Moving onto a new morality naturalism and homosexuality

[philbo]

Now you are deflecting. You do agree that if it is natural than it is right? Hence, you are a naturalist.

I wasn't deflecting, I was poking fun: but really, there was so much poorly thought out in your original post, I wasn't sure whether were intending it to be taken seriously or not.

"natural" and "right" are independent variables. Things are not necessarily "right" because they're "natural"; and that wouldn't make me a "naturalist" even if I did think that were the case.

Regarding homosexuality, the opposite argument is often used by religious types: that it's wrong because it's unnatural, except that they're wrong: it isn't "unnatural" because it happens in nature. It happens a lot in nature. Which counters the argument that homosexuality is unnatural, without involving any judgment as to whether it is right or wrong.

Homosexuality is not a choice, it's what some people are (it's also not a binary on/off sort of state, more of a spectrum). I've always thought it particularly wrong of religious types who believe their God made us what we are to then condemn people who have been made slightly different to the rest, by their god (presumably).

 

[ImmortalFlame]

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.

There's a difference between "non-religious" and "atheist", but for the sake of this discussion I'll simply assume you're using a definition of atheism where naturalism and secularism is implied.

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.

The problem with this is that natural function is both non-objectively verifiable (i.e: there is no source that dictates what, if any, function a particular preference or biological state serves), and that humans are capable of understanding and accepting natural functions as separate from their apparent biological function (for example, we acknowledge that the biological function of sex is procreation, but we still enjoy and accept sex as a recreational activity). Homosexuals need not have any "function" in nature, any more than any other preference or gender. As humans who possess autonomy and self-realization, we are capable of defining our own purpose and our own position in society and what we can add to it. Naturalism doesn't require that every person limit themselves merely to their supposed biological functions.

 

[Father Heathen]

There was a study that I know of that showed that homosexual supporters largely suffered from some latent homosexual tendencies. Who do you want me to believe scientists or homosexuals in denial?

Cite your sourse and link the study.

So if I support women's rights does that make me a hermaphrodite? Or biracial if I support racial equality? I support your religious freedom to believe as you wish. Does that make me a catholic or whatever it is you're supposed it be?

 

[The Neo Nerd]

First of all, suffer? Homophobes are the ones in denial by your definition. I mean, they're the ones being tested and coming back with potential homosexual results, as it were.
Secondly, which study is this? Who do YOU want me to believe? Some random person on the web claiming something without any cites or sources or actual Scientists?

Is homophobia associated with homosexual arousal? - PubMed - NCBI

Pff that means nothing.

We all know that science is run by a homosexual, nazi, liberal, evolutionist, nazi, communist cabal hell bent on recruiting young children straight from school.

Did i mention they were nazis?

 

[Antics34]

If I support animals rights, does that mean I have latent bestiality tendencies?

Have you seen South Park?

the definition of a perfect reply, right here.

I didn't read it; it is too long winded.

 

[Antics34]

I would love to see this study.

However whilst you look for it you could browse these wiki pages:

Ethics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kinsey scale - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

 

[Antics34]

You must have misread - the data indicates that homophobes are likely to have homosexual tendencies, not that people who accept homosexuals do.

Homosexuality is a common phenomenon in mammals. It is about as unusual or un-natural as being tall. Or liking cheese.

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.

 

[Antics34]

If I support animals rights, does that mean I have latent bestiality tendencies?

South Park already covered that in an episode. You do know your tendencies are against the law?

 

[Antics34]

Hi, Antics. If I may, I think you are overlooking a couple of very significant facts.

One, evolution has no moral purpose and no moral discernment. It is no justification for anything.

Two, humanity's reproductive reality and its affectiveness and sexuality are largely unrelated. If you understand why people won't always feel attracted to potential mates that are biologically compatible with them, it should not be that difficult to realize that homosexuals have no particular reason to avoid having and raising children either.

In response to One: Then a gay mutt raises a family? Or is it the case the gay mutt does not?

In response to Two: Are you saying women do not find you attractive and you are chalking it up to Darwinism? I would say instead weight loss and a good hair cut will go very far in your Darwinian efforts.

 

[Antics34]

Cite your sourse and link the study.

So if I support women's rights does that make me a hermaphrodite? Or biracial if I support racial equality? I support your religious freedom to believe as you wish. Does that make me a catholic or whatever it is you're supposed it be?

No. It means you have low levels of testosterone. No. It means you clearly could not relate to people growing up. No. It makes you knowledgeable that there are children of God.

 

[Father Heathen]

No. It means you have low levels of testosterone. No. It means you clearly could not relate to people growing up. No. It makes you knowledgeable that there are children of God.

Are those serious answers?

 

[Father Heathen]

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

Wow. The irony.

 

[SomeRandom]

Pff that means nothing.

We all know that science is run by a homosexual, nazi, liberal, evolutionist, nazi, communist cabal hell bent on recruiting young children straight from school.

Did i mention they were nazis?

ZOMG!! Not Nazis! Well now we must fight this evil entity and all it's sciencey nazi ways!!

 

[fantome profane]

However, the function of homosexuality in nature and hence man is for population control.

The very serious and fundamental flaw in this line of reasoning is the assumption that anything in nature is "for" something. It is a fallacy to apply purpose to nature, and then anything that follows from that fallacy is going to be complete nonsense. What you are doing is applying a theistic mindset to naturalism, and it just doesn't work.

 

[LuisDantas]

In response to One: Then a gay mutt raises a family? Or is it the case the gay mutt does not?

Why do you think of that as a response?

In response to Two: Are you saying women do not find you attractive and you are chalking it up to Darwinism? I would say instead weight loss and a good hair cut will go very far in your Darwinian efforts.

Ditto. Do you have any actual responses?

 

[Bunyip]

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.

No, I am not a 'naturalist'. The rest of your post is just infantile bigotry. How old are you?

 

[Awkward Fingers]

I'm not a naturalist but if you read comments from people on here many are of the kind, "it's natural so it's fine."

What other reason would there be for a homosexual to exist in the natural world. You do believe in evolution, right?

As far as I understand evolution, I have no problems with it.
It's natural so it's fine?? Do you even read what people are saying??? Natural doesn't = fine.
Arsenic is natural, lava, floods, famine, freezing to death are all natural.
Please, at least show enough respect, and intellect to actually LOOK at arguments, rather than setting up all these strawmen
to bash down, like you have so far in this thread.

If you have an argument, please say it, rather than half assuming points of view that you don't even understand, and attacking stances that no one has.


Do you HAVE an actual argument?

*Edited for a spelling error*

 

[Awkward Fingers]

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

awwww carp.
That's where my poe sense tingled..
Dangit.. every time we get a new theist on the site, I get all excited that a good discussion might happen.. then this..
E'ery damn time,.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

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

Come now, no need to be rude.

All i did was ask for the source of your claim and suggest some further reading.

 

[Treks]

South Park already covered that in an episode. You do know your tendencies are against the law?

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.