Quote:
Originally Posted by VividEnds
Thx
Now, what I am saying is this- the other connotation of the word "natural", as used by people in the homosexuality debate, implies that something is "with the will of nature", or is something that occurs/ 'comes to be' regardless of choice
As in skyscrapers and genetic modifications 'came to be' in order to efficiently house urban businesses that allow our society to function. And people see homosexuality as something that didnt 'come to be' because it serves no role in society
And I'm saying it is natural, because if it is a result of formative upbringing or early child development, and influence by culture, then it is inherently a part of human nature, and therefore within the scope of being purposeful
That might be poorly argued idk. I don't debate usually
|
I agree with what you're saying, but:
you're arguing connotation, I'm arguing definition. connotations are subjective, I'm talking in terms of universal acceptance.
It may be a "natural" inclination for humans to build and organize how we did, but that doesn't make the actual constructs natural. As opposed to ant colonies, which are built in conjunction with natural resources, our constructions are built on top of nature in a way that prevents coexistence. Therefore, they are not part of nature; they replaced it.