It Is Natural For Some, But Is It Right?

[selfinflikted]

pixorban

Pix are too easily faked nowadays anyways. We need video complete with smell-o-vision.

 

[SiderealExalt]

The problem for secular society is a collective slipping towards more loose moral views which bring a collective collapse of societal structure.

An often recited line of which you provide no proof. Interestingly enough, it was echoed in sentiments such as, ending slavery, or allowing interracial marriage. Oh no, no more slavery, allow interracial marriage?!..It's the end of society as we know it!!!

Personally. I consider the end of silly bigotry and the beginning of understandings and pragmatism a collective slipping towards a more cohesive and intelligent moral view which brings a collective unification of societal structure.

It loses the cultural ties and bonds which bring it together. However, I do not worry about secular society but rather Christian society where we now have Churches like the Anglican Church even nominate amongst themselves homosexual Bishops. That is an apostasy as much as electing a drunkard, an adulterer or a wrathful, shallow person to such a position.

I just don't care bout "Christian society." Nor do I find it to be all that wonderful from a moral standpoint.

I think you need to distinguish between Old and New testament. Most people do not do this and they think that somehow the morality taught for survival in the 14th century BC for the Jewish people is somehow applicable today.

An interestingly pointless reply. As no one brought up Old and New Testament. Sorry pal, I still find modern Christian morals by and large to be disgusting immoral drivel.

Of course medical science and adoption can give homosexuals kids but it does not stop collective moral slippage of the society, nor does it do anything for the morals of the individual engaged in harmful sexual behavior.

Here we go again with this ambiguous undefined "collective moral slippage" of which you've proven neither hair nor hide of. Personally, I consider stupid people having sex a, "harmful sexual behavior." Stupid people can have stupid kids. Guess I better stop em! /sarcasm.

 

[FaithLikeARock]

Sexuality is natural. Promisuity is not. Just because one is hungry doesn't mean that he should eat more than he can handle.

 

[Tenka]

Sexuality is natural. Promisuity is not. Just because one is hungry doesn't mean that he should eat more than he can handle.

Long ago the males of most societies agreed that there would be a lot less stabbings and they could get a lot more done if they divided up all the women equally.

 

[LightHorseman]

If we're discussing intrinsic values... there is nothing INTRINSICALLY wrong with homosexually.

Indeed, I don't believe there is anything intrinsically wrong with anything that harms someone against their will... Occasionally there are survival based reasons to consider something wrong, which I guess is the root of intolerance of homosexuals, since once upon a time they did not contribute to the population of the tribe. But since we are not in a survival situation, I see nothing wrong with it at all, so long as it occurs between fully consenting adults.

 

[LightHorseman]

Sexuality is natural. Promisuity is not. Just because one is hungry doesn't mean that he should eat more than he can handle.

Citation needed buddy... all the genetic, behavioural and observational evidence suggests that promiscuity is perfectly natural. It is counterbalanced by natural jealousy and an instinct to only wish to assist in the upbringing of one's own offspring... but the natural urge, especially for males, is to procreate with as many individuals as possible, to increase genetic viability and mixing.

 

[cantata]

Promiscuity (or at least, non-monogamy) seems pretty natural to me, too.

I wonder: does having sex twice a day with one person count as "eating more than one can handle" as much as having sex with a different person every night?

 

[quatona]

Sexuality is natural. Promisuity is not.

When you say "natural", do you use the word merely as a replacement for a negative moral/ethical judgement, or is it supposed to substantiate your moral/ethical judgement?
In the latter case, I don´t understand what you mean when saying "promiscuity is not natural".
In the first case, I am missing even only an attempt of making an argument.

Just because one is hungry doesn't mean that he should eat more than he can handle.

And I am often amazed how much food some people can handle, and also on how little food some can run.

 

[SallyNow]

The OP claims it is natural for some to feel disgusted by homosexual behaviour, and it natural for some others to be homosexual.

So what this proves is... what? No, really. What does it prove?

 

[selfinflikted]

The OP claims it is natural for some to feel disgusted by homosexual behaviour, and it natural for some others to be homosexual.

So what this proves is... what? No, really. What does it prove?

I'm going to go way out on a limb here and say that... this proves that people are ...different?

 

[SallyNow]

I'm going to go way out on a limb here and say that... this proves that people are ...different?

Exactly.

 

[Bombila]

Citation needed buddy... all the genetic, behavioural and observational evidence suggests that promiscuity is perfectly natural. It is counterbalanced by natural jealousy and an instinct to only wish to assist in the upbringing of one's own offspring... but the natural urge, especially for males, is to procreate with as many individuals as possible, to increase genetic viability and mixing.

My bolding in quote.

I think that's a little simplistic. There is indeed a tendency towards some promiscuity among most species, but in many if not most cases, that is highly modified by the drive to ensure one's own genetic progeny survive to reproduce, thus carrying the genes forward. Individual animals, including humans, are not concerned much with 'increasing genetic viability and mixing', but with producing offspring which contain their own genetic heritage.

I realise you mentioned this in the preceding part of your statement, but I think you are emphasizing the wrong end of the stick.

 

[LightHorseman]

My bolding in quote.

I think that's a little simplistic. There is indeed a tendency towards some promiscuity among most species, but in many if not most cases, that is highly modified by the drive to ensure one's own genetic progeny survive to reproduce, thus carrying the genes forward. Individual animals, including humans, are not concerned much with 'increasing genetic viability and mixing', but with producing offspring which contain their own genetic heritage.

I realise you mentioned this in the preceding part of your statement, but I think you are emphasizing the wrong end of the stick.

well now we're getting into minutiae... of course, no actual species anywhere is actually concerned with increasing genetic mixing, what they are oconcerned about is getting laid or equivalent. Nature has co-opted our "must get sex" instinct because it RESULTS in increased genetic mixing, leading to healthy population.

Of course, this is all rather elevated, since the initial post was dealing with someone who wishes to claim perfectly natural activities such as "promiscuity" are "unnatural"

 

[cantata]

I must say that while I think there are plenty of biological reasons to explain our tendency to prefer serial monogamy (note the "serial" part - the seven-year itch is extremely common for biological reasons also), because people are indeed different, there's bound to be an individual variance in the degree to which the monogamy drive wins out over the promiscuity drive.

By the way, I don't like the term "promiscuity" as a catch-all for everyone who prefers relationship models other than monogamy.

 

[m9lc]

Many ideas in the arguments of morality (particularly of homosexuality) come back to the question of it being natural. I think no one can deny that the majority of mankind is heterosexual and when Christians speak of homosexuality as an unnatural desire we mean it in the general sense for mankind that it is unnatural. As surely as the most normal path for man is heterosexuality, so is the way that one should go because we were created in that image.

Even societies that were allegedly inundated with homosexuality had some interesting inconsistencies. Even in ancient Greece, an Athenian homosexual was forced to forfeit the most intrinsic right to a Greek (the right to vote). In Pagan Europe the Nordic peoples were famous for viewing homosexuality as an act that merited death -- while infanticide was occasionally practiced by Viking peoples and not frowned on homosexuality was viewed as an aberration and was punished with death.

Wait... so you're saying that we should take into account the views of an extinct society that allowed infanticide to determine our moral compass?

This aside, we can look at homosexuality as a largely individual phenomenon. And most assuredly, homosexuality is natural to some people as heterosexuality is to others. But here is the thing:

Nature does not inherently make something moral.

Lack of nature does not inherently make something immoral. No one would bring up the natural card if those against homosexuals didn't use that argument so often.

This is even evident in Christian belief that our own natural desires are called to be curved.

The natural desire of mankind leans towards sexual promiscuity.

If by "mankind" you mean men, yes.

Heterosexuals who desire to have promiscuous sex are committing a sin in their hearts -- we are called to curb it and to not act on the urges and even try to erase them.

The natural desire of people often can be moved by passionate moments where one wants to fight somebody, lie to somebody, steal something, etc. There is no person who has not had these moments of anger where the bestial desire to come to blows or to hate is overwhelming. But again, the Christian idea of morality recognizes this as natural and something we must struggle against in our personal lives.

Humans across the board generally agree that we shouldn't fight or steal or lie though it is natural.

Not true. People naturally desire civil organization and morality. If it weren't, then what would it be driving us to do so?

Most societies, even the Pagan Greek and Roman societies where their gods acted like men and engaged in immoral behavior, still condemn these actions and find the desire to act with moral uprightness.

And so, too, a man who has strong desires to fight or to be gluttonous and eat all day or to be a drunk (which I am and wish to stop) is called to stop and control themselves.

Even in societies without God homosexuality is called out as a disgusting act and one that disgraces the family. Communist China is probably upwards of 95% atheist yet homosexuals are treated terribly. Why? A dozen reasons leading back to the natural repugnance that man has for the action.

Just as most people cannot imagine having sex with an animal or with children, having sex in some extremely violent way or something along these lines they view sex with the same gender as an unnatural and wrong action.

"Just as most people cannot imagine having sex with an animal or with children, having sex in some extremely violent way or something along these lines they view sex with other races as an unnatural and wrong action."