"But it's not natural!"

[Frostbyte666]

Unfortunately when a person openly questions statements about homosexuality being wrong they get shouted down and labeled as homophobes and their is no intelligent discourse there all because the pro side just hurl abuse against the con side. I am aware that the opposite is also true but the debate seems to force extremes rather than compromise. I may get flak but my view is I have no problem with homosexuals if that's the way you swing fine BUT I disagree with same-sex marriage and adoption. The marriage because it is a religious ceremony and to allow a same-sex marriage in a church is a kick in the teeth to said religion. On the matter of children I'd say raising them in a same-sex relationship is not conducive to a childs mental health, but this is more opinion than fact I admit. Finally I'm going to bring up a new area for this topic CLONING: right or wrong? My view whole people, wrong, body parts and organs, right.

 

[Hiikuro]

The very basic concept of 'nature'

"You're a vegetarian, we are an omnivorous species, so not eating meat makes being a vegetarian unnatural"

Things that seem to contradict very basic human biological characteristics, i.e. homosexuality, pedophilia etc.

This is before we even get into culutural norms, community behaviour, traditonal value vs new thinking etc. It's all very daunting and far beyond my intellect to analyse.

Another definition of nature is absolutely every physical law and process that exists in this universe. Doesn't this automatically cover everything as natural?

It doesn't contradict basic human biology, it contradicts common/ordinary/normal biological characteristics. Those characteristics are just divergent, potentially experiments by "nature" to test new ideas. What "not natural" really then proclaims is "failed experiments by nature". However, the argument "not natural" then passes on a judgment on what is "failed experiments" by starting from some base assumption like, for example, that nature's goal is to pass on genes and reproduce. But then they again have done something to define nature.

This all boils down to finding an accurate definition of nature. But even then, it is nothing but a neutral definition: An association between a series of letters with what it is supposed to describe. Ah, this strangely reminds me of Plato's dialogue Meno.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

The very basic concept of 'nature'

"You're a vegetarian, we are an omnivorous species, so not eating meat makes being a vegetarian unnatural"

Things that seem to contradict very basic human biological characteristics, i.e. homosexuality, pedophilia etc.

This is before we even get into culutural norms, community behaviour, traditonal value vs new thinking etc. It's all very daunting and far beyond my intellect to analyse.

Another definition of nature is absolutely every physical law and process that exists in this universe. Doesn't this automatically cover everything as natural?

It doesn't contradict basic human biology, it contradicts common/ordinary/normal biological characteristics. Those characteristics are just divergent, potentially experiments by "nature" to test new ideas. What "not natural" really then proclaims is "failed experiments by nature". However, the argument "not natural" then passes on a judgment on what is "failed experiments" by starting from some base assumption like, for example, that nature's goal is to pass on genes and reproduce. But then they again have done something to define nature.

This all boils down to finding an accurate definition of nature. But even then, it is nothing but a neutral definition: An association between a series of letters with what it is supposed to describe. Ah, this strangely reminds me of Plato's dialogue Meno.

Exactly, you put it a lot better than I ever could.

 

[Nova Helix]

Unnatural would be replacing organs with mechanical parts, which while is something science is working rather hard on, hasn't really worked. Though if you ask me a mechanical heart is a simple machine to build. Battery(We can recharge this wirelessly) --> Controller board --> Electric motor --> impeller --> impeller --> done. The victim may not have a pulse anymore but bloodflow will still be present.

Also, any type of surgery would group into your point, not just heart surgery. The human body is designed to repair itself when necessary. We weren't supposed to go rooting around in there repairing it ourselves.

We already have artificial joints. I know any surgery would work but something extreme like heart or brain surgery work better to prove the point.

 

[Logic 0]

Something only defy's nature when it shoots lasers and enters other dimensions.

 

[Telemachus]

well, what about things like hardcore drugs that don't occur naturally in the world? cause weed and shrooms (i believe) are natural drugs. as well as alcohol and tabacco. so what about herion and meth and what not. I realized they use Opium is a plant and used in such drugs. any thoughts?

 

[Daystar Clarion]

Something only defy's nature when it shoots lasers and enters other dimensions.

I can imagine the personification of Mother Nature when that event happens...

"What! Lasers! What the hell do you humans think you're doing!

"Err, nothing, we're just gonna go into this portal over here, for no reason..."

"What portal!? What the fuck are you guys doing!"

 

[nekoali]

Usually when people say 'defy nature' what they are really meaning is 'defy god'. And what they really mean by 'defy god' is 'do things in a way that I don't like or was raised to believe are bad, but I can't offer any reasonable argument against it, so I'm falling back on dogma.' It just sounds more mature that 'nyaa nyaaa I'm right and your wrong so there'.

In nearly every, if not every species of animal homosexuality exists. There are some species like the Bonobo monkeys which are entirely bisexual. But then religious conservative nutjobs would think everything that the bonobo do is sinful, so... But still, this shows that by any definition homosexuality is both natural and not a learned behavior. There are no gay monkey bathhouses luring unsuspecting straight chimps in to a life of sin. No prides of lesbian lionesses thumbing their paws at the male lions and refusing to hunt for them.

In some species at least homosexual couples do form intimate and lifelong partnerships and act as surrogate parents for orphaned children of their pack. Or even just unwanted children. And they don't 'raise them to be gay' either.

Defying nature is just one more bad, unfounded argument for people who want to hate what is a perfectly normal thing.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

Usually when people say 'defy nature' what they are really meaning is 'defy god'. And what they really mean by 'defy god' is 'do things in a way that I don't like or was raised to believe are bad, but I can't offer any reasonable argument against it, so I'm falling back on dogma.' It just sounds more mature that 'nyaa nyaaa I'm right and your wrong so there'.

In nearly every, if not every species of animal homosexuality exists. There are some species like the Bonobo monkeys which are entirely bisexual. But then religious conservative nutjobs would think everything that the bonobo do is sinful, so... But still, this shows that by any definition homosexuality is both natural and not a learned behavior. There are no gay monkey bathhouses luring unsuspecting straight chimps in to a life of sin. No prides of lesbian lionesses thumbing their paws at the male lions and refusing to hunt for them.

In some species at least homosexual couples do form intimate and lifelong partnerships and act as surrogate parents for orphaned children of their pack. Or even just unwanted children. And they don't 'raise them to be gay' either.

Defying nature is just one more bad, unfounded argument for people who want to hate what is a perfectly normal thing.

I also agree with this. And I will now wait for a FOX news report on homosexual monkey bath houses, and how a generation of young monkeys are now corrupt.

 

[Arsen]

I think you're missing the point entirely.

When people say "it's not natural" they are truthfully saying "no one is meant to have sexual desires, loving desires, and feelings for their same gender which are meant to be for the opposite sex". It's like trying to nullify someone else's argument just because they say "scientific theory" instead of "theory".

And just because animals can and have performed homosexual behavior doesn't necessarily mean it automatically becomes a "people can't help it" argument that serves as instant proof that any Chrisian relevance to the topic is illogical. Whether or not you can or can't help it isn't the matter to be honest. It depends mainly upon what you do with the behavior itself that ultimately is a determining factor.

But at the same time, homosexuals aren't evil...just as Christians who have the belief that the behavior is immoral, aren't evil in the same light. Just two opposing views. One with a traditional aspect behind it and one with a more modern approach to it.

I respect both to be honest. And anyone who claims that "this view" is evil (in whatever it may be) needs to do some soul searching and try to see things from the opposite standpoint.

 

[Mintycabbage]

Nobody has done this so far, but make sure not to get 'But it's not natural' confused with the Roman Catholic belief of natural law. It is the belief that God made nature and nature has laws, hence humanity should follow these laws. For example,in Nature male have sex with females to produce offspring; hence men should have sex with women to produce offspring. To have sex without a chance of offspring is naturally wrong, so condoms and homosexuality is wrong. I don't believe in this personally, I just wanted to make sure nobody gets confused.
EDIT Spelling

 

[Kadamon]

Well, there's the idea that these unnatural things are only used in times of great stress and tribulation for humanity. But then there's the idea that some of these things form after we beat those times of stress.

If you believe that during stress we are what we really should be, then you believe it to be unnatural. But if you believe that during times of rest we contort from what we're supposed to be. Then what is it? Do you believe we break during pressure, or gorge during times of rest?

 

[rockyoumonkeys]

Not really reading the whole topic. TC's right, "nature" is no longer a valid argument about the behavior of humans.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

Nobody has done this so far, but make sure not to get 'But it's not natural' confused with the Roman Catholic belief of natural law. It is the belief that God made nature and nature has laws, hence humanity should follow these laws. For example,in Nature male have sex with females to produce offspring; hence men should have sex with women to produce offspring. To have sex without a chance of offspring is naturally wrong, so condoms and homosexuality is wrong. I don't believe in this personally, I just wanted to make sure nobody gets confused.
EDIT Spelling

A very valid point, and the basis of a lot of religious arguments. There are still non-religious people who think homosexuality is 'not natural'. But, yes, your point still stands.

 

[ilspooner]

Agreed. I hate that arguement its not natural.

 

[Bags159]

McDonalds is unnatural. Just mention that.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

What is your opinion on the topic of 'defying nature'?

Ohh, I like you
Personally, I say defy nature as much as possible.
Which would be along the lines of what you said :3

That was really creepy for a second ^_^;