27 Nov 06
Originally posted by whodeyAs I am not a biologist or anthropologist I couldn't answer. I was simply suggesting that it is clearly not the end of species or a society as it has been around for a long long time.
You did not answer my question nor did anyone else for that matter. What role does homosexuality play in a Darwinian sense either in terms of human or animal reproduction? You said it plays the same role it has for thousands of years. What does that mean?
27 Nov 06
2 edits
Originally posted by Conrau KThis whole discussion about whether or not homosexuality is a natural
It has been shown that there is correlation between reduced levels of seratonin and expressions of violence, and a genetic antecedent is responsible for this reduction, does that make violence morally right? Obviously it isn't a choice either.
thing, a genetic occurance, came about as aho mentioned that he thinks
anything unnatural is wrong, and since he thought homosexuality was
unnatural homosexuality is wrong.
I wish people would actually read the thread before posting. This is
becoming yet another repeat your arguments ad nauseum thread. It has
already been established that homosexuality is natural, that it's not bad
in the sense that no one is harmed, and the only argument left is that of
the religious folks who'd like to add morality to the pot, and I think I've
shown quite well how morality (not homosexuality) can be bad in this
case. 😏
Why won't anyone pick me up on that one? I feel so left out. 😞
Addition: My apologies to ahosyney, but I found your handle to
hard to spell so I went with aho, not realising what that abbreviation
could imply. From now on, I'll write ahosy. Or, now that I've actually
learned to spell it, I'll write it. 🙂
27 Nov 06
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioThat reminds me of an exchange a stand up comedian mentioned about on the TV the other day.
What does natural mean but 'found in nature?'
Is working in a cubical in a skyscraper 'natural?' Is wearing clothing 'natural?' Is money 'natural?'
Nemesio
Two homosexuals were kissing on a passenger jet. Someone else in disgust says to them, "You shouldn't do that, it isn't natural."
One of the homosexuals reply, "You're flying."
27 Nov 06
1 edit
Originally posted by stockenOnce again. It has not been established that homosexuality
...It has already been established that homosexuality is natural, ...
is in accordance with nature.
You've only pointed out unnatural examples in other species.
What makes a certain act "natural" has everything to do with whether it
in fact involves using a capacity in a way consistent with its natural
function or purpose, and nothing necessarily to do with whether or not
someone has, for whatever reason, a strong desire to use it in some
other way.
"Homosexuality is not 'normal.' On the contrary it is a challenge to the norm."
-lesbian activist Camille Paglia
27 Nov 06
Originally posted by xsNatural is what we, as humans, perceive to be natural. It doesn't really exist except in our heads.
Once again. It has [b]not been established that homosexuality
is in accordance with nature.
You've only pointed out unnatural examples in other species.
What makes a certain act "natural" has everything to do with whether it in fact involves using a capacity in a way consistent with its natural function or purpose, and nothing necessarily to do with whe ...[text shortened]... l.' On the contrary it is a challenge to the norm."[/i]
-lesbian activist Camille Paglia[/b]
For example, the argument that flying isn't natural. We have developed technology to have that ability.
When early humans invented tools to hunt, e.g. breaking bits of rock to obtain sharp edges, that is an advance of technology. It is what we would call a natural progression of things. At what point does advance of technology become "not natural"?
As for Camille Paglia's comment, I believe she is wrong. There isn't any "norm" to challenge.
27 Nov 06
Originally posted by xsWhat?!? Homosexuality occurs in nature. Therefore it is a natural occurance.
Once again. It has [b]not been established that homosexuality
is in accordance with nature.
You've only pointed out unnatural examples in other species.
What makes a certain act "natural" has everything to do with whether it
in fact involves using a capacity in a way consistent with its natural
function or purpose, and nothing necessarily to do with ...[text shortened]... l.' On the contrary it is a challenge to the norm."[/i]
-lesbian activist Camille Paglia[/b]
27 Nov 06
Originally posted by xsIt is the natural function of the libido to seek pleasure in sexual fulfilment, the psychology of a homosexual is identical to that of a heterosexual in this context. The aspect of what this particular fulfillment is is a question of aesthetical judgements the making of which is a natural function of the human mind. The nature of companionship between people of same sex can run deep, even between heterosexuals and humans can not live without it. The desire to use ones libido, aesthetical judgments and need for companionship together is one which we all do everyday. Who's to say that those of us who wish to find a person of the same sex as the object of our desires are not natural?
What makes a certain act "natural" has everything to do with whether it in fact involves using a capacity in a way consistent with its natural function or purpose, and nothing necessarily to do with whether or not someone has, for whatever reason, a strong desire to use it in some other way.
What sort of 'natural' do you mean? Biological? Moral? Legal? None of those are definable as natural by any means other than the accepted continuance of human agreement.
27 Nov 06
Originally posted by StarrmanYour finesse in informing the populace with such profundity is admirable. 😉
It is the natural function of the libido to seek pleasure in sexual fulfilment, the psychology of a homosexual is identical to that of a heterosexual in this context. The aspect of what this particular fulfillment is is a question of aesthetical judgements the making of which is a natural function of the human mind. The nature of companionship between peo ...[text shortened]... are definable as natural by any means other than the accepted continuance of human agreement.
27 Nov 06
Originally posted by xsThe definition of natural that you find in the dictionary (as rwingett points out) is just anything you can find in nature. Therefore homosexuality is quite natural and as such it is your bias on the definition which accounts to you yet proving your point.
Of course you are all free to make up your own definition
of natural. Mine, taken from a dictionary, is part of the
above post.
You've fallen back on sematics.
And have yet to prove anything.
27 Nov 06
Originally posted by StarrmanHow did people decide on what was natural or not before dictionaries?
The definition of natural that you find in the dictionary (as rwingett points out) is just anything you can find in nature. Therefore homosexuality is quite natural and as such it is your bias on the definition which accounts to you yet proving your point.