Argument by assertion. This is just a thing you’re saying, and there is absolutely no reason to believe that it’s correct. Hardly a logical and cogent argument for homosexuality’s immorality.
[/quote]
So it’s not immoral to allow the human race to become extinct?
[/quote]
And we arrive at the manifest absurdity.
“If homosexual intercourse is not condemned, the human race will go extinct.” Yeah? I want to be sure that it’s worded correctly before I start ripping into it.
The underlying maxim–because this involves orgasm and can’t lead to procreation, it is immoral–is unsupported gibberish.[/quote]
That’s not the underlying maxim. The undeniable biological function of sex is procreation.[/quote] It does not logically follow that sex not capable of causing pregnancy is immoral.
Your argument is invalid because the conclusion is not entailed by the premises.
It is true that anal sex, for example, does not lead to pregnancy.
And yet that premise does not entail the conclusion that anal sex is immoral. You assume that sex not capable of leading to pregnancy is immoral.
As I predicted, you are wandering in circles, from assumed or asserted maxim to assumed or asserted maxim.
And the thing about assumed and asserted maxims is that they can be negated as simply as they are propounded: With an assumed and asserted refutation.
Argument by assertion. This is just a thing you’re saying, and there is absolutely no reason to believe that it’s correct. Hardly a logical and cogent argument for homosexuality’s immorality.
[/quote]
So it’s not immoral to allow the human race to become extinct?
[/quote]
And we arrive at the manifest absurdity.
“If homosexual intercourse is not condemned, the human race will go extinct.” Yeah? I want to be sure that it’s worded correctly before I start ripping into it.[/quote]
Most western countries are already well below population replacement levels. And marriage is being undermined and homosexuality normalised. The state needs to encourage traditional marriage not undermine it.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
News flash: homosexuals want to gain acceptance as human beings in our society and are using “tactics” to do so; film at 11. [/quote]
I do accept homosexuals as human beings. I just don’t accept their behaviour and lifestyles.[/quote]
So what are your facts, logic and proof for not accepting their behavior and lifestyle?[/quote]
See related citations as well. There’s also the facts that they regularly bring up themselves of high suicide rates and drug use.[/quote]
So this is what you call good science? How can you seriously accept stuff like this and ignore things like global warming studies?[/quote]
Lol! [/quote]
This is a serious question. What exactly does a study on global warming have that makes it bullshit while at the same time this one being valid?[/quote]
You may think it’s a serious question but really it’s not. Global warming is a pseudo science like phrenology.
[/quote]
So if global warming is a pseudo science what do you call science based off a 30 year old survey with many flaws that was ignored by the actual scientific community?
[quote]smh_23 wrote: It does not logically follow that sex not capable of causing pregnancy is immoral.
Your argument is invalid because the conclusion is not entailed by the premises.
It is true that anal sex, for example, does not lead to pregnancy.
And yet that premise does not entail the conclusion that anal sex is immoral. You assume that sex not capable of leading to pregnancy is immoral.
As I predicted, you are wandering in circles, from assumed or asserted maxim to assumed or asserted maxim.
And the thing about assumed and asserted maxims is that they can be negated as simply as they are propounded: With an assumed and asserted refutation.[/quote]
I’ve already listed in point form why it’s immoral. I can only refer you back to those points. If you want to dispute my reasoning then quote the point and attempt to counter my argument. And I didn’t argue that homosexuality alone will lead to extinction. It is only one of many things that contribute to the declining birthrates prevalent in western civilisation.
Argument by assertion. This is just a thing you’re saying, and there is absolutely no reason to believe that it’s correct. Hardly a logical and cogent argument for homosexuality’s immorality.
[/quote]
So it’s not immoral to allow the human race to become extinct?
[/quote]
And we arrive at the manifest absurdity.
“If homosexual intercourse is not condemned, the human race will go extinct.” Yeah? I want to be sure that it’s worded correctly before I start ripping into it.[/quote]
Most western countries are already well below population replacement levels. And marriage is being undermined and homosexuality normalised. The state needs to encourage traditional marriage not undermine it.[/quote]
Explain to me how YOUR homosexuality keeps me from having a kid. Somehow despite gay people I’m getting ready to get married in June and we will probably have kids a few years later.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
News flash: homosexuals want to gain acceptance as human beings in our society and are using “tactics” to do so; film at 11. [/quote]
I do accept homosexuals as human beings. I just don’t accept their behaviour and lifestyles.[/quote]
So what are your facts, logic and proof for not accepting their behavior and lifestyle?[/quote]
See related citations as well. There’s also the facts that they regularly bring up themselves of high suicide rates and drug use.[/quote]
So this is what you call good science? How can you seriously accept stuff like this and ignore things like global warming studies?[/quote]
Lol! [/quote]
This is a serious question. What exactly does a study on global warming have that makes it bullshit while at the same time this one being valid?[/quote]
You may think it’s a serious question but really it’s not. Global warming is a pseudo science like phrenology.
[/quote]
So if global warming is a pseudo science what do you call science based off a 30 year old survey with many flaws that was ignored by the actual scientific community?
Argument by assertion. This is just a thing you’re saying, and there is absolutely no reason to believe that it’s correct. Hardly a logical and cogent argument for homosexuality’s immorality.
[/quote]
So it’s not immoral to allow the human race to become extinct?
[/quote]
And we arrive at the manifest absurdity.
“If homosexual intercourse is not condemned, the human race will go extinct.” Yeah? I want to be sure that it’s worded correctly before I start ripping into it.[/quote]
Most western countries are already well below population replacement levels. And marriage is being undermined and homosexuality normalised. The state needs to encourage traditional marriage not undermine it.[/quote]
Explain to me how YOUR homosexuality keeps me from having a kid. Somehow despite gay people I’m getting ready to get married in June and we will probably have kids a few years later.
ZOMG HOW CAN WE DO THAT IF QUEERS EXIST?!!?
I must be magician. [/quote]
Really? Did I say gays have turned all heterosexuals gay?
Argument by assertion. This is just a thing you’re saying, and there is absolutely no reason to believe that it’s correct. Hardly a logical and cogent argument for homosexuality’s immorality.
[/quote]
So it’s not immoral to allow the human race to become extinct?
[/quote]
And we arrive at the manifest absurdity.
“If homosexual intercourse is not condemned, the human race will go extinct.” Yeah? I want to be sure that it’s worded correctly before I start ripping into it.[/quote]
Most western countries are already well below population replacement levels. And marriage is being undermined and homosexuality normalised. The state needs to encourage traditional marriage not undermine it.[/quote]
Explain to me how YOUR homosexuality keeps me from having a kid. Somehow despite gay people I’m getting ready to get married in June and we will probably have kids a few years later.
ZOMG HOW CAN WE DO THAT IF QUEERS EXIST?!!?
I must be magician. [/quote]
Really? Did I say gays have turned all heterosexuals gay?[/quote]
So you admit that homosexuals don’t have anything to do with my marriage and ability to reproduce? Good. Then maybe you we have hope for you! See this isn’t really that hard to figure out, but you’ve been heavily brainwashed by resistance.org apparently.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
News flash: homosexuals want to gain acceptance as human beings in our society and are using “tactics” to do so; film at 11. [/quote]
I do accept homosexuals as human beings. I just don’t accept their behaviour and lifestyles.[/quote]
So what are your facts, logic and proof for not accepting their behavior and lifestyle?[/quote]
See related citations as well. There’s also the facts that they regularly bring up themselves of high suicide rates and drug use.[/quote]
So this is what you call good science? How can you seriously accept stuff like this and ignore things like global warming studies?[/quote]
Lol! [/quote]
This is a serious question. What exactly does a study on global warming have that makes it bullshit while at the same time this one being valid?[/quote]
You may think it’s a serious question but really it’s not. Global warming is a pseudo science like phrenology.
[/quote]
So if global warming is a pseudo science what do you call science based off a 30 year old survey with many flaws that was ignored by the actual scientific community?
The article has nine pages of citations going up to 2009. The Camerons are only one of dozens of authors cited.[/quote]
The original link you posted was the abstract for a study published in 1989 (impossible for a real citation to be after that date). The related citations link are completely unrelated to that and are most likely based on search keywords that website uses to generate more views.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
News flash: homosexuals want to gain acceptance as human beings in our society and are using “tactics” to do so; film at 11. [/quote]
I do accept homosexuals as human beings. I just don’t accept their behaviour and lifestyles.[/quote]
So what are your facts, logic and proof for not accepting their behavior and lifestyle?[/quote]
See related citations as well. There’s also the facts that they regularly bring up themselves of high suicide rates and drug use.[/quote]
So this is what you call good science? How can you seriously accept stuff like this and ignore things like global warming studies?[/quote]
Lol! [/quote]
This is a serious question. What exactly does a study on global warming have that makes it bullshit while at the same time this one being valid?[/quote]
You may think it’s a serious question but really it’s not. Global warming is a pseudo science like phrenology.
[/quote]
So if global warming is a pseudo science what do you call science based off a 30 year old survey with many flaws that was ignored by the actual scientific community?
The article has nine pages of citations going up to 2009. The Camerons are only one of dozens of authors cited.[/quote]
The original link you posted was the abstract for a study published in 1989 (impossible for a real citation to be after that date). The related citations link are completely unrelated to that and are most likely based on search keywords that website uses to generate more views.
[/quote]
Well here’s an article citing more recent studies:
References include studies by the CDC, the foundation for AIDS research, the medical institute for sexual health and the gay and lesbian medical association. Of particular concern is what is known as ‘bug chasing.’
Argument by assertion. This is just a thing you’re saying, and there is absolutely no reason to believe that it’s correct. Hardly a logical and cogent argument for homosexuality’s immorality.
[/quote]
So it’s not immoral to allow the human race to become extinct?
[/quote]
And we arrive at the manifest absurdity.
“If homosexual intercourse is not condemned, the human race will go extinct.” Yeah? I want to be sure that it’s worded correctly before I start ripping into it.[/quote]
Ergo, heterosexual sex that does not have procreation as its end goal is “immoral”. Ok. Everyone is a sinnin’ then.
[quote]smh_23 wrote: It does not logically follow that sex not capable of causing pregnancy is immoral.
Your argument is invalid because the conclusion is not entailed by the premises.
It is true that anal sex, for example, does not lead to pregnancy.
And yet that premise does not entail the conclusion that anal sex is immoral. You assume that sex not capable of leading to pregnancy is immoral.
As I predicted, you are wandering in circles, from assumed or asserted maxim to assumed or asserted maxim.
And the thing about assumed and asserted maxims is that they can be negated as simply as they are propounded: With an assumed and asserted refutation.[/quote]
I’ve already listed in point form why it’s immoral. I can only refer you back to those points. If you want to dispute my reasoning then quote the point and attempt to counter my argument. [/quote]
That’s exactly what I’m doing in the above post, which you quoted without addressing.
I am saying that your conclusion is not entailed by your premises, for the reasons outlined above. You are assuming your conclusion as a premise (also called begging the question): “Homosexual sex is immoral because it is sex that does not lead to procreation (i.e., it is homosexual sex) and that is immoral.” This is a fallacious argument.
As for birth rates, gays can have biological children. Beyond that, it is the responsibility of heterosexuals to procreate, and it is most certainly not the responsibility of government or society to force or shame anybody into doing such. As H Factor mentioned, that my neighbors are gay has no effect on my own heterosexual desire to have sex with women. Nor does it affect my plan to one day have children.
Or is the case being made that if we don’t condemn homosexuality, kids will be “turned” gay? As I’ve said many times before, if anybody is thinking along these lines, their heterosexuality is more tenuously balanced than they’d surely ever admit.
This is the problem. SexMachine seeks out websites which are demonstrably biased towards what he wants to believe. A collection of websites based off fear.
From this website:
“We are engaged in a battle to retain the Judeo-Christian values that are the foundation of western civilization. These are the same values which supported the establishment of the United States and which are embodied in the Ten Commandments and in the founding documents of our nation.”
Mass Resistance which I had never even heard of before SexMachine posted it is one giant love story to homophobic thinking and anti-gay propaganda. Excuse me, PRO-FAMILY. Well, PRO-FAMILY as long as no one is gay. A website which from the main page is almost solely anti-gay links and articles. A great collection for those scared as shit of gay people.
If all you do is read far right paranoia websites it’s no wonder you have thoughts that are so different from so many rational thinkers on this forum.
Although I can’t get over how a guy with name SexMachine is so anti-sex. Running around checking up on everyone to make sure they are having the type of sex that is approved of by him. Some of these straight people sure do think about gay sex a lot. In fact those most against gay sex on this forum have started by far the majority of homosexual threads.
HETEROSEXUAL MEN CONSTANTLY THINKING ABOUT GAY SEX. Is it a wonder why so many priests and “pro-family” politicians are constantly getting caught banging members of the same sex. They think and talk about it all the time.
HETEROSEXUAL MEN CONSTANTLY THINKING ABOUT GAY SEX… [/quote]
I gotta admit that this is pretty damn strange. I know some completely flaming homos that don’t talk about gay sex as much as some of these guys on here do. In fact, they don’t talk about it much at all.
HETEROSEXUAL MEN CONSTANTLY THINKING ABOUT GAY SEX… [/quote]
I gotta admit that this is pretty damn strange. I know some completely flaming homos that don’t talk about gay sex as much as some of these guys on here do. In fact, they don’t talk about it much at all.
It’s like an OCD on here. [/quote]
What’s even stranger is the explicit terms they use. We have a collection of people on this forum who have frequently spelled out in graphic terms things related to gay sex and it is always the people who are most against it.
It doesn’t make much sense to me. Those most against something are the ones constantly talking about it AND discussing it in graphic descriptive terms which those who don’t really give a shit about it never do. A google site search could probably turn up some stuff that would get most people fired from work in these “type” of threads and they are almost always posted by the people who are vehemently anti homosexual.
Would this forum ever really talk about homosexuals if it wasn’t for those who are so “against” it?
I guess some straight guys come to fitness and bodybuilding boards and consistently talk about homosexuals having sex and start all sorts of threads about it. Not that there’s anything wrong with that…