In world history class, I got into a debate about Gay Marriage!
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-11-2013, 02:30 PM
RE: In world history class, I got into a debate about Gay Marriage!
(05-11-2013 12:14 PM)Impulse Wrote:  An approach I have taken with varied success (depending on how open-minded the other person in the discussion was) is to start by asking aside from "God says so", what exactly is morally wrong with homosexuality. The two answers I generally get are 1) it's not natural or 2) spreading AIDS. I answer the first by bringing up the animal world as you did and pointing out that it obviously is natural to those who engage in homosexuality. For number 2, I point out that heterosexuality also spreads diseases including AIDS and they have no problem with that.

Impulse, the problem with your response(the part I bolded) is it completely misses the point. When your opponent says homosexuality is not natural.....your opponent is using natural to mean "not the usual and ordinary course of nature". When you use the word natural, you are using it to mean, "occurs in nature". Two very different definitions.

If you want to make a compelling argument against the claim that homosexuality is not natural, you have to do it using the same definition of natural that is used in the claim you wish to refute.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-11-2013, 02:31 PM
RE: In world history class, I got into a debate about Gay Marriage!
Uhm... not to sound too complicated here but...
the statement: "born that way" would indicate lack of free will.

And I could be mistaken but ... Consider don't christees usually say that humans don't have free will because everything is according to god's plan?

Just hangin' out, no biggie. Drinking Beverage

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-11-2013, 02:32 PM
RE: In world history class, I got into a debate about Gay Marriage!
(05-11-2013 02:24 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(05-11-2013 07:56 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Actually, Blowjob, if you had read what he said, he said humans do not have "free will". If choices are made, in human brains before we are fully conscious of them, or even EVER conscious of all the elements that enter in the choice process, (proven on MRI scan, and PET scan), it can hardly be said to be "free will". Having sex with anyone is a "free choice". That's not the point. You missed the "point". The point is, that humans have a vast range of sexual behaviors. Some are unacceptable because they cause harm. There is no harm caused by consenting adults having sex, when they are engaged in behaviors they desire to engage in. Your pathetic (and so usual and OLD boring) attempt to conflate illegal behaviors with children, with a normal variant of sexual behavior, found everywhere in nature, is simply ignorance of the field of Human Sexual Behavior. Humans have the right to marry someone of the gender they are attracted to. Saying someone who was born as a homosexual can choose to marry someone they are not attracted to, is simply idiotic. But that is what you usually spout here. Idiocy.

Actually Sucky Balls, if you had read what he said, he said he argued as if humans had free will....but your reading comprehension skills are so poor you missed it.

I was critical of the OPs tactic because the debate he was having wasn't about the ability or inability to make a choice. It was about what behaviors society should be willing to tolerate. For him to talk about choice was a waste of time because even if homosexuals can't choose their orientation, they can certainly choose their behavior.

No you missed the OP's logic, and he agreed. If not, your writing skills are so poor, that everyone misunderstood. We all know what you said about behavior and orientation. What you have failed to do, is to provide a rationale WHY variant sexual expressions are immoral, or should be limited in law, as there is no proof there is any detrimental effect, and you have in no way even BEGUN to make a moral argument. Nor can you. If it can be proven that all those, with variant sexual orientations, are born that way, and to express them, expresses their essential person-hood, then to actually do anything else would be IMMORAL. I realize that a discussion of the origins and philosophy of morality are a bit beyond you, but you could at least fake it. You have FAILED to state ONE reason why any variant sexual expression should NOT be expressed, provided it causes no emotional or other long-term harm.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-11-2013, 02:33 PM
RE: In world history class, I got into a debate about Gay Marriage!
(05-11-2013 02:30 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(05-11-2013 12:14 PM)Impulse Wrote:  An approach I have taken with varied success (depending on how open-minded the other person in the discussion was) is to start by asking aside from "God says so", what exactly is morally wrong with homosexuality. The two answers I generally get are 1) it's not natural or 2) spreading AIDS. I answer the first by bringing up the animal world as you did and pointing out that it obviously is natural to those who engage in homosexuality. For number 2, I point out that heterosexuality also spreads diseases including AIDS and they have no problem with that.

Impulse, the problem with your response(the part I bolded) is it completely misses the point. When your opponent says homosexuality is not natural.....your opponent is using natural to mean "not the usual and ordinary course of nature". When you use the word natural, you are using it to mean, "occurs in nature". Two very different definitions.

If you want to make a compelling argument against the claim that homosexuality is not natural, you have to do it using the same definition of natural that is used in the claim you wish to refute.

No, he doesn't. Natural means occurs in nature. The original claimant is simply wrong in his use of the 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
05-11-2013, 02:36 PM
RE: In world history class, I got into a debate about Gay Marriage!
(05-11-2013 02:33 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(05-11-2013 02:30 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Impulse, the problem with your response(the part I bolded) is it completely misses the point. When your opponent says homosexuality is not natural.....your opponent is using natural to mean "not the usual and ordinary course of nature". When you use the word natural, you are using it to mean, "occurs in nature". Two very different definitions.

If you want to make a compelling argument against the claim that homosexuality is not natural, you have to do it using the same definition of natural that is used in the claim you wish to refute.

No, he doesn't. Natural means occurs in nature. The original claimant is simply wrong in his use of the word.

Chas, natural has more then one definition, your claim that it only has one definition is absolutely ludicrous. A simple examination of a dictionary should show you that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-11-2013, 02:41 PM
RE: In world history class, I got into a debate about Gay Marriage!
(05-11-2013 02:36 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(05-11-2013 02:33 PM)Chas Wrote:  No, he doesn't. Natural means occurs in nature. The original claimant is simply wrong in his use of the word.

Chas, natural has more then one definition, your claim that it only has one definition is absolutely ludicrous. A simple examination of a dictionary should show you that.

The behavior is common throughout nature; the claimant is misusing the 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
05-11-2013, 02:44 PM
RE: In world history class, I got into a debate about Gay Marriage!
(05-11-2013 02:41 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(05-11-2013 02:36 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Chas, natural has more then one definition, your claim that it only has one definition is absolutely ludicrous. A simple examination of a dictionary should show you that.

The behavior is common throughout nature; the claimant is misusing the word.

The claimant is using the word correctly. And even if he isn't, you're smart enough to know what he means.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-11-2013, 02:46 PM
RE: In world history class, I got into a debate about Gay Marriage!
(05-11-2013 02:44 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(05-11-2013 02:41 PM)Chas Wrote:  The behavior is common throughout nature; the claimant is misusing the word.

The claimant is using the word correctly. And even if he isn't, you're smart enough to know what he means.

The claimant is stating that homosexuality is against nature. The claimant is wrong.

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
05-11-2013, 02:49 PM
RE: In world history class, I got into a debate about Gay Marriage!
(05-11-2013 02:09 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(05-11-2013 12:59 PM)Lightvader Wrote:  Can i just say something?
I asked this to a classmate,and yaknow what he said? Male-female sex is more satisfying than male-male or female-female sex.
That was an epic facepalm there

I would counter with, "does your opinion come from experience?" Laughat

although that would be funny,i said "can you cite your source? I would say that a homosexual person would be more satisfied in a same sex marriage,and when having intercourse because he/she is naturally atracted to people of the same sex. This is what i think,and does not neccesarily resemble the truth.
Can you tell me why you think that? Is it becouse of the penis-vagina? Is it that a woman cant be pleased if no penis is inserted? That the man recieves less pleasure becouse his stick is in another hole? Lemme break it to you. The amount of women that had an orgasm becouse of penetration of the penis is far less than the amount of women that came when having their beaver eaten. And there are dildos and vibros out there. What about men? Men have their prostate in their arse wich is the male version of the g-spot. And for the giving end,would you not say more tight=more pleasure? And there are fleshlights in shops. So do not come with bullshit that male-female sex is way more satisfying than same-sex intercourse. "
or something like that.

I don't really like going outside.
It's too damn "peopley" out there....
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-11-2013, 02:53 PM
RE: In world history class, I got into a debate about Gay Marriage!
Ato,

I think you carried yourself well. Smile Attacking your lack of belief is the grasping at straw by the losing argument.

Thumbsup


God is a concept by which we measure our pain -- John Lennon

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Momsurroundedbyboys's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: