Homoseuxality: Is it wrong?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
How did people decide on what was natural or not before dictionaries?

It just came naturally. 😉

Originally posted by Starrman
The definition of natural that you find in the dictionary (as rwingett points out) is just anything you can find in nature. Therefore homosexuality is quite natural and as such it is your bias on the definition which accounts to you yet proving your point.

The definition of natural is not: "just anything you find
in nature". That's laughable.

Originally posted by xs
The definition of natural is [b]not: "just anything you find
in nature". That's laughable.[/b]

Part of the definition of 'natural', from the Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary:

Natural: 2a: being in accordance with or determined by nature. 2b: having or constituting a classification based on features existing in nature.

Clearly saying that things which occur in nature are 'natural' is an integral part of the meaning of the word.

Originally posted by rwingett
Part of the definition of 'natural', from the Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary:

Natural: 2a: being in accordance with or determined by nature. 2b: having or constituting a classification based on features existing in nature.

Clearly saying that things which occur in nature are 'natural' is an integral part of the meaning of the word.

My argument is still:
It has not been established that homosexuality
is in accordance with nature.

Originally posted by xs
My argument is still:
It has not been established that homosexuality
is [b]in accordance with nature.[/b]

Is it a disease which could be cured if an effective treatment were to be discovered?

Originally posted by xs
The definition of natural is [b]not: "just anything you find
in nature". That's laughable.[/b]

Right, but the definition is neither "consistent with something's natural function", as you claim above. Your definition employs the very term you're trying to get clear on! So, unless you can provide something like an analysis of 'function' or 'purpose' that doesn't presuppose some definition of the term 'natural', your definition is rightly rejected as being circular.

Originally posted by xs
My argument is still:
It has not been established that homosexuality
is [b]in accordance with nature.[/b]

Alternative argument:
It has not been established that homosexuality
is not in accordance with nature.

Therefore, the boundaries of nature is where we define it.

Originally posted by xs
My argument is still:
It has not been established that homosexuality
is [b]in accordance with nature.[/b]

Stick to whatever preconceived notions you want, but clearly you're wrong. The fact that homosexuality occurs in nature over and over again means that it is a natural occurance. That it occurs less frequently does not diminish its status as a being completely natural.

Originally posted by rwingett
Stick to whatever preconceived notions you want, but clearly you're wrong. The fact that homosexuality occurs in nature over and over again means that it is a natural occurance. That it occurs less frequently does not diminish its status as a being completely natural.

In fact the natural world is shot through with unnatural acts. For instance, the natural funtion and purpose of teeth is to tear and chew food, yet we find some animals using their teeth to carry their young.

Originally posted by xs
Once again. It has [b]not been established that homosexuality
is in accordance with nature.
You've only pointed out unnatural examples in other species.[/b]

Let me ask you something. When you feel natural, what does that mean?
Does it mean that you act in accordance with other people's notions of
natural (or some etiquette you've been taught is the socially correct one), or
that you act based on what you feel and what you want; your inner
impulses? Which is the most natural behaviour in your opinion?

Originally posted by bbarr
In fact the natural world is shot through with unnatural acts. For instance, the natural funtion and purpose of teeth is to tear and chew food, yet we find some animals using their teeth to carry their young.

If those filthy animals believed in god, they'd burn in hell for using their teeth in such an "unnatural" way. Clearly it's more natural for them to eat their young than to carry them about.

Originally posted by xs
It has not been established that homosexuality
is [b]in accordance with nature.[/b]

If it occurs in nature, among animals without higher reasoning, then surely
it's in accordance with nature!? 😕

Originally posted by bbarr
In fact the natural world is shot through with unnatural acts. For instance, the natural funtion and purpose of teeth is to tear and chew food, yet we find some animals using their teeth to carry their young.

This is more inline with what I was thinking. The same with
the humans flying example. I never said that because
something is unnatural that would make it wrong.

But I would not say a human carrying baby in it's mouth is
natural either.

Originally posted by xs
This is more inline with what I was thinking. The same with
the humans flying example. I never said that because
something is unnatural that would make it wrong.

But I would not say a human carrying baby in it's mouth is
natural either.

So you mean normative, not natural. But even so, human beings do hundreds of non-normative things all the time, it's what makes life so interesting. Do you believe humans should always be normative?

Originally posted by xs
This is more inline with what I was thinking. The same with
the humans flying example. I never said that because
something is unnatural that would make it wrong.

But I would not say a human carrying baby in it's mouth is
natural either.

Ah, I finally get you! If you're using a physical feature in a way it was not
intended, it's unnatural. Right? So, the reproduction organs were
not initially intended to be used for personal pleasure but for
reproduction and hence having sex with someone you cannot reproduce
with is unnatural? Well, how do you know the penis and vagina was only
meant for reproduction? We use them to relieve our bodies of urine as
well. And we do experience a physical pleasure whether we use them for
reproduction or not. Why would that be the case if the only natural use of
our sex organs were to simply reproduce?

Addition: What I'm getting at in my own fuzzy way is that maybe
a desire that we cannot change through treatment is actually quite
natural (whether or not it's good or bad for a society) even though it may
not appear so from a simple biological point of view. Perhaps you have
to include the basics of social interaction and needs in different species
of animals before you say a specific act is unnatural. Sex can relieve
stress among other things, hence it has a very useful function even when
not reproducing (I believe someone already pointed this out). So, it's
still natural if it has a function that helps you survive in nature and it
indeed stems from a natural need.