Does Science show that Homosexual behaviour is immoral?

[McCulloch]

It has been argued that science shows that homosexual behavior is immoral. Anatomy and physiology and biology and DNA can help deescalate the words "ignorance" and "bigotry" about the sexuality of the human being. And of course sticking a penis into a rectum cannot find any scientific justification unless the person is mentally feeble, or a fumbly lover. In either case, science cannot support wrongdoings with the body's design. Someone putting their genitalia into the anal opening or into the mouth is empirically wrong. And female homosexuality is even more deviant to the norm. Any woman that ovulates is by physiology or anatomy or biology, heterosexual. Their body is expellinh an ovum that was not fertilized. Sexuality can only be defined by anatomy. That is perfect logic. Anything else is faith-based beliefs. And we all know that is a big no-no. [..] yet, when anyone thinks that the digestive tract is part of the sexual organs, it is laughable when they are protected by people who demand science be the final say in all matters of faith.

The argument runs like this:

1. Homosexual behavior is not procreative.
2. Non-procreative sexual behavior is not natural.
3. Unnatural sexual behavior is immoral.

therefore

• Homosexual behavior is immoral.

Is this argument true? Does science condemn homosexual behavior? The logic is flawless. If you accept these three premises, you must accept the conclusion. So, lets view each of the three points:

1. Homosexual behavior is not procreative. This premise is true. I am unaware of any anatomist, psychiatrist, biologist, anthropologist, sociologist, parent, gay activist or plumber who would argue against this premise.

2. Non-procreative sexual behavior is not natural. This premise is false. Psychiatry, anthropology and sociology all show that sexual behavior is far more than for procreation. Sexual behavior has social and psychiatrical functions in human society. This can also be shown in other primates. In nature, primates exhibit sexual behavior, even homosexual behavior, which is not procreative. Therefore, is is very clear to me that non-procreative sexual behavior is not necessarily unnatural.

3. Unnatural sexual behavior is immoral. I have not seen any support for this premise. Some natural sexual behavior can be shown to be immoral in human society. Forced sexual submission, rape, does occur in a number of mammalian species in nature including humans. It is immoral since it violates the will of one human by another. But, I have not seen any reasoning or logic which shows that unnatural sexual behavior is immoral. If someone were to show that unnatural sexual behavior is, in fact, immoral, then there might possibly be many common sexual activities which might be thus condemned. Could one say, "Lips are made for keeping food in your mouth when you chew, closing off the airway when you breath and forspeechh. Kissing is not natural. It is wrong to teach my children that kissing is a valid life choice. I don't want my children to learn to tolerate those left-leaning-bubble-headed people who have a kissing agenda."

Conclusion It cannot be shown that science proves that homosexual behavior is immoral.

[McCulloch]

Then, , murder, rape and child molestation is acceptable scientifically if homosexuality is an acceptable "norm."

I have not made any claim that science in any way defines morality. AlAyeti has and has not supported that claim.

The question begs a "Supernatural" answer. But can find definition easily within a scientific realm.

AlAyeti begging the question again.

Science indeed declares homosexuality as immoral if we use the only definition acceptable in natural sciences for "morality."

Science does not define morality. It never has and it never will.

Proliferation of the species. Literally "survival of the fittest" can only be defined in terms on a species level and not an individual level.

Yeah, so?

The word "moral" can only mean "speciation" in the animal kingdom.

Another leap of logic I am unable to follow.

Same-sex unions are worthless to survival of the species unless, as subordinated individuals used by the normal animals for the proliferation of the species. For example, there could be five homosexual musk ox defending the herd in their common defense posturing. They form a strong circle BUT around the young for proliferation of the species. The "normal" individual is the only "hope" of the musk ox. And every other animal species. Those that exhibit "queer" behavior are usually done away with at birth.

Simply not true.

(queer, kwîr)
adj. queer·er, queer·est
1. Deviating from the expected or normal; strange: a queer situation.
2. Odd or unconventional, as in behavior; eccentric. See Synonyms at strange.
3. Of a questionable nature or character; suspicious.
4. Slang Fake; counterfeit.
5. Feeling slightly ill; queasy.

