His point, and the point of pretty much everyone who has responded to your post, is based on a recurring theme that new posters who submit “devils’s advocate” positions frequently turn out to be actual adherents of those positions. They have, thus, come (or leaped) to the conclusion that you actually agree with the “unnatural” argument and are providing a number of situations that are, themselves, not “natural” to see whether your argument is logically consistent.
A statement of your actual position, at this point will clarify which path the discussion should follow from here.
Perfect, I think you see what I am saying. Thank you. Lets take IQ above 110 - I would IQ above 110 in an unnatural thing for humans.
I feel sorry when the term “unnatural” is used in a negative context to term them as having some kind of deficiency or disease which is simply not true.
Uh-huh. You know, there are plenty of words you could use that don’t imply the people in question are abhorrent abominations. Unusual. Abnormal. Different. In the minority. You’ve got options. Meanwhile, “unnatural” is almost always associated with “bad”.
It is unnatural for an orange to be red. You see a red apple. Ohh, so the apple is unnatural?
NO. It is an apple. Apples are supposed to be red. Apples and Oranges.
Nature has made bees so as to not to reproduce. So if some worker bees reproduce, that would be unnatural. Humans are supposed to reproduce. If some dont, they are unnatural (atypical). Which is (or should be) perfectly fine morally, legally, socially…
Although the words linguistically may mean similar things.
I would be offended by being called “abnormal” and “unusual”, but not so much with “unnatural”…
To put it more succinctly, “unnatural” is an extremely loaded term when used in this context – conveniently preloaded with all kinds of pejorative connotations that make it useful for homophobes who have no other argument.
It’s a lot like “family values” is more or less code for “kill teh gays”. Who could possibly be against an organization like the “American Family Association”? Presumably only someone who hates American families. Until one discovers that it’s a bunch of crazy fundy nutjobs who hatefully rage against non-Christian religions, hatefully lobby against gays and the LGBT community, and have even lobbied Congress to disband the National Endowment for the Arts because it’s apparently immoral and some sort of godless corrupting influence. In fact the Southern Poverty Law Center classifies the “American Family Association” as a hate group. Ain’t language wonderful? Right-wing demagogues seem to be quite adept at knowing how to use it to advantage.
Apparently, you were not arguing just to play Devil’s Advocate. That’s fine. But you should now be aware of the reasons behind some responses to your posts.
In your text that I have quoted, you have made an assertion for which you have provided no factual support. It is natural for species to reproduce, but as with the bees, there is nothing in “nature” that asserts that every member of a species will reproduce. A claim that “humans are supposed to reproduce” is nothing but a hollow claim until you provide evidence to support that claim.*
Continued use of the word “unnatural” when you have already admitted that “atypical” is a better description of the idea you are trying to convey, will lead some to cast a suspicious eye on your arguments.
*(And all of this ignores that fact that homosexuals can and have reproduced; they simply find a stronger sexual attraction to those of the same sex.)
I love how people who don’t know anything about evolution always pop into this type of thread to lecture people. Are we going to hear your views on 12th century Chinese poetry or quantum chromodynamics next?
I also love how you think you are playing “devil’s advocate.” Of course, there was a whole thread here where people were discussing your uninformed “evolution” argument, but you couldn’t be bothered to read it. Instead, you decided to restate an argument that was made very early in the thread. So, I guess we’re supposed to believe that even though you couldn’t take the time to read the thread before posting, you’ve taken the time to study evolution.
Unless your notion of ‘supposed to’ is coming from some independent prescriptive authority, then your whole argument contains a glaring contradiction.
If your argument is based on descriptive definitions, here’s why it’s wrong:
If you say oranges are supposed to be orange because you’ve surveyed oranges and observed that oranges are generally orange - that’s the spectrum of normality based on looking at oranges, then you must survey humanity and conclude that the spectrum of normality for humans includes homosexuality - because it’s happening - people are being homosexual, just like oranges are being orange.
Nature has also apparently made some humans to be homosexual, or else where did it come from.
BTW, some oranges are in fact red, which makes your analogy more apt than you intended, I think. The spectrum of normality for oranges includes orange and red. The spectrum of normality for humans includes heterosexual and homosexual.
You are correct in your analysis that I do not know much about evolution. Although, I do not understand what you are trying to say here. Is you point that I should not post any part of my text, which one? Which thread are you referring to, the one that I should read before posting here. Please provide the link.
About your beliefs. I do not think you are supposed to believe what I say. We can all disagree to each other, in fact disagreement of opinion should be respected and encouraged as this forum is called “Great Debates” and this is one way we can live up to the name. I am also open for learning and changing my opinion if I understand your point clearly.
I’m talking about this thread. Here. That you are posting in. On the very first page of this thread, the evolution argument starts. You aren’t playing devil’s advocate by restating an argument that was made on the very first page of this thread.
This isn’t about beliefs and opinions. When you start talking about evolution you are talking about science, and the science says certain things. Now, if you don’t understand evolution, that’s fine. Ask your questions. But why are you lecturing us about a topic that you admit you don’t know much about?
No need for that; as you put it, “Perfect, I think you see what I am saying. Thank you. Lets take IQ above 110 - I would IQ above 110 in an unnatural thing for humans.” If your point is that being gay is exactly as unnatural as having an above-average IQ, then I’m pretty sure your commendable opinion doesn’t need to change.
As already noted, the MB has a culture that does not take kindly to folks joining for the purpose of resurrecting old threads unless you are adding something new to the conversation. You may not have known that, but now that you do, my advise is to let this thread die it’s [second] natural death, and move on to active threads on this MB. Just some friendly advice.