A J Philips:

Who said anything about homosexual behaviour being either good or bad? I simply asked the question what is its natural purpose? The appeal to nature fallacy is about making judgements – I am not making judgements.

Don’t you agree that the natural purpose of heterosexual sex is the procreation of the species? What is the natural purpose then of homosexual behaviour? It is a simple enough question. Why does it occur in the ‘hundreds of different species’? If it has evolved then to what purpose has it evolved?

Surely if it is so natural then it must have a clearly defined purpose in the same way as heterosexual behaviour does.

Yuyutsu:

Homosexual behaviour is not the ’least of our worries’ if we are spending millions of taxpayer dollars and countless hours of politicians time debating whether to change laws predicated on the reasonableness of that behaviour.

If homosexual behaviour is unreasonable then so too are homosexual relationships and thus homosexual marriage.

Phanto,

<<Who said anything about homosexual behaviour being either good or bad?>>

No-one. That’s why I also noted that it’s fallacious to say that something is right or wrong according to whether or not it is natural.

<<I simply asked the question what is its natural purpose?>>

Yes, and with the assertion that one must be found before same-sex marriage can be legitimate or should be legislated. You are basing what should or should not be on whether or not it has a natural purpose.

“The government should not change the Marriage Act to include homosexuals until it can be shown that homosexual behaviour makes sense.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17607#311328)

“Makes sense” is a pretty broad and ambiguous standard. Luckily you clarify what you mean in a later post…

“If something is natural then it follows that it makes sense to act in accord with that nature.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17607#311359)

So you are at least committing the Naturalistic fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy).

<<Don’t you agree that the natural purpose of heterosexual sex is the procreation of the species?>>

Ultimately, yes. Pleasure and mateship could be other purposes.

<<Why does [homosexual behaviour] occur in the ‘hundreds of different species’? If it has evolved then to what purpose has it evolved?>>

I linked you to many articles that attempt to answer this question (maybe not with regards to the actual sexual acts, but not every behaviour has to have an evolutionary purpose - the orientation, however, likely does). Some of them are free for you to view if you’re genuinely interested in this topic.

<<Surely if it is so natural then it must have a clearly defined purpose in the same way as heterosexual behaviour does.>>

Why? Why can’t it just be a symptom of another evolutionary function? Domestic violence doesn’t have a purpose as clearly defined as heterosexual sex, yet it still has evolutionary roots believed to stem from the alpha male’s desire to ensure the paternity of the offspring that he invests his energies into the rearing of.

You are framing your questions to draw a particular answer that supports your already-held view on same-sex marriage.

Dear Phanto,

I do not believe that politicians, or anyone else for that matter, have a right to legislate reasonable behaviour, thus preventing others from behaving unreasonably. We have free choice to act reasonably or otherwise: the only time government may interfere is when our actions hurt or endanger others.

If you were consistent in believing that the state should regulate on the grounds of reasonableness, then even if you truly believed that procreation is reasonable (which is not), you would have to prohibit sex in infertile/old heterosexual couples as well.

Taking it a step further, ANY sexual behaviour is unreasonable, even if it results in procreation, because coming to think of it, sooner or later one's progeny will die out (even in the unlikely case humans escape the solar system before the sun turns into a red giant, in time all protons and neutrons which build our bodies will decay and disperse).

In fact, I cannot find a single behaviour that is reasonable, as whatever we do will eventually come to naught!

Such is the nature of reason. Had you been arguing on the grounds of goodness instead, then yes, it would lead to a fertile discussion because indeed some deeds are good, others bad - but even then I do not recognise the state as an authority worthy to determine which is which.

You may be critical, as you appear to be AJPhillips, of the anti homosexual argument, but why not, with some equality, be equally critical of the valence effect used by the pro homosexual arguments flourishing.

The valence effect, so rigoursly used by the gay lobbyists, argues a diminished responsibility for negative effects of homosexuality...EG: the spread of AIDS preceded by HIV.

The valence effect postures the argument thus: AIDS is not spread by homosexual acts anymore than HIV/AIDS is currently spread by intravenous injections among drug users! (Vacuous argument)!

But that argument, (containing some current-day relevance), was not always true though was it? And also washes over the fact that HIV/AIDS is not a dead issue, but has the propensity to spread freely, as a consequence of anal sex!

Do we ignore the facts of the past, and allow a captured young generation to consider homosexuality, to have had no dark past, and promote a risky and very unnatural lifestyle, by introducing gay marriage as a legitimiser to an unnatural act?

A J Philips:

“That’s why I also noted that it’s fallacious to say that something is right or wrong according to whether or not it is natural.”

I never said it was right or wrong either so why point me in the direction of that fallacy?

“Yes, and with the assertion that one must be found before same-sex marriage can be legitimate or should be legislated. You are basing what should or should not be on whether or not it has a natural purpose.”

I am basing what should or should not be on reasonableness. Governments should make changes to legislation because it is reasonable to do so. This is a principle which should undermine all decisions otherwise government would be utter chaos. Changing legislation to include same-sex couples in the marriage act presumes that such relationships are reasonable and that also presumes that homosexuality or orientation is reasonable which presumes that homosexual behaviour is reasonable. What makes homosexual behaviour reasonable? Heterosexual behaviour is reasonable at least some of the time whereas there is nothing to indicate homosexual behaviour is reasonable any of the time.

Heterosexual behaviour has a purpose that can be observed in nature. It produces a result which is what is intended. If we cannot interpret the intent of nature in this fundamental area then what is the point of interpreting it at all? Any decisions we make based on nature become ludicrous. We should build our houses facing the west so we can watch the sunrise?

No government decisions should be made on the basis of homosexual behaviour being reasonable until such time as it is shown that it is reasonable. All you are telling me is that it exists, it is evolutionary, widespread in other species but you cannot tell me why it is reasonable to indulge in homosexual behaviour.

diver dan,

When arguing against same-sex marriage, the hygiene/disease argument doesn’t work because, by that token, you’re fine with lesbian marriage and gay male marriage for those who do not practice anal sex. Similarly, you would be against the marriages of heterosexual couples who engage in anal sex. Whether or not some acts, practiced by some homosexuals, are more capable of spreading disease than others, is not the result of the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality and nor is it indicative of it.

Phanto,

It makes no difference whether you are asking if homosexuality “makes sense” or is “reasonable” (whatever that would mean). The fact that the criteria by which you think these should be determined is to what extent they are natural or have a natural purpose renders your argument fallacious.

<<What makes homosexual behaviour reasonable?>>

The fact that it would be unreasonable to ignore, and expect others to ignore, a sexual and emotional attraction to the same sex and spend a life alone or with someone whom one is not interested in.

Same-sex marriage is reasonable because it is discriminatory to treat some relationships and family types as not deserving of the value so many place on marriage, and marginalisation has never had a positive effect on any society.

Same-sex marriage is reasonable because equal treatment should be granted until it proves to be a problem, not withheld in case it becomes a problem or can be proven to not be a problem.

<<Heterosexual behaviour has a purpose that can be observed in nature.>>

So does/did rape, wife beating, ephebophilia and even hebephilia. Your criteria is flawed.

<<[Heterosexual behaviour] produces a result which is what is intended.>>

So does homosexuality, apparently. Or at least it’s not detrimental (why is that not your criteria?).

<<If we cannot interpret the intent of nature…>>

You’re welcome to ponder nature’s intent here. According to the Google Scholar link I provided earlier, you’re not the only one trying to do this. Your thinking becomes fallacious, however, when you confuse sex with sexuality as if the former is the total sum of the latter.