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