Comment Round-up! (part 1)

I’ve decided to respond to all comments from the user styled “Doc” in this post because I’ve taken so long to get to answering them that my 30 day window is drastically narrow.  With this, Doc has another 30 days to reply (should he choose to do that).

First up, my post on fallacious arguments for homosexuality, here’s Doc’s reply to my previous comment:

“Since we’re on this topic, let me ask you a question that I promised myself I would ask the next idiot that said homosexuality is okay because animals do it: ”

I didn’t say that. I asked you if “done in nature” is your definition of “natural.” If it is, then “It’s unnatural” doesn’t hold up, since it is done in nature. Of course, like a typical theist, you twist that into, “If animals do X, it’s okay for humans to do X,” because you’re a theist, and logic is hard.

So, no answer forthcoming.

“There’s no broad definition of natural that’s going to work for everything.

No, you can’t run away from your own charge. You say homosexuality is wrong because it’s unnatural. In order to make this claim, you must define what you mean by unnatural.

It’s true, though: there isn’t a broad definition that’s going to work for everything.  As I apply below, common sense is going to have to apply.  Unfortunately, I gave an answer that a utilitarian would be proud of, and I think that school of thought is totally bogus.  Which means that we’re going to have to refine things a bit.

“. The vagina, on the other hand, is like a hole. An inverse cylinder. When the man gets horny, the penis grows in length. When the woman gets horny, the vagina becomes as slippery as Doc’s arguments, and deepens. And, at that point, the penis can be inserted into the vagina with relative ease, and I know many women who will tell you that that first thrust just takes your breath away.”

Hey, what do you know, EXACTLY like a penis and an anus! There is physical stimulation that occurs with the prostate in the male’s anus, you know. Any gay man (or woman who likes anal) will tell you.

So, the anus gets wet and lengthens when the man/woman gets excited?  Interesting.  Oh wait–it doesn’t.  So it’s not exactly like that.  Your analogy, therefore, fails.

“Nope, and I explained what I meant by natural”

Ah, “unnatural sexual action” is your explanation?

So why is that wrong? Is it equally as wrong as male/female anal or oral sex? Or masturbation? Or use of condoms?

Saying “It’s unnatural” doesn’t really mean anything if you’re trying to say how it’s wrong.

What I did wrong was that I should have given an ontological reply instead of a utilitarian reply.  My brain must still be on that vacation I took.  Because, I have now opened you up to say something silly in reply:

I can make the case that chewing gum is an “unnatural use” of your digestive system, since the purpose for saliva is to produce digestive enzymes to break down the food to ease digestion, and your stomach produces pepsin to get ready to take the food in, so when you chew gum and spit it out, you’re not using the digestive system “for its intended purpose.” THerefore, it is “unnatural.” So, is that just as wrong as homosexuality now?

An ontological reply to your challenge of what is natural in sexual relations would be the complimentary view of the sexes.  Men are naturally the leaders, the hunters, the providers–the family CEO.  Women are the nurturers, the caregivers–the family COO.  The two genders compliment each other, the union produces children, and human society as a whole benefits.  This is the way virtually all societies from the dawn of humanity have seen it.  It is normal and natural for the man to have desire for the woman, and vice versa.  She has something he doesn’t, and he has something she doesn’t.

The union of male to female is seen as a boon first to the families of the male and female, and then by the society which the families are a part of.  The propagation of our species happens this way, and that is why this union is celebrated.

Why would men gravitate to men?  Or women gravitate to women?  It doesn’t seem right, looking at gender from a complimentary standpoint.  This is the best explanation I have for it.

“I doubt you’d bat an eyelash if I argued that murder was wrong, ”

Because it harms somebody, and my view is that harming other people is wrong. I don’t care how many civilizations have banned it for how long.

There it is: the utilitarian philosophy I was waiting to hear!

“Have you ever stopped to think why marriage has always been between a man and a woman?”

I know exactly why is. Bigots like you who like to think you’re superior to gays.

I don’t think I’m superior to anyone.  I’m certainly not a bigot.  I have gay friends.  I’ve been to a lesbian wedding.  Most fun I’ve ever had at a party was when I went to a New Year’s Eve bash where I was the only guy and my wife was the only straight girl.  I dread the day Elton John retires; he is an extremely talented musician and seems like a pretty upstanding guy in general.  Read this, sir?  I think it’s sad how many Christians have treated homosexuals.

So, no, I’m not bigoted toward gay people in the least.  And I guess that means that you haven’t really stopped to think about why marriage is between a man and a woman.

Since you’re not up for arguments from the Bible, I could link you to some Catholic resources argued from Natural Law and reason, but you’re probably not interested in anything religious folks have to say.  So, instead, I’ll link you to a secular source which argues why marriage should remain between a man and a woman with no reference to Scripture, Natural Law, or anything of the sort.  Enjoy!

“I’m betting you can’t find any clear benefits to homosexual marriage.”

Of course I can. Homosexual people can marry who they want, and adopt and raise kids. Happiness all around. How is that not a benefit?

Utilitarianism again.  Bad philosophy, that.  Killing makes a serial killer happy, so should I support him?  And, the article I linked above kills this line of reasoning dead in its tracks.  Because homosexual marriage can create a burden on society given the rights marrieds have with taxes, inheritance, sharing insurance, etc.

And studies have repeatedly shown the children raised with a mother and father are happier and more well-adjusted than children raised without.  The sample size for children raised in homosexual homes is too small to mean anything.  Again, discussed in the article linked above.

And that’s beside the point. One does not need to prove a benefit or else the thing is “wrong.” My point is that something isn’t “wrong” until you can say why it is. Skipping rocks across a lake has no benefits that you can cite, so is that wrong until proven right?

You can’t say that it’s right, so we’re at a standstill.  However, I do have the collected wisdom of virtually every society that has ever lived on earth that forbade gay marriage by saying that it isn’t right on my side.  If you would like to overturn the collected wisdom of the ancients, then please, by all means, argue away.  But I’m not holding my breath, since you think (for some unknown reason) that I have something to prove and you have nothing to prove.  If you want to present arguments, I’ll address those.  I’ve presented mine, and you’ve minimized or dismissed them, but no actual engagement.

“You don’t even want to know what I think of you at this point.”

You are the most condescending, insulting debater I have ever experienced, so I’ll extend the same to you. Oh, wait, I do know what to think of you: Typical brainwashed theist who insults and twists arguments to defend their baseless beliefs.

If you think I’m the most condescending and insulting debater you’ve ever experienced, then you obviously haven’t spent much time at TheologyWeb.  Those guys are meaner than me.

But atheists are always respectful of Christians.  PZ Myers, for example, is the picture of nice when people engage him in polite debate.  If a creationist challenges PZ with humility and meekness, I’m sure he’d never call that person a creationist troll.  I’m sure he’d engage that person with respect and politely explain why he believes he’s right.

Next comment:

Oh, and also, the same “It’s natural because it is easy to do and fits” can be used to defend masturbation and oral sex. The penis fits perfectly in the hand. The mouth is nice and wet to suck on a penis (or a tongue in the vagina). Therefore, masturbation and oral sex among anybody is “natural,” by your own definition.

I’ve never thought masturbation was anything but natural.  Oral sex is fine with me, too!  These are red herrings.  Nice try.

This got way too long, so we’ll cover the remainder of Doc’s comments in part 2.

About Cory Tucholski

I'm a born-again Christian, amateur apologist and philosopher, father of 3. Want to know more? Check the "About" page!

Posted on June 23, 2011, in Apologetics, God, Morality, Religion, Science, Sin, Theology and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink. Leave a comment.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: