• 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!

Just Plain Wrong

Says the guy that is convinced that the TX GOP is pushing it legislatively, even though they arent.

Says the guy who thinks such a distinction matters.
 
Says the guy who thinks such a distinction matters.

How could it not? If they aren't pushing it legislatively, then the "evil christian right" is not trying to force people not to engage in that type of behaviour - which was where the entire discussion started and how the TX GOP platform became the topic.
 
How could it not? If they aren't pushing it legislatively, then the "evil christian right" is not trying to force people not to engage in that type of behaviour - which was where the entire discussion started and how the TX GOP platform became the topic.

Once again - saying that something isn't being "pushed legislatively" when it's in a party platform based on the various technical copouts you've offered doesn't mean it's not.
 
Once again - saying that something isn't being "pushed legislatively" when it's in a party platform based on the various technical copouts you've offered doesn't mean it's not.

Then it should be easy for you to point to the politicians in TX that are introducing the legislation and trying to pass it through the legislature. Actual legislation would go a long way towards your opinion that the Texas GOP is pushing legislation on this topic.
 
Then it should be easy for you to point to the politicians in TX that are introducing the legislation and trying to pass it through the legislature. Actual legislation would go a long way towards your opinion that the Texas GOP is pushing legislation on this topic.

They would LIKE to have it passed legislatively. That's the purpose of the platform. They're not because, as you noted, they know they will fail.

The point was to show that they'd like to, and it's been shown.

Enough.
 
Empirica...I'm still waiting to know if a straight woman has a guy go down on her or a straight man goes anally on a woman are those "unnatural" sex acts to?

Also, sorry but when you have the sight of hundreds of anti-gay christians picketing outside of a funeral on a public city sidewalk holding signs that "God Hates Fags", thanking god for IED's and 9/11, and insulting our troops it tends to make many people question the seriousness of their oppression due to Political Correctness.
A sect of the Mormon faith believes that having multiple and underage wives is blessed by god, even though it is not tolerated by the laws or morals of society.

Every young mans dream is having a three way with two hot babes to brag to his buddies about but wouldn't think of telling total strangers or even his family.

Everyday men and women get super freaky with their lover in the privacy of their homes, cars or wherever, doing things their mother told them never to do.

Couples you would never suspect, swing at parties on weekends after dropping off the kids at grandmas house and nobody is the wiser on monday morning.

Most of us are guilty of something we don't dare talk about in public because no matter how innocent it seems to us we're aware that others might judge us immoral.

The morality of what people do in private is only relevant to the participants and even though there are others who might be offended by those things, it is none of their business.

That is as long as we keep our dirty little secrets in our own bedrooms, but when we drag them into the public forum and demand acceptance, it becomes society's problem.

Then we all must deal with the legal and social problems that arise like marriage, adoption, military, public benefits, offensive actions and behavior, etc-etc-etc__The list is endless.

And then we must explain to little billy and susie why bobby has two daddies, mr smith use to be miss smith, and and the two ladies next door are necking on the front porch, etc-etc yet again.

The simple truth of the matter is, society will fair much better if we remain ignorant of each others perversions and believing that all of our neighbors are moral upstanding citizens of the community.
 
That is as long as we keep our dirty little secrets in our own bedrooms, but when we drag them into the public forum and demand acceptance, it becomes society's problem.

Then we all must deal with the legal and social problems that arise like marriage, adoption, military, public benefits, offensive actions and behavior, etc-etc-etc__The list is endless.

So you oppose all marriage? And all displays of sexuality in public? And even hints of them, like holding hands, kissing,etc?

Oh, plus you're a libertarian.
 
The problem is Empirica's way of arguing for her point. If you are going to argue that homosexuality is unnatural(and I do agree with you), then may I suggest reading Aristotle and St.Thomas Aquinas. Otherwise you're simply lost in the vague meaning you, and most of our contemporaries, ascribe to nature.
 
The problem is Empirica's way of arguing for her point. If you are going to argue that homosexuality is unnatural(and I do agree with you), then may I suggest reading Aristotle and St.Thomas Aquinas. Otherwise you're simply lost in the vague meaning you, and most of our contemporaries, ascribe to nature.

I am not sure if you know this, but languages change over time, as does the meaning of words. Why the **** would we be so stupid as to use outdated meanings of words? In the current context, homosexuality is natural. What it was to some one hundreds of years ago is entirely irrelevant to today's world.
 
I am not sure if you know this, but languages change over time, as does the meaning of words. Why the **** would we be so stupid as to use outdated meanings of words? In the current context, homosexuality is natural. What it was to some one hundreds of years ago is entirely irrelevant to today's world.
I was suggesting Empirica do this, so she can actually mount an argument about nature. It is not that language has changed, simply that the term has become confused. When it is confused, it is sometimes better to clarify one's meaning.

By the way, you are a very angry person.
 
A sect of the Mormon faith believes that having multiple and underage wives is blessed by god, even though it is not tolerated by the laws or morals of society.

Every young mans dream is having a three way with two hot babes to brag to his buddies about but wouldn't think of telling total strangers or even his family.

Everyday men and women get super freaky with their lover in the privacy of their homes, cars or wherever, doing things their mother told them never to do.

Couples you would never suspect, swing at parties on weekends after dropping off the kids at grandmas house and nobody is the wiser on monday morning.

Most of us are guilty of something we don't dare talk about in public because no matter how innocent it seems to us we're aware that others might judge us immoral.

The morality of what people do in private is only relevant to the participants and even though there are others who might be offended by those things, it is none of their business.

That is as long as we keep our dirty little secrets in our own bedrooms, but when we drag them into the public forum and demand acceptance, it becomes society's problem.

Then we all must deal with the legal and social problems that arise like marriage, adoption, military, public benefits, offensive actions and behavior, etc-etc-etc__The list is endless.

And then we must explain to little billy and susie why bobby has two daddies, mr smith use to be miss smith, and and the two ladies next door are necking on the front porch, etc-etc yet again.

The simple truth of the matter is, society will fair much better if we remain ignorant of each others perversions and believing that all of our neighbors are moral upstanding citizens of the community.
The simple truth that I see here is, opinions =/= facts.
 
Last edited:
They would LIKE to have it passed legislatively. That's the purpose of the platform. They're not because, as you noted, they know they will fail.

The point was to show that they'd like to, and it's been shown.

Enough.

So, even though they aren't attempting, in any manner whatsoever, to pass it legislatively, you believe they want to, so that somehow proves that the GOP in TX is pushing it legislatively. :roll:

The simple fact is they aren't pushing it legislatively - so the evil christian righties aren't forcing this issue upon the public. Which is what started the topic.
 
Last edited:
Had I agreed with your PC programmed position, you would have thought it logical and relevant.

Absolutely not. If you had shown a shred of logic in your post, I might have taken your position seriously. You didn't so I didn't.

It would be easier done than said if 'those people' would stop injecting their immorality into society.

If legitamcy is given to homosexuals, it will open the door to all manor of perversions from marrying children to farm animals and pets, for which political correctness will take up their cause.

Slippery slope logical fallacy along with an appeal to emotion. Once again, you show your inability to present your argument with any logic whatsoever.
 
I was suggesting Empirica do this, so she can actually mount an argument about nature. It is not that language has changed, simply that the term has become confused. When it is confused, it is sometimes better to clarify one's meaning.

By the way, you are a very angry person.

The term is not confused. The term is exact in the modern context. I am guessing you are referring to Aristotle's ideas of "natural law". That is completely and totally different from whether homosexuality is natural.
 
I was suggesting Empirica do this, so she can actually mount an argument about nature. It is not that language has changed, simply that the term has become confused. When it is confused, it is sometimes better to clarify one's meaning.

By the way, you are a very angry person.

He's right, though. Issues and concepts evolve. We no longer think the earth is flat because we've come to understand that it isn't. We no longer think that the Earth is the center of the universe because we've come to understand through increased knowledge that it isn't. The use of the term "natural" in this argument can either be a moral or an operational definition. From an operational standpoint, we now understand that homosexuality is natural. From a moral standpoint... that's up to the individual.
 
The term is not confused. The term is exact in the modern context. I am guessing you are referring to Aristotle's ideas of "natural law". That is completely and totally different from whether homosexuality is natural.
No it isn't. When someone says a human act is unnatural and therefore immoral, they are, consciously or not, appealing to nature in the sense of Peripatetics(or Platonists or Christians or even Vedantists or whatever), rather than simply as a positivist reading of the 'natural world'. Or at least they are if they want to make a blind bit of sense. Nature has many meanings. When we talk about nature today we very often confuse them, we very often confuse the most spiritual and realist of assumptions with the most empirical and post-Newtonian/post-Darwinian.
 
Last edited:
No it isn't. When someone says a human act is unnatural and therefore immoral, they are, consciously or not, appealing to nature in the sense of Peripatetics(or Platonists or even Vedantists or whatever), rather than simply as a positivist reading of the 'natural world'. Or at least they are if they want to make a blind bit of sense. Nature has many meanings. When we talk about nature today we very often confuse them, we very often confuse the most spiritual and realist of assumptions with the most empirical and post-Newtonian/post-Darwinian.

Credit where it is due: not many can make me look up a nonslang word, but I had no clue what Peripatetics is.

Can you show me, as I have been unable to find it, the practical difference between Plato's "natural" and the modern "natural" and how that is relevant to the modern world with our understanding of science today?
 
So, even though they aren't attempting, in any manner whatsoever, to pass it legislatively, you believe they want to, so that somehow proves that the GOP in TX is pushing it legislatively. :roll:

What's a party platform?
 
Credit where it is due: not many can make me look up a nonslang word, but I had no clue what Peripatetics is.

Can you show me, as I have been unable to find it, the practical difference between Plato's "natural" and the modern "natural" and how that is relevant to the modern world with our understanding of science today?
I'm not inclined to argue why homosexual is unnatural in this context. However when it comes to talk about scienific understandings of the natural world, it must be remembered that these are largely positivist, quantitative(as far as is possible) and analytical as well relying on certain assumptions that are still inherent in the modern, scientific viewpoint. Particularly in this last respect Cartesian, mechanistic(of Descartes through Newton and others) and empiricist/positivist assumptions are very important, as well as a very post-Darwinian viewpoint. Aristotle was dealing with nature in a very different way in his ethical work, he was looking at in a metaphysical and philosophical sense. It doesn't really have much to do with our modern scientific understandings of nature, they are simply dealing with different things. The practical differences are simply how we view nature and morality.

If you wish to understand the Aristotelian-Thomistic, as an example of an older kind of the view of nature, then the Thomistic philosopher Edward Feser's books and blog are well worth reading. I'm more of a Patristic-Platonic Christian myself, but he is an excellent apologist for his position.
 
Last edited:
I'm not inclined to argue why homosexual is unnatural in this context. However when it comes to talk about scienific understandings of the natural world, it must be remembered that these are largely positivist, quantitative(as far as is possible) and analytical as well relying on certain assumptions that are still inherent in the modern, scientific viewpoint. Particularly in this last respect Cartesian, mechanistic(of Descartes through Newton and others) and empiricist/positivist assumptions are very important, as well as a very post-Darwinian viewpoint. Aristotle was dealing with nature in a very different way in his ethical work, he was looking at in a metaphysical and philosophical sense. It doesn't really have much to do with our modern scientific understandings of nature, they are simply dealing with different things. The practical differences are simply how we view nature and morality.

For the very short and unsatisfying response, metaphysical and philosophical views are inherently subjective.
 
For the very short and unsatisfying response, metaphysical and philosophical views are inherently subjective.
All done the ages to philosophise was to think, it was left to the 20th century not to think and call it philosophy. - As a wise man once said.

As 'natural science' is but the application of reason to observation, and this reason too always makes certain pre-empirical assumptions about nature(like the nature of causality and on things like Cartesianism and so forth), then natural science must be subjective as well. In fact if one investigates the philosophy of science, as say the Catholic mathematician and physicist Wolfgang Smith has, you will see it has incorporated many philosophical and metaphysical assumptions. The ghosts of Descartes and Bacon and Locke still haunt it.
 
Last edited:
All done the ages to philosophise was to think, it was left to the 20th century not to think and call it philosophy. - As a wise man once said.

As 'natural science' is but the application of reason to observation, and this reason too always makes certain pre-empirical assumptions about nature(like the nature of causality and on things like Cartesianism and so forth), then natural science must be subjective as well. In fact if one investigates the philosophy of science, as say the Catholic mathematician and physicist Wolfgang Smith has, you will see it has incorporated many philosophical and metaphysical assumptions. The ghosts of Descartes and Bacon and Locke still haunt it.

Science must, to be science, challenge the initial assumptions.
 
So you oppose all marriage? And all displays of sexuality in public? And even hints of them, like holding hands, kissing,etc?

Oh, plus you're a libertarian.
Wow___How in the world did you ever get this from my post?___You guys never fail to amaze and amuse me misterman.

Liberals have this amazing ability to mentally pound any shape peg into any shape hole and convince themself it's a perfect fit.
 
Science must, to be science, challenge the initial assumptions.
It can certainly challenge some of them, although in many ways it is tied to them. So, although it is so tied to Cartesianism, which helped make it what it is, it might try and extricate itself from Descartes' grip. Quantum physics has forced physics to loosen the grip of some of these assumptions, though apparently even after this the solutions to it are still intertwined with these assumptions(and which some have suggested is one reason why it is so hard to assimilate Quantum physics into scientific understanding, as Richard Feyman said, or is supposed to have, no one understand quantum physics.).

It cannot however, while being a quantitative, observational based, analytical inquiry into the natural world stop being these a quantitative, observational based, analytical inquiry into the natural world.

In fact, though it could have been set up better ,natural science deals with the rational arrangement of observations about the corporeal, external world. It is not its field to deal with many of the issues brought up by say the assumptions of positivism or Cartesianism. That is the job of philosophy and metaphysics. To use the tools of natural science, would make little sense in these domains. Though of course in modern popular thought, and popularisation of science, this attempted colonisation happens all the time(witness the likes of Richard Dawkins).
 
Last edited:
Wow___How in the world did you ever get this from my post?

I didn't. I'm asking you. You are the one who went on about other people's sexual practices being in your face.

Liberals have this amazing ability to mentally pound any shape peg into any shape hole and convince themself it's a perfect fit.

I'm not a liberal.

So what's your problem with homosexuality again?
 
Back
Top Bottom