"Gay marriage makes Jesus cry"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-02-2013, 04:58 AM
RE: "Gay marriage makes Jesus cry"
(27-02-2013 04:34 AM)Vera Wrote:  
(27-02-2013 04:23 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I merely made a list of your errors and directed you to a resource that you can use to educate yourself in the hope that you stop making them.
Don't you worry about me. Just make sure there's enough oxygen in that bubble of yours. Lack of oxygen to the brain is not good for you.

A quick question: do you think only certain sexual positions are "normal", just the ones that could possibly lead to the ultimate goal of every human being - to procreate?
Again you are confusing the premise "It is good for society if all members can procreate with someone who they love." With a decree that sex is only for procreation.
What sexual positions I think are "normal" isn't relavent to the argument I made(if you really want to know...say my name fast 10x and you will get a hint). If you wish to attack the argument I made look at the premises. Is each premise true? If one is false say premise 1 is false because...... Does the conclusion follow from the premises? And for God's sake, stop with the silly insults like "just make sure there is enough oxygen in that bubble of yours". They don't help you....they hurt you....its bad behavior.

Vosur, Anjele, Hanoff.....have you learned nothing in my absence?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-02-2013, 05:05 AM (This post was last modified: 27-02-2013 05:13 AM by Heywood Jahblome.)
RE: "Gay marriage makes Jesus cry"
(27-02-2013 04:45 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(27-02-2013 02:56 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  As an intellectual excercise I will attempt to put forth a valid argument against homosexuality.
1. It is good for society if all members can procreate with someone who they love.
2. Homosexuals cannot procreate with the people they love.
Therefore heterosexuality is more preferrable to society than homosexuality.
If you like to make a list of errors, let's start here:

You say, intellectual exercise, and then all you do is make an assertion without merit. I fail to see the reasoning or validity.

How is it good for society in this day in age if everyone could procreate with someone they love? That means absolutely nothing and the concept of there being able to be more people is not what many would call good for society anyway.

Vera, learn from this person. See how he attacks the premise by asking the quesiton, "How is it good for society in this day and age if everyone could procreate with someone they love?" He is demanding that I support that premise with some evidence...and he is right too because the premise isn't necessarily self evident.

He does err by stating more people would not be good for society. This is a red herring. The ability for everyone to procreate with a person they love does not mean everyone will procreate. Nor does it mean they will procreate in numbers that will lead to population growth. It may however be an attempt to steer the conversation toward population control instead.

Vosur, Anjele, Hanoff.....have you learned nothing in my absence?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-02-2013, 05:27 AM
RE: "Gay marriage makes Jesus cry"
Can you put all "responses" to me in one post? No need to inundate us with with your inanity more than is necessary.

The fact that you didn't like what I said doesn't make it wrong.

And for the record, people are social animals (well, some less than others, but you can't win them all) and the point of them being together is not to procreate, it's support, cooperation, what have you. Whether or not a couple can or cannot procreate has nothing to do with society and how "good" this couple or their sexual life is for humanity. Nor do you get to decide what is and isn't good for society.

Cooperation, however, is in society's interest. Homosexuality isn't built on the us-or-them mentality, unlike... yeah, you guessed it - religion. So no, dragging religion into this is not a red herring. Like I said, whether it is good for society or not, homosexuality is not harming. How about religion?
"He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters." That's the basis for a perfect society, right?

"E se non passa la tristezza con altri occhi la guarderĂ²."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-02-2013, 05:39 AM
RE: "Gay marriage makes Jesus cry"
(27-02-2013 02:16 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(26-02-2013 06:17 AM)Chas Wrote:  Do not confuse an argument with a response to an argument.

The citations of behaviors among animals is a response to those who argue that homosexuality is "unnatural" and therefore is wrong. That argument is baseless.

If a society has a taboo against a behavior that is natural, its justification has to be something other than "it's unnatural".
It is a bad response. When critics of gay rights claim homosexuality is "unnatural" they are really saying homosexuality isn't the usual and ordinary course of nature. When gay rights advocates respond by saying homosexuality is natural because it occurs in nature, he/she is using a different definition of "natural" then the critics. To be an effective response(meaning to persuade the opposition to change their minds) the gay rights advocates have to use "natural" in the same way as the critics.

Because the critics misuse a word or misunderstand nature, the advocates have to also be ignorant and stupid?

