ooman: ^^^There is nothing in nature you cannot explain on the basis of naturalism…

ofcourse you can, but it must be followed by a logical conclusion.

Reyginus: ofcourse you can, but it must be followed by a logical conclusion.

exactly what naturalism is - it must be followed by a provable continuous observation since we differ in what we term logical

ooman:

exactly what naturalism is - it must be followed by a provable continuous observation since we differ in what we term logical

Na wa o. Is logic subjective?

Reyginus: Na wa o. Is logic subjective?

you'd be surprised how people like yourself define logic. This is what I have seen on nairaland.

ooman:

you'd be surprised how people like yourself define logic. This is what I have seen on nairaland.

Hmmm! Okay. Let's get to business. How do you justify homosexuality based on naturalism?

Reyginus: Hmmm! Okay. Let's get to business. How do you justify homosexuality based on naturalism?

because it is observable in nature. Its been documented in rats, star fish and other animals.

It doesn't occur in man alone, it also occurs in other animals. This is why it is pure and natural and not some mental impairment.

Reyginus: Interesting..Would you mind explaining homosexuality on the basis of Naturalism?

Homosexuality is a moral issue. It can be seen as an evil and it can taken that repression of homosexuality is a repression of self expression which is an evil. Either way.

ooman:

because it is observable in nature. Its been documented in rats, star fish and other animals.

It doesn't occur in man alone, it also occurs in other animals. This is why it is pure and natural and not some mental impairment.

You mean, observation provides the justification for every occurence in nature. Interesting...Do you also mean that madness and every other forms of psychosis are impure and don't follow natural means?

Reyginus: You mean, observation provides the justification for every occurence in nature. Interesting...Do you also mean that madness and every other forms of psychosis are impure and don't follow natural means?

Impure? yes because it is against the norm and it is harmful.

Homosexuality is never harmful. There is the difference.

Kay 17:

Homosexuality is a moral issue. It can be seen as an evil and it can taken that repression of homosexuality is a repression of self expression which is an evil. Either way.

I don't think so. If we are to base the argument on self-expression without defining the terms properly, I can also on the same lane say that, murder is evil, so trying to repress it is.
I would prefer we establish a logical basis for whatever we think is moral/immoral here.

ooman:

Impure? yes because it is against the norm and it is harmful.

Homosexuality is never harmful. There is the difference.

Your first sentence contradicts your second. Maybe you have to do some clarification. Is homosexuality for or against the norm?

Reyginus: Your first sentence contradicts your second. Maybe you have to do some clarification. Is homosexuality for or against the norm?

Psychosis and madness is impure
Homosexuality is not.

Reyginus: I don't think so. If we are to base the argument on self-expression without defining the terms properly, I can also on the same lane say that, murder is evil, so trying to repress it is.
I would prefer we establish a logical basis for whatever we think is moral/immoral here.

Homosexuality is an intimate identity, unlike murder

Reyginus: And the difference between radio waves and your description of the soul is?

When I talk of soul, I am specifically refering to a phase of the electromagnetic energy that animates the body. We imagine it as contained with body. It is our cosmic shadow or cosmic tether. And the brain is the interface or conduit between it and the body.

ooman:

Psychosis and madness is impure
Homosexuality is not.

Stop beating about the bush over a simple question. You are beginning to talk as though the word 'impure' is exclusive to an inhomeostatic health condition. Inorganic chemistry is not far off my friend. Let me rephrase my question. Between homosexuality or heterosexuality which is the norm?

Kay 17:

Homosexuality is an intimate identity, unlike murder

Lol. Kay!! If I get you clearly, all intimate matters are moral, and can be justified by naturalism.

Reyginus: Stop beating about the bush over a simple question. You are beginning to talk as though the word 'impure' is exclusive to an inhomeostatic health condition. Inorganic chemistry is not far off my friend. Let me rephrase my question. Between homosexuality or heterosexuality which is the norm?

you are the one beating around the bush. you raised an issue of psychosis and madness when we are discussing homosexuality. so why should I take you seriously?

plaetton:

When I talk of soul, I am specifically refering to a phase of the electromagnetic energy that animates the body. We imagine it as contained with body. It is our cosmic shadow or cosmic tether. And the brain is the interface or conduit between it and the body.

To put it politely, your explanation is inadequate. Even without drawing out the symptom which forms the divide between the two, you went further to compound the problem.
The appriopriate word for your explanation is 'impulse'. With you saying that the soul is not only a phase in the electromagnetic energy, but also, the element that makes alife, you're trying to lose me. I'm getting you now. I can agree with you that the soul animates. What I will not agree on is that it is actually, an electromagnetic energy. My reason is simply because electromagnetism cannot occur when the medium necessary to achieve animation is electrically dormant. When no charge exists. This I draw, from the fact that from the outset, we preview an inanimated human body. Their is a problem. The energy whose phase the soul occupies can only be electromagnetic only and if there is the existence of a charge in the region it tries to animate. In this case, the region carries no charge.

^^^olodo. who told you that cells do not carry charges?

google charges around cells, especially multicellular cells to learn more. I have no time to teach here.

ooman:


you are the one beating around the bush. you raised an issue of psychosis and madness when we are discussing homosexuality. so why should I take you seriously?

Those were analogies we employed to help the argument. Now, please answer the question.

Reyginus: Those were analogies we employed to help the argument. Now, please answer the question.

both are. one is more common than the other. homosexuality increases with increasing overpopulation.

ooman: ^^^olodo. who told you that cells do not carry charges?

google charges around cells, especially multicellular cells to learn more

Lol. You don't understand. The cells in question here are yet to be animated. How do explain that?

ooman:

both are. one is more common than the other. homosexuality increases with increasing overpopulation.

Lol. You are making me laugh. How can the two out of two opposing things be the norm?

Reyginus: Lol. You don't understand. The cells in question here are yet to be animated. How do explain that?

do you know that inorganic chemicals carry more charges. Do you know of ionic bonding?

Reyginus: Lol. You are making me laugh. How can the two out of two opposing things be the norm?

now you are being unreasonable. how are they occurring now? how did they survive history together? even the ancient bible mentions it. how could they survive if the are opposing.

one never opposes the other. the homosexuals find surrogate mum if they need children.

ooman:

do you know that inorganic chemicals carry more charges. Do you know of ionic bonding?

You don't seem to want to understand. Let me cut it out for you. From his explanation, the soul animates. That's where it is all coming from. If actualy it animates by electromagnetic means, the assumption is that what it is animating must carry some active charges. In this case, it is not, why it is inanimate.
Yeah! I don't think ionic bonding is involved here.

This is what am saying. inanimate chemicals also carry charges in their ionic state.

ooman:

now you are being unreasonable. how are they occurring now? how did they survive history together? even the ancient bible mentions it. how could they survive if the are opposing.

one never opposes the other. the homosexuals find surrogate mum if they need children.

They are opposite in the sense that one is proposing an idea the other is antagonising. I shouldn't even be explaining this. When you use the bible as reference you should also point out if it stands as norm. Where it doesn't appear so, your analogy is preposterous.
You are not helping this argument by being disingenous. What is the opposite of 'same-sex' intercouse?

ooman: This is what am saying. inanimate chemicals also carry charges in their ionic state.

What does it mean to be animate in the first place?

Reyginus: What does it mean to be animate in the first place?

google that

ooman:

google that

Lol. When stuck in a trap you demand googling. Good for you.

Reyginus: They are opposite in the sense that one is proposing an idea the other is antagonising. I shouldn't even be explaining this. When you use the bible as reference you should also point out if it stands as norm. Where it doesn't appear so, your analogy is preposterous.
You are not helping this argument by being disingenous. What is the opposite of 'same-sex' intercouse?

you really want me to tell you the opposite of same sex?