This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Homosexuality - Genetic
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Skreeran
So, you just don't like the idea that homosexuals get to physically express their love too?
You still haven't explained to me how it is in any way
wrong
.
Post by
149406
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
273605
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Secondly, I personally take offense at it because it's the perversion of an act that transcends mere bodily interaction. But that has nothing to do with anything that has been said so far in this thread.
See, perhaps I'm looking at it wrong, but it looks like you're just calling it "unnatural", and as you've mentioned earlier, unnatural does not mean wrong.
I said unnatural has nothing to do with wrong. Which means that they can can exist in the same thing without any contradiction. Because something is unnatural does that make it wrong? No. Can something that is unnatural be wrong? Of course, because the two have nothing to do with each other.
So, you just don't like the idea that homosexuals get to physically express their love too?
You still haven't explained to me how it is in any way wrong.
You haven't read.
Post by
Skreeran
So, you just don't like the idea that homosexuals get to physically express their love too?
You still haven't explained to me how it is in any way wrong.
You haven't read.I've read everything you've read, and you're proved homosexuality to be wrong in no way beyond your own ideals. Well, guess what... You don't have to be gay!
What do you care if someone else is?
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I've read everything you've read, and you're proved homosexuality to be wrong in no way beyond your own ideals. Well, guess what... You don't have to be gay!
What do you care if someone else is?
You're seriously not making any sense...
You ask me why I care about something, and then when I tell you, you dismiss that as "my own ideals."
Wtf? Isn't that the whole point?
Post by
273605
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Your use of parentheticals seems to imply that you believe one implies the other.
Make up your mind, and stop changing it whenever we prove you wrong.
I already explained the use of parentheses. Shut up or stop arguing like a 2-year-old.
I've been making the exact same argument since post one, you pretending like I'm saying something else is childish and doesn't get anyone anywhere.
I'm already heading off anyways. If this thread is still around when I show up again, be assured I won't even bother replying to any more silly "I understand your argument better than you" posts.
Post by
Skreeran
I've read everything you've read, and you're proved homosexuality to be wrong in no way beyond your own ideals. Well, guess what... You don't have to be gay!
What do you care if someone else is?
You're seriously not making any sense...
You ask me why I care about something, and then when I tell you, you dismiss that as "my own ideals."
Wtf? Isn't that the whole point?As I understand it, you seem to be making the point that homosexuality is objectively wrong.
I don't think so.
Post by
149406
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
273605
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Monday
I don't like homosexuality.
/shrug
Post by
Squishalot
First of all, you don't appear to be reading my arguments very well. I haven't spoken out against anything this entire thread except sloppy arguments.
Ahh, HSR, welcome back.
For what it's worth, despite how I often come to loggerheads with HSR, in this particular case, I believe the attacks on him have been ill-warranted. All of his arguments in the first 5 pages or so are relating to nature, natural-ness and wrong-ness, and indeed, he only criticised poor / illogical arguments, and didn't impose his own beliefs. Which brings me back to here:
As I understand it, you seem to be making the point that homosexuality is objectively wrong.
I don't think so.
HSR believes that homosexuality is objectively wrong, and that's his personal opinion. However,
he's not making that point in this thread
. He was arguing from a scientific and objective (i.e. not using subjective, personal arguments) point of view to attempt to demonstrate that homosexuality is not
natural
.
Your use of parentheticals seems to imply that you believe one implies the other.
Make up your mind, and stop changing it whenever we prove you wrong.
I already explained the use of parentheses.
I will note, however, that HSR, your use of parentheses in this aforementioned instance is misleading. Parentheses are used in writing to clarify a statement, and if you wanted to provide an alternative definition for those without a right/wrong belief system, you probably should have specified clearly the circumstances in which the "(unnatural)" should have fit in.
Post by
Skreeran
HSR believes that homosexuality is objectively wrong, and that's his personal opinion. However, he's not making that point in this thread. He was arguing from a scientific and objective (i.e. not using subjective, personal arguments) point of view to attempt to demonstrate that homosexuality is not natural.Well, really, he's made the point that homosexual sex is not natural (which I can agree with). Considering that homosexuality occurs in nature, it is in fact natural, as per the definition of the word.
I don't like homosexuality.
/shrugThat's fine with me, as long as you don't try and push your ideals on anyone else. I don't like it when people block same-sex marriage legislation, because they are directly affecting someone else life.
Post by
Orranis
I don't see how homosexuality could be 'unnatural.' Define 'unnatural.' If it exists in nature, and was caused by natural forces, how isn't it natural?
It seems to me like your trying to say abnormal, except that it's generally socially accepted that if you don't like someone just because their different it's immoral, so decided to put a more vague name-tag on it.
Welcome back HSR!
Post by
Monday
That's fine with me, as long as you don't try and push your ideals on anyone else. I don't like it when people block same-sex marriage legislation, because they are directly affecting someone else life.
I might have, if I was old enough to vote =P But to be honest, I don't care too much if somebody's gay and I won't force my ideals on them.
Unless it was the Temple Square incident, stupid D-bags.
Post by
Squishalot
Well, really, he's made the point that homosexual sex is not natural (which I can agree with). Considering that homosexuality occurs in nature, it is in fact natural, as per the definition of the word.
Again, his point: 'occuring in nature' =/= natural.
Otherwise, everything that occurs is natural, making this whole discussion meaningless.
I don't see how homosexuality could be 'unnatural.' Define 'unnatural.' If it exists in nature, and was caused by natural forces, how isn't it natural?
It seems to me like your trying to say abnormal, except that it's generally socially accepted that if you don't like someone just because their different it's immoral, so decided to put a more vague name-tag on it.
'Abnormal' is a tricky sort of word, because it's based on the definition of 'normal'. 'Normal' is a term relative to an average or median, so by definition, you will always end up with abnormal things.
Unnatural is slightly different. I believe that Hyper is trying to say that it is unnatural, because there isn't a 'cause' for it. Like Aspergers (which I think someone brought up) - is that natural? It's a condition that isn't 'natural' to Homo sapiens, it serves no evolutionary purpose, it has no 'cause'. Technically, if you're of the view that 'everything that occurs is natural', then yes, it's natural, but as I said to Skreeran, it defeats the purpose of the discussion.
Post by
MyTie
I am pretty sure we were supposed to be girl-boy seeing how some of our....eh....parts, matchExcept homosexuality exists naturally in nature... so that ideal is untrue.
no it doesn't occur NATURALLY.
It occurs sometimes, unaturally.
in accordance with nature; relating to or concerning nature; "a very natural development"; "our natural environment"; "natural science"; "natural ...
existing in or in conformity with nature or the observable world; neither supernatural nor magical; "a perfectly natural explanation"
functioning or occurring in a normal way; lacking abnormalities or deficiencies; "it's the natural thing to happen"; "natural immunity"; "a grandparent's natural affection for a grandchild"
it is not natural
Only in your view; there is nothing wrong with it, beyond what some religions have painted it as. If it was truly a choice, then obviously, you know, all those evil homosexuals would march on the cities and convert your poor innocent babies into their ways of life and ideals... in other words, you have no proof beyond your own skewed view on the gays and how they scare you, stop trolling the thread Arathian.
lol... The guy was talking about the definition of 'natural' and 'unnatural', not trolling anyone. You were the one who brought up 'religion', 'evil', and being 'scared'.
Post by
Squishalot
Heh, yeah, but all things considered, "a grandparent's natural affection for a grandchild" is a pretty poor definition / example, in most people's books.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.