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

[Gjallarhorn]

ok - give me a straightforward question about the Order and I will try to answer.

Okay...

While I also consider those things depraved, you're still not answering the question as Gjall noticed.

What makes them depraved?

 

[Meow Mix]

There are two current and very long threads that deal with incest and bestiality (and also touch on necro) so I have no wish to enter the specifics of those issues again.

However, you must agree that Man or Woman was not designed to have sex with beast or lifeless body?

Incest is also against the Order mainly due to the offspring that result from it.

And our ears weren't designed to have earphones in them playing music; nor our feet to be covered with shoes. Our mouths were "meant" to obtain food and to communicate, not necessarily to express art -- yet we still sing with them.

According to your "logic," singing must therefore be immoral and abomination.

You might turn around and say, "No no -- singing is natural for us to do." But what makes you think that any more than a woman loving a woman might be natural for some people to do?

You're not answering the fundamental questions we're asking. You just keep saying, essentially, "X is immoral because I think it's immoral." But why?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

ok - give me a straightforward question about the Order and I will try to answer.

I sincerely doubt it.

 

[nnmartin]

Gjallarhorn: in response to post 161 I will direct you to the thread on Incest (in this section) and the other on bestiality (Sexuality section).

as I said before, I have no interest in going over the specifics of these topics again.

 

[nnmartin]

And our ears weren't designed to have earphones in them playing music; nor our feet to be covered with shoes. Our mouths were "meant" to obtain food and to communicate, not necessarily to express art -- yet we still sing with them.

According to your "logic," singing must therefore be immoral and abomination.

Not so.

Ears were designed for listening.
Feet for walking.
Mouths for making noise.

All your examples are fine.

You might turn around and say, "No no -- singing is natural for us to do." But what makes you think that any more than a woman loving a woman might be natural for some people to do?

It is also fine for a woman to love another woman.

A man can also love another man.

for example, I love my brother.

 

[Me Myself]

Not so.

Ears were designed for listening.
Feet for walking.
Mouths for making noise.

Vaginas were designed to feel tact, so dildos are okay.

Now, if pleasuring the vagina by tact is not okay because it is not what it was commonly used to do, then again, ears were not created to hear the noises we make for enterteinment, but were made for hear noises that may warn us of predators and such.

If I listen to music I might not hear a tiger coming!

It´s just equaly absurd honestly.

 

[nnmartin]

I have said dildos are ok so not sure if you have missed that point or not.

to be more specific: it is ok for women to use dildos, but not men.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I have said dildos are ok so not sure if you have missed that point or not.

to be more specific: it is ok for women to use dildos, but not men.

Because...?

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Gjallarhorn: in response to post 161 I will direct you to the thread on Incest (in this section) and the other on bestiality (Sexuality section).

as I said before, I have no interest in going over the specifics of these topics again.

Direct me to a specific answer or I will accuse you (accurately) of dodging again.

 

[idav]

I have said dildos are ok so not sure if you have missed that point or not.

to be more specific: it is ok for women to use dildos, but not men.

Haha, seems like you have your own acceptable bias in there. Your order of nature issue doesn't cut it.

 

[painted wolf]

No culture decides.

The Natural Order is the same for everyone.

That's just the point... there is nothing that is the same for everyone.

Eating the dead as a sign of respect and union with the dead is considered part of the natural order by a significant number of cultures around the world.... yet there are other cultures where this idea is the height of unnaturalness.

Is this act natural, unnatural or is is neither.

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

If sex with no chance of reproduction is unnatural... then clearly our elders and infertile couples are engaging in terrible acts of depravity.

Let's just ignore the fact that sex has several other important purposes beyond just popping out babies.

What are intersexed individuals supposed to do?

wa:do

 

[Meow Mix]

Not so.

Ears were designed for listening.
Feet for walking.
Mouths for making noise.

All your examples are fine.

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

You seem to be fine with mouths being used for non-ingestive purposes (such as for pleasure) -- why, then, is using reproductive organs for non-reproductive purposes (such as for pleasure) somehow different?

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.

Do you see what I'm trying to say now? You're using a weird, subjective double standard: why do you say that using penises and vaginas for pleasure is outside the "order," but using a mouth for pleasure isn't?

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.

It is also fine for a woman to love another woman.

A man can also love another man.

for example, I love my brother.

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

 

[Revoltingest]

That's just the point... there is nothing that is the same for everyone.
Eating the dead as a sign of respect and union with the dead is considered part of the natural order by a significant number of cultures around the world.... yet there are other cultures where this idea is the height of unnaturalness.

You must certainly be wrong!
For otherwise, this would mean that there are no moral absolutes.
Then those revolting moral relativists would take over.

Consenting, adult, mature women having sex with women or men with men.

The former is natural.....& hot.
The latter is unnatural.....cuz it's icky.

 

[idav]

The former is natural.....& hot.
The latter is unnatural.....cuz it's icky.

It's really about what god wants.

 

[Me Myself]

I have said dildos are ok so not sure if you have missed that point or not.

to be more specific: it is ok for women to use dildos, but not men.

Masturbation is okay too then?

 

[Revoltingest]

It's really about what god wants.

Perhaps I have divine insight into his intended natural order.
(No less likely than anyone else, eh?)

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

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

You seem to be fine with mouths being used for non-ingestive purposes (such as for pleasure) -- why, then, is using reproductive organs for non-reproductive purposes (such as for pleasure) somehow different?

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.

Do you see what I'm trying to say now? You're using a weird, subjective double standard: why do you say that using penises and vaginas for pleasure is outside the "order," but using a mouth for pleasure isn't?

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.

Wow, I'm in awe of your explanation skills. :bow: That was wonderfully said.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I never knew order could be so random and arbitrary.

 

[Falvlun]

I never knew order could be so random and arbitrary.

That was my feelings too.

Has whatever constitutes "natural order" ever been defined?