How can you presume to judge the purposes of nature?The attraction, affection, and intimacy of consumation are given, by Nature, for the purpose of being some of the factors in the binding together of a man and a woman, for life, that the family may have not only the progeny but the needed social structure and support.
Interesting. If you believe that Nature 'made' homosexuals, which implies you believe that there's a "homosexual gene", then you must also accept that if Nature *did* in fact 'make' homosexuals it was for the express purpose of putting an end to that particular genetic line.s1m0n wrote:How can you presume to judge the purposes of nature?The attraction, affection, and intimacy of consumation are given, by Nature, for the purpose of being some of the factors in the binding together of a man and a woman, for life, that the family may have not only the progeny but the needed social structure and support.
Do you suppose that Nature has made homosexuals for no purpose?
"It might be a bit better to tune to one of my fiddle's open strings, like A, rather than asking me for an F#." - Martin Milner
Teri:Teri-K wrote:From our local news station:
"Supreme Court Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin signed the legislation making it law, hours after it was approved by the Senate late Tuesday night despite strong opposition from Conservatives and religious leaders."
In the United States, Massachusetts is the only state that allows gay marriages; Vermont and Connecticut have approved same-sex civil unions.
Should gay marriage be overturned in Massachusetts, does this mean the 4 nations that allow same-sex marriage could see asylum claims from U.S. citizens?
Karine:Karina wrote:I find this to be a very interesting topic in many ways. It saddens me that so much controversy and anger can be so quickly stirred by such discussions, but nevertheless, I'm going to throw my own opinion into the mix.
I consider myself to be a conservative Christian. I attend a conservative non denominational church that definitely tends towards the political stereotypes associated with my religion. And yet, honestly, I've thought and thought and thought over how I feel about gay marriage. I at least attempt to gain my moral paradigm from the Bible, and I believe it to be the complete and whole truth. Why I do is for another discussion. Anyway, taking that into account, it tells me that homosexuality is wrong. And yet so is lying, and cheating, and stealing, and doing something you know you shouldn't, dishonoring your parents, etc etc etc. And I don't know about the others out there, but while I haven't murdered or anything, I've certainly been guilty of disrespecting my parents and lying and a good deal other things. My point is that I am EXTERMELY disturbed by a popular Christian tendency in society to condemn homosexuals as anathemas. I understand that many people don't believe homosexuality is wrong, and I have no desire to sway anyone otherwise. In fact, I think that it is God's place to do any moral swaying because otherwise it's my word against someone else's--and why should that mean anything? I do ask, though, that when you find yourself disagreeing with someone, in this case those disagreeing with gay marriage, remember how hard it is to hold up the unpopular opinions. It's not "cool" to disagree with homosexual marriage, so I just ask that people remember to respect those that disagree with them--it's hard to stand up against the flow. I, for one, envy their ability to voice such opinions so openly and unabashedly. And I'm starting to lose myself in a tangent.
Okay. So I think homosexuality is wrong, but I don't think that means gay people are evil, heartless, or completely immoral people. In fact, I'm somewhat radical in the fact that I believe--gasp--gays can actually be Christians themselves. I don't believe homosexuality is a good thing, but I do think that the freedom on which this country was founded is. I don't want to be a Christian because my government told me that's what I had to be. I don't want my government telling anyone what religion they should or should not follow. I cherish the ability to make choices for myself and the freedom this country offers allows me to do that. And by not making gay marriage legal, it seems to me that we would be doing the equivalent of imposing religion on someone. This isn't a case for controversy where, for instance with abortion, the debate on line is not just over morals, but killing human life. Say I am right about homosexuality being wrong, I don't think they're hurting anyone else in the process.
Soooooo, to wrap this up, I want to say I'm a weirdo Christian conservative that actually doesn't think gay marriage should be illegal. However, as a side note, I can't see anything inherently bad coming from gay marriage that would hurt anyone outside of a religious standpoint. If something is ever presented to me, I would consider changing my views. I am not ashamed to be ignorant--if I remain teachable.
Diddle. That's like saying Nature has any purpose, which of course, it doesn't. It is what it is. If we were to expect Nature to have a purpose, then what is the purpose of cancer, or MS, or genetic disorders, or any number of other horrible conditions? The sexual drive is for procreation. It is more drive than is necessary for continuing life, but that is only because it hasn't been bred out of us to behave differently. As far as I'm aware, no-one has found a homosexuality gene, so I can't help but feel this behaviour is a mental aberration. Its not what we are designed for. While I don't feel the need to hurt or punish such few individuals who behave this way, I do not see any benefit to promote or openly condone such behaviour, either.s1m0n wrote:Do you suppose that Nature has made homosexuals for no purpose?
I don't believe sex is solely for procreation. There are far too many factors involved in the sex drive to reduce it to that level. Of course without any data to support that I'll admit that's my opinion.djm wrote:Diddle. That's like saying Nature has any purpose, which of course, it doesn't. It is what it is. If we were to expect Nature to have a purpose, then what is the purpose of cancer, or MS, or genetic disorders, or any number of other horrible conditions? The sexual drive is for procreation. It is more drive than is necessary for continuing life, but that is only because it hasn't been bred out of us to behave differently. As far as I'm aware, no-one has found a homosexuality gene, so I can't help but feel this behaviour is a mental aberration. Its not what we are designed for. While I don't feel the need to hurt or punish such few individuals who behave this way, I do not see any benefit to promote or openly condone such behaviour, either.s1m0n wrote:Do you suppose that Nature has made homosexuals for no purpose?
djm
"It might be a bit better to tune to one of my fiddle's open strings, like A, rather than asking me for an F#." - Martin Milner
Right. If sex was soley for procreation, there'd be a lot fewer people with hairy palms...GaryKelly wrote:However, I do think that if sex wasn't pleasurable there'd be a lot less of it, because it would indeed become nothing but a deed for procreation.
There would also be a lot less spam around.
On the one hand you say that nature hasn't any purpose and on the other you say homosexuality is not what we are designed for. Make up your mind. And what is a mental aberration? Is mind separate from nature. If nature is what it is and mind is part of all that then how can there be an aberration? It just is what it is. Aberration is a value judgement imposed on nature.djm wrote: Diddle. That's like saying Nature has any purpose, which of course, it doesn't. It is what it is. If we were to expect Nature to have a purpose, then what is the purpose of cancer, or MS, or genetic disorders, or any number of other horrible conditions? The sexual drive is for procreation. It is more drive than is necessary for continuing life, but that is only because it hasn't been bred out of us to behave differently. As far as I'm aware, no-one has found a homosexuality gene, so I can't help but feel this behaviour is a mental aberration. Its not what we are designed for. While I don't feel the need to hurt or punish such few individuals who behave this way, I do not see any benefit to promote or openly condone such behaviour, either.
Nice try, SteveK. When I say Nature has no purpose, I mean that it has no intention or will; no conscious thought or plan. It simply has its own nature. An aberration would be something that does not follow the nature of Nature. It is a huge fantasy (read ego-trip) to assign any more value of sexual drive in humans than there is in any other life-form, whether it be plant or animal (Tyler's hairy palms notwithstanding 
). If you accept a naturalistic and evolutionary point of view, surely we are not designed at all and not designed to be heterosexual or homosexual. Whatever is just is and is the outcome of natural processes. Everything follows the nature of Nature including man-made carcinogens and transfat. The only aberrations are statistical and aberration is not a particularly good word to apply to them. Whether learned or genetically based, homosexuality is the outcome of natural processes. I don't quite understand your last sentence. Did you mean "assign more value *to* sexual drive in humans?"djm wrote:
djm
You are committing what is technically known as the Naturalist Fallacy. No sweat, you're in good company: Aristotle and lots of others. The problem is that in order to distinguish "nature" from "aberration" you have to already impute to nature your judgements of right and wrong. Sexuality is a good example: you can observe that heterosexual intercourse produces offspring. So you say: The purpose of intercourse is procreation; non-procreative intercourse is an aberration. But you can also observe that people are having a lot of fun rolling in the hay and that this applies to both heterosexual and homosexual intercourse (depeding on preference). So you can say: Another purpose of intercouse is pleasure; because if it were not, Nature wouldn't have made sex pleasurable and wouldn't made humans be in heat year-round. Therefore any sort of sex is natural (including homosexual intercouse), except when it affords no pleasure to the participants.djm wrote:
djm