That which proves too much proves nothing. AlAyeti's argument seems to lead to the gas chambers for queers, mental defectives and suspicious characters.

There is no cruelty in nature. There is no crime. There is no need for homosexuals other than an aberrant individual that has survived to adulthood and therefore having been classified as a non-breeder.

It probably has escaped AlAyeti's attention that the species Homo sapiens has been particularly successful at breeding. We need a few more non-breeders.

We show by this thread that the question asks for a supernatural answer to a natural question.

But there are no objective supernatural answers to natural questions. AlAyeti has repeatedly claimed that science defined morality, yet now he is looking towards the supernatural for refuge.

Sexual behavior is not sexuality. Sexuality can be defined only in scientific terms of species proliferation or aberrant behavior.

False dichotomy.

Two bonobos rubbing each others genitalia is immoral behavior because it wastes pro creative processes in Darwinian ideology.

Then why do they do it? Do bonobos require repentance and a sacrificial god?

[McCulloch]

In the human species of evolved apes, it seems that homosexuals are not tolerated in an instinctual response to their worthless and aberrant condition. What "parent" would want a homosexual offspring and therefore looking at the end of their DNA transfer.
It seems that humans can think about what is normal and healthy sexual conditions probably resulting from the empirical abilities of the brains of humans to see the truth in the homosexual condition.

Or parents are strongly influenced by society's persecution of homosexuals.

No animal species lower than the human allows Alpha status to a homosexual individual. They are always shunned or merely tolerated for the benefit of the breeders.

Irrelevant.

It does therefore seem to indicate that humans exist in an empirically proveable condition OUTSIDE of the natural world.
Or,
Yes, science has shown the "immorality" of the homosexual condition.

No, science has not shown this.

[McCulloch]

If we use nature as the guide then marginalizing homosexuals is perfectly natural. There is no such thing as "morality" in nature.

AlAyeti has advocated using nature and science as a guide to morality. This form of morality leads to his next conclusion.

You can try to deny that rape and murder, infanticide and molestation is acceptable in nature but that is denying facts.

Rape, murder, infanticide and molestation are all parts of nature. If you accept nature as a guide to morality, then these are all acceptable, in and of themselves. This is one of the reasons why, contrary to AlAyeti's assertion, that we are better off not simplistically looking to nature and science to answer the questions of morality.

Homosexuality has been declassified as a mental disorder by humans but the cause is not even close to being found in humans or (other) animals.

The cause is unknown, yet AlAyeti sees fit to condemn homosexuals as deviant mutants not deserving of being supported by the tribe.

Relegating or indeed promoting homosexuality as OK is going against nature. Aberration is a fact of nature no matter the emotionalism embraced by humans to see pity in the condition.

I have not yet seen the evidence that it is going against nature.

Logic and science dictate that we marginalize homosexuals or any other mutation that does not improve speciation to a place where science can monitor and limit its spread. If again, homosexuality is a birth defect, the cause itself should be identified and eliminated to insure a healthy species.

Who is to say that a certain percentage of homosexuals is not a part of a healthy species? Clearly, having us all be breeders is not such a good idea!

In the human species homosexuality is therefore identified as either a mental disorder or a physical deformity.

By religious bigots not by any modern scientist.

In either case, since "morality" doesn't exist in nature the way it has evolved in human society, we are left with either philosophical or metaphysical interpretation for the condition.

Agreed. I am glad that AlAyeti seems to have come to agreement with the point that science itself does not define morality.

Certainly, allowing homosexuals to choose their own course in life is not logical as nature teaches that the healthy and strong breeding pairs demand the place of leadership in the "natural order of things." Those relegated to a class of "the aberrated" have a definition they cannot escape if nature and the natural order are to be the guide.

This does not necessarily follow.

Morality has somehow found its way into only the human species. We do not observe even in dolphins and killer whales negotiating peace conditions.
We are left with a emotional quandary because if science is the guide to the condition of "homosexual," then there is no other definition than "wrong" being applied to those individuals that must carry within them the aberration that clearly is evident in the condition.

But science has not been shown to define homosexuality as being morally wrong.

The question posed in this thread has to deal with "science" which is or should be unemotional and impassionate.
Therefore if there is a comparable definition of "aberration" which indeed is a perfect definition in a natural view. When applied to the human way of understanding "right and wrong" - which indeed does not exist in nature - then it is comparable in the phrase "immoral behavior." As aberration carries with it a response to actions or stimuli in nature and what has come to be known as "human decency" in the human species.
The actions of homosexuals can be observed, classified and judged in the human sense in only one definition in the scientific view as incorrect actions.

AlAyeti is repeating his unsubstantiated view again. Science does not equate natural aberration with immoral behaviour. No science shows that the actions of homosexuals are incorrect actions. This is what AlAyeti was asked to show and he seems to be showing this truth by simply asserting it.

Anatomy, physiology and biology are once again the scientific arbiters of what is right and what is not in terms of the normaility of sexuality.

Science has never been and will never be the arbiters of what is right and what is not. AlAyeti himself seems to have admitted that with his appeal to the supernatural, but then seems to have forgotten this admission.

[AlAyeti]

McCulloch,

You squirmed like a fish out of water. It was enjoyable reading your emotionally charged rebuttal.

But this was supposed to be about science. Evolutionary and impassionate.

You built the strawman. How childish a one at that. You posed the question and supplied the narrow-minded and unscholarly answer to your own propped up premise.

I burned it down with absolute definition.

You are simply desperate to paint me as something I am not, because your argument was soundly defeated. Nature abhors a vacuum and two same-sex mates are indeed a vacuum. Pulling each of them into a certain evolutionary pit. You chose the weapons for this battle. Now pick up your feather duster and go home.

Natural Science indeed cannot speak on morality if proper words are used in proper context. Nature is heartless on individual matters but has a observable rationale in who survives and who doesn't. "Natural Selection,"is indeed the word to be used for "natural morality." Species are the only concern in natural processes. That's a fact. Your premise was built on your own weird assertion and narrow definition without the use of impassionate logic. Not very scientific a scientific question.

Science can violate more accurately "emotional morality" and can only answer human questions. Only certain kinds of humans can kill their healthy offspring and look at homosexuality as acceptable to species. Going against observable Darwinian principles. Animals do not build monuments to their loved ones, nor do the think about arresting perpetrators that eat them or their kind.

Your monster of nature supports killing the weak and feeble and useless. That is a "fact of nature."

Try not creating me as a strawman, I can reason and solve problems by looking at the data.

You tried to wall up definitions to show only one interpretation. But nature is very easy to see that its cruelty is meted out to aberrations, not civil rights.

Your nature cannot even see a homosexual. They are pathetically pushed aside for better breeding individuals. That's not a strawman my little adversary, that is natural selection. Your science not mine.

You demanded that I answer your challenge in scientific terms and I did just that. Nature is ruthless and blind to aberrations. Fit homosexuals can only survive by hanging around the herd or being fast runners. They will not be a part of future considerations because they do not breed, nor have any inclinations to do so. Evolution has already passed judgment on those kinds of individuals. I just read the words and apply the truthful meanings.

Try your ad hom attack in another thread. It belittles only you here.

Again, nature is silent and ruthless to aberrations that do not benefit the furthering of DNA transfer. You studied evolution I'm guessing?

You chose the question and you should have known the outcome.
You did what every secularist does. You got all emotional about the data when it didn't fit your preconceived answer.

You are wrong. Look at the hysteria of your rebuttal.

I am correct and used the tools given to prove my point.

Your question should have been: Does science have a voice about morality?

It does not, if "natural" processes are to be used as guidelines.

Are your homosexuals unreasoning beasts, with no ability to rationalize the condition they find themselves in or are the humans that can think and solve "problems."

Natural sciences it seems from empiricism of course would agree that there are still and always be aberrations of observable "norms."

Now, the question is: How does science come to the conclusion that homosexuality is "normal?" And of course the evidence through purely empirical Darwinian evolutionary processes, would show that "it" and "they" are not normal. Homosexual individuals in nature, have no voice as only procreative factors give worth to animals.

That's fact.

