Homosexuality: The Voice of Nature

[abdullah masud]

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?

Well, personally I don’t see morality as something objective. Still, the OP isn’t illogical. It simply points out that to understand proper sexuality, we should look at man and woman together — just like we understand the proper use of a key only when we see it with the lock. The structure itself speaks and shows its natural use.

[Alexiev]

[

Well, personally I don’t see morality as something objective. Still, the OP isn’t illogical. It simply points out that to understand proper sexuality, we should look at man and woman together — just like we understand the proper use of a key only when we see it with the lock. The structure itself speaks and shows its natural use.

If the proper use of legs is walking and running, does that make soccer perverse and unnatural (because of all that kicking)? If the proper use of the mouth is eating. Is talking a perversion? The proper use of the eyes is seeing! Cut out all that flirtatious winking!

[FlashDangerpants]

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?

Well, personally I don’t see morality as something objective. Still, the OP isn’t illogical. It simply points out that to understand proper sexuality, we should look at man and woman together — just like we understand the proper use of a key only when we see it with the lock. The structure itself speaks and shows its natural use.

The OP isn't very logical. It's a fairly straightforward attempt to derive an ought from an is.

[abdullah masud]

[

Well, personally I don’t see morality as something objective. Still, the OP isn’t illogical. It simply points out that to understand proper sexuality, we should look at man and woman together — just like we understand the proper use of a key only when we see it with the lock. The structure itself speaks and shows its natural use.

If the proper use of legs is walking and running, does that make soccer perverse and unnatural (because of all that kicking)? If the proper use of the mouth is eating. Is talking a perversion? The proper use of the eyes is seeing! Cut out all that flirtatious winking!

There has to be a right and wrong way to use something, otherwise everything becomes meaningless. If there’s no standard, then using a book for cleaning or sitting on it would also be considered fine, which is absurd.
However, not every different use is a misuse. Some uses can be secondary or extended without going against the natural purpose. For example, using legs for soccer or using the eyes for winking doesn’t contradict their natural purpose — they still operate in line with it.
But when something is used in a way that directly opposes its natural structure and purpose, that’s when it becomes unnatural.

[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

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.

reason helps us differentiate... "forget about the brain"

the intended purpose of sexual organs... "forget about the brain"

with that, you have eliminated the most important "sexual organ" in the entire experience

-Imp

[Alexiev]

There has to be a right and wrong way to use something, otherwise everything becomes meaningless. If there’s no standard, then using a book for cleaning or sitting on it would also be considered fine, which is absurd.
However, not every different use is a misuse. Some uses can be secondary or extended without going against the natural purpose. For example, using legs for soccer or using the eyes for winking doesn’t contradict their natural purpose — they still operate in line with it.
But when something is used in a way that directly opposes its natural structure and purpose, that’s when it becomes unnatural.

The proper use of a cardboard box is to protect items while shipping them. Those kids who use the box as a playhouse are perverts! It's unnatural!

Also, nature doesn't have a "purpose".

[abdullah masud]

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.

reason helps us differentiate... "forget about the brain"

the intended purpose of sexual organs... "forget about the brain"

with that, you have eliminated the most important "sexual organ" in the entire experience

-Imp

I thought of you as a fish in deep water, but you proved the opposite.

[Impenitent]

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.

reason helps us differentiate... "forget about the brain"

the intended purpose of sexual organs... "forget about the brain"

with that, you have eliminated the most important "sexual organ" in the entire experience

-Imp

I thought of you as a fish in deep water, but you proved the opposite.

thank you

-Imp

[Gary Childress]

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?

Well, personally I don’t see morality as something objective. Still, the OP isn’t illogical. It simply points out that to understand proper sexuality, we should look at man and woman together — just like we understand the proper use of a key only when we see it with the lock. The structure itself speaks and shows its natural use.

What you think "personally" is irrelevant to what is the case logically. You have no logical argument proving your case. If you don't believe me then fine, live in a delusional bubble. There's no point in further discussion with you if you are going to be unreasonable and abandon logic. Or perhaps you're not familiar with formal logic. If so, then I suggest you learn it.

[accelafine]

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.

reason helps us differentiate... "forget about the brain"

the intended purpose of sexual organs... "forget about the brain"

with that, you have eliminated the most important "sexual organ" in the entire experience

-Imp

I thought of you as a fish in deep water, but you proved the opposite.

He made a very good point which demolished your 'argument' in a handful of words. That doesn't happen very often. Enjoy it.

[ThinkOfOne]

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.

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.


Seriously? That's your excuse for refusing to address my post? Remarkable how low so many bigots are willing to stoop in order to avoid facing reality.

Your response brings the following quote to mind:
"The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye; the more light you pour upon it, the more it will contract."
---Oliver Wendell Holmes

Evidently your mind has contracted so much that it's daunting for you to address a simple five paragraph post, with four of those paragraphs less than two lines long and the remaining paragraph only five lines.

[accelafine]

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.

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.


Seriously? That's your excuse for refusing to address my post? Remarkable how low so many bigots are willing to stoop in order to avoid facing reality.

Your response brings the following quote to mind:
"The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye; the more light you pour upon it, the more it will contract."
---Oliver Wendell Holmes

Evidently your mind has contracted so much that it's daunting for you to address a simple five paragraph post, with four of those paragraphs less than two lines long and the remaining paragraph only five lines.

At least you are using the word 'bigot' correctly (I assume you are); a religious hypocrite. Of course, it's been hijacked by wankers to mean, ''Everyone I disagree with''. The 'hypocrite' part, which was the main point of the word, has been lost forever. There's a whole raft of words that have been lost in this way. Unless, of course, you are simply throwing it at abdullah because you don't like what he said

[MikeNovack]

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?

It show's a pre-moderen (limited) understanding of Nature. It is NOT always two sexes (an organism being one or the other). There are species where an individual is both, some where individuals can change sex. There are some among the fungi with more than two (we then call them "mating types". And among species where the norm is male and female, there are examples of homosexuality.

Remember, if you choose the argument "if natural, then must be OK" you have to accept the actual evidence, not what your other beliefs tell you you shpould be seeing.

[accelafine]

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?

It show's a pre-moderen (limited) understanding of Nature. It is NOT always two sexes (an organism being one or the other). There are species where an individual is both, some where individuals can change sex. There are some among the fungi with more than two (we then call them "mating types". And among species where the norm is male and female, there are examples of homosexuality.

Remember, if you choose the argument "if natural, then must be OK" you have to accept the actual evidence, not what your other beliefs tell you you shpould be seeing.

The vast majority of reproducing organisms are either male or female. That's just the way it is. If you want to compare humans to fungi then feel free. Fungi still have male/female even if they are in the same organism. None of the other reproductive systems apply to humans. No matter what the system, there is always the concept of male/female in some form or another. If you are trying to use nature to imply that humans can change sex then you aren't having much success at it. 'Oh, some snails can 'change sex', therefore humans can' is quite the logical fallacy (but a claim that's make regularly on Twitter except that the example is usually (appropriately) clownfish).

[LuckyR]

Reality check. Just thought I'd remind folks that "right" and "wrong" are subjective descriptors. In addition, "natural" has no connection to "good" or "beneficial". Strept throat is "natural".