Homosexuality is "Contrary to Natural Law"?

[Revoltingest]

If that's what turns you on.

So you're a prude about appendices, eh?
Don't knock it less'n you've tried it!

 

[Drolefille]

Precisely: and they taught my sisters how to treat men: that is , a woman is supposed to
- never contradict a man
- never look into his eyes (it's not sexy at all)
- pretend to be less smart than him

well...and some other advice to look like an interesting prey to catch

Final call of Poe. I know of no one of Italian heritage who speaks of the women in his family like this.

This one is a troll.

 

[factseeker88]

You don't seem to understand that the whole body is a sex organ.

When I was young I tried everything sexual I could think of, even performed at a stag party. Now, in my dotage I still look, but I've forgotten why.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Italian women and women from Catholic cultures in general are anything but submissive. Latinas, French women, Spanish women, Italian women, etc. are all known as fiery and headstrong.

This is how we stereotype Italians, lol: [youtube]YZUMYU-Ghb0[/youtube]

(The same applies to the other groups I mentioned.)

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Italian women and women from Catholic cultures in general are anything but submissive. Latinas, French women, Spanish women, Italian women, etc. are all known as fiery and headstrong.

I think I came out of the womb wagging my finger in front of somebodies face and telling them "You don't tell me what to do..."

 

[Drolefille]

Italian women and women from Catholic cultures in general are anything but submissive. Latinas, French women, Spanish women, Italian women, etc. are all known as fiery and headstrong.

Right. Which is the stereotype of course, but even if the Poe in question didn't FIT the stereotype, he'd be aware of it. I've literally never met someone Italian or of Italian heritage who wasn't. Even my 4'10' Nonna and her sister went from "Eat more" to a FORCE to be RECKONED WITH a the drop of a hat.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I think I came out of the womb wagging my finger in front of somebodies face and telling them "You don't tell me what to do..."

It shows, trust me. Lol. Black women are the same way. Some black guys say that's what they don't date black women. Wesley Snipes is an example of that.

 

[factseeker88]

Inexperienced? Anus is not a sexual organs, so I am not supposed to use it as a sexual organ. I thought that romantic love was about kissing, cuddling, ....

Try anything and everything sexually you can think of. Nothing is off limit.

:yes::yes::yes:

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]"Our belief or disbelief[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif] [/FONT]of a thing does not alter the nature[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif] [/FONT]of things” Tillotson[/FONT]


“[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]This moment is your life.” Omar Khayyam [/FONT]

 

[Sonofason]

Every thing that exists is natural, naturally built, naturally developed, naturally is.
Tillotson concurs.

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]"Our belief or disbelief of a thing does not alter the nature of things” Tillotson[/FONT]


“[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]This moment is your life.” Omar Khayyam [/FONT]

that of course is your opinion, and I'm okay with it. I think, it may be true, but I do not know if it is actually true. I think it depends on how you define natural.

 

[factseeker88]

that of course is your opinion, and I'm okay with it. I think, it may be true, but I do not know if it is actually true. I think it depends on how you define natural.

Everything that has substance is naturally real, without substance it's an illusion.

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]"Our belief or disbelief[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif] [/FONT]of a thing does not alter the nature[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif] [/FONT]of things” Tillotson[/FONT]


“[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]This moment is your life.” Omar Khayyam [/FONT]

 

[Mycroft]

Homosexuality isn't unnatural. I discuss it here: http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...95-epigenetics-homosexuality.html#post3839494

 

[McBell]

Since we can see that the primary result of the sexual act is reproduction, it follows that reproduction is the intended purpose of sex.

Except that pregnancy is NOT the "primary" result of sex.
Pleasure is.

Therefore, to use sex in any way that does not allow the possibility of its intended function (procreation) would be a violation of natural law and therefore immoral. This is the same reasoning they apply against contraception.

So a pregnant woman is not allowed to have sex until after she gives birth?
Infertile couples are not allowed to have sex?

They do realize that if there has to be a chance for inpregnation every time they have sex that they have just reduced the number of times they can have sex with a fertile woman to a mere four to six days a month, right?

I'm not necessarily advocating for this reasoning, I'm just pointing out that natural law isn't about addressing what does and does not exist in nature per se. It's talking about the function of things in nature and how it informs human behaviour.

Actually, you are talking about the belief that if it goes against what they think/claim gods wants it is "unnatural".

 

[Mycroft]

Except that pregnancy is NOT the "primary" result of sex.
Pleasure is.

Have to stop you there. Sexual pleasure is simply a vestigial mechanism to ensure we reproduced when our brains were not yet complex enough to know that having sex would result in offspring. The 'feelgood' mechanism was there to ensure, simply, that we did reproduce.

 

[McBell]

Have to stop you there. Sexual pleasure is simply a vestigial mechanism to ensure we reproduced when our brains were not yet complex enough to know that having sex would result in offspring. The 'feelgood' mechanism was there to ensure, simply, that we did reproduce.

Interesting.
So the primary result of sex is pregnancy even though not every sexual encounter results in pregnancy...

Is this to say that those who are infertile or already pregnant do not have pleasure during sex?

 

[Glaurung]

Except that pregnancy is NOT the "primary" result of sex.
Pleasure is.

Let's not get semantical. You know quite well what I'm actually saying.

So a pregnant woman is not allowed to have sex until after she gives birth?
Infertile couples are not allowed to have sex?

The Catholic teaching is not that a woman must intend, or even be able to become pregnant every time she has sex. The difference here is in context.

In both examples, there is no abuse of the sexual faculties. Abuse is anything that deliberately frustrates (consciously, or by the nature of a specific sexual activity) the procreative function of sex. So the church does not say that the only role of sex within marriage is procreation, but that sex exists for the primary purpose of procreation. It's a subtle, but rational distinction.

Actually, you are talking about the belief that if it goes against what they think/claim gods wants it is "unnatural".

No, I was giving a specific example of natural law as it was relevant to what I was replying to. Which was an augment that misunderstands what is actually meant by natural law. Obviously if something exists it's natural, but that is not what natural law addresses.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with St. Frank in that in this more 'enlightened age' the concept of natural law is rationally questionable. It's based off an understanding of the world that's heavily informed by medieval Aristotelianism.

 

[Mycroft]

Interesting.
So the primary result of sex is pregnancy even though not every sexual encounter results in pregnancy...

The primary purpose behind sex is producing offspring. The 'feel good' part is simply a mechanism to ensure you do. But in humans no longer serves a function other than pleasure (though this is not the primary function of sex).

For the uninitiated, what is the associative memory?

The associative memory is, when you get stung by a plant, the part of your brain that remembers the image of that plant and the fact that it produced pain when touched. Plant X + when touched = pain. So when you see that plant again you wont touch it. You'll even warn others not to touch it. This is essentially what the associative memory does. It stores the information that fire his hot, water is wet, ice is cold, that 'etc.' means 'ecetera' and so on.

In humans, the associative memory is very complex. We can form complex associations such as language, technology, science, religion, - basically everything. And that having sex produces offspring.

In animals the associative memory is much more simple. The complexity varies from species to species, but is never comparible to that of a human. Dogs, for example, have more complex associative memories than mice, crows more complex associative memories than dogs, but none anywhere near that of a human being. A dog can make the association that a noise 'sit' should be followed by a certain behaviour (the act of sitting), but it cannot know what 'sit' actually means. It simply remembers the sound and the corresponding action that produces the reward of petting or food. It's associative memory is complex enough to know that certain things cause pain and should be avoided, a certain feeling means it should eat or poop/pee or sleep. But it cannot know that it is 'tired' or 'hungry' or 'needs to curl one out in the garden'. It's associative memory, at its core, is a tactile reflex mechanism.

The dog can't know, then, that having sex produces offspring. It's associative memory cannot support that. So how do you make sure a dog reproduces if you're Mother Nature? You make it feel good. If it feels good to the dog, it will do that thing again.

This mechanism was also relevant to early humans whose associative memories were still primative (much like the dogs) and had not yet built up/passed on more and more associations over time (such as pointy stone = kills animal). At that early stage (and indeed our common ancestors) we had no way of knowing that having sex produces offspring. So, to ensure that we did reproduce, nature developed the 'feelgood' mechanism.

The mechanism still exists today, of course, but is not necessary to ensure we reproduce anymore as we know having sex produces children. So even if sex no longer felt good, human beings would still reproduce when they wanted offspring.

Is this to say that those who are infertile or already pregnant do not have pleasure during sex?

Of course not. The mechanism is not connected to fertility.

 

[Sonofason]

Everything that has substance is naturally real, without substance it's an illusion.

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]"Our belief or disbelief[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif] [/FONT]of a thing does not alter the nature[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif] [/FONT]of things” Tillotson[/FONT]


“[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]This moment is your life.” Omar Khayyam [/FONT]

Do you believe that thoughts are real or are they illusions?
Do you believe that love is real, or is it an illusion?
Surely both have substance, but neither has any mass.

I see a definition for substance that reads: "the quality of being meaningful, useful, or important."
Substance - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Does God have substance according to this definition?
Is not God important and meaningful, even if only to a few people?

 

[Sunstone]

Sex has more than one purpose or use in humans, just as the penis has more then one purpose or use. So many people try to reduce it to just one "primary" purpose, but perhaps that tells us something about how the human brain so often works through reductionism.

Again the notion the primary purpose of sex is reproduction is erroneous. For one thing, it rests on a value judgment that the original purpose -- the first purpose to evolve -- is the primary or most legitimate purpose. That's like saying the primary or most legitimate car is a Model T. It's a value judgement, not a statement of fact.

But even then, the notion that sex is primarily for reproduction does not take it far enough. Sex originally evolved more or less in order to strengthen the immune system. Anyone who doesn't know that isn't current in their biology. Some species reproduce asexually. And we'd all still be reproducing asexually if it weren't for the evolutionary advantages of strengthening immune systems through sexual reproduction.

 

[Bunyip]

I would think that the primary purpose of sex is in the formation of social bonds. Bonobos demonstrate this very well.

 

[Sunstone]

I would think that the primary purpose of sex is in the formation of social bonds. Bonobos demonstrate this very well.

To say that sex has a primary purpose -- what does that mean? If it means much of anything beyond its most frequent purpose, then it's probably a value judgment, rather than a statement of fact.