• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Proposition 8 Struck Down!!!

Robert Prey said:
It may be an inclination for human beings to sin, but that does not make it right nor does it make it a part of the Natural Order.
Click to expand...

So sin is a part of the natural order?

Man, you are twisted. Still, I do love to hear the sound of the demise of bigotry. You're a classic example of that. Hopefully you'll be old enough to see the first homosexual black woman president.
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
Common Sense tells me Human beings have intellect and conscience, which lower forms of life do not have.
Click to expand...

Yet, you complain about homosexuality being 'unnatural', and when it's pointed out that it is not, you move the goalposts?

Homosexuality *is* natural. Happens among the animal kingdom, of which Homo Sapiens is a member.
 
Cleon said:
Robert, what method do you use to evaluate what is "natural" and what isn't?
Click to expand...
By all appearance, it is "his opinion". "Nature" doesn't apparently include animal behavior, except when it does. Not that it matters, since Robert remains deliberately and defiantly ignorant of anything he disagrees with.
 
I love his backpedalling. "Homosexuality isn't natural! Oh, okay, so it might be natural, but it's against Natural Order!"

But yeah, it rips my heart how the world keeps getting better and better.

HDI_graph.png


The current liberal trends are ruining the world, I'm telling you.
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
Common Sense tells me Human beings have intellect and conscience, which lower forms of life do not have.
Click to expand...
Suppose we accept this proposition.

Should we not use our intellect and conscience to establish boundaries of behavior based on logic? If so then why, logically, is gay marriage bad? It hasn't been established that it harms anyone.

Do you want to disallow things that harm no one?
Do you want to disallow something that harms no one because of an old book?
Do you want to disallow something that harms no one because you think it isn't natural?

If you answered "yes" to any of that then please ask how, using that logic, you should not be banned you from watching a television.
 
I understand those who claim homosexuality has a natural basis means it isn't a matter of "sin" or just "choosing to be a pervert" or similar insults. But merely because it's natural doesn't mean it is praiseworthy or morally neutral, or that society should treat it equally to heterosexuality. That MIGHT be the case, but it doesn't logically follow.

Numerous human inclinations and desires are natural in the sense of being innate, or partially innate, but this is usually simply irrelevant to whether or not human society should accept them. After all, the whole point of human society is often to curb or change what is natural. If we acted completely "naturally", we would all still be hunter-gatherers.
 
Weird Science said:
I understand those who claim homosexuality has a natural basis means it isn't a matter of "sin" or just "choosing to be a pervert" or similar insults. But merely because it's natural doesn't mean it is praiseworthy or morally neutral, or that society should treat it equally to heterosexuality. That MIGHT be the case, but it doesn't logically follow.
Click to expand...

I've ever seen the "it's natural" point as simply a correction to many, many years of false claims that it's unnatural. As a side note, it just makes me laugh when those who have or would have used the unnatural argument backpedal to the position that nature doesn't determine right or wrong. You're right, though. Taking something from "it's natural" to "it's morally anything" is basically the naturalistic fallacy, as has been pointed out.

Weird Science said:
Numerous human inclinations and desires are natural in the sense of being innate, or partially innate, but this is usually simply irrelevant to whether or not human society should accept them. After all, the whole point of human society is often to curb or change what is natural. If we acted completely "naturally", we would all still be hunter-gatherers.
Click to expand...

In particular, for this argument to have relevance (other than the "whole point" exaggeration), you would likely need to specify that the behaviors that human society has reason to curb or change are "harmful behaviors." So far, homosexuality doesn't exactly count as a harmful behavior, contrary to what people like RP seem to think and continually fail to back up well.
 
Weird Science said:
I understand those who claim homosexuality has a natural basis means it isn't a matter of "sin" or just "choosing to be a pervert" or similar insults. But merely because it's natural doesn't mean it is praiseworthy or morally neutral, or that society should treat it equally to heterosexuality. That MIGHT be the case, but it doesn't logically follow.
Click to expand...

Unless I missed it (and I may have, it's a long thread), no one here is making that argument. The only "natural" argument being made here is a counter to the claim that homosexuality is unnatural, which is almost trivial to disprove and has been done multiple times in this thread already. I don't think anyone is saying it is praise worthy because it is natural.

I think it would be accurate to say that people are arguing that homosexuals are deserving of equal treatment under the law.
 
Shalamar said:
Yet, you complain about homosexuality being 'unnatural', and when it's pointed out that it is not, you move the goalposts?

Homosexuality *is* natural. Happens among the animal kingdom, of which Homo Sapiens is a member.
Click to expand...


What you call "natural" in the animal kingdom is probably just a bunch of dumb animals using trial and error before finding the proper entry.
 
I agree that even if homosexuality was 100% only done by humans it would not matter since it demonstrably does not harm anyone in and of itself.

But the use of "natural" here is puzzling. The words Robert initially used indicated that he was talking about natural in the sense that science understands things: that all things that obey according to known natural laws are natural. Hence my comments about wizards.

But he seems to be implying a use of the word in the fuzzier anthropogenic sense. That things humans construct are somehow "unnatural."
 
Robert Prey said:
What you call "natural" in the animal kingdom is probably just a bunch of dumb animals using trial and error before finding the proper entry.
Click to expand...

Even if it was, so what?
You have yet to prove anyone is demonstrably harmed by homosexuality let alone by gay marriage.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
Your common sense flies in the face of evidence.

Even so, you are defeating your own argument now. If humans alone have intellect and conscience, then how is homosexuality "unnatural"?*

Aren't you really merely arguing that only the opinion of your intellect and conscience (or those who agree with it) count in establishing morality?

Why are you opposed to allowing some people to use their own intellect and conscience?

Are you the only human with "common sense"?

*ETA: In other words, if this is the reason for not using "nature" to consider infanticide to be moral, why should we ever turn to "nature" to answer questions of morality? If you're only talking about human nature, then the argument that homosexuality is contrary to human nature is demonstrably factually false. (Homosexuality actually exists, both in non-human and human nature.)
Click to expand...

In the animal kingdom, you may call it homosexuality. I would call it trial and error.
 
Robert Prey said:
In the animal kingdom, you may call it homosexuality. I would call it trial and error.
Click to expand...

Good for you! Doesn't change what it is. That's even ignoring the fact that you seem to think that you can just redefine words however you want unchallenged.

Either way, your contention that it's a case of "just a bunch of dumb animals using trial and error before finding the proper entry" is completely and utterly shattered by even just one quote from that link.

Wikipedia said:
An estimated one-quarter of all black swans pairings are of homosexual males. They steal nests, or form temporary threesomes with females to obtain eggs, driving away the female after she lays the eggs.[34][35] More of their cygnets survive to adulthood than those of different-sex pairs, possibly due to their superior ability to defend large portions of land. The same reasoning has been applied to male flamingo pairs raising chicks.[36][37]
Click to expand...
 
Weird Science said:
I understand those who claim homosexuality has a natural basis means it isn't a matter of "sin" or just "choosing to be a pervert" or similar insults. But merely because it's natural doesn't mean it is praiseworthy or morally neutral, or that society should treat it equally to heterosexuality. That MIGHT be the case, but it doesn't logically follow.

Numerous human inclinations and desires are natural in the sense of being innate, or partially innate, but this is usually simply irrelevant to whether or not human society should accept them. After all, the whole point of human society is often to curb or change what is natural. If we acted completely "naturally", we would all still be hunter-gatherers.
Click to expand...
Others have already pointed out that rape and infanticide are found in nature. I and others have pointed out that appealing to nature is a logical fallacy. That's true regardless of whether or not one argues that "natural" is good or bad. No one other than Robert is appealing to nature. Take it up with him.
 
Robert Prey said:
In the animal kingdom, you may call it homosexuality. I would call it trial and error.
Click to expand...
No one cares what you call it. You are the one who appealed to "nature" in the first place. Now you are simply moving the goal posts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom