Purist:

Hi Deep Sight, I didn't read every single post, though I think I read most of the posts here and I quite understand the points different posters have made so far. I'd like to ask you though - I assume no one has asked - do you consider oral s[i]e[/i]x to be wrong/immoral/unnatural? How about an[i]a[/i]l s[i]e[/i]x between heterosexual couples?

No, i do not regard oral se.x to be wrong, unnatural or immoral. I should warn however that a[i]n[/i]al heterose.xual se.x has quite a few known medical implications, and I do not want to be drawn into qualifying it just right now as it will complicate the discussion. Suffice to say that I will not call it immoral or wrong, though I might say that it is unnatural and may be probematic medically.

@ ALL -

This discussion commenced with thehomer's statement to the effect that he cannot see anything unnatural in homose.xuality. I believe that that contradicts the definition of the word natural.

Now, for clarity, here is the definition of the word natural, that I am working with - i did not create that word - that word has a dictionary definition and as such it would be proper in discussions to keep consistent with the proper meaning of that word. What's happening in this thread is that everyone is giving that word his own personal definition. I could do that too, but that is not proper in a debate. What Idehn has done for example is not the definition of the word natural. He has deleted the words "natural" and "unnatrural" from the English Language and for his concept of "natural" he really simply means "possible". But he is not making the fine distinction to see that this is what he is doing.

Do the words "natural" and "possible" mean the same thing? ? ?

What Idehn has done is to conclude that anything that is possible is also natural. This is a false notion of the word "natural", It ignores the fact that many things are possible which are not biologically natural to creatures and in nature. It assumes that there exist no natural rules - and worse - if there are natural rules, then it assumes that such rules do not have unnatural exemptions.

As far as this discussion is concerned, I will stick with a standard definition of the word "natural" from a dictionary as it applies in context of this discussion.

"Natural"

1.
existing in or formed by nature ( opposed to artificial): a natural bridge.

2.
based on the state of things in nature; constituted by nature: Growth is a natural process.

3.
of or pertaining to nature or the universe: natural beauty.

4.
of, pertaining to, or occupied with the study of natural science: conducting natural experiments.

5.
in a state of nature; uncultivated, as land.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/natural?s=t

I believe that the definition apt for this discussion is No.2 above - let us very carefully that it is not as bland as Idehn's version: it does not simply say "anything that exists or occurs" - it rather very carefully says - "based on the state of things in nature; constituted by nature: Growth is a natural process."

I particularly like the example given - Growth. That is the state of things for living things in nature, they grow. As such if a baby is born and doeas not grow it will be a mis-normer to say that such is "natural" simply because it has been seen to occur. The reverse is actually true: it is unnatural because that is not the state of things as they occur in nature - evidentially - it is an abnormaility.

This is what it means to say that it is unnatural. But Mr. Idehn's definition has effectively deleted the word "unnatural" from the dictionary, as he blandly defines natural as anything and everything that occurs. This defeats every notion of the word "natural" that can be conceived in terms of making distinctions, as there will be nothing to classify as natural or unatural given that in his estimation, everything is natural.

Going back to the definition given above (No 2) which I cited as the definition apt for this discussion, you see it says - "based on the state of things in nature". . . as such I submit that a consideration as to whether homose.xuality is natural or not should thus be directed at -

1. Observing nature - outside of humans perhaps - as humans are the subject here - and seeing if homose.xuality occurs in nature. Many people have made arguments stating that homose.xuality is natural beacuse animals have been observed to practice same. That is a false and flawed argument which I have addressed before and I will repost it here though.

2. Observing natural biology, normal hormonal balance, and human anatomy.

My contention is that if one looks at the self-evident intention of nature in terms of the male and female anatomies and their se.xual inter-relationship, it is obvious that the intention of nature is heterose.xual.

The point I was trying to make with all those questions I gave to thehomer was simply to make him recognize that any principle that can be used to defend homose.xuality can be used to defend the cases of necrophiliac acts or even in.cest as all being natural. They are all cases of free adult consensus except the necrophilic act which requires no consent ab initio in the scenario I mentioned. Even if thehomer will say he does not base his judgment on this principle (although he does), the other principles he mentioned also apply equally to my scenarios. They are all cases of privacy, equality, equity, absence of coercion, no harm being done to anyone else, etc. And yet thehomer described some of them as immoral or unnatural. On what basis, sir?

For me, I have given my basis for regarding homose.uality as unnatural: observation of human anatomy, and the biological nature of se.xual organs coupled with some of the purposes of same disclose that that which is intended my nature is heterose.xuality. Defining the reverse as "natural" on the grounds that Messrs Homer and Idehn do, does not add up in the least.

Now since the discussion proceeded from Mr Homer's comment that he saw nothing unnatural in homose.xuality, let us restrict the discussion to that word "natural" as I originally proposed. From there it will be easy not to get mixed up with moralistic notions about right and wrong.

I personally do not really see moral wrong in any se.xual act so long as no one is coerced and no harm is done to anybody. And by harm I need to even exclude some kinky consensual harm, because you have couples who play with whips and things, they find it erotic. Do I think it is morally wrong? No, but I can make a case that it is unnatural, because the body itself is hardwired to resile from pain. The nerves send messages to the brain regarding this. The person enjoying a whipping session will have to steel himself against the natural reaction of his body, which would be to flinch and resile from such pain. Trust me I know, because i've dabbled in all that. No body can convince me it is wrong, but if someone says it is unnatural he is speaking the truth.

For heaven's sake there are people who like to defecate on one another during se.x. I see such as morally neutral if it is their fetis.h or kink and harms no body else and is private. But no one can sincerely quarell if we say that it is unnatural. Whereas Mr. Idehn's definition would qualify that and everything else that exists as natural.

Homose.xuality is not natural - it is unnatural. And this is evident from even the reactions of Messrs Homer and Idehn. Particularly, Mr Idehn's definition must not be allowed to stand. It destroys the very words "natural" and "unnatural" and deletes them from the English Language.

Hope I have made some sense.

@ Purist, here is the old post I made regarding the argument that some people make on account of supposed cases of homose.xuality observed in animals -

It was Sefago who set out these premises and Conclusion to me -

He said -

Basically my argument is predicated on these premises:
1) Humans are animals
2) Animals engage in homosexuality
Conclusion: Therefore in the natural order of things homosexuality is not a deviance from expected biological behavior.

I responded -

Premise 1 - Humans are Animals.

Although this premise is only partially correct, and may be said to be an over-statement or a limitation of definition regarding the nature of humanity, i will not dwell on it because humans indisputably are given of some of the same physical instincts as animals are. I will therefore give this premise a pass mark. Let's proceed.

Premise 2 - Animals engage in Homo Sexuality.

Now this premise is fraught with severe problems. Some of these problems are:

1. It is a mis-characterization of an exception as a rule:

Let me elucidate: If one were to state: "Human beings eat food" - the direct inference would be that eating food is a normal and standard practice for human beings. That would be a correct inference as the statement has been set out in broad, generalist terms.

Let's take another statement: "Human beings are cannibals." This is another broad generalist statement that could lead to a wrong inference: namely, that it is in the nature of human beings to be cannibals, and thus a normal and standard human practice. The correct way to phrase this statement would be – "Some human beings are cannibals." In this way it becomes clear that it is not necessarily within the nature of human beings to be cannibals, but that some human beings do practice such.

This is why i said that the second premise is a mis-characterization of an exception as a rule. It should properly have read: "Some animals engage in homosexuality" - thus making it clear that homosexuality is not necessarily the norm within the animal sub-set.

If it is not the norm within the animal sub-set, we can hardly use this premise to reach a conclusion that it is anything but an exception for human beings (who, by the way, have a higher ethical reasoning capacity). That would be a fundamental contradiction in terms.

Even if the foregoing reasoning is wrong (i doubt that it is), there is a second and even more fundamental problem with the premise. This problem concerns the nature of animal homosexuality in the first place. To wit -

2. Animals are not homosexual in the proper definition of the word. Let's watch the cases of so-called animal homosexuality. Do such cases have any co-relation with human homosexuality? I contend that they are entirely dissimilar. This is the reason:

Animals do not make a distinction regarding the object of their sexual attention with reference to instinctive physical motions. For example when my dog is on heat, he will attempt to mount anything at all: including humans. He will push himself against a pole, against me, and against other dogs (male or female) in exercising the instinctive sexual motion. He does not see and develop a desire for a fellow male, he only makes instinctive sexual motions directed at anything. This is significantly different from humans who will see and have specific desires for persons of the same sex. No animal will engage in homosexual conduct if there is an available female on hand, against which it may throw its instinctive physical motions, but human homosexuality will actively disdain the female and specifically desire the male.

If you appreciate the foregoing, you will understand that animals are not in fact homosexual at all - in the proper sense of the word. Do they have a homosexual desire? Can you show me even one single animal that only sexually targets the same sex? You cannot, because animals are not homosexual in the definition of the word, and their so-called acts of homosexuality, comparatively speaking, are really just mindless acts of masturbation on any available entity.

Therefore, on either or both planks - the point must emphatically be made that animal acts of homosexuality can never be a premise for human homosexuality because as i have shown above -

i. Animals are not homosexual within the context of homosexual desire and

ii. Even if they are, it is the case that some animals are, and not all. It is the exception, rather than the rule, and as such this could not possibly make a case for human homo-sexuality being anything but the same: the exception and not the rule.

Given that the premises fail, the conclusion also naturally fails.

However, the Conclusion, if i might add, suffers independent problems of its own.

The conclusion states: "Therefore in the natural order of things homosexuality is not a deviance from expected biological behavior."

Can we define the word "deviation".

Without bothering to consult a dictionary, i suppose that we can all agree that a deviation is a departure from a norm, a variation or a digression.

"Expected biological behaviour", must clearly refer to the in-built sexual orientation geared towards biological goals. That's the only apt use of the word "biological" within that phrase. It is patently clear, from both the structure of reproductive organs, and the biological result of copulation (reproduction) that the sexual behaviour expected by nature should be heterosexual in nature. In addittion to the fact that homosexuality is not the norm in any human society, it could thus be said to be both un-natural and anti-social. At the very minimum, it definitely represents a deviation, however that may be defined.

With a heavy heart, although i do appreciate SEFAGO's good efforts and good reasoning, i am constrained on the basis of the deductions set forth above, to conclude that both his premises and his conclusion are deficient and significantly flawed even in terms of logic alone, but also in terms of sociological and biological considerations.

However: addressing the topic of this thread, i must state without much ado that although i previously had a murderous attitude to the very idea that any person could be gay, i concede that it is patently obvious, and also empirically verified, that some persons have abnormal hormonal imbalances which affect their sexual orientation. Some men have degrees of female hormones that render them effeminate, and some women (beard and all) have degrees of male hormones that render them mannish, and thus inclined to become lesbians. This is a scientific fact, and no person can contest this.

But in summary - it's ceratinly abnormal and unnatural and perhaps scientific solutions (such as hormonal re-balancing) should be sought.

I think its important for Mt Idehn to look at the part of the post above that discusses the mis-characterization of an exception as a rule.

Idehn's explanation makes better sense. "Natural" can be best explained whatever is mechanical caused without intelligent interference. Because DS's definition considers rarities as anomalies and artificial which nobody will agree to.

Also DS shown with good detail that homosexuality is rampant in the animal kingdom, and Nature tolerates it.

But the fact that something natural doesn't mean it should be tolerated or accepted. It doesn't always define our moralities.

All these endless rhetoric just to rationalize prejudice!! Hey Deepsight, do you have problems with two voluptuous women in a relationship or do you just hate male homosexuals! Lol

Deep Sight, do you always feel compelled to write epistles every time you make a post? Keep it short and simple man. Dang!

Deep Sight:
No, i do not regard oral se.x to be wrong, unnatural or immoral. I should warn however that a[i]n[/i]al heterose.xual se.x has quite a few known medical implications, and I do not want to be drawn into qualifying it just right now as it will complicate the discussion. Suffice to say that I will not call it immoral or wrong, though I might say that it is unnatural and may be probematic medically.

Okay, we'll stick with oral s[i]e[/i]x then. I must say that I'm fairly amused - though not surprised - going by your position on this thread, that you see nothing unnatural about oral s[i]e[/i]x. The natural biological functions of that organ [which happens to be the cavity that leads directly to the human GIT] used for oral s[i]e[/i]x, as far as I know, certainly includes neither fellati[i]o[/i] nor c[i]u[/i]nnilingus.

Idehn pretty much summed up my point beautifully when he said, "If you agree that se.x is multipurpose, why can the use of intimate/general organs not also be multipurpose? After all what exactly is wrong with oral se.x?"

Deep Sight:

No, i do not regard oral se.x to be wrong, unnatural or immoral. I should warn however that a[i]n[/i]al heterose.xual se.x has quite a few known medical implications, and I do not want to be drawn into qualifying it just right now as it will complicate the discussion. Suffice to say that I will not call it immoral or wrong, though I might say that it is unnatural and may be probematic medically.

You do not consider MouthAction to be unnatural? Okay lets see if you're being consistent.

Deep Sight:
@ ALL -

This discussion commenced with thehomer's statement to the effect that he cannot see anything unnatural in homose.xuality. I believe that that contradicts the definition of the word natural.

Now, for clarity, here is the definition of the word natural, that I am working with - i did not create that word - that word has a dictionary definition and as such it would be proper in discussions to keep consistent with the proper meaning of that word. What's happening in this thread is that everyone is giving that word his own personal definition. I could do that too, but that is not proper in a debate. What Idehn has done for example is not the definition of the word natural. He has deleted the words "natural" and "unnatrural" from the English Language and for his concept of "natural" he really simply means "possible". But he is not making the fine distinction to see that this is what he is doing.

Do the words "natural" and "possible" mean the same thing? ? ?

What Idehn has done is to conclude that anything that is possible is also natural. This is a false notion of the word "natural", It ignores the fact that many things are possible which are not biologically natural to creatures and in nature. It assumes that there exist no natural rules - and worse - if there are natural rules, then it assumes that such rules do not have unnatural exemptions.

As far as this discussion is concerned, I will stick with a standard definition of the word "natural" from a dictionary as it applies in context of this discussion.

"Natural"

1.
existing in or formed by nature ( opposed to artificial): a natural bridge.

2.
based on the state of things in nature; constituted by nature: Growth is a natural process.

3.
of or pertaining to nature or the universe: natural beauty.

4.
of, pertaining to, or occupied with the study of natural science: conducting natural experiments.

5.
in a state of nature; uncultivated, as land.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/natural?s=t

I believe that the definition apt for this discussion is No.2 above - let us very carefully that it is not as bland as Idehn's version: it does not simply say "anything that exists or occurs" - it rather very carefully says - "based on the state of things in nature; constituted by nature: Growth is a natural process."

I particularly like the example given - Growth. That is the state of things for living things in nature, they grow. As such if a baby is born and doeas not grow it will be a mis-normer to say that such is "natural" simply because it has been seen to occur. The reverse is actually true: it is unnatural because that is not the state of things as they occur in nature - evidentially - it is an abnormaility.

This is what it means to say that it is unnatural. But Mr. Idehn's definition has effectively deleted the word "unnatural" from the dictionary, as he blandly defines natural as anything and everything that occurs. This defeats every notion of the word "natural" that can be conceived in terms of making distinctions, as there will be nothing to classify as natural or unatural given that in his estimation, everything is natural.

Going back to the definition given above (No 2) which I cited as the definition apt for this discussion, you see it says - "based on the state of things in nature". . . as such I submit that a consideration as to whether homose.xuality is natural or not should thus be directed at -

1. Observing nature - outside of humans perhaps - as humans are the subject here - and seeing if homose.xuality occurs in nature. Many people have made arguments stating that homose.xuality is natural beacuse animals have been observed to practice same. That is a false and flawed argument which I have addressed before and I will repost it here though.

2. Observing natural biology, normal hormonal balance, and human anatomy.

My contention is that if one looks at the self-evident intention of nature in terms of the male and female anatomies and their se.xual inter-relationship, it is obvious that the intention of nature is heterose.xual.

Hold on here. Note that you are the one imbuing nature with an intent here. In fact, based on the state of things in nature, how is homosexuality unnatural? Don't confuse this with you asserting that nature has a certain intent. One thing you seem to be ignoring is the fact that human sexuality which is natural based on your own accepted definition encompasses homosexuality, heterosexuality, bisexuality and asexuality. You have decided on your own ignoring the available evidence from qualified specialists that only strict heterosexuality is natural. What gives you this privilege?

Deep Sight:
The point I was trying to make with all those questions I gave to thehomer was simply to make him recognize that any principle that can be used to defend homose.xuality can be used to defend the cases of necrophiliac acts or even in.cest as all being natural. They are all cases of free adult consensus except the necrophilic act which requires no consent ab initio in the scenario I mentioned. Even if thehomer will say he does not base his judgment on this principle (although he does), the other principles he mentioned also apply equally to my scenarios. They are all cases of privacy, equality, equity, absence of coercion, no harm being done to anyone else, etc. And yet thehomer described some of them as immoral or unnatural. On what basis, sir?

I hope you realize also that based on your own presentation of natural, incest is not necessarily unnatural. I gave you the basis I was using maybe you should simply refer to them again.

Deep Sight:
For me, I have given my basis for regarding homose.uality as unnatural: observation of human anatomy, and the biological nature of se.xual organs coupled with some of the purposes of same disclose that that which is intended my nature is heterose.xuality. Defining the reverse as "natural" on the grounds that Messrs Homer and Idehn do, does not add up in the least.

Based on the observation of human anatomy, are masturbation and MouthAction natural? After all, neither the hand nor the mouth are organs for reproduction now are they? How about intersex states, are they natural? You see, you're simply refusing to accept the implications of your accepted definition of natural.

Deep Sight:
Now since the discussion proceeded from Mr Homer's comment that he saw nothing unnatural in homose.xuality, let us restrict the discussion to that word "natural" as I originally proposed. From there it will be easy not to get mixed up with moralistic notions about right and wrong.

I personally do not really see moral wrong in any se.xual act so long as no one is coerced and no harm is done to anybody. And by harm I need to even exclude some kinky consensual harm, because you have couples who play with whips and things, they find it erotic. Do I think it is morally wrong? No, but I can make a case that it is unnatural, because the body itself is hardwired to resile from pain. The nerves send messages to the brain regarding this. The person enjoying a whipping session will have to steel himself against the natural reaction of his body, which would be to flinch and resile from such pain. Trust me I know, because i've dabbled in all that. No body can convince me it is wrong, but if someone says it is unnatural he is speaking the truth.

Since you do not see anything immoral in sexual acts, why were you railing on and on against certain sexual acts? Or are you saying that you only find "unnatural" acts disgusting? You really need to sort these things out within yourself before trying to delve deeper into the discussion to avoid certain conflations.

Deep Sight:
For heaven's sake there are people who like to defecate on one another during se.x. I see such as morally neutral if it is their fetis.h or kink and harms no body else and is private. But no one can sincerely quarell if we say that it is unnatural. Whereas Mr. Idehn's definition would qualify that and everything else that exists as natural.

Homose.xuality is not natural - it is unnatural. And this is evident from even the reactions of Messrs Homer and Idehn. Particularly, Mr Idehn's definition must not be allowed to stand. It destroys the very words "natural" and "unnatural" and deletes them from the English Language.

Hope I have made some sense.

How is your assertion that homosexuality is unnatural evident from my reaction or that of Idehn? Actually, his definition is pretty good too. What you're coming up against is the basic understanding that basing an argument on the concept of nature can be very tricky. In fact, it can be considered fallacious as you're using it so much so that it has a name the fallacy of appealing to nature.

@Deep Sight, you raise some pretty good points, although I still think that your views are being forced by certain prejudices you harbour. I'll only address the parts that really caught my attention.

Deep Sight:
2. Animals are not homosexual in the proper definition of the word. Let's watch the cases of so-called animal homosexuality. Do such cases have any co-relation with human homosexuality? I contend that they are entirely dissimilar. This is the reason:

Animals do not make a distinction regarding the object of their sexual attention with reference to instinctive physical motions. For example when my dog is on heat, he will attempt to mount anything at all: including humans. He will push himself against a pole, against me, and against other dogs (male or female) in exercising the instinctive sexual motion. He does not see and develop a desire for a fellow male, he only makes instinctive sexual motions directed at anything. This is significantly different from humans who will see and have specific desires for persons of the same sex.

Unless you have comprehensively studied animal sexuality, you cannot simply arrive at this conclusion based on just one example. Dogs have always been known to be exceptionally randy, so the fact that they would jump on anything and everything is of little surprise here.

Deep Sight:
No animal will engage in homosexual conduct if there is an available female on hand

Sometime in 2005, four female penguins were flown in to Germany from Sweden in order to "tempt" the endangered gay Humboldt penguins so that they could reproduce. The males scarcely threw the females a single glance, even after a whole month being together. Right there, they had the opportunity to "disengage" from their gay conducts - with available females on hand - but they blatantly refused. The entire exercise eventually proved abortive.

Deep Sight:
In addittion to the fact that homosexuality is not the norm in any human society, it could thus be said to be both un-natural and anti-social.

That homosexuality is not the norm in any human society is NOT a fact. Homosexuality is, and was the norm is certain societies in the past. The two-spirit people of Native American tribes readily comes to mind here (this does not mean that they did not have heterosexual relations at all. What it simply means is that homosexuality was equally normal and fully accepted in that society). Thanks to the advent of the Abrahamic religions, these aspect of their traditions were eventually eroded. I argued this point on another thread with Sagamite a while back. You may want to have a look.

Deepsight,

You are one person who I follow on the religion section because a lot your posts are deep(as your ID implies, thought provoking and cerebral, but you sometimes allow your Christian sympathies to becloud your jugdement.

How can you equate an anomaly to being unnatural. If homosexualism is unnatural then is it supernatural? If a rate genetic trait appears in a family after many generations, would you call that unnatural? What of a female with full male characteristics like broad chest, hair chest and beard (not an hermaphrodite), would you considered it uncommon or unnatural?


What pains me is that Nigerians like to speak authoritatively on issues they have no clue about, and cover that ignorance using their idea of religious morality. Sexuality is a far more complex subject than what is between ones legs or chest. Sexual orientation is a factor of hormones, environment and instincts.
The examples deepsight gave concerning his dog in heat also applies to humans, if you deprive a man or woman from séx for too long, he or she would not make much distinction regarding the object of their sexual attention. That is why your will find many homosexuals in prison and lesbian in strict female only schools or even child (boys) abuse in catholic seminaries by priests. A sailor family friend used to stay with us when he is off the seas and one day he brought home a life size séx doll they use on their long trips at sea to relieve their urges, it has nothing to do having a desire for the doll.

What some people fail to consider is that our instincts are controlled by hormones, deepsight can be made to feel like a woman and grow breasts and hips and even have séxual feelings towards other men by the injection of estrogen. That is why men who desire séx change is injected with female hormones
for up to six months prior to cutting of the díck.

wirinet: Deepsight,
A sailor family friend used to stay with us when he is off the seas and one day he brought home a life size séx doll they use on their long trips at sea to relieve their urges, it has nothing to do having a desire for the doll.
.

You friend is kinky as hell. Lmao. Most sailors, soldiers and the likes use Indecency magazines and movies but your friend expects you to believe s-x dolls are the norm?? Your friend is awesome.

Martian:

You friend is kinky as hell. Lmao. Most sailors, soldiers and the likes use Indecency magazines and movies but your friend expects you to believe s-x dolls are the norm?? Your friend is awesome.

Of what use is porn magazines and movies when you are away on a monotonous labour intensive trawling expedition that lasts up to 4 months at a stretch?

Now to tidy things up. The paramount concern I have is the mis-definition of words being bandied about on this thread. Let us be very clear that the contention is as whether or not homose.xuality is natural. Not whether it is wrong. Not whether it is condemnable. Not whether it is moral or immoral. simply whether it is natural.

Under no circumstance should Mr. Idehn's definition be permitted to stand. It absolutely destroys the very meaning of these words and even renders them non-existent. I have said already and I say again that Mr. Idehn's errors rests in conflating the words "natural" and "possible". He states that anything that is possible is natural. This only leads us into absurdity. It may be possible for example for humans to place a tea cup into orbit around the planet pluto, but no one can argue that such a phenomenon is as things appear in nature. As such we should recognise that creatures can and infact do unnatural things. Things that would not normally appear in nature, or more accurately, things that are even contrary to the dictates of nature. To deny this only seems to me like deliberately playing the ostrich; to what ends, I do not know.

I repeat it: definiing "natural" as anything that occurs in reality is fallacious. It is a mis-definition of the word. The word he is looking for is "possible."

I ask Mr. Idehn again - do the words "natural" and "possible" mean the same thing? This is a very importrant question that Mr. Idehn must answer in very clear terms.

Indeed I gave the example of growth. It is natural for living things to grow - such that if a baby is born, it is natural for it to grow. There are babies born with growth dysfunctions. Are we to conclude that a baby that does not grow is in line with nature? That is only absurd, and like I said, defeats the meaning of the very word "natural" - I already gave a dictionary definition of that word above. No where in any dictionary does Mr Idehn's definition appear for the simple fact that it is not the meaning of the word "natural". Mr Idehn needs to look for another word as it is improper to change the meaning of words simply to suit a worldview. One can do such in a lounge discussion but not in any sensible debate.

It is a very simple and self evidential supposition to say that heterose.xual se.x is natural. The very se.xual make-up of creatures as male and female evinces this. But I will not hang there - Mr. Idehn's definition encompasses even people who cannot have an or.gasm until they have spilt blood or murdered someone. I hope Mr. Idehn knows that this is quite common: there are many socio-paths and se.xual deviants who can only be aroused by violence in the form of ra.pe or murder or violent bodily mutilation. There are men whose se.xual desire is to rip their mother's intestines out and stick their di.cks into her blood and eja.culate therein. And this is no appeal to emotion. Just watch The Crime Channel everyday and you will see more than your fill. I submit that these things are possible but cannot be classified as natural se.xual behaviour. These are clearly unnatural abnormalities.

However to be succint, I need to ask Mr. Idehn if there exist any such things as abnormalities or perversions as someone said. I wish to know if he will also content that no such things exist, and that anything that occurs in reality is thereby normal, natural, and as such, the very word "perversion" will be the next word he will help us delete from the English language?

It is patently absurd to contend that anything that a man can do must thereby be natural. It is outrightly evasive to assert that nature does not evidentially disclose natural tendencies and proclivities of creatures as they appear in nature. It is very wrong to therefore assert that no unnatural things exist - for it is very clear that unnatural things do exist.

And in that regard, it is also patently clear that homose.xuality is not that which is intended by nature, and so whatever else one may say about it, one cannot argue that it is natural.

The questions Mr. Idehn needs to answer are these -

1. Do any abnormal things exist?

2. Do perversities exist?

3. Are there anything that exist which are disfunctional or abberations?

If any of these things exist, then Mr. Idehn's definition collapses. I am hoping it will be beyond even Mr. Idehn to claim that no such things exist.

It is most normal for Messrs Homer and Idehn to revert to simple questions such as these by demanding a definition of each word in the three questions above. That has always been the pattern that both of them use and it is tiresome and does not come across as honest or sincere. These are simple words which they needn't obsfuscate as they have mangled the equally simple word "natural". Please guys answer these questions for me without playing your usual definition games. If you need any definition of the words "normal," "abnormal", "perverse", "disfunctional" or "abberation", please just use any online dictionary and we will go with whatever you see there. I cannot spend my life on Nairaland defining everyday words simply because people are interested in obsfuscating things.

Martian: All these endless rhetoric just to rationalize prejudice!! Hey Deepsight, do you have problems with two voluptuous women in a relationship or do you just hate male homosexuals! Lol

Lol. I must say that I fancy neither proposition, but it is not my fancies we are discussing here. Neither are we condeming any act as wrong or immoral. The discussion is simply if these are natural. See definition I posted from a dictionary above, re: the word "natural."

wirinet:
Of what use is porn magazines and movies when you are away on a monotonous labour intensive trawling expedition that lasts up to 4 months at a stretch?

hey,I'm not judging lol. I just think your friend is stretching the truth about the prevalence of s-x dolls amongst sailors.

Definition wasn't so helpful still. You have just been appealing to our ethical sense

Deep Sight:
Lol. I must say that I fancy neither proposition, but it is not my fancies we are discussing here. Neither are we condeming any act as wrong or immoral. The discussion is simply if these are natural. See definition I posted from a dictionary above, re: the word "natural."

I don't see anything "abnormal" or "unnatural" about two people who love each other and choose to have s-x. It's only prejudice that will make anyone start a conversation concerning the nature of homosexuals. I'm sure slavery advocates also used arguments like this, "black people have too much melanin in their body relative to other races, therefore they are not "natural" and deserve to be discriminated against".

wirinet:

What pains me is that Nigerians like to speak authoritatively on issues they have no clue about, and cover that ignorance using their idea of religious morality. Sexuality is a far more complex subject than what is between ones legs or chest. Sexual orientation is a factor of hormones, environment and instincts.

Well said !

Martian:

I don't see anything "abnormal" or "unnatural" about two people who love each other and choose to have s-x. It's only prejudice that will make anyone start a conversation concerning the nature of homosexuals. I'm sure slavery advocates also used arguments like this, "black people have too much melanin in their body relative to other races, therefore they are not "natural" and deserve to be discriminated against".

You make a caricature of the discussion.

Answer me this: Do any perversities, abberations or depravities exist in se.xual matters - or do NONE exist.

Simple question, give me a simple answer. Please do not tow the definition-game-path of Messrs Homer and Idehn. If you need definitions, use an online dictionary and give an answer based on whatever definitions you source there.

jayriginal:

Well said !

Which was saying nothing that anybody does not already know, actually, but I will revert to my old friend wirinet separately afterwards.

His answer does not address the pith of the discourse.

And I am not blinkered by religious sympathies. He ought to know that.

Kay 17: Definition wasn't so helpful still. You have just been appealing to our ethical sense

Sometimes when I read comments like this I think that skeptics and cynics are having way too large an effect on the general public. How does anybody come off writing-off an apeal to ethics? How is an appeal to mankind's sense of ethics not a worthy appeal. Even though that is not what I have done here.

The day will come when Skeptics will argue that there is no such thinng as good or evil (they already have, actually). But that is not so bad because we can say that such could be relative to circumstance. What will really be terrible - and it will certainly happen if it hasn't already, is that when anyone attempts to show a benevolent act as good and a malevolent act as evil, some one will come along with a comment like "You are only appealling to a sense of ethics, and that is rubbish."

Beautiful! Carry go!

Don't worry, next time I will not appeal to ethics. I will appeal to carrot or stick. I will either bribe you to agree with me or if you dont I will club you over with a baseball bat.

Humanity!

Deep Sight:

You make a caricature of the discussion.

Answer me this: Do any perversities, abberations or depravities exist in se.xual matters - or do NONE exist.

It depends on what you consider "perversities, abberations or depravities".I consider necrophilia to be a abberation unless the corpse signed an agreement prior to being deceased. lol Then it's totally cool.
Homosexuality is not a "perversity, abberation or depravity". It's just having s-xual and other emotinal feelings for members of the same sex. I imagine homosexuals feel the same as heterosexuals, just not towards the the opposite sex. Bisexuals just love everybody. lol

Martian:

It depends on what you consider "perversities, abberations or depravities".I consider necrophilia to be a abberation unless the corpse signed an agreement prior to being deceased. lol Then it's totally cool.

But then would it be "natural"?

Aside, you have not answered my questions. I said do you consider that any "perversities, abberations or depravities" exist at all?

If you need definitions, use a dictionary and I WILL accept any you source.

If such things exist, what qualifies any such thing as perverse, depraved or abberant?

Homosexuality is not a "perversity, abberation or depravity". It's just having s-xual and other emotinal feelings for members of the same sex. I imagine homosexuals feel the same as heterosexuals, just not towards the the opposite sex. Bisexuals just love everybody. lol

My question is whether it is that which is natural - in the scheme of nature.

As an aside I should also ask you if there are any unnatural things that exist, as Mr. Idehn contends that there are none. Do you agree with such a notion?

Deep Sight: @ But in summary - it's ceratinly abnormal and unnatural and perhaps scientific solutions (such as hormonal re-balancing) should be sought.

That's how eugenics started...........

Deep Sight:
But then would it be "natural"?

Aside, you have not answered my questions. I said do you consider that any "perversities, abberations or depravities" exist at all?

If you need definitions, use a dictionary and I WILL accept any you source.

If such things exist, what qualifies any such thing as perverse, depraved or abberant?

One example is r@pe because it's a violation of someone's will, body and psyche. But I'm sure there is someone out there amongst the billions of humans who think rape can be justified.

Deep Sight:
My question is whether it is that which is natural - in the scheme of nature.

What do you know about the "scheme of nature"? If it happens, then it must be one the possibilities in the "scheme of nature". Or is the scheme supposed to fit your sentiments and bias?

Deep Sight:
As an aside I should also ask you if there are any unnatural things that exist, as Mr. Idehn contends that there are none. Do you agree with such a notion?

If it happens, it must be one of the possibilities in the "scheme of nature" therefore it is natural, so I agree with Sir Idehn. if it's unnatural, it must exist outside of nature and I don't know the meaning of "outside of nature". The 'perversion, abberation and depravity" of the act is what's open to intepretation and we all know opinions are like a$$holes, we all have one. So what's depraved to you might just be someone else's past time.

Martian:

One example is r@pe because it's a violation of someone's will, body and psyche. But I'm sure there is someone out there amongst the billions of humans who think rape can be justified.




What do you know about the "scheme of nature"? If it happens, then it must be one the possibilities in the "scheme of nature". Or is the scheme supposed to fit your sentiments and bias?



If it happens, it must be one of the possibilities in the "scheme of nature" therefore it is natural, so I agree with Sir Idehn. if it's unnatural, it must exist outside of nature and I don't know the meaning of "outside of nature". The 'perversion, abberation and depravity" of the act is what's open to intepretation and we all know opinions are like a$$holes, we all have one. So what's depraved to you might just be someone else's past time.

Contradiction because in that instance r@pe which you condemned will also be natural since it is one of the possibilities existing in reality as you call it.

I hope you see the problem now, sir.

^^^ So to be succint, the point is that unnatural, abnormal, perverse things, and abberations DO exist in the natural world, and even this very fact attests to the fact that there is a tendency that is considered in line with the normal and natural tangent of nature and there are tendencies against such, which are abberations.

Any other averrment is simply false, or worse, self-deceptive.

Nobody can say for example that the phenomenon described in a cerain movie of regressive growth, if it were observed to happen, is thereby natural. Such would be manifestly unnatural. To say otherwise is to stand logic and even basic definition on their heads. I repeat; "possible" and "natural" are NOT the same words!

Deep Sight:

Contradiction because in that instance r@pe which you condemned will also be natural since it is one of the possibilities existing in reality as you call it.

I hope you see the problem now, sir.

I don't see a problem. You asked me what I think is depraved and I answered. I never said rape is unnatural.

I should add to this the fact that if we are to accept Mr. Idehn's outrageous definition, there is nothing that ever happens that should be condemned for any reason.

Since its all "natural."

I repeat: you will not find any dictionary in the world that defines the word "natural" the way Mr. Idehn does. That is because he is mis-defining it. His definition is WHOLLY wrong.

It is curious that Mr. Homer agrees with the definition even when the definition kills off Mr Homer's characterization of some things as unnatural; whereas Mr. Idehn's definition says nothing is unnatural!

Problems! This is what happens when you deliberately mis-define words to suit a purpose.

I am actually more concerned about how Deep Sight manages to employ the argument about human anatomy and biological functions to demonstrate what is natural in order to argue against the 'naturalness' of homosexuality, but then goes on to say that he views or[i]a[/i]l sex [Mouth[/b]Action, to be more 'specific' ] as a [b]natural act. Seems to me that we're using definitions selectively here.

Martian:

I don't see a problem. You asked me what I think is depraved and I answered. I never said rape is unnatural.

I tire o. All in a bid to brand homse.xuality as natural, we have now ended up with saying that ra.pe/ molestation is NOT unnatural.

Really the word "natural" is no longer natural as you guys have rendered things!

This is desperation.

Laterz.

Deep Sight:
^^^ So to be succint, the point is that unnatural, abnormal, perverse things, and abberations DO exist in the natural world, and even this very fact attests to the fact that there is a tendency that is considered in line with the normal and natural tangent of nature and there are tendencies against such, which are abberations.

Any other averrment is simply false, or worse, self-deceptive.

Nobody can say for example that the phenomenon described in a cerain movie of regressive growth, if it were observed to happen, is thereby natural. Such would be manifestly unnatural. To say otherwise is to stand logic and even basic definition on their heads. I repeat; "possible" and "natural" are NOT the same words!

And what is the normal and natural tangent of nature?

Purist: I am actually more concerned about how Deep Sight manages to employ the argument about human anatomy and their biological functions to demonstrate what is natural in order to argue against the 'naturalness' of homosexuality, but then goes on to say that he views or[i]a[/i]l sex [Mouth[/b]Action, to be more 'specific' ] as a [b]natural act. Seems to me that we're using definitions selectively here.

This is because se.xual actions of varied pleasing sorts between a man and a woman is what I see as natural.

I see se.xual actions between a man and a man as unnatural.

Got to run now.

Latersz.