Homosexual found guilty on 45 out of 48 counts!

[Safe-Keeper]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

Skybird:



I would agree here. I believe the homosexual animal theory was taken as proof it is all natural(for humans) was accepted a bit to easily.

You're falling prey to the naturalistic fallacy, I believe.

"Natural" doesn't inherently mean "good". Rape is natural. Earthquakes are natural. Illness is natural. Sulphuric acid and mercury are natural. "Natural" doesn't mean "good" or "healthy", it means just that, natural. Of nature.

Yes, homosexuality is natural. Sure, it may not lead to procreation (lots of things don't, like wearing a condom or waiting until you find the "right one"), but that's another discussion. Natural just means natural.

Homosexuals eicst, and I see no reasoin to discriminate against them, but I also am not willing to label homosexuality as a sexual norm that is of equal meaning and importance in nature than heterosexual relations. If that would be the case, then man species would have gone extinct a long time ago, and probbaly our own as well.

I could say the same about safe sex with condoms, or the morning-after pill, or waiting with having sex until you find the right one. If everyone wore condoms every time they had intercourse, and the girls used morning-after pills, we would probably go extinct pretty quick as well. What's your point?

I see lots of advantages in a system within a species where a small fraction enjoys sex that does not lead to procreation. For one thing, this "frees up" individuals to adopt and care for the offspring spawned by heterosexuals who for some reason or another cannot take care of them.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper

You're falling prey to the naturalistic fallacy, I believe.

"Natural" doesn't inherently mean "good". Rape is natural. Earthquakes are natural. Illness is natural. Sulphuric acid and mercury are natural. "Natural" doesn't mean "good" or "healthy", it means just that, natural. Of nature.

Yes, homosexuality is natural. Sure, it may not lead to procreation (lots of things don't, like wearing a condom or waiting until you find the "right one"), but that's another discussion. Natural just means natural.

Rape is natural? Do tell. So, we should just throw out things in nature such as pheromones that illicit a response no matter who is standing around? The animals were observed demonstrating homosexual behavior. There are things in nature that chemically generate a response. I do not buy hook,line and sinker that it is natural because animals demonstrate homosexual behavior. Fido likes to hump my leg. Sometimes my stuffed teddy bear. What gives?

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper

You're falling prey to the naturalistic fallacy, I believe.

"Natural" doesn't inherently mean "good". Rape is natural. Earthquakes are natural. Illness is natural. Sulphuric acid and mercury are natural. "Natural" doesn't mean "good" or "healthy", it means just that, natural. Of nature.

Yes, homosexuality is natural. Sure, it may not lead to procreation (lots of things don't, like wearing a condom or waiting until you find the "right one"), but that's another discussion. Natural just means natural.


I could say the same about safe sex with condoms, or the morning-after pill, or waiting with having sex until you find the right one. If everyone wore condoms every time they had intercourse, and the girls used morning-after pills, we would probably go extinct pretty quick as well. What's your point?

I see lots of advantages in a system within a species where a small fraction enjoys sex that does not lead to procreation. For one thing, this "frees up" individuals to adopt and care for the offspring spawned by heterosexuals who for some reason or another cannot take care of them.

You point at the phenomenological dimension of "natural". What exists, is naturall, so to speak. It happens, so it happens in nature, so it is part of nature.

I tried to clear that up when mentioning evolutionary meaning of a design feature in a species, or differing between between biological and statistical norms/normalities.

And your last paragraph. Just this. When a man and a women have intercourse and contraceptives or not, it can make a difference. If two men or two women use contraceptives or not, it never makes a difference.

Humans have the ability to do sex for enjoyment only, almost all animals as far as we know, cannot do that, but are driven by their drives to reproduce, and that is what their intercourse serves in purpose, always. Our higher cognitive abilties enable us for this. We are animals, yes - but regarding some features we are different animals. It comes down to that we have a second-grade reflexivity. Animals, even the most intelligent ones, only have a first-grade-reflexivity, as far as we have observed until today.