• 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!

Pushing the "gay" agenda in schools..

Status
Not open for further replies.
great. Do you bellieve that simply occuring is enough for a thing to be natural?

Well, first I'd like to point out that in the previous posts I was specifically targetting the definition of "unnatural" because hicup was only looking at that definition in order to make a certain argument.

But to answer your question: No. The definition of "natural" I tend abide by in contexts such as this one is "being in accordance with or determined by nature" Natural - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

I don't look at all things made by humans as natural, and this includes concepts, ideas, ideologies, inventions, etc. I wouldn't call "religion" or shoes natural. They are man-made things and, as such, are determined by man, not nature.
 
You've taken posts from different sub-conversations and mashed them together.
I didn't mean to misrepresent your comments, I had several pages to catch up to.
There is an intrinsic morality that is not learned, and it serves the foundation of human societal morality.
I have never seen any evidence of that. If that were true, how could their be cultures that you or I would consider amoral? Do you think the Mongolian Empire was intrinsically moral? I don't want to have to step through every immoral society in human history to make my point... but morality is taught and learned.
As far as your link....if it's so accepted, why is it still so opposed?
It's not. Popular support for equal gay rights in general, is very high, as is popular support for openly gays in the military and support for gays as public school teachers. What's "so opposed" are legal issues, such as recognizing SSM. Homosexuality itself is accepted by a majority of Americans. Sort of a paradox, due to the fact that most people don't understand state-marriage (as a set of Laws) is a legal issue, not a social or religious issue.
 
Last edited:
Ah.. The first krinkle in the armor appears. Thanks for your honesty at least.
Not really. Not every relationship is destined to have or raise children by natural, unnatural or legal means. I didn't mention any new information in my post, yet you responded as if by revelation. It's already been established that homosexuals do have and raise children though various means.

The major reason people have children is because of maternal instincts. If a woman is barren or there isn't a woman in the relationship, there most likely wont be children. That doesn't mean the couple is worthless or their relationship is meaningless.
Wrong.. You cannot define state of being without providing context. It is this context that is all important, and why CC can't prove his claim. You might as well say that nothing has purpose, that we are all wandering in the universe with no ultimate truth.
I hate to rain on your parade, but there is no scientific proof that life has a specific meaning. There certainly isn't any scientific proof that there is an "ultimate truth" that is the same from every perspective. Human beings examine the universe through our own preconceived notions, based on our own limited brains.
How meaningful is that? Occuring in nature is tantamount to the same concept. "Well it occurs in nature", but it is not naturally occuring is the same as something being unnatural. A tree is made of wood, but a tree can't build a house.. See???
It depends on your definition of a house. If you just mean shelter, then it can--some trees actually make ideal hollowed out nooks. Likewise, a genetically modified tree could grow in the shape of a house. The entire discussion of "natural" v "unnatural" is an arbitrary distinction, designed only to categorizes human endeavors (derived by human intelligence) as opposed to everything else in nature.

Scientifically speaking acts of an "Intelligent Designer" on natural order would be considered unnatural. Yet we don't have to get into a discussion about whether God is natural or unnatural, whether man is natural or unnatural, or where those lines are drawn. It's pointless philosophy.
 
Moderator's Warning:
It's that time folks. ALmost 2k posts, when a thread starts to bog down the database or whatever technical crap happens, and the thread has been only marginally on topic for 1000 or more of those posts. Calling it done, locking this.
 
By honestly you mean, respond the way you want me too.

What's funny here is awhile back I got into a conversation with Iangb about not getting wrapped up in definitions (his point). Here, I'm going head to head over people who do not want to understand the concept of the word "natural" just argue text book definitions....not even textbook..but dictionary....

No, by honestly, I mean... HONESTLY. If you don't want to get into semantic arguments about definitions, don't equvocate definitions. It is really that easy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom