Odunnu:

A male friend of mine lost his job 3months ago because he refused to fork the DG of a ministry!

Name and shame this DG.

Lets know who the gay is.

Sagamite, this is directed specifically towards you as I've observed a lot of your posts on this board (especially those regarding the issue of homosexuality) and I find yoru perspective on the issue to be simultaneously interesting and baffling.

For the most part, I see the primary (perhaps the only) "valid" motivation for homophobia to be faith-based. But you don't seem to be a religious man, So what then is your beef?

You've said that it is "unnatural", Fair enough, that is also an oft-floated rationalization for opposing homosexuality. But just so that we're standing on the same ground, can you give me a basic explanation of what exactly constitutes a "natural" or "unnatural" sex act and why this disgusts you to the extent that it does?

joepineapp:

Sagamite, this is directed specifically towards you as I've observed a lot of your posts on this board (especially those regarding the issue of homosexuality) and I find yoru perspective on the issue to be simultaneously interesting and baffling.

For the most part, I see the primary (perhaps the only) "valid" motivation for homophobia to be faith-based. But you don't seem to be a religious man, So what then is your beef?

You've said that it is "unnatural", Fair enough, that is also an oft-floated rationalization for opposing homosexuality. But just so that we're standing on the same ground, can you give me a basic explanation of what exactly constitutes a "natural" or "unnatural" sex act and why this disgusts you to the extent that it does?

Here you go:

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-279591.1024.html#msg4859553

Please make sure you delve deeper by clicking on the link in Point B in the link above.

Okay, I've read both of your posts and I can see that at its basics, your argument is built on the challenge to demonstrate that homosexuality exists in nature rather than just being a contrivance of decadent human society.

Fair enough.

I'd like to take you up on that challenge, but even before we get there I find a few troubling assumptions in your fundamental argument.

Quoth you:
Homosexuality is immoral because it is unnatural!

The notion that there exists an inherent link between that which is moral and that which is natural is a bit of a logical leap, is it not? There are a whole host of social behaviors humans engage in on a regular basis that could be characterized as "unnatural" because they don't occur in the animal kingdom. For instance, the drive to alter the consciousness with substances such as pharmaceuticals or even just alcohol.

Now you yourself may not drink alcohol, but would you similarly argue that it is immoral and thus worthy of criminalization strictly on those grounds?

It's hard for me to get past this fallacy to even argue it. Naturalism is not the same as morality, and it definitely is not the same as legality. It could be argued that it is actually the natural instinct of the male of our species to mate with as many females as he can. However, our society deems it immoral, and in the case of actually marrying them, illegal.

But taking it back to the sexual realm, though, human beings engage in a range of sexual behaviors such as oral and a n a l sex. These practices were once widely criminalized as "sodomy" or "unnatural sex acts",  and some of these laws are still on the books, though generally not enforced because most people don't find them as offensive anymore. I'm just curious to know if you also think people should be imprisoned for blowjobs and punany-llcking.

joepineapp:

Okay, I've read both of your posts and I can see that at its basics, your argument is built on the challenge to demonstrate that homosexuality exists in nature rather than just being a contrivance of decadent human society.

Fair enough.

I'd like to take you up on that challenge, but even before we get there I find a few troubling assumptions in your fundamental argument.

Quoth you:
Homosexuality is immoral because it is unnatural!

The notion that there exists an inherent link between that which is moral and that which is natural is a bit of a logical leap, is it not? There are a whole host of social behaviors humans engage in on a regular basis that could be characterized as "unnatural" because they don't occur in the animal kingdom. For instance, the drive to alter the consciousness with substances such as pharmaceuticals or even just alcohol.

Now you yourself may not drink alcohol, but would you similarly argue that it is immoral and thus worthy of criminalization strictly on those grounds?

Even if such is not immoral, it is idoitic in my view to put in one's body something the body does not need and can harm it.

But you are talking about consumption. Consumption is a natural occurrence and if an animal gets any substance that gives it a high and it is to its taste, the animal will take it and will continue taking it with relish. So I disagree that it does not occur in the animal world. It does not occur BECAUSE of lack of access (I have not yet seen any dog that can wrap up a joint of spliff and smoke the shyt), not lack of desire.

joepineapp:

It's hard for me to get past this fallacy to even argue it. Naturalism is not the same as morality, and it definitely is not the same as legality.

Act counter to naturality is a basis of immorality.

joepineapp:

It could be argued that it is actually the natural instinct of the male of our species to mate with as many females as he can. However, our society deems it immoral, and in the case of actually marrying them, illegal.

You are driving against traffic on the expressway on this.

My saying something is unnatural and hence immoral is not a basis to justify the banning of something natural.

joepineapp:

But taking it back to the sexual realm, though, human beings engage in a range of sexual behaviors such as oral and a n a l sex. These practices were once widely criminalized as "sodomy" or "unnatural sex acts",  and some of these laws are still on the books, though generally not enforced because most people don't find them as offensive anymore. I'm just curious to know if you also think people should be imprisoned for blowjobs and punany-llcking.

Existing application of unsensible laws due to wrongful categorisation by some medieval foools is not the basis to argue that other unsensibilities, i.e. legalisation of homosexuality, should be added to the books.

You exert so much energy Sagamite.

Odunnu:

You exert so much energy Sagamite.

That is how I am in bed as well, babes. [Gives his sexy "come over here" look]

Who can confirm this?

Name your. . .conquests lemme verify

Odunnu:

Name your. . .conquests lemme verify

You don't need dem say, get down to London tonight and do your research.

get up to Nigeria if you are that energetic

Odunnu:

get up to Nigeria if you are that energetic

They wouldn't let me back into UK after getting into you, I no get papers. 

then i dont think you are that energetic anymore.

Odunnu:

then i dont think you are that energetic anymore.

[flash=400,350]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ol9SrhBOTN0[/flash]

whats that?

What is what?

You can't view the video clip?

no. Sorry you wasted that. kant view nada

When you get to an access medium that allows you to view clips, you will see it.

Otherwise go to youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ol9SrhBOTN0

^^^ lmao. . . Trojan army huh ?

I'll use my Lappie when i get back to town.
I'm at my family house and using the desktop

Sagamite:

Even if such is not immoral, it is idoitic in my view to put in one's body something the body does not need and can harm it.

But you are talking about consumption. Consumption is a natural occurrence and if an animal gets any substance that gives it a high and it is to its taste, the animal will take it and will continue taking it with relish. So I disagree that it does not occur in the animal world. It does not occur BECAUSE of lack of access (I have not yet seen any dog that can wrap up a joint of spliff and smoke the shyt), not lack of desire.[/QUOTE]

That's not entirely true, as there are naturally occurring fauna with inherent psychoactive properties: peyote, poppy, various strains of mushroom and herbs, etc. Yet animals do not seek these out.

The question here though, is not whether it is "idiotic" for human beings to make use of these substances, but whether or not it is immoral. If you said that homosexuality were idiotic because it's unnatural, I would understand your case better.

But what I think is more important to understand your definition of "immoral"

[quote author=Sagamite link=topic=562778.msg7316163#msg7316163 date=1292090014]Act counter to naturality is a basis of immorality.

To a certain extent, our concepts of morality are indeed informed by our natural instincts, but human civilization has attained a level of sophistication as to have risen above base instincts, to question them and to tame them. One could even argue that a tacit goal of a much of our technological and social achievements has been to fight against nature.

At one point, it was considered natural for a man to kill another man who possessed a mate that he desired. It was considered natural for a man to forcibly abduct a female to be his mate. Animals do engage in this kind of behavior, but as humans we found that in our efforts to build a more elaborate social structure, this behavior inevitably led to outcomes that were disruptive to social adhesion (eg wars). So we developed moral guidelines that frowned upon such behavior.

That might seem to be a little bit of a digression, but I only stated the above to illustrate that the "natural = moral ,ergo unnatural = immoral" rubric is too simplistic of of an equation to apply to our modern society.

In any case, I'm interested in your reasoning here:

Sagamite:
Existing application of unsensible laws due to wrongful categorisation by some medieval foools is not the basis to argue that other unsensibilities, i.e. legalisation of homosexuality, should be added to the books.

Why do you say that oral and a n a l sex between persons of opposite genders was "wrongfully categorized" as sodomy or unnatural sex?

By your definition, MouthAction IS unnatural. The male sex organ was probably not designed to be inserted into the mouth, and it serves no real reproductive application. People do it it, though--and have done it for millennia--because they found that it is pleasurable.

Where is the line drawn? Why is one "unnatural" act acceptable to you, to the extent that you regard the previous criminalization of it as "wrongful categorization" while others are not?

From what I can tell, it's simply that homosexuality is distasteful to you on a personal level. And that is perfectly fine. But just say that, rather than trying to costruct a universal moral case of it based on a selective reading of human behavior.

Nice seeing Sagamite bashing gays, albeit some massive cover up.

googles:

^^^ lmao. . . Trojan army huh ?

That is how it feels, babes.

Mobinga:

Nice seeing Sagamite bashing gays, albeit some massive cover up.

Is MobinGay talking?

Sagamite:

That is how it feels, babes.

I know how it feels now, remember ?

Sagamite:


Is MobinGay talking?

Rotfl.

I love the gay thing because only soccer and gay rights unites Nigerians. Ethnic issues will automatically become secondary as long as the next guy will help them push their argument through. I do miss Bawomolo because all these guys here are yet to give Sagamite a run for his money in this argument.

joepineapp:

That's not entirely true, as there are naturally occurring fauna with inherent psychoactive properties: peyote, poppy, various strains of mushroom and herbs, etc. Yet animals do not seek these out.

Their lack of seeking it out is not proof they will not take something that makes them high. It is not right for their palate. Do humans take poppy or coca?

No! Most of the stuff humans take is PROCESSED before it metamorphose into what they can consume to get the feel they want.

If you can get an Hyena that can mix dat shyt up to a mixture that makes it feel iyre and does not smoke it, then you have proven to me that animals wouldn't consume psychoactive stuff.

Even if you repeatedly give alcohol to dogs, they might get addicted.

joepineapp:

The question here though, is not whether it is "idiotic" for human beings to make use of these substances, but whether or not it is immoral. If you said that homosexuality were idiotic because it's unnatural, I would understand your case better.

It is consumption. Consumption is a natural thing.

To me it is a bad habit. There is no basis to discuss its naturality.

joepineapp:

But what I think is more important to understand your definition of "immoral"

My understanding of immoral in this context is anything that is not natural and is disgusting or harmful.

joepineapp:

To a certain extent, our concepts of morality are indeed informed by our natural instincts, but human civilization has attained a level of sophistication as to have risen above base instincts, to question them and to tame them. One could even argue that a tacit goal of a much of our technological and social achievements has been to fight against nature.

At one point, it was considered natural for a man to kill another man who possessed a mate that he desired. It was considered natural for a man to forcibly abduct a female to be his mate. Animals do engage in this kind of behavior, but as humans we found that in our efforts to build a more elaborate social structure, this behavior inevitably led to outcomes that were disruptive to social adhesion (eg wars). So we developed moral guidelines that frowned upon such behavior.

That might seem to be a little bit of a digression, but I only stated the above to illustrate that the "natural = moral ,ergo unnatural = immoral" rubric is too simplistic of of an equation to apply to our modern society.

There you go again trying to using the expressway comparison.

My saying something is unnatural and hence immoral is not a basis to justify something natural that is harmful.

joepineapp:

In any case, I'm interested in your reasoning here:

Why do you say that oral and a n a l sex between persons of opposite genders was "wrongfully categorized" as sodomy or unnatural sex?

By your definition, MouthAction IS unnatural. The manliness was [b]probably [/b]not designed to be inserted into the mouth, and it serves no real reproductive application. People do it it, though--and have done it for millennia--because they found that it is pleasurable.

Where is the line drawn? Why is one "unnatural" act acceptable to you, to the extent that you regard the previous criminalization of it as "wrongful categorization" while others are not?

From what I can tell, it's simply that homosexuality is distasteful to you on a personal level. And that is perfectly fine. But just say that, rather than trying to costruct a universal moral case of it based on a selective reading of human behavior.

Probably? 

The problem of homosexuality is the "desire". It is dsyfunctional just like the "desire" by a man to want to have sexual intercourse with a child that has not reached sexual maturity or one like Mobingay that wants to ish a dead body.

The "DESIRE". Dsyfunctional!

The desire of one man seeing another man prancing around like a women and want to ish him, is mentally sick. It is a desire that is dsyfunctional.

googles:

I know how it feels now, remember ? 

Rotfl.

And I was being a gentleman and didn't want to mention names before. 

Odunnu, even her skin was glowing after I finished. Her hair also had more superior texture. 

Sagamite:

There lack of seeking it out is not proof they will not take something that makes them high. It is not right for their palate. Do humans take poppy?

No! Most of the stuff humans take is PROCESSES before it metamorphose into what they can consume to get the feel they want.

If you can get an Hyena that can mix dat shyt up and does not smoke it, then you have proven to me that animals wouldn't consume psychoactive stuff.

Even if you repeatedly give alcohol to dogs, they might get addicted.

Come on, Sagamite,  That is really evasive reasoning.

We're talking about what actually occurs regularly in nature. Animals do not, for the most part, take psychoactive substances to get high as humans do. If they take them, they will probably experience the mind-altering effects, but it's unlikely that they would enjoy those effects in the way humans do (because their bodies cannoy not process them in the same way,  dogs, for instance, really can't digest alcohol).

But that's not the point. The question is whether the fact that animals do not do this automatically makes it immoral for humans to do so.

I know you're saying it's consumption. But there are different kinds of consumption.

Animals consume primarily consume matter that gives them nourishment.

Alcohol consumed by humans has no real nutritional value.

So yes, it's all consumption,  But to what purpose?

It would be easy to argue that since non-nutritional consumption of any kind is not immoral, neither is non-procreational sex,  of any kind. "Straight" or "gay."

At the very most, you could say it is "idiotic" or "a bad habit," but you still have not presented a persuasive case for its immorality.

Sagamite:
My understanding of immoral is this context is anything that is not natural and is disgusting or harmful.

I think the highlighted text above is key here. Because you have confirmed my suspicion that the root of your entire argument is based solely on your personal taste, preference and prejudice.

Let me tell you a little something about my own taste, preference and prejudice: I have never chewed chewing gum in my life. I hate the stuff. Can't stand the smell of it. Hate to be around people when they're chewing it. Won't kiss someone if they've got it in their mouth. I hate the way people dispose of it under chairs and tables and on the ground, for me to step on. Just thinking about touching it makes me want to vomit.

I think it's dumb. I don't see the point of spending hours chewing something that you're not going to swallow and is not providing any useful sustenance to the body. And I think it's bad for the teeth. To me it is not natural, is definitely disgusting and is, on a low level, harmful.

However, it would be a tough row to hoe were I to argue that chewing gum is immoral on that basis.

Homosexuality is disgusting to you. That's okay,  But repugnance is  a relative value and there are others who do not find it disgusting at all. So why does your personal taste become the yardstick?

(I know you will probably want to retort that some people also do not find necrophilia and pedophilia disgusting, but hopefully before you do so you will reflect and realize why that is a false analogy.)

Never mind that you have not explained why homosexuality is "harmful."

Sagamite:
The problem of homosexuality is the "desire". It is dsyfunctional just like the "desire" by a man to want to have sexual intercourse with a child that has not reached sexual maturity or one like Mobingay that wants to ish a dead body.

The "DESIRE". Dsyfunctional!

I don't see how that changes my point one bit. You're saying it's the "desire" to commit certain "unnatural" sex acts that is dysfunctional and immoral rather than the act itself.

So let me reword: Is the "desire" to stimulate the g e n i t a l s with the tongue immoral?

joepineapp:

Come on, Sagamite,  That is really evasive reasoning.

We're talking about what actually occurs regularly in nature. Animals do not, for the most part, take psychoactive substances to get high as humans do. If they take them, they will probably experience the mind-altering effects, but it's unlikely that they would enjoy those effects in the way humans do (because their bodies cannoy not process them in the same way,  dogs, for instance, really can't digest alcohol).

But that's not the point. The question is whether the fact that animals do not do this automatically makes it immoral for humans to do so.

I know you're saying it's consumption. But there are different kinds of consumption.

Animals consume primarily consume matter that gives them nourishment.

Alcohol consumed by humans has no real nutritional value.

So yes, it's all consumption,  But to what purpose?

There is nothing to come on about it.

The drugs are not part of our diet, it is our ability to think advancely that has resulted in our ability to transform things to substances we get "pleasure" from.

What makes you sure if animals can manufacture some version that gives them their own idiosyncratic high, they will not?

I am not a biologist so I will ask you to explain how dogs can not digest achohol?

Even if they can not, that does not mean there are not some "high" substance they can get used to and enjoy consuming.

joepineapp:

It would be easy to argue that since non-nutritional consumption of any kind is not immoral, neither is non-procreational sex,  of any kind. "Straight" or "gay."

No, it is not easy.

Consumption = natural, certain desires = natural, some desires = dsyfunctional as they are not natural.

joepineapp:

At the very most, you could say it is "idiotic" or "a bad habit," but you still have not presented a persuasive case for its immorality.

Huh?

I never said it was immoral in the first place.

joepineapp:

I think the highlighted text above is key here. Because you have confirmed my suspicion that the root of your entire argument is based solely on your personal taste, preference and prejudice.

Let me tell you a little something about my own taste, preference and prejudice: I have never chewed chewing gum in my life. I hate the stuff. Can't stand the smell of it. Hate to be around people when they're chewing it. Won't kiss someone if they've got it in their mouth. I hate the way people dispose of it under chairs and tables and on the ground, for me to step on. Just thinking about touching it makes me want to vomit.

I think it's dumb. I don't see the point of spending hours chewing something that you're not going to swallow and is not providing any useful sustenance to the body. And I think it's bad for the teeth. To me it is not natural, is definitely disgusting and is, on a low level, harmful.

However, it would be a tough row to hoe were I to argue that chewing gum is immoral on that basis.

Homosexuality is disgusting to you. That's okay,  But repugnance is  a relative value and there are others who do not find it disgusting at all. So why does your personal taste become the yardstick?

(I know you will probably want to retort that some people also do not find necrophilia and pedophilia disgusting, but hopefully before you do so you will reflect and realize why that is a false analogy.)

Never mind that you have not explained why homosexuality is "harmful."

Nah! You are wrong.

The root of my entire argument is NATURALITY, not disgust. Disgust is the result of it not being natural.

I did not say homosexuality was harmful. _{At least not to me. Maybe to MobinGay when he gets his arse bastardised when cruising in parks with fellow gays.} I just used the "or harmful" to cover the bases for other deviants like paedophiles.

joepineapp:

I don't see how that changes my point one bit. You're saying it's the "desire" to commit certain "unnatural" sex acts that is dysfunctional and immoral rather than the act itself.

So let me reword: Is the "desire" to stimulate the focal places with the tongue immoral?

Let me make it clear again: The desire is unnatural, hence dsyfunctional and makes the act immoral.

If anyone likes let them even telephatically stimulate focal places. As long as the stimulation is spurred by desire for the opposite gender, it can not be immoral.

Sagamite:

There is nothing to come on about it.

The drugs are not part of our diet, it is our ability to think advancely that has resulted in our ability to transform things to substances we get "pleasure" from.

What makes you sure if animals can manufacture some version that gives them their own idiosyncratic high, they will not?

I already pointed out that there are naturally occurring fauna with psychedelic properties: certain strains of mushroom, for instance. Or peyote. No further processing than simple ingestion is necessary to get high off of them.

But I don't want to dwell too long on that as it was simply illustration.

The point is that human beings do a lot of things that animals do not, and most of our ideas of their "morality" are based on the extent to which they may or may not disrupt society as a whole.

And I just don't see how consensual homosexual activity is hurting anybody.

Sagamite:

Consumption = natural, certain desires = natural, some desires = dsyfunctional as they are not natural.

The problem we're encountering here is that you continue to disguise subjective, emotional opinions as objective analysis and when I attempt to interrogate the integrity of your logical process by drawing parallels and syllogisms, you fall back on this "expressway" retort.

So yes you can say that homosexual desire is "dysfunctional," but until you can present some solid support for this statement (either in the form of concrete scientific evidence or a sound and consistent logical argument), I remain unswayed. What you are doing is simply repeating the same thing over and over, but that is no substitute for proper systematic analysis.

Sagamite:
Huh?

I never said it was immoral in the first place.

You said homosexuality was immoral because it supposedly (and I have not even gotten around to unpacking that particular assumption) does not occur in the animal kingdom.

I pointed out that other behaviors do not occur in the animal kingdom, and as such, must be immoral by your definition.

It's simple logic and I believe you know what I am talking about.

Sagamite:
Nah! You are wrong.

The root of my entire argument is NATURALITY, not disgust. Disgust is the result of it not being natural.

And does that change the fact that, as I said, disgust is a relative value? It disgusts YOU, yes. It might not disgust others in the same way.

But bringing us back to our MouthAction parallel, I know many people who are disgusted by it. So it must also be unnatural and thus, immoral. However, you seem to approve of it.

Why?

This is all I am illustrating: the fact that your argument is not consistent at all.

It has nothing to do with what is natural. It's really about your personal distaste for it.

And like I said that is fine. But just admit that this is what it is about. You are working backwards, trying to reverse-engineer arguments to justify your personal distaste. But there are way, way too many holes in your construction.

Sagamite:

Let me make it clear again: The desire is unnatural, hence dsyfunctional and makes the act immoral.

Unfortunately you are making nothing clear. You are only arguing by repetition, hoping that if you say it enough it will be accepted as truth.

joepineapp:

I already pointed out that there are naturally occurring fauna with psychedelic properties: certain strains of mushroom, for instance. Or peyote. No further processing than simple ingestion is necessary to get high off of them.

That is just weak argument.

So because man does not take poppy or coca raw, that means man is not interested in psychedelic things?

As I said, because something is not to an animals palate (unprocessed) does not mean an animal will not take it if done right.

You want to tell me if you pour a bottle of Baileys for a dog or cow, it will not guzzle it with relish? Whether its system can process it or not?

joepineapp:

But I don't want to dwell too long on that as it was simply illustration.

The point is that human beings do a lot of things that animals do not, and most of our ideas of their "morality" are based on the extent to which they may or may not disrupt society as a whole.

And I just don't see how consensual homosexual activity is hurting anybody.

I never said human beings do not do a lot of things animals do not do.

What I said was: There is nothing, absolutely nothing, that we do that is natural that you will not find some other animals doing. Be it sweating, communication vocally, running, being emotional, being jealous, being albinos, producing deformed offspring, having fear etc. But you will not see animals having gays, so being gay is not natural and is dsyfunctional.

That was my argument not what you alluded to wrongly by some queer reverse parallels.

joepineapp:

The problem we're encountering here is that you continue to disguise subjective, emotional opinions as objective analysis and when I attempt to interrogate the integrity of your logical process by drawing parallels and syllogisms, you fall back on this "expressway" retort.

Twisting my arguments with illogical parallel implications is not what I accept as "interrogating the integrity of my logical process". To me that is strawman's argument, hence I have to keep correcting you.

If you feel it is subjective, prove it wrong.

joepineapp:

So yes you can say that homosexual desire is "dysfunctional," but until you can present some solid support for this statement (either in the form of concrete scientific evidence or a sound and consistent logical argument), I remain unswayed. What you are doing is simply repeating the same thing over and over, but that is no substitute for proper systematic analysis.

WTF are you talking about?

I gave you one RIGHT FROM THE TIME you challenged me. I thought I told you to read it all?

joepineapp:

You said homosexuality was immoral because it supposedly (and I have not even gotten around to unpacking that particular assumption) does not occur in the animal kingdom.

I pointed out that other behaviors do not occur in the animal kingdom, and as such, must be immoral by your definition.

It's simple logic and I believe you know what I am talking about.

Amsorry!!!

I don't think you comprehended my points to you well.

I said homosexuality was [b]unnatural [/b]because it does not occur in the animal world. How did you substitute unnatural with immoral? Comprehension?

Show me where you (according to you) "pointed out" behaviours that are NATURAL, I repeat N-A-T-U-R-A-L, that does not exist in the animal kingdom.

And you will be telling me that your are giving logical arguments? By equating my CLEAR point of natural to equal immorality? You don't know the difference between the 2 terms?

joepineapp:

And does that change the fact that, as I said, disgust is a relative value? It disgusts YOU, yes. It might not disgust others in the same way.

But bringing us back to our MouthAction parallel, I know many people who are disgusted by it. So it must also be unnatural and thus, immoral. However, you seem to approve of it.

Why?

This is all I am illustrating: the fact that your argument is not consistent at all.

It has nothing to do with what is natural. It's really about your personal distaste for it.

And like I said that is fine. But just admit that this is what it is about. You are working backwards, trying to reverse-engineer arguments to justify your personal distaste. But there are way, way too many holes in your construction.

I think we are getting to the root of the problem in your arguments. Comprehension.

How did you arrive at the conclusion that anything disgusting must be unnatural? Because I said something unnatural is disgusting?

joepineapp:

Unfortunately you are making nothing clear. You are only arguing by repetition, hoping that if you say it enough it will be accepted as truth.

I am being as clear as the finest, most beautiful Pacific Beaches of the finest islands on Earth. I am only practicing repetition because you are not comprehending my clear points and keep on twisting or giving ridiculous parallels like the loads I have corrected in just this post. What else am I suppose to do?

Sagamite:

That is just weak argument.

So because man does not take poppy or coca raw, that means man is not interested in psychedelic things?

As I said, because something is not to an animals palate (unprocessed) does not mean an animal will not take it if done right.

You want to tell me if you pour a bottle of Baileys for a dog or cow, it will not guzzle it with relish? Whether its system can process it or not?

Look. I said I'm not that interested in lingering on this point, but I think you are deliberately misconstruing things here.

If you pour Bailey's for a dog, it will probably drink it if it enjoys the flavor.

However, if the dog becomes sick from drinking Bailey's and the dog is able to make the connection between the Bailey's and the sickness (through however many cycles of exposure to alcohol followed by sickness), the dog will come to avoid drinking the Bailey's.

But that is neither here nor there.

Sagamite:

I never said human beings do a lot of things animals do not do.

What I said was: There is nothing, absolutely nothing, that we do that is natural that you will not find some other animals doing. Be it sweating, communication vocally, running, being emotional, being jealous, being albinos, producing deformed offspring, having fear etc. But you will not see animals having gays, so being gay is not natural and is dsyfunctional.

And what I said is that this argument just doesn't hold water.

Apart from the fact that your presumption that animals "do not have gays" is questionable--and I will attempt to deflate that particular notion if needed, but so far it hardly even seems necessary because the entire logical structure built around it is flawed on the most superficial level.

The question still remains how "not natural" automatically equals "not moral." I don't know how you can consistently fail to see the problem with that equation when a good portion of our social mores and the laws based on them are designed specifically to corral our "savage" nature.

The point, which YOU are not comprehending, is that nature != morals.

If you give birth to  child today and leave him to grow up with no moral guidance or instruction whatsoever, just leave him to follow the instincts of "nature," is it not more than likely that this child will grow up to be an immoral person, probably even a criminal?

Why? Because morality is a human, social construct. "Nature" is not moral. It is amoral, possibly even anti-moral.

So (to spell it out for you) equating that which is "natural" with morality and that which is "unnatural" with immorality is fallacious.

This is no strawman that I am hammering away at. I am questioning the very basis of your assertion that homosexuality is "immoral." I'm trying to understand what compass you use to determine this, and I am finding that "nature" is an unreliable one.

If you want to say that the issue is the "naturality" and not the morality, then fine,  Simply withdraw your statement that "it is immoral because it is unnatural" and we can work from there, focusing on the issue of "naturality" and why it is so important in a society full of artifice.

(I've noticed that you're already de-emphasizing the immorality issue and switching to "dysfunctionality," so I guess we're already on the way there.)

Sagamite:

If you feel it is subjective, prove it wrong.

Prove what wrong? The fact that you personally are disgusted by homosexuality?

There's no need to prove that, as I believe it is true.

But since you are attempting to use your own personal disgust to arbitrate morality, the burden of proof rests on you to prove that your individual disgust is relevant to society as a whole.

Sagamite:

WTF are you talking about?

I gave you one RIGHT FROM THE TIME you challenged me. I thought I told you to read it all?

And this is precisely what we are talking about, is it not? I found your "Homosexuality is immoral because it is unnatural" thesis to be problematic on a logical lvel and you have thus far failed to defend, or avoided defending it?

I don't see why this is so difficult to understand. All I ask you is to show me how "naturality" informs morality, and you tell me that it is "disgusting" (a subjective opinion, just like my feeling that chewing gum is gross).

I would recommend that you simply jettison the "unnatural, ergo immoral" aspect of your argument as you have shown yourself to be ill-equipped to defend it. If you drop that, we can deal with the whole "naturality" thing (as well as your disgust), but so far your argument is hamstrung by your insistence upon forcefully imposing a moral agenda onto it.

And no, the problem is not that I am not comprehending your points. I understand perfectly what you are saying, and I can see that when you get past all h fancy language, it comes down to the fact that you personally (and yes, many other people too) find homosexuality distasteful.

Sagamite:

Show me where you (according to you) "pointed out" behaviours that are NATURAL, I repeat N-A-T-U-R-A-L, that does not exist in the animal kingdom.

I didn't. Because that is not what the argument called for.

We're actually in the throes of trying to understand what "natural" means. We're working with the definition you provided: "That which occurs in the animal kingdom." Fine, I'll accept that definition and work with it.

Where the complication sets in is that I pointed out that there are a host of human behaviors that don't occur in the animal kingdom and as such (by our definition), are not "natural." Yet, you don't seem to subject them to same moral censure to which you do homosexuality.

THAT is the argument here. Understand that.

Again, it is about whether human behavior has to be "natural" to be moral, and whether the fact that something is NOT "natural" automatically makes it immoral.

Like I said already, you'd be better off just abandoning the moral component of your argument and working on the rest of it.

Sagamite:

And you will be telling me that your are giving logical arguments? By equating my CLEAR point of natural to equal immorality? You don't know the difference between the 2 terms?

I think we are getting to the root of the problem in your arguments. Comprehension.

How did you relate to anything disgusting must be unnatural? Because I said something unnatural is disgusting?

I didn't say that anything disgusting must be unnatural, nor did I suggest that you did so.

I just noticed that when I asked you what made something immoral, you said "anything that is not natural, and is disgusting or harmful."

Okay, granted,  I suppose you did offer the "disgusting" and "harmful" as additional properties, but my point was that if I were to follow your logic, I could similarly declare that chewing gum was immoral because it is disgusting to me.

Sagamite:
I am being as clear as the finest, most beautiful Pacific Beaches of the finest islands on Earth. I am only practicing repetition because you are not comprehending my clear points and keep on twisting or giving ridiculous parallels like the loads I have corrected in just this post. What else am I suppose to do?

well, you could start by elucidating the whole "natural = moral, unnatural = immoral" point, but I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for you to do that. . .