(August 11, 2012 at 3:18 pm)Faith No More Wrote: As it has pointed out, just because something is "natural" does not make it okay, and this is why the defense of rape as a "natural" occurrence does not mean it is justifiable.
I have a feeling that anyone who is using this argument is doing so in a facetious manner to highlight what they see as the problem against saying homosexuality is natural. The difference here is that one of the arguments against homosexuality is that it is unnatural and therefore against god's will, and as we all know, it occurs in nature fairly often. The argument that homosexuality is natural is merely a response to a claim made by the other side, and it is not intended to justify it by equating natural with morally good.
Yes, humans are animals, albeit the highest on the hirearchy of intellectual capacity, and most likely the human desire to rape is a leftover effect of our instinctive desire to pass on our genetic material. This, however, says nothing about whether it is morally good or bad, which is where the argument that rape is "natural" falls flat.
Well anyone who thinks homosexual rape is a good plan for spreading genetic material is a little screwy. Everyone knows you can't make a baby in the poop chute. Leastwise I've been telling the missus that for years and, bless her heart, she still takes it like a man.
