[net.religion] Observations on net.motss - homosexuality is a sin

nazgul@apollo.UUCP (Kee Hinckley) (11/04/83)

**
    I'm afraid I have to comment on this:

 >
 >   1.  It is not natural.  The process of evolution has determined that
 >to procreate the species a man and a woman are required.  Homosexuality
 >defeats this purpose.
 >
   
I find  this logic rather interesting.  It seems to read:
    "Homosexulity is a sin because it is unnatural (ie. defeats the purpose of
    evolution)."

    1)  (side point) I don't recall the bible talking about evolution, as
        natural or unnatural; creationists certainly could not use this
        logic!

    2)  (main point) The implication seems to be that anything that prevents
        procreation is a sin.  If you're a Catholic I suppose this is actually
        some of the points that the Church wants you to beleive.  On the other
        hand, if that is the case, why don't priests have lots of children?
        Is it a sin to be a bachelor? a spinister? sterile?  Furthermore,
        where in the defintion of homosexuality does it say that being gay
        means never being heterosexual?  Clearly being homosexual is not
        related to procreation, but one can hardly argue that it "defeats
        this purpose"!

    -------------
    From the keyboard of "the devil's advocate"     -nazgul

P.S. Actually, my login name is rather appropriate for that role!

david@ssc-vax.UUCP (David Norris) (11/11/83)

   I don't see where any religous argument is used in this statement at all.
The fact that evolution requires a man and a woman to procreate is a fact; why
are you adding a religous argument to it?  This argument does not state that
it is a sin at all; it merely makes a statement on "the natural order of things"
I stated personal observation on my belief that homosexuality is unnatural
due to the way nature works; even though I am a Christian this shouldn't allow
others to make this kind of a logical error.  I am willing to debate just about
anything in a logical argument;  however, once others begin to add new meaning
to the words to suit their own argument logical reasoning falls apart.
   Comments, anyone?
   -- Dave Norris

sebb@pyuxss.UUCP (11/11/83)

Relay-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mhuxl.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxss.UUCP
Message-ID: <205@pyuxss.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 11-Nov-83 11:06:13 EST

t
Organization: Bell Labs, Piscataway
Lines: 14

produce progeny is not as logical as you suppose. There are numerous
counter-examples. If a women and/or a man are sterile, does this imply
that sex between them is wrong? They certainly cannot produce
children. We can not turn to the other animals for our sense of
naturalness either. Homosexuality has been documented in other
animals therefore animals with no sense of right or wrong are
doing unnatural things. 
	I personally think discussing the unnaturalness of homo-
sexuality is absurd. There are numerous things that man does that
are unnatural in that no other animal does them. Man destroys his
environment so that it is even unfit for him to live in.
	I have more examples of the illogic of the "unnatural"
argument but I don't wish to clog up the net any more. 
					S.Badian

tim@unc.UUCP (Tim Maroney) (11/11/83)

	I don't see where any religous argument is used in this
	statement at all.  The fact that evolution requires a man and a
	woman to procreate is a fact; why are you adding a religous
	argument to it?  This argument does not state that it is a sin
	at all; it merely makes a statement on "the natural order of
	things"

I agree entirely.  Furthermore, evolution requires that the man and woman be
unclothed at the time of procreation, so the wearing of clothing is
unnatural.  Also, watching television does not directly aid the procreation
of the species, so it is unnatural.  In fact, come to think of it, most
things that people do are unnatural, according to this argument.

	I stated personal observation on my belief that homosexuality
	is unnatural due to the way nature works; even though I am a
	Christian this shouldn't allow others to make this kind of a
	logical error.  I am willing to debate just about anything in a
	logical argument;  however, once others begin to add new
	meaning to the words to suit their own argument logical
	reasoning falls apart.

Now, wait, Dave.  Christianity is unnatural, since it does not directly
further the procreation of the species.  By a consistent application of your
principle of unnaturality, Christianity is completely unnatural, as is
speech (except pick-up lines), reading, throwing garbage in cans, and
turning on the lights.  None of them directly further procreation, so they
are unnatural.

I am glad to hear that you are willing to debate logically.  When do you
plan to start?  You could begin by admitting that your prejudice against
homosexuality is older than your silly argument for its "unnaturality".
________________________________________________________
Tim Maroney, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
duke!unc!tim (USENET), tim.unc@csnet-relay (ARPA)

laura@utcsstat.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (11/13/83)

I have moved this from net.religion,net.motss to net.religon only.

We need a definition of "natural" here. If you use "natural" as in "found
in nature" then there is no way that you can claim that homosexuality
is "unnatural" since there are a LOT of animals who practise it.

If you start saying that "homosexuality is not a good thing because
people are supposed to procreate" (and procreation is natural) then
you have just managed to condemn priests and other members of religious
groups who believe that it is their duty *not* to procreate. Not to
mention those of us who aren't having any children because the world
has enough children already.

I think the "natural" argument is entirely specious.

Laura Creighton
utzoo!utcsstat!laura

rap@oliveb.UUCP (Robert A. Pease) (11/14/83)

|


From: Tim Maroney

>   Now, wait, Dave.  Christianity is unnatural, since it does not directly
>   further the procreation of the species.


I like the way you think!  Do it some more.  ):-)

     rap
hplabs!olivee!rap

rene@umcp-cs.UUCP (11/14/83)

W.r.t. homosexuality being unnatural: many animals exhibit
homosexuality - I know for sure about ducks, dogs, and rats (these are
the ones I've read about). The interesting thing about the rats was
that it was observed in an experiment with overcrowding. The rats were
given all the food they needed, but a limited amount of space. Result
was pregnant rats re-absorbing their babies (this happens in rabbits
too, come to think of it) or eating them as they're born, an increase
in the number of violent encounters, an increase in the injury
inflicted in these encounters, and an increase in homosexuality (which
however, had been present all along). I think one might be able to
draw parallels too our current crowded situation in cities. One
hypothesis is that homosexuality is a natural and NEEDED method of
birth control.
-- 
Arpa:   rene.umcp-cs@CSNet-relay
Uucp:...{allegra,seismo}!umcp-cs!rene

david@ssc-vax.UUCP (David Norris) (11/14/83)

Ok, Tim.  For all others reading these arguments, if they are bothering you
(or if you feel we are unduly cluttering up the net), let us know and Tim and
I can continue our discussions via mail.

Surely you can see the error in your debate of my original argument; you are
trying to extrapolate the procreation argument into all other facets of
life.  "It is unnatural to eat rocks" cannot be used to support an argument
such as "We can't watch TV because it is unnatural."  The two topics are
unrelated. 

Secondly, how did this start in the first place?  I think I stated the unnatural
aspect of homosexuality as an opinion;  I didn't think I would draw this much
flak.  However, the discussions have made me do some serious thinking about
my opinions (which have not changed), which I am thankful for.

Thridly, you proceed on the assumption that I am prejudiced toward homosexuals.
This may or may not be true (and would be difficult to prove/disprove anyway),
but what has that got to do with starting a logical argument?
   -- Dave Norris

tim@unc.UUCP (11/18/83)

Dave Norris is correct in that my argument about the naturality or
unnaturality of homosexuality and other behaviors is incorrect.  However,
the way it is incorrect is not what Dave suggests.  It is incorrect because
I got sucked into the discussion without backing off and examining the
definitions.  I'll now rectify that flaw.

Nothing that is perceivable by human beings is unnatural.  Nature is the
universe; we live in the universe, therefore all our actions and perceptions
are natural, whether they be feeding a waif or nuking a continent.  The
whole "natural vs. unnatural" worldview implies a purposiveness to nature
separate from the purposes of humans, and says that they can be in conflict;
but nature has no purpose -- it simply exists.  Nothing is unnatural because
everything is in nature; we couldn't do anything unnatural if we tried.

Given this, the whole argument about the naturality and unnaturality of
various events is absurd, and I will not continue it, except to point out
that by Dave's standards, contraception is unnatural, as are all forms of
foreplay.

The question remains of homosexuality's moral legitimacy.  If Dave wants to
talk about this, fine.  However, I refuse to accept any action as moral
which restricts the liberty of a person who does not cause hurt or harm to
any other person, but simply does not follow a certain standard.  In other
words, there is no such thing as a "victimless crime" in my morality -- if
it is victimless, it is not a crime; however, restricting the
"perpetrator's" liberty because of the action IS a crime.  Homosexuality
therefore carries no moral stigma.

Here is an astounding statement from Dave:

	I think I stated the unnatural aspect of homosexuality as an
	opinion;  I didn't think I would draw this much flak.

Right.  You deliberately spread hatred and prejudice, and expect that the
fact that it is your opinion lets you off the hook.  Suppose someone posted
an article saying that they thought it was unnatural for blacks to be
anything but slaves, that is, that free blacks are unnatural.  I'd come down
just as hard on them as you, and the fact that it was their opinion would
not deter me in the least.  If you spread hatred and prejudice, you deserve
to be publicly castigated, and that's what I'm doing, and will continue to
do if you do not stop.

Here's another winner from the same source:

	...you proceed on the assumption that I am prejudiced toward
	homosexuals.  This may or may not be true (and would be
	difficult to prove/disprove anyway), but what has that got to
	do with starting a logical argument?

You stated no basic principles from which your beliefs are drawn, but if I
am to carry on logical discussion, I must know what those principles are.
My assertion was a challenge to you to provide some basic principles behind
your arguments, since otherwise I would have no alternative but to believe
that they are rooted in prejudice.  You have said nothing to contradict this
latter possibility, and therefore I will continue to believe it.

More than that, though, I asked you to admit this because in so doing you
would come closer to understanding that any argument that comes after its
conclusions are formulated is immediately suspect.  I hardly think I need to
support this statement; if a million examples of false arguments that turned
out to be rationalizations do not spring to your mind when I say this, you
have not had sufficient contact with logical discussion to be able to carry
on such a discussion.  In other words, admit that you began by disliking
homosexuality, and then came up with your "unnaturality" argument; you may
then come to realize that the argument is a rationalization, and therefore
highly suspect.
________________________________________________________
Tim Maroney, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
duke!unc!tim (USENET), tim.unc@csnet-relay (ARPA)

speaker@umcp-cs.UUCP (11/19/83)

Let's be very carefull when we make comparisons between humans
and animals that exhibit homosexual behavior.  Humans do it for
fun.  The animals may very well think that they are procreating
and just have their wires crossed.  One expects odd behavior from
rats if they are placed in an overcrowded environment... an
'unatural' environement if you will.

On the other hand, many animals (rats too) can learn to modify
their behavior if the reward is some sort of pleasure.  Laura's
story about the bull on her uncle's (?) farm is an example that
could be interpreted wither way.
-- 

					- Speaker-To-Stuffed-Animals
					speaker@umcp-cs
					speaker.umcp-cs@CSnet-Relay

laura@utcsstat.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (11/20/83)

From Speaker-to-Stuffed-Animals

	Let's be very carefull when we make comparisons between humans
	and animals that exhibit homosexual behavior.  Humans do it for
	fun.  The animals may very well think that they are procreating
	and just have their wires crossed.  One expects odd behavior from
	rats if they are placed in an overcrowded environment... an
	'unatural' environement if you will.
	
	On the other hand, many animals (rats too) can learn to modify
	their behavior if the reward is some sort of pleasure.  Laura's
	story about the bull on her uncle's (?) farm is an example that
	could be interpreted wither way.

It was my great-grandfather's farm, but that is not the point. Your
whole argument does not wash. There are human societies that have yet
to connect sex with babies. (I heard a lecture on one group of them
last week -- they are in New Guinea.) Do you really expect that the
rats do? 

However, it really outlines what it is that some people mean by
"natural". They mean that if you aren't going "rah rah procreate!"
all the time, then your sex is unnatural. By that definition, I don't
know a single heterosexual couple that counts as natural.

Now where could this idea, not that the humans *ought* to be thinking
of sex-as-for-procreation-only (an idea which isn't even in favour
with the middle-of-the road Catholics in Toronto!), but that the
animals *already are* have come from? Let me think.

I may be wrong, but my hunch is that it comes from Genesis 1:22
-- the old "be fruitful and multiply bit".  

If this is so, then you have just defined "natural" to mean "in
accordance with my interpretation of the Christian Bible". This
sure isn't my definiton of the word natural, and I am sure that it
is not the one that most people use.

I have a smaller definiton of "natural" than Tim Maroney's (for
instance, if there were no wild colonies of rats that exhibited
that lab behaviour, I would be willing to concede that that was not
natural behaviour for rats) but not so small as to consist of 
somebody else' interpretation of his Holy Book. 

(By the way, lemmings exhibit homosexual behaviour every 7 (I think)
years, under overcrowded situations. Of course they are the same
animals that every seven years "swarm" <much like bees> to
form new colonies due to overpopulation. In lemming swarms, there
is a lot of dinners provided for the Arctic foxes and wolves,
and a lot of lemmings simply dive into the ocean and start swimming for
the other side. They drown, leading people to beliefs of lemming
mass suicides.)

Now. If you want to argue about "correspondance to my interpretaion
of Holy Book X", that is fine. BUT -- not in net.motss, which
is read by a lot of people who don't care about "Holy Book X".
And consider that what you are actually arguing about is not the
NATURALNESS of homosexuality, but the MORALITY of homosexuality.

Laura Creighton
utzoo!utcsstat!laura