Homosexuality is "Contrary to Natural Law"?

[Alceste]

well, if you are talking about homosexual sex, two male bodies are not complementary as the bodies of a man and a woman.
In fact anal sex is unnatural because anus is not a vagina. Vagina internal structure is identical to penis external structure.
So vagina is the only sexual organ which is complementary to penis-

Anal sex is unnatural because anus is an organ of the digestive apparatus. So I say it is very dangerous and unhealthy, whether it is practiced by a straight or a gay couple

Said someone who has never seen a diagram of the inside of a vagina.

I can't even imagine what a penis would have to look like.... Maybe a nobby bit on the top to stimulate the clitorus, an upward swoop for the G spot...

Really, the anus is a much better fit if that's how we measure what is natural.

 

[Bunyip]

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.

Well what it means is that sex in homo sapiens has evolved primarily to cement social bonds, as opposed to simple reproduction - which could be acheived without all of the palaver.

We are a social species and sex is an important mechanism for perpetuating the pair bonds between couples. It is a common phenomenon in social species.

As such homosexuality is not at all unnatural, it is in fact common to most social species because the pleasure and emotional componants of sex are more important than reproduction.

 

[Alceste]

Precisely. I was talking about the cases when a person forces their partner to have anal sex. Which is a very frequent thing among straight people.-
Lots of women are forced by their husbands to try anal sex, which is something that doesn't satisfy women at all. It's a selfish male thing

I think you need more information.

 

[Bunyip]

I think you need more information.

I get the distinct impression that Hay is under 12.

 

[Sunstone]

Well what it means is that sex in homo sapiens has evolved primarily to cement social bonds, as opposed to simple reproduction - which could be acheived without all of the palaver.

I'm willing to guess that, if you think there's a primary purpose to sex in humans, you have absolutely no idea of how sexual reproduction works to produce stronger immune systems?

 

[Alceste]

Penis structure is complementary to vagina internal structure. A woman enjoys vaginal intercourse even more than man.

Lol!! I'm sure that explains why over half of us can't even orgasm from penis-in-vagina sex. At all. Ever. We're just too metaphysical satisfied to be bothered with silly things like having an orgasm.

 

[Bunyip]

I'm willing to guess that, if you think there's a primary purpose to sex in humans, you have absolutely no idea of how sexual reproduction works to produce stronger immune systems?

Then maybe you should stop guessing and think harder about what I said?

Sexual reproduction is of course vital to any species survival, the point is that it can be acheived without contact even being necessary between individuals, the reason why it has evolved into such a complex behavioral, emotional and sensory experience for homo sapiens is because of the social dimension.

 

[s2a]

Anyone else want to take a whack at this? Remember the questions are does natural law exist and, if so, how do we know what natural law is?

Is there no distinction to be discerned between "Natural Law" and "Biblical Law"?

Allow us all to recall that the phrase "Natural Law" is derived from an understanding of "science", not Scriptural interpretation.

Kind of a big differentiation.

Within that application and context, "Natural Law" "exists", yes.

Does that application have any actual meaning to Biblical adherents being text as irrefutable fact?

We shall see...

 

[Alceste]

Well, no offense. But Italian women are the most feminine in the world. And being feminine implies to be submissive.

Omg, have you ever even met an Italian woman? What are you, twelve?

 

[Glaurung]

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.

Well, to be fair, what motivates humans to have sex and why it exists are two different things. Sexuality evolved to be rewarding ultimately because it is procreative. Side benefits to sexual activity exist, but you have to ask yourself why those side benefits exist. This is what the issue is, motivation and the reasons for that motivation. And of course, why is anything successful in evolution? You have your answer. It is, at it's core entirely about surviving and procreating. Everything in evolution is.

 

[Sunstone]

Then maybe you should stop guessing and think harder about what I said?

Sexual reproduction is of course vital to any species survival, the point is that it can be acheived without contact even being necessary between individuals, the reason why it has evolved into such a complex behavioral, emotional and sensory experience for homo sapiens is because of the social dimension.

So what? Disease is in all likelihood a much bigger selective pressure than social bonds. I am not arguing that social bonding is unimportant. I am arguing that calling any single purpose of sex in humans "primary" stinks of pure BS. There are several purposes of sex in humans. What objective criterion do you have for asserting one as primary and others as secondary, etc.? It seems to me you have only your value judgments and no plausible explanation in evolutionary terms as to why we should call social bonding primary.

 

[Bunyip]

So what? Disease is in all likelihood a much bigger selective pressure than social bonds. I am not arguing that social bonding is unimportant. I am arguing that calling any single purpose of sex in humans "primary" stinks of pure BS. There are several purposes of sex in humans. What objective criterion do you have for asserting one as primary and others as secondary, etc.? It seems to me you have only your value judgments and no plausible explanation in evolutionary terms as to why we should call social bonding primary.

You are focussing on semantics, and missing the point. Yes there are several purposes to sex, and yes my comment was a value judgement. There is by the way a perfectly plausible explanation in evolutionary terms for the importance of sex in establishing and perpetuating social bonds.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Saying sex is just for one primary purpose is like saying my middle finger is for one primary purpose. I use my middle finger for many things, want to see what I use it for the most?

 

[Bunyip]

Saying sex is just for one primary purpose is like saying my middle finger is for one primary purpose. I use my middle finger for many things, want to see what I use it for the most?

Fortunately nobody said that sex was for one primary purpose.

 

[xkatz]

If homosexuality was against natural law, then why would homosexual behavior be present in nature; even that outside of mankind?

I have always found the argument, "it [homosexuality] occurs in other animal species so that means that it's morally ok" to be a rather poor one. Males of other species (eg bears, horses) will kill the offspring of rival males so they can copulate with a female. In some animal species cannibalism is commonly practiced. And let's not forget about parasitic species. Because animals do these things/behave this way naturally makes it morally justifiable for me to do?

Not that I am against homosexuality per-se, but saying that nature/animals is/are always a good bar for morality seems like a rather poor argument. I just don't understand how it's a valid argument for the morality of homosexuality, seeing almost every human has morals* that run contrary to what we see in other animal species.

*Hopefully

 

[Sees]

I have always found the argument, "it [homosexuality] occurs in other animal species so that means that it's morally ok" to be a rather poor one. Males of other species (eg bears, horses) will kill the offspring of rival males so they can copulate with a female. In some animal species cannibalism is commonly practiced. And let's not forget about parasitic species. Because animals do these things/behave this way naturally makes it morally justifiable for me to do?

Not that I am against homosexuality per-se, but saying that nature/animals is/are always a good bar for morality seems like a rather poor argument. I just don't understand how it's a valid argument for the morality of homosexuality, seeing almost every human has morals* that run contrary to what we see in other animal species.

*Hopefully

I don't think it presents a sort of free pass but it gives a clue that there might be a biological cause or reason instead of some type of devious psychological/spiritual transgression.

 

[McBell]

I have always found the argument, "it [homosexuality] occurs in other animal species so that means that it's morally ok" to be a rather poor one. Males of other species (eg bears, horses) will kill the offspring of rival males so they can copulate with a female. In some animal species cannibalism is commonly practiced. And let's not forget about parasitic species. Because animals do these things/behave this way naturally makes it morally justifiable for me to do?

Not that I am against homosexuality per-se, but saying that nature/animals is/are always a good bar for morality seems like a rather poor argument. I just don't understand how it's a valid argument for the morality of homosexuality, seeing almost every human has morals* that run contrary to what we see in other animal species.

*Hopefully

I do not recall ever hearing that homosexuality occurring in nature makes homosexuality moral.

I have heard that homosexuality occurring in nature makes it natural.
Mostly right after some dumb *** makes the claim that homosexuality is not natural.

 

[xkatz]

I do not recall ever hearing that homosexuality occurring in nature makes homosexuality moral.

Well unfortunately I have encountered people IRL who say this.

Mostly right after some dumb *** makes the claim that homosexuality is not natural.

Because apparently G-d would create 'abominations' to rustle those jimmies real bad.

 

[factseeker88]

I do not recall ever hearing that homosexuality occurring in nature makes homosexuality moral.

I have heard that homosexuality occurring in nature makes it natural.
Mostly right after some dumb *** makes the claim that homosexuality is not natural.

Everything people do or say is natural, including being gay, condemning gays, even analyzing gays. It's a natural, cause and effect world.

: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.” [/FONT]Omar Khayyam

 

[Mycroft]

I have always found the argument, "it [homosexuality] occurs in other animal species so that means that it's morally ok" to be a rather poor one. Males of other species (eg bears, horses) will kill the offspring of rival males so they can copulate with a female. In some animal species cannibalism is commonly practiced. And let's not forget about parasitic species. Because animals do these things/behave this way naturally makes it morally justifiable for me to do?

Not that I am against homosexuality per-se, but saying that nature/animals is/are always a good bar for morality seems like a rather poor argument. I just don't understand how it's a valid argument for the morality of homosexuality, seeing almost every human has morals* that run contrary to what we see in other animal species.

*Hopefully

Homosexuality does not occur in animal species. Behaviour like homosexual behaviour in humans does. Refer to my earlier post about nature's sexual 'feelgood' mechanism and the associative memory. An animal doesn't have a brain capable of forming the concepts of homosexuality and attraction to its own sex and, frankly, nature doesn't work that way as nature tends to generate more simplistic patterns of behaviour.

All that happens is that when a male wolf puts is wiggle-stick into another boy wolf through whatever set of circumstances, it feels good. So he may replicate the behaviour to reproduce the feeling. But the male wolf would just as soon screw a female wolf, too. It is not 'gay'. This is simply humans falsely projecting characteristics that aren't there.