Believe It! #fundie

Believe It! #fundie forums.narutofan.com

(Homosexuality is in fact, natural)

Irrelevant. What occurs in nature is not the definition used to define what is natural for humans. We mean what is natural for humans is what is good and productive for humans. What animals do is irrelevant, since animals do many sick and barbaric things as well. Therefore, homosexuality is not natural for humans.

109 comments

old comment by Horsefeathers

"Irrelevant."

Because it shows your point to be incorrect?

"What occurs in nature is not the definition used to define what is natural for humans."

Obviously. Humans being wholly and completely unnatural and all that.

"We mean what is natural for humans is what is good and productive for humans."

Neither "good" nor "productive" have anything to do with something being "natural". Are various parasites "good" or "productive" to have? Aside from that, you've not defined "good" and "natural" so we don't know what you consider to be productive for humans.

"What animals do is irrelevant, since animals do many sick and barbaric things as well."

Another twit that is in dire need of a history book.

"Therefore, homosexuality is not natural for humans."

Unfortunately for you all evidence points to it being not only "natural" for a certain percentage of the human population but likely nature's way of population control without losing the benefits of having a large population.

old comment by Osiris

Believe It! is making a valid, if inarticulate and emotional point. What comes naturally to one species does not mean it should apply to another. For instance to the bonobo monkies having sex is a socially acceptable way to great another bonobo monkey. That doesn't mean it's socially acceptable for humans.

What Believe It! either fails to recognize or does so intentionally is that there is mounting scientific evidence which shows that sexual persuasion might be something you're born with. Thus it's natural. It's just that in this case natural is a very ambiguous word. The the post BI is responding to the the poster meant that it's something you're born with while to BI it means something that happens in the wild.

old comment by Brennin

"'pieces of shit' we may be, but if you don't see what's wrong with saying something that occurs in nature is unnatural, that is YOUR problem. You're the one to be pitied here, brennin, everyone can see how mentally weak you are, no matter how much in the wrong you are proved, you're only interested in finding some inplausible escape (natural law!) instead of ADMITTING THAT YOU'RE WRONG. The true god of a fundie is his own ego."

Bitch please. The concept of natural law has been around at least as long as Aristotle and it still has currency. Men and women have complementary generative organs so, in that sense, homosexual acts are very unnatural. Other animals (and fstdt contributors, who exist on the same intellectual plane) lack the native intelligence to consider this but humans do not.

old comment by Osiris

@Brennin
You're operating under the same assumptions that fundies do; sexual preference is a choice and any sexual preference other then straight is a hideous sin against nature now matter many times it actually crops up in nature. I do believe that engaging in homosexual sex, or any sex for that matter, is a choice. You never have to do it, people do it because they choose to. However sexual preference, the chemical reactions that go on in your brain that determine how badly you want to hit that, aren't a choice. Sexual preference is a complex behavior and no one has ever woken up one morning and thought: "Gee today I feel like being gay" and suddenly they were gay. Forever. If it can be scientifically concluded that sexual preference and orientation is the result of chemical imbalances or reactions then yes, it is natural. Meaning that it is the result of a biological accident, not that it goes against some imaginary natural law, which was invented in a more primative time of human understanding when we thought that there was a natural order and balance to everything. If anything modern biology has discovered that species are bound by no such idea, that species will and can develop in any way that is beneficial to them.

old comment by moose

Yes, but humans also have the ability to adapt to their environment and change their ways of thinking if they turned out to be flawed. Aristotle, for instance, talks about the classical elements of earth, wind, fire, water, and aether; a theory which we now know to be false and was even speculated to be false by Democritus (who was, by the way, born 76 years before Aristotle.) Similarly, just because natural law has been around for a while doesn't mean it can't be replaced by more positivist ideologies. It is a man-made conclusion that the differing sexual organs of males and females necessitates in every single case that there should be no homosexuality.

old comment by Zipperback

Brennin lets see if anything in the dictionary matches up with the definition of you put forth from the perfectly functioning one in your head.

Natural:Definition:

1. of nature: relating to nature
natural history NOPE

2. conforming with nature: in accordance with the usual course of nature
natural signs of aging NOPE

3. produced by nature: present in or produced by nature, not artificial or synthetic
a natural sapphire NOPE

4. of physical world: relating to the physical rather than the spiritual world
striking natural features THAT'S A SUPER NO in this context.

