Evidence for God from Science

Regardless of how certain words make us FEEL, it is their definition that counts.

Again, how are you defining it? You have just listed many different definitions that all would mean different things with respect to morality. Of the different options that I list, which one were you advocating? None of them? Of the different options that YOU list, which one were you advocating as the definition? Any of them?

Beanybag wrote:Again, how are you defining it? You have just listed many different definitions that all would mean different things with respect to morality. Of the different options that I list, which one were you advocating? None of them? Of the different options that YOU list, which one were you advocating as the definition? Any of them?

I haven't mentioned morality at all, have I ?
I just listed the various definitions of Natural, Normal and abnormal and unnatural.
We seemed to be at odds with how we were defining them.

Regardless of how certain words make us FEEL, it is their definition that counts.

Then let us go off of these definitions.

nat·u·ral

existing in or formed by nature

If it is found in nature, it follows this definition. Homosexuality passes

based on the state of things in nature; constituted by nature

Homosexuality is found in nature, and therefore part of the "state" of nature.

of or pertaining to nature or the universe

in a state of nature

Not sure if these definitions are applicable.

nor·mal

1.
conforming to the standard or the common type; usual; not abnormal; regular; natural.
2.
serving to establish a standard.

Utilizing this definition, we are all not normal in some way or another. If not being normal is bad, then having a sexual fetish for feet is equally deviant as homosexuality, possibly more.

Psychology .
a.
approximately average in any psychological trait, as intelligence, personality, or emotional adjustment.
b.
free from any mental disorder; sane.

Once again, "average" is a terrible measure here. And we can readily establish that homosexuality is not a mental disorder or a symptom of insanity, I hope.

Biology, Medicine/Medical .
a.
free from any infection or other form of disease or malformation, or from experimental therapy or manipulation.
b.
of natural occurrence

Homosexuality passes.

It also passes as abnormal and deviant by those very definitions also.

Everything from these is based on averages. But again, normality and deviance are purely social constructs. If we lived in 1900, interracial marriage would have been considered immoral on grounds of being "unnatural" and "deviant from the norm."

Human beings are born with male and female sex organs and they naturally and normally procreate by using them.
That is the normal and natural state of human sexuality.
Anything outside that is abnormal.

Again, I am NOT make a moral statement on this, simply a biological one.

Ivellious wrote:Everything from these is based on averages. But again, normality and deviance are purely social constructs. If we lived in 1900, interracial marriage would have been considered immoral on grounds of being "unnatural" and "deviant from the norm."

You realized that, going on that view, ANY sexual behaviour is "natural" and "normal" is that wha you are saying?
And NO ONE is speaking about morals.
What makes homosexuality natural and pedophilia or necrophilia NOT?

PaulSacramento wrote:Human beings are born with male and female sex organs and they naturally and normally procreate by using them.
That is the normal and natural state of human sexuality.
Anything outside that is abnormal.

Again, I am NOT make a moral statement on this, simply a biological one.

Then what does that mean? It doesn't seem to have any meaning as to whether or not one ought or ought not to do something. Isn't that what we're discussing? If you're just stating a fact about nature, then statement made. Why then ought homosexual people not have homosexual relationships?

I will also provide the caveat that I don't think sex is as simple as to be only intended for procreation, even biologically speaking. There is much more to it than that. But even if there were not, the point stands.

PaulSacramento wrote:

Ivellious wrote:Everything from these is based on averages. But again, normality and deviance are purely social constructs. If we lived in 1900, interracial marriage would have been considered immoral on grounds of being "unnatural" and "deviant from the norm."

You realized that, going on that view, ANY sexual behaviour is "natural" and "normal" is that wha you are saying?
And NO ONE is speaking about morals.
What makes homosexuality natural and pedophilia or necrophilia NOT?

What makes them unnatural, then? Any sexual behavior can be said to be natural in some sense, can't it? What we're trying to discern is whether or not that has any bearing on what one ought to do.

No, quite the contrary. I'm saying that by definition every type of sexual behavior that isn't straight up missionary position intercourse between a man and a woman is "deviant" and "unnatural" by these definitions. My point is that by using definitions of deviance, you have to define the norm. And then everything that is not the norm is deviant, so basically by definition, yes, homosexual sex is deviant and unnatural. But the key iss that it isn't because we shouldn't do it or that it isn't right, but by definition it isn't "average" and thus it is unnatural.

Beanybag wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Human beings are born with male and female sex organs and they naturally and normally procreate by using them.
That is the normal and natural state of human sexuality.
Anything outside that is abnormal.

Again, I am NOT make a moral statement on this, simply a biological one.

Then what does that mean? It doesn't seem to have any meaning as to whether or not one ought or ought not to do something. Isn't that what we're discussing? If you're just stating a fact about nature, then statement made. Why then ought homosexual people not have homosexual relationships?

I will also provide the caveat that I don't think sex is as simple as to be only intended for procreation, even biologically speaking. There is much more to it than that. But even if there were not, the point stands.

PaulSacramento wrote:

Ivellious wrote:Everything from these is based on averages. But again, normality and deviance are purely social constructs. If we lived in 1900, interracial marriage would have been considered immoral on grounds of being "unnatural" and "deviant from the norm."

You realized that, going on that view, ANY sexual behaviour is "natural" and "normal" is that wha you are saying?
And NO ONE is speaking about morals.
What makes homosexuality natural and pedophilia or necrophilia NOT?

What makes them unnatural, then? Any sexual behavior can be said to be natural in some sense, can't it? What we're trying to discern is whether or not that has any bearing on what one ought to do.

First off I am trying to make the point that when I say homosexuality is unnatural or abnormal, WHY I say it and HOW I am using those terms- biologically.
Not in a moral sense.
I wanted to make that very clear since this is a very emotional issue, agreed?
Just because something happens in nature, doesn't mean it is part of the norm OR that it is an example to accept.
Intanticide is an example of this.

We can't say that society has no right to dictate what is normal or that just because something is in the minority it is not natural or normal, then go and say that rape, incest, pedophila, necrophila, bestiality, etc are wrong or abnormal or unnatural based on the very same criteria.
Can we?

The whole point being of course that the bible views ALL those acts as abnormal, unnatural and deviant and the bible is, based on what it views as normal and natural, quite correct.

rape, incest, pedophilia, necrophilia, bestiality and so on aren't illegal for being deviant or out-of-the-ordinary. The are clearly physically and/or mentally damaging to one or more parties and involve forcefully taking advantage of another human being (or animal) in the process. That has nothing to do with not being "socially acceptable." Yes, they are socially unacceptable, but it is because they are so evil, not the other way around.

PaulSacramento wrote:First off I am trying to make the point that when I say homosexuality is unnatural or abnormal, WHY I say it and HOW I am using those terms- biologically.
Not in a moral sense.
I wanted to make that very clear since this is a very emotional issue, agreed?
Just because something happens in nature, doesn't mean it is part of the norm OR that it is an example to accept.
Intanticide is an example of this.

We can't say that society has no right to dictate what is normal or that just because something is in the minority it is not natural or normal, then go and say that rape, incest, pedophila, necrophila, bestiality, etc are wrong or abnormal or unnatural based on the very same criteria.
Can we?

I don't think I've gotten very emotional, but I am no less confused.

The examples you give are indeed abnormal. But they also cause harm. I am trying to distinguish why we disallow certain things (why we ought not to do them) versus why certain things are simply abnormal. I don't think it is a direct relationship between a thing being abnormal and a thing being wrong - priesthood was the counter example I provided. Pedophilia, necrophilia, etc. are wrong not because they are abnormal. The two characteristics are incidental. It may be that abnormal things might tend to be wrong, and vice versa (although many things that are abnormal are not right or wrong, just abnormal, so hard relationship to make), but that doesn't have any bearing on whether or not homosexuality is wrong. Unless there is some causative element that would let us form the argument Unnatural -> therefore wrong, it doesn't make sense to talk about whether something is natural or not.

Things that cause harm ought not to be done. Things that are abnormal don't really have a bearing on whether or not we ought to do them. Why then do we talk about the abnormality of a thing?

Ivellious wrote:rape, incest, pedophilia, necrophilia, bestiality and so on aren't illegal for being deviant or out-of-the-ordinary. The are clearly physically and/or mentally damaging to one or more parties and involve forcefully taking advantage of another human being (or animal) in the process. That has nothing to do with not being "socially acceptable." Yes, they are socially unacceptable, but it is because they are so evil, not the other way around.

And what do you base your view that they are "evil"?