Moving onto a new morality naturalism and homosexuality

[viole]

I'm a religious man but I've decided to create a thread to show what atheism can and will be. Since there are so many homosexuals on here and homosexual discussion I decided to use the example of homosexuality.

The idea is that if we alienate morality from religion what would be the result i.e. create an atheist world. My suspicion would be that naturalism would be the result.

The tenets of naturalism is that man is just another form of animal that is contingent and happiest in a natural condition; any attempt to deviate from the natural only harms the individual and more importantly society.

So, for example, in the case of homosexuality it is in fact natural because it exists and only what is natural exists. However, the function of homosexuality in nature and hence man is for population control. In fact, populations are controlled by war, plague, famine and, and homosexuality. This means that homosexuals should not have children because that contradicts the very function of homosexuality in nature. The homosexual exists solely not to have children and we must respect that.

This naturalism I predict will become the new atheist morality.

You are confusing naturalism with "appeal to nature".

Naturalism is the position that all which exists is natural. Appeal to nature is the position that there are some things that are according to natural law and some which are not, the latter being ultimately a teleological position that seeks a sort of morality or goodness in essentially amoral and indifferent natural mechanisms.

Not only the two positions are completely different. They cannot logically co-exist. As a naturalist, I cannot possibly instantiate anything that is against natural law, because if I succeed then it is part of nature as well.

Ciao

- viole

 

[JoStories]

No, learn to speak and think for yourself or don't speak at all.

Well that was rude. Many people here support their opinions with well founded studies, including myself. You're statement to not speak at all is childish and immature.

 

[JoStories]

Then you are a naturalist and agree that the function of homosexuality in nature and evolution is population control. You do know the study you are referring to was commissioned and done by homosexuals and a particular religion that is known for a high quantity of homosexuals? The purpose of the study is an academic, "I know you are but what am I." (That is the extent a homosexual mind can think.) The study I refer to was written by strong religious men who are normal hence promoting normal behavior.

So according to you, gay people have limited ability to think? On what evidence do you base this assertion? Can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that gays have limited mental capability? And in addition to this, you imply that only religious people can have educated and informed opinions. Can you substantiate that as well? I would be interested to see what double blind quantitative studies have proven this.

 

[HekaMa'atRa]

So, for example, in the case of homosexuality it is in fact natural because it exists and only what is natural exists. However, the function of homosexuality in nature and hence man is for population control. In fact, populations are controlled by war, plague, famine and, and homosexuality. This means that homosexuals should not have children because that contradicts the very function of homosexuality in nature. The homosexual exists solely not to have children and we must respect that.

You know, I too would often throw the idea of "How do you know homosexuality isn't nature's way of population control?" in the faces of homophobes. But your additional reasoning of "homosexuals should not have children," goes way too far. With that kind of reasoning, humanity should let its weak, old, injured, and mentally ill die off as human compassion and technology negates nature's natural way of killing off these "less productive and genetically unappealing" individuals.

I'd also point out that homosexuality in animals often leads to two same-sex animals still raising children - specifically in birds.

 

[Father Heathen]

The study I refer to was written by strong religious men who are normal hence promoting normal behavior.

In other words it's not an objective, scientific study, and thus the "study" and those who conducted it lack integrity and credibility (assuming it or they exist at all).

 

[Father Heathen]

Perhaps I hit a nerve, as you saw fit to respond to me twice.

And I see that you did indeed leap from 'animal rights' to 'tendency to bestiality'. Since that is how your mind works, you may want to consider professional help, like a tutor or something.

Assuming they're not a "poe", I would wager that they're an angry, young kid who has only been allowed to view of the world through the narrow, distorted pinhole of kooky fundamentalism. As they get older, they begin to see and experience a different, larger world outside of their original scope, one that challenges rather than conforms to their preconceived notions, and this confuses and frustrates them.