Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-10-2013, 04:21 AM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(18-10-2013 04:16 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  That argument can be used to advocate favoring teaching children math and science versus religion. Are you suggesting that religion should be put on the same level as math and science? No? If you accept the argument why do you continue to insist on putting homosexuality on the same level as heterosexuality?

It's YOUR argument! What the hell are you talking about?

"Good news, everyone!"
-Cody
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2013, 04:28 AM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(18-10-2013 03:01 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(18-10-2013 02:55 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  Alright I'll play a long (but this'll be my last post tonight, got shit to do so you'll have to wait till later for a response).

Homosexuality is NOT immoral because a) it occurs naturally b) it's not a choice c) it doesn't harm anyone (obviously things like rape and kiddy fiddling priests are a bad thing, but they occur in heterosexual occurrences too and homosexuality does not automatically equal rapist or pedophile just as heterosexuality doesn't) d) the bible is a load of shit (I'm not arguing the bible, this is an atheist site there is plenty of material to refute it everywhere). e) is being black considered immoral? answer that and you got your answer if you replace the word black with gay. The why's are exactly the same.


Stop hijacking their hate thread with my hate?

You can't have a respectful discussion with Catholics because they're fucking moronic and couldn't see stupid if it was butt naked checks spread apart 5inches from their face.

Instead of playing along, how about you just leave. It's obvious you are more interested in tossing insults rather than having an intelligent respectable conversation.

With trolls like you, I suspect the only place a respectful conversation of this nature on this topic could occur on this forum is the boxing ring.

A quick skim over what people have said in your rep makes this most laughable.

Quote:It's not my justification, I'm a secular humanist, liberal and atheist. I support the complete separation of church and state, the legalisation of homosexual civil unions and the withdrawal of the state from marriage completely.

I'm just saying stick to the fucking point and stop acting like a retard if that is at all possible. The question at hand is "Is homosexuality immoral?" I don't agree that it is immoral, my position is that at worst it is morally neutral and possibly morally good under a virtue based system of ethics. But I'm not going to argue my case to allow others to try and exercise their ability to formulate and present arguments. I don't want to be doing this. Thumbsup

When I said "your" I didn't mean you, I meant Catholics who use the bible to "counter" homosexuality.
I thought that to be obvious. Obviously not.

(18-10-2013 03:06 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(18-10-2013 02:57 AM)Colourcraze Wrote:  Is there any specific reason as to why homosexuality is immoral other than "because the bible says so"? What harm does it do to society? Is it based in promiscuity/fornication? In which case, if homosexuals got married, and committed themselves to a monogomous relationship, is the marriage bed then undefiled? [/b]

If everyone on the planet suddenly became black, it wouldn't be catastrophic. If everyone on this planet suddenly became heterosexual, it wouldn't be catastrophic. However if everyone on the planet suddenly became homosexual, it would be catastrophic.

It is good for society if homosexuality isn't prevalent.

This is fucking retarded because it's unrealistic. Hugely unrealistic.
And even so, taking into account this hugely unrealistic "thought experiment" it would hardly be "catastrophic". The ability to breed is still there.
Hell, I would argue that it could be a bloody thing. Imagine if the only people who were born were wanted children to loving parents capable of going through the whole artificial insemination thing. Talk about a plummet in crime.

Quote:The thought experiment shows that homosexuality doesn't have the same worth to society as heterosexuality.

1) No it doesn't

2) You're a fucking retard

3) It's hugely unrealistic and so has no basis of being a valid and worthwhile "thought experiment" and so your point is like you, fucking retarded.

Quote:That's a start but appeal to nature is considered to be an informal logical fallacy. Psychopathy also occurs naturally that doesn't mean that psychopathic acts are morally good.

Apples and Oranges. You're comparing people to people's actions.
You can't compare homosexuality to the actions of psychopaths.
You can however compare homosexuality to being a psychopath.

