Makaranda
Active Member
Try the Dictionary.
natural
ˈnatʃ(ə
r(əl/Submitadjective
1.
existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
why can't we have a relationship with other men?
- Thread starter davidthegreek
- Start date
Try the Dictionary.
natural
ˈnatʃ(ə
r(əl/Submitadjective
1.
existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind.
Uberpod
Active Member
1) On one level you seem to be arguing that the human race cannot become homosexual because then propagation of the species is an issue. Does anyone advocate that we all should go gay? Why is uniformity in this area so important to you?
2) Gay persons can have biological children, true? And not every instance of straight sex results in a child, are you with me? Why should the fact that it takes a sperm and a female to gestate a child deter two humans from having a sexual relationship?
Gordian Knot
Being Deviant IS My Art.
Homosexuality amongst other species is very common and well documented. The presence of such behavior in other mammals is probably the most relevant to the discussion:
Selected mammals from the full list:
Bison[16]
Brown Bear[17]
Brown Rat[18]
Cavy[18]
Caribou[19]
Cat (domestic)[20]
Cattle (domestic)[21]
Chimpanzee[22][23][24][25]
Common Dolphin[26]
Common Marmoset[27]
Dog[28]
Elephant[29]
Fox[30]
Giraffe[3][31][32]
Goat[16]
Horse (domestic)[33]
Human[34][35][36]
Koala[37]
Lion[34]
Orca[26]
Raccoon[38]
Humans[26
Information found at this link: List of animals displaying homosexual behavior - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Selected mammals from the full list:
Bison[16]
Brown Bear[17]
Brown Rat[18]
Cavy[18]
Caribou[19]
Cat (domestic)[20]
Cattle (domestic)[21]
Chimpanzee[22][23][24][25]
Common Dolphin[26]
Common Marmoset[27]
Dog[28]
Elephant[29]
Fox[30]
Giraffe[3][31][32]
Goat[16]
Horse (domestic)[33]
Human[34][35][36]
Koala[37]
Lion[34]
Orca[26]
Raccoon[38]
Humans[26
Information found at this link: List of animals displaying homosexual behavior - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Unfortunately what is really natural is for a population to expand until it destroys its environment unless limited by predators or something. The only predators humans have is other humans.
What you say had a very different effect for most of history. There was space and resources enough for all. But now there are 7,000,000,000 humans and growing. They have increasing expectations for consumption as well. So while procreation was a duty a century ago things have changed.
I am arguing that nonreproductive sex is more moral than potentially fertile sex. That doesn't mean all potentially fertile sex is immoral. But homosex isn't immoral by any means, particularly if you're already a parent. Encouraging people to bond with other people that they aren't going to procreate with is a no brainer in this modern world. Immoral people will continue to produce children that they can't properly care for. Taking care of those kids seems like a good job for the moral people.
That would be a way to reduce the likelihood of the ever so natural biosphere disaster we're creating.
Tom
Sir Doom
Cooler than most of you
Oh, I see. You think sex is for making children and nothing else? That's not natural.
Oh, suddenly being 'natural' doesn't matter anymore? Interesting. Contradictory, but interesting none-the-less.
Yes the little female bees take the male pollen from the male plants and put it on the female plants... of course they put it on the male plants too. Boy oh boy those female bees are promiscuous, aren't they? Same sex relationships all across the board.
You are aware that trees are capable of changing gender too, right? Or did you not know that? Or did you think trees didn't have gender like most people in this world that can't be bothered to pick up a book?
Sir Doom
Cooler than most of you
That doesn't change anything about my example.
You don't NEED to do anything. But it does demonstrate that same-sex relationships happen in nature all the time. Thus, it is natural. It happens in humans, too. Why is it unnatural when a human does it, but the bees are perfectly natural?
And YOU get to choose what YOU get to do. And other people get to choose what they do. See how that works? Natural in either case.
Oh, but you do.
I wonder what sort of mind-boggling would happen to you if you researched how often multi-gendered humans are born.
My point is that if it exists in nature, then it's natural. Whatever sexual behaviors and attractions you find in non-human animals, you find in the human animal as well. So that's not a good argument to use.
There's more than two gender identities and even more than two biological sexes.
Something happening with-in nature is different than happening by/from nature. Nature does not interfere in our choice making.
Agreed, that there are other genders that have multiple biological sexes. Again, it's by/from the nature (If not done medically).
Example of female bee is again a natural process. If nature permits (AND I REPEAT AGAIN, ONLY IF NATURE PERMITS), then its considered to be natural. Not something happens with-in nature can always be THE NATURE.
Agreed, that there are other genders that have multiple biological sexes. Again, it's by/from the nature (If not done medically).
Example of female bee is again a natural process. If nature permits (AND I REPEAT AGAIN, ONLY IF NATURE PERMITS), then its considered to be natural. Not something happens with-in nature can always be THE NATURE.
Obviously nature permits homosexuality since it is fairly widespread. If homosexuality is "anti-nature" then apparently one of my male cats didn't get the memo since he tried to have sex with the other male cat.
Sir Doom
Cooler than most of you
How do you differentiate between what is 'in nature' and 'permitted by nature' ?
I would not compare apples to oranges. May be they are not as civilized as we human claim to be.
Actually, yes it does. About 90% of everything we do is instinctual; that is, from nature.
What?
You brought up nature and it has been shown to you that homosexuality is found throughout nature and so is obviously a natural impulse, i.e. not a human cultural construct or caused by social problems. So that argument has been laid to rest. I have no idea what you're trying to say here, though.
Instinct is mix of natural thoughts and memory/experience thoughts that are stored in sub-conscious (knowingly or un-knowingly). All instincts we have are not necessarily natural. However natural instinct can be found in most human as a common factor. Whereas experience based vary from person to person based on experience/information in subconscious. Now decisions made by that is not natural, hence nature is not to be blamed for one's thought process (This is where the free will plays a part). It would be like, finding an excuse for doing something we think is right and blaming on instinct to set our minds free of guilt. Don't we all blame God, evil, luck, nature etc etc etc for many things in life.
Ah, the "nature vs. nurture" debate.
To be frank, I don't believe in the idea that something can be "unnatural" anymore. Everything is ultimately from nature, and therefore natural, without exception.
A person's sexual orientation is formed while in the mother's womb, afterwards. It has absolutely nothing to do with what we're exposed to while growing up. If that were true, then homosexuality wouldn't exist, since there would have been no place for children to get such an idea. (Side note: there is a difference between a sexual orientation, and a fetish.)
The only time it's a "choice" is in the case of bisexuality. For me, I have no choice. I'm just attracted to women with no homosexual desires at all. I can't help it. And neither can homosexuals. It is nothing but cruelty and abuse to force homosexuals to engage in abstinence or heterosexual relationships on any sort of penalty.
This is a from-birth instinct. And it's not in any way wrong.
(And yes, I do blame the Gods and local Elves for things going wrong out of my control. ^_^)
Last edited:
I respect your thoughts of Wholeness. If nature has ethics in operating. Then anything under it must follow it as well (I strongly think). If She is un-ethical than why bother looking into it or even taking Her examples into any walk of life whether it is wild,human or even cosmic etc. Anyways nice debate. Stay Blessed !
Blessed be, yourself. ^_^
Nature as a whole has no inherent ethics. However, social species do. In any social Group, whether among humans, wolves, apes, dolphins, elephants, or any other social species, there are rules that the Group must follow, or the entire Group dies.
In the tribal settings of most such animals, who lack complex speech(far as we can tell, anyway), these rules are conveyed via reinforcement of actions. That is, an action will be reinforced as good with food, comfort, etc., or reinforced as bad with beatings, denial of food, etc. This would have been the case for us as well in the earliest Days Before the Gods. (That is, before behavioral modernity.)
For humans who reached behavioral modernity, we developed more complex rules and consequences that are conveyed with words, in addition to reinforcement. This became even more important for a Group's survival once cities started being built, and large numbers of people who don't know each other started living in close proximity; yet even MORE important once a tribal King's rules and enforcement extended through several cities and farmsteads across large expanses of land, and entire communities under that rule would never meet each other.
That's why we still have ethics and morals even though Nature inherently does not: Survival of the Group. If murder were okay, everyone would be killing each other over petty squabbles, and the Group would cease to exist. (Most of us have from-birth instinctual aversions to killing other people, however, which are INCREDIBLY difficult to overcome; a trait also common to social species.) If stealing was okay, everyone would be taking everything without any sort of check, so there'd be even less food/water/shelter/etc. to go around than there is in today's world, and the Group would cease to exist. If lying were okay, then nobody in the Group would be able to trust anyone, leading to uncoordinated thus unsuccessful hunts, and eating of poisonous plants, and the Group would cease to exist.
Utilitarian philosophy also devised a great formula for calculating the ethics of a given action: it is ethical if it causes the least amount of unhappiness for the most amount of happiness. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan utilized a now-famous wording of that philosophy which I hold to as best as I can: the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one. Part of the Wiccan Rede is: At harm none, do as thou wilt. That is, feel free to do whatever you want, so long as your actions don't harm anybody.
Last edited:
All provided examples above are either human or wild behaviors/ethics and how they are formed etc..
kindly expand on provided phrase (Nature as a whole has no inherent ethics???) with example of Nature itself only. For Example to me the sun rise and dawn every single day, week, month, years, centuries is constant phenomena (Unless replaced by nature itself in the form of cloud/rain etc).