User Tag List

First 152324252627 Last

Results 241 to 250 of 300

  1. #241
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    25,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mad Hatter View Post
    It's pretty obvious people were never meant to wear clothes.

    And by the way, it's pretty obvious same-sex intercourse actually works. So what you're saying is (and I think this is pretty obvious) that the human body shouldn't do something which the human body can do because it somehow wasn't meant to be.
    People obviously weren't "meant" to shave their legs, armpits, or groom their pubes - but isn't it nice when they do?

    Furthermore, isn't it nice when they smell of lavender or roses or freshly washed laundry or patchouli or Old Spice instead of sweaty stench? But they obviously weren't meant to smell like flowers or spices or soap, huh?

    I mean, a guy is too rough with a woman he could cause problems in her vag (see: rape victims) but isn't vaginal rape the most "natural" way?

    Yeah, I think this conversation is over.

  2. #242

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jwn86 View Post
    Homosexuality is pretty gay. No, really. I'm not coming from a point of moral superiority here, but it's pretty obvious intercourse was never meant to be same-sex


    Post wins thread.

  3. #243

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    I don't think intercourse was ever meant to be anything.

    And if we do assume some kind of original intent behind this entirely haphazard natural development, I'd still say I don't care. The consequences of the action are all that matter.
    No. There is a vogue, its modernism writ large, to pretend that all knowledge is invention or innovation, from the human mind, projected outwards, however even the first scientists, which were more akin to alchemy, knew that their theorising and knowledge was about discovery. Discover of objective rational rules or laws in a rational order independent, outside and other than the human mind.

    The question is really what does it mean? The question of whether or not recreational sex of any kind is natural is the same as whether or not drinking alcohol or orange juice is natural, just because you can do it doesnt mean its natural or ordained or anything like that, I think its a red herring, it doesnt confer legitimacy all by itself. Questions of can or should are ethical not naturalistic questions.

    There's no mistake that mating was intended to be between different sexes, heterosexuality is natural, its not a pseudonistic construct created to repress gay people. Recreational sex? Well it can be just about anything, however there's a lot of sexual habits which dont even register politically, homosexuality does, at one time homosexuals and their supporters didnt like that, presently it seems they do and want to maintain that.

  4. #244
    Ginkgo
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    No. There is a vogue, its modernism writ large, to pretend that all knowledge is invention or innovation, from the human mind, projected outwards, however even the first scientists, which were more akin to alchemy, knew that their theorising and knowledge was about discovery. Discover of objective rational rules or laws in a rational order independent, outside and other than the human mind.

    The question is really what does it mean? The question of whether or not recreational sex of any kind is natural is the same as whether or not drinking alcohol or orange juice is natural, just because you can do it doesnt mean its natural or ordained or anything like that, I think its a red herring, it doesnt confer legitimacy all by itself. Questions of can or should are ethical not naturalistic questions.

    There's no mistake that mating was intended to be between different sexes, heterosexuality is natural, its not a pseudonistic construct created to repress gay people. Recreational sex? Well it can be just about anything, however there's a lot of sexual habits which dont even register politically, homosexuality does, at one time homosexuals and their supporters didnt like that, presently it seems they do and want to maintain that.
    Anything that happens within the natural universe is natural.

  5. #245
    Head Pigeon Mad Hatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    -1w sp/sx
    Socionics
    IOU Ni
    Posts
    1,028

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    The question is really what does it mean?
    What's the meaning of gravity?

    This whole argument about gax sex being 'unnatural' reveals a misunderstanding of the concept of 'natural law'. Essentially, it confuses 'is's and 'ought's, description and prescription. A law that has been deduced from observation, but it has no moral content. Therefore, the category of 'natural' is not suited to classify certain actions as moral or immoral.

    Just because a stone drops to the ground if I lift it up and open my hand doesn't mean that it has a moral obligation to do so. In the same vein, people have no moral obligation to exclusively engage in heterosexual intercourse because it is in accordance with the natural law of reproducing the species.
    IN SERIO FATVITAS.

    -τὸ γὰρ γράμμα ἀποκτέννει, τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα ζῳοποιεῖ-

  6. #246

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mad Hatter View Post
    What's the meaning of gravity?

    This whole argument about gax sex being 'unnatural' reveals a misunderstanding of the concept of 'natural law'. Essentially, it confuses 'is's and 'ought's, description and prescription. A law that has been deduced from observation, but it has no moral content. Therefore, the category of 'natural' is not suited to classify certain actions as moral or immoral.

    Just because a stone drops to the ground if I lift it up and open my hand doesn't mean that it has a moral obligation to do so. In the same vein, people have no moral obligation to exclusively engage in heterosexual intercourse because it is in accordance with the natural law of reproducing the species.
    I dont understand your point at all.

    Heterosexuality would be equivalent to gravity, the argument about morality is a different matter and I was not making a moral or ethical observation or point, I was simply saying that heterosexuality is natural, what's wrong with that?

  7. #247
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Post wins thread.
    Lol. By whose rules -- yours?

    Like someone else said, it was never "meant" to be anything.
    But some of us assume it was, or assume what sort of purpose is justified (vs unjustified) for a particular behavior, hence the arguments.

    All this thread has been teaching me is the degree to which each individual member has the world compressed into various sizes of boxes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Heterosexuality would be equivalent to gravity,
    Really? On what basis?

    I drop a stone and it falls to the ground every time.
    A kid grows up, and 2-4% of the time, he has same-sex attractions... and another percentile group has bisexual inclinations. It would be more consistent to say that a human being having sexual attraction of SOME sort is "natural," regardless of what the attraction is (and there are those who seem asexual, but I won't bother going there right now).

    Hence, your comparisons are erroneous.

    he argument about morality is a different matter and I was not making a moral or ethical observation or point, I was simply saying that heterosexuality is natural, what's wrong with that?
    Since, as I just showed above, homosexuality is not UNNATURAL within the frame of natural development, your statement is not scientific or neutral -- therefore, it must be based on personal inclinations and/or moral reasoning. This is why you are consistently being challenged for making what others see to be as moral judgments.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  8. #248

    Default

    Er, no.

    No matter how much you personally may dislike "boxes" or categorisation it is none the less objective reality, heterosexuality is natural. Why you hating? What you afraid of?

    I dont see how you can suggest that my perspective is unscientific and not neutral when you yourself dont seem to accept an objective and scientific reality anyway. Others can see my points as moral judgements if they like, others would be wrong to do so though.

  9. #249
    Ginkgo
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mad Hatter View Post
    What's the meaning of gravity?

    This whole argument about gax sex being 'unnatural' reveals a misunderstanding of the concept of 'natural law'. Essentially, it confuses 'is's and 'ought's, description and prescription. A law that has been deduced from observation, but it has no moral content. Therefore, the category of 'natural' is not suited to classify certain actions as moral or immoral.

    Just because a stone drops to the ground if I lift it up and open my hand doesn't mean that it has a moral obligation to do so. In the same vein, people have no moral obligation to exclusively engage in heterosexual intercourse because it is in accordance with the natural law of reproducing the species.
    Precisely.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Er, no.

    No matter how much you personally may dislike "boxes" or categorisation it is none the less objective reality, heterosexuality is natural. Why you hating? What you afraid of?

    I dont see how you can suggest that my perspective is unscientific and not neutral when you yourself dont seem to accept an objective and scientific reality anyway. Others can see my points as moral judgements if they like, others would be wrong to do so though.
    I'd recommend trying to understand the things you talk and read about with such fervor.

  10. #250
    Senior Member Sanctus Iacobus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    MBTI
    STP
    Posts
    286

    Default

    The anus also doesn't produce natural lubricant during arousal. I can't even see why this would be a discussion... I know you people are smarter than this.

Similar Threads

  1. Same-sex Marriage, do you support it?
    By Julius_Van_Der_Beak in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 608
    Last Post: 08-27-2015, 02:49 PM
  2. Obama Administration Support for Same-Sex Marriage
    By Totenkindly in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 03-09-2013, 09:23 PM
  3. Question for those who oppose same-sex marriage on religious grounds:
    By Brendan in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 111
    Last Post: 05-05-2010, 09:32 PM
  4. Do you think same-sex marriage should be legal?
    By ez78705 in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 257
    Last Post: 05-22-2009, 05:02 PM
  5. Christianity Today Poll (same-sex marriages)
    By Totenkindly in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 67
    Last Post: 09-14-2007, 08:53 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO