- Joined
- May 15, 2010
- Messages
- 27,392
- Reaction score
- 20,164
- Location
- Georgia
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
It doesnt matter. The appeal to nature doesn't work, end of story.
You don't understand what the appeal to nature fallacy is.
It doesnt matter. The appeal to nature doesn't work, end of story.
Maybe your right. Maybe two guys (or two girls), having unnatural gay sex, gives them lots more respectability. Yeah, I'm sure.
Why are we so damn special that normal words can't apply to us? :lamo
The definition is too broad, and not specific enough. Since you can't use gay sex to make a baby, that means gay sex is unnatural.
No it doesn't. It really doesn't mean anything one way or the other.
It means I can save on BC pills :mrgreen:
That doesn't prove that human homosexual sex is natural.
Let's not. Humans are exceptional and capable of unnatural acts...like homosexual intercourse.
i'm seriously at the end of my rope, honestly, who gives a **** if it's unnatural?
I'm more interested in people's take on why homosexuality is wrong.
I'm not in the least bit interested in whatever dictionary version you are using. Humans are capable of unnatural acts, like homosexual intercourse.
Not everything that humans do is natural. Like homosexual sex, dictionary definitions of natural dont change that. Thanks for playing.
It doesnt matter. The appeal to nature doesn't work, end of story.
I can agree with that, but I would still like mac to tell me where I can find a reliable definition of natural since it isn't in dictionary. It's too bad he's ignoring my easy questions.
The definition is too broad, and not specific enough. Since you can't use gay sex to make a baby, that means gay sex is unnatural.
And I'm surprised these two recent polls about homosexuality haven't been messed with. Did you have anything to do with that CC
No it doesn't. It really doesn't mean anything one way or the other.
i'm seriously at the end of my rope, honestly, who gives a **** if it's unnatural?
I'm more interested in people's take on why homosexuality is wrong.
Yes. It does. It means gay sex is unnatural.
Yes. It does. It means gay sex is unnatural.
It's easy to prove it is natural: gay sex occurs in nature.
That doesn't prove that human homosexual sex is natural.
Human beings are a part of nature. Therefore, all human sex occurs in nature. It's natural according to the definition RamFel provided.
So? Animals having sex has no bearing on human homosexuality.
No one is talking about (other) animals. We're talking about humans. Re-read what I said. Human beings occur in nature. This means that HUMAN homosexual sex is natural according to the definition provided.
Humans have gay sex in nature :lol:
Too easy.
So, of course humans can only perform natural acts by your reasoning?
Humans are animals.
Homosexual sex fits the definition of natural, while brain surgery doesn't. One happens without technological interference, and one doesn't.
Who cares? Do you deny that humans are capable of unnatural acts?
We have already established that you do not know what the appeal to nature fallacy is. THIS is not it. The appeal to nature logical fallacy applies morality (good vs. bad) to something that occurs or doesn't occur in nature. Good/bad is not being discussed here. A DEFINITION IS.
So, not only are you failing in using faulty definitions to present your position, but you are erroneously using a logical fallacy to present your position. Good job.
This is what they are implying... because they falsely claim it's unnatural. THAT is an appeal to nature logical fallacy. See, with or without the definition, THEY LOSE. :lol:
The definition is too broad, and not specific enough. Since you can't use gay sex to make a baby, that means gay sex is unnatural.
Now you're just repeating yourself. Since you bring nothing new to the discussion, and what you bring is already discounted, I bid you good day.
I SAID GOOD DAY!!