Evidence for God from Science

Beanybag wrote:

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?

So, your definition of sexual behavior being acceptable is if it causes no harm?

Because they do physical and emotional harm and are done without consent? I wasn't using "evil" in the biblical sense like they are sins. I just meant evil as in, they do harm against one's will.

Ivellious wrote:Because they do physical and emotional harm and are done without consent? I wasn't using "evil" in the biblical sense like they are sins. I just meant evil as in, they do harm against one's will.

If pedophila was consentual it would be ok? how do the dead consent in a necrophilac act? its dead, who cares? and if an animal lets a human get freaky with, isn't that consent ?

PaulSacramento wrote:

Ivellious wrote:Because they do physical and emotional harm and are done without consent? I wasn't using "evil" in the biblical sense like they are sins. I just meant evil as in, they do harm against one's will.

BY pedophila was consent is ok? how does the dead consent in a necrophilac act? its dead, who cares? and if an aninal lest a human get freaky with, isn;t that consent ?

Because they lack the ability to give consent. In the case of someone being drugged or misled, they would lack informed consent. This can be said to be harmful because it denies their proper freedom. A child cannot consent because the child does not have the ability to decide for itself, on issues such as sex, what is best for it. We know children can suffer psychological harm even if they consent to sex at a young age, so it is up to the adult to be responsible and not have sex with a child, whether or not the child consents. Same with the other example.

Necrophilia is a strange one in this list, because it wouldn't seem to be harming anyone, and a dead body isn't a person to whom consent would be needed. But we have laws to protect people's bodies from defilement for various reasons (wishes of the diseased and family). And surely it can't be very healthy to have sex with a decomposing body. I'm not sure this is much of an issue either as not many people want to have sex with dead bodies and getting people to okay others to have sex with their bodies post-mortem is probably not very common.

edit: To clarify, we don't let animals and children make decisions on things like contracts and sexual relations because they do not possess the capacity to reason well enough on those issues.

Pedophilia can't be consensual in my opinion because it involves the emotional manipulation of a fully grown adult with an innocent child. There is no consent there. I don't deny that occasionally there may be a legitimate case of a 16-year-old falling in love with a 40-year-old. Honestly, that is the age a girl is "primed" for sexual relations and such. But in that case, if it's truly love, it isn't pedophilia, and they can wait a couple years until they get together.

Necrophilia is a violation of one's body without consent. It can also cause emotional damage to a family that has had a grave desecrated for this purpose. While I do think a dead body is more symbolic than anything, it is still a violation of a body.

As far as animals are concerned, an animal cannot give consent. End of story. An animal is the emotional equivalent of a newborn baby. As such, it is a violation to take advantage of an animal's hormones to do such a thing. Just like a 13 year old girl might get the hormonal feeling of sexual attraction for a manipulative adult, an animal is being abused in the same fashion, in my opinion.

how do the dead consent in a necrophilac act? its dead, who cares? and if an animal lets a human get freaky with, isn't that consent ?

lol...actually I was just about to point the same thing, I mean no body technically gets harmed in a necrophiliac act, do they? People might take offence on an ethical or moral ground against it but you can't prove someone was harmed.

You guys realize where these strictly moral positions come from, right?

neo-x wrote:

how do the dead consent in a necrophilac act? its dead, who cares? and if an animal lets a human get freaky with, isn't that consent ?

lol...actually I was just about to point the same thing, I mean no body technically gets harmed in a necrophiliac act, do they? People might take offence on an ethical or moral ground against it but you can't prove someone was harmed.

In this case, I think the cost of denying the very few necrophiliacs out there the ability to have sex with dead bodies is outweighed by the emotional trauma that can be caused to family members. Maybe in some rare case, you could make a legal exception, but I see no reason to devote legal resources to allow people that luxury. They can just buy a life-like doll and pretend it's dead, or have their lover pretend to be dead if they really want to. Strange fringe case.

PaulSacramento wrote:You guys realize where these strictly moral positions come from, right?

I don't really, no.

The judeo-christian laws and ethic of the bible.

As far as animals are concerned, an animal cannot give consent. End of story. An animal is the emotional equivalent of a newborn baby. As such, it is a violation to take advantage of an animal's hormones to do such a thing. Just like a 13 year old girl might get the hormonal feeling of sexual attraction for a manipulative adult, an animal is being abused in the same fashion, in my opinion.

just a side point, but I don't think this is as simple as that, I mean, do animals give consent to sexual advances? in the wild they do.

neo-x wrote:

As far as animals are concerned, an animal cannot give consent. End of story. An animal is the emotional equivalent of a newborn baby. As such, it is a violation to take advantage of an animal's hormones to do such a thing. Just like a 13 year old girl might get the hormonal feeling of sexual attraction for a manipulative adult, an animal is being abused in the same fashion, in my opinion.

just a side point, but I don't think this is as simple as that, I mean, do animals give consent to sexual advances? in the wild they do.

One can argue that if an animal doesn't fight back, its consent.

Long-held beliefs, some spiritual, some social that pre-date the Bible? Necrophilia has been spiritually immoral for most of recorded history. Bestiality has been frowned upon for most of human history. Pedophilia is a relatively new concept, considering child-adult sexual relations have been a staple of human society for a long time.

One can argue that if an animal doesn't fight back, its consent.

So I can argue that if an emotionally-handicapped child lets me, I can have sex with her?

neo-x wrote:

As far as animals are concerned, an animal cannot give consent. End of story. An animal is the emotional equivalent of a newborn baby. As such, it is a violation to take advantage of an animal's hormones to do such a thing. Just like a 13 year old girl might get the hormonal feeling of sexual attraction for a manipulative adult, an animal is being abused in the same fashion, in my opinion.

just a side point, but I don't think this is as simple as that, I mean, do animals give consent to sexual advances? in the wild they do.

But it is as simple as that. Humans are vastly more intelligent that animals. Animals in the wild cannot be expected to be held to the same moral standards since moral responsibility is directly related to knowledge.

PaulSacramento wrote:One can argue that if an animal doesn't fight back, its consent.

No, because that doesn't change the fact that animals are simply not able to give the consent needed to enter into a relationship with a human like that.

edit: I'll put it like this. Is the involved party legally recognized as being able to sign a contract? No? Then they cannot give consent.

Beanybag » Wed Jun 27, 2012 2:23 am

neo-x wrote:
how do the dead consent in a necrophilac act? its dead, who cares? and if an animal lets a human get freaky with, isn't that consent ?


lol...actually I was just about to point the same thing, I mean no body technically gets harmed in a necrophiliac act, do they? People might take offence on an ethical or moral ground against it but you can't prove someone was harmed.


In this case, I think the cost of denying the very few necrophiliacs out there the ability to have sex with dead bodies is outweighed by the emotional trauma that can be caused to family members. Maybe in some rare case, you could make a legal exception, but I see no reason to devote legal resources to allow people that luxury. They can just buy a life-like doll and pretend it's dead, or have their lover pretend to be dead if they really want to. Strange fringe case.

Actually beany, I agree with you, just saying that we can not prove legally that the two entities involved were physically harmed in the act, as you implied earlier.

Beanybag » Wed Jun 27, 2012 2:27 am

neo-x wrote:
As far as animals are concerned, an animal cannot give consent. End of story. An animal is the emotional equivalent of a newborn baby. As such, it is a violation to take advantage of an animal's hormones to do such a thing. Just like a 13 year old girl might get the hormonal feeling of sexual attraction for a manipulative adult, an animal is being abused in the same fashion, in my opinion.


just a side point, but I don't think this is as simple as that, I mean, do animals give consent to sexual advances? in the wild they do.


But it is as simple as that. Humans are vastly more intelligent that animals. Animals in the wild cannot be expected to be held to the same moral standards since moral responsibility is directly related to knowledge.

No I do not think so, since if we are going to appeal to nature to justify homosexuality than why don't we take the rest of the morals as well from there as well. I mean this is valid point IMO.