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

[Meow Mix]

no , that's not the same thing because the earphones are just enhancing an attribute that was meant to be (ie:listening).

Ears were designed for listening.

I edited my post, wasn't aware you were going to respond so fast (just FYI).

Were ears designed to hold up glasses?

 

[McBell]

no , that's not the same thing because the earphones are just enhancing an attribute that was meant to be (ie:listening).

Ears were designed for listening.

Yet I am willing to bet you have issues with dildos...

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

It's ok. I understand the OPs argument, so I'll field this one.

If that's really what you're saying, though, then I think almost everything we do is in trouble: ears aren't naturally designed to have earphones in them, for instance. Is that unnatural and abomination, then?

Nope. Earphones are part of the order of nature. As I decide what is or isn't a part of the order of nature, earphones are in.

I'm a mute: I have to use paper or electronics to communicate. Is that unnatural and an abomination?

I actually don't know about this one. I'm pretty sure that the OP probably doesn't have a problem with mutes, but just in case I'm going to say they're out of luck too.

Why do you assign a moral value to consenting adults having sex just because they're the same gender?

Because it goes completely against a completely made-up and self-defined order of nature.

The moral value in pedophilia, beastiality and necrophilia is all related to the notion of consent (rather, the lack of it), for instance.

Nope. Order of nature.


I think I have fairly accurately represented the order of nature argument as I understand it after initially trying to actually address the OP.

 

[Meow Mix]

Yet I am willing to bet you have issues with dildos...

Actually nnmartin, in seriousness, what IS your opinion on the use of sex toys? Is that unnatural -- does it have a negative moral context?

If yes, can you explain why it's any more unnatural than using earphones to listen to music?

Can you also explain why that gives it a moral connotation?

If no, then what's the difference between the use of sex toys and having non-reproductive sex for love and pleasure?

 

[Me Myself]

Abomination of nature:

Exhibit A:

 

[McBell]

Actually nnmartin, in seriousness, what IS your opinion on the use of sex toys? Is that unnatural -- does it have a negative moral context?

I am being completely serious.

He has demonstrated that anything that has to do with sex that he finds yucky is immoral.

 

[Meow Mix]

I am being completely serious.

He has demonstrated that anything that has to do with sex that he finds yucky is immoral.

Whoops, I knew you were -- am not sure how my post ended up seeming as though I thought you were joking, but it did. Sorry! I only meant that I was interested in knowing his response to it as well.

 

[Me Myself]

no , that's not the same thing because the earphones are just enhancing an attribute that was meant to be (ie:listening).

Ears were designed for listening.

But they have been made to "listen" for a purpose of pure pleasure?

Vaginas were made so they can feel pleasure by tact in the same regard an ear is made to feel pleasure by hearing.

SO dildos would be as good as earphones really.

 

[nnmartin]

Yet I am willing to bet you have issues with dildos...

not really, because if used in the correct manner, they are only enhancing a naturally given ability.

using a dildo does not count as sex either.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

If it doesn't count as sex it was not used properly.

 

[nnmartin]

I'm a mute: I have to use paper or electronics to communicate. Is that unnatural and an abomination?

No, that is fine because it is using Man's naturally given intelligence to enhance an intended action. (in this case, communication by writing)

The moral value in pedophilia, beastiality and necrophilia is all related to the notion of consent (rather, the lack of it), for instance.

consent is an issue for some - with bestiality and necrophilia though I do not see it as an issue as it cannot be given.

But all these 3 things are clearly against the Order - there aren't many examples that are better in fact.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

No, that is fine because it is using Man's naturally given intelligence to enhance an intended action. (in this case, communication by writing)

consent is an issue for some - with bestiality and necrophilia though I do not see it as an issue as it cannot be given.

But all these 3 things are clearly against the Order - there aren't many examples that are better in fact.

And yet you have never clearly defined whatever "Order" you seem to support in any meaningful way other than "things I think are morally right", otherwise we wouldn't have to keep asking you whether things are part of it.

 

[idav]

Rooves? Eyeglasses? Motorized transport?

Abomination of nature:

Exhibit A:

Unnatural abominations!!!

 

[Koldo]

not really, because if used in the correct manner, they are only enhancing a naturally given ability.

using a dildo does not count as sex either.

I can't help but wonder what you mean by 'correct manner'.

 

[Meow Mix]

No, that is fine because it is using Man's naturally given intelligence to enhance an intended action. (in this case, communication by writing)

Ok, if you're fine with that and fine with the use of sex toys, then how is homosexuality "unnatural?" What's different about it?

If you say sex is reproductive only, then why are you fine with the use of non-reproductive sex toys like dildos?

consent is an issue for some - with bestiality and necrophilia though I do not see it as an issue as it cannot be given.

But all these 3 things are clearly against the Order - there aren't many examples that are better in fact.

Uh... I was under the impression those things are immoral precisely because consent cannot be given.

Why do you think they're immoral if it's not due to a consent issue?

I really do not understand your notion of "morality" whatsoever. It seems far more subjective than even the open moral relativists' notions.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I really do not understand your notion of "morality" whatsoever. It seems far more subjective than even the open moral relativists' notions.

This is a common side-effect of talking out of one's ***.

 

[nnmartin]

Uh... I was under the impression those things are immoral precisely because consent cannot be given.

Why do you think they're immoral if it's not due to a consent issue?

Well , in the case of an animal consent is not such a concern due to the low intelligence factor.

Bestiality is wrong mainly because Man was not designed to have sex with animals (no chance of reproduction here)

Consent does not apply in necrophila because a dead body is an inanimate object.

However , this is against the order due to lack of reproductive ability. (as well as overriding moral concerns)

 

[nnmartin]

I can't help but wonder what you mean by 'correct manner'.

To be used by women only.

 

[nnmartin]

Ok, if you're fine with that and fine with the use of sex toys, then how is homosexuality "unnatural?" What's different about it?

We need to look at the main clause again:

(something is against the order if) The action does not, under normal circumstances, lead to healthy reproduction in a linear fashion.

so a dildo may be used by a woman as a form of pseudo-reproduction.

Normal circumstances would refer to the dildo being the real thing - this could lead to reproduction.

Not the case in a same sex situation though.

And don't forget 'linear fashion' - this covers various other sexual activities such as foreplay between man and woman.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well , in the case of an animal consent is not such a concern due to the low intelligence factor.

Bestiality is wrong mainly because Man was not designed to have sex with animals (no chance of reproduction here)

Consent does not apply in necrophila because a dead body is an inanimate object.

However , this is against the order due to lack of reproductive ability. (as well as overriding moral concerns)

And there's "chance of reproduction" with a sex toy? :areyoucra