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, 03:02 PM
RE: In world history class, I got into a debate about Gay Marriage!
(05-11-2013 02:49 PM)Lightvader Wrote:  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.

Well, now that that's settled... I think I'll ... uh... go masturba ... have a nap.... yea, that's it - I'ma have me a nap. Dodgy

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
[+] 3 users Like kim's post
05-11-2013, 03:05 PM
RE: In world history class, I got into a debate about Gay Marriage!
(05-11-2013 02:46 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(05-11-2013 02:44 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  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.

One of the problems with a discussion using that word, in 2013, with theists, (especially Catholics), is they are using the word, in neither sense. In RC theology, the Aristotelian/Thomistic "Natural Law" relates to the ancient notion of "ideal(ism)', as in Greek Philosophy. The Roman Ca's STILL spout there there actually "exists" an "ideal" of human "maleness", and "femaleness", (quite apart from any and all, that *actually exist*, and it is incumbent (to get as close to that "natural essence") on humans to either remain, or get as close to that ideal of male or female "essence", (in order to be "moral"), in that system. The gigantic flaw, is that there is no "essence", (anywhere), apart from what occurs in nature. The theology is bullshit, the Philosophy is easily debunked, and the consequences are idiotic. However the word "natural" is used, to hold variants which occur in nature to a non-existent false unitary standard, (which is really a Bell distribution of behaviors), is ridiculous, and there is no justification for it, nor is there any longer, ANY way to justify it.

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, 03:05 PM
RE: In world history class, I got into a debate about Gay Marriage!
(05-11-2013 02:46 PM)Chas Wrote:  The claimant is stating that homosexuality is against nature.

And you think the persuasive response is, "homosexuality occurs in nature"?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-11-2013, 03:06 PM
RE: In world history class, I got into a debate about Gay Marriage!
(05-11-2013 03:05 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(05-11-2013 02:46 PM)Chas Wrote:  The claimant is stating that homosexuality is against nature.

And you think the persuasive response is, "homosexuality occurs in nature"?

You have yet to make ANY argument.

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, 03:35 PM
RE: In world history class, I got into a debate about Gay Marriage!
(05-11-2013 02:32 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(05-11-2013 02:24 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  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.

Don't ask him that!!! Here comes the population decline nonsense so let me preempt him.

He has the idea of universalizability, which is that if we allowed gay marriage, there would be less people to populate the planet. He is also against birth control.

He has no evidence to support this conclusion. Despite my citing WHO global population studies: 1) our population rate is decreasing, but not beyond normal fluctuations; and 2) our planet has too many people on it now. Reducing the population would be a good thing.

He is also - irrationally - feels that women should be pregnant against their consent. Some shit about a spaceship populating another planet or some crap.

He is anti birth control and pro enslavement of women. Bodily autonomy? Not with blowme.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-11-2013, 04:47 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.
On the contrary, the problem with your response is it completely misses the point... the point being that "the usual and ordinary course of nature" is what "occurs in nature"...

"Religion has caused more misery to all of mankind in every stage of human history than any other single idea." --Madalyn Murray O'Hair
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-11-2013, 02:03 AM
RE: In world history class, I got into a debate about Gay Marriage!
(05-11-2013 03:06 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(05-11-2013 03:05 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  And you think the persuasive response is, "homosexuality occurs in nature"?

You have yet to make ANY argument.

I haven't tried to make an argument that homosexuality is immoral or that gay marriages should be banned. I have only pointed out bad arguments others have made in this thread.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-11-2013, 02:13 AM
RE: In world history class, I got into a debate about Gay Marriage!
(05-11-2013 04:47 PM)Impulse Wrote:  On the contrary, the problem with your response is it completely misses the point... the point being that "the usual and ordinary course of nature" is what "occurs in nature"...

You claim that what occurs in nature is the usual and ordinary course of nature and Sucky Balls claims there is no free will......between the two of you any immoral act can be justified. The catholic priest who molested a child did not behave immorally because A)He had no free will and B)because pedophilia is natural.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-11-2013, 02:46 AM
RE: In world history class, I got into a debate about Gay Marriage!
(06-11-2013 02:13 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(05-11-2013 04:47 PM)Impulse Wrote:  On the contrary, the problem with your response is it completely misses the point... the point being that "the usual and ordinary course of nature" is what "occurs in nature"...

You claim that what occurs in nature is the usual and ordinary course of nature and Sucky Balls claims there is no free will......between the two of you any immoral act can be justified. The catholic priest who molested a child did not behave immorally because A)He had no free will and B)because pedophilia is natural.

Being 'natural' does not in and of itself justify our actions; it is however important to note the prevalence of homosexuality in the animal kingdom whenever religious conservatives attempt to argue that homosexuality is 'unnatural'. The point being that it is both a bad argument, and fallacious in it's premises; as they clearly fly in the face of observable and verifiable facts. Also by this reasoning, homophobia is clearly 'unnatural' as well.

But as an aside, what other social animals outside of humans perform pedophilia?

Free will, or the lack thereof, does not destroy or topple morality. For morality to work, a level of accountability is required. In a free will model, you hold the person personally responsible for their actions and act accordingly. In a deterministic or pre-destined model (as espoused by some religions and the necessities of an omniscient god), you still hold the person accountable for their actions, even if they are not morally accountable.

Example, a emotionally unstable man murder's his lover thinking she was cheating on him. With free will, you punish him according to the extents of the law, and you hold him responsible for his thoughts and actions. Without free will, you would still have to arrest him and remove him from society for the safety of others. Whether deterministic or pre-destined, he must be held accountable for his actions. What changes is more subtle; there should be no desire for revenge or retribution in this scenario. He was merely moving along a path (as controlled by his neurology and/or god's plan for him), one with a tragic ending, but unfortunate unavoidable as well. All we can do is try our best to make sure it doesn't happen again for the safety of others.

The lack of free will doesn't destroy moral accountability. For that you need something like the cosmic scapegoat that is Jesus Christ; now that is a perfect tool for destroying moral accountability.

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
06-11-2013, 06:59 AM
RE: In world history class, I got into a debate about Gay Marriage!
(06-11-2013 02:13 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(05-11-2013 04:47 PM)Impulse Wrote:  On the contrary, the problem with your response is it completely misses the point... the point being that "the usual and ordinary course of nature" is what "occurs in nature"...

You claim that what occurs in nature is the usual and ordinary course of nature and Sucky Balls claims there is no free will......between the two of you any immoral act can be justified. The catholic priest who molested a child did not behave immorally because A)He had no free will and B)because pedophilia is natural.
You "replied" by bringing up something someone else said and another thing that I did not say. If you feel like actually having a conversation, let me know. Drinking Beverage

"Religion has caused more misery to all of mankind in every stage of human history than any other single idea." --Madalyn Murray O'Hair
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: