Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You are judging others, just as I am judging you. When you tell someone their sexuality is not natural, that is a personal judgement, not based in fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paddy234
It is not natural, it is not what nature intended. Nature intends for sex to be used for one purpose, it's not hard to understand and basic understanding of biology
I don't think that it's helpful to keep referring to what is 'natural' and what is not. You seem to want to reduce human beings to machines that are programmed to function a certain way or they are otherwise considered to be 'faulty'. But that IS the Catholic belief, is it not, that homosexuality is a 'disorder'?
As for 'nature intends sex to be used for one purpose' and your reference to biology ...are you saying that sex for any reason other than for procreation is also 'unnatural'? You do realize that most people most of the time perform sexual intercourse for recreation and not for procreation, do you not? Moreover, measures are often taken by heterosexual people to prevent procreation from occurring simply because they desire the pleasurable experience derived from sex. How is this any different from the same pleasurable experience derived through homosexual intimacy?
I really didn't want to get involved in the 'biological' aspect of 'natural' relationships as I believe that people are 'naturally' attracted to one another for all kinds of reasons other than for 'sex' alone.
It is not natural, it is not what nature intended. Nature intends for sex to be used for one purpose, it's not hard to understand and basic understanding of biology
We are not talking about nature here though. Why should human laws be limited to what nature intended? Since laws are artificial constructs, it is up to us to keep redefining them as our society evolves. There is no logical reason as to why we should restrict homosexuals from obtaining SSM rights, especially given that we heterosexuals have enjoyed these rights since the beginning.
I think the pop culture atheists you keep talking about, might just be some people you know, and your projecting it on to a much larger scale.
If this referendum gets the yes vote, than it will mostly be because people with some sort of higher belief, vote yes. Theists will be the deciding block -although I guess they will be pop culture theists?.
Of course the ten commandments relate to moral law. Natural law relates to what is and moral law relates to what ought to be. I stated I'm catholic in order to make the point obvious. Pop culture atheists are everywhere especially in the media and entertainment industry, they will villigy the notion of religion and claim it irrational while proclaiming that naturalism is more logical yet they don't realise that by destroying the foundations of most values they hold dear they can't with any reason take them seriously so for example a moral code that is binding on everyone. I will of course agree with you there are pop culture theists aswell. I don't have an issue with any of this, the problem comes whenever they start pursuing great change in society which will affect future generations and the change they pursue is irrational according to their own worldview. Its idiodic. It shows they don't care for truth. Most people I know are neither, they live life not asking these questions, they don't care for it either way and fair enough. They choose that way and don't care for these deeper questions, pretty much the truth isn't something they are ultimately interested in, just living life the best they feel they can. It's those who pursue to uproots values in society without a clue in what they are doing. These foundations helped society through the best and worst of times and we progressed throughout the years trying to perfect ourselves according with certain objective moral truths.
I don't think that it's helpful to keep referring to what is 'natural' and what is not. You seem to want to reduce human beings to machines that are programmed to function a certain way or they are otherwise considered to be 'faulty'. But that IS the Catholic belief, is it not, that homosexuality is a 'disorder'?
As for 'nature intends sex to be used for one purpose' and your reference to biology ...are you saying that sex for any reason other than for procreation is also 'unnatural'? You do realize that most people most of the time perform sexual intercourse for recreation and not for procreation, do you not? Moreover, measures are often taken by heterosexual people to prevent procreation from occurring simply because they desire the pleasurable experience derived from sex. How is this any different from the same pleasurable experience derived through homosexual intimacy?
I really didn't want to get involved in the 'biological' aspect of 'natural' relationships as I believe that people are 'naturally' attracted to one another for all kinds of reasons other than for 'sex' alone.
You very much misunderstand Catholicism and perhaps theism in general if you feel this is the truth that is taught,
That we are merely machines as that is contrary to the truth that we have free will. Also with the naturalist worldview all we are is a collection of cells, what sex is intended for is what nature intended thus our biological makeup of male and female suit each other for these reasons. One can do what they will when it comes to sex, same sex relations, incest, animalism etc. They all however go against what nature intended. Even using sex solely for recreation, sex in the naturalist worldview has one purpose and that is it. In the catholic and other theist worldviews it should always be open to procreation however sex has another meaning and that is the unification of husband and wife through the sacrament of marriage who give themselves freely to each other in total love and commitment. The reason for the additional meaning of sex other than just for recreation is that we are not merely material beings but also immaterial with a soul and moral fabric that is engraved in our conscience, this moral code, those truths of our objective value and dignity will always push to the centre of our minds no matter what world view we choose to believe. It's because of this why I believe while atheists proclaim naturalism they seek to live by objective morals as their theist brothers and sisters
The question you will then ask when it comes to naturalism is why am I binded morally by what nature intended which evolves with time and I'd certainly say you aren't binded at all. Just that if you pursue that atheist naturalist world view then it would be logical to be consistent with it. If you don't and create a moral code that you know isn't true because naturalism can't sustain any notion of objective morality then you are simply choosing to reject the reality of your world view because it doesn't suit you. Your adding moral laws and values binding to everyone that are contrary to naturalism. You then become more irrational than the theist you critique because they live their lives as best they can being consistent with their worldview they believe to be truth while you live your lives inconsistently with your worldview because you don't think you need live consistent with what you believe to be truth
We are not talking about nature here though. Why should human laws be limited to what nature intended? Since laws are artificial constructs, it is up to us to keep redefining them as our society evolves. There is no logical reason as to why we should restrict homosexuals from obtaining SSM rights, especially given that we heterosexuals have enjoyed these rights since the beginning.
Humans laws don't have to be limited by what nature intended but creating moral laws that is contrary to what you believe nature intended is quite irrational wouldn't you say? Does the coldness of naturalism freighten you? Why construct moral laws that you know have no truth in them and why should I be binded by these moral laws? For example if all we are is a collection of cells why should one not rape and kill as they please, to say it is wrong or right would be the same as one saying they like or dislike what you are doing. For right and wrong to have true meaning they have to be compared against a standard of objective moral truths. If there are no objective moral truths then morality really is relative to the individual as being something they prefer rather than something that is true and engrained in what it truly means to be human
Humans laws don't have to be limited by what nature intended but creating moral laws that is contrary to what you believe nature intended is quite irrational wouldn't you say? Does the coldness of naturalism freighten you? Why construct moral laws that you know have no truth in them and why should I be binded by these moral laws? For example if all we are is a collection of cells why should one not rape and kill as they please, to say it is wrong or right would be the same as one saying they like or dislike what you are doing. For right and wrong to have true meaning they have to be compared against a standard of objective moral truths. If there are no objective moral truths then morality really is relative to the individual as being something they prefer rather than something that is true and engrained in what it truly means to be human
I understand where you are coming from, but establishing laws should be at the benefit of society without any detriment. You use rape as an example, but rape has a huge human cost and involves engaging in activities without the consent of the affected party. How does SSM impact you in any way?
Humans laws don't have to be limited by what nature intended but creating moral laws that is contrary to what you believe nature intended is quite irrational wouldn't you say?
There is nothing natural about marriage. It's a human construct that has evolved over thousands of years and is based on not much more than contemporary morality. It's quite irrational to claim it is anything more than that.
There is nothing natural about marriage. It's a human construct that has evolved over thousands of years and is based on not much more than contemporary morality. It's quite irrational to claim it is anything more than that.
Ok I'm not sure of what world view you follow but obviously it doesn't support marriage while mine does. Do you believe morality is a human construct and there is no real truth to it?
Do you believe morality is a human construct and there is no real truth to it?
I don't believe there's any such thing as objective morality or real truth. Everything in life is influenced by opinion, perspective and experience.
As the product of a marriage that should never have happened, I see no value in the institution. I do not, however, object to others being allowed to partake in it if it's important to them.
Ok I'm not sure of what world view you follow but obviously it doesn't support marriage while mine does. Do you believe morality is a human construct and there is no real truth to it?
I don't have a world view that I follow dogmatically like religious types do. Nature intended men to put their seed in as many suitable females as possible, marriage is not a natural construct in that it attempts to inhibit that. Morality is nothing more than a human construct, in a constant state of change.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