What happens to a baby animal in nature that shows signs of abnormality.

It may somehow survive to breeding age and either breeds its mutation into something that is an improvement and becomes a new species, or it dies out.

Homosexuals do not breed because of the condition you claim science has discovered that is to say. "Sexual Orientation," by the evidence you put forth proves only my position as valid. Scientifically.

You cannot have facts and not use them in a scientific arena.

Try building your "science" questions a little less emotional next time.

[melikio]

Science does not equate natural aberration with immoral behaviour. No science shows that the actions of homosexuals are incorrect actions.

McC got it right again.

-Mel-

[micatala]

As the assertion that science proves homosexuality is immoral, or at least that it proves those who oppose homosexuality are not bigoted and hateful, continues to appear in the Sodom thread, I am posting a reply of mine in that thread here, as this is the more appropriate thread to deal with the assertion.

Science describes and explains physical aspects of nature.

Morality deals with the question of right and wrong.

A description of nature does not have relevance to what is right or wrong. It might have relevance to what might be considered natural, or 'usual' but not to morality.




Following your logic, all of the following acts would be immoral because they are 'unnatural'.

Smoking: Clearly an unnatural use of both the mouth and lungs, not to mention harmful to the body.

Chewing gum: Also an unnatural act. No nutrition is gained from this activity, and since the mouth is 'designed' to help in the acquisition of nutrition, we would have to deem this activity immoral. More generally, any use of the teeth, saliva, esophagus, and digestive organs that does not result in nutritional gain to the body is immoral. Based on the rationale in the arguement you offer, science would deem it so.

Wearing glasses: As the nose is 'designed' to assist in breathing and smelling, and these are its only 'anatomical' functions, clearly using the nose to prop up an object must be immoral. Balancing spoons on your nose would be even a graver sin.

Any use of the feet or legs for purposes other than locomation, or otherwise assisting in the survival of the individual or procreation of the species would similarly have to be deemed immoral. Playing 'footsie' with your spouse would seem to be a particularly egregious example of immorality. Providing pleasure, but without the possibility of producing offspring or otherwise assisting in the survival of the individual or species, would be according to your argument, immoral.




Certainly many, many other examples could be provided. Even these show the absolute and utter ridiculousness of the assertion that science proves homosexuality is immoral.

[Cathar1950]

Take a look at this abhorrent abomination.
It is disgusting. It only works 50% of the time. I just hope it doesn’t do it the other 50% for pleasure.

The Bizarre Sex Life of an Orchid
http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20060621/ ... ofanorchid

First, the cap covering the male anther pops off, uncovering two pollen-holding pollinia attached to a flexible rod called a stipe. The stipe rises up before curving forward and downwards past the edge of the rostellum, a structure that separates the male and female parts of the orchid. Finally, the stipe curves back up and around the rostellum and inserts the pollinia into the stigma cavity.
While most flowers spread their pollen to other plants, the new orchid is extremely exclusive and only mates with itself. The self-pollination act was also successful in flower terms, producing fruit about 50 percent of the time.

[micatala]

Interesting example, Cathar.

So, if nature defines morality, this would imply having sex with oneself is moral?

[Cathar1950]

Why not micatala?
I wonder what Adam did before Eve came along except other animals.
After all it seems that they didn't work for him so God made Eve.
I am only following the story line.
I just thought I would lighten things up a little.

[melikio]

So, if nature defines morality, this would imply having sex with oneself is moral?

Right. Nature (especially one's own perception of what is "natural") doesn't necessarily define human morality.

Neither is "morality" for all, defined exclusively using the Bible.

For an individual person that is committed to a particular moral concept to regard some biblical or natural example is common, but it isn't necessarily applied as "universal" throughout all members of the human race.

What is "normal"? What is "moral"?

Anyone ever try to define those kinds of things?

The reason LOVE (relationship) is superior to LAW (religion and possibly science), is because it has the propensity to humanize (be compassionate) and flexible; that is something human beings need.

Of course not any and everything goes (in reality), but it's not hard to see where people either tend or want to paint/draw outside of the lines (especially those which appear to be drawn arbitrarily).

-Mel-