The "born Gay" Hoax

[Alycin]

Be careful about saying "I only support natural-everything."

Unless of course you never use anything synthetic.

[Jesus_lol]

or if you have ever been on an airplane. god didnt give us wings, therefore we are meant to walk everywhere, naturally.

(little bit of sarcasm there, sorry)

[Alycin]

I am just playing devil's advocate.

I do agree with Aloy for the most part. But I think the argument that "it's not natural, therefore wrong" is pretty easy to argue with because... for one, I watched something on discovery channel a while back that mentioned several species that homosexuality had been observed in. Homosexuality occured in nature, therefore it's natural? Nope.

Secondly, the human race uses things not in their natural state all the time. Also, modern medicine fights against the body's natural processes all the time. Anyone who has ever taken allergy medicine can attest to that.

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='Alycin' post='1530142' date='May 16 2008, 12:37 AM']I am just playing devil's advocate.

I do agree with Aloy for the most part. But I think the argument that "it's not natural, therefore wrong" is pretty easy to argue with because... for one, I watched something on discovery channel a while back that mentioned several species that homosexuality had been observed in. Homosexuality occured in nature, therefore it's natural? Nope.

Secondly, the human race uses things not in their natural state all the time. Also, modern medicine fights against the body's natural processes all the time. Anyone who has ever taken allergy medicine can attest to that.[/quote]

in case you were wondering, i was kindof agreeing with you there. and discovery channel? i live on a farm and have seen that stuff myself. so i laugh when people say it doesnt occur in nature. but i do not think it is natural.

what does get me worked up is when people say,"no you have to choose to be gay, just to spite god." thats not how it works, people. whether you are born with it, or events in your life shape it that way, people do not choose (for the most part, i dont like to make general statements) to be gay. i know a few that wish they weren't, just like i wish i didnt have ADD.

[Aloysius]

exactly. one of my major gripes that I bring up with people who think I'm a stupid narrow minded meanie for having a well thought out philosophical position against homosexuality is that it works both ways, there are many people who find themselves basically forced by the society to live the gay lifestyle. if they attempt to overcome it, they are seen as brainwashed or repressed. okay, fine, you want open mindedness and choice? I'm not actually sitting here pressuring anyone to not be gay, but please why don't you not pressure those who do experience the feelings to be gay. people don't understand the flip side of how much they hurt those who experience attraction to the same sex but also cultivate a deep desire for the idea of starting a family the way their parents did.

and I don't know how clear I made the distinction throughout my semantics, though I tried my best but could have mispoken: I am saying that we are against all things which are contrary to nature. this means taking something and using it contrary to its purpose. the use of a sperm cell for anything other than putting it where it was designed to swim or allowing it to be recycled into the male body is using it contrary to nature. but flying in an airplane doesn't use something contrary to nature, there is nothing in our nature which says we should not be up that high. opening an airlock in space and throwing a person outside would be putting that person in a place contrary to their nature.

animals do not engage in exclusive homosexual behavior. even the famed penguins ended up splitting up and going with girl penguins eventually. but regardless, what happens in the animal world does not refer to what is natural to human beings. what is natural to human beings is reason, and therefore all aspects of human biology must be used according to their purposes as our reason can ascertain from them. science has definitively shown the purpose of a sperm cell. it dies an unnatural death in nearly every environment except inside a woman.

[Veridicus]

Oops...Double Post...read below...

Edited May 16, 2008 by Veridicus

[Veridicus]

[quote name='Alycin' post='1530142' date='May 16 2008, 01:37 AM']I am just playing devil's advocate.

I do agree with Aloy for the most part. But I think the argument that "it's not natural, therefore wrong" is pretty easy to argue with because... for one, I watched something on discovery channel a while back that mentioned several species that homosexuality had been observed in. Homosexuality occured in nature, therefore it's natural? Nope.

Secondly, the human race uses things not in their natural state all the time. Also, modern medicine fights against the body's natural processes all the time. Anyone who has ever taken allergy medicine can attest to that.[/quote]


Just because something occurs in nature [b]does not [/b]mean that it is natural according to Aloysius's philosophical system. Remember that Original Sin threw all of creation out of whack...not just humans. When animals exhibit homosexual actions in the wild or on farms (and the farms really offer nothing of substance to the argument because they are hardly animals in the natural state), these are not examples of acts that science can explain as naturally ordered. Really they are abherrent and contrary to the behavioral pressures of natural selection. If an animal is attempting to copulate with a member of its own sex than it is less likely to produce offspring as the guy next door copulating WITH a member of the opposite sex. Selection can work on behavioral patterns, too...and there is very little reason to suspect that animal homosexuality is anything supported by the natural order. If it persists, it is animal confusion that in no way benefits the animal in question with regard to increased fecundity or selective advantage in survival.

And medicines are designed (primarily) to address [b]deficits [/b]in the body's natural processes. For example, chemotherapy is used to 'fight' cancer. Cancer is not the natural state for a cell to be in. This cancerous cell is outside of homeostasis with the rest of the body and the body has developed internal defenses to address the cancer cells UNNATURAL behavior in vivo. However, cancer drugs fight this unnaturality...not the body's natural processes. If a natural process is working too strongly it can have detriment effects to the body. For example, hyperthyroidism is where the thyroid gland is over-stimulated or overactive to the point that the body suffers for it. The thyroid gland is simply doing its job so to speak, but it is outside of the natural homeostatic setpoint that makes it useful. Allergic reactions are simply an inappropriately stimulated immunological response (I just finished a 400 level Immunology course this last semester at school). The underlying mechanism of IgE-mediated immunostimulation was very important when our bodies were riddled with parasites...but in the United States, this IgE-mediated response leads to inappropriate allergic reactions. Our drugs attempt to return the body to this natural homeostatic state. Really, this idea of using drugs only to keep the body as close to its natural state is one of the underlying reasons behind the Church's stance on birth control pills. These drugs are attempting to shift the female body AWAY from its natural homeostatic and fertile state. These contraceptives treat the woman's fertility as 'unnatural' and for the most part trick her body into thinking it is already pregnant. There is nothing 'natural' about the body thinking it's pregnant when its not, so this goes against the natural order.

It is so wierd that it makes so much sense to people like Aloysius and me, but that this philosophical viewpoint is so foreign to others. I cannot imagine living in a subjective world without an understanding of natural order. That would be existential chaos at worst and self-determined order at best...

Edited May 16, 2008 by Veridicus

[Alycin]

[quote name='Veridicus' post='1530261' date='May 16 2008, 11:06 AM']It is so wierd that it makes so much sense to people like Aloysius and me, but that this philosophical viewpoint is so foreign to others. I cannot imagine living in a subjective world without an understanding of natural order. That would be existential chaos at worst and self-determined order at best...[/quote]

I agree with you on the animal in nature thing, that's why I said, "...makes it natural? Nope."

The thing about bodies and medicine is that, what may be normal for one person, may not be normal for another. The only thing we have to go on to know what "the natural state" really is, is to use the average; what appears to be natural for the majority.

If you've ever heard the argument against using medicines from someone that is really passionate about it, it's hard to argue with because they have valid and factual points. I don't adhere to that at all, I'm all for using meds to help if it's really needed. But it's not necessarily "fixing" unnatural states. Sometimes it's messing with our natural states in an attempt to make us "normal."

We see this often with the over-prescription of ADD and ADHD meds and antidepressants.

[carrdero]

[quote]Aloysius writes: I base my assessment not on your avatar, but on all the descriptions of your "GOD" I have seen you make on phatmass.[/quote]

This may not seem to be the thread to elaborate but someday (if you are interested) you will have to provide specific examples so that we can clear up any misconceptions.

[quote]Aloysius writes: Do you also not respect the project of monogamy on the same grounds?[/quote]

I believe that GOD understands why people go through monogamous relationships but that He does not endorse the rites of marriage or stand on such human ceremony.

[quote]Aloysius writes: your hypothesis is that an attempt to only use things according to their clearly designed purpose is restricting. therefore, you are of the position that we should not be restricted by the rules of nature.[/quote]

My position is that just because something seems natural (or unnatural) does not make it universally “right” or “wrong” or “good” or “bad”.

[quote]Aloysius writes: very well, but at least be clear: you support contra-natural activity because you think it is good.[/quote]

I can only decide whether a natural ( or unnatural) concept is correct (or incorrect) for me, I cannot decide or judge for others (though I may be able to accept and respect another’s decision). Homosexuality may not appeal to me but it can be a very effective arrangement for someone else.

[quote]Aloysius writes: those of us who see only natural things as good are clearly opposed to you philosophically because you support contra-natural things as good.[/quote]

Is love good? Do you believe sexual activity to be an extention of how people express their love to one another? What is the difference between heterosexuals sharing a loving moment through sex and homosexuals sharing a loving moment through sexual activity? What provisions or preventions has nature outlined and defined to evidence that homosexuality is “wrong” or “not good” for everyone? For some people?

[quote]Aloysius writes: I am saying that we are against all things which are contrary to nature. this means taking something and using it contrary to its purpose[/quote]
.
I’m not sure you fully understand the purpose and designs of sex and what these purposes personally pertain to each and every individual. Humans use and enact sex for many different reasons.

[quote]Aloysius writes: there is no rational way of saying that sperm's natural end is anything other than swimming inside a woman, so you must admit you support a contra-natural activity.[/quote]

There is also no rational way of explaining that GOD desires, needs or wants people to procreate or that the only sexual activity that humans should have is towards a (married) man and woman completing the objective of producing children. There seems to be other natural (and possibly not as natural) purposes incorporated into the concept of sexual activity and one would be hard pressed to attach a “right” or “wrong” label to any other individual or personal performance.

Edited May 18, 2008 by carrdero