Is 'the order of nature' a valid argument? - I say yes.

[nnmartin]

As many others have pointed out several times, you seem to simply be defining what YOU agree with as "within the order" and what YOU disagree with as "outside the order," but without any objective explanation that isn't rife with double standards or undefined half-concepts.

There is no real objective explanation available here - the Order is created by Nature and we just have to abide by it.

It is fairly obvious when you think about it.

anyway, I'll deal with the rest of your post soon - a bit pushed for time now.

All will be revealed soon enough!


PS: Can't remember who asked but yes, masturbation is ok.

 

[Meow Mix]

There is no real objective explanation available here - the Order is created by Nature and we just have to abide by it.

It is fairly obvious when you think about it.

anyway, I'll deal with the rest of your post soon - a bit pushed for time now.

All will be revealed soon enough!


PS: Can't remember who asked but yes, masturbation is ok.

Seems to me that "the Order" is equal to "whatever nnmartin finds acceptable." Maybe that's why it's "fairly obvious" to you but no one else that has replied.

Will look forward to your elaboration, though!

 

[InformedIgnorance]

That is how proponents of such phrases usually determine them *shrugs* some abstract and preferably not defined, hopefully catchy phrase intended to make it sound like it is something so fundamental that it should not even need to be discussed and that needing to discuss it - let alone DEBATE it - means that there is something inherently wrong with you...

The 'patriot act' - can't question that - not without being unpatriotic!
The 'Order of Nature' - can't question that - not without being unnatural!

 

[nnmartin]

But you're using a double standard. Strictly biologically speaking, mouths are for ingestion and communication. Singing is for neither -- it's for pleasure.

singing is a form of communication

Now, I'm not saying that sex is only for pleasure. Sex is also a communicative act -- it can be an expression of love. That seems to me to be a completely natural "use" of sexual organs -- just as natural as using a mouth to sing rather than eat.

an expression of love that leads to reproduction in a linear fashion.

This means that sex is used as a pathway to producing a child even if only done for pleasure at first.

You know what I meant. Love-making between women, or between men. Consenting, adult, mature women having sex with women or men with men.

How can sex between two people of the same gender lead to reproduction?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

an expression of love that leads to reproduction in a linear fashion.

You mean like sex on a train?

How can sex between two people of the same gender lead to reproduction?

The same way that sex between a woman and her sex toy leads to reproduction.

 

[Meow Mix]

singing is a form of communication

You're stretching. I think the analogy is pretty good. Singing can be for pleasure -- or do you think "row row row your boat" really communicates something?

an expression of love that leads to reproduction in a linear fashion.

Ok, where do you get this definition from other than your subjective liking? Singing "row your boat" doesn't lead to ingestion or communication in a linear fashion, yet you seem to be fine with it. What gives?

This means that sex is used as a pathway to producing a child even if only done for pleasure at first.
How can sex between two people of the same gender lead to reproduction?

Why does sex have to be a pathway to producing children? Are infertile couples breaking "the order" by having sex considering they can NEVER have children?

In what way is having sex solely for pleasure, or having sex solely to express feelings of love, or any combination of the two, any more unnatural than singing a non-communicative song for pleasure?

 

[nnmartin]

The same way that sex between a woman and her sex toy leads to reproduction.

If you take a look at the main clause of the OP (in red) you will see that this kind of activity is acceptable.

It is basically a form of pseudo-sex which, if done in the correct manner, abides by the rules of the Order.

 

[nnmartin]

You're stretching. I think the analogy is pretty good. Singing can be for pleasure -- or do you think "row row row your boat" really communicates something?

Yes, I would say that it does.

Why does sex have to be a pathway to producing children? Are infertile couples breaking "the order" by having sex considering they can NEVER have children?

No, they are not breaking the order.

Infertile couples can have sex because under normal circumstances, this would lead to reproduction.

In what way is having sex solely for pleasure, or having sex solely to express feelings of love, or any combination of the two, any more unnatural than singing a non-communicative song for pleasure?

Sex for pleasure is fine.

But it must be between human adult woman and man as nature intended.

Homosexuality can be tolerated but it is not what the body was designed for.

At a stretch though, lesbianism may be just about squeezed into the Order because there is no penetration.

 

[Meow Mix]

Yes, I would say that it does.
No, they are not breaking the order.

Infertile couples can have sex because under normal circumstances, this would lead to reproduction.

Sex for pleasure is fine.

But it must be between human adult woman and man as nature intended.

Homosexuality can be tolerated but it is not what the body was designed for.

At a stretch though, lesbianism may be just about squeezed into the Order because there is no penetration.

Think I'm stepping out of this one (seemed to jump the shark at "Row your boat is communicating something"), am not sure where to go from these points of complete disagreement. I feel as though you're not getting the point and just giving your subjective opinion guised up as something objective (when it's not). See you elsewhere on the board

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If you take a look at the main clause of the OP (in red) you will see that this kind of activity is acceptable.

That's just you re-stating the same unsupporte assertion. It doesn't explain anything.

It is basically a form of pseudo-sex which, if done in the correct manner, abides by the rules of the Order.

So... a woman using a sex toy leads to reproduction? Explain how, please.

 

[Me Myself]

"the order of nature" seem to be a belief system made by you more than a "valid argument"

A belief system isn´t an argument on and of itself.

 

[Me Myself]

How can sex between two people of the same gender lead to reproduction?

The same way that sex with a dildo does.

Also, two people of opposite genders, both infertile, shouldn´t have sex if married, right?

 

[nnmartin]

not at all , what makes you think that?

a women having simulated sex with a dildo is fine because it is a substitute for the real thing.

 

[Quintessence]

What about sex with otherworldly entities that has no chance at resulting in pregnancy?

:areyoucra

 

[Gjallarhorn]

not at all , what makes you think that?

a women having simulated sex with a dildo is fine because it is a substitute for the real thing.

Wouldn't that make gay sex, at least from the perspective of the "pitcher", part of the order?

 

[Koldo]

not at all , what makes you think that?

a women having simulated sex with a dildo is fine because it is a substitute for the real thing.

If your argument against same gender sex is that it doesn't lead to reproduction then dildo fall into the same category. As well as some other forms of sex.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

a women having simulated sex with a dildo is fine because it is a substitute for the real thing.

I wonder, do you tell yourself that because the idea that it might be better than the real thing frightens you?

 

[painted wolf]

So a hetero couple using a dildo together is natural.... but a lesbian couple using a dildo together is unnatural?

Again, what about intersexed individuals... they don't conform to your "tab A, slot B" rule... are they "unnatural" by their very existence?

wa:do

 

[Antiochian]

SO dildos would be as good as earphones really.

My prayers have been answered! :ymca:

 

[Me Myself]

That really isn't the case.

Here we are dealing with universal themes.

Nature is nature.

Remember, though - I have said that at times our morals can deviate from the Order as long as they do not go against the flow.

for example - human cloning would be out.

But your interpretation to these "universal" things is infinetely far from being "universal".