Pushing the "gay" agenda in schools..

[Geo Patric]

Baloney.. even CT and the playdrive agree that homosexual procreation is unnatural.

One cannot argue for or against morality and be free of fallacies.

and... why is that?

Keep up, geo. We're losing you

well, yer definately losing... and it would appear that you are getting lost in your own garbled rhetoric. so far you have established the point that homosexuals have been persecuted for millenia and we should keep it up because you do not like what they do.

geo.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

Baloney.. even CT and the playdrive agree that homosexual procreation is unnatural. They just don't think that it has any significance in a philosophical debate regarding the morality of homosexuality in general. I've already stated MANY times in this very thread that it would be pretty near impossible to justify an opposition to homosexuality from a moral standpoint. One cannot argue for or against morality and be free of fallacies. Keep up, geo. We're losing you


Tim-

Homosexual procreation is unnatural because it doesn't exist - that phrase doesn't even make sense. Two men cannot procreate with each other in nature. Homosexual procreation is akin to saying asexual procreation. It's less that they're unnatural and more that they are "anatural".

Homosexuality and homosexual intercourse (which I believe is what Geo is referring to) are natural. The only way that either is unnatural is if and only if sex has a purpose. The only way that sex has a purpose is if nature has an intention. There is no way to prove that nature has intention. Therefore, from what we know of nature, homosexual sex is just as natural as heterosexual sex - it's just the latter has one more potential effect than the former.

 

[mac]

humans ARE animals. what is natural to THIS animal is natural.

geo.

This obviously meant animals other than humans. Context clues, buddy.

 

[mac]

Which is equally "unnatural" in humans.

How can it be unnatural if it occurs?

 

[Geo Patric]

This obviously meant animals other than humans. Context clues, buddy.

then put it in a context that says what you want. or better yet, say outright what you mean. say, as i suggested earlier, that you intend to mean 'extra human nature'.

because then we get to ask why 'natural' that excludes what is natural to humans is being used to qualify behavior BY humans.

buddy, sparky?.... keep up? attempting to discredit me with irrelevancies lends no credence to your pretence of argument. try to make an argument. try to show that a behavior that humans have engaged in for as long as we can trace is not natural to humans.

again, you are better simply ascribing your aversion to your god and letting it go at that.

geo.

 

[mac]

I didn't beat up mac for crap. He beat himself up for coming up with his own personal definition of natural and then trying to tell everyone that it wasn't his own personal definition. My issue was with his blatant dishonesty not with his inept argument.

Oh, you're full of crap. I never claimed it was anything OTHER than my own definition based on what I understood natural to be.

 

[mac]

Dude, you are telling mac in front of all of us to play semantic games instead of telling him that it is a dumb argument. You might want to consider the implications of "intellectually dishonest" especially since it seems you don't even know the past sins of the individual you are trying to defend.

How about claiming I said what I didn't say or meant what I didn't mean? What would that be? Honest?

 

[mac]

Not in disagreement. I good family is a good family, period. However, it is still unnatural by definition. Traditional has nothing to do with what is unnatural, and by extension, what is natural. I thought you of all people would have appreciated me coming in here and helping you out. You focused on a definition of natural that you provided in context. I thought it was a good one, but ultimately unsupportable, and what these characters did was beat you over the head with it for 100 pages, patting each other on the back at your perceived ineptitude. I was going to PM you the way out - by not focusing on what is natural, but what is unnatural, because the dictionary definition for what is unnatrual would be all you need to prove your point, and by extension you would provide definitive clarity to your concept of what was natural. Homosexuals together cannot produce children that shares the DNA of both parents. This is unnatural. It could be argued that giving away a child for adoption is also unnatural, or aborting one.

The best these clowns can do is argue, "so what if it's unnatural" it still a good thing.. Why is this important to get them to argue this way? Figure it out, or pay attention and I'll show you exactly why it's important.


Tim-

I see what you're saying, but I'm not really trying to win an argument. I'm not trying to prove it unnatural, just show why I think it's unnatural. I'm a little amazed, however, at how difficult it is for these smart folks to not be able to see something that is not written down in a book or on a list somewhere. It seems in some circles, intelligent and educated is really just regurgitation of someone else's thoughts....so long as those thoughts were published somewhere.

 

[rocket88]

Homosexual procreation is unnatural because it doesn't exist - that phrase doesn't even make sense. Two men cannot procreate with each other in nature. Homosexual procreation is akin to saying asexual procreation. It's less that they're unnatural and more that they are "anatural".

Homosexuality and homosexual intercourse (which I believe is what Geo is referring to) are natural. The only way that either is unnatural is if and only if sex has a purpose. The only way that sex has a purpose is if nature has an intention. There is no way to prove that nature has intention. Therefore, from what we know of nature, homosexual sex is just as natural as heterosexual sex - it's just the latter has one more potential effect than the former.

I dislike the inference that people make about gay sex being "wrong" because you can't make a baby like that. My Great-Aunt (God bless her soul) got re-married late in life. I can't remember exactly how old she was, but it wouldn't be inaccurate to say that it was after menopause. Would that mean it was wrong for her to have sex with her husband? Because no amount of "natural" heterosexual sex was going to result in her getting pregnant at that point in her life.

 

[mac]

then put it in a context that says what you want. or better yet, say outright what you mean. say, as i suggested earlier, that you intend to mean 'extra human nature'.

because then we get to ask why 'natural' that excludes what is natural to humans is being used to qualify behavior BY humans.

buddy, sparky?.... keep up? attempting to discredit me with irrelevancies lends no credence to your pretence of argument. try to make an argument. try to show that a behavior that humans have engaged in for as long as we can trace is not natural to humans.

again, you are better simply ascribing your aversion to your god and letting it go at that.

geo.

Taking one comment in a string out of context to try to discredit me earns you a pet name. After several post at saying things like "in the other great apes" and "animals other than human" I leave it out of one post. You jump on it in attempt to show these other smart folk how smart you are by pointing out that the dumb hick doesn't understand he's an ape/mammal/animal. Good work, buddy.

 

[Redress]

Penal, vaginal sex is exclusive to heterosexuals, and that's all that need be differentiated. You're squirming.. Still, you have not shown how one could be a homosexual as a state of being without providing contextual significance to the concept.. And you won't be able to, but do try.


Tim-

You managed to completely not address what was said in any way, shape or form. I mean, not even remotely close. Quite the opposite, you avoided actually addressing the topic.

 

[Bodi]

But it's unnatural, right? You do not seek out other homosexual women to share your genes, you in fact share some man's genes, and one of you is left without any actual genetic instrument? Right? That makes it unnatural.. Your parenting needs, and desires are unnatural, YourStar.. So, I ask you.. Is it part of your state of being to want to be a parent? If so, why is it so?


Tim-

Oh my god... how ****ing obtuse can a person get? All you have is a retarded subjective argument. It is natural for her to be with another woman and nothing about that makes homosexuality unnatural. You can say that heterosexuality fits within the bounds of "normalcy" but then so does being a ****ty parent, since most parents are heterosexual, and then that makes ****ty parents unnatural since the majority of parents fit outside of the bounds of "****ty parent". If it is part of her state of being to be a parent, then that is natural... it just goes around in moronic circles since the whole thing is subjective.

 

[Geo Patric]

Taking one comment in a string out of context to try to discredit me earns you a pet name. After several post at saying things like "in the other great apes" and "animals other than human" I leave it out of one post. You jump on it in attempt to show these other smart folk how smart you are by pointing out that the dumb hick doesn't understand he's an ape/mammal/animal. Good work, buddy.

you have never made the point that whenf you use the term natural, you do not mean humans. period. you have never said nor implied that.

keep your pet names, "buddy" - i am not your pet. and no extraordinary uintelligence is needed to see that you are posting your denigrating, insulting personal views as objective qualification of how others live their lives.

geo.

 

[mac]

you have never made the point that whenf you use the term natural, you do not mean humans. period. you have never said nor implied that.

keep your pet names, "buddy" - i am not your pet. and no extraordinary uintelligence is needed to see that you are posting your denigrating, insulting personal views as objective qualification of how others live their lives.

geo.

Wrong. People can live their lives anyway they like.....that doesn't mean I have to agree with it. I have routinely made the point that there is a separation between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom.....try again, buddy. You can keep your dishonest personal views to yourself. You can disagree with me without making **** up.

 

[Tucker Case]

How can it be unnatural if it occurs?

According to the definition of "unnatural" being employed and cited in the previous post, simply occuring is not all that would be required in order to avoid being "unnatural".

 

[mac]

According to the definition of "unnatural" being employed and cited in the previous post, simply occuring is not all that would be required in order to avoid being "unnatural".

and you believe that to be true?

 

[Tucker Case]

and you believe that to be true?

I believe that, "According to the definition of "unnatural" being employed and cited in the previous post, simply occuring is not all that would be required in order to avoid being "unnatural""

 

[mac]

I believe that, "According to the definition of "unnatural" being employed and cited in the previous post, simply occuring is not all that would be required in order to avoid being "unnatural""

great. Do you bellieve that simply occuring is enough for a thing to be natural?

 

[CriticalThought]

Baloney.. even CT and the playdrive agree that homosexual procreation is unnatural.

I never said anything of the sort. I said it was a stupid, irrelevent, and dishonest argument to argue that homosexuality is natural or unnatural.

 

[Bodi]

great. Do you bellieve that simply occuring is enough for a thing to be natural?

If that thing is naturally occurring, then yes, it is natural. That is what makes this whole argument ridiculous. Attempting to discredit with this method is futile.

 

[Bodi]

I never said anything of the sort. I said it was a stupid, irrelevent, and dishonest argument to argue that homosexuality is natural or unnatural.

Ka-BOOM!!!!!!

 

[CriticalThought]

great. Do you bellieve that simply occuring is enough for a thing to be natural?

What is the point of this bullcrap argument about things being natural?

1. You created your own personal definition of natural since the dictionary definitions could not be used to adequately argue your moral views on homosexuality.
2. Whether or not something is natural has nothing to do with its morality and as such, it is an irrelevant and fallacious argument to make.
3. If you want to practice sophistry then argue that homosexuality is natural so that you can make a stronger arguement that it is immoral.

 

[SheWolf]

What's the point of the natural/unnatural aspect of this debate? Somethings that aren't natural are very helpful like plastics.. and somethings that are natural are not helpful or ideal.. :shrug:

I really think making such an argument is trivial and pointless...

 

[Your Star]

What's the point of the natural/unnatural aspect of this debate? Somethings that aren't natural are very helpful like plastics.. and somethings that are natural are not helpful or ideal.. :shrug:

I really think making such an argument is trivial and pointless...

It really is, I think people just don't like it when people make up their own definitions and try to pass them off as more than just crap they made up.

 

[CriticalThought]

What's the point of the natural/unnatural aspect of this debate? Somethings that aren't natural are very helpful like plastics.. and somethings that are natural are not helpful or ideal.. :shrug:

I really think making such an argument is trivial and pointless...

"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones."

Romans 1:26 New International Version

"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature."

Romans 1:26 King James

That is why. It's nothing but a bunch of people mindlessly repeating Paul's interpreation of the Old Testament. Paul was influenced by Plato's work, but Paul had a really poor understanding of what Plato was actually arguing. Plato argued that men have a moral obligation to resist their natural instincts for the higher cause of civic hybridazation. Plato saw homosexuality as the natural product of male sexuality. Paul's conception was that anything that was not in God's design constitued something "unnatural" and was thus synomous for immoral. Of course now mac and Hicup are trying to find an objective way to use "unnatural" to argue their moral views even though its a purely subjective argument and is backwards to philosophy. mac is worse off as he keeps trying to pander off a telelogical definition of natural that he invented as something other than teleology simply because he used the word "evolution".