Post

Region: Right to Life

Communal concils

"Natural" is a funny word, as it's used by many to categorise concepts that they consider to be positive, and then used to pass moral judgements.

To a given definition of natural, humans are creations of nature, this all human technology and culture is natural, which makes Twitter, BDSM and American Football as natural as trees and earthworms.
To a different definition of natural, a rolling landscape that is covered with green grassland might be called natural, even though it exists because of human-led deforestation with hills formed from mining activity.

So what is natural? And why is natural moral?

Violence is a natural part of human biology. We're designed as animals capable of violence, able to strike out, bite, rend and injure. Our forward facing eyes help us focus and aim at prey, or at fellow humans. Our natural aggression allows us to kill. So murder is natural. Hell, rape could be considered natural. But these things aren't moral.

Forming clothing, cooking food, building shelters - some might consider these to be "unnatural". But equally, clothing the poor, feeding the hungry, giving shelter to the needy, these are often considered to be moral.

So saying that homosexuality is wrong because it's unnatural is fallacious on two counts.

First, homosexuality is only unnatural if you define it as being so. If homosexual attraction exists biologically, it could be said to be natural.

Second, equating "natural" to "moral" is patently incorrect. Plenty of moral activities don't fit definitions of naturalness. Plenty of immoral activities do.

"Deviation" simply means not ascribing to your expectations. If you set your worldview to saying that love is good, and that homosexual love can be beautiful, then perception shifts. It then becomes deviant to show prejudice or hatred against homosexual love.

To me, hatefulness is immoral, and thus "deviance" comes from anti-social and misanthropic bigotry.

Eh, these are just your value judgements. You've started with the axiom that homosexuality and transgenderism are undesirable, so you categorise cultural trends that lead towards such things as problems.

If your axioms are different, your conclusions are different.

Essentially, all your arguments here are based on "homosexuality is bad". The arguments are circular.

One could equally construct arguments along the lines of "religion is bad". I wouldn't argue that, but asshats like Richard Dawkins might do. That would lead to the same sorts of arguments but with different targets. Religion is bad because it is a deviance. It is a harmful aberration. Therefore cultures that create religions are harmful. Etc. Etc.

It's the same close-mindedness from a different directions.

To me, as an atheist, the best part of human beings is Love. Love Thy Neighbour, and all that.

I believe Jesus said something similar.

1. Your right that people assume that Natural means good. Natural is all that isn't created by Mankind, it's whats created by the processes of forces in this world. Disease is natural, death is natural and human intelligence may be considered unnatural due to the complexity of the human mind. I don't see nature as a good thing, but rather as a grey area. In fact, it can't pick a side. You are also right that rape and senseless violence are seen as abominations in nearly all non-isolated societies, so I thank you for bring up the issues that challenge the narrative of nature's goodness. I will say that nature contradicts it's self. a disease is suppose to be in a certain being, but the troubles of the disease are not suppose to happen to the being. It is natural for us to kill a certain organism for our hunger, but it is unnatural for the creature to be twisted and reshaped in several forms. Perhaps Nature is a paradox.

2. I agree with this. However, I believe that some views are more useful than others. I do not think that my "Quasi-Conservatism" is useless. That is because I believe that transgenderism is used a certain way. It is use as a tool for certain doctors and psychologist to benefit from. Gender reassignment surgery is expensive, hormonal medicines are expensive, and it's always worth it for these people to get money to feed themselves and their families. So it's worth manipulating something that you don't actually care about . Transgenderism is also unhealthy in my opinion, as individuals are encourage to take leaps of faith. To go for the idealize form, no matter the consequence. Homosexuality is different, it becomes a community that you can use for your self gain. To call yourself an ally, and to appeal to the LGBT+ becomes a tool for you to sound , people could be guarded form criticism for their support of the group.

3. My view in a Nutshell is not that It's "bad", but rather that it has no use. I see no use in it. What does it bring to society ? why is it so important? I will thank you for reminding me of the "New" atheist Movement's stupidity. I will also say that I try to create secular arguments against the LGBT individuals that I debate. I use this secularism to make unique opinions, and to criticize atheistic and theistic opinions of my opponents.

The Catholic State of Eire

Context • Report