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

[tqualey]

Hi, Sair,

Moving beyond wishful thinking is proving harder than I had first thought… Ah, but rest assured - there really are fact ahead to you get out of this intellectual swamp of only believing what is convenient. Now, let’s see what we have here…

Do you suppose the human species is the same at its core as it was at the dawn of human evolution?

So, you want the, “…dawn of human evolution…”,eh? You will admit this is a bit of a vague time frame! But, there are several things that quickly move us out the realm of mere supposition. From the earliest records we have, human nature has remained not only consistent but easily identifiable. For example, cave drawings not only identify the animals that were important to the artist - but, also identified hunters.rt.com/news/prime-time/years-later-cavemans-drawings-get-moscow-debut/ This is something that those who hunt today find instructive in that information is really being passed from one person to another. The earliest burial sites have found people burried with items that were important to them in life - they just were not left to rot: apps.detnews.com/apps/history/index.php?id=167. But, this is just scratching the surface - we find evidence of people acting like people everywhere we look.

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.

As previously identified humans really are different - both in kind and degree from the other animals. A group of apes in the jungle do not leave evidence of having an actual culture - rather there is a dominance order and from this, a division of labor of sorts - but, nothing that lasts. Human nature wants everyone and everything that comes into the area that this group or this peson was here. We find nothing like this from any other animal. And, really, there is no lack of imagination here - our ancient ancestors were quite imaginative.

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’.

This appears to be the triumph of rationalization over reality. As I recall, there are two ways of doing research. One is to begin with a hypothesis, investigate what is already in print, search of evidence, arrange the evidence so as to find meaning and then present a conclusion. The other way is to start of with an agenda, only look for those things that support this agenda and then claim that something is proven. Sometimes the second method gets more publicity (from the conclusion) but in the end, like the ‘Piltdown Man’ it is exposed for the fraud it always was. unmuseum.org/piltdown.htm

Human nature is not a universal feature - it’s just a feature of humans, (emphasis added) very likely unique to this planet at its present time.

Seriously, Sair - did you re-read that statement before sending it out? How can such a statement possibly be true? When you say - even in a dismissive tone - that it is a feature of humans - you have totally disproven your own argument. By the way, I am in total agreement with you here - it really is a feature of every human being… to have a human nature.

Humans are more radically similar to other animals than you want to believe.

This is an interesting consderation. We share somewhere between 98% - 99% DNA similarity with certain members of the Great Ape Family - and, here is a link I am sure you will appreciate: news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6505691.stm But, what does this similarity really mean? Physical similarity does not mean a whole lot - and, quite honestly, can be quite misleading. For example, we breathe O2 (oxygen) if we were to breath O3 (ozone) we would die. Do not be mislead by proximity.

Putting humans on a magic pedestal does us and the rest of nature a disservice.

To be honest, Sair, I think most of the posts have been trying to put human nature exactly where it belongs. We are not elevating or debasing, plant nature or animal nature either. Human nature has its place - and yes, it is special and above the others for seveal reasons. Humans are the only ones with free will. Animals do act out of instict - but this is not a free choice - they essentially were programed for this. A mother bird will feign a broken wing to lure a snake away from her ground nest. This is not (sorry, gals…) heroic motherhood in action… just instinct. Now there have been many sad stories of human mothers who have sacrificed their lives for their children to keep murderers and other threats away - and considering all of the choices available, this is heroic motherhood. Here is an important link: theblaze.com/stories/mom-with-cancer-dies-after-she-refuses-chemotherapy-to-save-her-unborn-baby/ But, there is yet another reason - you see, Christ chose Human Nature to come to earth and show us the way to heaven. And, I think this is truly a very important consideration.

God bless

 

[John21652]

Objective means that which is not dependent upon the perspective of some subject. …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.

If something is “objective” it is mind independent and universal. Simple criteria, really. Gravity is an easily recognisable objective ‘thing’. It exists independent of any particular mind, yet it is discernable by any mind. So too is human nature. It is universal in that it exists everywhere, in all places and at the same time. That’s why people study it.

Human sexuality, when examined across all societies, is ordered towards procreation. Even the pleasurable aspect of sexuality is part of that order. After all, it is the inherent pleasure of sex forms part of the sex drive of all species of mammals. So too is the bonding aspect of the sex drive. It is this drive to procreate that forms the ‘norm’ of sexual behaviour and the ‘norm’, properly identified, is both descriptive and prescriptive. The former states how things are and the latter tells how things ought to be.

Because something isn’t within the scope of what can be properly considered ‘the norm’ doesn’t mean that every single member of any particular population behaves accordingly. If that were the case, the notion of a ‘normative’ aspect to any classification would be redundant. So it is with human behaviour. The norms of human behaviour are described and prescribed in our laws and moral edicts. They are both prescriptive and descriptive.

We all know that murder is wrong and ‘bad’ and we all know that murders still occur. That is, for a variety of reasons, certain people carry out actions that are outside the norms of human behaviour.

So it is with homosexuality. Across all mammalian species, penises go into vaginas for procreation. That is the very obvious norm of sexual behaviour. Oh, we know that various members of mammalian species will not behave according to the norms properly discerned. After all, dogs will try and hump the cat and bulls will attempt to rape the farmer’s tractor, if not one another. We know homosexuality exists and it seems to have existed in almost every society we know of, but certainly not all. We also know it has always represented a very small percentage of the population of every society where it has existed. It has always been outside the normative behaviour of human beings, properly and objectively described.

Slippery slope arguments rarely carry much clout.

Actually, they do. What you call “slippery slope arguments” are nothing more than the results of inductive thinking. Inductive thinking is how much of the human race gathers its information, starting in childhood. The only time inductive reasoning fails is when the adduced consequences of the inductive process are too far removed from the previous observations. The so called ‘scientific method’ was once called the ‘Baconian method’, after Sir Francis Bacon, the inventor of the scientific method. It is all based on inductive reasoning. Now ask yourself, do you frame a set of premises before you cross the road? Or do you make judgements based on prior experience?

after You are comparing apples with oranges. There are important differences between homosexuality and bestiality that make the moral issues involved quite distinct.

You are quite wrong. The moral issue is simple and to the point. Bestiality and homosexuality are both dysfunctional and disordered. Homosexual sex defiles human nature and so too does interspecies sex. If you condone one, then morally, you must condone the other. The slipperiness of the ‘slope’ is only because those who espouse a moral relativity that greenlights homosexual acts refuse to intellectually achnowledge the common moral link. One man, however, who does champion moral relativity and who has acknowledged the moral link is Princeton professor of Ethics, Peter Singer. He is of the opinion that sex between a human and an animal is quite Ok, provided the animal is not harmed. So there you have it…

Do you imagine a cow or a sheep or a chicken can consent to sexual penetration by a human?..Yes. If they stand still, it must be OK!! Ask Singer.

Rights depend upon non-coercive agreement amongst the parties involved - Wrong again. Coercive agreements are required to ensure the proper functioning of human societies. That is why we have laws prescribing how we ought to behave. Rights depend upon others respecting the laws and conventions of a society so other’s rights will not be trampled. Those rights are given force through laws and conventions, otherwise they are meaningless.

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.

We do indeed have co-ercive laws to protect those who can’t protect themselves, such as the mentally impaired. Bestiality is just another extension of the subjective desires of individuals being given free reign. Those who are into bestiality see nothing wrong with it, as homosexuals see nothing wrong with their disordered sexual practices. Peter Singer, who not only champions moral relativity, but who is considered the ‘father’ of animal rights, is on record as saying bestiality is ok provided the animal is not hurt. Considering how one of humanities most basic moral precepts is being trashed by the homosexuality apologists to support their disordered behaviour, then, logically, there can be no protection against the normalising of bestiality.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, John21652.

An excellent post and a pleasure to read!

God bless

If something is “objective” it is mind independent and universal. Simple criteria, really. Gravity is an easily recognisable objective ‘thing’. It exists independent of any particular mind, yet it is discernable by any mind. So too is human nature. It is universal in that it exists everywhere, in all places and at the same time. That’s why people study it.

Human sexuality, when examined across all societies, is ordered towards procreation. Even the pleasurable aspect of sexuality is part of that order. After all, it is the inherent pleasure of sex forms part of the sex drive of all species of mammals. So too is the bonding aspect of the sex drive. It is this drive to procreate that forms the ‘norm’ of sexual behaviour and the ‘norm’, properly identified, is both descriptive and prescriptive. The former states how things are and the latter tells how things ought to be.

Because something isn’t within the scope of what can be properly considered ‘the norm’ doesn’t mean that every single member of any particular population behaves accordingly. If that were the case, the notion of a ‘normative’ aspect to any classification would be redundant. So it is with human behaviour. The norms of human behaviour are described and prescribed in our laws and moral edicts. They are both prescriptive and descriptive.

We all know that murder is wrong and ‘bad’ and we all know that murders still occur. That is, for a variety of reasons, certain people carry out actions that are outside the norms of human behaviour.

So it is with homosexuality. Across all mammalian species, penises go into vaginas for procreation. That is the very obvious norm of sexual behaviour. Oh, we know that various members of mammalian species will not behave according to the norms properly discerned. After all, dogs will try and hump the cat and bulls will attempt to rape the farmer’s tractor, if not one another. We know homosexuality exists and it seems to have existed in almost every society we know of, but certainly not all. We also know it has always represented a very small percentage of the population of every society where it has existed. It has always been outside the normative behaviour of human beings, properly and objectively described.

Actually, they do. What you call “slippery slope arguments” are nothing more than the results of inductive thinking. Inductive thinking is how much of the human race gathers its information, starting in childhood. The only time inductive reasoning fails is when the adduced consequences of the inductive process are too far removed from the previous observations. The so called ‘scientific method’ was once called the ‘Baconian method’, after Sir Francis Bacon, the inventor of the scientific method. It is all based on inductive reasoning. Now ask yourself, do you frame a set of premises before you cross the road? Or do you make judgements based on prior experience?

You are quite wrong. The moral issue is simple and to the point. Bestiality and homosexuality are both dysfunctional and disordered. Homosexual sex defiles human nature and so too does interspecies sex. If you condone one, then morally, you must condone the other. The slipperiness of the ‘slope’ is only because those who espouse a moral relativity that greenlights homosexual acts refuse to intellectually achnowledge the common moral link. One man, however, who does champion moral relativity and who has acknowledged the moral link is Princeton professor of Ethics, Peter Singer. He is of the opinion that sex between a human and an animal is quite Ok, provided the animal is not harmed. So there you have it…Rights depend upon non-coercive agreement amongst the parties involved -

Wrong again. Coercive agreements are required to ensure the proper functioning of human societies. That is why we have laws prescribing how we ought to behave. Rights depend upon others respecting the laws and conventions of a society so other’s rights will not be trampled. Those rights are given force through laws and conventions, otherwise they are meaningless.

We do indeed have co-ercive laws to protect those who can’t protect themselves, such as the mentally impaired. Bestiality is just another extension of the subjective desires of individuals being given free reign. Those who are into bestiality see nothing wrong with it, as homosexuals see nothing wrong with their disordered sexual practices. Peter Singer, who not only champions moral relativity, but who is considered the ‘father’ of animal rights, is on record as saying bestiality is ok provided the animal is not hurt. Considering how one of humanities most basic moral precepts is being trashed by the homosexuality apologists to support their disordered behaviour, then, logically, there can be no protection against the normalising of bestiality.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Tom, I think you meant to box the last couple of paragraphs within John’s words, as well, but it ended up outside “his” box.


(And I agree. The whole post was well stated by him.)

 

[RobbyS]

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!

“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!”

Who said anything like that? What I said is that the fixity of species is something we need to keep in mind with all the loose talk about :“change.” Darwin did not witness the “origin of species,” but the mutability of existing species. He takes this as evidence for evolution. But while we can almost literally see evolution taking place at the microscopic level, speciation at our scale of existence cannot be so seen. In short, we CANNOT see human evolution taking place. We are too close to the picture and our time is too limited. Now perhaps if we get definite coding for DNA, we may then actually see something, but until then, all is supposition. A good theory might have holes in it. We probably are at the same stage of knowledge as Galileo was when he brashly claimed to have proof for what he certainly did not have proof of. Compare what he knew with what even you and I know about cosmology, even though he was a lot brighter than you or I.

What I am saying about evolution is that the very concept is abused because we think we know what we do not YET know.

 

[Sair]

If something is “objective” it is mind independent and universal. Simple criteria, really. Gravity is an easily recognisable objective ‘thing’. It exists independent of any particular mind, yet it is discernable by any mind. So too is human nature. It is universal in that it exists everywhere, in all places and at the same time. That’s why people study it.

This is kind of the point - I don’t know how you can reasonably state that morality or any concept of a species-wide ‘human nature’, in terms of specific behaviours and social attitudes, are mind-independent. Certainly, some actions do objectively discernible harm, whilst others do objectively discernible good - whether we think of those actions as good or bad is subjective, based upon our perspective.

Human sexuality, when examined across all societies, is ordered towards procreation. Even the pleasurable aspect of sexuality is part of that order. After all, it is the inherent pleasure of sex forms part of the sex drive of all species of mammals. So too is the bonding aspect of the sex drive. It is this drive to procreate that forms the ‘norm’ of sexual behaviour and the ‘norm’, properly identified, is both descriptive and prescriptive. The former states how things are and the latter tells how things ought to be.

Most other mammals have sex during specific seasons, and don’t employ it for purposes of social bonding. Not all of them find it a pleasurable experience, either - consider the barbed feline penis as a case in point. In many cases, males are solitary, or they are driven away after mating so they don’t endanger the offspring.

Human sexuality is obviously very different. We are highly social animals, and hence we tend to share many things that other species are known to fight over - like food and sex. Amongst mammals, we, dolphins and bonobos are routinely observed to use sex for recreation and social bonding - it’s a fairly unique feature. Certainly, social bonding is of benefit to offspring - but this benefit is not always direct. The trouble with considering ‘how things are in nature’ as a prescriptive norm is that those who quote it as such tend not to actually know how things are in nature.

 

[Sair]

We all know that murder is wrong and ‘bad’ and we all know that murders still occur. That is, for a variety of reasons, certain people carry out actions that are outside the norms of human behaviour.

Though I suspect it’s only fanatics who class homosexuality in the same category as murder.

Actually, they do. What you call “slippery slope arguments” are nothing more than the results of inductive thinking. Inductive thinking is how much of the human race gathers its information, starting in childhood. The only time inductive reasoning fails is when the adduced consequences of the inductive process are too far removed from the previous observations. The so called ‘scientific method’ was once called the ‘Baconian method’, after Sir Francis Bacon, the inventor of the scientific method. It is all based on inductive reasoning. Now ask yourself, do you frame a set of premises before you cross the road? Or do you make judgements based on prior experience?

The difference is, one reasons inductively from one situation to similar situations - like crossing the road, I look both ways to make sure no vehicles are coming, because that has always worked in the past, for the same situation and similar situations like crossing train tracks or bike paths. Comparing homosexuality and bestiality is an inappropriate leap from one situation to a completely different situation. I have already explained why this is so - properly understood, homosexual behaviour forms part of the complex range of human sexual interaction, and is a means to establishing and strengthening social bonds; bestiality can only ever be abusive, even if unintentionally so.

You are quite wrong. The moral issue is simple and to the point. Bestiality and homosexuality are both dysfunctional and disordered.

I think the word you’re looking for here is simplistic - you have set your boundaries and anything that crosses them is ‘disordered’.

Homosexual sex defiles human nature and so too does interspecies sex. If you condone one, then morally, you must condone the other. The slipperiness of the ‘slope’ is only because those who espouse a moral relativity that greenlights homosexual acts refuse to intellectually achnowledge the common moral link.

There is no common moral link, as I’ve explained. Is my reasoning too subtle for a black-and-white moral system? So be it.

One man, however, who does champion moral relativity and who has acknowledged the moral link is Princeton professor of Ethics, Peter Singer. He is of the opinion that sex between a human and an animal is quite Ok, provided the animal is not harmed.

Peter Singer also goes on to explain that it’s very often harmful, even fatal, to the animal involved to be used for sexual penetration by a human, as well as the fact that there are some outwardly sexual behaviours - like a dog humping your leg - that most people have no problem with. His argument largely revolves around the reasoning behind the taboo - the belief that we must keep ourselves separate from all other animals (except, of course, that we’re perfectly happy to ingest them as meat…). I think you’ll find that Singer is using quite different criteria in his moral reasoning than anyone who employs a slippery slope argument - the latter are prepared to connect homosexuality with everything from child molestation to rape to murder, anything that they think will shock people sufficiently to listen to them - bestiality is something most people find shocking and distasteful, so it fits the bill for them.

Wrong again. Coercive agreements are required to ensure the proper functioning of human societies. That is why we have laws prescribing how we ought to behave. Rights depend upon others respecting the laws and conventions of a society so other’s rights will not be trampled. Those rights are given force through laws and conventions, otherwise they are meaningless.

So, if all these things are part of our ‘nature’, why the need for coercion of any kind?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Elizabeth502,

Yes… I did… … thanks for pointing this out.

God bless

Tom, I think you meant to box the last couple of paragraphs within John’s words, as well, but it ended up outside “his” box.


(And I agree. The whole post was well stated by him.)

 

[michelleds]

I’m a day late and a dollar short but I wanted to say in regards to the post that we don’t really know anything about ancient man…we certainly do know that they weren’t all homosexual or we wouldn’t be here having this discussion.

Originally Posted by Sair
Do you suppose the human species is the same at its core as it was at the dawn of human evolution?

I am also wondering about this “social bonding” that Sair keeps referring to as a benefit/purpose of sex. are you advocating multiple sex partners?

as to the harm analysis, might I just say that STDs, including HIV/AIDS, would be unheard of if society adhered to a one man/one woman for life model. Is AIDS God’s retribution against gay men? I’m not saying that at all, but to deny that gay men’s sexual activities and promiscuity enabled the spread of a fatal disease is to deny reality. (lest you think this is just a gay thing: the same can be said of the 53 million aborted babies in the US since 1973–a product of abandoning one man/one woman for life model.)

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Sair,

It appears as though you have elevated point evasion to an art form… Surely you have a good idea of what discoveries have been made specific to ancient humans through out the world. There are a lot of incredible similarities - yet you chose to ignore this as providing no evidence of human nature being static as opposed to the changeable item you are claiming.

Several posts back, I gave used the example of private property - and how theft is, for the most part, discouraged amongst various peoples through out the world. I mentioned that if I took your wallet, iPhone and lap top you would think I had done you wrong (i.e., you were the victim of a moral evil) My telling you that because all morality is subjective you will need to get another thought in your head because I have not made what you thought was your property - my propterty. Alas, ‘subjective morality’ only seems to work if one is taking from others - rather than having their belongings taken!

Here in Houston, we use ‘rocket scientists’ for a lot of non-NASA type work - but, it really doesn’t take a rocket scientist to determine that no society can last long with subjective morality as the norm. Note, stealing the property of others is not the same as sharing various items in common. But, my guess is that most folks engaged in communial living don’t share their own toothbrush!

If we acknowledge that our ancient ancestors recognized private property as something that was a good in and of itself - and with people even being buried with, shell jewlry, rouge pots, axe blades and arrows - it would seem to indicate this. I submit that there are other common elements that - if you honestly connect the dots and not just dismiss them - the very shape of a commonly shared human nature will make itself know. There is really no agenda here - just objective observations about what has been found of ancient human beings.

Dismissing this evidence to prove that homosexual behavior is somehow acceptable certainly looks like an agenda to me.

Now, I have a question for you.

Wouldn’t it be so much simpler to actually acknowledge that there is such a thing as human nature that has not changed, that the primary (but not only) purpose of a man and woman mating is to have children and rear them in a family setting and, that while homosexual behavior is an intrinsic disorder and debases those who engage in it - some simply do not care and want to act this way?

In my opinion, this would honestly cut through all of these smoke-screen arguments you have been putting forward and go right to the heart of your advocacy: “Sodomy is for me - no matter what!”

God bless

This is kind of the point - I don’t know how you can reasonably state that morality or any concept of a species-wide ‘human nature’, in terms of specific behaviours and social attitudes, are mind-independent. Certainly, some actions do objectively discernible harm, whilst others do objectively discernible good - whether we think of

those actions as good or bad is subjective, based upon our perspective.

Most other mammals have sex during specific seasons, and don’t employ it for purposes of social bonding. Not all of them find it a pleasurable experience, either - consider the barbed feline penis as a case in point. In many cases, males are solitary, or they are driven away after mating so they don’t endanger the offspring.

Human sexuality is obviously very different. We are highly social animals, and hence we tend to share many things that other species are known to fight over - like food and sex. Amongst mammals, we, dolphins and bonobos are routinely observed to use sex for recreation and social bonding - it’s a fairly unique feature. Certainly, social bonding is of benefit to offspring - but this benefit is not always direct. The trouble with considering ‘how things are in nature’ as a prescriptive norm is that those who quote it as such tend not to actually know how things are in nature.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Michelleds,

Let me comment on one of the items you addressed - and to do so with some material I just recieved on the “Demographic Winter”.

Here is an excerpt - but, what I would really encourage is to go to the link at the bottom for some eye-opening material on another aspect of ‘harm analysis’. Like most realities, it takes a while to develop - and then once established - it will be very difficult to turn around.

Here it is:

**Here’s a simple formula for understanding Demographic Winter: Those who have faith in the future have children. Those who don’t, don’t. Where does faith in the future come from? It comes from faith.

The pro-life position is based on the premise that each life, born and pre-born, is
infinitely precious. How often have we heard the catch-phrase “the children are our
future.” To put it another way, without children, there is no future? Once people truly understand this, perhaps they’ll stop aborting their children. Perhaps they’ll stop preventing conception. Perhaps they’ll start having large families again. Perhaps they’ll give children the love they need and deserve. If humanity is to have a future, this is where it starts.

See the Demographic Winter website at demographicwinter.com/index.html**

God bless

…as to the harm analysis, might I just say that STDs, including HIV/AIDS, would be unheard of if society adhered to a one man/one woman for life model. Is AIDS God’s retribution against gay men? I’m not saying that at all, but to deny that gay men’s sexual activities and promiscuity enabled the spread of a fatal disease is to deny reality. (lest you think this is just a gay thing: the same can be said of the 53 million aborted babies in the US since 1973–a product of abandoning one man/one woman for life model.)

 

[michelleds]

Let me comment on one of the items you addressed - and to do so with some material I just recieved on the “Demographic Winter”.

so, that was scary. I’d make a list of things that scare me like this but it all falls under the rubric of WTSHTF.

 

[Sair]

Here in Houston, we use ‘rocket scientists’ for a lot of non-NASA type work - but, it really doesn’t take a rocket scientist to determine that no society can last long with subjective morality as the norm. Note, stealing the property of others is not the same as sharing various items in common. But, my guess is that most folks engaged in communial living don’t share their own toothbrush!

Why not, if they share saliva?

Flippancy aside, it’s fair to say that the concept of private property, as such, is not actually part of human nature in the sense of being something that is universally expressed. Foraging societies, whose lifestyles are probably similar to those of our ancient, pre-civilised ancestors, certainly do not understand private property the way it is understood in the West. They practice what is known as fierce egalitarianism - sharing as a matter of course. They may have particular possessions that are ‘theirs’ by virtue of the fact that they carry them around and use them, but their ideas of ownership are radically different to those of settled, capitalistic societies.

If we acknowledge that our ancient ancestors recognized private property as something that was a good in and of itself - and with people even being buried with, shell jewlry, rouge pots, axe blades and arrows - it would seem to indicate this.

Many of which burial sites are from a post-civilisation period. Prior to this, burial with tools such as arrow heads and knives would indicate belief that such things would be useful to the person in the life to come, not so much that these things particularly belonged to that person.

I submit that there are other common elements that - if you honestly connect the dots and not just dismiss them - the very shape of a commonly shared human nature will make itself know. There is really no agenda here - just objective observations about what has been found of ancient human beings.

You have an agenda, just like everyone who attempts to argue a point in such a forum. Your agenda is simply to insist that you’re right, by - as you accuse me of doing - dismissing evidence or interpretations of evidence that don’t fit in with your picture.

Dismissing this evidence to prove that homosexual behavior is somehow acceptable certainly looks like an agenda to me.

You betray your agenda, and your whole argument, incidentally, by the very use of the word ‘acceptable’ - this is a subjective judgement. Look at the actual objective fact in this case - homosexuality has persisted in human societies, despite concerted efforts by religious and secular authorities to stamp it out. What does that tell you about whether or not it’s ‘acceptable’? As I indicated before, coercion is not required to make people behave ‘naturally’.

Wouldn’t it be so much simpler to actually acknowledge that there is such a thing as human nature that has not changed, that the primary (but not only) purpose of a man and woman mating is to have children and rear them in a family setting and, that while homosexual behavior is an intrinsic disorder and debases those who engage in it - some simply do not care and want to act this way?

It might be simpler (read simplistic) but it would be inaccurate. What, after all, is ‘human nature’ other than the expression of common behaviours amongst humans? As I’ve said, we are all one species with similar physical characteristics - but this commonality is painted with a very broad brush. We have instincts, but these instincts can be shaped, for better or worse, by culture and environment. To insist that there is a base human nature that incorporates all the standard elements of Christianised Western culture is simply not correct.

In my opinion, this would honestly cut through all of these smoke-screen arguments you have been putting forward and go right to the heart of your advocacy: “Sodomy is for me - no matter what!”

You are entitled to you own opinion - but not to you own facts.

 

[Sair]

“Bestiality and homosexuality are both dysfunctional and disordered.”

Just out of curiosity - in what light do you consider the artificial insemination of livestock, such as cows, horses, pigs and poultry, by those who breed them? I mean, by a purely mechanical description, this counts as bestiality - it’s sexual penetration of another animal by a human, albeit with an inanimate object. Is this okay by you because it’s for the purpose of (commercial) reproduction? Do you consider this “objectively ordered”? It’s certainly not illegal, after all. Maybe you consider it an ‘acceptable use’ of other animals for human purposes. Personally I find it distasteful, just one of the many indignities to which domesticated animals are routinely subjected by humans. But then, I guess it passes muster for the moralisers because it doesn’t involve any ‘illicit’ pleasure for either party…

Be that as it may, have you also considered the very likely possibility that most acts of bestiality, such as the ones documented by Kinsey, were probably the result of severe frustration in the face of a lack of available human partners? It should be obvious to you that moral issues are not to be over-simplified, yet that is what I have repeatedly seen happening on this thread - “just accept that we’re right and get on with it!”

To address the accusations of inconsistency in my reasoning, here is a different way of looking at it. I consider any abusive or coercive sexual act to be wrong, because not only do I believe other humans worthy of respect, but I believe all of nature is worthy of respect. I file bestiality under the heading of abusive, simply because I cannot conceive of any pairing of human and non-human animal that would be a meeting of equals, where each party had an equal share and understanding in the proceedings and could give informed consent. Find me an example of such a situation, and I would classify it as morally acceptable - but I don’t think that’s likely. Bestiality is therefore wrong for the same reason that child abuse is wrong - it is a betrayal of a relationship of protection and caring; in our relationships with domesticated animals, we are the ones with power, and therefore the responsibility to uphold the welfare and interests of the animals in our care.

I believe my moral reasoning is consistent. But you would class consensual, loving sexual acts between two adults of the same sex in the same category as abusive, violent and coercive acts. That is not consistent - that is simplistic, arrogant and incorrect, in my view.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Sair,

You certainly have managed to balance gratitutious assumptins with tragic one-liners. From everything I have read on your posts, you have yet to post one reference or link to where it is you get your opinions. I would have thought by now that fatigue would have set in … but … let’s see what we have here…

Flippancy aside, it’s fair to say that the concept of private property, as such, is not actually part of human nature in the sense of being something that is universally expressed. Foraging societies, whose lifestyles are probably similar to those of our ancient, pre-civilised ancestors, certainly do not understand private property the way it is understood in the West. They practice what is known as fierce egalitarianism - sharing as a matter of course. They may have particular possessions that are ‘theirs’ by virtue of the fact that they carry them around and use them, but their ideas of ownership are radically different to those of settled, capitalistic societies.

Now, would you like to give a reference for this ‘fact’ you just stated? No scholars I am aware of contrast ancient civilizations with modern western civilizations with the idea that the former is under developed.

Many of which burial sites are from a post-civilisation period. Prior to this, burial with tools such as arrow heads and knives would indicate belief that such things would be useful to the person in the life to come, not so much that these things particularly belonged to that person.

And, yes, a reference would be appreciated for this ‘fact’, too. I am willing to bet that they did not take someone else’s tools as part of a burial rite. They may have been like heirs today!

You have an agenda, just like everyone who attempts to argue a point in such a forum. Your agenda is simply to insist that you’re right, by - as you accuse me of doing - dismissing evidence or interpretations of evidence that don’t fit in with your picture.

Actually, you are quite wrong about that. Christ was quite clear and distinguishing the sin from the sinner when He told the woman caught in adultery to “I do not condemn you. Go and sin no more.” Christ gave us the Catholic Church to provide error-free teaching - and Christ’s Church teaches that homosexual behavior is disordered. Now, if you see this as an agenda, so be it. Since you are posting on CAF, you must also have a goal. Who is sponsoring your agenda?

You betray your agenda, and your whole argument, incidentally, by the very use of the word ‘acceptable’ - this is a subjective judgement. Look at the actual objective fact in this case - homosexuality has persisted in human societies, despite concerted efforts by religious and secular authorities to stamp it out. What does that tell you about whether or not it’s ‘acceptable’? As I indicated before, coercion is not required to make people behave ‘naturally’.

Again, you are in error. I can objectively claim that murder is disordered and not acceptable. This is just not my opinion or the opinion of the guy down the street - and, it is more than just a law. Condemning murder has a long and established history throughout history - actually, begining the children of our First Parents. There really is an objective morality, and people commenting in support of it does not now make it subjective morality.

To insist that there is a base human nature that incorporates all the standard elements of Christianised Western culture is simply not correct.

You are entitled to you own opinion - but not to you own facts.

Again, you are in error - and have now set up a straw-man argument. No one has argued this. What has been said is that human nature is universal and has not changed. That would mean that it existed before ‘Christianised Western culture’!

By the way, plagerism is really frowned on by the mods … this pirated quote you gave is from D. P. Moynihan. Here is a link: en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Daniel_Patrick_Moynihan
God bless

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Sair,

Two things should be noted in your post:

1.) It entirely evades the opening statement

2.) You use yourself as the sole criteria for determining that homosexual behavior is OK, while oher disordered sex acts are not OK. (I highlighed the operative sections.)

This really isn’t about you (like the reverse of the Jim Benton character ‘Happy Bunny’). There really is a right and a wrong, an orderd and a disordered and it exists outside of our subjective and often rationalizing view.

From what you provided in your posts, things are right or wrong because you see them that way. There is nothing outside of yourself that stands for moral virtue - unless you sign off on it. Sair, this is a delusional view - and finding someone who agrees with you only means that thre are two of you with delusions. Reality is what it is - and one focus is that each of us will face judgment where sophistry and evasion will immediately disappear in the Light and Holiness of God.

The good news is that one can be sorry for all of the yesterdays that they wasted in disordered behavior - and be forgiven. The bad news is that those who plan for continuing on with disorder for their tomorrows are at serious risk for losing their soul. And, if you believe Christ is God, you can read all He said in the NT. And, if you don’t, you can hear about on Judgment Day. Your choice, and your responsibility - you have been put on notice of this reality.

God bless

“Bestiality and homosexuality are both dysfunctional and disordered.”

Just out of curiosity - in what light do you consider the artificial insemination of livestock, such as cows, horses, pigs and poultry, by those who breed them? I mean, by a purely mechanical description, this counts as bestiality - it’s sexual penetration of another animal by a human, albeit with an inanimate object. Is this okay by you because it’s for the purpose of (commercial) reproduction? Do you consider this “objectively ordered”? It’s certainly not illegal, after all. Maybe you consider it an ‘acceptable use’ of other animals for human purposes. Personally I find it distasteful, just one of the many indignities to which domesticated animals are routinely subjected by humans. But then, I guess it passes muster for the moralisers because it doesn’t involve any ‘illicit’ pleasure for either party…

Be that as it may, have you also considered the very likely possibility that most acts of bestiality, such as the ones documented by Kinsey, were probably the result of severe frustration in the face of a lack of available human partners? It should be obvious to you that moral issues are not to be over-simplified, yet that is what I have repeatedly seen happening on this thread - “just accept that we’re right and get on with it!”

To address the accusations of inconsistency in my reasoning, here is a different way of looking at it. I consider any abusive or coercive sexual act to be wrong, because not only do I believe other humans worthy of respect, but I believe all of nature is worthy of respect. I file bestiality under the heading of abusive, simply because I cannot conceive of any pairing of human and non-human animal that would be a meeting of equals, where each party had an equal share and understanding in the proceedings and could give informed consent. Find me an example of such a situation, and I would classify it as morally acceptable - but I don’t think that’s likely. Bestiality is therefore wrong for the same reason that child abuse is wrong - it is a betrayal of a relationship of protection and caring; in our relationships with domesticated animals, we are the ones with power, and therefore the responsibility to uphold the welfare and interests of the animals in our care.

I believe my moral reasoning is consistent. But you would class consensual, loving sexual acts between two adults of the same sex in the same category as abusive, violent and coercive acts. That is not consistent - that is simplistic, arrogant and incorrect, in my view.

 

[RobbyS]

“Bestiality and homosexuality are both dysfunctional and disordered.”

Just out of curiosity - in what light do you consider the artificial insemination of livestock, such as cows, horses, pigs and poultry, by those who breed them? I mean, by a purely mechanical description, this counts as bestiality - it’s sexual penetration of another animal by a human, albeit with an inanimate object. Is this okay by you because it’s for the purpose of (commercial) reproduction? Do you consider this “objectively ordered”? It’s certainly not illegal, after all. Maybe you consider it an ‘acceptable use’ of other animals for human purposes. Personally I find it distasteful, just one of the many indignities to which domesticated animals are routinely subjected by humans. But then, I guess it passes muster for the moralisers because it doesn’t involve any ‘illicit’ pleasure for either party…

Be that as it may, have you also considered the very likely possibility that most acts of bestiality, such as the ones documented by Kinsey, were probably the result of severe frustration in the face of a lack of available human partners? It should be obvious to you that moral issues are not to be over-simplified, yet that is what I have repeatedly seen happening on this thread - “just accept that we’re right and get on with it!”

To address the accusations of inconsistency in my reasoning, here is a different way of looking at it. I consider any abusive or coercive sexual act to be wrong, because not only do I believe other humans worthy of respect, but I believe all of nature is worthy of respect. I file bestiality under the heading of abusive, simply because I cannot conceive of any pairing of human and non-human animal that would be a meeting of equals, where each party had an equal share and understanding in the proceedings and could give informed consent. Find me an example of such a situation, and I would classify it as morally acceptable - but I don’t think that’s likely. Bestiality is therefore wrong for the same reason that child abuse is wrong - it is a betrayal of a relationship of protection and caring; in our relationships with domesticated animals, we are the ones with power, and therefore the responsibility to uphold the welfare and interests of the animals in our care.

I believe my moral reasoning is consistent. But you would class consensual, loving sexual acts between two adults of the same sex in the same category as abusive, violent and coercive acts. That is not consistent - that is simplistic, arrogant and incorrect, in my view.

I am reminded of a story about the trapper is caught after shooting his partner. Why did you do it, he is asked by the Mountie? I caught him making out with my board. The relationship between a man and an ewe, for instance, is not much different from that between between a man and his sex toy. One must respect sentient beings, but unlikely that the ewe “thinks” she has been raped.

 

[John21652]

This is kind of the point - I don’t know how you can reasonably state that morality or any concept of a species-wide ‘human nature’, in terms of specific behaviours and social attitudes, are mind-independent. Certainly, some actions do objectively discernible harm, whilst others do objectively discernible good - whether we think of those actions as good or bad is subjective, based upon our perspective.

You don’t know Sair because you are refusing to read these posts in context - in this case, within the context of a conversation. I explained to you what objectivity was and I explained to you how objectively discernable human atrributes are used to arrive at a theory of human nature. Yet here, you swing the argument to include* “…specific behaviours and social attributes…”*. I specifically told you we know certain people behave outside the norms of discerned human behaviour. The obvious inference is that those behaviours do not change what is considered to be the norm. If you wish to conduct a meaningful discussion on a philosophy thread, then learn not to swing from the general to the particular. If that flaw in your argument needs further explaining, just let me know. If you persist, I’ll just label you as obtuse. Make up your mind.

Most other mammals have sex during specific seasons, and don’t employ it for purposes of social bonding. Not all of them find it a pleasurable experience, either - consider the barbed feline penis as a case in point. In many cases, males are solitary, or they are driven away after mating so they don’t endanger the offspring.

Your attempt at answering has seen you totally not answer the paragraph you quoted. I specifically wrote “Across all mammalian species, penises go into vaginas for procreation. That is the very obvious norm of sexual behaviour…” Yet you answered with something totally off the subject. You even, once again, have tried to use a particular case to rebut a general argument. That’s pathetic…Unless you can rebut the italiciced sentence, you are not answering the question.

Human sexuality is obviously very different.

The subject statement is *Across all mammalian species, penises go into vaginas for procreation. That is the very obvious norm of sexual behaviour…". *Now, please, either answer that statement, or admit you are off the playing field with your capricious arguments.

We are highly social animals,

Right there you nailed another easily discernable objective truth about human nature. Either you can’t see it, which means your insights are flawed, or you wont see it, which means your argument is obtuse and nothing more.

and hence we tend to share many things that other species are known to fight over - like food and sex.

Strange, because history is full of examples of tribal and national rivalries and even war over things like food and sex.

Amongst mammals, we, dolphins and bonobos are routinely observed to use sex for recreation and social bonding - it’s a fairly unique feature.

Uncontrolled and profligate sex within human populations causes harm and that is why human populations have always sought to control it. We are neither fish, nor monkeys.

Certainly, social bonding is of benefit to offspring - but this benefit is not always direct.

And why, prey tell, do the benefits of social bonding need to be ‘direct’?

The trouble with considering ‘how things are in nature’ as a prescriptive norm is that those who quote it as such tend not to actually know how things are in nature.

Here you are being either deliberately obtuse or intellectually dishonest. On multiple occasions, I, as well as others, have gone to great pains to tell the likes of you that Natural Law and the Law of Nature are two distinct things. Yet here you once again attempt to make it seem that we confuse the two. We do not. We do not draw moral norms from ‘how things are in nature’, but from human nature. And for your information, I do indeed know how things work in nature. Better than most.

 

[John21652]

Though I suspect it’s only fanatics who class homosexuality in the same category as murder.

There you go again Sair. You have deliberately ignored the argument about universalizability regarding human nature to make the bland, but dishonest statement that the connection between two examples of disordered behaviour can only be linked by people who are ‘fanatics’. You have failed to show that the argument for the universally objective disorder inherent in both behaviours is discernable.

The difference is, one reasons inductively from one situation to similar situations - like crossing the road, I look both ways to make sure no vehicles are coming, because that has always worked in the past, for the same situation and similar situations like crossing train tracks or bike paths.

Hip hip hooray! You got it! However, you have conveniently ignored the rest of my post which clearly demonstrated that inductive reasoning is the foundation of the scientific method. Yet in an earlier post, you clearly stated that so called “slippery slope” conclusions were flawed and you cannot do that without denigrating inductive thinking. Yet here you give us an example of how it actually plays a role in every day life!

Comparing homosexuality and bestiality is an inappropriate leap from one situation to a completely different situation.

Sticking human penises into human anuses is disordered and dysfunctional. Sticking penises into animal anuses and animal vaginas is also disordered and dysfunctional. So too is allowing animal penises into human vaginas or human anuses. You see the common link now Sair?

I have already explained why this is so - properly understood, homosexual behaviour forms part of the complex range of human sexual interaction,

Indeed it is. No-one denies that. The problem is, however, that homosexual behaviour is way outside the norm of "complex human interaction". You know it, but do not have the intellectual courage to admit it. Strange, when you consider that you seem to abhor bestiality.

and is a means to establishing and strengthening social bonds; bestiality can only ever be abusive, even if unintentionally so.

I have three brothers. I do not need to stick my penis into their anuses to have strong social bonds. We’d die for one another as it is. Most men have strong social bonds with other men. Most men do not need to stick their penises into other men’s anuses to form or strengthen those social bonds. Bestiality is just hedonistic behaviour, just like homosexual sex, most of which is promiscuous, which proves the point. Homosexual sex is also an abuse of a human body, which is one of the reasons it is considered to be disordered.

I think the word you’re looking for here is simplistic - you have set your boundaries and anything that crosses them is ‘disordered’.

Actually, the word that keeps jumping into my head is “obtuse”. You seem very good at ignoring the arguments in favour of there being a discernable objective order to anything, even science, it would seem, to continually insist that anyone who can indeed discern objectivity is being subjective. When you do, you make yourself seem obtuse.

There is no common moral link, as I’ve explained. Is my reasoning too subtle for a black-and-white moral system? So be it.

I showed the common moral link. Just because you write that there is no common moral link doesn’t make it go away.

Peter Singer also goes on to explain that it’s very often harmful, even fatal, to the animal involved to be used for sexual penetration by a human, as well as the fact that there are some outwardly sexual behaviours - like a dog humping your leg - that most people have no problem with. His argument largely revolves around the reasoning behind the taboo - the belief that we must keep ourselves separate from all other animals (except, of course, that we’re perfectly happy to ingest them as meat…). I think you’ll find that Singer is using quite different criteria in his moral reasoning than anyone who employs a slippery slope argument - the latter are prepared to connect homosexuality with everything from child molestation to rape to murder, anything that they think will shock people sufficiently to listen to them - bestiality is something most people find shocking and distasteful, so it fits the bill for them.

Of course Singer is using a “…different criteria in his moral reasoning…”. He’s a Utilitarian! And he is on record as writing that sex between humans and animals does not diminish human dignity. You need to get past Wikipedia if you want to understand Singer.

So, if all these things are part of our ‘nature’, why the need for coercion of any kind?

Do you not read what others post? I specifically wrote that not everyone behaves within the bounds of normative human behaviour. Some will murder. Some will try to speed in cars. Some will steal. Really, its not rocket science.

 

[John21652]

“Bestiality and homosexuality are both dysfunctional and disordered.”

Just out of curiosity - in what light do you consider the artificial insemination of livestock, such as cows, horses, pigs and poultry, by those who breed them? I mean, by a purely mechanical description, this counts as bestiality - it’s sexual penetration of another animal by a human, albeit with an inanimate object. Is this okay by you because it’s for the purpose of (commercial) reproduction? Do you consider this “objectively ordered”? It’s certainly not illegal, after all. Maybe you consider it an ‘acceptable use’ of other animals for human purposes. Personally I find it distasteful, just one of the many indignities to which domesticated animals are routinely subjected by humans. But then, I guess it passes muster for the moralisers because it doesn’t involve any ‘illicit’ pleasure for either party…

As luck would have it Sair, I ran a commercial farm for many years. I have a certificate as an A.I technician and I have had plenty of practice. If shoving a catheter into a cows vagina is bestiality, then all vets are into bestiality! The difference between A.I. and veterinarians and those who practice bestiality is that only the latter are sexually aroused at the time and only they seem to think swapping bodily fluids with an animal is OK. The rest of us wear gloves from finger tip to shoulder! When A.I is carried out, same species semen is introduced into the animal. Now compare that with bestiality. I would have thought that most primary school children would be able to percieve the difference.

Be that as it may, have you also considered the very likely possibility that most acts of bestiality, such as the ones documented by Kinsey, were probably the result of severe frustration in the face of a lack of available human partners? It should be obvious to you that moral issues are not to be over-simplified, yet that is what I have repeatedly seen happening on this thread - “just accept that we’re right and get on with it!”

Kinsey has long been discredited. Notwithstanding, frustration over a lack of sex partners has, in most instances, caused one human population to wage a raid on another human population. In other words, that frustration leads normal people to try harder. Trying harder does not mean shagging the neighbours cow.

To address the accusations of inconsistency in my reasoning, here is a different way of looking at it. I consider any abusive or coercive sexual act to be wrong, because not only do I believe other humans worthy of respect, but I believe all of nature is worthy of respect. I file bestiality under the heading of abusive, simply because I cannot conceive of any pairing of human and non-human animal that would be a meeting of equals, where each party had an equal share and understanding in the proceedings and could give informed consent. Find me an example of such a situation, and I would classify it as morally acceptable - but I don’t think that’s likely. Bestiality is therefore wrong for the same reason that child abuse is wrong - it is a betrayal of a relationship of protection and caring; in our relationships with domesticated animals, we are the ones with power, and therefore the responsibility to uphold the welfare and interests of the animals in our care.

What you call child abuse is labelled as child love by those who think your moral stance on this issue is wrong.
Bestiality is wrong not because of what you, personally think, but because it is objectively wrong. After all, if you stick to your morally relativistic logic, your opinion about the wrongness of bestiality is worth no more than the opinion of the man who loves to have it off with his dog.

I believe my moral reasoning is consistent. But you would class consensual, loving sexual acts between two adults of the same sex in the same category as abusive, violent and coercive acts. That is not consistent - that is simplistic, arrogant and incorrect, in my view.

Your moral reasoning is not consistent. The above paragraph shows that. You espouse one form of behaviour that is clearly outside the norm of human behaviour, yet you condemn another just because you don’t like it. Yet, the two are linked because they are both outside the norm of human behaviour and are thus properly described as disordered and dysfunctional. You wont allow yourself to see the link because to do so would shoot down in flames your moral reasoning. Even Singer has the intellectual courage to see and accept the absurdity of his moral reasoning. Why don’t you?