[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
I would say most individuals aren’t necessarily supporting the opposing view point. What’s being challenged is the premise and the conclusion drawn.
Trying not to speak for others, but generally, it’s not that we support the opposing viewpoint, it’s just that we can’t come up with reason to hate on homosexuals, therefore, we really don’t care.
And if you don’t want your view challenged, why post at all? Were you hoping that everyone would swoop in and join in on a CJ hating on homosexuals?
If your goal is to change people’s minds, you must then address the issues with the arguments outlined by shm drawn on tangible facts we can hang our hats on.[/quote]
I’m not ‘hating on homosexuals.’ That’s another straw man. And the reason I started the thread was to practice my debating skills.
[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
I would say most individuals aren’t necessarily supporting the opposing view point. What’s being challenged is the premise and the conclusion drawn.
Trying not to speak for others, but generally, it’s not that we support the opposing viewpoint, it’s just that we can’t come up with reason to hate on homosexuals, therefore, we really don’t care.
And if you don’t want your view challenged, why post at all? Were you hoping that everyone would swoop in and join in on a CJ hating on homosexuals?
If your goal is to change people’s minds, you must then address the issues with the arguments outlined by shm drawn on tangible facts we can hang our hats on.[/quote]
I’m not ‘hating on homosexuals.’ That’s another straw man. And the reason I started the thread was to practice my debating skills.[/quote]
I’d argue it’s not a straw man.
Your position states that homosexuals are immoral b/c their sexual acts/relationships preclude procreation. But you don’t include on this list every other relationship or sexual act which precludes procreation, which would include: heterosexual couples who do not want to conceive, a man/woman who chooses to be with or stays with a significant other who cannot conceive a child, masturbation, anal sex, oral sex, titty fucking, hand jobs, etc, etc.
So either all relationships/sexual acts which preclude procreation are immoral OR you are hating on homosexuals under the guise of procreation.
[quote]Severiano wrote:
Whats the use of procreation if we are going to overpopulate? Have you ever wondered if homosexuality might be some sort of natural normalizer for that in explaining survivability traits and genetic expressions of such?
[/quote]
This!
BTW. Looks like we got a good old fashioned liberal circle-jerk for once. Fitting With the topic actually ;)[/quote]
You don’t have to be liberal to support equal rights. In fact this is a position most of the country is moving towards including many Libertarians and Republicans.
It’s actually the small government position, but like many “conservatives” in this thread they are for intrusive government when it is protecting people from what they don’t like or what conservatives think is what people should do.
You could call this a rational circle jerk? [/quote]
I was only going for the LOL’s. Not trying to pigenhole you into a liberal.
Your position states that homosexuals are immoral b/c their sexual acts/relationships preclude procreation.
[/quote]
Actually if you read the thread you’ll see I gave more than eight reasons why the homosexual lifestyle is unhealthy and against natural law.
[quote]
But you don’t include on this list every other relationship or sexual act which precludes procreation, which would include: heterosexual couples who do not want to conceive, a man/woman who chooses to be with or stays with a significant other who cannot conceive a child, masturbation, anal sex, oral sex, titty fucking, hand jobs, etc, etc.
So either all relationships/sexual acts which preclude procreation are immoral OR you are hating on homosexuals under the guise of procreation.[/quote]
I’ve already addressed that too. Many of those acts are foreplay and lead to sex. I wouldn’t argue someone should leave their spouse because they’re infertile. They are in a natural union and are practicing traditional marriage instead of undermining it.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Like I said, the pro homosexual team on this thread sports pretty much the same cast of characters it always does here on PWI. Why is that?
Why the passion?
I’m not trying to level a veiled accusation against any of y’all that you yourselves are homosexuals, I’m just wondering why youse guys seem so ardent in your pleas about this subject?[/quote]
I’m pretty sure we argue everything with maximal passion.
I have seen, here on PWI, debates about the intricacies of the tax code end in fire and brimstone accusations of intellectual and moral bankruptcy. Religion, war, politics, gays, race, crime…none of it is really any different.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
SMH, if you mean gays can have biological children by pretending they are heterosexual, i.e., committing a heterosexual sex act, ummm…ok.[/quote]
Doing your thing into a cup is not “pretending you’re a heterosexual.” But if you want to call it that, that’s fine. Either way, the point goes to smh: Gays can have biological children.
No, it doesn’t. It observes that homosexuality and procreation are not mutually exclusive, which supports my argument and not the other way around. Not that I need that support anyway, because we’re only talking about a small portion of the population–and, thus, no threat to world population.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Like I said, the pro homosexual team on this thread sports pretty much the same cast of characters it always does here on PWI. Why is that?
Why the passion?
I’m not trying to level a veiled accusation against any of y’all that you yourselves are homosexuals, I’m just wondering why youse guys seem so ardent in your pleas about this subject?[/quote]
It doesn’t appear to be nearly so much of a “pro homosexual team” as it is a bunch of people laughing at something that is ridiculous.
Just because someone doesn’t support your position doesn’t mean that they are for what you are against.
And you guys definitely seem to be railing against man on man buttsex, which makes it man on man on man, which is pretty damn gay. And that is not a vieled accusation. It’s an obvious one.
Actually if you read the thread you’ll see I gave more than eight reasons why the homosexual lifestyle is unhealthy and against natural law.[/quote]
Most certainly and I read those, but your conclusion comes from the combination of 8 premises. All I need to do is prove one wrong and the house of cards comes tumbling down. Now if you want to drop that premise and rely upon the other 7 alone, then we can discuss the rest. As of right now, there’s no need to.
[quote]I’ve already addressed that too. Many of those acts are foreplay and lead to sex. I wouldn’t argue someone should leave their spouse because they’re infertile. They are in a natural union and are practicing traditional marriage instead of undermining it.
[/quote]
Lead to sex, but does not guarantee sex. Masturbation certainly doesn’t lead to sex, especially if you masturbate to finish. I can’t even count how many HJs, BJs, Titty Fucks, etc I’ve had in my short lifetime and did not participate in sex, especially outside of marriage.
Further, you’ve contended that the purpose of marriage is for procreation and raising children. So if you aren’t doing that, then why get married? And you can’t say from a social aspect since marriage is a social construct, not a natural law.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
However the absence of a universal moral imperative does not diminish the fact that marriage, procreation and child rearing should be the norm wherever possible[/quote]
They are the norm, naturally. And they will continue to be the norm in a species that is overwhelmingly straight and overwhelmingly compelled–by their biology–to desire heterosexual sex and natural offspring. You are, in other words, a cockatoo defending a lion. The lion needs no defense. (As an aside, if straight people decide to stop making babies, then that’s a function of the proclivities and circumstances of straight people.)
As for whether gay marriage is harmful to society, well that’s nonsense but I don’t feel like fighting this out anymore. My point has been made: Nobody is going to put forth a halfway persuasive argument for homosexuality’s immorality, and certainly not on the grounds that gays are shirking some kind of personal imperative to procreate.
Well, repulsed as in, “I’m not making sexytime to that thing.”
If you don’t want to have sex with women, you are as good a candidate as any for someone who isn’t “in a position to” naturally procreate. There are plenty of people–you, me, everybody who is engaged in the present debate–who are in such a position, and the existence and sexual orientation of Ellen DeGeneres has got jack and shit to do with that.
If anything, straight guys should understand that life is a cruel and merciless zero-sum competition for, among a few other things, vaginas. And they should be grateful for every dude who disqualifies himself from that competition by identifying as gay.
That last paragraph was a joke. Anyway, in closing:
