@Mortianna: I think I am rather linking the concept 'natural' to personal moral values. As in what is 'decent' in my eyes and what not. Of course that makes my concept of 'natural' very subjective. As such, I do not consider cannibalism to be natural, because humans aren't meant to eat each other, I do not consider homosexualism to be natural because people of the [same] gender weren't made for each other, and same with anal sex, which I already explained (I heard it can be very very painful, especially afterwards, but I don't know for certain, as I've never experienced it). So yeah, I link what is 'natural' to a personal set of moral and ethical values. I hope this makes my stance on things more clear.
...in other words, she is stating that she finds these things subjectively distasteful/"wrong" and therefore considers them to be "unnatural."
Why? It's a Objective theme? If so the factor of definition must come from Biology, which will squash any opinion of homosexuality being natural. Rules admit exceptions? Yes. So, can we see homosexual behavior in nature, be it human or from another animals? Yes. Still the base of an objective aspect when defining "Natural" is the heterosexual behavior.
By objective standards, it's a simple and direct line of thought, people that defend homosexual as natural use randomized nature examples, the exception of rules and misuse philosophical and social arguments.
There are obviously definitions of "natural" which belong to different contexts. Are you suggesting that heterosexuality is natural (and homosexuality unnatural) biologically simply because heterosexuality is present in a majority of cases and homosexuality is present in a minority of cases? If so, this is hardly a concise definition as it liberally uses the relativity of majority to minority. For example, are Chinese people natural while Brazilian people are not simply because there are currently more naturally occurring Chinese people than Brazilian People? And, moving onto the subject of behavior as this is the area of interest for your suggestion, are people that prefer bowties over regular ties or stories with sad endings over stories with happy endings biologically "unnatural" in your view? I'd say that this definition doesn't really work; as far as I know, according to biology which is the standard you suggested, any observable act in nature is "natural." Labeling all minority acts and desires as "unnatural" doesn't really fit this argument or, I believe, the definition most people are using when they say that homosexuality is unnatural...
Most people labeling homosexuality as unnatural (and specifically people doing so in this thread) seem to be working with an idea along the lines of: "two men/women don't 'fit' together sexually" or "homosexual sex does not produce offspring" or "it just seems/feels wrong." I think that a way of summing these ideas up would be to say:
"Things which are usually motivated by a biological imperative to protect oneself or one's species are 'unnatural' if done for a purpose apart from that biological imperative."
So, things such as having sex, which we are programmed to desire to do in order to allow the species to survive, become "unnatural" when reproduction is not the goal and become more noticeably unnatural when reproduction is not possible. Of course, I often find people applying these arguments without considering their parallels in heterosexual life or in other areas of activity. By the view that homosexual sex is unnatural because it does not produce offspring or because a particular orifice used in sexual activity does not naturally lubricate when the person is aroused one condemns not only homosexual relations but all sexual relations where reproduction is not the desired goal and all sexual relations outside of vaginal intercourse are likewise condemned to be labeled as "unnatural." Additionally, and I hate to repeat something I've already stated in this thread, but by this type of definition activities such as eating a sweet dessert, eating "naturally" being an activity for survival and the consumption of dessert being a pleasure not related to survival, are "unnatural" as well and should seem as "wrong" to those that adhere to such definitions as two people of the same gender having sex.
In other words, the above definition of what is natural and what isn't doesn't actually hold up as people seem to only believe it insofar as it pertains to homosexuality. And, just to preemptively refute the possibility of someone suggesting that the last paragraph is a strawman fallacy, a cursory search through this thread will reveal that beliefs have been stated that coincide with the above working definition that I created. If you don't see that as a definition or have realized that it's incorrect, great.
To the point, saying that homosexuality is objectively unnatural isn't really a defensible position and saying that it is natural is not solely accomplished by appealing to fringe cases in other animals.
‘’Kitteh_On_A_Cloud: Well, I still don't believe homosexuality is natural at all, but as long as such people don't shove their sexuality down my throat, I'm fine with it.’’
I personally dislike most of the people out there. They can be black, white, homosexual, heterosexual, stinky or clean.. it’s just doesn’t matter, that how it is. But as long as they respect the people around them, as long as they show some courtesy or as long as they stay out of the other peoples personal bubble, I ‘respect’ them. That being said, I don’t think that we should focus around that natural or not argument. Stinking is natural.. and gross. Sweating is natural.. and gross. Being dirty (the ‘not being clean’ way).. is also gross. So for you 2 men having sex is gross? Tell me more about that.. I still don’t see any ‘real’ issues here.
Most of us are still supporting by endorsing the ‘again’ position the humiliation, the persecution, the rape, the mutilation, the murder and the suicide of many men and women around the globe, many children and helpless person. Some people have to realize that this state of mind and stubborn attitude is cautioning each day most of the worse treatments that an human being can endure. So you thing that homosexuality is gross and disgusting and then ‘unnatural’? You own breath is gross and disgusting, I see no reason to hang a man here (and I know what I’m talking about, the breath of my brother is fuc**** unnatural).
Let me tell you what will happen in a near future, there will be no real discrimination again the homosexual or at least they will be well protected by the laws. They will have exactly the same rights that us and will be even more protected than the regular guy/citizen (pregnant women, crippled, minority.. you know what I’m talking about here). Do not forget that like ‘everyone else’, they are working men and women and they pay their tax, their money have exactly the same value that your and our government want it as bad as your. Our world is about money, we don’t even have to debate around what we consider to be the human rights of every single person on this planet, money will settle the argument soon enough.
But yeah, a lot of people are delaying this world of conscience, this world of relative peace. But wait for the best part, some don't even understand why their hands are dirty.. Darwin strike again if you ask me, but it would be impolite to say so and I dont want to be impolite today.
@Twilight_Fox: Well, don't worry about being impolite, as your language already long implies impoliteness. And now it even gets a threatening undertone to it. Homosexuals will probably get equal rights, yeah. Political correctness mostly demands it to be so. But don't start rubbing it in. Homosexuals are in NO way any more special than heterosexuals. I hate when homosexuals act that way. Being all arrogant and extravagant. It's what made me dislike such people in the first place. Yet I have encountered some great and kind homosexual people in my life. And it is only those people I respect. Not the ones who think that because they like dicks more than vagina's, they're somehow 'better' than others. Sorry, have had way too many bad experiences like that. My stance is simple: respect me and I will respect you.
My stance is simple: respect me and I will respect you.
While this certainly is a view I (and I should hope, most other people as well) can wholeheartedly endorse, other parts of your posts do seem to go a bit beyond that, as it regards homosexuality. Because of course, there are arrogant and overly extravagant homosexuals, and there are thus legitimate reasons to dislike them. But surely the problem there is that arrogance is a repugnant personality trait and (over-)extravagance is incredibly annoying (though perhaps not disrespectful in and of itself); the fact that they are also homosexual is entirely incidental. They would be deserving of just as little respect and as much dislike had they been entirely straight and swimming in poontang (or whatever the cool kids call it these days).
@jaysl659 Heterosexuality is natural because it provide a main function in nature, perpetuation of the specie. Simple as that. The uses that a human, being an inteligent being give to sex, that push it from it's main objective are, evidently, unnatural.
I had this talk many times here, forget the view you have of natural and unnatural, it's not something to be evaluated by society, moral or ethic, these standards falls in the normal abnormal discussion, where i strongly defend homosexuality as being normal in nowdays.
By a base definition, heterosexuality is natural, a way of provide a vital function for perpetuation of the specie, the different uses humans and some animals (as an exception of a rule) give to sex are evidenlty unnatural.
Pleasure in sex is natural (and happens both with hetero and homo sex), it's a resource nature used to stimulate live beings to reproduce, however sex for pleasure isn't natural, humans as inteligent beings with time understand that make sex is good but have so much childrens could give some problems (specially in the actual time we live) then we manage to produce ways to avoid reach the objective of making sex while we still partake in the pleasures it provides.
Heterosexual anal Sex ins't natural either, still many people like to do it.
Then i reach the point, homosexual sex isn't natural either, but it's not something wrong or diabolic as some people being stupid (with the pardon for the word) like to say, it's just humans (and some exceptions among the animal kingdom) taking side routes from nature objectives to reach pleasure and satisfaction.
Homosexuality is unnatural, but people that say homosexuality is bad cos it's unnatural should say also that drink soda is bad cos it's unnatural either. Just an very stupid example to detach what i mean here.
Many people misunderstand normal from natural, sometimes they doesn't even stop to think about the difference. If someone call your sexual option as unnatural one day, just assume it and say back "Yes it is, and if your opt for natual, then your life must be very boring (sex for reproduction only)"
I hope to clarify my mind to people open to see it here about my mind on this issue (natural x unnatural).
About normal x abnormal discussion, normal can be viewed by 2 points of view, morality for a acceptable social behavior among a community and ethic that work the idea of an social behavior but is also an individual behavior based into the individual beliefs.
(if my base definitions here are wrong and i switched the 2 institutes by mistake, i would appreciate any help in clarify the possible mistakes, i made a quickly research to remember my philosophy classes in law school).
Normally normal is the behavior acceptable inside a group, and a group can be a wide kind of definitions (an city, an country, a religious community, a group of workers inside a company...).
By country standards, today almost any civilized country already accept and respect homosexuality, this is the nowdays trend of history, of course inside these very civilized countries, some groups, other kinds of groups inside these countries, could be against this trend. Normally they're maked by old fashioned people, some religious based communities and others.
When someone from a group like that is faced by an very active pro-liberal place as this forum, it's natural that this person, from a more traditional culture, find difficult in accept some of the ideas presented here and the persons of this group to find that old fashioned person moralist, even prejudicer against them. I believe this is what's happening with @Kitteh_On_A_Cloud in this thread, but then, i can maybe just being very arrogant here.
Normal is the behavior acceptable on the current group you integrates, here and normally in big cities, homosexuality is normal, but inland and in some other places it can be taken as abnormal. Where i live (in real life) homosexuality is normal, then for me, it's normal, but what this is for me can be different for other persons based in how they where raised, educated and whit whom they lived among.
Sorry for the long text, if anyone even read this whole thing.
@kamuizin ah, then indeed the definition I stated before ("Things which are usually motivated by a biological imperative to protect oneself or one's species are 'unnatural' if done for a purpose apart from that biological imperative.") is the one you were using, or similar to it. I agree with everything in your last post, except perhaps that...
"About normal x abnormal discussion, normal can be viewed by 2 points of view, morality for a acceptable social behavior among a community and ethic that work the idea of an social behavior but is also an individual behavior based into the individual beliefs."
...simply because I believe that there are more than two types of normality/definitions of normality/perspectives on normality. In other words, I'm just stressing the importance of people understanding the definitions others are working with because there are so many actual (and personally defined) definitions of things such as "natural" and "normal."
Sodomie is definately the opposite of what natural law is in evolution progress that is pure reproduction. No one can tell me that getting it in the wrong hole just for the passion cannot be precieved as something unfaithful to almost any religion. So the term unnatural is appropriate imo.
So you have the religions that tell us sodomie is "wrong" and the natural law on the other side. Can anyone explain what justifys such a behaviour without bringing "lust" in the same sentence?
The estabslished Satanists are very to the point in that regard and at least honost that it doesnt matter what you do with your genitals.
And about the gays with faith... jesus is not like wallmart where you go in and pick out aspects of his legacy, get out and be happy! That he had not mentioned it is maybe because there were many other things to care about than sexuall lust. You also dont list everything that you should not put in a microwave!!!
You americans dont have orthodox christians right? I doubt you even know who they are...Russia is orthodox and there is not a single case of abuse in their rows that i recall...i think you should take them as a spirituall guide rather than the corrupt elite of the vatican church or the neo-movements that are wack.
There seems to be a lot of rehashing of arguments that were addressed in the first two pages of this thread, but, then again, I suppose it's all part of the process of dialogue.
I think @jaysl759 did a nice job of articulating the natural vs. unnatural argument regarding homosexuality in the first post on this page. I think transforming the issue into a logical syllogism might offer some clarity (and a welcome alternative to those who are put off by reading long posts):
P1: If something occurs in nature, then it is natural. P2: Homosexuality occurs in nature. C: Homosexuality is natural.
I'm still waiting to read a well-reasoned, non-religious explanation of the process by which same-sex sexuality transcends the natural world and enters into the realm of "unnatural acts."
Sodomie is definately the opposite of what natural law is in evolution progress that is pure reproduction.
I really wish people would read the contents of a thread before posting in it, although I know some of the posts have been long-winded. Anyway, if sodomy is "unnatural" because its motivation is not reproduction, than eating dessert is "unnatural" because its motivation is not survival. Where is the scale of difference between these two things that causes you to detest sodomy but not detest eating a sweet dessert?
No one can tell me that getting it in the wrong hole just for the passion cannot be precieved as something unfaithful to almost any religion. So the term unnatural is appropriate imo.
Something unfaithful to almost any religion? Maybe, definitely to the most popular ones. I don't subscribe to the ranks of any religion myself, so I don't get my ethics from a book written by a random assortment of guys that lived and died hundred of years ago who have just been elevated to the level of "divinely inspired" by the Catholic Church or some other institution.
So you have the religions that tell us sodomie is "wrong" and the natural law on the other side. Can anyone explain what justifys such a behaviour without bringing "lust" in the same sentence?
Without taking into account religious doctrine (because not everyone is religious), and disregarding your failed attempt at appealing to what is natural, (because you, like so many others, have created a definition which you only apply to homosexuality as I mentioned above), there is no need to justify the behavior.
The estabslished Satanists are very to the point in that regard and at least honost that it doesnt matter what you do with your genitals.
Not sure what your point is here except a ridiculous attempt to vilify homosexuals by comparing them to Satanists, a widely misunderstood group often associated with hateful thoughts by members of mainstream churches. If this wasn't your intention, then I'm not really sure why you brought them up. As for me, I don't see any reason why there's anything wrong with using your genitals as you see fit as long as you're not harming anyone else in the process. Nobody seems to care what people are doing with their ears or their elbows, why should the genitals be anyone else's business? Oh yeah, because God. Well, like I've said, not my cup of tea.
And about the gays with faith... jesus is not like wallmart where you go in and pick out aspects of his legacy, get out and be happy! That he had not mentioned it is maybe because there were many other things to care about than sexuall lust. You also dont list everything that you should not put in a microwave!!!
I love how so many religious people feel as if they have free ride to judge homosexuals with impunity. I mean, for some strange reason, these religious people decide that it's suddenly okay to ignore their own sins and any non-homosexual sin of their brethren that they can band together and persecute the oh-so-popular-to-persecute homosexual. I know the Christian Bible better than most Christians do, and I just love to see those signs with quotes regarding homosexuality from books of the bible that the sign-wielder has clearly never read; for, if he had, he'd know of the hundreds of other activities (in which he almost certainly engages) which are listed as forbidden and sinful in those very books. Yes, I'd say that it's pretty clear that homosexuality is a sin according to the Christian bible, but I have no idea where you and all the other Christians get off disregarding most every other sin and singling out homosexuality like you do. Most supposed Christians (and even actual Christians that legitimately believe) are living in some sort of sin or another.
You americans dont have orthodox christians right? I doubt you even know who they are...Russia is orthodox and there is not a single case of abuse in their rows that i recall...i think you should take them as a spirituall guide rather than the corrupt elite of the vatican church or the neo-movements that are wack.
Nice jab at Americans being too stupid to be aware of something... insulting an entire country of people isn't exactly an open-minded or mature way to introduce yourself into a discussion.
There is just so much wrong here, so I'll start with your implication that child molestation is motivated by homosexuality. That it is men which are attracted to other men who are molesting children in the church is completely wrong, and is similar to suggesting that a straight person is obviously sexually attracted to six year old girls. People that sexually abuse children do not do so because they are sexually attracted to men, or women, or any sort of adult for that matter, they do it because A) they are attracted to children, or their sexuality has been repressed for years by their religion and so, when they decide that they absolutely have to engage in some sort of sexual activity, they make a decision that the best way to keep the act hidden is to use their power to sexually abuse children who are not likely to talk. A homosexual man isn't attracted to little boys any more than a heterosexual man is attracted to little girls.
The Russian Orthodox Church has a presence in America in two Forms: The Orthodox Church of America (OCA) and the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (ROCOR). I believe that, combined, they have about 100,000 members in the U.S. It's probably obvious from my previous comments that I don't take any church as a guide for my life, but let's not be too hasty in setting the ROC up as the angel and the Catholic church the demon. I'm certainly no fan of the Catholic church, but it's not the only evil religious institution in the world.
As far as I know, you are right that there have been no reports of sexual abuse within the church. I could be wrong on this, but again, I don't know of any. However, a lack of reportings of abuse doesn't necessarily mean that there isn't any going on. I'm sure there are plenty of religious institutions where there is a presence of child abuse which has yet to be reported. this is not to say that there definitely is sexual abuse within the ROC, but it's not outside the realm of reasonable possibility.
However, there was a scandal of sorts within the ROC concerning physical abuse of children about two years ago. A monastery of the ROC was apparently forcing young children to work for long hours (I think 20 hours a day or something close to it) and was also beating them. Although this seems to be an isolated incident, if we're passing around blame to churches then the ROC deserves the same scrutiny as other institutions.
Apart from this, I'd say that the only real issue I have with the ROC is it's near-state-church attitude and status, including all its former ties with the state in general and possible ties with the KGB in particular.
Sodomie is definately the opposite of what natural law is in evolution progress that is pure reproduction.
@jaysl659 already did an excellent job flattening your arguments, but just two further questions: - if according to 'natural law in evolution progress' the function of sex is pure reproduction ([citation needed]), how do you explain, say, the Bonobo? Did they somehow escape the chilling grasp of evolution? - even if your claim were true, so what? Evolution isn't normative, it doesn't prescribe any moral laws. Besides, by that notion using advanced technology would be far more unnatural still. So any time spent being sodomized rather than posting to an internet message board is actually time spent closer to what nature and evolution 'intended'.
Also, using Russia as a spiritual guide for... anything? Seriously?
@FinneousPJ Is that question meant to be directed at me or at Morte50? Either way...
As for me, I listed some specific grievances with the ROC; I can't speak for @Morte50 but I assume that he has some specific grievances of his own, not necessarily about Russia in general but more likely about the religious institution as his comment mentioned spirituality. If he doesn't actually have anything specific against the institution, then I'd say the comment was a bit unnecessary and insulting.
However, I'm sure that with some research anyone could find several things that they found to be unsatisfactory about Russia including and beyond its religious institutions. If you're suggesting that there's nothing wrong with Russia, that's quite an extraordinary statement which I think would put the burden of supporting evidence on you. I'd say that there aren't any countries that, with enough research, wouldn't be found to have something wrong with them.
All that being said, this line of conversation is a sure thread derailer, so this post will be my last word on the subject here unless it is once again tied into the subject of the thread.
My 2 cents: lion's natural prey are ungulates, occasional lions who develop the habit of preying on humans do not display a natural behavior and are aberrations. The same about animal homosexuality, this is not their natural behavior.
My 2 cents: lion's natural prey are ungulates, occasional lions who develop the habit of preying on humans do not display a natural behavior and are aberrations. The same about animal homosexuality, this is not their natural behavior.
This is the argument that the behavior and desires displayed by the majority are natural while the behavior and desires displayed by the minority are unnatural. This is fine as a definition, but as your example suggests it isn't limited to sexuality. People that prefer spicy foods to non-spicy foods, people that prefer moonlight to sunshine, heterosexual men who are attracted to women of a certain physical "type" that is not currently the most popular "type" would all be labeled as having unnatural behavior and desires. Again, this is a fine definition until people use it to defend their distaste for homosexuals when they have no distaste for these other activities which are clearly unnatural by the same definition.
Yes, this could qualify as a naturalist's definition, which I personally find appropriate. Human behavior is very hard to be confined within such a simplistic definition, just because it changed faster than any other being on Earth during a short period of time. For example killing other human being could have been a natural behavior tens of thousands of years ago, while by today's standards it's clearly not, even if it can still be accepted by the society/community. But when the "natural" term is brought into discussion, this is the only reasonable definition I can think of. Basically "natural" is opposed to "minority" or "exception", or what is to be the expected behavior within the same species or race. As a side note, imagine the importance of this predictability in case of contact with an intelligent alien species. The less predictable one or both the sides are, the harder to establish a mutual advantageous cooperation and to avoid conflict.
dont know what to say to you because it makes no sense bringing any sense into something that has no functional design or purpose as it´s base. I mentioned satanists because they are "honest" about their dysfunctional spirit and that sodomie is ok to you than molesting childs is surely also ok. I see no difference in perversion just a level of where it becomes more destructive. I´m really sorry for you not getting it!
And I´m not faithfull, i never said that...I am true to what i am and dont twist any good into a perception i can live with just because the mass "must" accept me cuz i´m playing them....
If the definition of "natural" is just a viewpoint of every individiums interpretation...
Homosexuality is not a human right as is not cannibalism, murder etc.
dont know what to say to you because it makes no sense bringing any sense into something that has no functional design or purpose as it´s base. I mentioned satanists because they are "honest" about their dysfunctional spirit and that sodomie is ok to you than molesting childs is surely also ok. I see no difference in perversion just a level of where it becomes more destructive. It still is the same way of enjoying something that is not meant to be used so. I´m really sorry for you not getting it!
And I´m not faithfull, i never said that...I am true to what i am and dont twist any good into a perception i can live with just because the mass "must" accept me cuz i´m playing them....
Wow, this is one of the more extreme views I've come across; you think that because I condone non-procreation motivated sexual acts between consenting adults, that I automatically condone sexually assaulting children? That is absolutely ridiculous. Let me be clear once again about where the line is with sexual acts (and most areas, actually) in my opinion: if someone is being harmed (i.e. if they're not a willing participant or if they are incapable of choosing to be a willing participant such as a child) then it is not okay. To me, there is a huge difference between, for example, an adult woman receiving oral sex from her adult lover (both of whom are consenting), and an adult man sexually assaulting an unwilling and defenseless child. In my view it is insane to say that these things are on the same field of permissibility.
Additionally, you completely disregard the non-sexual parallels to your idea of perversion. If masturbation, oral sex, homosexuality, etc. are all perversions of natural acts to you and all perversions are equally detestable, then, I'll say once again, non-sexual minority preferences such as I've mentioned numerous times now (preferring spicy foods to non-spicy foods, an American that prefers playing rugby to playing American football, etc.) should all be as detestable to you as homosexuality and, apparently, child molestation.
Edit: Disregarding minority preferences as you seem to actually be stating a view along the lines of "Things which are usually motivated by a biological imperative to protect oneself or one's species are 'unnatural' if done for a purpose apart from that biological imperative," then at the very least you should find the "perversion" of eating for non-survival purposes to be equally as detestable as the "perversion" of sexual activities for non-reproduction purposes.
So, do you believe that the activity of eating a piece of cake after a meal to be as abhorrent as two members of the same gender having sex (or child molestation for that matter)? If not, can you appeal to some logical reason (not religious doctrine) as to why one deviation is a problem while the other is not?
Yes, this could qualify as a naturalist's definition, which I personally find appropriate. Human behavior is very hard to be confined within such a simplistic definition, just because it changed faster than any other being on Earth during a short period of time. For example killing other human being could have been a natural behavior tens of thousands of years ago, while by today's standards it's clearly not, even if it can still be accepted by the society/community. But when the "natural" term is brought into discussion, this is the only reasonable definition I can think of. Basically "natural" is opposed to "minority" or "exception", or what is to be the expected behavior within the same species or race. As a side note, imagine the importance of this predictability in case of contact with an intelligent alien species. The less predictable one or both the sides are, the harder to establish a mutual advantageous cooperation and to avoid conflict.
While as a definition that's fine, I think the problem with the word is the connotations that it has. Or rather, the connotation that the word 'unnatural' has. I would argue that 'unnatural' connotes some kind of wrongness, even if this isn't contained in the definition as such. Compare also the word 'normal' and its counterpart 'abnormal', which are similarly defined. And while it is certainly the case that homosexuality deviates from the norm in that most people are straight, calling homosexuality 'abnormal' could hardly be taken as an innocuous way of pointing out this fact.
Imagine that we were having a discussion about race in the US, and stated that African Americans are abnormal and unnatural. Presumably, few people would readily interpret that as me merely saying they are a minority in the US population. They'd probably still feel that way even if I defined what I mean by 'abnormal' and 'unnatural' in advance. If I merely wanted to refer to the relative size of the African-American population in the US, surely I could have chosen a more inherently neutral term.
Same applies in the present discussion. It is an ambiguous term and invariably needs further clarification anyway, and is liable to convey moral disapproval even if this isn't intended. Thus, if the goal is description it isn't a very helpful term; and if the goal is moral disapproval, there are far more appropriate adjectives as well, ones that don't lead to vaguely biological detours.
For those that do want a more neutral term to describe the same, as in '"natural" is opposed to "minority" or "exception"', I would propose 'exceptional'. After all, what better word to denote the status of being an exception of some kind! so say it with me: homosexuality is exceptional; homosexuals are exceptional; and sodomy of course, we cannot but conclude that sodomy is exceptional as well.
A variety of things, but in the present context we might turn our attention in particular to the rampant homophobia being codified as law. Spiritual guide, indeed. Even the Vatican is more tolerant.
But law is not spirituality. From what I've learned Russia is a very spiritual country, so I don't really understand your point. It seems you don't like their religion/state, but that's not the same thing.
Sodomie is definately the opposite of what natural law is in evolution progress that is pure reproduction. No one can tell me that getting it in the wrong hole just for the passion cannot be precieved as something unfaithful to almost any religion. So the term unnatural is appropriate imo.
So you have the religions that tell us sodomie is "wrong" and the natural law on the other side. Can anyone explain what justifys such a behaviour without bringing "lust" in the same sentence?
The estabslished Satanists are very to the point in that regard and at least honost that it doesnt matter what you do with your genitals.
And about the gays with faith... jesus is not like wallmart where you go in and pick out aspects of his legacy, get out and be happy! That he had not mentioned it is maybe because there were many other things to care about than sexuall lust. You also dont list everything that you should not put in a microwave!!!
You americans dont have orthodox christians right? I doubt you even know who they are...Russia is orthodox and there is not a single case of abuse in their rows that i recall...i think you should take them as a spirituall guide rather than the corrupt elite of the vatican church or the neo-movements that are wack.
I have to backup @jaysl659 in his arguments against these ideas Baba, no offense meant but you know that Catholic church is probally a champion in cases of pedophilia, do you?
For a religion that in no way accept divorce, a Papa renouncing it's position is something... troublesome to say this light.
While nature give examples and bioligic bases from where we can work, religion is made of an amount of rules, wrote, spoken over the ages and spread by other means that relate what "some people think their divinities think or want", it's even more serious than that in Christianity because ALL the data used to formulate the bible is gathered from testimony of the apostles.
So you see, we have some people that lived over 2000 years ago, inside another culture that answered to another moral code fitted to that time, with another concept of normal /abnormal behaviors that for example..."accept the idea of slavery", yes, slavery was something normal to Christianity in the dawn of it's creation (a small source).
Even more than that, it's said, and we're asked to believe it's true, that these people wrote something at 2000 years ago that some of the priests of our days adapted and explained by their ethic and moral codes. More than that, what is said is something the apostles state to be the idea of another person/divinity, aka "Jesus", and Christianity in fact has no access to ANY data from Jesus directly.
So from my point of view, with ALL DUE RESPECT, the Christian Bible is the most untrusted document wrote in the history of humanity.
In fact i don't know much about Ortodox Church, but Catholic church entered into a crisis recently when some historians announced the discovery of 2 old documents, one that was the probable testimony of Judas, and another that was very probally the testimony of Jesus itself, the later one near crumbled Catholic church as it's very foundations are on what they say that Jesus think or want.
So to end my idea here, try to define natural / unnatural based on what someone thousand years ago believed is to say the minimum... insane. Base normal / abnormal on what a group of persons that lived thousand years ago believed, where slavery was accepted as normal is at least a disturbing idea.
I'm posting this because I literally just saw it in my newsfeed and because of a few recent posts here. I've not read it yet myself but am just about to. However, the title seemed relevant to a few recent posts on this thread.
Comments
There are obviously definitions of "natural" which belong to different contexts. Are you suggesting that heterosexuality is natural (and homosexuality unnatural) biologically simply because heterosexuality is present in a majority of cases and homosexuality is present in a minority of cases? If so, this is hardly a concise definition as it liberally uses the relativity of majority to minority. For example, are Chinese people natural while Brazilian people are not simply because there are currently more naturally occurring Chinese people than Brazilian People? And, moving onto the subject of behavior as this is the area of interest for your suggestion, are people that prefer bowties over regular ties or stories with sad endings over stories with happy endings biologically "unnatural" in your view? I'd say that this definition doesn't really work; as far as I know, according to biology which is the standard you suggested, any observable act in nature is "natural." Labeling all minority acts and desires as "unnatural" doesn't really fit this argument or, I believe, the definition most people are using when they say that homosexuality is unnatural...
Most people labeling homosexuality as unnatural (and specifically people doing so in this thread) seem to be working with an idea along the lines of: "two men/women don't 'fit' together sexually" or "homosexual sex does not produce offspring" or "it just seems/feels wrong." I think that a way of summing these ideas up would be to say:
"Things which are usually motivated by a biological imperative to protect oneself or one's species are 'unnatural' if done for a purpose apart from that biological imperative."
So, things such as having sex, which we are programmed to desire to do in order to allow the species to survive, become "unnatural" when reproduction is not the goal and become more noticeably unnatural when reproduction is not possible. Of course, I often find people applying these arguments without considering their parallels in heterosexual life or in other areas of activity. By the view that homosexual sex is unnatural because it does not produce offspring or because a particular orifice used in sexual activity does not naturally lubricate when the person is aroused one condemns not only homosexual relations but all sexual relations where reproduction is not the desired goal and all sexual relations outside of vaginal intercourse are likewise condemned to be labeled as "unnatural." Additionally, and I hate to repeat something I've already stated in this thread, but by this type of definition activities such as eating a sweet dessert, eating "naturally" being an activity for survival and the consumption of dessert being a pleasure not related to survival, are "unnatural" as well and should seem as "wrong" to those that adhere to such definitions as two people of the same gender having sex.
In other words, the above definition of what is natural and what isn't doesn't actually hold up as people seem to only believe it insofar as it pertains to homosexuality. And, just to preemptively refute the possibility of someone suggesting that the last paragraph is a strawman fallacy, a cursory search through this thread will reveal that beliefs have been stated that coincide with the above working definition that I created. If you don't see that as a definition or have realized that it's incorrect, great.
To the point, saying that homosexuality is objectively unnatural isn't really a defensible position and saying that it is natural is not solely accomplished by appealing to fringe cases in other animals.
‘’Kitteh_On_A_Cloud: Well, I still don't believe homosexuality is natural at all, but as long as such people don't shove their sexuality down my throat, I'm fine with it.’’
I personally dislike most of the people out there. They can be black, white, homosexual, heterosexual, stinky or clean.. it’s just doesn’t matter, that how it is. But as long as they respect the people around them, as long as they show some courtesy or as long as they stay out of the other peoples personal bubble, I ‘respect’ them. That being said, I don’t think that we should focus around that natural or not argument. Stinking is natural.. and gross. Sweating is natural.. and gross. Being dirty (the ‘not being clean’ way).. is also gross. So for you 2 men having sex is gross? Tell me more about that.. I still don’t see any ‘real’ issues here.
Most of us are still supporting by endorsing the ‘again’ position the humiliation, the persecution, the rape, the mutilation, the murder and the suicide of many men and women around the globe, many children and helpless person. Some people have to realize that this state of mind and stubborn attitude is cautioning each day most of the worse treatments that an human being can endure. So you thing that homosexuality is gross and disgusting and then ‘unnatural’? You own breath is gross and disgusting, I see no reason to hang a man here (and I know what I’m talking about, the breath of my brother is fuc**** unnatural).
Let me tell you what will happen in a near future, there will be no real discrimination again the homosexual or at least they will be well protected by the laws. They will have exactly the same rights that us and will be even more protected than the regular guy/citizen (pregnant women, crippled, minority.. you know what I’m talking about here). Do not forget that like ‘everyone else’, they are working men and women and they pay their tax, their money have exactly the same value that your and our government want it as bad as your. Our world is about money, we don’t even have to debate around what we consider to be the human rights of every single person on this planet, money will settle the argument soon enough.
But yeah, a lot of people are delaying this world of conscience, this world of relative peace. But wait for the best part, some don't even understand why their hands are dirty.. Darwin strike again if you ask me, but it would be impolite to say so and I dont want to be impolite today.
I had this talk many times here, forget the view you have of natural and unnatural, it's not something to be evaluated by society, moral or ethic, these standards falls in the normal abnormal discussion, where i strongly defend homosexuality as being normal in nowdays.
By a base definition, heterosexuality is natural, a way of provide a vital function for perpetuation of the specie, the different uses humans and some animals (as an exception of a rule) give to sex are evidenlty unnatural.
Pleasure in sex is natural (and happens both with hetero and homo sex), it's a resource nature used to stimulate live beings to reproduce, however sex for pleasure isn't natural, humans as inteligent beings with time understand that make sex is good but have so much childrens could give some problems (specially in the actual time we live) then we manage to produce ways to avoid reach the objective of making sex while we still partake in the pleasures it provides.
Heterosexual anal Sex ins't natural either, still many people like to do it.
Then i reach the point, homosexual sex isn't natural either, but it's not something wrong or diabolic as some people being stupid (with the pardon for the word) like to say, it's just humans (and some exceptions among the animal kingdom) taking side routes from nature objectives to reach pleasure and satisfaction.
Homosexuality is unnatural, but people that say homosexuality is bad cos it's unnatural should say also that drink soda is bad cos it's unnatural either. Just an very stupid example to detach what i mean here.
Many people misunderstand normal from natural, sometimes they doesn't even stop to think about the difference. If someone call your sexual option as unnatural one day, just assume it and say back "Yes it is, and if your opt for natual, then your life must be very boring (sex for reproduction only)"
I hope to clarify my mind to people open to see it here about my mind on this issue (natural x unnatural).
About normal x abnormal discussion, normal can be viewed by 2 points of view, morality for a acceptable social behavior among a community and ethic that work the idea of an social behavior but is also an individual behavior based into the individual beliefs.
(if my base definitions here are wrong and i switched the 2 institutes by mistake, i would appreciate any help in clarify the possible mistakes, i made a quickly research to remember my philosophy classes in law school).
Normally normal is the behavior acceptable inside a group, and a group can be a wide kind of definitions (an city, an country, a religious community, a group of workers inside a company...).
By country standards, today almost any civilized country already accept and respect homosexuality, this is the nowdays trend of history, of course inside these very civilized countries, some groups, other kinds of groups inside these countries, could be against this trend. Normally they're maked by old fashioned people, some religious based communities and others.
When someone from a group like that is faced by an very active pro-liberal place as this forum, it's natural that this person, from a more traditional culture, find difficult in accept some of the ideas presented here and the persons of this group to find that old fashioned person moralist, even prejudicer against them. I believe this is what's happening with @Kitteh_On_A_Cloud in this thread, but then, i can maybe just being very arrogant here.
Normal is the behavior acceptable on the current group you integrates, here and normally in big cities, homosexuality is normal, but inland and in some other places it can be taken as abnormal. Where i live (in real life) homosexuality is normal, then for me, it's normal, but what this is for me can be different for other persons based in how they where raised, educated and whit whom they lived among.
Sorry for the long text, if anyone even read this whole thing.
"About normal x abnormal discussion, normal can be viewed by 2 points of view, morality for a acceptable social behavior among a community and ethic that work the idea of an social behavior but is also an individual behavior based into the individual beliefs."
...simply because I believe that there are more than two types of normality/definitions of normality/perspectives on normality. In other words, I'm just stressing the importance of people understanding the definitions others are working with because there are so many actual (and personally defined) definitions of things such as "natural" and "normal."
No one can tell me that getting it in the wrong hole just for the passion cannot be precieved as something unfaithful to almost any religion. So the term unnatural is appropriate imo.
So you have the religions that tell us sodomie is "wrong" and the natural law on the other side.
Can anyone explain what justifys such a behaviour without bringing "lust" in the same sentence?
The estabslished Satanists are very to the point in that regard and at least honost that it doesnt matter what you do with your genitals.
And about the gays with faith... jesus is not like wallmart where you go in and pick out aspects of his legacy, get out and be happy! That he had not mentioned it is maybe because there were many other things to care about than sexuall lust. You also dont list everything that you should not put in a microwave!!!
You americans dont have orthodox christians right? I doubt you even know who they are...Russia is orthodox and there is not a single case of abuse in their rows that i recall...i think you should take them as a spirituall guide rather than the corrupt elite of the vatican church or the neo-movements that are wack.
I think @jaysl759 did a nice job of articulating the natural vs. unnatural argument regarding homosexuality in the first post on this page. I think transforming the issue into a logical syllogism might offer some clarity (and a welcome alternative to those who are put off by reading long posts):
P1: If something occurs in nature, then it is natural.
P2: Homosexuality occurs in nature.
C: Homosexuality is natural.
I'm still waiting to read a well-reasoned, non-religious explanation of the process by which same-sex sexuality transcends the natural world and enters into the realm of "unnatural acts."
There is just so much wrong here, so I'll start with your implication that child molestation is motivated by homosexuality. That it is men which are attracted to other men who are molesting children in the church is completely wrong, and is similar to suggesting that a straight person is obviously sexually attracted to six year old girls. People that sexually abuse children do not do so because they are sexually attracted to men, or women, or any sort of adult for that matter, they do it because A) they are attracted to children, or
The Russian Orthodox Church has a presence in America in two Forms: The Orthodox Church of America (OCA) and the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (ROCOR). I believe that, combined, they have about 100,000 members in the U.S. It's probably obvious from my previous comments that I don't take any church as a guide for my life, but let's not be too hasty in setting the ROC up as the angel and the Catholic church the demon. I'm certainly no fan of the Catholic church, but it's not the only evil religious institution in the world.
As far as I know, you are right that there have been no reports of sexual abuse within the church. I could be wrong on this, but again, I don't know of any. However, a lack of reportings of abuse doesn't necessarily mean that there isn't any going on. I'm sure there are plenty of religious institutions where there is a presence of child abuse which has yet to be reported. this is not to say that there definitely is sexual abuse within the ROC, but it's not outside the realm of reasonable possibility.
However, there was a scandal of sorts within the ROC concerning physical abuse of children about two years ago. A monastery of the ROC was apparently forcing young children to work for long hours (I think 20 hours a day or something close to it) and was also beating them. Although this seems to be an isolated incident, if we're passing around blame to churches then the ROC deserves the same scrutiny as other institutions.
Apart from this, I'd say that the only real issue I have with the ROC is it's near-state-church attitude and status, including all its former ties with the state in general and possible ties with the KGB in particular.
- if according to 'natural law in evolution progress' the function of sex is pure reproduction ([citation needed]), how do you explain, say, the Bonobo? Did they somehow escape the chilling grasp of evolution?
- even if your claim were true, so what? Evolution isn't normative, it doesn't prescribe any moral laws. Besides, by that notion using advanced technology would be far more unnatural still. So any time spent being sodomized rather than posting to an internet message board is actually time spent closer to what nature and evolution 'intended'.
Also, using Russia as a spiritual guide for... anything? Seriously?
As for me, I listed some specific grievances with the ROC; I can't speak for @Morte50 but I assume that he has some specific grievances of his own, not necessarily about Russia in general but more likely about the religious institution as his comment mentioned spirituality. If he doesn't actually have anything specific against the institution, then I'd say the comment was a bit unnecessary and insulting.
However, I'm sure that with some research anyone could find several things that they found to be unsatisfactory about Russia including and beyond its religious institutions. If you're suggesting that there's nothing wrong with Russia, that's quite an extraordinary statement which I think would put the burden of supporting evidence on you. I'd say that there aren't any countries that, with enough research, wouldn't be found to have something wrong with them.
All that being said, this line of conversation is a sure thread derailer, so this post will be my last word on the subject here unless it is once again tied into the subject of the thread.
And I´m not faithfull, i never said that...I am true to what i am and dont twist any good into a perception i can live with just because the mass "must" accept me cuz i´m playing them....
If the definition of "natural" is just a viewpoint of every individiums interpretation...
Homosexuality is not a human right as is not cannibalism, murder etc.
Additionally, you completely disregard the non-sexual parallels to your idea of perversion. If masturbation, oral sex, homosexuality, etc. are all perversions of natural acts to you and all perversions are equally detestable, then, I'll say once again, non-sexual minority preferences such as I've mentioned numerous times now (preferring spicy foods to non-spicy foods, an American that prefers playing rugby to playing American football, etc.) should all be as detestable to you as homosexuality and, apparently, child molestation.
Edit: Disregarding minority preferences as you seem to actually be stating a view along the lines of "Things which are usually motivated by a biological imperative to protect oneself or one's species are 'unnatural' if done for a purpose apart from that biological imperative," then at the very least you should find the "perversion" of eating for non-survival purposes to be equally as detestable as the "perversion" of sexual activities for non-reproduction purposes.
So, do you believe that the activity of eating a piece of cake after a meal to be as abhorrent as two members of the same gender having sex (or child molestation for that matter)? If not, can you appeal to some logical reason (not religious doctrine) as to why one deviation is a problem while the other is not?
Imagine that we were having a discussion about race in the US, and stated that African Americans are abnormal and unnatural. Presumably, few people would readily interpret that as me merely saying they are a minority in the US population. They'd probably still feel that way even if I defined what I mean by 'abnormal' and 'unnatural' in advance. If I merely wanted to refer to the relative size of the African-American population in the US, surely I could have chosen a more inherently neutral term.
Same applies in the present discussion. It is an ambiguous term and invariably needs further clarification anyway, and is liable to convey moral disapproval even if this isn't intended. Thus, if the goal is description it isn't a very helpful term; and if the goal is moral disapproval, there are far more appropriate adjectives as well, ones that don't lead to vaguely biological detours.
For those that do want a more neutral term to describe the same, as in '"natural" is opposed to "minority" or "exception"', I would propose 'exceptional'. After all, what better word to denote the status of being an exception of some kind! so say it with me: homosexuality is exceptional; homosexuals are exceptional; and sodomy of course, we cannot but conclude that sodomy is exceptional as well.
For a religion that in no way accept divorce, a Papa renouncing it's position is something... troublesome to say this light.
While nature give examples and bioligic bases from where we can work, religion is made of an amount of rules, wrote, spoken over the ages and spread by other means that relate what "some people think their divinities think or want", it's even more serious than that in Christianity because ALL the data used to formulate the bible is gathered from testimony of the apostles.
So you see, we have some people that lived over 2000 years ago, inside another culture that answered to another moral code fitted to that time, with another concept of normal /abnormal behaviors that for example..."accept the idea of slavery", yes, slavery was something normal to Christianity in the dawn of it's creation (a small source).
Even more than that, it's said, and we're asked to believe it's true, that these people wrote something at 2000 years ago that some of the priests of our days adapted and explained by their ethic and moral codes. More than that, what is said is something the apostles state to be the idea of another person/divinity, aka "Jesus", and Christianity in fact has no access to ANY data from Jesus directly.
So from my point of view, with ALL DUE RESPECT, the Christian Bible is the most untrusted document wrote in the history of humanity.
In fact i don't know much about Ortodox Church, but Catholic church entered into a crisis recently when some historians announced the discovery of 2 old documents, one that was the probable testimony of Judas, and another that was very probally the testimony of Jesus itself, the later one near crumbled Catholic church as it's very foundations are on what they say that Jesus think or want.
So to end my idea here, try to define natural / unnatural based on what someone thousand years ago believed is to say the minimum... insane. Base normal / abnormal on what a group of persons that lived thousand years ago believed, where slavery was accepted as normal is at least a disturbing idea.
(Also, I love Stephen Fry
Stephen Fry warns David Cameron: Putin is making scapegoats of gay people, just as Hitler did Jews