• 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

MadLib said:
Animals and humans both have genes. The only difference is intelligence. This itself is a topic for another thread, but if you think evolution is true then homosexuality in animals relates to homosexuality in humans.
Click to expand...

I understand that, however, animal sexuality is quite different than human sexuality. Further, it is unnecessary to use animal behavior to prove that homosexuality is natural. It occurs in nature with HUMANS. The animal issue is a red herring.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
I understand that, however, animal sexuality is quite different than human sexuality. Further, it is unnecessary to use animal behavior to prove that homosexuality is natural. It occurs in nature with HUMANS. The animal issue is a red herring.
Click to expand...

Technically, the natural issue is a red herring, too. :lol:
 
Your Star said:
Natural is anything that occurs in nature without the aid of technology. Surgery isn't natural, neither is this conversation since we are using the internet, but both of those things are good.

So please give us your definition of natural.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I used the above definition PAGES ago.
 
Wessexman said:
Nature can have several meanings. Essence or Formal cause is also a definition of a nature. Take the ear. One can use natural to describe its healthy state and unnatural to describe an ear that does not hear correctly. Even though deafness occurs in the 'natural world' one can call it unnatural for an ear to be deaf.
Click to expand...

That's all well and good. However, natural is being used in a specific context, here. Do try to keep up.
 
lpast said:
Whats awkward and embarrassing is your inability to think for yourself young lady...Parroting isnt provoking original thought

Ive answered CCs question 4 times his dodging and embarrassing redundant re asking the same question has done nothing but expose his inability to prove his assertions...and he has demonstated his inability to answer the question...I find you and he quite entertaining to be honest...thats why Ive wasted so much time in this thread...lol....its a no brainer that homosexuality is not normal nor a natural occurrence in human beings....if cave men and women were all homosexuals...there would be no humanity...:)
Click to expand...

Here's the problem with what I placed in bold: Plenty of folks who are homosexual reproduce.
 
lpast said:
nah its all CC, the same redundant question asking over and over..lol..all your talking points are memorized CC lines...but hey if thats all ya got its ok...oh didnt I mention ive answered that question 4 times and I will not be answering it again no matter how many times you and CC ask..:)....and if you dont understand my last sentence as its written...then no amount of effort to explain it to you would be sufficient..:)
Click to expand...

Actually, Your Star and I have debated this issue on the same side for about 18 months. Since we read each others posts, I would imagine that each of us has borrowed some things that we've learned from each other on this topic. I know I have.
 
lpast said:
That proves just the opposite that its abnormal....proof LOL...two men having sex is natural ? two women having sex is natural ? sure lol tell me another 1000 times and I still laugh at that statement....if thats natural then having sex with sheep and brontasaurus's is normal...please...you can take all your cheerleaders and repeat the same line over and over and over and whether you like it or no those in this country that know its not natural do not have to prove any thing...I dont have to prove anything.
You have to prove that homosexuality is normal to me...because the lionshare of this country knows that not true...being for homosexual marriage does not mean they believe its NORMAL to be homosexual....
Click to expand...

See, this is a MAJOR error. I have posted many times my purpose for debating issues at DP. Here they are again:

1) To present my position as clearly, logically, and intelligently as possible.
2) To debunk, refute, and humiliate my opponents position as completely as possible.
3) To assist those who may be on the fence about an issue to understand the logic of what I am presenting and to perhaps persuade them to my side of the issue.
4) To both learn things about issues and to teach things about issues.

No where in there is "convince someone that they are wrong" or "convince someone to come over to my side". I NEVER try to do that. It rarely happens around here.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
OK... then define unnatural.
Click to expand...
I was translating for him. It would be a bit of stretch to put words into his mouth and start defining things for him. Looking at his comments though it seems he is not simply observing the 'natural world'.
 
Last edited:
MadLib said:
It's a common usage term. I'm a student of psychology and I learned that many terms such as "psychopath" "sociopath" are not actually used. Homophobia is more word play than anything else. In a sense however it is correct, the people who are referred to as homophobes often have something nasty to say about homosexuality, and often fear it.
Click to expand...
I know it is a common term, but it is common because those who wish to discredit those who do not embrace the morality and wisdom of homosexuality throw it around a lot. That doesn't mean one can't avoid it and point out the sinister overtones it seems to have.
 
Last edited:
Tucker Case said:
The term "Normal" is being used in the premises, while the conclusion is about the morality of the thing which they have deemed to be normal or abnormal in the premise. In these situations, the argument begs the question.
Click to expand...
It can still be part of a valid argument. It depends on how they define natural and how they go about proving its role in deciding what is moral.
 
Wessexman said:
It can still be part of a valid argument. It depends on how they define natural and how they go about proving its role in deciding what is moral.
Click to expand...

Given that morality is inherently subjective, I don't see that particular line of reasoning going very far anyway.
 
StillBallin75 said:
Given that morality is inherently subjective, I don't see that particular line of reasoning going very far anyway.
Click to expand...
Well morality, in the general sense, makes no sense without a subject, but I have an idea you are misusing the term subjective.
 
Last edited:
Wessexman said:
It can still be part of a valid argument. It depends on how they define natural and how they go about proving its role in deciding what is moral.
Click to expand...

Sure, but any argument of that type would be demonstrably unsound if if is presented while using a computer.
 
Tucker Case said:
Sure, but any argument of that type would be demonstrably unsound if if is presented while using a computer.
Click to expand...
Unless it was an argument that defined nature according Essences and Formal and Final Causes and did not see these being violated in man's case by using a computer. There is of course even a difference between something contrary to the nature, in this sense, and simply something other than the natural function involved. For instance if we say, using such a definition, that deafness is contrary to the nature of an ear, which is to hear; an earring (without going into an in depth analysis of such topics) could be said to be not contrary to the nature of an ear, as long as it did not interfere with hearing, but nor its natural function either. In general those who try and construct these kind of arguments object only to what is contrary to nature and not simply superfluous, if that is the correct term.
 
Last edited:
Wessexman said:
It can still be part of a valid argument. It depends on how they define natural and how they go about proving its role in deciding what is moral.
Click to expand...

Try it, and I'll just point out that even kissing is not natural. The mouth is for eating! Then I'll hit oral sex.
 
misterman said:
Try it, and I'll just point out that even kissing is not natural. The mouth is for eating! Then I'll hit oral sex.
Click to expand...
See the post right above yours.

By the way, depending on how you define such things, I don't see what would stop you arguing that one organ, such as the mouth, had multiple Final Causes, to use a particular technical language, and therefore natural functions. This is obviously what would, and has, be argued in many cases.
 
Last edited:
Wessexman said:
See the post right above yours.

By the way, depending on how you define such things, I don't see what would stop you arguing that one organ, such as the mouth, had multiple Final Causes, to use a particular technical language, and therefore natural functions. This is obviously what would, and has, be argued in many cases.
Click to expand...

I still win.
 
Wessexman said:
When you put it so eloquently, who could doubt it.
Click to expand...

You said it yourself - the mouth has multiple uses. So the naturalness argument goes out the window. If he has to justify kissing that way, he can't exclude homosexuality. You either accept "natural" as a moral argument, or you don't. Which is why I brought up kissing.
 
misterman said:
You said it yourself - the mouth has multiple uses. So the naturalness argument goes out the window. If he has to justify kissing that way, he can't exclude homosexuality. You either accept "natural" as a moral argument, or you don't. Which is why I brought up kissing.
Click to expand...
One could, as an example and to use again a particular technical language, argue a final cause of the mouth is eating and that another is kissing; or it is in the nature of the mouth to both eat and kiss. I'm not sure why something must have only one function, or final cause, as part of its nature. You could also certainly argue that a final cause of the mouth is eating and that kissing, while not its final cause or natural function, is not contrary to this and therefore not unnatural per se.
 
Last edited:
Wessexman said:
Unless it was an argument that defined nature according Essences and Formal and Final Causes and did not see these being violated in man's case by using a computer.
Click to expand...

Well, then it's circular reasoning because you invented a fake definition for a word for the sole purpose of using said word in an argument designed specifically to reach the per-determined conclusion you wish to achieve. Thus making the argument invalid again.
 
Last edited:
Tucker Case said:
Well, then it's circular reasoning because you invented a fake definition for a word for the sole purpose of using said word in an argument designed specifically to reach the per-determined conclusion you wish to achieve. Thus making the argument invalid again.
Click to expand...
You really are going to have to run that past me again. In general nature in this sense is defined as Essence or what something cannot be without and be itself. Exactly how that is circular reasoning is beyond me, Tucker.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom