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

[Antiochian]

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.

So to paraphrase: lesbians are hot, so into the Order they go!

Glad this thread didn't devolve into another spiel about ... *gulp* ... g-a-y-s... those which cannot be named... :areyoucra

 

[freethinker44]

The OP is referring to humans only.

And yet the OP doesn't apply to humans. Our intelligence is the ultimate evolutionary multi-tool. When other animals must adapt to nature to survive, nature has given us the intelligence to simply think our way through it.

Our species isn't bound by what is natural, or in this case, what you consider to be natural. Actual natural activity isn't moral by our standards and in fact people go to prison for a long time for doing things that would be perfectly natural in nature.

If you truly want to follow the ideology that what is natural is what is right, then nature has given us the ability to transcend natural boundaries. The right thing to do by natural standards is to not abide by natural standards.

 

[painted wolf]

Anyone who thinks there is "no penetration" between lesbians obviously has no clue.

wa:do

 

[Me Myself]

If no penetration is okay then oral sex is okay among men and men?

Or is it not okay even between woman and men?

How is there penetration in lesbian sex painted wolf? I have no clue (or ar we talking about fingers, dildos and such?)

 

[idav]

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.

Blow up dolls are also a substitute for the real thing.:yes:

 

[painted wolf]

If no penetration is okay then oral sex is okay among men and men?

Or is it not okay even between woman and men?

Apparently the only unnaturalness is to stick your dangly bits into something other than a girl... which is odd since women can have things other than dangly bits stuck into them and it's perfectly natural.

How is there penetration in lesbian sex painted wolf? I have no clue (or ar we talking about fingers, dildos and such?)

we are talking about those and such.

wa:do

 

[connermt]

Quite often the term 'it's against the order of nature' is used in a debate - and usually dismissed by many almost straight away.

I would say though, that if you think about it , it's actually one of the best moral guides we have.

Who has an issue with this?

Generally speaking I think we can break down the 'order' argument into 4 main sections.

1. Reproduction
2. Food
3. Shelter
4. Health

The most commonly argued over one is surely number 1 as this deals with a lot of key issues.

To me some things are clearly against the order - bestiality, pedophilia , incest and necrophilia for instance.

There are many negative issues surrounding these activities but when we think about 'order of nature' concerns the clear factor is 'lack of normal reproductive ability'.

In a phrase I would say that an activity related to reproduction is against the order of nature if:

The action does not, under normal circumstances, lead to healthy reproduction in a linear fashion.

This can be discussed in more detail as there are quite a few issues involved here.

I will deal with the other 3 categories in due course.

any views or questions?

Seems if [insert item here] happens in nature, then it's a logical argument to say 'the order of nature'.
Reproduction for instance. It happens in nature, thus it's a valid argument.
Using a computer. That doesn't happen in nature, thus it's not a valid argument (unless you're using it to prove the point that man creates unnatural things).