Eating fried foods is contrary to nature. Yet…
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
You missed the point. The point is that gayness is contrarry to nature. Aside from modern science, if everyone was gay we would cease to exist.
[/quote]
endgamer: Still maintain that this isn’t part of the argument?
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
michaelv wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
You missed the point. The point is that gayness is contrarry to nature. [/quote]
There are several instances were homosexual tendencies have been observed in nature particularly in the primate species. It is the basis for the current theory I mentioned above regarding homosexuals.
.
It hurts my mind to watch some of this argument taking place. I can’t believe the crappy logic and statements lacking substance that people put in here.
Is it really that important to showcase your ignorance to the world?
[quote]nephorm wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
You missed the point. The point is that gayness is contrarry to nature. Aside from modern science, if everyone was gay we would cease to exist.
endgamer: Still maintain that this isn’t part of the argument?[/quote]
The proper argument, it seems to me, is about whether the behavior is harmful to others, or whether there are drawbacks to extending marriage to cover these sorts of stable relationships.
A different argument is about Constitutional law and whether homosexual orientation, being beyond choice, induces a new protected class in the same manner that race does, or did.
Obviously, nobody can argue that homosexuality is against nature, because it exists in nature. It is natural.
As to my own thoughts on the matter, I think that homosexuality is in some sense less functional than heterosexuality - historically speaking.
But since in this extraordinary present 1) there are many too many people on this planet, especially in view of their economic aspirations, and 2) even homosexuals now become enabled to reproduce, with some technical assistance, and 3) there is plenty of evidence that gay couples make wonderful parents; given all these things I think the proposition that homosexuality is less functional for the organism than heterosexuality has been brought into serious question.
But I have to admit I’m not entirely sure what you were asking.
It is quite possible that homosexuality in some biological or evolutionary sense makes heterosexuality itself possible.
Or if you’re an advocate of intelligent design, you might say that homosexuality is an unintended side effect of the same mechanism that produces heterosexuality. That is if you could stand to imply that the hypothetical designer could be forced to accept such a tradeoff.
[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
But I have to admit I’m not entirely sure what you were asking.[/quote]
This thread was started to point out a logical error that frequently occurs in this particular discourse. That is, that the question of the morality of homosexuality somehow gets tied up with the biology of it. You seemed to suggest that the original poster got this wrong, and no one was really making this argument (and thus committing this fallacy). I pointed out Lorisco’s post about homosexuality being “unnatural” to demonstrate that at least on one side of the fence, this kind of thinking is living large.
Your points about how we should think about the topic are appreciated, but the point is that most people do not think in these terms.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
endgamer711 wrote:
But I have to admit I’m not entirely sure what you were asking.
This thread was started to point out a logical error that frequently occurs in this particular discourse. That is, that the question of the morality of homosexuality somehow gets tied up with the biology of it. You seemed to suggest that the original poster got this wrong, and no one was really making this argument (and thus committing this fallacy). I pointed out Lorisco’s post about homosexuality being “unnatural” to demonstrate that at least on one side of the fence, this kind of thinking is living large.
Your points about how we should think about the topic are appreciated, but the point is that most people do not think in these terms.[/quote]
It was a natural misunderstanding on my part, since you used the phrase “the argument”. I’m not sure argumentation on this site is at all representative of the general population.
Have you made a careful study of the matter?
[quote]nephorm wrote:
I pointed out Lorisco’s post about homosexuality being “unnatural” to demonstrate that at least on one side of the fence, this kind of thinking is living large.
[/quote]
Yeah, but Nephorm, Lorisco is a total bonehead. We can’t point to his post and call that indicative of the con side of the argument. He is a poor representative, to say the very least. A better person in the marriage aspect of this issue would be ZEB. He is one of those cons who actually try to make a smidgen of logical sense in all of this. Kinda. 
You americans are sick … just happy to live in Quebec, Canada where religion has ZERO power… Here there are people who don’t like gays but at least it’s not because of religious motivation…
put Jesus into garbage once and for all
[quote]sebby wrote:
You americans are sick … just happy to live in Quebec, Canada where religion has ZERO power… Here there are people who don’t like gays but at least it’s not because of religious motivation…
put Jesus into garbage once and for all[/quote]
hey HEY HEY!! Stop the name-calling right now, you friggin’ canuck! Not all Americans are proud of our prejudices, so pike off.
Damn know-it-all foreigners. Your kind irritates me.
[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
I’m not sure argumentation on this site is at all representative of the general population.
[/quote]
That might be true, but in the original post: “[quote]An overlying theme in the pro or neutral gay arguments on this website seem to involve an argument that goes something like this:[/quote]”. So the original intent was to examine some common rhetoric on this site, in particular.
No, and I can’t state to any statistical certainty that this logical fallacy occurs more or less, even on this site, than other arguments you have cited.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
endgamer711 wrote:
I’m not sure argumentation on this site is at all representative of the general population.
That might be true, but in the original post: “An overlying theme in the pro or neutral gay arguments on this website seem to involve an argument that goes something like this:”. So the original intent was to examine some common rhetoric on this site, in particular.
Have you made a careful study of the matter?
No, and I can’t state to any statistical certainty that this logical fallacy occurs more or less, even on this site, than other arguments you have cited.
[/quote]
Collecting the data would be a fair sickening chore, would it not?
Actually, on some reflection, I don’t think the argument cited is much in evidence even on this site. At any rate in the threads I’ve been writing in.
I think the issue of non-choice has most often come up when responding to arguments of the form: “there is no discrimination; gay folks are free to marry across gender just like anyone else” or “being gay is a lifestyle choice”.
There has been a lot of discussion of the social goods and ills of homosexual behavior. I don’t remember anyone trying to post away from the issue of potential harm by stipulating lack of choice.
However, whenever anyone does stipulate that homosexuality is not a choice, invariably someone immediately chimes in that {sexual criminals, murderous psychopaths, insert favorite species of social defective here} don’t have any choice either.
Perhaps this creates the impression chillpzico is referring to. Or perhaps chilpzico is trying to create the impression chillpzico is referring to.
[quote]sebby wrote:
You americans are sick … just happy to live in Quebec, Canada where religion has ZERO power… Here there are people who don’t like gays but at least it’s not because of religious motivation…
put Jesus into garbage once and for all[/quote]
I will pray for you dude…you really need to know what you are talking about before you speak…and with the above statement you are clueless. The point I was trying to make is that christians, true christians, should treat his neighbor as he treats himself. Now, I live in sin just as much as a gay person does. Mine is just different, period. I am against all sin. Not just sexual deviance. God sees all sin the same. Wether your are gay, a killer, a theif, Lier, and god forbid a pedifile.
[quote]vroom wrote:
It hurts my mind to watch some of this argument taking place. I can’t believe the crappy logic and statements lacking substance that people put in here.
Is it really that important to showcase your ignorance to the world?[/quote]
Meaning no disrespect Mr. Vroom It seems anyone who disagrees with you on this subject. Shows crappy logic and make statements that lack substance. Can you be more creative in your criticism?
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
nephorm wrote:
I pointed out Lorisco’s post about homosexuality being “unnatural” to demonstrate that at least on one side of the fence, this kind of thinking is living large.
Yeah, but Nephorm, Lorisco is a total bonehead. We can’t point to his post and call that indicative of the con side of the argument. He is a poor representative, to say the very least. A better person in the marriage aspect of this issue would be ZEB. He is one of those cons who actually try to make a smidgen of logical sense in all of this. Kinda. :)[/quote]
Sorry to say this but I think Lorisco is actually a fairly good representitive of the anti-gay argument. I think you’re giving the con side of the argument a little too much credit…Zeb would represent the upper echelon of anti-gay clan. At least he can back his arguments up with bible quotes.
[quote]djbige05 wrote:
sebby wrote:
You americans are sick … just happy to live in Quebec, Canada where religion has ZERO power… Here there are people who don’t like gays but at least it’s not because of religious motivation…
put Jesus into garbage once and for all
I will pray for you dude…you really need to know what you are talking about before you speak…and with the above statement you are clueless. The point I was trying to make is that christians, true christians, should treat his neighbor as he treats himself. Now, I live in sin just as much as a gay person does. Mine is just different, period. I am against all sin. Not just sexual deviance. God sees all sin the same. Wether your are gay, a killer, a theif, Lier, and god forbid a pedifile.
[/quote]
The last sentence is exemplifies exactly why I don’t really trust the “hate the sin, love the sinner” argument: It let’s “gay repugnants” put people who display gay behaviour into the same sentences as killers, thiefs, liars and pedophiles. The association speaks for itself. Why not choose other sinners like firefighters, police(wo)men or soldiers - if we are supposedly all sinners, this would be just as adequate. Just an observation…
Makkun