Is it objectively meaningful and functionally correct to class Same Sex Attraction as a genuine form of human Sexuality?

[tqualey]

Hi, Dakota,

Have you never heard of the ‘Confirmed Bachelor’ or the ‘Confirmed Old Maid’? For whatever reason these people never married (are celibate). While the common explanation is that they, “Never found the right person…” these people have lived a single life and that is the way that want (or, wanted) it.

Celibacy and chastity are really two different realities. Both the ‘Bachelor’ and ‘Old Maid’ could be sexually active in a physical or intellectual sense - and not be chaste. By lumping them together in such a thread as this the common elements usually associated with both as being united are lost. In my opinion, there is a distinction and it should be identified.

And as I previously mentioned, Christ specifically identified marriage as between a man and woman. Sexual activity outside of this parameter is a violation of God’s clearly identified Plan. Would you like to comment on that?

God bless

What selfish and self centered reasons are there for celibacy? I’m referring to the Catholic concept of celibacy which includes chastity. I can fairly well slot in celibacy into what I bolded thus the argument needs to be revised.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Sair,

You have a number of gratituious assumptions in your post that really should be addressed. Your opening paragraph is really a Straw Man for it provides the conclusion you want without having to make a logical argument

There are minority beliefs and behaviours that are not objectively harmful. Homosexuality is amongst these.

I guess it all depends on what you mean by ‘objective’, Sair. All you have provided is ‘feel good’ sensuality as the justification for ‘objectively disordered’ behavior. This is hardly a compelling reason - but, does make for an obvious rationalization.

A primary characteristic of humans that allows society to function at any level, at all, is empathy. It’s one thing to intellectually understand why some things are considered wrong and why others are not - it’s quite another to feel that this is so, and to consider the feelings of others.

What you have actually done here, Sair, is to distort the very human and nobel abilty of empathy into agreement. One can truly empathize with a person’s need for love, belonging, caring, sharing and being intimate with another. Seeing people who long for but are frustrated in not finding love, and the other feelings I mentioned is a sad experience. But, let’s take another ‘objectively disordered’ behavior and see how it works. There are minority views that promote beastility. They claim that this is their right and since ther is no objective harm then it obviously must be acceptable. The fact that they are such a truly small number in the population must the more loudly speak for their rights to engage in the behavior of their choice. Just because this has not happened yet - I have not ruled it out - we have entered the ‘slipperly slope’ and there is no telling how far we descend before we start to move upward again!

Again, it comes down to values - do you value love, generosity, compassion, shared experience and pleasure? Or do you privilege the reproductive function of sex over all its other functions?

We are on the same page here, Sair!! But for quite different reasons Tell me - if you insert the practice of beastiality for homosexuality - what is the difference. This guy or gal loves their horse, they provide for their animal, show compassion and there is shared experiences and pleasure. After all, this is just a ‘value’ issue - and my personal ‘value’ for self expression, self-love and self-absorption irrespective of larger realities are of no consequence because I am doing what I want to do! A lot of use a toothbursh and a razor in the morning - but, it would be quite disordered and immediately dangerous to brush one’s teeth with a razor. Everything in God’s creation really does have prupose. Failing to find the real and primary purpose does not negate that there is a purpose. Confusing secondary purposes with the primary purpose does not alter reality.

Rights must be quantified, weighed in the balance when it comes to any moral calculus.

OK, Sair, you’re on.

Take any right you want, explain the balance scale you are going to put it up against and demonstrate the moral calculus you will use to achieve this quantification you claim exists.

There is more variation between individuals of the same sex than between the two sexes as a whole. I am not very familiar with the case you mention…

This is another gratituious assumption. Here is a link from a UK paper * dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2043345/The-California-boy-11-undergoing-hormone-blocking-treatment.html* As you see, this has made the world wide wire service - and I am sure you can find many other articles about this truly sad case. But moving on, child abuse in one way by anyone is no excuse for proclaim that abuse is OK under other conditions.

…homosexual males do not ‘try out’ sodomy as a recreational activity - it is an expression of their innate proclivities…

This is where ‘objectively disordered’ comes in - the human rectum is not built for the insertion of the human penis. Damage to the organs always results.

Now, I realize that I misspoke on the female activity here - I was honestly ignorant of the correct term. If there is none, ‘unassisted’ is as good as any to communicate the idea.

Looking forward to your response.

