Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Manchu wrote:So why is it necessary to bring up homosexual behaviors in animals to counter that argument?

It's not. I'm not relating what I have said to your previous discussion with others in this thread btw. What they have said may be unnecessary. I'm just saying there are people who oppose homosexuality on the basis that's unnatural on many different levels. Some are just dumb, agreed.

For example here is another argument realting to homsexuality being unnatural in the context of the modern definition of 'natural' rather than one concerning mora,lity. Courtesy of generalgrog...

generalgrog wrote:All this talk about what is or isn't natural.

Trying not to get X-rated here...but what is the purpose of the Human colon and or rectum? To process human fecal material and defecate? Or to procreate? What is the purpose of the Human penis? To discard urine and procreate? or to be jammed up someones rectum?

GG

generalgrog wrote:All this talk about what is or isn't natural.

Trying not to get X-rated here...but what is the purpose of the Human colon and or rectum? To process human fecal material and defecate? Or to procreate? What is the purpose of the Human penis? To discard urine and procreate? or to be jammed up someones rectum?

GG

It's 'purpose' is whatever we choose to do with it.

+1, humans are constantly changing and adapting their environment to suit their needs/desires.

generalgrog wrote:To discard urine and procreate?

This merely mechanical evaluation of the penis is deficient, seeing as how it does not take into account the neurological dimension or the relationship to the rest of the body. Moreover, it entirely ignores a "natural" (bilogical or moral) account of sexual fulfillment, even within the bounds of heterosexual marriage, and I don't think it can be taken seriously (assuming you meant it to be taken seriously).

The main problem with that argument is how you can consider something wrong on the basis of something not being used for it's intended purpose.

Intended purpose???

That's an awful lot to swallow right there. (No nasty puns intended.)

But I agree with the point. Using a screw driver to pry off a lid is not immoral.

If you believe in creationism yeh . Or just 'purpose' on it own, is what I should have said without 'intended.'

Thing is by the way generalgrogg said that point it's obvious that he actually finds the idea of anal sex disgusting rather than having any issue with something not being used for it's purpose. If that was the case he'd probably be living a very mundane life.

generalgrog wrote:All this talk about what is or isn't natural.

Trying not to get X-rated here...but what is the purpose of the Human colon and or rectum? To process human fecal material and defecate? Or to procreate? What is the purpose of the Human penis? To discard urine and procreate? or to be jammed up someones rectum?

GG

You're being too obviously functional. Humans enjoy recreational sex, it's about more than mere reproduction but there is a requirement for sexual fulfilment for mental health. Masturbation and oral sex similarly have their benefits without the goal being reproduction. Anyway, you seem to be assuming that anal sex is exclusive to homosexuals, it isn't. Quite simply, anal sex isn't for everyone, some gay people don't do it and some heterosexual people do.

Moreover, what animals are doing or not doing has nothing to do with human morality.

...this is a repitition of my response to Howard.

Manchu - I don't think I've said that homosexuality in animals proves it's a 'moral act'. I've used it to demonstrate that it is an act that occurs widely in nature. I've not created a moral argument for homosexuality beyond saying that it is a harmless consensual act...which as a moral argument should stand on its own. What animals do should not instruct our morals, animals kill and rape each other, we shouldn't do that. I've made that quite clear in previous pages. It's separate to the point being made that addresses the claims that homosexuality is either unnatural, or a 'choice'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

whatwhat wrote:If you believe in creationism yeh . Or just 'purpose' on it own, is what I should have said without 'intended.'

Thing is by the way generalgrogg said that point it's obvious that he actually finds the idea of anal sex disgusting rather than having any issue with something not being used for it's purpose. If that was the case he'd probably be living a very mundane life.

Well frankly I find the abuse of well designed tools like a screwdriver being used to prise open tins and stir paint disgusting. Manchu disappoints me, no wait is offends me actually. It's a sin against innocent household tools.

@Howard: You should see what I do with dental tools and greenstuff. Uttery unnatural.

Damn, I was about to say the same thing.

Manchu wrote:@Howard: You should see what I do with dental tools and greenstuff. Uttery unnatural.

I bet you're the sort of person that pins models with straightened out paper-clips instead of buying metal rod as well.

No, I've never gone quite that far in my deviance.

I'm starting to wonder how a screwdriver does operate as a tin opener. Do you just stab a hole through the top and pour out the contents or is there more to it?

whatwhat wrote:I'm starting to wonder how a screwdriver does operate as a tin opener. Do you just stab a hole through the top and pour out the contents or is there more to it?

I meant a flat screwdriver, usually associated with a bucket of housepaint.

Manchu wrote:

whatwhat wrote:I'm starting to wonder how a screwdriver does operate as a tin opener. Do you just stab a hole through the top and pour out the contents or is there more to it?

I meant a flat screwdriver, usually associated with a bucket of housepaint.

Ah got you. I was thinking soup.

Manchu wrote:@Howard: You should see what I do with dental tools and greenstuff. Uttery unnatural.

Howard A Treesong wrote:...Anyway, you seem to be assuming that anal sex is exclusive to homosexuals...

Where did I say that?

I merely asked a question.

Similarly..what is the main purpose of the mouth? To eat, speak, breathe, taste? or something else. What about the ear? To hear? or something else? The nose? To smell or something else?

If you buy into the idea that our bodies are free for alls and we can do with them "whatever we want" You have left the "natural intent" and moved into unnatural human expression of pleasure for the sake of pleasure. Once you go down that route, you end up with all kinds of perversions, which we do in fact see in our society today. Look at the dudes that buy plastic sex dolls and dress them up and carry them out to parks with them, and treat them as their wives. According some people on here, that's perfectly fine and "natural". It's classic "eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die" mentality.

"If it feels good.. do it" is not necessarily natural, in that it may not be what was intended by the creator.

Even when certain animals do it, like mattys "gay dog" example. I would say that the dog found out that it was pleasurable and learned the behavior. That doesn't mean that it is "natural".

GG

dogma wrote:As far retroactive confirmation of the hypothesis: any hypothesis which cannot account for the observations from which it is drawn is a really bad hypothesis, which is why its important to test against the data that was originally observed.

What I'm saying is that a test is irrelevant if there isn't a sizable unknown in play. Otherwise I see nothing distinguishing science from all perception of the material world.

Howard A Treesong wrote:It can still be called 'science' but it's certainly not of a standard where anyone would publish it and in fact does not reach a level where you can draw a decent conclusion. Non-science is where someone does not attempt to follow the scientific method, once following it you are on the scale of 'doing science', but the quality is all important and that scale goes from the highest quality to very poor.

I'm not talking about the quality of the conclusions though. What I'm saying is that the process I described is not following the scientific method, or is at least too far from it to be considered science.

generalgrog wrote:Similarly..what is the main purpose of the mouth? To eat, speak, breathe, taste? or something else. What about the ear? To hear? or something else? The nose? To smell or something else?

If you buy into the idea that our bodies are free for alls and we can do with them "whatever we want" You have left the "natural intent" and moved into unnatural human expression of pleasure for the sake of pleasure. Once you go down that route, you end up with all kinds of perversions, which we do in fact see in our society today. Look at the dudes that buy plastic sex dolls and dress them up and carry them out to parks with them, and treat them as their wives. According some people on here, that's perfectly fine and "natural". It's classic "eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die" mentality.

"If it feels good.. do it" is not necessarily natural, in that it may not be what was intended by the creator.

Even when certain animals do it, like mattys "gay dog" example. I would say that the dog found out that it was pleasurable and learned the behavior. That doesn't mean that it is "natural".

GG

Well...why can't we do whatever we want with our bodies? Really, I mean most of these things are harmless. If you want to argue about what isn't natural and healthy then cigarette smoking should be a lot worse than homosexuality. It's bad for you, bad for others and is an activity only rendered possible because of the ability of humans to manufacture and refine plants to produce an artificial product.

generalgrog wrote:

Even when certain animals do it, like mattys "gay dog" example. I would say that the dog found out that it was pleasurable and learned the behavior. That doesn't mean that it is "natural".

GG

To be fair GG that mucky dog also rubbed itself into a frenzy on my knee-cap once so you might be right there mate.

And i once saw my mate's rabbit trying to hump the corner of its cage?

Unless merely being in my proximity is enough to give other mammals an orgasm!?

mattyrm wrote:To be fair GG that mucky dog also rubbed itself into a frenzy on my knee-cap once so you might be right there mate.

In all fairness to the dog, i think we've all thought about doing that at one time or another. Am I right fellas? Fellas? Hello?

Yeah i get it all the time, i have to swipe people of both sexes off my knees with a rolled up newspaper two or three times a night.

generalgrog wrote:Look at the dudes that buy plastic sex dolls and dress them up and carry them out to parks with them, and treat them as their wives.

Yeah, I don't believe this is a sign of a healthy society. We'd call it a mental illness today and be criticized for doing so in twenty years.

mattyrm wrote:To be fair GG that mucky dog also rubbed itself into a frenzy on my knee-cap once so you might be right there mate.

That's actually a sign that your dog doesn't respect you. Dogs dry humping is a pack mentality thing, I'm not sure if domestic dogs are even capable of being 'gay'. Don't take this as any kind of argument against gay animals in general or any slight against the attractiveness of your leg, whichever one it is that your dog 'prefers'.

Its not my bloody dog!

If a dog tried to hump my leg that wasnt a friends i would boot it all the way home!

mattyrm wrote:Its not my bloody dog!

If a dog tried to hump my leg that wasnt a friends i would boot it all the way home!

Sure matty...sure.... Denial is not just a river in Egypt ya know...

GG

Necrophilic homosexual ducks?

You bet there are!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXPcBI4CJc8

generalgrog wrote:Similarly..what is the main purpose of the mouth? To eat, speak, breathe, taste? or something else. What about the ear? To hear? or something else? The nose? To smell or something else?

If you buy into the idea that our bodies are free for alls and we can do with them "whatever we want" You have left the "natural intent" and moved into unnatural human expression of pleasure for the sake of pleasure. Once you go down that route, you end up with all kinds of perversions, which we do in fact see in our society today. Look at the dudes that buy plastic sex dolls and dress them up and carry them out to parks with them, and treat them as their wives. According some people on here, that's perfectly fine and "natural". It's classic "eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die" mentality.

"If it feels good.. do it" is not necessarily natural, in that it may not be what was intended by the creator.

Even when certain animals do it, like mattys "gay dog" example. I would say that the dog found out that it was pleasurable and learned the behavior. That doesn't mean that it is "natural".

GG

Unlikely that the dog finds the act pleasurable, as I think there are only a few animals that actually do engage in sex for more than just procreation.
But again, GG, so what? If a man wants to spend his life making free with a plastic doll, who am I to label him? "Judge not, lest ye be judged" says the Bible, and on that I'll agree. I find it very hard to believe that God has any real qualms with what humans, ant-like as they must be to him, do with their time. Why would he? It doesn't make any sense to me. Perhaps you can enlighten us as to why the Almighty has the need to micromanage human existence?
(not meant as a barbed comment, incidentally, am genuinely curious as to what you think about this)

If homosexual behaviour is bad, what about bagpiping?