Senate Homosexuality: the Thread

Discussion in 'Community' started by zombie, Jan 24, 2006.

  1. J-Rod Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 28, 2004
    star 5
    Or maybe nature's approval is a matter of opinion.

    Certainly. But it seems to me to be part of the topic of this thread.
  2. Jedi_Keiran_Halcyon Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Dec 17, 2000
    star 6
    Nature is also a convenient substitution for God.

    I wondered for a while whether to bother with this one. I'll keep it simple.

    Nature existed before humans invented gods.
  3. farrellg Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Mar 17, 2005
    star 4
    You're confusing your approval with that of nature's.

    Who says that nature doesn't approve of homosexuality? I pointed out the major advantage it has that heterosexuality doesn't have. If people feel attracted to the same sex before they even understand what sex is, then the feelings are natural. I don't see what could have influenced same-sex attraction in young children other than nature and biology.

    The natural purpose of sex is procreation.

    Why do a lot of heterosexuals use protection in order to prevent having offspring? Are they using sex for an unnatural purpose?

    And what does fertility have to do with whether the act is natural?

    It shows that procreative sex isn't the only natural form of intercourse. Why would sex between an infertile man and woman be natural, from your point of view? You claim that procreation is the natural purpose of sex. An infertile straight couple is just as incapable of procreation as a gay couple. By your logic, this would mean sex between infertiel couples is unnatural because they cannot produce children. I disagree with this. As long as sex is enjoyable and isn't harmful, its perfectly natural. This is why homosexuality is acceptable: it doesn't harm anyone and benefits the two partners in a relationship.
  4. J-Rod Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 28, 2004
    star 5
    If people feel attracted to the same sex before they even understand what sex is, then the feelings are natural.

    Developmental errors are natural, but not normal nor the intent of the natural process. (Didn't we cover this?)

    Why do a lot of heterosexuals use protection in order to prevent having offspring? Are they using sex for an unnatural purpose?

    As civilized humans we understand the purpose of sex yet still have the desire for it. See, part of nature's intention by giving human women the nearly unique ability to mate when not ovulating was to keep the "provider and protector" around for more of the huge time span it takes to raise a human child.

    But due to the increased survivability of human infants through technology, we can stop "unwanted" pregancies.

    It shows that procreative sex isn't the only natural form of intercourse. Why would sex between an infertile man and woman be natural, from your point of view? You claim that procreation is the natural purpose of sex. An infertile straight couple is just as incapable of procreation as a gay couple. By your logic, this would mean sex between infertiel couples is unnatural because they cannot produce children. I disagree with this. As long as sex is enjoyable and isn't harmful, its perfectly natural. This is why homosexuality is acceptable: it doesn't harm anyone and benefits the two partners in a relationship.

    I covered this too. Here's the answer again...

    The natural purpose of sex is procreation. Most animals, and presumably primitive humans, don't know that sex makes babies. So to keep a species from going instinct, nature made sex pleasurable and gave animals a desire for that pleasure.

    And what does fertility have to do with whether the act is natural? Males breed with females. Sex between the two is natural and intended.

  5. Fire_Ice_Death Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2001
    star 7
    The natural purpose of sex is procreation. Most animals, and presumably primitive humans, don't know that sex makes babies. So to keep a species from going instinct, nature made sex pleasurable and gave animals a desire for that pleasure.

    And what does fertility have to do with whether the act is natural? Males breed with females. Sex between the two is natural and intended.


    Pst...natural selection. Just thought I'd toss that out.
  6. J-Rod Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 28, 2004
    star 5
    Pst...natural selection. Just thought I'd toss that out.

    Care to go into detail?
  7. farrellg Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Mar 17, 2005
    star 4
    Developmental errors are natural, but not normal nor the intent of the natural process.

    Whether homosexuality was intended by the natural process or not, its acceptable and normal behavior because it doesn't harm anyone.

    But due to the increased survivability of human infants through technology, we can stop "unwanted" pregancies.

    Unwanted pregnancies could be stopped by not having sex if you don't want children. The fact that people have sex even when they don't want children proves that procreation isn't the only purpose of sex. Why is it natural for heterosexuals to engage in non-procreative sex if it isn't natural for homosexuals?

    The natural purpose of sex is procreation. Most animals, and presumably primitive humans, don't know that sex makes babies. So to keep a species from going instinct, nature made sex pleasurable and gave animals a desire for that pleasure.

    And what does fertility have to do with whether the act is natural? Males breed with females. Sex between the two is natural and intended.


    Your explanation still doesn't explain why an infertile couple can have "natural" sex while a gay one can't. You claim that the purpose of sex is procreation. Neither a gay couple nor an infertile couple can have children. How is is natural for an infertile couple to have sex, knowing they can't have children (according to your logic)? My point is that sex is natural whether you are trying to have children or not.
  8. Fire_Ice_Death Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2001
    star 7
    Not really since you're the authority on all things natural and I am but a lowly beast to your vast wealth of knowledge on nature. OH PLEASE TELL ME HOLY ONE WHAT I MEANT!
  9. DARTH-SHREDDER Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    May 6, 2005
    star 5
    Exactly. And this is why I've never understood why anybody considers homosexuality to be immoral or wrong. It'd be like saying wearing stripped sweaters is immoral; there's no logic behind it.
  10. J-Rod Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 28, 2004
    star 5
    The fact that people have sex even when they don't want children proves that procreation isn't the only purpose of sex.

    When I address your post, it isn't good form to rephrase your question that I just answered and throw it back at me.

    The desire for the pleasure of sex is there to insure we breed. As a species, we didn't always know that sex=babies. We needed a reason to do it. Also, women, unlike most animals in the world, will mate when they aren't ovulating and can't breed, this keeps daddy around longer. (See, all I can do is rephrase my answer and throw it back at you)

    Your explanation still doesn't explain why an infertile couple can have "natural" sex while a gay one can't.

    Yes it does. Penis+vagina=baby. If one or the other isn't fertile, the act is still the one that makes babies.
  11. J-Rod Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 28, 2004
    star 5
    I guess you meant that you had nothing to add to the debate but wanted to be heard anyway. [face_plain]
  12. JediJSolo Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 11, 2001
    star 4
    I read the last page, but I didn?t read this one? But I?m posting anyway. :p

    farrellg: If we approve of pre-marital sex, pornography, and masturbation-why not approve of homosexuality?

    I think you?ve confused the concepts of ?approve? and ?permit?. Masturbation is not legally recognized at all, as far as I know; it neither condones nor discourages it.

    Kimball_Kinnison: It has nothing to do with whether it harms anyone or not. It is completely based on whether it deviates from the normal, expected, average, or mean.

    Generally all modern societies have a fraction of homosexuals within them. From a macro-sociological point of view, that makes it fairly normal. (I won?t argue what that fraction is, as it?s muddled, by homosexuals who do not announce themselves as such, and by the migration of those who do) Whether or not it presents the *majority* of most societies? Well, most people don?t vote in the US? Most marriages end up in divorce? Whether something is ?normal? on an individual basis doesn?t really have much relevance to whether or not that behavior should be considered ?good?.

    (I know you weren?t making the argument about the ?norm? being right, but I just wanted to expunge that idea from the minds of anyone else who might try it. ;) )

    NorCalBirdz: The Bible is an all-or-nothing deal. If you don't believe it's the word of God, don't even bother reading it(for spirtual purposes that is)

    Why? It?s a book. The book has human authors, that it proclaims in large print at the top of every page. Unless you believe humans are infallible?and, as I recall, the Bible indicates otherwise within its own teachings?then it can not be the word of God, for God, unlike man, is infallible.

    As far as ?all-or-nothing?, try rectifying ?eye for an eye? with ?turn the other cheek?. There are many inconsistencies, and much that, if taken literally, would be considered near criminal today (such as the treatment of women as chattel). I?m no biblical scholar, but frankly, the bible is not an ?all-or-nothing? deal, and it never was. The crusades, the death penalty, Harry Potter? I can show you biblical arguments on both sides of these issues. People have always chosen some aspects of the bible over others to support their own beliefs. It?s not ?all-or-nothing?, it's a guide, that many different people interpret differently. It?s not absolute.

    J-Rod: No. It works perfectly. It creates an even broader range of adaptability, our greatest asset against extinction as a species; a natural trait of mammals in general and humans specifically.

    Umm? Have people forgotten that we aren?t even remotely close extinction? In fact, we have serious issues with overpopulation? Did it ever occur to anyone that homosexuality might actually be a way for nature to slow us down?

    Reproduction is neither a seal of approval or disapproval, any more than getting hit by a bus is the bus' seal of disapproval. It?s what happens when the right (or wrong) elements come together; nothing more.

    Fire_Ice_Death: marriages are unnatural (in nature it's natural to have many mates, hence infidelity)

    Incorrect. There are many species in nature that are monogamous. Most commonly known being certain types of birds, such as pigeons and penguins. In the case of humans, the issue gets a bit muddled. In many cases, we demonstrate a ?serial-monogamy? pattern; tending to sleep with only one partner for an extended period of time, as opposed to sleeping with many partners over a short period of time. In that sense, monogamy isn?t necessarily ?unnatural? among humans. Marriage is basically what happens when we stick with one partner for far longer than any of the previous ones?more or less?
  13. Dingo Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 23, 2001
    star 5
    Inside a single generation, not overly likely (at least not to a significant difference to that of a regular population). The "issue" with inbreeding is a generational accumulation of recessive traits that hold detrimental consequences. Considering the results of experimentation with certain strains of plant and known genomic insect and animal species that don't show any major stresses for the first couple of generations, there isn't any "seal of disapproval" by 'nature' of singular generational breeding within a single family.
  14. Fire_Ice_Death Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2001
    star 7
    Incorrect. There are many species in nature that are monogamous. Most commonly known being certain types of birds, such as pigeons and penguins.

    Also incorrect. There are very few species that are monogamous, penguins are not one of them. Vultures and a stomach worm that resides in fish are the two animals that are monogamous. The worm becomes joined together at their genitals.

    I guess you meant that you had nothing to add to the debate but wanted to be heard anyway.

    Nope. You're trying to be authoratative on something you know very little about.
  15. Kimball_Kinnison Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    There's also the maned wolf or the beaver, or even the bald eagle.

    Kimball Kinnison
  16. farrellg Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Mar 17, 2005
    star 4
    The desire for the pleasure of sex is there to insure we breed.

    If that was true, then people should only feel pleasure when engaging in reproductive intercourse. Some people feel pleasure during homosexual activity, which proves that the act is just as natural as heterosexuality.

    Its impossible to discern the purpose of nature. If people are attracted to the same sex and aren't harming anyone, then there's nothing wrong with it.

    Penis+vagina=baby. If one or the other isn't fertile, the act is still the one that makes babies.

    That specific act will not produce babies if the couple is infertile. What's the point of an infertile couple having sex if they know they can't have children? They are in the same position as a homosexual couple. The type of sex is different, but it has the same result- no offspring.

    I still don't understand how infertile couples fit into your argument. If only procreative sex is natural, then infertile couples cannot have this type of sex. Vaginal sex between an infertile couple is not reproductive. Just like a gay couple, an infertile couple is having sex with no chance of producing offspring. It doesn't matter if they have the same type of sex as fertile couples- it is still impossible to produce children.

    I think you?ve confused the concepts of ?approve? and ?permit?. Masturbation is not legally recognized at all, as far as I know; it neither condones nor discourages it.

    I meant that most people engage in masturbation and think that its perfectly acceptable. Masturbation isn't legally recognized because there's no reason to worry about what anyone does to himself.

  17. Eleventh_Guard Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Dec 17, 2005
    star 5
    Curious.

    To those of you that think homosexuality is wrong because it involves a sexual act that cannot produce a child even if both members of the coupling are fertile, how does that relate to "homosexual" relationships that do not include actual sexual intercourse in any form but are definitely of a romantic nature and include non-platonic touching?

    For example, passionate kisses between two members of the same sex who are dating but not actually having sex. Is THAT also a violation of nature, or is it okay because it doesn't involve non-procreationally-possible intercourse?

    Is it the sex act that is the big deal with homosexuality, or the attraction?
  18. J-Rod Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 28, 2004
    star 5
    Is THAT also a violation of nature, or is it okay because it doesn't involve non-procreationally-possible intercourse?

    I never said it's a violation of nature.

    To answer your question, it's the attraction itself between same sex people that I believe is due to a developmental error.
  19. DARTH-SHREDDER Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    May 6, 2005
    star 5
    To answer your question, it's the attraction itself between same sex people that I believe is due to a developmental error.

    Or maybe it's just an example of nature being diverse. Would you think different skin colors or eye colors are examples of developmental errors in nature? Or do you just think that not everything in nature is the same?

    Yes it does. Penis+vagina=baby. If one or the other isn't fertile, the act is still the one that makes babies.

    With that logic, any time a male ejaculates, the act is still the one that makes babies, because it is neccessary for sperm to come out for conception to occur.
  20. DARTH-SHREDDER Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    May 6, 2005
    star 5
    No. It works perfectly. It creates an even broader range of adaptability, our greatest asset against extinction as a species; a natural trait of mammals in general and humans specifically.

    I never said that it didn't work. I said that I don't think, nature intended for black people and white people to have sex, if you view mature as having a will, that is.
  21. J-Rod Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 28, 2004
    star 5
    Or maybe it's just an example of nature being diverse.

    It's not nature being "diverse" if it can't reproduce itself. Blue eyes stand a good chance or reproducing more blue eyes. Sex with the same gender reproduces...nothing. It's a dead end.

    Would you think different skin colors or eye colors are examples of developmental errors in nature?

    These are variables intended to keep the possibility of extinction low. Different people, even within the same race, have different tolerances for the environment, diseases, intelligence levels, ect.

    Or do you just think that not everything in nature is the same?
    No. But everything has a purpose.

    never said that it didn't work. I said that I don't think, nature intended for black people and white people to have sex, if you view nature as having a will, that is.

    ? Of course it's intended. It makes babies consistantly.

    With that logic, any time a male ejaculates, the act is still the one that makes babies, because it is neccessary for sperm to come out for conception to occur.

    Huh?
  22. Jedi_Keiran_Halcyon Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Dec 17, 2000
    star 6
    Folks,

    What's up with this concept of nature's "intentions"? I don't remember learning in science class that nature has a will, or is capable of having intentions.

    The fact that evolution works a certain way does not mean that it 'intends' to work that way. The assumption that an element of nature has a purpose is an inherently religious one.

    Let's stop trying to confuse things. Say God when we're talking about God, and don't give nature attributes you can't prove it has.
  23. J-Rod Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 28, 2004
    star 5
    What's up with this concept of nature's "intentions"? I don't remember learning in science class that nature has a will, or is capable of having intentions.

    That's fine. Then call it "balance." Everything requires it.

    "Nature abhors a vacuum" suggests will, but can be taken either way.
  24. DARTH-SHREDDER Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    May 6, 2005
    star 5
    JKH, I agree that nature having a will isn't part of evolution, but I believe that it's possible to view nature as having a will for the sake of argument, and because I don't rule out that possibility, as I'm agnostic.

    These are variables intended to keep the possibility of extinction low. Different people, even within the same race, have different tolerances for the environment, diseases, intelligence levels, ect.

    I'll give you that. Different races were made to suit different environments. However, just because sex between them "works," doesn't mean that it was intended.

    No. But everything has a purpose.

    Maybe homosexuality's purpose is cut down on overpopulation? In fact, that makes a lot of sense. So yes, homosexuality does have a purpose, if you will.

    ? Of course it's intended. It makes babies consistantly.

    Just because it makes babies doesn't mean that it was intended. It means that it is possible.

    Huh?

    Let me explain. You say that heterosexual intercourse is still the act that makes babies (penis + vagina = baby), even if the couple is infertile. But it only makes babies under certain circumstances. Both people must be fertile.

    Similarly, ejaculating only makes babies under certian circumstances. You must be ejaculating inside a vagina.

    However, if the acts are not being done under those certain circumstances, then it is not an act that makes babies. Infertile couples having sex doesn't make babies, and neither does masturbation. (which is simply ejaculating)

    Do you catch my drift?
  25. Eleventh_Guard Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Dec 17, 2005
    star 5
    And babies can be made through IVF, too - and the eggs don't even have to be from the woman who will carry it/them.