Pushing the "gay" agenda in schools..

[Geo Patric]

Natural to animals does not make it natural to humans.

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

geo.

 

[Tucker Case]

don't forget monogamy....

Which is equally "unnatural" in humans.

 

[Geo Patric]

it's morally taboo in the majority of the world.

now you are getting somewhere... maybe.

Taboo: proscribed by society as improper or unacceptable.

nothing objective in that. to jews, eating pork, to hindus, eating beef, to north africans eating with the left hand. 'taboo' is the very antithesis of objective.

There is a fundamental morality that is intrinsic.

'intrinsic: belonging to a thing by its very nature:

which is to say that, by itself, it means nothing. if what you say is true, it must be intrinsic TO something. if to humans, then that morality cannot include the proscription of homosexuality as humans behave homosexually which would be impossible if homosexuality were not intrinsic to humans.

I'm saying it's wrong because a lot of people don't like. Because the majority of the major religions don't like it, and because historically....humans don't like it.

ah, now... you are misrepresenting the facts and making logical errors.

the majority of civilizations may have had proscriptions against it in history, but of course, recorded history covers a relatively small portion of our past. and secondly, that a maojority favors hetero sex only indicates that the majority are heterosexual. that a majority of white folk considered black folk inferior was not an indication that black folk were inferior only that white folk were dominant. now, if you want to argue that as a qualification for moral validity...

geo.

 

[Geo Patric]

Overpopulation and Population Control: The Making of a Myth:

☺

the illuminati nut bird representative having been heard from....

geo.

 

[Tucker Case]

What does marriage have to do with procreation Tucker? It has no logical basis for what is unnatural about procreation. Married or not, heterosexuals will still produce children together, and share their DNA, homosexuals cannot do this. It is this that makes it unnatural. Come on, you of all people? You marriage straw man is not welcome..


Tim-

It's certainly not a strawman. The unnatural argument must be carried out in all domains of th edebate because if someone is trying to argue that unnaturalness is relevent in one aspect of the debate, it is necesary to conclude thait is equally relevent in all aspects of the debate.

If someone beluieves that the "unnaturalness" of homosexual procreation is important enough to bring up in a debate that is ultimately about homosexuality as viewed by society, it is important to show that thigns which are defintiely unnatural are often condoned by society, especialy those who wish to try and use a naturalistic fallacy in their arguements.

 

[Geo Patric]

Further, there are many definitions of the word Natural that have nothing to do with nature.

really? would you like to point to one?

geo.

 

[OscarB63]

really? would you like to point to one?

geo.

natural:

10. proper to the circumstances of the case: a natural result of his greed.
11. free from affectation or constraint: a natural manner.
12. arising easily or spontaneously: a natural courtesy to strangers.
15. based upon the innate moral feeling of humankind: natural justice.
17. happening in the ordinary or usual course of things, without the intervention of accident, violence, etc.

 

[Geo Patric]

male homosexual sex, is dangerous! It's dangerous for ANYONE

can you show this?

State of being is a philosophical concept, CC, it holds no objective truth value, only subjective, or relative.

sorry, but that is about as wrong as it can be. 'state of being', 'what is'. has existential reality, is objectively qualifiable, is empirical and self instantiating. it holds a truth that is about as absolute as we can get. homosexuality is a part of the definition of human behavior because that is how humans behave. whether it is good or bad, desireable or undesireable is the only argument here and yours relies entirely on nonrational, subjective 'absolutes' - "i don't like it", "i was taught to not like it", "my god doesn't like it", "it's icky".... take yer pick.

you should go back to equivocating about its "moral" justification - in attempting to deligitimize it via scientific, medical/psychological or philosophical qualification, you are failing miserably.

geo.

 

[OscarB63]

can you show this?

geo.

really? do we really have to point to all the medical studies that show male homosexual sex is dangerous and leads to more STDs...really???? unless, of course, you are discounting anal sex.

 

[Your Star]

really? do we really have to point to all the medical studies that show male homosexual sex is dangerous and leads to more STDs...really???? unless, of course, you are discounting anal sex.

Your talking about anal sex, which can be practiced by straight couples as well, and not all gay men practice in anal sex. It can't get anymore simple then that.

 

[Geo Patric]

natural:. . . . .

tch... it is generally thought to be a bad practice to employ the word defined in its own definition, it is the lexical equivalent to 'circular reasoning' which leads nowhere... EXCEPT where there is an already established definition in which the latter are examples of nuance, as is the case here. i know, i know... bushie republicans "don't DO nuance". still, i bet that at #1 in this definition list is something along the lines of "according to nature".

nice try... not really, but i like to be polite. here is a better example

natural: one born without the usual powers of reason and understanding
that one should seem pretty familiar to you. of course, it is really a reference to one who comes by a facility without the need to learn (such as baseball in Philip Roth's novel).. but the other simpler reading seems a lot more appropos in THIS thread.

geo.

 

[Geo Patric]

really? do we really have to point to all the medical studies that show male homosexual sex is dangerous and leads to more STDs...really???? unless, of course, you are discounting anal sex.

what you are saying is that sex includes risks (as does eating....) and that anal sex involves greater risk. true enough, but reproductive sex involves more of the selfsame risks than nonreprodutive sex (ie: using condoms). so, it is morally right, socially responsible and a natural absolute that humans NOT have babies as a result of sex?

geo.

 

[Redress]

really? do we really have to point to all the medical studies that show male homosexual sex is dangerous and leads to more STDs...really???? unless, of course, you are discounting anal sex.

Certain sexual acts carried heightened risks, but they are neither exclusive to homosexuals, nor a part of being homosexual. A gay man in a monogamous relationship is at less risk for STDs than a strait man engaging in promiscuous sex.

 

[SheWolf]

What does arguing about STDs even have to do with this debate?

 

[Geo Patric]

Certain sexual acts carried heightened risks, but they are neither exclusive to homosexuals, nor a part of being homosexual. A gay man in a monogamous relationship is at less risk for STDs than a strait man engaging in promiscuous sex.

thanks...

i was just gonna edit my post to change my comment. heterosexual sex has a greater frequency of STD, but there is no evidence that i know of that indicates that it is the cause as such. promiscuity and a lack of hygene play precisely the same role in homo as in hetero trasmission. significantly, the high risk groups include prostitutes and IV drug users, none of whom are engaging in anal sex.

geo.

 

[Hicup]

can you show this?



sorry, but that is about as wrong as it can be. 'state of being', 'what is'. has existential reality, is objectively qualifiable, is empirical and self instantiating. it holds a truth that is about as absolute as we can get. homosexuality is a part of the definition of human behavior because that is how humans behave. whether it is good or bad, desireable or undesireable is the only argument here and yours relies entirely on nonrational, subjective 'absolutes' - "i don't like it", "i was taught to not like it", "my god doesn't like it", "it's icky".... take yer pick.

you should go back to equivocating about its "moral" justification - in attempting to deligitimize it via scientific, medical/psychological or philosophical qualification, you are failing miserably.

geo.

LOL.. Ummm.. No it doesn't, but that was an amusing aside all the same.. Thanks!


Tim-

 

[Hicup]

Your talking about anal sex, which can be practiced by straight couples as well, and not all gay men practice in anal sex. It can't get anymore simple then that.

I would think that this is an EXTREME exception to the rule, and your use of this exception which by the way you cannot even remotely prove, is illutrative of just how weak the argument is. Anal sex practiced among heterosexuals is also unnatural, and I beleive I made that point clear earlier on to avoid such nonesense.


Tim-

 

[Geo Patric]

LOL.. Ummm.. No it doesn't, but that was an amusing aside all the same.. Thanks!


Tim-

yes, i am afraid it does. no matter what you want to think about the existence of something, its physical being qualifies it in all the ways i said.

lol

geo.

 

[OscarB63]

Your talking about anal sex, which can be practiced by straight couples as well,

which is what Hicup was referring to when he said it was dangerous for anyone. do try to keep up.

and not all gay men practice in anal sex. It can't get anymore simple then that.

sure, not all men practice anal sex....but the majority of them do. recent surveys indicate that anywhere from 62-80% of gay men have anal sex.

 

[Geo Patric]

+ Anal sex practiced among heterosexuals is also unnatural, and I beleive I made that point clear earlier on to avoid such nonesense

you have yet to qualfiy 'unnatural' as anything but a personal preference... again "I believe" does not make it true.

geo.

 

[Hicup]

Certain sexual acts carried heightened risks, but they are neither exclusive to homosexuals, nor a part of being homosexual. A gay man in a monogamous relationship is at less risk for STDs than a strait man engaging in promiscuous sex.

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-

 

[Hicup]

yes, i am afraid it does. no matter what you want to think about the existence of something, its physical being qualifies it in all the ways i said.

lol

geo.

Agreed, when something is physically present it holds truth value. What is a physical homosexual, sparky? careful geo..


Tim-

 

[Hicup]

you have yet to qualfiy 'unnatural' as anything but a personal preference... again "I believe" does not make it true.

geo.

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-

 

[rocket88]

Penal, vaginal sex is exclusive to heterosexuals, and that's all that need be differentiated. You're squirming..

Tim-

What in the name of God is "penal" about vaginal sex? I don't get as much sex as I'd like, but I certainly don't see it as a punishment!

For a straight man, you spend a lot of time thinking about gay sex.

 

[Geo Patric]

What is a physical homosexual, sparky? careful geo..

careful? sparky?

a physical anything is that thing that has material presence, either as mass or energy. anyone that is engaging in sex of any sort meets that essential criterion.

'state of being', 'what is'. has existential reality - that is, it exists. it "is".


is objectively qualifiable - it being is evidence of its own evidence - the shadow of the wolf qualifes the wolf as having presence. leprechauns do not leave shadows.

is empirical - that is, based on evidence, as above

and self instantiating - that is, it does not depend on any external entity to demonstrate its existence.

it holds a truth that is about as absolute as we can get. - physical reality is the realist reality we know of. that does not deny the reality of nonphysical entities... abstract premises such as justice or truth or love. It DOES mean that material realities are absolutely qualifiable.

geo.