We see it in animals? Does it mean it is natural?
If it is natural, does it mean it is right?
If it is, does it mean cannibalism, incest and infanticide is also right?
If it is, if your horse shit in the street does it mean iti s natural for man to shit on the street?
Tu put it shortly, just because something is natural it doesn’t mean its right.
Well canniballism is just down right nasty, have you seen what humans do to their bodies?
Animals do not know about inbreeding and the harm it causes, so of course they act upon sexual needs and commit incest. Animals kill diseased infants,or those that are in direct competition with their infants or by accident. Many animals adopt infants too, successful crossspecies adoption is not unheard of.
good try though.
Male lions will kill their own cubs so they can mate with the female. Female premantis (not sure how it’s spelled) and insects (i.e. black widow) have been known to kill each other in a virtually ritual manner. If animals kill diseased infants, it doesn’t make it right for us to do the same. Males can fatally hurt each other for territory or mating rights, it doesn’t make knifing people for coming on your “turf” okay. If being gay’s okay, it’s not because animals make it that way. Anal sex is a better transmitter of disease for obvious reasons. AIDS being the most publicized. There’s a “super bug” in the US right now that can cause severe diarrhea and potentially death, and is transferred through feces (Here’s the link: msnbc.msn.com/id/24407803/ ). Just another one added to the list of things that can affect anybody of course, but obviously has a higher chance of affecting people who exclusively and regularly delve into the biological garbage chute.
Not to say that the instinct to do so is “unnatural” or “wrong”, but acting on it has obvious repercussions.
The natural argument demands a certain amount of insincerity on both sides of the isle. When people claim that homosexuality is “unnatural” what they mean to say is, “Homosexuality is against my religious beliefs, but since we live in a secular state I can’t use that as a justification for persecution, so I will make an invalid appeal to nature.” The other side of the isle employs a similar post-hoc rationale.
So it is basically both sides being insincere and should probably be dropped.
Whether somthing is natural has no bearing on whether its right. But homosexuality is natural as in, it tends to happen in the wild, occasionally, and in some species not so occasionally.
Whether homosexuality is natural has no bearing on whether its right or wrong.
Exactly. And points well taken.
So what’s your stance in homosexuality.
Well my upbringing suggests that homosexuals are humans and they must be treated with the respect other humans enjoy but sodomy must be frowned upon.
How about yours?
Everything we do is:
natural
biological
human
true
free
determined
Depending upon the context, these words may actually say something about us - but they may not. This context is of the latter type.
Something that says a bit more about what we do - sometimes, it’s just just no one else’s business.
Isoe, if you are against sodomy , don’t engage in it. That could cause you mental problems if you do. 
Iose - my upbringing suggests that homosexuality is sort of a nonissue. I must admit that my upbringing influences me, despite that I have sought to revalue all values. I don’t think that my upbringing is definitive - I was brought up a Methodist, yet I am an atheist. But I won’t discount entirely my childhood influences.
I know that my parents had gay friends, both male and female. My mother’s best friend for years was a lesbian - I think she is dead now. And my father, as a school administrator, hired a couple of gay men - maybe more. But they were never referred to as gay, but only as friends. John Marshall was referred to as “John Marshall”, for instance, and not “our gay friend, John”.
Also, I was brought up to appreciate and practise art - music and the performing arts, particularly - which are usually collaborative - I got involved in the theater for several years - and met many gay men. This counts as part of my upbringing, as it was encouraged from the start. I was never “warned” about gay men, for instance - their presence in the performing arts was never mentioned to me, nor did it need to be.
Did your upbringing include that homosexuality was actually, overtly addressed?
Don’t get me wrong - my father has used the word “fag”. So have I, and so has every gay man that I have ever known. But I was brought up in a time and place where we could use politically incorrect words - it was in a melting pot - many different groups - we could call each other names with affection and without stigma. Maybe this helped. I dunno. I think the salient point is that we didn’t make a big deal about stuff like that.
My question is this - do you now believe that sodomy is to be frowned upon?
Why? Is there a reason other than what you were taught as a child?
Come to think of it my Catholic upbringing did not overtly addressed the issue. The line of thinking in my family and my community at large is that: “they’re gay… ok… they are also subject to the same temptations, hurts, struggles, joy and love…”
So I think that is how I see people around me. And I believe this is how my Catholic heritage brought me up.
As long as you grow from your mistakes and be a better person, then I take it as a grace from God.
Yup I still maintain it.
I think my background in Catholic philosophy and some knowledge in history contributed a lot. I see anything that is excessive or vain as something to be frowned upon.
Hmmm. And what is excessive or vain about homosexuality?
I would say the sodomy part.
Meaning any sex act performed by homosexuals?
Well majority is…
but let us not do it categorically shall we because sodomy is also observable among heterosexuals. Isn’t it?
It depends what you mean by sodomy. It is used sometimes to denote any “unnatural” act. If sex aside from missionary-position sex for the purposes of procreation is sodomy, then most everyone sodomises.
That being said, since homosexual sex doesn’t lead to reproduction, then any homosexual sex is sodomy. That is still a categorical proscription - I think that, for that reason, confining our comments to homosexuality makes anything we say about it clear. More clear than to try to dilute the example. Of course, the class “sodomy” can then be expanded.
Agreed. So homosexual sodomy is vain because no matter how many times they do it is not open to the possibility of life. But then again we are facing with the problem of sex. What is the nature of sex and for what purpose should it be done?
Well, it’s the purpose that counts, then. But purposes belong to people, or to God. If the purpose is pleasure, for instance, and this is an unacceptable purpose, does pleasure constitute an unacceptable purpose for other activites? Is pleasure categorically unacceptable as a purpose?
Of course, if all our purposes need be God’s purposes, then it’s the pleasure of God we must seek.
And an atheist is wrong from the start.
Tell me this. A married woman is kidnapped by a satanic cult, and surgery is done on her such that she can no longer conceive. She is subsequntly returned to her husband. Does she not have sex? Or does she have sex, but pray for a miracle?
Regarding the Satanic scenario you are giving me a case from an exemption.
I’m quite confused on your purpose thesis.
But okay let us assume from a natural perspective rather than the theological. Would sodomy be evil if placed in the perspective of maintaining the replacement level of the specie?
I’m not sure what you are confused about.
You brought up purpose.
There are no purposes floating around out there. There are my purposes and your purposes - purposes belong to people. What is the purpose of a teacup? Generally, to hold tea. But if I use it to hold small parts, nuts and bolts, then the purpose of that teacup is to hold small parts, until I use it toward another purpose. The purpose is not immutably attached to the teacup - it is my choice, as long as I control the use of the teacup. And my purposes can change.
Any immutable purpose would have to be God’s - unles of course he changes a purpose. But any other purpose is up for grabs, theoretically. For me to have a purpose for a US aircraft carrier - well, it’s possible, but difficult for me to get ahold of one. But I think my meaning is clear.
Assuming I have (some) control over my own body, my purposes for sex are, well, my own. If there is some overiding purpose, I think that has to be argued for, because, so far as I know, I am in sufficient control over my body to have sex with a man or a woman (although, obviously, not any man or woman).
If “replacement level” is the primary value, then still you would have to show why other values cannot co-exist. In fact, in an agrarian, labor-intensive society, and particularly at a time when infant mortality is high, child labor is necessary, and many threats to life exist, it is not surprising that homosexuality is frowned upon. You know, like nomadic, cattlekeeping ancient Jews, for instance.
In a world full of people, in a society of unprecedented industrial and postindustrial worker productivity, I’m not sure such a stricture makes as much sense.