God bless

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Hi, Dakota,

Have you never heard of the ‘Confirmed Bachelor’ or the ‘Confirmed Old Maid’? For whatever reason these people never married (are celibate). While the common explanation is that they, “Never found the right person…” these people have lived a single life and that is the way that want (or, wanted) it.

Celibacy and chastity are really two different realities. Both the ‘Bachelor’ and ‘Old Maid’ could be sexually active in a physical or intellectual sense - and not be chaste. By lumping them together in such a thread as this the common elements usually associated with both as being united are lost. In my opinion, there is a distinction and it should be identified.

And as I previously mentioned, Christ specifically identified marriage as between a man and woman. Sexual activity outside of this parameter is a violation of God’s clearly identified Plan. Would you like to comment on that?

God bless

As I said before I was talking about the Catholic concept of celibacy which includes chastity.

All sexual activity outside of marriage is wrong.

snip
We are on the same page here, Sair!! But for quite different reasons Tell me - if you insert the practice of bestiality for homosexuality - what is the difference. This guy or gal loves their horse, they provide for their animal, show compassion and there is shared experiences and pleasure. After all, this is just a ‘value’ issue - and my personal ‘value’ for self expression, self-love and self-absorption irrespective of larger realities are of no consequence because I am doing what I want to do! A lot of use a toothbrush and a razor in the morning - but, it would be quite disordered and immediately dangerous to brush one’s teeth with a razor. Everything in God’s creation really does have purpose. Failing to find the real and primary purpose does not negate that there is a purpose. Confusing secondary purposes with the primary purpose does not alter reality.
snip

There is a difference since the animal can not meaningfully reciprocate love.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Dakota,

Sorry I am so slow on this - but, just where are you on this thread issue?

I made clear that there is a distinction, but, are you saying there isn’t? Just what is the point you want to make about this?

If, as you say, sexual activity outside of marriage is wrong - and Christ identified that marriage is between one man and one woman - then that means you do not support homosexual activities?

The love and devotion that animal pets have for their human masters is legendary - up to and including the loss of the pet’s life to save the human. Following Sair’s logic that homosexuality is ‘good’ because it is ‘good’ - how can ayone objectively condemn anything that someone says is 'good;? Wouldn’t such a condemnation mean that there was a significant lack of ‘empathy’?

God bless

As I said before I was talking about the Catholic concept of celibacy which includes chastity.

All sexual activity outside of marriage is wrong.

There is a difference since the animal can not meaningfully reciprocate love.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Hi, Dakota,

Sorry I am so slow on this - but, just where are you on this thread issue?

I made clear that there is a distinction, but, are you saying there isn’t? Just what is the point you want to make about this?

If, as you say, sexual activity outside of marriage is wrong - and Christ identified that marriage is between one man and one woman - then that means you do not support homosexual activities?

The love and devotion that animal pets have for their human masters is legendary - up to and including the loss of the pet’s life to save the human. Following Sair’s logic that homosexuality is ‘good’ because it is ‘good’ - how can ayone objectively condemn anything that someone says is 'good;? Wouldn’t such a condemnation mean that there was a significant lack of ‘empathy’?

God bless

It is a complex issue

There is a distinction, celibacy includes not marrying in addition to chastity, indeed my dictionary says “celibate; noun,
a person who abstains from marriage and sexual relations.”

I find homosexual acts morally repugnant.

That’s a different kind of love. There have been a number of cases where dogs have raped or tried to rape people.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Dakota,

Let me try this again.

My understanding of Sair’s previous posts is that homosexuality is just another way that people express themselves. There is no ‘intrinsic disorder’ with one’s inate proclivities - and there is no objective morality that can possibly address homosexual activities as wrong. Based on this understanding, I thought that the argument style ‘reductio ad absurdum’ would be appropriate to address Sair’s position.

Taken to its logical conclusion of what Sair presented, an apparent argument can be made in favor of beastiality - after all, with nothing qualifying as ‘intrinisically disordered’ everything is ‘on the table’. What moral standard is there that would condemn beastiality yet accept homosexual behavior?

I thought Sair would have responded by now … but, maybe in working out this ‘moral calculus’ that allows for anyting desired, he got hung up on '…the continuity of function of a variable… '

God bless

It is a complex issue

There is a distinction, celibacy includes not marrying in addition to chastity, indeed my dictionary says “celibate; noun,
a person who abstains from marriage and sexual relations.”

I find homosexual acts morally repugnant.

That’s a different kind of love. There have been a number of cases where dogs have raped or tried to rape people.

 

[Sair]

You have a number of gratituious assumptions in your post that really should be addressed. Your opening paragraph is really a Straw Man for it provides the conclusion you want without having to make a logical argument

Which particular parts do you find ‘gratuitous’? The fact that empathy is reduced and can even be destroyed by abusive treatment?

I guess it all depends on what you mean by ‘objective’, Sair. All you have provided is ‘feel good’ sensuality as the justification for ‘objectively disordered’ behavior. This is hardly a compelling reason - but, does make for an obvious rationalization.

Objective means that which is not dependent upon the perspective of some subject. Things that are objectively harmful do actual damage to individuals, things that in and of themselves, threaten the health of the one(s) involved. To claim that something is objectively ‘disordered’ requires the existence of an objectively perceptible ‘order’; one that does not depend upon the subjective preferences of those who insist such an order exists. If you claim that homosexual behaviour in humans violates some ‘objective order’, then it is up to you to arrive at a definition of such an order that does not accommodate or even require homosexual behaviours. Sure, it’s true that homosexual couples will not produce offspring, unassisted, but the same is true of subordinate individuals in many troupes of social animals. A narrow understanding of ‘objective order’ simply won’t do.

What you have actually done here, Sair, is to distort the very human and nobel abilty of empathy into agreement. One can truly empathize with a person’s need for love, belonging, caring, sharing and being intimate with another. Seeing people who long for but are frustrated in not finding love, and the other feelings I mentioned is a sad experience. But, let’s take another ‘objectively disordered’ behavior and see how it works. There are minority views that promote beastility. They claim that this is their right and since ther is no objective harm then it obviously must be acceptable. The fact that they are such a truly small number in the population must the more loudly speak for their rights to engage in the behavior of their choice. Just because this has not happened yet - I have not ruled it out - we have entered the ‘slipperly slope’ and there is no telling how far we descend before we start to move upward again!

Slippery slope arguments rarely carry much clout. You are comparing apples with oranges. There are important differences between homosexuality and bestiality that make the moral issues involved quite distinct. Do you imagine a cow or a sheep or a chicken can consent to sexual penetration by a human? Do you consider that such a relationship could ever be considered a meeting of equals? Furthermore, depending upon relative sizes, bestiality can actually be fatal to the nonhuman animal involved. Rights depend upon non-coercive agreement amongst the parties involved - you would not consider a child or a mentally impaired adult capable of consent to a sexual relationship - therefore bestiality should be considered a comparable abuse of power.

 

[Sair]

We are on the same page here, Sair!! But for quite different reasons Tell me - if you insert the practice of beastiality for homosexuality - what is the difference. This guy or gal loves their horse, they provide for their animal, show compassion and there is shared experiences and pleasure. After all, this is just a ‘value’ issue - and my personal ‘value’ for self expression, self-love and self-absorption irrespective of larger realities are of no consequence because I am doing what I want to do! A lot of use a toothbursh and a razor in the morning - but, it would be quite disordered and immediately dangerous to brush one’s teeth with a razor. Everything in God’s creation really does have prupose. Failing to find the real and primary purpose does not negate that there is a purpose. Confusing secondary purposes with the primary purpose does not alter reality.

It’s interesting that you use a toothbrush and a razor - both human inventions - as examples of purposive divine creation! No-one doubts that sexual intercourse is the means to reproduction. Denying or simply devaluing the other purposes of sexual interaction in human relationships is simply side-stepping the truth. The use of sex for social bonding is not unique to humans, but it is very rare in the animal kingdom as a whole - a handful of other social species routinely engage in sex for non-reproductive purposes. Yes, this is a comparatively late-evolving feature, but then, so is the grafting of human intelligence on top of instinct and emotion. I don’t see you devaluing imagination and creativity because they don’t have an immediate and obvious purpose in terms of survival and reproduction.

Take any right you want, explain the balance scale you are going to put it up against and demonstrate the moral calculus you will use to achieve this quantification you claim exists.

Rights correspond to interests. Do you have more interest in expressing your natural proclivities than others have in denying you that opportunity? That depends upon the extent to which your natural proclivities interfere with the preferences of others. You may claim that you have a preference for not witnessing homosexual behaviour - but no-one is forcing you to do so; you may dissociate yourself from all homosexual people and carry out your life as you will. Your apparent desire to deny homosexual people the opportunity to express their natural inclinations is far more severe - it would be the same, in terms of actual impact, as denying you the opportunity to express your heterosexual inclinations.

This is another gratituious assumption.

This is no gratuitous assumption, but a readily observed fact. Are all women meek and maternal and submissive? No. Are all men butch and commanding and taciturn? Hardly.

Here is a link from a UK paper * dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2043345/The-California-boy-11-undergoing-hormone-blocking-treatment.html* As you see, this has made the world wide wire service - and I am sure you can find many other articles about this truly sad case. But moving on, child abuse in one way by anyone is no excuse for proclaim that abuse is OK under other conditions.

I have no doubt that abuse is occurring - I simply question the reaction to it. People seem less concerned with the actual treatment of the child than with their skewed interpretation of why the child might be experiencing gender confusion in the first place. Abusive parents are abusive parents, regardless of sexuality; just as good parents are good parents, regardless of sexuality: livescience.com/6073-children-raised-lesbians-fine-studies-show.html

This is where ‘objectively disordered’ comes in - the human rectum is not built for the insertion of the human penis. Damage to the organs always results.

If it comes down to some original intention, then the human digestive tract was not built for the breakdown of simple sugars; the human eye was not built to be modified by artificial lenses; the human hand was not built to type on a keyboard. Nevertheless, all these things may be achieved. Careful use of lubricant and gentle restraint makes rectal penetration more pleasant than harmful - did you know that men have a ‘g-spot’ inside the rectal wall? It always amuses me how anti-homosexual objectors quote ‘natural design’ as an argument in their favour, when humans are, to buy into your worldview, ‘designed’ to interfere with nature.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Sair,

Le’t take a look at your arguments and see what develops…

To claim that something is objectively ‘disordered’ requires the existence of an objectively perceptible ‘order’; one that does not depend upon the subjective preferences of those who insist such an order exists. If you claim that homosexual behaviour in humans violates some ‘objective order’, then it is up to you to arrive at a definition of such an order that does not accommodate or even require homosexual behaviours.

Actually, Sair, that would be called the Natural Law. Here is appropriate quote:

Natural law’s most elementary precept is that “good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided.” By his natural reason, man can perceive what is morally good or bad for him. Thus, he can know the end or purpose of each of his acts and how it is morally wrong to transform the means that help him accomplish an act into the act’s purpose.

Any situation which institutionalizes the circumvention of the purpose of the sexual act violates natural law and the objective norm of morality.

Being rooted in human nature, natural law is universal and immutable. It applies to the entire human race, equally. It commands and forbids consistently, everywhere and always. Saint Paul taught in the Epistle to the Romans that the natural law is inscribed on the heart of every man. (Rom. 2:14-15)" And, here is the link: tfpstudentaction.org/politically-incorrect/homosexuality/10-reasons-why-homosexual-marriage-is-harmful-and-must-be-opposed.html.

I used the toothbursh and razor analogy because although man-made items, they have very specific functions and are not interechangable. Misuing either will result in disappointment fromt he intented purpose.

Ultimately,we all start out with the Natural Law - and then some work very hard to deny its existence. The Natural Law does not honor gluttony or drunkeness either. Note, in today’s slang, one my say that a certain person 'Eats like a pig!" or “Drinks like a fish!” But, while these statements are really incorrect - (how is a pig going to eat? and fish really do not ‘drink’) they do correctly identify that the person in question is acting less than human - and this obviously and objectively identifies a problem.

Sure, it’s true that homosexual couples will not produce offspring, unassisted, but the same is true of subordinate individuals in many troupes of social animals. A narrow understanding of ‘objective order’ simply won’t do.

So, now you are comparing yourself to a “subordinate individual in a troupe” …? Yes, I would say this is acting less than human - and I certainly do not see this as a narrow understanding of humanity.

Slippery slope arguments rarely carry much clout.

This is especially true of those who continue to slip yet claim to be on solid ground… all the way down…

There are important differences between homosexuality and bestiality that make the moral issues involved quite distinct. Do you imagine a cow or a sheep or a chicken can consent to sexual penetration by a human? Do you consider that such a relationship could ever be considered a meeting of equals?

There ARE important differences between these two - but not using your previous argument on unique proclivities (in brief: 'If it feels good, do it!") Fine a compatable animal and your single objection is answered. Who is to determine ‘inequality’ here - only someone truly lacking in real empathy!! You see, Sair, you can not have it both ways - either there is a Natural Law where acts like beastiality and homosexuality are objectively wrong - or - anything goes. You can not single yourself out has having some type of superior claim for what has traditionally been called ‘debased acts’ - yet condemn those who do things you do not approve of.

God bless

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Sair,

Oooops! I used the toothbursh/razor analogy in the wrong post … sorry about that. There is no change in the idea I expressed, I just put it in the previous post. Now, let me address your concerns here…

Denying or simply devaluing the other purposes of sexual interaction in human relationships is simply side-stepping the truth. The use of sex for social bonding is not unique to humans, but it is very rare in the animal kingdom as a whole - a handful of other social species routinely engage in sex for non-reproductive purposes.

I think you jumped the gun on this one… Everything we do, we not only do for a purpose but within a ranked order. Take eating as a basic example. Stop eating or reduce the caloric intake significantly and the person will die - the only difference being how soon in each case. Since the basic instinct in every organism to to continue in existence - and dying would be the antithesis of this value, then we eat to live. But, while this is the primary goal of eating - few of us human stop there… There are multiple secondary and teritary goals - that are important but can not interfere with the primary goal (if they did, the person would die and end all goals). Sex is no different. The primary goal of sex is to continue - this time not as an individual, but as a species. Yes, there are other goals - but, if we lose track of the primary, things get quite confusing and simply disordered.

You will need to provide a reference (or two) on this non-reproductive sexual activity in non-humans. I am familiar of males and females roaming in the same herd, but the males are only interested in the females when the females come into heat and males begin the rut. This is strictly for procreation.

Rights correspond to interests.

Oooooooh, Sair, talk about a narrow and self-limiting definition! Here let me help you with one that is truly broad (but, still has some serious limitations!) This is the link: plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights-human/ But, you know, the one I like the best comes directly from the pen of Thomas Jefferson (here is the link: archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html) and the part that really stands out:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness…”

Now, ‘rights’ can be a tricky subject in the hands of some … for they tend to interpret ‘rights’ as license - and you can distinguish the two… because license is devoid of any real responsibility that shows respect for the person-hood of the other. While it is true one may ask, “May I debase you?” and the other says, “Yes, I want to be debased” - few would doubt that this is a total disorder of the human person whos is neither to debase or be debased.

Do you have more interest in expressing your natural proclivities than others have in denying you that opportunity? That depends upon the extent to which your natural proclivities interfere with the preferences of others.

You are really quite right about this part… Take the demonstrated ‘natual proclivities’ of Ted Bundy (he was not ‘gay’). Many would say that he was rightfully denied his favorite method of expressing himself - and all of us are a lot safer since he was denied. Yes, this may seem like an far-fetched example … but, let us look again, how about Jeffrey Dahmer (he was ‘gay’) as someone who ‘proclivities’ became a danger to others. This is not to say that all proclivities are evil - but, unless you find a way to some type of ordered view of what it is we are going to be doing - we have people who quickly lose their way.

… it would be the same, in terms of actual impact, as denying you the opportunity to express your heterosexual inclinations.

Actually, Sair, it would be quite different. Extending your argument out to all heterosexuals - your view would be a death sentence for the entire human species. Prohibiting homsexual acts would not remove one person from the human family. And, that is a very big difference.

If it comes down to some original intention, then the human digestive tract was not built for the breakdown of simple sugars; the human eye was not built to be modified by artificial lenses; the human hand was not built to type on a keyboard.

This is not only another example of gratuitous assumptions - but of totally outrageous one! Here, let me help! Simple sugars are carbohydrates that come from frutis and vegetables and milk, are quickly digested and give the body fast energy. They are not harmful. Vision is improved by refraction of light - the eye is not injured. And, our opposable thumb and dextrous fingers are a wonderful example of how wonderous God has made mad! Here is a link that may be of some help: ehow.com/list_6371804_lists-simple-sugars.html

God bless

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Sair,

I just came across this item - and did not want you be ignorant of it.

Apparently, when it comes to the ‘gay agenda’ don’t think it is only limited to so-called ‘gays’ There are others out there you will need to address - right now, intellectually …but, later on… it will be another story!

Check this out - looks like those who ‘love children’ need to express themselves, too: greeleygazette.com/press/?p=11517

God bless

 

[Sair]

Actually, Sair, that would be called the Natural Law. Here is appropriate quote:

Natural law’s most elementary precept is that “good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided.” By his natural reason, man can perceive what is morally good or bad for him. Thus, he can know the end or purpose of each of his acts and how it is morally wrong to transform the means that help him accomplish an act into the act’s purpose.

Again, you’re assuming any act has a pre-ordained purpose, independent of its effects.

Any situation which institutionalizes the circumvention of the purpose of the sexual act violates natural law and the objective norm of morality.

There is no objective norm of morality - morals are subjective norms, dependent upon human experience. The ‘purpose’ of the sexual act is many-faceted. It is only those who subjectively disapprove of certain sexual acts that quote any ‘natural law’ in such a way.

Being rooted in human nature, natural law is universal and immutable.

A statement which is inherently contradictory - human nature is neither universal nor immutable.

It applies to the entire human race, equally. It commands and forbids consistently, everywhere and always.

What exactly does it command and forbid consistently, everywhere, always? That it’s wrong for a widow to throw herself on her husband’s funeral pyre? That it’s wrong for parents to beat their children? That it’s wrong for the state to execute criminals? That it’s wrong for one man to share sexual pleasure with another man?

I used the toothbursh and razor analogy because although man-made items, they have very specific functions and are not interechangable. Misuing either will result in disappointment fromt he intented purpose.

You have to know all the possible functions of an action in order to define ‘misuse’ - you are operating from a very narrow perception of the functions of human sexuality, as I’ve already indicated.

The Natural Law does not honor gluttony or drunkeness either. Note, in today’s slang, one my say that a certain person 'Eats like a pig!" or “Drinks like a fish!” But, while these statements are really incorrect - (how is a pig going to eat? and fish really do not ‘drink’) they do correctly identify that the person in question is acting less than human - and this obviously and objectively identifies a problem.

When you refer to ‘natural law’, it is clear you are referring to something that has no objectively measurable effects - it’s just something you prefer to think is true. Therefore it’s incorrect, from this perspective, to include in natural law the very obvious negative effects on human physical health of excessive eating or excessive alcohol consumption; the idioms to which you refer - if they indeed indicate actions that are ‘less than human’ - reflect a level of understanding of the natural world which has since been surpassed through observation and research. Referring to any other animal as ‘less than human’ is representative of a fundamental misunderstanding.

So, now you are comparing yourself to a “subordinate individual in a troupe” …? Yes, I would say this is acting less than human - and I certainly do not see this as a narrow understanding of humanity.

Again, you misunderstand - the subordinate and non-reproductive status of some animals within their social structure is part of the natural way of life for these animals. Do you really think that human sexuality is simpler than that of other animals? Or do you imagine that all humans are born with a pre-ordained goal to have children?

This is especially true of those who continue to slip yet claim to be on solid ground… all the way down…

Actually, slippery slope arguments are usually weak because they fail to recognise causal relationships - or more importantly, the lack thereof - between the activities they see fit to connect. What you are, in effect, saying, is that unless we arbitrarily rope off a particular set of activities and call it ‘natural law’, anything and everything might pass muster as an appropriate action. Shows how little you actually do understand about human nature.

There ARE important differences between these two - but not using your previous argument on unique proclivities (in brief: 'If it feels good, do it!") Fine a compatable animal and your single objection is answered. Who is to determine ‘inequality’ here - only someone truly lacking in real empathy!! You see, Sair, you can not have it both ways - either there is a Natural Law where acts like beastiality and homosexuality are objectively wrong - or - anything goes. You can not single yourself out has having some type of superior claim for what has traditionally been called ‘debased acts’ - yet condemn those who do things you do not approve of.

Further to my previous comment, here is the false connection in action - you claim that homosexuality and bestiality are one and the same, when I’ve already pointed out important distinctions. For one thing, homosexual acts are open to mutual consent between emotional and intellectual equals. Acts of bestiality are not. Homosexual acts are open to emotional and intellectual connection; acts of bestiality are not. Incidentally, I notice you didn’t address my questions relating to paedophilia or to taking advantage of people with intellectual impairments. As for singling myself out as an arbiter of what constitutes ‘debased acts’…well, traditionally, marrying someone of a different race or social class was considered debased. Was that part of your ‘natural’ law too?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Sair,

You are certainly welcome to think that nothing counts unless you say it counts.

Again, you’re assuming any act has a pre-ordained purpose, independent of its effects.

Actually, Sair, this comes from the observable realities that there are patterns in every part of Nature - and this enables us to see the hand of the Supreme Pattern Maker - God - at work. Things were just not thrown together, but really have a purpose. Just look around and you can see this yourself.And, here is a link to help you in your search:fordham.edu/halsall/source/aquinas3.asp

There is no objective norm of morality - morals are subjective norms, dependent upon human experience.

You know, that is another gratituous statement - having joined the ranks of the others put forward in your posts to support a totally unsupportable position. What you are promoting is called ‘Moral Relativism’ and, it really withers under the most casual of scrutiny. Here is a link: peterkreeft.com/audio/05_relativism/relativism_transcription.htm

Pereviously, I had given you the example of me appropriating you wallet, iPhone and lap top - simply because you had it and I wanted it. Since I recognize no other reality besides what I determine, your personal property is what remains after I satisfy my needs! This is subjective morality made plain. And, most people would object to this - I wouldn’t … but, then I am the one that is benefitting from acquiring your property. Now, should someone try this with me, well obviously, that would be another story!

A statement which is inherently contradictory - human nature is neither universal nor immutable.

Yet another gratituous assumption and it too is devoid of any reference. Now, if you did not like Peter Kreft’s presentation, maybe you will like Noam Chomsky Here is a link: chomsky.info/interviews/199808–.htm Really, Sair, it must strike you as amazing as to how many things one must deny just to maintain that sodomizing someone is the way to go.

…That it’s wrong for one man to share sexual pleasure with another man?

It all really stems back to a belief in God. If you do not believe in God, then simply throw the dice for the remainder of your life and hope you do not get ‘Snake Eyes’ on the last throw! If you do believe in God, then His words, as written in the Bible, are really quite clear: The OT clearly says that homosexual behavior is condemned and Christ in the NT condemns mentally lusting after a woman - sex outside of marriage is condemned. And that marriage is for one man and one woman. So, the challenge is to either conform your behavior to your belief, or - and as so many of us like to do - conform our belief to our behavior. There really are only two ways to do this.

You have to know all the possible functions of an action in order to define ‘misuse’ - you are operating from a very narrow perception of the functions of human sexuality, as I’ve already indicated.

Not so. Do you, “… know all possible functions…” of electricity or its uses. New inventions come up every day - does this mean that we can no long cope with electricity. To put it simply, take the designated plug into the wall outlet would be a common use. But, if you put a paper-clip into the wall outlet, that would be a genuine misuse. Have you noticed that people have been having babies for a very long time - much longer than there have been OB/GYN specialists. Now, as we learn more, we can have better outcomes - like prenatal care really does decrease prenatal morbidity and mortality. But, this does not change the fact that people can still function without knowing everything.

When you refer to ‘natural law’, it is clear you are referring to something that has no objectively measurable effects - it’s just something you prefer to think is true.

You guessed it - another gratituous assumption devoid of reference. Really, Sair, this is getting a bit exhausing - inventing facts to conform to your position at the drop of a hat. Here is a really interesting link: mises.org/daily/2426. The bottom line is just like there is a ‘real’ human nature that all humans have - so, there is a ‘real’ natural law written on our hearts. If you dispute this - go back to me relieving you of your wallet, iPhone and lap top - you have a right to property that I have just violated by this theft! As much as we would like to have things both ways - life just does not work that way.You can not argue against natural law yet maintian you have a right to YOUR property!

Again, you misunderstand - the subordinate and non-reproductive status of some animals within their social structure is part of the natural way of life for these animals.

Sair, you were asked to document this statement previously and you still haven’t - could it be that this is yet another unsubstantiated statement? In my opinion, the positions you have put forward are simply self-serving and really destructive - both to yourself and anyone who chooses to think a life without consequences is possible.

Please take the time back up your opinions.

God bless

 

[Elizabeth502]

human nature is neither universal nor immutable.

A statement which would imply that there are several different human natures, wihch would also imply differentiation of the species.

As to immutability, that also suggests differentiation at the core. (As opposed to simply differentiation of behavior from environmental causes.)

Both statements have no scientific credibility.

the subordinate and non-reproductive status of some animals within their social structure is part of the natural way of life for these animals.

Human beings are radically different from the rest of the animal kingdom. Doesn’t matter what the animal kingdom does. Animals respond instinctively, and react to and adapt to their physical & social environments, as opposed to considering choices and exercising control over those choices.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

snip

1. Mathematics is the language of nature
2. Everything around us can be represented and understood through numbers
3. If you graph the numbers of any system, patterns emerge. Therefore, there are patterns everywhere in nature
4. Natural law is naming these patterns

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Dakota,



God bless

1. Mathematics is the language of nature
2. Everything around us can be represented and understood through numbers
3. If you graph the numbers of any system, patterns emerge. Therefore, there are patterns everywhere in nature
4. Natural law is naming these patterns

 

[Sair]

A statement which would imply that there are several different human natures, wihch would also imply differentiation of the species.

As to immutability, that also suggests differentiation at the core. (As opposed to simply differentiation of behavior from environmental causes.)

Both statements have no scientific credibility.

Do you suppose the human species is the same at its core as it was at the dawn of human evolution? We may have been able to mate with our ancient ancestors, being the same species, but differentiation in behaviour and physiology caused by environmental influences is much more far-reaching than you imagine. It’s interesting how ‘human nature’ is usually only trotted out as a defence of particular personal prejudices - such-and-such an activity is ‘against human nature’. Arrogant enough to assume that you or at least your particular brand of religion have the last word on what that nature is, and a bit ridiculous to suppose that we don’t do many, many things now that our ancient and even more recent ancestors would have found impossible, absurd, or distasteful. Human nature is not a universal feature - it’s just a feature of humans, very likely unique to this planet at its present time.

Human beings are radically different from the rest of the animal kingdom. Doesn’t matter what the animal kingdom does. Animals respond instinctively, and react to and adapt to their physical & social environments, as opposed to considering choices and exercising control over those choices.

Humans are more radically similar to other animals than you want to believe. Consider how much of our own behaviour is governed by instinct, and how many other animals learn and make choices based on environmental influences, as we do (although we might imagine we do it independently). Putting humans on a magic pedestal does us and the rest of nature a disservice.

 

[RobbyS]

You mean like fetal hormones altering the development of the brain?

We really don’t know the mechanism of development. Heck, we don’t know the sequences of such events.

 

[RobbyS]

Do you suppose the human species is the same at its core as it was at the dawn of human evolution? We may have been able to mate with our ancient ancestors, being the same species, but differentiation in behaviour and physiology caused by environmental influences is much more far-reaching than you imagine. It’s interesting how ‘human nature’ is usually only trotted out as a defence of particular personal prejudices - such-and-such an activity is ‘against human nature’. Arrogant enough to assume that you or at least your particular brand of religion have the last word on what that nature is, and a bit ridiculous to suppose that we don’t do many, many things now that our ancient and even more recent ancestors would have found impossible, absurd, or distasteful. Human nature is not a universal feature - it’s just a feature of humans, very likely unique to this planet at its present time.

Humans are more radically similar to other animals than you want to believe. Consider how much of our own behaviour is governed by instinct, and how many other animals learn and make choices based on environmental influences, as we do (although we might imagine we do it independently). Putting humans on a magic pedestal does us and the rest of nature a disservice.

We really don’t know anything about our remote ancestors. One thing seems sure: “modern man” is not evolving into another species. We are pretty much as we were 200 generations ago and probably will be pretty much the same 200 generation hence–if we are still around.

 

[Sair]

We really don’t know anything about our remote ancestors. One thing seems sure: “modern man” is not evolving into another species. We are pretty much as we were 200 generations ago and probably will be pretty much the same 200 generation hence–if we are still around.

We know as much as fossil and archaeological evidence can tell us, which in comparison to our modern information saturation is, I grant you, not much. But again, this cuts both ways - if we don’t know, why assume necessarily that we haven’t changed? Evolutionary change can be a very slow process, particularly in complex organisms. 200,000 years is hardly a blink of an eye on the geological timescale. But some things do change without us giving rise to a new species - immunity to plague, for example, and tolerance to lactose being examples. To claim that human nature is immutable and universal is effectively to set us apart from any involvement with the natural universe - but then, I suspect that is what many supernaturalists would like to do!