In this Pit thread, Autolycus, offered to share his views on homosexuality in a debate format, so I offered to start a thread for him to do so.
His views so far in that thread are:
And the offer to debate is here:
Posting this just to let people I’m not welching out on this shallange.
Full post to come either later tonight or in the morning. Umm… that’s it for now I guess.
Oh, might want to throw out that I’m not a homophobe, or if I am then I’m not trying to be one.
Who said “the only unnatural act is one that can’t be performed”?
The bisexual contortionist?
A better phrasing of the question would be: “Is the biggotry directed against homosexuals natural?”
People appear to be born homosexual; homosexuals have detecable physical differences in brain and body. There are homosexual animals. Given all that, I fail to see how it could be anything but natural.
And as I pointed out in the other thread, sex is about social relationships and recreation at least as much as it is about breeding in humans. The idea that it is about breeding and only breeding is both archaic and obviously incorrect.
And finally, if you bring God and “Divine Law” into it, then the whole concept of “natural” is meaningless. If we are God’s creation and/or have a purpose given to us by God, then there is no nature, and we are all artifacts.
Just to get a head start on this, any strategy on your part which will attempt to equate the word “natural” to a personal definition of “divine law” is going to be a non-starter. Unless you can prove that such a “law” actually exists, then you’re just circumscribing your assertion with a scientifically meaningless and logically unfalsifiable equivocation of terms (as well as loading it with completely unsupportable assumptions about the “purpose” of sex).
Ahem. Homosexuals can reproduce. And often do.
My problem with this line of argument is twofold. First, I challenge you to find a definition of ‘unnatural’ according to which ‘unnatural’ entails ‘immoral.’ Even if the purpose of sex is procreation, it doesn’t follow that unnatural, non-procreative sex is immoral. For example, the purpose of feet is walking; that doesn’t make it immoral for me to use my feet unnaturally by kicking a football.
Second, I find the Catholic Church’s position on non-procreative sex to be inconsistent and full of ad hoc provisions. So if sex is supposed to be procreative, one would suppose that sex between a married couple would be immoral if one of them is sterile (due to having reached menopause, or having had a hysterectomy, or not producing sperm, etc.). But the Church (rightly, in my view) doesn’t embrace this absurd conclusion. But if non-procreative sex is okay for married heteros, why not for homosexuals? There is the simplistic argument that (e.g.) that is not the purpose of the anus, or something like that. For this argument, see my first point.
Some natural law theorists (e.g., John Finnis) argue that a married heterosexual naturally sterile couple can engage in sex b/c the act has “symbolic reproductive significance.” But that seems to open the door for homosexuals, too–if all we are after is symbolic significance, why can’t gay sex have this significance? After all, the chance of a woman without ova getting pregnant is exactly the same as the chance of a gay male getting pregnant–namely, zero.
Cite for baby born as the result of homosexuals mating?
It was stated that homosexuals can’t reproduce. It was not stated that homosexual sex cannot result in a baby. There is a significant difference between the two statements.
Gay men and women generally have working reproductive systems (at least as much as their straight counterparts do). Given that the plumbing “works” there is nothing that prevents homosexuals from conceiving. They’d just have to either have sexual relations with a member of the opposite sex or use some artificial method.
I know plenty of men who got married to women, had a family, then finally came to terms with their homosexuality and divorced their wives (sometimes peacefully, too often not). It would come as a shock to these men that they are incapable of reproducing, given that they are still very involved in their children’s lives.
JOhn.
Christians who claim that something is wrong because it’s unnatural are, IMHO, being contradictory to one of the basic tenets of their faith.
According to Christian theology, we’re not supposed to be natural, because to be natural is to be animal. And to be animal is to be amoral. Humans are supposed to reject their natural tendencies–their self-centeredness, their lust and greed and bestial urges. Humans are special. They aren’t governed by instincts, but by free will.
If we’re going to base right and wrong on what’s natural, then we should be consistent. It’s not natural for people to wait till marriage to have sex, since doing so artificially limits how many offspring individuals can produce. For the same reason, neither is it natural for us to make bigamy and adultery taboo. Society has shaped human sexuality in such a way that nothing about it is natural. Why should homosexuality be any different?
I know the difference, I guess I was going by the definition of a homosexual, in that their sexual orientation relates to persons of the same sexual orientation = any type of mating cannot result in offspring between the two.
Oops.
I think this might be Autolycus’s out, hopefully I’m wrong.
If it is, it raises a different problem. If what is natural for humans is not defined by nature but by “human” agencies e.g. the Catholic Church, the Bible, cultural norms, etc, how do you (Autolycus) deal with the fact that what is considered “normal sexual” behavior is not the same throughout time or culture?
Just as a reminder of what Nature thinks is “natural”, I give you (yet again) our friend with benefits, the Bonobo,
Let me add a question, if what Nature thinks is natural for Bonobos, is also natural for Humans, how do we choose which sex acts to make legal?
I think compelling arguments can be made to prohibit adult/child sexual relationships, but what about adult/adult incestuous relationships?
CMC fnord!
Do they? A cite would be nice. (bolding mine)
As said in the last thread:
Name more than six things that humans do that is natural. Should people who wear eyeglasses be allowed to marry?
And I’ll throw in another little bit of pith:
So guys who like to get buggered by their (female) SO shouldn’t be allowed to get married?
Ironaically, the arguement being put forward supporting homosexuality, “It just happens so it must be natural” could also be made for homophobic people. Try defending Homophobia as natural and see what that gets you!
Well sort of, Christians are called to be part of the Church (read as body) of Christ, which is not of this world, but of God’s Kingdom. Sin (including but not limited to homosexulaity) is of the world and is natural, so to speak, for this place we call the world.
In the strictest religious sense same gender couples can’t have sex with each other, they can have sodomy. As for worldly marriage, they can get a piece of paper that says they are married by some civil authorities, I don’t know of God would accept their authority however.
A challenge?
- Breathing
- Drinking (water)
- Eating (raw vegetables)
- Defecating
- Urinating
- Coughing
- Sneezing
- Dying
What do I win?
I think homophobia is natural. Hey, that wasn’t tricky at all!