And I don't think psychopaths are immoral. I am by definition one. I know a couple people on here that are by definition one.
I think being a psychopath is very much like being gay or being black.

When I say it occurs in nature or naturally, what I mean is, it isn't a choice.
It's like being black. Nobody choices to be black, you just pop that way.

Quote:Catholics claim otherwise.

Catholics claim God exists too...

Quote:IIRC the natural law argument doesn't rely on scriptural prohibition of homosexuality.

and IIRC the natural law argument is open to wide interpretation. That being that Catholics and other religious nut jobs use it because you can substitute a word and make it apply for pretty much everything.

Quote:That's a false analogy.

Why?

Quote:That's an idiotic and unedcated generalisation. Look here.

This scientist theist thing has been debunked many many times here.

Quote:What does natural mean? Priest molesting children is natural because it occurs in nature. So is he claiming that just because something occurs in nature that makes it natural and thus moral? I don't think so.

When an opponent of homosexuality says it is "unnatural", that person usually means it is against the usual and ordinary course of nature. Is earmuffs using natural in that way? Is he claiming the homosexuality is the usual and ordinary course of nature? That claim would be obviously silly. Heterosexuality is the usual and ordinary course of nature, while homosexuality is a deviation.

The whole claiming homosexuality is natural and therefore moral is a silly argument...no matter how you define natural.

As I said earlier in this post, I am referring to people being born that way.

And why is it a deviation? Homosexuality occurs in over 700 different animal species (including us). We do not yet know why it occurs. It could for all you know occur due to overpopulation or other environmental changes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes earmuffs's post
18-10-2013, 04:32 AM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(18-10-2013 04:28 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  2) You're a fucking retard

If you have to resort to insults you shouldn't be in this thread. Please go away troll.....go away.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2013, 04:42 AM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
If you can't address the issues perhaps you should be the one to leave. Fucktard.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes earmuffs's post
18-10-2013, 04:48 AM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(18-10-2013 04:42 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  If you can't address the issues perhaps you should be the one to leave. Fucktard.

I'm not going to feed to the trolls. If you can't be respectful to me, don't expect a response from me.

Now apologize and promise to be a good boy and I might be willing to address "the issues" your bring up.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2013, 04:55 AM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
"Eat shit and die" - Serious Sam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2013, 04:55 AM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(18-10-2013 04:18 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(18-10-2013 04:04 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  We are not arguing those things so what is the point?

If all women became men the results would be catastrophic therefore Women have more value to society. No, still a stupid argument. Your premiss is flawed most things in society are only good if they are not the only thing.

Great rebuttal. All men becoming women would be far more catastrophic than all people becoming homosexual, because as earmuffs stated, the ability to breed is still there.

Also, I really wish I could hear this natural law argument. Maybe I'll research it later on my own, since this thread has apparently devolved into calling each other fucktards. Dodgy
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2013, 05:04 AM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(18-10-2013 04:28 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  This is fucking retarded because it's unrealistic. Hugely unrealistic.
And even so, taking into account this hugely unrealistic "thought experiment" it would hardly be "catastrophic". The ability to breed is still there.
Hell, I would argue that it could be a bloody thing. Imagine if the only people who were born were wanted children to loving parents capable of going through the whole artificial insemination thing. Talk about a plummet in crime.

It is doubtful that without some sort of central planning an entirely homosexual country/planet/island would reproduce at replacement level. Heterosexuality had to evolve and it was presumably selected because it contributed directly to reproduction. If homosexuality was sufficient to the task and heterosexuality conferred no relative benefit then it is likely that humans would be a homosexual species.

Quote:3) It's hugely unrealistic and so has no basis of being a valid and worthwhile "thought experiment" and so your point is like you, fucking retarded.

The purpose of HJs thought experiment is to try and determine what a society can reagrd as essential versus superfluous. He's not suggesting that humans will become homosexual he is saying if.

Quote:You can however compare homosexuality to being a psychopath.

Yes but we don't want psychopaths.

Quote:And I don't think psychopaths are immoral.

When they act psychopathically they are immoral.

Quote:I am by definition one. I know a couple people on here that are by definition one.

Self-diagnosis isn't very reliable on things like psychopathy. Unless you've had a formal diagnosis you can't be certain.

Quote:I think being a psychopath is very much like being gay or being black.

Yes in the sense that they are all born that way but that is besides the point. The point is that just because someone is born a particular way doesn't mean that the way they are is morally good.

Quote:When I say it occurs in nature or naturally, what I mean is, it isn't a choice.
It's like being black. Nobody choices to be black, you just pop that way.

Yes, we agree that they are all born that way but that shows that just because something occurs naturally it doesn't mean that it is good (or bad). If we can't use an appeal to nature to say that something is bad then we can't also use it to say that something is good.

Quote:This scientist theist thing has been debunked many many times here.

It is a matter of historical and current fact than many eminent scientists have been and are Catholic. Many Nobel Laureates have been Catholics.

Quote:And why is it a deviation? Homosexuality occurs in over 700 different animal species (including us). We do not yet know why it occurs. It could for all you know occur due to overpopulation or other environmental changes.

True but deviation just means different to the norm. Homosexuals comprise about ~5% of the population so it is by definition a deviation in that ~95% are not homosexual.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chippy's post
18-10-2013, 05:08 AM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(18-10-2013 04:55 AM)Colourcraze Wrote:  
(18-10-2013 04:18 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  If all women became men the results would be catastrophic therefore Women have more value to society. No, still a stupid argument. Your premiss is flawed most things in society are only good if they are not the only thing.

Great rebuttal. All men becoming women would be far more catastrophic than all people becoming homosexual, because as earmuffs stated, the ability to breed is still there.

Also, I really wish I could hear this natural law argument. Maybe I'll research it later on my own, since this thread has apparently devolved into calling each other fucktards. Dodgy

Its not a great rebuttal because it fails to address the fact that if everyone became a heterosexual that would not be catastrophic. Your focusing on the wrong thing.

If everyone became male, that would be catastrophic. If everyone became female that would be catastrophic. Now compare that to sexuality. If everyone became homosexual, that would be catastrophic. If everyone became heterosexual, we wouldn't miss a beat.

Society cannot afford to do away with males....Society cannot afford to do away with females.....Society cannot afford to do away with heterosexuals.

However Society can afford to do away with homosexuals. I'm sorry but it is a cold hard fact of nature that homosexuality offers little to no value to society. It could disappear today....in an instant....and humanity would march on not missing a beat.

That cold hard fact of nature alone is enough to justify not placing homosexuality on the same level as heterosexuality.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2013, 05:20 AM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(18-10-2013 05:08 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Its not a great rebuttal because it fails to address the fact that if everyone became a heterosexual that would not be catastrophic. Your focusing on the wrong thing.

If everyone became male, that would be catastrophic. If everyone became female that would be catastrophic. Now compare that to sexuality. If everyone became homosexual, that would be catastrophic. If everyone became heterosexual, we wouldn't miss a beat.

Society cannot afford to do away with males....Society cannot afford to do away with females.....Society cannot afford to do away with heterosexuals.

However Society can afford to do away with homosexuals. I'm sorry but it is a cold hard fact of nature that homosexuality offers little to no value to society. It could disappear today....in an instant....and humanity would march on not missing a beat.

That cold hard fact of nature alone is enough to justify not placing homosexuality on the same level as heterosexuality.
So you're completely writing off artificial insemination of homosexual women who choose to procreate? Homosexuals can still contribute to the propogation of the species, and move the species forward, all while never having to do anything sexual with the opposite sex. Not a very solid argument to justify your bigotry.

Also, I'm still waiting for you to explain just what the hell you were talking about in your last reply to me.

"Good news, everyone!"
-Cody
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: