- Joined
- Jun 13, 2010
- Messages
- 22,676
- Reaction score
- 4,282
- Location
- DC Metro
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
Correct. Then don't feed into it.
Ditto.
That's not what I asked. Define unnatural.
We been there, homey. you know my position.
Correct. Then don't feed into it.
That's not what I asked. Define unnatural.
Ditto.
We been there, homey. you know my position.
"Purpose" has nothing to do with the definition of natural. There is absolutely zero evidence that anything on Earth has purpose. The idea of "purpose" is a purely philosophical or religious one and it is not involved in any accepted definition of natural.
I also find it funny that you dodged CC's question yet again. Just define natural mac and while you're at it, tell us why dictionaries are unreliable sources for definitions.
Just so we are all clear. mac is using a definition of "natural" from Natural Moral Law which in turn is derived from Aristotelian Philosophy. Most people stopped using his definition of "natural" in the Medieval ages. The Catholic Church and other orthodox Christian sects have kept it alive. His definition of "natural" is a teleological construct. He believes that everything is designed to serve a purpose and if it does not serve that purpose then it is an "unnatural" act. This form of Aristotelian Philosophy was abandoned by most of the world hundreds of years ago since it was based entirely upon speculation and conjecture.
For example, anal sex is "unnatural" because it does not lead to procreation. The rectum is not a reproductive organ. By extension, masturbation and oral sex are equally as "unnatural" since they don't lead to procreation. The hand and the mouth are not reproductive organs. In vitro fertilisation, which is the process of fertilising an egg with a sperm outside the body is also considered a highly "unnatural" act.
Most people today use an empirical definition of "natural". Empiricism is the basis of science, and it holds that observation and measurement are the key to understanding the world. As such, the modern definition of "natural" is that which is observable and measurable. Homosexuality is "natural" by this definition because it can be observed occurring prevalently in the higher animal kingdom.
So nobody is speaking the same language as mac. He is using an ancient and outdated worldview.
The pursuit of happiness is philisophical, not physical.
There's a difference, mac. Your side brings it up as a degrading tactic. That will not go unanswered. When that kind of ignorance remains without confrontation, someone might actually believe it. Look at this thread, for example. The only people who will believe that homosexuality is unnatural are those who already believe it and who won't change their mind no matter what evidence is presented. Folks who didn't know... after reading this thread they can easily see how both the logic and the definition completely refute the unnaturality argument. They can also see the lack of logic behind the morality of the "natural" argument.
It's not your issue and it's not important to you, so I would think your best move would be to either stay out of it if it comes up, or to confront people on the irrelevance of the argument itself.
Sure. And as has been proven, your position is wrong.
Devotion to God is philosophical. I guess that makes it unnatural as well.
There's no logic behind either side. Like I said, as long as no-one is saying "it's perfectly natural" I'll hold my peace.
I don't like folks misrepresenting the evidence. For example, homosexuality has not been proven to be genetic.
All that's been shown is that you disagree with it and that you care little for evolution.
And if your side doesn't come in and bring it up, you won't see me mention it.
Good. And I support you doing that. I usually point that out, too.
No, what's been shown is that homosexuality is natural based on the definitions and that evolution has zero to do with it.
All that's been shown is that you disagree with it and that you care little for evolution.
Classic mistake on my part. Out of curiosity I had to read your last few posts.
Well, good. Maybe you'll learn something.
I have learned a lot from you. You have taught me that sexual repression rots the brain and corrodes a man's ability to use basic logic.
Bring IT!
Usually...sometimes you slip up.
See, slippin. Homosexuality serves no purpose, no benefit to the species. It's not natural....and the definition of natural, from what ever dictionary you like, can be misrepresented to prove that a whole host of unnatural things....are natural.
I have learned a lot from you. You have taught me that sexual repression rots the brain and corrodes a man's ability to use basic logic.
Well.............. I'm sure you'll get better.
Moderator's Warning: |
Knock it off, you two. |
Unless you can link to the designer's website and prove the purpose of things, you position above is nothing but your own opinion.
And you have completely failed to provide any definition of natural that supports your position... except the one you made up.
Moderator's Warning: Knock it off, you two.
Can't. Lighting bolts..locusts....you'll have to take my word for it. Or show why it's "perfectly natural" despite having no benefit to the species.
Can't. Lighting bolts..locusts....you'll have to take my word for it. Or show why it's "perfectly natural" despite having no benefit to the species.
Sorry. There are no qualifiers like "beneficial" in defining natural. That's YOUR definition which you created... and has no validity.
I think it does, you can ignore if you like, but I think it's valid. If it's unimportant to the argument in general, why are you so hell bent on proving it natural?
You can "think" it does, but you have absolutely nothing credible to base it on. It's you reverse engineering a definition to fit your agenda.
And I am not trying to prove it's natural. I am correcting your error. I told you that's what I do with this issue.
Well, since it IS unnatural, then SSM can't happen.
You can think it doesn't...makes no difference, you can't prove it's natural.
.
You can think it doesn't...makes no difference, you can't prove it's natural.
And I yours.