AS IT SAYS IN THE BIBLE

[mike2jb]

I think we can agree that what occurs in nature does indeed define what is natural.

Sorry, Logical, but you're essentially using a word to define itself.  What doesn't occur in nature?  The supernatural? 

Does lightning occur "in nature"?  Is fire "natural"?  Is kindling?  Rubbing sticks together?  Matches?  My gas stovetop?

A word of caution: take the concept of morality more seriously, even if it may be subjective. Many people on this discussion board maintain that Prop 8 is wrong because it takes away rights. Anytime you use the words "right" or "wrong" you know your working within the concept of morality.

Ouch.  Now that's simply a "Logical" fallacy, since you are mixing up two different meanings of the word "right" ("legal entitlements" [plural noun] vs. "correct/good/proper" [noun and adjective]). 
"Fighting for your rights" and "fighting for what's right" do not mean the same thing.

A better challenge to my argument perhaps would have been to offer an alternative reason why we as humans do not engage in sex acts in public rather than to attempt to invalidate morality in general.

We don't engage in sex acts in public?!  Logical, you need to get out more.  Our society is awash in novels, films, TV shows and songs that are about almost nothing else, and these are all very public.  (... and please reassure me that you don't come from the Bill Clinton school of what constitutes a sex act.)

At the end of the day, whatever our worldview is, we are not going to get away from the moral implications when discussing this issue.

I think you're right.

[valit]

Well, right and wrong are not concepts that I trade in much. I recognise that people's idea of what is right and what isn't can differ from mine and I can't see the value of debating on the basis of purely subjective and culturally-biased arguments. My own beliefs are certainly biased and I wouldn't claim are worth more than someone else's but it's through negotiation and logical debate that we come to solutions that we then live by.

What I believe is we agree to the value of such concepts as equality and fairness and that our laws should strive towards that. Not because it's right, period, but because it's right for us and for where our society is at today. It's our "res publica" that which we all share in instead of concepts of right and wrong which are generally brought in on the basis of interpretations of religious scriptures.

Which, incidentally, is something I'm not interested in. I only suggested that book to people who keep quoting the bible to point out that interpretations on these verses varies and their validity is questionable. But frankly I don't believe the bible has any value to add to any other book we might or might not come across.

Finally, to be honest with you, I don't subscribe to the idea that the reason proposition 8 should be repealed is simply because it takes away rights. This seems to simply focus on the mechanicals of giving and taking away rights instead of whether people are entitled to these rights in the first place. That seems a more valid issue than whether these rights have been taken away or how long they were available for.

And the reason homosexuals are often singled out and denied rights has often to do with theories defining homosexuality as a perversion and something unnatural, something which is as subjective and unsubstantiated a claim as you can find which is why my previous message, to some biblical freak, centred on pointing out that there is actually nothing unnatural about homosexuality, which is a concept I would happily see people start to consider.

I understand Mike's point that whether it is natural or not is irrelevant. However, it is something that is consistently thrown around and therefore something that I think it's worth dispelling.

[LOGICAL]

I think we can agree that what occurs in nature does indeed define what is natural.

Sorry, Logical, but you're essentially using a word to define itself.  What doesn't occur in nature?  The supernatural? 

Does lightning occur "in nature"?  Is fire "natural"?  Is kindling?  Rubbing sticks together?  Matches?  My gas stovetop?

A word of caution: take the concept of morality more seriously, even if it may be subjective. Many people on this discussion board maintain that Prop 8 is wrong because it takes away rights. Anytime you use the words "right" or "wrong" you know your working within the concept of morality.

Ouch.  Now that's simply a "Logical" fallacy, since you are mixing up two different meanings of the word "right" ("legal entitlements" [plural noun] vs. "correct/good/proper" [noun and adjective]). 
"Fighting for your rights" and "fighting for what's right" do not mean the same thing.

A better challenge to my argument perhaps would have been to offer an alternative reason why we as humans do not engage in sex acts in public rather than to attempt to invalidate morality in general.

We don't engage in sex acts in public?!  Logical, you need to get out more.  Our society is awash in novels, films, TV shows and songs that are about almost nothing else, and these are all very public.  (... and please reassure me that you don't come from the Bill Clinton school of what constitutes a sex act.)

At the end of the day, whatever our worldview is, we are not going to get away from the moral implications when discussing this issue.

I think you're right.

Greetings Mike, I think you've made some pretty good points here. My first statement should go something like this: "...whatever occurs in the animal kingdom can be considered to be natural". In my statement about the use of the words "right" and "wrong", I of course did not intend that the word "right" be directly mapped to the previous use of the word "rights" which should have been presented as "legal rights". I could also have left out the word "right" altogether in order to make my point. Now as to the issue of public sex acts, well...that could be the topic for interesting and lengthy discussion. I had previously considered the weak point in my challenge to Valit's argument from nature to be along the line that my Fact of Morality applied to all human sexuality and not just to human homosexuality. Your point here suggests to me that my argument might have other weaknesses. I will reassure you that I do not subscribe to the "Bill Clinton school of what constitutes a sex act", however, I did inhale. Perhaps that has something to do with me not making my points clear and I thank you for being vigilant in keeping me honest in that regard.

[LOGICAL]

Well, right and wrong are not concepts that I trade in much. I recognise that people's idea of what is right and what isn't can differ from mine and I can't see the value of debating on the basis of purely subjective and culturally-biased arguments. My own beliefs are certainly biased and I wouldn't claim are worth more than someone else's but it's through negotiation and logical debate that we come to solutions that we then live by.

What I believe is we agree to the value of such concepts as equality and fairness and that our laws should strive towards that. Not because it's right, period, but because it's right for us and for where our society is at today. It's our "res publica" that which we all share in instead of concepts of right and wrong which are generally brought in on the basis of interpretations of religious scriptures.

Which, incidentally, is something I'm not interested in. I only suggested that book to people who keep quoting the bible to point out that interpretations on these verses varies and their validity is questionable. But frankly I don't believe the bible has any value to add to any other book we might or might not come across.

Finally, to be honest with you, I don't subscribe to the idea that the reason proposition 8 should be repealed is simply because it takes away rights. This seems to simply focus on the mechanicals of giving and taking away rights instead of whether people are entitled to these rights in the first place. That seems a more valid issue than whether these rights have been taken away or how long they were available for.

And the reason homosexuals are often singled out and denied rights has often to do with theories defining homosexuality as a perversion and something unnatural, something which is as subjective and unsubstantiated a claim as you can find which is why my previous message, to some biblical freak, centred on pointing out that there is actually nothing unnatural about homosexuality, which is a concept I would happily see people start to consider.

I understand Mike's point that whether it is natural or not is irrelevant. However, it is something that is consistently thrown around and therefore something that I think it's worth dispelling.

Greetings Valit. In re-reading some of your earlier posts it has become apparent to me that you are indeed correct. In my eagerness to appear smart I have commited a serious error in stating my argument. My P1 and P2 are in fact conclusions and not premises. The premises of your argument from which the conclusions are drawn should be stated and C1 would go something like this:

Premise: Whatever occurs in the animal kingdom can be considered to be natural.

Premise: Homosexuality occurs in the animal kingdom.

Conclusion: Therefore homosexuality can be considered to be natural.

The thrust of my argument would be toward the second premise by pointing out that not all homosexuality occurs in the animal kingdom. Having said all that, I think we can agree to lay the argument to rest. I think you are correct in your efforts to dispell the idea that homosexuality is unnatural and perverse. Also, I think it's fair to point out that your argument from nature would go over well enough in a secular environment where the mainstream paradigm of thinking is underlayed by the philosophy of naturalism. In religious circles it's bound to run into problems and for this reason I appeal to you that your endorsement of the book is an important strategy. My current biblical understanding is that homosexual orientation is not condemned by the Bible but that the act of homosexuality is. This dilema makes me feel a bit uncomfortable as a heterosexual christian and I can scarcely imagine what it must be like for my homosexual brothers and sisters to have to live in a society where such a dilema would often present itself as an opposition to their state being. Suffice it to say that I'm looking forward to reading the book to gain new perspectives on the issue. From a strictly selfish point of view, splitting the horns of the dilema would make my own life easier. Hope you have a great day...