• 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!

Maryland Gay Marriage Bill sent back to cmte. Shelved for this year at least.

CriticalThought said:
I can't see any definition of natural that you have provided. Provide one if I am lying.
Click to expand...

mac said:
Natural: of or occurring in nature, developing or growing without undue influence, and including natural deviation serving evolutionarily plausible purposes while happening in the ordinary or usual course of things, without the intervention of accident, violence, enlightenment, etc.
Click to expand...

Natural: of or occurring in nature, developing or growing without undue influence, and including natural deviation serving evolutionarily plausible purposes while happening in the ordinary or usual course of things, without the intervention of accident, violence, enlightenment, etc.[/QUOTE]"]
mac said:
Natural: of or occurring in nature, developing or growing without undue influence, and including natural deviation serving evolutionarily plausible purposes while happening in the ordinary or usual course of things, without the intervention of accident, violence, enlightenment, etc.
Click to expand...



Not only a liar, but lazy too.
 
mac said:



Not only a liar, but lazy too.
Click to expand...

I tried searching for it. :roll:

I'm not sure why I'm a liar. I didn't see any definition of natural that you had provided.
 
mac said:



Not only a liar, but lazy too.
Click to expand...

Oh, well then, using that definition homosexuality is most definitely natural. Thanks for the info.
 
Deuce said:
Oh, well then, using that definition homosexuality is most definitely natural. Thanks for the info.
Click to expand...

I'd say the opposite is true.
 
Deuce said:
Oh, well then, using that definition homosexuality is most definitely natural. Thanks for the info.
Click to expand...

Pretty much. So then what is your argument, mac, that it isn't "normal"?
 
CriticalThought said:
I tried searching for it. :roll:

I'm not sure why I'm a liar. I didn't see any definition of natural that you had provided.
Click to expand...

Because you said something that wasn't true. You said it out of ignorance rather than willful dishonesty, but it's still a lie.
 
mac said:
I'd say the opposite is true.
Click to expand...

It occurs in nature. Numerous species have been observed engaging in homosexual behavior.

You could say the opposite, but you are wrong.

mac said:
Because you said something that wasn't true. You said it out of ignorance rather than willful dishonesty, but it's still a lie.
Click to expand...

No, that's not what a lie is. Being wrong is not the same thing as lying.
 
Last edited:
TheBook said:
Pretty much. So then what is your argument, mac, that it isn't "normal"?
Click to expand...

It isn't normal simply in that such a small percentage of our species is homosexual. My argument is that it isn't natural, combine that with my upbringing, my religion, and thousands of years of human history, and you find my opposition.
 
Deuce said:
It occurs in nature. Numerous species have been observed engaging in homosexual behavior.
Click to expand...

Appeal to nature, doesn't work...mainly because you don't know why they engage in behaviors that appear to be homosexual

You could say the opposite, but you are wrong.
Click to expand...

Prove me wrong.

No, that's not what a lie is. Being wrong is not the same thing as lying.
Click to expand...

Saying something that isn't true is lying. Not only that, but slander in this case.
 
mac said:
Natural: of or occurring in nature, developing or growing without undue influence, and including natural deviation serving evolutionarily plausible purposes while happening in the ordinary or usual course of things, without the intervention of accident, violence, enlightenment, etc.
Click to expand...

You used natural in your definition of natural?

Let's see. Homosexuality occurs in nature. It happens in many different cultures without the influence of other cultures. There are many theories of how homosexuality was a part of human evolution.

I gotta say I find your definition funny though. Evolution doesn't follow a "purpose", evolution is the slow change over generations as organisms adapt to their environment. The purpose part reveals that you are a teleologist as I previously suggested you were.

Ordinary or usual course of things? Without the intervention of accident, violence, enlightenment? That is just weird.
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
Oh, well then, using that definition homosexuality is most definitely natural. Thanks for the info.
Click to expand...

I would say that that definition certainly doesn't exclude homosexuality from being natural because it is plausible that homosexuality serves some evolutionary purpose.

It does provide a solid argument that whether or not something is considered normal has nothing to do with it being natural or unnatural considering how a plethora of things are considered normal that are unnatural by that definition. Also, there are countless things that are considered abnormal that are definitely natural according to that definition. Eating dogs, for example, is quite natural while being considered abnormal in western culture.
 
mac said:
Because you said something that wasn't true. You said it out of ignorance rather than willful dishonesty, but it's still a lie.
Click to expand...

I said I couldn't see that you provided a definition of natural. You proved me wrong, but I certainly did not lie.
 
mac said:
It isn't normal simply in that such a small percentage of our species is homosexual. My argument is that it isn't natural, combine that with my upbringing, my religion, and thousands of years of human history, and you find my opposition.
Click to expand...

But your defintiion doesn't support your claim that it is unnatural. At best, you can only say that whether or not it is natural is unknown using that definition.
 
To the people who want to say homosexuality is immoral, why is it immoral?
 
Tucker Case said:
But your defintiion doesn't support your claim that it is unnatural. At best, you can only say that whether or not it is natural is unknown using that definition.
Click to expand...

Can't even say that. Unless the monkeys are in on the gay agenda...
 
CriticalThought said:
I said I couldn't see that you provided a definition of natural. You proved me wrong, but I certainly did not lie.
Click to expand...

Actually, you originally said:

CriticalThought said:
I just went back to the old thread. You didn't define natural. You argued that homosexuality is a learned behavior and that learned behaviors are not natural.
Click to expand...

That was a lie according to definition 1b here: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lie

an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed true by the speaker
Click to expand...
 
mac said:
It isn't normal simply in that such a small percentage of our species is homosexual. My argument is that it isn't natural, combine that with my upbringing, my religion, and thousands of years of human history, and you find my opposition.
Click to expand...

As has been pointed out earlier, being lefthanded or jewish is something a small percentage of our species does, but is "normal" or "natural".
Any other arguments that homosexuality doesn't abide by your definition?
 
TheBook said:
Wait, really?

Homosexual behavior in animals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

One animal worth looking at is the Bonobo, an ape known for its common bisexuality and routine orgies.

Bonobo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

I'm familiar with the bonobo. Comparing us to animals in nature is an appeal to nature which doesn't really help your case. Mainly because you don't know why they engage in these behaviors. Bononbos and Chimps are VERY closely related and yet you don't see that behavior in Chimps....
 
iamitter said:
As has been pointed out earlier, being lefthanded or jewish is something a small percentage of our species does, but is "normal" or "natural".
Any other arguments that homosexuality doesn't abide by your definition?
Click to expand...

Homosexuality doesn't serve any benefit to our species. In my view, if homosexuality were natural, our bodies would accommodate it and it would serve a function in our species.
 
mac said:
I'm familiar with the bonobo. Comparing us to animals in nature is an appeal to nature which doesn't really help your case. Mainly because you don't know why they engage in these behaviors. Bononbos and Chimps are VERY closely related and yet you don't see that behavior in Chimps....
Click to expand...

Why does there have to be a reason?
 
mac said:
I'm familiar with the bonobo. Comparing us to animals in nature is an appeal to nature which doesn't really help your case. Mainly because you don't know why they engage in these behaviors. Bononbos and Chimps are VERY closely related and yet you don't see that behavior in Chimps....
Click to expand...

But we are animals in nature.
 
Deuce said:
Can't even say that. Unless the monkeys are in on the gay agenda...
Click to expand...

Actually, one can say that because it might be natural for monkeys or apes or any oteh rspecies of animal while not being natural for humans. Just because something is true of one species doesn't mean it is true of all species, even related ones. While I happen to believe that homosexuality is natural in humans and that that observations of monkesy and apes supports that belief, logically speaking one can't make the claim that homosexuality being natural for other species definitively proves that it is natural in humans.

In a purely logical sense, one can't make a definitive claim in either direction.

Granted, naturalness has no bearing on whether or not something should be acceptable or even whether or not it is normal.
 
mac said:
Homosexuality doesn't serve any benefit to our species. In my view, if homosexuality were natural, our bodies would accommodate it and it would serve a function in our species.
Click to expand...

What benefit does being left-handed serve us?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom