Homosexuality Is Unnatural
- Thread starter Snowy Rainbow
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I think you'll feel anything you didn't grew up with as 'unnatural'
I grew up in a small town 95%+ white people
that was the fist at least 12 years of my life. Rarely any minorities. Very little clear homosexuality. So from what I grew up I always feel a lingering unease about minorities be it racial or sexual. My small town grown intinct says me there is something off and strange about them.
HOWEVER, I consider it a distinct human trait that I can rationally choose to ignore those gut feelings, think about it and say: 'no, these people are absolutely normal, your just not very used to it.' And proceed to treat these people as I would treat anybody else.
You can't help your most basic emotions, so don't blame older people (that grew up in a world where minorities where new) for not understanding and trying to ward off the foreign invaders to their world. But you most certainly don't have to live by these emotions. You can choose to ignore them and come to an opinion about the world around you based on reasoning
I grew up in a small town 95%+ white people
that was the fist at least 12 years of my life. Rarely any minorities. Very little clear homosexuality. So from what I grew up I always feel a lingering unease about minorities be it racial or sexual. My small town grown intinct says me there is something off and strange about them.
HOWEVER, I consider it a distinct human trait that I can rationally choose to ignore those gut feelings, think about it and say: 'no, these people are absolutely normal, your just not very used to it.' And proceed to treat these people as I would treat anybody else.
You can't help your most basic emotions, so don't blame older people (that grew up in a world where minorities where new) for not understanding and trying to ward off the foreign invaders to their world. But you most certainly don't have to live by these emotions. You can choose to ignore them and come to an opinion about the world around you based on reasoning
I fully agree with your words, but that last sentence can be tricky. It's a strawman in way, but one could argue that our morality (that homosexuality is A-Okay) is part of nature as it is who we are and how we feel. So, in some ways, nature is a good source of morality. It just depends who you ask XPWuggy said:
Sorry. I just felt like that should be pointed out.
Thanks for sharing. Pretty awesome that you can recognize that in yourself and choose to ignore it.Rblade said:
Shows character.
A few species are -- aside from humans. Numerous studies have shown, for example, a few different types of ape to be self aware, as well as some dolphins to name just two.Jonabob87 said:
Oh and there is a difference between sentience and self-awareness. Most every developed country recognizes most animals as we know them to be sentient life.
One of my freinds told me that homosexuality is the product of lack of survival... He went on to explain that because it doesn't take that much to survive these days since free health care is in a lot of countries and we are no longer killing dinosaures for dinner it has become very easy to survive and life is more comfortable. With life being more comfortable people have gotten bored and started to experiment with each other and homosexuality is the product of nothing else to do...
I oviously don't believe this but he makes a half-intellegent point. Homosexuality has been on the rise a lot and life has been getting easier to survive (that is survive not make a living). Maybe it is unnatural but so is the some of the food we eat (i said some) and if it is unatural i certainly won't give it up. If people tried it they would discover it's quite fun.
Your grandmother just grew up in different times. Her view on things was proberly the popular view and people don't change there outlook very easily. Just ignore anyone who critises homosexuality. In ten more years homosexuality will most likely be accepted almost every where and people that don't accept it will be a minority.
I oviously don't believe this but he makes a half-intellegent point. Homosexuality has been on the rise a lot and life has been getting easier to survive (that is survive not make a living). Maybe it is unnatural but so is the some of the food we eat (i said some) and if it is unatural i certainly won't give it up. If people tried it they would discover it's quite fun.
Your grandmother just grew up in different times. Her view on things was proberly the popular view and people don't change there outlook very easily. Just ignore anyone who critises homosexuality. In ten more years homosexuality will most likely be accepted almost every where and people that don't accept it will be a minority.
Well, sure. Biologically, homosexuality is unnatural, but humanity is far beyond the point of "coitus for reproduction" and already in "fucking because it's fun" territory. And as a thing that is capible of thought and free will, you're allowed to bonk whatever sex you want.
No, you're right. He wouldn't get very far with that as has actions had rather serious moral and ethical implications as well. Something being natural isn't an excuse for doing something morally wrong.Grouchy Imp said:
It took me a few moments to really let the sarcasm sink in, after which I lol'd. Then I also saw your point. The flaw with what I was saying I guess is that breaking down some ones argument and using to prove their statement is a fallacy, entirely depends on whether they understand what the words mean in the first place.
Then their ignorance gets the better of them and they totally disregard the definitions you convey to suit their own means. I guess at that point you'd just realise it's not worth your time and just move on.
Some evidence to the contrary:Snowy Rainbow said:
Apparantly the average dolpin is polygamous, incestuous and bi-sexual. A young dolphins first sexual experience is usually with one of its parents.
On land (or in the air, sometimes the water) certain breeds of duck have been known to engage in homosexual sex, incest, rape and even necrophilia.
Thats two examples I know of off the top of my head, no doubt there's more.
Not actually true. In days gone by, homosexual relations were expected of the upper class, of warrior brothers in arms and many other people. Since certain religious groups have condemned homosexuality, it has decreased in public appearance for obvious reasons (like being beaten and killed) but the actual rate of homosexual people has most likely been the same percentage for thousands of years. That we see gay people more nowadays is a product of them being able to show their face proudly with less fear of being hanged.sam42ification said:
There are plenty of people already who have already posted the arguments suggesting that homosexuality is natural, so I'm going to get to a different root of the problem.
In rational argument, an appeal to nature does not generally follow. Just because A is natural does not mean A is good or right. Just because B is unnatural does not mean B is bad or wrong. It is one thing to determine that something is natural or not (say, by seeking out examples of a behavior in zoological observation) , but to base acceptance of that behavior as right or wrong based on its status as natural or unnatural requires further logical steps. It just doesn't follow automatically.
This is part of a larger issue of logic, the Is-Ought Problem [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is-ought_problem] which addresses the confusion that occurs between descriptive statements and prescriptive statements. Many fallacies of logic come under the presumption that certain characteristics are favorable (e.g. natural, traditional, avant garde, commonplace, normative, modern, intentional, etc.) when discerning what should be on moral or ethical grounds.[footnote]Think about this when a given advert uses these kinds of descriptors as to why you should buy this product, or our government representatives who will use such terms to bolster their own position, or dismiss those of their opponents.[/footnote]
One example comes from a development in the psychiatric sector, regarding people who hear voices. Traditionally, hearing hallucinatory voices that no one else could here was regarded as a symptom of schizophrenia, and was treated with lithium or Thorazine to make the voices cease.[footnote]With accompanying terrible side effects. While we have better drugs these days, they still are pretty severe, and it's more a matter of choosing lesser effects, or at worst less inconvenient side effects.[/footnote] But then one had to address, what of those who hear the voice of God? some of whom were (or are) spiritual leaders of thousands. Are we to say they are crazy too?
In the 1990s a study was done comparing the experiences of those who just heard non-particular voices, and those who heard the voice of God.[footnote]This study intentionally left out those who heard particular, but non-divine voices, such as a dead relative.[/footnote] The voices of God were significantly more benign to those who could hear them compared to those who heard the other voices, and patients who heard God were usually disinclined towards treatment to make them go away.
This caused quite a bit of disruption in the way we regarded psychiatric treatment, not only of schizophrenics who suffered from hallucinations, but of anyone diagnosed with a mental condition. The question was raised Who are we to judge what is a disorder, and what is simply another state of mind?, and it is from this consideration that we developed the current standards for practice, specifically that in order for a symptom to be regarded as a disorder, it has to have some kind of dysfunctional effect in the patient's life, and the patient decides if, for example, it's worth it to continue hearing God, if the voice is too loud to allow him to concentrate on driving a motor vehicle.
Similarly, in the courts of law in the US that so far have addressed the issue of homosexuality (and numerous other fringe practices), it has usually been established that before a practice is proscribed or restricted, it is a burden of the court to establish proof of harm caused by the practice or behavior in question. So, before laws can be passed, for example, restricting the sale of violent video games to minors, the proponents of the bill must establish to the court's satisfaction that there is sufficient evidence that violent videogames played by minors harms the players, or brings harm to the community. So it is with homosexuality. And most courts so far have recognized that ours is a diverse and polyfaceted society, and we can't be so quick to pass laws that needlessly infringe upon our personal liberties.
238U.
In rational argument, an appeal to nature does not generally follow. Just because A is natural does not mean A is good or right. Just because B is unnatural does not mean B is bad or wrong. It is one thing to determine that something is natural or not (say, by seeking out examples of a behavior in zoological observation) , but to base acceptance of that behavior as right or wrong based on its status as natural or unnatural requires further logical steps. It just doesn't follow automatically.
This is part of a larger issue of logic, the Is-Ought Problem [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is-ought_problem] which addresses the confusion that occurs between descriptive statements and prescriptive statements. Many fallacies of logic come under the presumption that certain characteristics are favorable (e.g. natural, traditional, avant garde, commonplace, normative, modern, intentional, etc.) when discerning what should be on moral or ethical grounds.[footnote]Think about this when a given advert uses these kinds of descriptors as to why you should buy this product, or our government representatives who will use such terms to bolster their own position, or dismiss those of their opponents.[/footnote]
One example comes from a development in the psychiatric sector, regarding people who hear voices. Traditionally, hearing hallucinatory voices that no one else could here was regarded as a symptom of schizophrenia, and was treated with lithium or Thorazine to make the voices cease.[footnote]With accompanying terrible side effects. While we have better drugs these days, they still are pretty severe, and it's more a matter of choosing lesser effects, or at worst less inconvenient side effects.[/footnote] But then one had to address, what of those who hear the voice of God? some of whom were (or are) spiritual leaders of thousands. Are we to say they are crazy too?
In the 1990s a study was done comparing the experiences of those who just heard non-particular voices, and those who heard the voice of God.[footnote]This study intentionally left out those who heard particular, but non-divine voices, such as a dead relative.[/footnote] The voices of God were significantly more benign to those who could hear them compared to those who heard the other voices, and patients who heard God were usually disinclined towards treatment to make them go away.
This caused quite a bit of disruption in the way we regarded psychiatric treatment, not only of schizophrenics who suffered from hallucinations, but of anyone diagnosed with a mental condition. The question was raised Who are we to judge what is a disorder, and what is simply another state of mind?, and it is from this consideration that we developed the current standards for practice, specifically that in order for a symptom to be regarded as a disorder, it has to have some kind of dysfunctional effect in the patient's life, and the patient decides if, for example, it's worth it to continue hearing God, if the voice is too loud to allow him to concentrate on driving a motor vehicle.
Similarly, in the courts of law in the US that so far have addressed the issue of homosexuality (and numerous other fringe practices), it has usually been established that before a practice is proscribed or restricted, it is a burden of the court to establish proof of harm caused by the practice or behavior in question. So, before laws can be passed, for example, restricting the sale of violent video games to minors, the proponents of the bill must establish to the court's satisfaction that there is sufficient evidence that violent videogames played by minors harms the players, or brings harm to the community. So it is with homosexuality. And most courts so far have recognized that ours is a diverse and polyfaceted society, and we can't be so quick to pass laws that needlessly infringe upon our personal liberties.
238U.
So an alien species made them gay? Maybe a god did? If you consider it to be unnatural, the only other alternative is the supernatural.BanicRhys said:
Either they are who they are by virtue of their creation (natural), or they have been altered by an outside force (unnatural).
Also, who says sex is purely for procreation? That sounds like conjecture and opinion to me.
I think the best stance against this argument is to ask if the car they drive or the house they live in and tv they watch are natural cause last time i checked Humans do many things that are not in nature and we don't seem to mind those. This is just a weak attempt at an argument that doesn't use god as the reason.
"So, grandma, my crush on this really cute guy is unnatural, eh?"Shydrow said:
-"That's right."
"And that means it's bad and I shouldn't do it?"
-"Of course!"
"Because, by virtue of it being unnatural, it cases harm?"
-"Most definitely."
"Well then, you better take all those clothes off, drop the glasses and walk your ass into the woods, old lady."
XD
Oh yes, it is unnatural. But so is blue eyes, red hair, colour blindness and premature baldness.
As a species, we were designed to create offspring. To do that, we need a man and a woman. But, sometimes, sime of us break the norm. Maybe it's something in the upbringing, or maybe it is simply something in the genes. Whatever the reason it IS unnatural, but it is NOT wrong. That it is unnatural is the worst argument ever - if what is unnatural is morally wrong, then where the hell do we draw the line? If "it is unnatural" is our argument for something being wrong, then as a consequence, we also think people with blue eyes are wrong.
Homophobia is the worst kind of discrimination, or at least on par with racism. You can't change who you are, you shouldn't change who you are, and the desires you are feeling should never, EVER be suppressed. Noone is hurt by homosexuality, so why the hell must people crusade against it?
As a species, we were designed to create offspring. To do that, we need a man and a woman. But, sometimes, sime of us break the norm. Maybe it's something in the upbringing, or maybe it is simply something in the genes. Whatever the reason it IS unnatural, but it is NOT wrong. That it is unnatural is the worst argument ever - if what is unnatural is morally wrong, then where the hell do we draw the line? If "it is unnatural" is our argument for something being wrong, then as a consequence, we also think people with blue eyes are wrong.
Homophobia is the worst kind of discrimination, or at least on par with racism. You can't change who you are, you shouldn't change who you are, and the desires you are feeling should never, EVER be suppressed. Noone is hurt by homosexuality, so why the hell must people crusade against it?
I disagree about your stance on homosexuality being unnatural, but we agree 100% on the rest.Longshot said:
As I said earlier, it's a sickening irony that the only victims of homosexuality are the people who are shunned, alienated, disowned, beaten, spat on, tortured and murdered for who they are.
*highfive!*