I think that the critics mean that they find it 'unnatural' in their narrow world view. If they mean something else (which I think they do), let them choose the correct word.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
27-02-2013, 07:09 AM
RE: "Gay marriage makes Jesus cry"
(27-02-2013 02:56 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  As an intellectual excercise I will attempt to put forth a valid argument against homosexuality.
1. It is good for society if all members can procreate with someone who they love.
2. Homosexuals cannot procreate with the people they love.
Therefore heterosexuality is more preferrable to society than homosexuality.
What evidence do you have to support the first premise?

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-02-2013, 07:40 AM
RE: "Gay marriage makes Jesus cry"
So what about people who are sterile and can't have babies even though they're straight and love each other very very much?

What about the couples of whom only one can't have a baby but the other could, are you suggesting that that couple shouldn't be together because the person who can have a baby should find someone and pop a little devil out?

What about those couples who choose not to have children?

What about those couples who can have children but decide to adopt anyway?

Are you suggesting that these people do not benefit society?

I don't talk gay, I don't walk gay, it's like people don't even know I'm gay unless I'm blowing them.
[Image: 10h27hu.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-02-2013, 08:34 AM
RE: "Gay marriage makes Jesus cry"



Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
27-02-2013, 02:39 PM
RE: "Gay marriage makes Jesus cry"
(27-02-2013 05:39 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(27-02-2013 02:16 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  It is a bad response. When critics of gay rights claim homosexuality is "unnatural" they are really saying homosexuality isn't the usual and ordinary course of nature. When gay rights advocates respond by saying homosexuality is natural because it occurs in nature, he/she is using a different definition of "natural" then the critics. To be an effective response(meaning to persuade the opposition to change their minds) the gay rights advocates have to use "natural" in the same way as the critics.

Because the critics misuse a word or misunderstand nature, the advocates have to also be ignorant and stupid?

I think that the critics mean that they find it 'unnatural' in their narrow world view. If they mean something else (which I think they do), let them choose the correct word.


The definition critics are using is one of several valid definitions of "natural" so your point is hollow. The definition the advocates are using is also one of several valid definitions of "natural".

Consider the following sentence: "It is natural for a human being to be born with 2 arms." Did you have any problem whatsoever understanding the meaning of that sentence? I could have written that same sentence as: "It is the usual and ordinary course of nature for a human being to be born with 2 arms." Both sentences mean exactly the same thing because "usual and ordinary course of nature" can be substituted with "natural".

For your sake Chas lets use the "correct" word and see if the advocates response is sensical.
Critic: "Homosexuality is bad because it doesn't follow the usual and ordinary course of nature."
Advocate: "Wrong, Homosexuality is perfectly natural because it occurs in nature"
In this exchange it should be clear to you that the advocates response, while true, doesn't address the argument being made by the critic.

Vosur, Anjele, Hanoff.....have you learned nothing in my absence?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-02-2013, 02:59 PM
RE: "Gay marriage makes Jesus cry"
(27-02-2013 02:39 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(27-02-2013 05:39 AM)Chas Wrote:  Because the critics misuse a word or misunderstand nature, the advocates have to also be ignorant and stupid?

I think that the critics mean that they find it 'unnatural' in their narrow world view. If they mean something else (which I think they do), let them choose the correct word.


The definition critics are using is one of several valid definitions of "natural" so your point is hollow. The definition the advocates are using is also one of several valid definitions of "natural".

Consider the following sentence: "It is natural for a human being to be born with 2 arms." Did you have any problem whatsoever understanding the meaning of that sentence? I could have written that same sentence as: "It is the usual and ordinary course of nature for a human being to be born with 2 arms." Both sentences mean exactly the same thing because "usual and ordinary course of nature" can be substituted with "natural".

For your sake Chas lets use the "correct" word and see if the advocates response is sensical.
Critic: "Homosexuality is bad because it doesn't follow the usual and ordinary course of nature."
Advocate: "Wrong, Homosexuality is perfectly natural because it occurs in nature"
In this exchange it should be clear to you that the advocates response, while true, doesn't address the argument being made by the critic.

I am saying that the critic in that conversation is incorrect. It is ordinary behavior, it is just not the majority.

The point is really that the critic needs a better, clearer argument. A more honest one.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
27-02-2013, 04:37 PM
RE: "Gay marriage makes Jesus cry"
Over 700 animal species display homosexual activity.

I don't talk gay, I don't walk gay, it's like people don't even know I'm gay unless I'm blowing them.
[Image: 10h27hu.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: