"Homosexuality is not Natural!"

[Jaiket]

It's a very common objection to homosexual inclusion within religious practice, civil rights, and often just an objection to homosexuality itself to state that homosexuality is not natural.

What is the statement that x is not natural actually expressing in this case?

Are there any people here who hold this conviction who could explain the meaning of the statement more precisely?

Thanks.

[paul]

not sure i fully understand your question.

but i would say what is called homosexuality is without doubt to me unnatural.

today the world doesn't allow me to have this opinion without labelling me, or anyone else who holds the same opinion.

nature can be clearly seen, the way each of us are born, the natural functions of our sexual bodies and that each of us come to be from this.

In religion which beleive God created, it is clear to see the way God created us, and there is usually a Holy interperatation of marriage, and this being of only the male and female kind, and having a connection to this God created nature.

I see homosexuality as similar to peodophilier and beastiality, in that people do have these feelings, but they are not right, and they need help and love.

this world today i would think would have no problem naming two of these unnatural, or maybe some mental or emotional disorder.
it is sometimes admitted even by homosexuals themselves, as it is by some peodophiles that they were once abused themselves.

I beleive as each of us have to grow in our spiritual life, and face many of our demons, and need help from a loving hand, i think the same is true of homosexuality.

[bananabrain]

i personally think that the argument that "it's not natural" does tend to fall down somewhat when faced when animals start demonstrating homosexual behaviour. it's quite well documented particularly in the bonobo, or pygmy chimpanzee, with whom we share 99% of our dna i believe. then again, apparently we also share 66% of our dna with bananas. perhaps more in my case. so, apparently it certainly *can* be "natural", whatever that means. i do think, however, that attempts to show that this is simply a case of mental or emotional disorder, or to be considered as tantamount to non-consensual things like paedophilia or bestiality, are not only staggeringly insensitive and unpleasant, but remarkably ignorant - not only in our eyes, but in those of the Divine.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Paladin]

There is a reason why the "appeal to nature (argumentum ad naturum)" is considered a logical fallacy. As an argument it just doesn't hold up. to say that what is "natural" or found in nature is good, and what is not found in nature is bad opens up a whole philosophical can of worms. The computer I am using isn't found in nature, medicines that cure many diseases are man made not natural etc etc.
And to equate gays with pedophiles is just horrendus! One is an activity between consenting adults, the other is child abuse.

[cavalier]

Originally Posted by Paladin

And to equate gays with pedophiles is just horrendus! One is an activity between consenting adults, the other is child abuse.

hear, hear.

[paul]

i beleive the OP was asking the question to someone of my beliefs.

i have no intention of getting into a neverending debate.

you will get nowhere insulting people just because they don't agree with you.

what i said was
"I see homosexuality as similar to peodophilier and beastiality, in that people do have these feelings"

which people do.

i was not talking of whether it was consentaul or not, what is called hetrosexual sex, can be non consentual, but it's not that it is not consensual that makes it unnatural.

non consenting homosexual sex, is not what makes it unatural to me.
consentual and unconsentual sex, is something else again.

i'm just talking of the act, whether consentual or not, and i think we would all share how horrendus peodophilier is, but even that can be consentual.
young boys and girls have sold their bodies on the street, that doesn't make it anymore natural.
when they get older and choose to do the same, some may say it's then their choice, but has it ever been the life they would have chosen.

dogs have sex with the same sex, they also hump humans' legs, this doesn't mean it's natural for humans to act the same.
we are a different nature from animals, i know we don't always act differently, maybe animals sometimes behave better than us.
but i think humans are capable of living spiritual lives, which maybe what differs us from animals.

i'm not actually ignorant of this topic, i've heard all the arguments before, we could go over all the same things over pages and pages.
but i beleive the OP was asking for my type of opinion, i replied, if you want to debate it, or even if the OP does, count me out, it's a waste of my time and yours.

[Paladin]

Paul,

I don't think anyone here would insult you because of your beliefs, however it is common on these forums for us to attack ideas not ther person.
If I should present an argument in favor of my opinion and it is successfully refuted by another then that is to be expected. Since I do not equate my sense of self with my ideas, taking something as a personal attack would be the same as taking something that didn't belong to me.

[kenod]

Originally Posted by Paladin

There is a reason why the "appeal to nature (argumentum ad naturum)" is considered a logical fallacy. As an argument it just doesn't hold up. to say that what is "natural" or found in nature is good, and what is not found in nature is bad opens up a whole philosophical can of worms. The computer I am using isn't found in nature, medicines that cure many diseases are man made not natural etc etc.

And what is found in nature is not always good ... Katrina, influenza, grumpy old men

On a more serious note, what increases the survival of humankind must be good - what decreases the chances of survival cannot be good.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by kenod

And what is found in nature is not always good ... Katrina, influenza, grumpy old men

On a more serious note, what increases the survival of humankind must be good - what decreases the chances of survival cannot be good.

Please define survival and good.

[kenod]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Please define survival and good.

survival = getting through the day
good = my wife's lasagne

[cavalier]

Originally Posted by kenod

survival = getting through the day

I know that I get through the day a lot easier since switching over to heterosexuality

[Paladin]

Okay, fair enough

But in light of the topic, by your definition, the love a same sex couple have for each other may help them "get through the day" and therefore good.

Perceptions are so important to be mindful of, even though the meal your wife prepares is good for you and your family, another might find it unaceptable because the dish includes the flesh of an animal. Hypothetically then what is good for you might violate anothers senisiblity and religious beliefs, but how unfair it would be to be held to anothers expectations, desires and mores.

[taijasi]

Indeed, if one is not a vegetarian, then s/he blasphemes in the sight of the Lord, walks the unholy and unrighteous path, and directly threatens the future, survival and well-being of the race (not to mention his or her own organism). I can show this Biblically, and scripture-pick all day long to prove my point, just as readily as many a person here can show me our divine right (even imperative) to eat flesh, as if this actually were healthy - either physically, or spiritually.

And what does it prove that either of us can find admonitions and instructions in this Holy Book? Hmmm.

Either red meat kills, and is bad for the heart, or it's not. Either there is a nephesh, ruach, whatever "soul" you like to pick and focus on - present with every animal, or not. And so if I did go to church, wouldn't I be justified, and in the right, to pat all you sinning, heathen meat-eaters on the back, shake your hands at the door, but silently rebuke you - or openly - if you dared to eat a steak ANYwhere near my House of God! Of course I'd be justified.

Anything less, would be my OWN blasphemy, and God would get very unhappy and upset and angry about, and strike me down with thunderbolts. He's like that, you know. And what's most important is that I uphold his commandment FOR OTHER PEOPLE. Bah, you can go eat all the meat you like, you awful rotten sinners. Just DON'T get near my church with it. Eat a breath mint, and you can stay for the service. But you're not REALLY a part of this community.

God likes it when I carry on like this. He told me it was okay, and that this is what He wants of his followers.

oh brother, dear brother ...

[kenod]

Originally Posted by Paladin

But in light of the topic, by your definition, the love a same sex couple have for each other may help them "get through the day" and therefore good.

Ain't got nothin' against love! (It's the "other thing" we Christians get uptight about )

Hypothetically then what is good for you might violate anothers senisiblity and religious beliefs, but how unfair it would be to be held to anothers expectations, desires and mores.

And John Mark Karr would probably say the same.
Of course, the age of the girl is the deciding factor, but society must still impose an age.

[kenod]

Originally Posted by taijasi

And what does it prove that either of us can find admonitions and instructions in this Holy Book? Hmmm.

It means, if you believe it is the Holy Book, and you believe they are instructions, then you'd best obey them.
Can I impose them on others - in my church, yes; in society - no, but I get a say ... just like everyone else.