5. like human nature: in accordance with human nature
It's only natural that they should want to be independent. AGAIN A MASSIVE NO

6. innate: inborn, rather than acquired
lots of natural charm DEBATABLE, BUT PROBABLY NO

7. being something by nature: having a particular character by nature
a natural leader SEE #6

8. not affected: behaving in a sincere and unaffected way and not affected or adopted for a special purpose
a natural manner NOPE

9. like real life: representing something in a way that seems true to life LET'S SEE... NO

10. biological: related by blood, rather than adoption
her natural mother IRRELEVANT TO TOPIC

11. not sharp or flat: describes a note in music that is neither sharp nor flat IRRELEVANT TO TOPIC

12. without sharps or flats: describes a musical key or scale containing no sharps or flats ECT.

13. without joker or wild card: not made using a joker or a wild card ECT.
a natural flush

14. illegitimate: born of unmarried parents ( archaic )
a natural child ECT.

noun (plural nat·u·rals)

Definition:

1. somebody with innate skills or abilities: somebody who has seemingly innate skills or abilities
a natural at bowling

2. music musical sign canceling sharp or flat: a sign placed before a musical note in order to cancel a previous sharp or flat

3. music note affected by natural sign: a musical note affected by a natural sign

4. card games gambling stake-winning result or combination: a result or combination in some card and dice games such as craps and blackjack that immediately wins the stake

5. colors light color: a nearly white color with tints of gray, yellow, or brown, like that of undyed fibers or ya

SINCE THE DISCUSSION IS ABOUT WHETHER IT'S NATURAL, NOT WHETHER THEY'RE "A NATURAL" ALL NOUN DEFINITIONS CAN ALSO BE CONSIDERED IRRELEVANT.

Perhaps by a "perfectly functioning" dictionary "in your head" you refer to a small pocket dictionary that you've crammed into your mouth to gum on like an infant. Additionally you'll note that none of these definitions match that of Believe It!'s.

Now if you go into the subject of "natural law" well first you're escaping the sinking ship of failed argument into the lifeboat of tangent. Second, look at all the definitions of "Natural Law".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

Just look at that mess. Natural law is more of a buzzword than any coherent and unified philosophical principal. A number of concepts of natural law are based on divine mandate, i.e. what god "naturally" intended from us which, in an example of scathing historical irony, means that some versions of natural law are supernatural in their axiomatic basis. The concept of natural law is so shotgunned that I can use selective interpretations to show that homosexuality is both natural and unnatural due to conflicting concepts between classical, theological and post-classical versions of "natural law".

Trying to tie in the statement that "homosexuality is not natural" into some interpretation of natural law is as valid an argument as saying that "homosexuality is not natural" because it doesn't involve a poker hand devoid of wild cards. Now that I've torn down your veil of pretentious tangential spitballing I suggest you get that dictionary in your head check out as it seems to be cutting off the bloodflow to your brain's cognitive centers.

Stop trying to tell people that everything is a metaphor, reference or allusion to something else and that stupid shit is smart if you make enough vague, obtuse connection because nobody's buying it. The gig's up Brennin. STFU time.

old comment by Illuminatalie

I forgot, this wasn't about brennin anyways, it's about Believe It! I guess, it boils down to

--->"We mean what is natural for humans is what is good and productive for humans".

When you get to DEFINE words like that, I guess anything can be made to make sense. (At least, I'm assuming that's a made-up definition... Hahaha.)

"What animals do is irrelevant, since animals do many sick and barbaric things as well."
I actually agree with that. I wouldn't use the anthropomorphic terms 'sick' and 'barbaric' but absolutely, society is the OPPOSITE of 'law of the jungle'.

"Therefore, homosexuality is not natural for humans."
Adding the gibberish of your own redefined words makes anything parse, as proper grammar.

old comment by

Natural law would be to act according to your instinct. Well, for those who have homosexual feelings.............now, jokes aside, natural law is a kind of antithetic concept. A law is, by it's all nature, conventional. Even when we formulate say a "law" in physics, what we do is encoding a physical reality. Concerning society, man, no law is "natural". Otherwise, we would kill each other, eat no matter what, no regulation for work..................got the point?. In the past, homosexuality was rejected for the same reason, say, left handed, people with six fingers or any kind of abnormality were outcasts. It was a pre-scientific era where they didn't know exactly how nature worked so, what they called "natural law" is a very simplistic view of reality. By the way, many societies rejected celibacy in males for the same reason that they rejected homosexuality, coitus interruptus and masturbation. Because they thought that they were "killing" the seed of life. We have long debunked that "seed of life" theory.

old comment by Riin-thrall

@Brennin: "Men and women have complementary generative organs so, in that sense, homosexual acts are very unnatural."

Boy, it's a good thing that the male equivalent of the G-spot isn't stimulated via the anus or anything, otherwise your argument would fall apart.

Oh, hang on a sec.

Yes, your argument rests upon the assumption that reproduction is all that sex is good for, which is demonstrably false and quite remarkably shallow.

While it's true that the fact that something occurs in nature doesn't preclude it from being immoral (like, say, eating our young), the fact that it's being performed by consenting adults and isn't hurting anybody does. If - as you do - you know that homosexuality isn't a choice yet you still say they shouldn't be allowed to be with one another, all you're doing is trying to prevent two adults who love each other from being with the person they love. And that makes you a heartless bigot.

Also @Brennin: "Other animals (and fstdt contributors, who exist on the same intellectual plane)"

Oh, ZING!

...And I'm still convinced that BI! is an elaborate parody.

old comment by Brennin

"Boy, it's a good thing that the male equivalent of the G-spot isn't stimulated via the anus or anything, otherwise your argument would fall apart.

Oh, hang on a sec."

That is a bullshit objection Riin-thrall. Not only do I have my doubts about the universality of that alleged "g-spot" (or p-spot, as the case may be) but just because something is pleasurable does not mean humans are designed/suited/etc. for it. A good example is sniffing glue. (Which, judging from the intellectual content of the average fstdt comment, is quite fashionable among fstdt contributors.) Sniffing glue causes euphoria but it is absolutely deleterious to ones health.

"Yes, your argument rests upon the assumption that reproduction is all that sex is good for, which is demonstrably false and quite remarkably shallow.

While it's true that the fact that something occurs in nature doesn't preclude it from being immoral (like, say, eating our young), the fact that it's being performed by consenting adults and isn't hurting anybody does. If - as you do - you know that homosexuality isn't a choice yet you still say they shouldn't be allowed to be with one another, all you're doing is trying to prevent two adults who love each other from being with the person they love. And that makes you a heartless bigot."

Where bigot is defined as "one who is obstinately and zealously attached to an opinion that you do not entertain."

old comment by Wandering Discordian

Brennin: FSTDT has some of the stupidest, most closed minded and intellectually void posters I've seen outside of 4chan. Not all of them, but sometimes, the responses are more painful to read the the quote they're responding to.
Natural law, to my knowledge, is the set of rules you have when you imagine a human completely without society. How he (emphasis on he, as most historical natural law theorists where highly, highly misogynistic) behaves is Natural Law, for better or worse. The problem is, this state has never existed, and is not very relevant to political/philosophical discourse because 1) it is entirely hypothetical and 2) we can't make judgments of how things should be from how things are. That's fallacious right there. Any critique of Liberalism will have far more (and better) things to say about all this then I.
And regarding your response to Riin-thrall, as much as I might be sympathetic to your definition of bigot, you didn't actually address Riin's refutation of what you said, you just threw an insult. That is not an effective argument strategy, and I'd be interested to hear your rebuttal.

old comment by Solid Squid

I'm a little curious about what natural law it is that Brennan claims homosexuality violates. If he is referring to the Catholic view of natural law, then what you do is supposed to be virtuous in both thought and action, using the old definitions of Virtues. This would mean that homosexuality is not in violation, except maybe of temperance, but that would apply equally to heterosexual sex.

If he is referring to the secondary precipets of natural law, then these are not set in stone and vary on a case by case basis. As such they cannot be used to make the blanket statement that "homosexuality is wrong". The reason being that you could quite easily argue that homosexuality is good because it creates stronger social bonds while at the same time acting as a form of population control in a society where the numbers are starting to get out of hand, as well as removing the stress that repression would build up. Equally, discrimination against homosexuality is wrong because it weakens social ties and creates a taboo against an act which can be benificial to society.

old comment by Illuminatalie

It's true that other peoples' sex lives are not exactly the centre of christian theology. (Note the sinful americanized spelling I just used :) There are several reasons why churches make this a top priority :

1) Interesting to talk about. Sins of the spirit are boring and EVERYONE is guilty of them. Sins of the flesh are much more interesting to talk about, because they are 'controversial'. I mean, would you rather talk about the need to forgive even people who have done you serious wrongs, or what disgusting things some people get up to, swinging on the chandeliers and so forth.
2) 'Go forth and multiply' is very important for any church / religious power, because it makes sure that your side has the BIGGER ARMY. And God always has to go to war eventually, if your side keeps growing and growing.

old comment by Pedantic Twit

"That is a bullshit objection Riin-thrall. Not only do I have my doubts about the universality of that alleged "g-spot" (or p-spot, as the case may be) but just because something is pleasurable does not mean humans are designed/suited/etc. for it. A good example is sniffing glue. (Which, judging from the intellectual content of the average fstdt comment, is quite fashionable among fstdt contributors.) Sniffing glue causes euphoria but it is absolutely deleterious to ones health."

That might be a good analogy, if you know, having your prostate stimulated caused fucking brain damage. Prostate stimulation causes no harm, so how can you possibly say that humans are neither designed nor suited for it?

old comment by Illuminatalie

"Oh, so it's essentially hypocrisy and group think."
On the level of the neurotic fundies that post their crap here, yes. The ones that 'believe' it - I believe that deep down, fundies know they're playing a game of pretend, but psychological barriers have been put up to stop them from examining things too closely, and keep them in the pen with the rest of the sheep. On the other hand, the people formulating the teachings generally know what the end result will be, they have power and don't intend to relinquish it. Doesn't require a worldwide conspiracy, just humans being humans, and playing to win.

OK, you're right, centre is the 'correct' way to spell it! I guess I'm not as far gone as I thought.

old comment by

Glue sniffing, as far as I'm concerned, has a pleasurable effect because it contains a substance that provokes a kind of state of somnolence, not glue itself. Many similar techniques are used for therapeutical and medical use and not as dangerous as the mentioned one. With the g-spot, things are a little more complicated. Pleasure in sex is necessary to guarantee the sexual act and, therefore, reproduction. It's a kind of pleasure so attached to the organs that enable reproduction that you can't get it in any other way, or at least, and that's the clue, associated with any other activity and it's, therefore, an instinct. The problem of the G-spot, in men, that's it, is that you can't provoke such an intense pleasure, that encourages to repeat the sexual act, without doing activities that are not attached with reproductive sex. In the natural world, if taken to the letter, it would be a bad design and the proof that they're not that "complementary". But eppur se muove. And nonetheless, it exists.

old comment by Nyuushin

using such an argument as "natural law" is not a very well-founded logical approach. in the first place, natural law is not an agreed-upon form of statutes, and every different culture, religion, and time period has twisted and changed the "natural law" to basically mean whatever it is they want it to mean, couching their words with things like "good", "productive", "moral", "divine". I'm sorry, but stringing along adjectives followed by pithy "rules of engagement-esque" platitudes is worse than useless.

and again, as others have pointed out, you can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't point to animals/nature as a stepping off point for human behavior, and then turn around and say "BUT ONLY IN CERTAIN CASES, SINCE HUMANS ARE SPECIAL!" (apologies for caps). while our intellgence certainly gives us a huge evolutionary, and social boost above our counterparts, we are neither immune nor wholly different from any of them in any meaningful way. we love, hate, fuck, cry, roll around, laze all day, kick the fuckshit out of each other, and in most every physical way completely resemble other animals around the world.

as humans, the only truly defining factor is that we have more grey/white matter in our skulls than all other animals, which would naturally make one become a little more intelligent, and consequently result in more advanced thoughts than just "I'm hungry", "I'm horny", "I'm scared", or "I'm angry". but those simple thoughts are still around, and without them we'd have nothing to build on. to divorce ourselves from this building block activity with such impunity is ludicrous.

which is not to say that I wish or think or believe we're no better than animals, because there's no need to think of being "better" than anyone else, whether they're human or another animal. The end point I'm making is that A) we're really no different from other animals, so stop putting us into some "special" category with seperate rules for us, and B) to believe that we wholly know what is "natural" for us, and to pick and choose from the animal kingdom what we do or don't want to be "natural" for us is just as absurd, when the only basis given for said "natural-ness" is empty morality and "divine truth".

As for the above quote in particular? "What is good and productive for humans" is something that provides happiness and/or satisfaction without detriment to the rest of the species....which, as far as anything has shown, homosexuality is by far one of the most natural things you can do!

old comment by Wandering Discordian

Aw, Brennin seems to have run out of arguments. And to think he was showing signs of going somewhere, too, before his dreadful rebuttal to Riin-thrall.

Regarding Mindfuckery: If all you see is an inane prank, then either it failed, or it was never intended to be part of OM. A good mindfuck involves those on the receiving end either never realizing they were messed with but thinking it was something else going on entirely, or not figuring out they were messed with until well after the fact, usually after some revelation of some sort. One that satisfies neither of these criteria is just a prank, perhaps done in the name of OM, perhaps not, but either way, it fails to capture the spirit of the Operation. And honestly, doing so is very, very difficult. There's a reason most good OM agents only act a handful of times a year.

Believe It! #fundie forums.narutofan.com

109 comments

Confused?