And the value in considering it, if it never occurs that is, would be alleviating my curiosity about your position.
Well, then.
In the case of persons born without sexual organs, I would assume that just as with persons born with the wrong gender manifestation, the person without sexual organs will nevertheless know inwardly whether they are by nature male or female. It would be no different from any other case of a heterosexual couple unable for some reason to produce offspring -- the physical problem does not negate the underlying design. Such a couple will not be able to consummate their marriage (unless perhaps some sexual organs could be constructed through surgery, which I believe is sometimes done), so they will not experience the fullness of the union that other heterosexual couples are able to enjoy.
Hi, jewelsong. I am a she.
I always seem to guess wrong about poster gender.
You're using the phrase the way it's usually used, which is to give one person's opinion of something and say it's nature's.
No, that isn't what I'm doing. I'm using the word "nature" in one of it's definitions, and you are using it in another. I'm saying that by observation, we can deduce how something is supposed to, or is meant to, or is designed to work. Trees bring forth their buds in the spring. It can be said that it is in the nature of trees, that they bud in the spring. If a specimen tree of a species that normally buds in the spring, does not bud, one would not say that it is in the nature of the tree not to bud in the spring. Now if you want to attribute to nature, the tree's failure to bud ("it is what nature intended"), you can of course do that, but just recognize that the word is then being used in a different sense, to convey a different meaning.
nature - 2 a the essential character or constitution of something; esp : the essence or ultimate form of something
b : the distinguishing qualities or properties of something
4 a a creative and controlling agent, force or principle operating in something and determining its constitution, development and well-being
I am using the word "nature" in the first sense, you seem to be using it in the second. The first usage is not a matter of opinion, but of observable distinguishing qualities or properties. If you wish to attribute to nature, a couple's inability to conceive, that is fine. It does not negate the fact that it is in the nature of a man's and a woman's coupling (i.e., it is part of the essential character of, it is a distinguishing quality of), that it completes a biological design for reproduction. It may be nature that is responsible for the malfunctioning of the design, but nature's malfunction does not negate the fact of nature's design.
But what we often do after is assign (rather than deduce) value to different things it can do.For instance, people who enjoy anal sex would probably say that nature designed our bodies wonderfully for the purpose of giving pleasure in this way.
Yes, just as the person might say, who enjoys putting bananas in their ear, that nature designed our bodies wonderfully for the purpose of receiving pleasure in this way. However, the person would not claim that they are eating when they are putting a banana in their ear, that is, they are not engaging in an activity that is part of the biological design for nourishing their body. In the same way, persons engaging in anal sex would not say that they are engaging in an activity that is part of the biological design for reproduction.
Now I believe it is a matter of deduction, rather than assignment, to observe that though putting a banana in the ear, and eating a banana both give pleasure, yet the eating has an added element of significance and satisfaction, being the completion of a specific biological design.
Homosexual sex is also considered by many people to be not what nature intended
Yes, that is the way you have been using the word "nature," but it is not the way I have been using it.
because it does not involve a man and a woman creating a baby,
It is a matter of observation to state that homosexual sex, but it's very nature, is not a reproductive model. That is, it is part of the essential character of, or a distinguishing quality of homosexual sex, that the reproductive organs are not being used in a way that completes the biological design for reproduction. You could make a case that it completes a biological design for experiencing pleasure, but any activity from which people derive physical pleasure would qualify for that broad designation, whereas the mechanisms for eating and reproduction are very specific designs for specific purposes. The vagina is designed to receive the penis as part of the reproductive process; the anus, though it may function to receive the penis, is not designed to do so as part of the reproductive process; rather, it is part of the specific design for a different bodily function.
but it's not nature saying these things, it's people.
That is the way you have been using the word nature. I am not saying, nature intended this or that, I'm simply observing what is in the essential character and constitution of things, what are the distinguishing properties or principles involved.
But why would you say this isn't what nature intended?
I wouldn't use the phrase at all, if it were up to me. I used it in quotes, because that is the phrase you are using. I agree, that it could be said that "nature intended" that the person not be able to swallow, if one wished to put it in those terms. However, that isn't the point I am making. The point I am making is that it is in the nature of human beings -- that is, it is part of the essential character of the human physiology, it is a distinguishing property of the human physiology, that human beings chew and swallow food as part of the process of nourishing the body. If this is not occurring, it is because something is interfering in the functioning of the system. If you wish to say that "nature intended" the system of a particular person to malfunction, that's fine with me. It is irrelevant to my point, and to my use of the word "nature."
Many people are unable to chew or swallow due to illness.
Yes.
You are calling that an interference in nature's intention
I am saying that the system for nourishing the body is not functioning as it was designed to do, because illness is interfering in that function.
but nature is also the illness running its course.
Yes, this is the way you have been using the word. It doesn't contradict the other use of the word. Yes, the illness can be said to be nature running its course; the result is that the person is unable to nourish their body as human beings are designed to be able to nourish their bodies.
There's no reason to think that nature's on our side, or wants any particular individual to chew, swallow or have children.
Again, according to your use of the word "nature," as in the second definition I cited, that is a legitimate statement. According to my use of the word "nature," the distinguishing properties of the human nutritional and digestive processes in this individual, are malfunctioning. It is in the essential character of the human physiology that we must take nourishment, therefore there is a mechanism to allow this. If we cannot take nourishment, we will fail and die.
Maybe nature is on the illness' side or wanted another person to not be able to have children.
Maybe so, but that doesn't change the fact that it is part of the essential constitution of human beings, it is one of the distinguishing properties of the human physiology -- that is, it is part of the nature of being human -- that we are designed with mechanisms for nourishment and reproduction.
But the design doesn't remain. Things that are necessary to have children are no longer there.
The design remains, though parts of the mechanism may wear out or malfunction.
Of course, a lot of other people would say that nature intended the person to be the sex their body looked like when they were born
Again, I'm not talking about "what nature intended." I am talking about the nature -- the essential character or constitution -- of the person, not a superficial manifestation. Only the person themselves can know their own essential character.
Nature isn't here to tell us which way it votes
Things have an essential nature, which can be observed and examined. It has nothing to do with nature voting.
Since a man and a woman who can't have children due to age or something else can get married, we're not celebrating the literal ability, but just the symbolic idea.
Yes. We're celebrating the nature of things.
It seems like when you refer to the biological design to have children and parts configured to fit together, you're referring to one person having a penis and the other person having a vagina.
Yes, this is the physical aspect of the union, a perfect joining in completion of a biological design (like sitting down to a lovely meal with friends when you are hungry, which would offer an added dimension of satisfaction and significance over sitting down with friends when you are hungry, and everyone sticking bananas in each others' ears).
If a woman is no longer ovulating or has no ovaries or has a vagina that can't have sex she's still considered to have those parts.
Yes. It is part of the nature of - the essential character of, a distinguishing property of -- the female body, that it has ovaries and a vagina. Anomalies, malfunctions, changes over time do not negate the fact of the design. A person not being able to swallow or chew because of illness, does not negate the fact that the human body was designed to be able to take nourishment by chewing and swallowing food.
I mean, we as people could just as easily have decided there was a big difference between a union between two people who were going to produce children and those who weren't. We could have had two words, one of which you only earned after you got pregnant.
In that case, the language would be reflecting a superficial aspect, rather than the underlying nature of the marital union.
:):)