• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287:411]

Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Paleocon said:
What arguments have i made that are subjective?
Click to expand...

all of them
in FACT you haven't provided one that is not subjective . . . not one . . .

if you disagree simply present it now and ill gladly point out why its subjective and meanignless
 
I'm sure that whatever you just posted was very nice.
 
Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Paleocon said:
No, as getting married is not itself a sexual act.
Click to expand...

But that's not the standard you initially put for being unnatural. You initially made it clear that whether procreation would be excluded was what mattered in making something natural and unnatural. Which is why sex with a woman who can't procreate is unnatural, as you clearly declared here:

Hatuey said:
Only that has no real bearing on my question: Is a person, who willingly chooses to have sex with someone that they know that they can't procreate with, engaging in an unnatural act?
Click to expand...
Paleocon said:
If the act itself is unnatural, then yes. If the act itself is not unnatural, then no.
Click to expand...
Hatuey said:
So then, any sexual act which excludes procreation by its very nature is unnatural? Yes?
Click to expand...
Paleocon said:
Yes that is correct.
Click to expand...

Just so I get this straight then:

A bisexual male/female couple where the couple has children is natural.
A homosexual couple where they engage in no sex for reasons such as illness, distance, etc is natural as they engage in no sexual act.
A heterosexual couple who has sex with contraception is unnatural (as they engage in sex for something other than its intended purpose).
A young homosexual couple where there is sex is unnatural.
An elderly couple where contraception was always used and resulted in no children is unnatural.

Am I getting this right?
 
Last edited:
Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Hatuey said:
But that's not the standard you initially put for being unnatural. You initially made it clear that whether procreation would be excluded was what mattered in making something natural and unnatural. Which is why sex with a woman who can't procreate is unnatural, as you clearly declared here:




Just so I get this straight then:

A bisexual male/female couple where the couple has children is natural.
A homosexual couple where they engage in no sex for reasons such as illness, distance, etc is natural as they engage in no sexual act.
A heterosexual couple who has sex with contraception is unnatural (as they engage in sex for something other than its intended purpose).
A young homosexual couple where there is sex is immoral (same as above).
An elderly couple where contraception was always used and resulted in no children is unnatural.

Am I getting this right?
Click to expand...

A sexual act is unnatural if procreation is excluded. A non-sexual act need not be procreative (indeed the act of getting married is never procreative in itself).

Except that you are speaking of couples rather than acts, that is correct.
 
Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Paleocon said:
A sexual act is unnatural if procreation is excluded.
Click to expand...

So then your position is that the only sex that is natural is that which is done with the intent of procreating? Yes?
 
Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Hatuey said:
So then your position is that the only sex that is natural is that which is done with the intent of procreating? Yes?
Click to expand...

The act must at least be open to procreation.
 
Paleocon said:
I'm sure that whatever you just posted was very nice.
Click to expand...

just pointing out the fact that all your arguments are subjective and they all fail.
If you disagree prove otherwise, we'd love to read it, thanks
 
I'm sure that whatever you just posted was very nice.
 
Paleocon said:
I'm sure that whatever you just posted was very nice.
Click to expand...

Please address the topic im not the topic, thank you.
The fact is all your arguments are subjective and they fail. If you disagree please prove otherwise.
 
I'm sure whatever you posted was very nice.
 
Paleocon said:
I'm sure whatever you posted was very nice.
Click to expand...

Translation: you have nothing.

Please provide factual evidence that your arguments are not subjective and matter to SS/Equal rights.
 
Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Paleocon said:
The act must at least be open to procreation.
Click to expand...

Ah, so then a couple who uses contraception, knowing full well that there is a possibility that it might fail, is not engaging in an unnatural act because there is a possibility that it may lead to procreation?
 
Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Hatuey said:
Ah, so then a couple who uses contraception, knowing full well that there is a possibility that it might fail, is not engaging in an unnatural act because there is a possibility that it may lead to procreation?
Click to expand...

No, because they are performing an act which by nature has the purpose of frustrating procreation.
 
Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Paleocon said:
No, because they are performing an act which by nature has the purpose of frustrating procreation.
Click to expand...

Alright, so abstaining from having sex would be considered unnatural as it impedes procreation. Yes?
 
Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Hatuey said:
Alright, so abstaining from having sex would be considered unnatural as it impedes procreation. Yes?
Click to expand...

Abstaining is an omission, not an act.
 
Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Paleocon said:
Abstaining is an omission, not an act.
Click to expand...

To abstain is to refrain from doing enjoying something. It is most definitely an act.
 
Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Deuce said:
Less unnatural. :lamo



Mental Gymnastics Gold Medalist Paleocon, everybody.
Click to expand...
What century do some of these people think they live in?
 
Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Paleocon said:
No, because they are performing an act which by nature has the purpose of frustrating procreation.
Click to expand...
I am surprised nobody hs said this to you yet. You are arguing a fallacious point. Argumentum ad naturam is logical fallacy.

Basically you are arguing something being good or bad based on it being natural or unnatural.

The fact that something is natural doesn't make it good. Example:
A grizzly bear naturally defends it's cubs should the bear perceive a threat. If your presence is perceived as a threat than you will no doubt become that bear's business. Definitely not good. Something isn't bad simply because it is unnatural. Example: a train track is man made though it allows food to be moved across the country in places where they have no agriculture.

So, arguing that something is or isn't good based on it being natural or unnatural is a fallacy.
 
Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

CLAX1911 said:
I am surprised nobody hs said this to you yet. You are arguing a fallacious point. Argumentum ad naturam is logical fallacy.

Basically you are arguing something being good or bad based on it being natural or unnatural.

The fact that something is natural doesn't make it good. Example:
A grizzly bear naturally defends it's cubs should the bear perceive a threat. If your presence is perceived as a threat than you will no doubt become that bear's business. Definitely not good. Something isn't bad simply because it is unnatural. Example: a train track is man made though it allows food to be moved across the country in places where they have no agriculture.

So, arguing that something is or isn't good based on it being natural or unnatural is a fallacy.
Click to expand...

and he's perverting the word natural ironically as well
 
Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Paleocon said:
Abstaining is an omission, not an act.
Click to expand...

its just as counter to all natural drives and ability's to reproduce as having a partner who is completely infertile or being in a couple that is not able to reproduce together your being hypocritical
 
Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Paleocon said:
The argument appealed only to objective reality, it had no subjective appeal.

Sodomy is more unnatural than contraception because it absolutely excludes procreation, whereas contraception does not.

They are both unnatural however.
Click to expand...

So is space travel.
 
Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Deuce said:
So is space travel.
Click to expand...

English was good enough for God, it's good enough for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom