Thursday, December 04, 2008

What *Really* Isn't Natural

Okay, so I haven't posted in a while... Shrug. Here's something anyway.

Fundamentalists often say things like "Homosexuality isn't found in nature, and is therefore wrong." Aside from the fact that homosexuality most certainly does occur in nature (Let me Google that for you), and aside from the fact that some of us consider humans part of nature, and aside from the fact that whether or not something occurs in nature isn't actually a test of its morality by almost any standards, I'd like to follow this fundamentalist train of thought a little bit.

If we use their definitions and assumptions. we find that there are many other examples of human behaviour that don't occur in nature, such as building churches, reading Bibles, and donating 10% of our income. By their own logic, these behaviours are unnatural and are therefore also wrong. And let's not even get into money, cooking, computers, cars, medicine, science, or politics. Since these are all human inventions, they are all clearly wrong by this particular set of fundamentalist "logic".

So in closing, if you happen to believe that homosexuality is wrong because it's unnatural, I cordially invite you to live consistently with your views and stop cooking, buying, voting, and doing anything else that animals don't do.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think this is what bugs me the most about people who enjoy debating but don't take the time to learn the rules. Anyone who says homosexuality is not found in animals has obviously not done their research.

Homosexuality is rampant in animal society. Fo animals who have sex for pleasure it is practiced right along side hetro sex. The only difference lies in how it is documented. Many scientists have tainted the study of homosexuality with there own views on the subject so that when an animal is displaying any sign of homosexuality it is recorded as "Showing signs of dominance". Even animals that do not have sex for pleasure partake in homosexual practices.

Where I agree with your post as a whole I think the process of getting from point a to point b was a little convoluted.
Animals display human characteristics more often then not. Penguins only mate with one other penguin their entire life and go into a deep depression when their mate dies. In the wild there are wars for territory there are alliances between animals and there is a defined hierarchy.

The only differences between us and feral beasts are opposable thumbs and emotions. Opposable thumbs are what lead to invention and science and emotion is what leads us to God.

10:12 AM  
Blogger Gideon Humphrey said...

I am not at all convinced that animals don't have emotions, in fact, I'm pretty sure they do.

Also, if you're going to claim that science leads people to God, you really ought to give the evidence you think is there. Most people, religious or otherwise, don't feel that religion is scientifically verifiable.

10:24 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry I meant that the opposable thumbs, invention, and science as one thought and emotion and god as another.

The actual process by which people turn to god is admittedly more complex than simple emotion. I think to pinpoint an exact reason to why people are religious would be impossible. One of my hypothesis is that people need a beacon of sorts to direct all there "wishes" and dissatisfaction too. There was also a great man who had a great quote which I have forgotten of course that went along the lives of if any man truly did not believe in even the possibility of a higher power he would be crushed by the weight of all the responsibilities that he has in life including his own happiness. Perhaps God is nothing but a projection of a father figure to which we can blame all our downfalls, celebrate all our achievements and who can take the brunt of responsibility off our shoulders.


You can't prove religion without some semblance of science but the very introduction of science into religion destroys the entire purpose of religion anyway.

10:55 PM  
Blogger Gideon Humphrey said...

Ah, the multiple ands confused me...

Some people need a beacon, others seek the truth.

"if any man truly did not believe..."

But we have no responsibilities except our own happiness, and if we fail that we can always commit suicide. Having said that, I'm sure you're right that the idea of God is used by some to avoid feeling responsible for things.

"the very introduction of science into religion destroys the entire purpose of religion anyway."

Only if the purpose of religion is dishonest or useless, which it probably is.

11:07 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home