are you saying homosexuals don't know what their sexual organs are?

It’s simply an answer to the first part of your question.

[Gary Childress]

To your first question: can a wise player join a football game without even knowing what football is?

How does that relate to homosexuality? Are you saying homosexuals don't know what their sexual organs are?

It’s simply an answer to the first part of your question.

The question was who says homosexuality is "wrong" or isn't a "proper" use of their sexual organs? You answered that one can't play football if one doesn't know what a football is. So I asked if you were saying that homosexuals don't know what sexual organs are. Do you really think homosexuals don't know what sexual organs are or is your answer a nonsensical or false analogy?

[ThinkOfOne]

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?

Your views are remarkably simplistic. The reality is that we live in a complex word.

Let's see what else can be "understood" using your simple-minded "reasoning".

The "natural purpose" of the foot and is for bipedal locomotion. Using the foot for propelling a ball goes against its "natural purpose", therefore is not right. "It’s a question of nature and purpose. The structure itself speaks.”

The "natural purpose" of the mouth is for "speaking and eating" according to you. Kissing goes against its "natural purpose", therefore is not right. "it’s a question of nature and purpose. The structure itself speaks.”

The "natural purpose" of the reproductive organs is for procreation. Using the reproductive organs for any purpose other than procreating goes against their "natural purpose", therefore is not right. Sex should be solely for the purpose of procreation. Couples who are unable to conceive for any reason, therefore should not have sex; women who are not in a fertile phase of their cycle should not have sex. "It’s a question of nature and purpose. The structure itself speaks.”

[abdullah masud]

How does that relate to homosexuality? Are you saying homosexuals don't know what their sexual organs are?

It’s simply an answer to the first part of your question.

The question was who says homosexuality is "wrong" or isn't a "proper" use of their sexual organs? You answered that one can't play football if one doesn't know what a football is. So I asked if you were saying that homosexuals don't know what sexual organs are. Do you really think homosexuals don't know what sexual organs are or is your answer a nonsensical or false analogy?

Thanks, answering this question would take us away from the main argument. If you have a logical point or opinion to challenge the argument, feel free to share it. At the moment, I don’t feel comfortable going off-topic, even though it is somewhat related.

[Gary Childress]

It’s simply an answer to the first part of your question.

The question was who says homosexuality is "wrong" or isn't a "proper" use of their sexual organs? You answered that one can't play football if one doesn't know what a football is. So I asked if you were saying that homosexuals don't know what sexual organs are. Do you really think homosexuals don't know what sexual organs are or is your answer a nonsensical or false analogy?

Thanks, answering this question would take us away from the main argument. If you have a logical point or opinion to challenge the argument, feel free to share it. At the moment, I don’t feel comfortable going off-topic, even though it is somewhat related.

Fair enough. Your OP is a pretty obvious swipe on homosexuality. You wanted to know what a counter argument would be for it. Maybe a counterargument would be that the argument you presented appears to be a false analogy. It's not a sound argument. When people make claims, do their claims need to be justified by anything other than a personal preference? Or can people just make whatever claim they want to make and that alone (making a claim) makes it a valid or sound argument?

[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?

Your views are remarkably simplistic. The reality is that we live in a complex word.

Let's see what else can be "understood" using your simple-minded "reasoning".

The "natural purpose" of the foot and is for bipedal locomotion. Using the foot for propelling a ball goes against its "natural purpose", therefore is not right. "It’s a question of nature and purpose. The structure itself speaks.”

The "natural purpose" of the mouth is for "speaking and eating" according to you. Kissing goes against its "natural purpose", therefore is not right. "it’s a question of nature and purpose. The structure itself speaks.”

The "natural purpose" of the reproductive organs is for procreation. Using the reproductive organs for any purpose other than procreating goes against their "natural purpose", therefore is not right. Sex should be solely for the purpose of procreation. Couples who are unable to conceive for any reason, therefore should not have sex; women who are not in a fertile phase of their cycle should not have sex. "It’s a question of nature and purpose. The structure itself speaks.”

the natural purpose of something isn’t always just one—it can be more than one. For example, the mouth has two natural purposes (as I know): speaking and eating. Actions that don’t completely oppose these purposes aren’t wrong—like kissing, which is not completely opposite to the mouth’s purpose.

However, when it comes to human sexuality, we must consider men and women together, not separately. In this context, acts that align with the natural purpose are acceptable, but homosexual acts are completely opposite to the structure and natural purpose of sexuality.

[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?

Your views are remarkably simplistic. The reality is that we live in a complex word.

Let's see what else can be "understood" using your simple-minded "reasoning".

The "natural purpose" of the foot and is for bipedal locomotion. Using the foot for propelling a ball goes against its "natural purpose", therefore is not right. "It’s a question of nature and purpose. The structure itself speaks.”

The "natural purpose" of the mouth is for "speaking and eating" according to you. Kissing goes against its "natural purpose", therefore is not right. "it’s a question of nature and purpose. The structure itself speaks.”

The "natural purpose" of the reproductive organs is for procreation. Using the reproductive organs for any purpose other than procreating goes against their "natural purpose", therefore is not right. Sex should be solely for the purpose of procreation. Couples who are unable to conceive for any reason, therefore should not have sex; women who are not in a fertile phase of their cycle should not have sex. "It’s a question of nature and purpose. The structure itself speaks.”

the natural purpose of something isn’t always just one—it can be more than one. For example, the mouth has two natural purposes (as I know): speaking and eating. Actions that don’t completely oppose these purposes aren’t wrong—like kissing, which is not completely opposite to the mouth’s purpose.

However, when it comes to human sexuality, we must consider men and women together, not separately. In this context, acts that align with the natural purpose are acceptable, but homosexual acts are completely opposite to the structure and natural purpose of sexuality.

Welcome to the year 1000 AD. So much for what was thought to be moral progress.

[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?

Your views are remarkably simplistic. The reality is that we live in a complex word.

Let's see what else can be "understood" using your simple-minded "reasoning".

The "natural purpose" of the foot and is for bipedal locomotion. Using the foot for propelling a ball goes against its "natural purpose", therefore is not right. "It’s a question of nature and purpose. The structure itself speaks.”

The "natural purpose" of the mouth is for "speaking and eating" according to you. Kissing goes against its "natural purpose", therefore is not right. "it’s a question of nature and purpose. The structure itself speaks.”

The "natural purpose" of the reproductive organs is for procreation. Using the reproductive organs for any purpose other than procreating goes against their "natural purpose", therefore is not right. Sex should be solely for the purpose of procreation. Couples who are unable to conceive for any reason, therefore should not have sex; women who are not in a fertile phase of their cycle should not have sex. "It’s a question of nature and purpose. The structure itself speaks.”

the natural purpose of something isn’t always just one—it can be more than one. For example, the mouth has two natural purposes (as I know): speaking and eating. Actions that don’t completely oppose these purposes aren’t wrong—like kissing, which is not completely opposite to the mouth’s purpose.

However, when it comes to human sexuality, we must consider men and women together, not separately. In this context, acts that align with the natural purpose are acceptable, but homosexual acts are completely opposite to the structure and natural purpose of sexuality.

In what way is homosexuality the "opposite" of sexuality? You say that kissing is OK because it is not completely the opposite to the mouth's purpose. If one is homosexual, does that somehow prevent one from having heterosex? What is meant by "opposite"? Or what is the 1st century understanding of the issue?

[Gary Childress]

Ah, the glorious days of scholasticism!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g&t=237s

[ThinkOfOne]

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?

Your views are remarkably simplistic. The reality is that we live in a complex word.

Let's see what else can be "understood" using your simple-minded "reasoning".

The "natural purpose" of the foot and is for bipedal locomotion. Using the foot for propelling a ball goes against its "natural purpose", therefore is not right. "It’s a question of nature and purpose. The structure itself speaks.”

The "natural purpose" of the mouth is for "speaking and eating" according to you. Kissing goes against its "natural purpose", therefore is not right. "it’s a question of nature and purpose. The structure itself speaks.”

The "natural purpose" of the reproductive organs is for procreation. Using the reproductive organs for any purpose other than procreating goes against their "natural purpose", therefore is not right. Sex should be solely for the purpose of procreation. Couples who are unable to conceive for any reason, therefore should not have sex; women who are not in a fertile phase of their cycle should not have sex. "It’s a question of nature and purpose. The structure itself speaks.”

the natural purpose of something isn’t always just one—it can be more than one. For example, the mouth has two natural purposes (as I know): speaking and eating. Actions that don’t completely oppose these purposes aren’t wrong—like kissing, which is not completely opposite to the mouth’s purpose.

However, when it comes to human sexuality, we must consider men and women together, not separately. In this context, acts that align with the natural purpose are acceptable, but homosexual acts are completely opposite to the structure and natural purpose of sexuality.

What a startlingly disingenuous response.

As much as you seem to hate to admit it, the reality is that "human sexuality" also includes men and men together AND women and women together. Be it men and women together OR men and men together OR women and women together, they often use their mouths by kissing for sexual pleasure. For that matter, they often use their mouths in ways other than kissing for sexual pleasure. According to your OP this goes against the "natural purpose" of the mouth - which according to the OP is for "speaking and eating". There's no reasonably getting around the fact that using the mouth for sexual pleasure flies in the face of the points made in your OP. Your attempts to save it are sophomoric at best: using equivocation and double standards.

Why don't you humbly admit that the main point of the OP fails? That it's grossly simplistic? While you're at it, how about addressing the rest of my initial post? You completely ignored the other examples.

The most reasonable reason for your irrational position is that you have an aversion, if not hatred, for homosexuality. What other simple-minded bigoted positions do you hold?

Are you capable of responding to the posts of others in good faith? You failed to do so on the "Does the Soul Prove Dualism" thread. Not only refusing to answer questions/ address points that pinpointed the failings in your position, but later stooping to failing to address my posts at all.

[accelafine]

I have noticed that gay couples frequently look like twins or at least brothers, so it could be argued that it's a form of narcissism. All the primping and pampering they often carry on with seems to bear that out.
Humans weren't 'made' by the way, they evolved-- like everything else.
Not sure what purpose it serves with regard to natural selection, although they can still have children, in which case the gene (if it's genetic) gets passed on.

[abdullah masud]

Your views are remarkably simplistic. The reality is that we live in a complex word.

Let's see what else can be "understood" using your simple-minded "reasoning".

The "natural purpose" of the foot and is for bipedal locomotion. Using the foot for propelling a ball goes against its "natural purpose", therefore is not right. "It’s a question of nature and purpose. The structure itself speaks.”

The "natural purpose" of the mouth is for "speaking and eating" according to you. Kissing goes against its "natural purpose", therefore is not right. "it’s a question of nature and purpose. The structure itself speaks.”

The "natural purpose" of the reproductive organs is for procreation. Using the reproductive organs for any purpose other than procreating goes against their "natural purpose", therefore is not right. Sex should be solely for the purpose of procreation. Couples who are unable to conceive for any reason, therefore should not have sex; women who are not in a fertile phase of their cycle should not have sex. "It’s a question of nature and purpose. The structure itself speaks.”

the natural purpose of something isn’t always just one—it can be more than one. For example, the mouth has two natural purposes (as I know): speaking and eating. Actions that don’t completely oppose these purposes aren’t wrong—like kissing, which is not completely opposite to the mouth’s purpose.

However, when it comes to human sexuality, we must consider men and women together, not separately. In this context, acts that align with the natural purpose are acceptable, but homosexual acts are completely opposite to the structure and natural purpose of sexuality.

What a startlingly disingenuous response.

As much as you seem to hate to admit it, the reality is that "human sexuality" also includes men and men together AND women and women together. Be it men and women together OR men and men together OR women and women together, they often use their mouths by kissing for sexual pleasure. For that matter, they often use their mouths in ways other than kissing for sexual pleasure. According to your OP this goes against the "natural purpose" of the mouth - which according to the OP is for "speaking and eating". There's no reasonably getting around the fact that using the mouth for sexual pleasure flies in the face of the points made in your OP. Your attempts to save it are sophomoric at best: using equivocation and double standards.

Why don't you humbly admit that the main point of the OP fails? That it's grossly simplistic? While you're at it, how about addressing the rest of my initial post? You completely ignored the other examples.

The most reasonable reason for your irrational position is that you have an aversion, if not hatred, for homosexuality. What other simple-minded bigoted positions do you hold?

Are you capable of responding to the posts of others in good faith? You failed to do so on the "Does the Soul Prove Dualism" thread. Not only refusing to answer questions/ address points that pinpointed the failings in your position, but later stooping to failing to address my posts at all.

Well, if you actually want people to respond to your comment, you should keep it short and to the point. Not everyone has the patience to read something that looks like the first chapter of your upcoming book.