Do you support gay marriage.

[Eran of Arcadia]

As long as I or anyone else can keep the ability to not recognize such a relationship as marriage . . .

 

[Left]

I'm not asking you to like it, just for the law to acknowledge it.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

And that, I am willing to see.

 

[sanabas]

Having a prostate exam is an un-natural act. There can be no doubt of that. And I do object to it enough that I only have it done when required.



You make a logical fallacy here. My arguement is most certainly not bunk merely because you are not convinced. Example: I am not convinced man is responsible for global warming...is the arguement for global warming bunk then? No.

I am not convinced because your argument is bunk. You fail to address any of the problems with the argument, as per normal. You also don't even apply the argument consistently yourself. "It's wrong because it's unnatural" is a rubbish argument, and you don't accept it as a reason against things when it comes to stuff you don't have a problem with, or have limited problems with, such as kissing or prostate exams. If you know it's rubbish, why try to use it to justify your dislike of other stuff?

Now then, just like our lungs are 'designed' to breath air and not filter oxygen out of water, the anus is designed to expell waste, not serve as a sexual organ. And I use the word 'design' merely to describe the function, not to allude that there is some designer - whether it be God or evolution.

Our lungs were originally part of our large intestine, and not designed to breathe air at all. They only evolved to breathe air because they were used for 'unnatural purposes'. So again, even if we accept your definition of 'unnatural', why is 'because it's unnatural' an argument against anything? And if we accept your definition, doesn't that make evolution unnatural?

 

[Swiss_Mercenari]

Of "unnatural" acts being evil or incorrect, let me say this: Clothing, exploitation of electrons, established governments, greater-level resource exploitation and freedoms are not found throughout the "natural" (i.e non human, non human iota world) world, does that mean we should abolish them? Also, about gay marriage leading to "animal marriage": Animals do not possess the same neurological iotas as humans, thus ruling out such a thing. @Sanabas: I concur. @MobBoss: e.Liberals who hate traditional family values.
In actuality, a married couple isn't a "traditional family", and I thought that the US was past the point of theocratic ideologues being the only factors in our acceptance of the entire populace. Ahem:

WE THE PEOPLE of the United States of America. People as in reference to HUMANS OF ALL RACES, BOTH GENDERS, OF ALL AGES, SOCIAL CLASS AND NEUROLOGICAL CAPACITY.
@Eran of Arcadia: As above, which obsoletes the idea that acceptance of people within the same gender establishing maritial bonds will be the causation of "animal marriage". Humans possess seperate iotas and seperate and more advanced principles and abilities.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Sure, we do now. But there are groups that claim that animals deserve some of the same rights as humans, and it is the height of foolishness to think that they will never become more mainstream.

 

[MobBoss]

I am not convinced because your argument is bunk.

Sanabas, its not bunk at all. Perhaps you come from a land where its perfectly natural for men to shove their fingers up to the knuckle in someones anus to touch their prostate....I dont. It may get done as part of a medical exam, but trust me....its not something that comes to people to do naturally.

You fail to address any of the problems with the argument, as per normal.

Not at all. I address it just fine. You just dont like how I address it so you merely label it 'bunk' without any real counter-arguement. /shrug.

You also don't even apply the argument consistently yourself. "It's wrong because it's unnatural" is a rubbish argument, and you don't accept it as a reason against things when it comes to stuff you don't have a problem with, or have limited problems with, such as kissing or prostate exams. If you know it's rubbish, why try to use it to justify your dislike of other stuff?

See. You are not even honest in this. Where in this thread have I said 'its wrong' because its un-natural. I merely made the point that the behavior itself is most likely un-natural because the its plain to someone with common sense that the anus isnt meant to shove things up into it. Considering the number of possible injuries and infections that can occur from such practice, I would think someone with a modicum of intelligence could recognize that its purpose is not an entry way into the body...but an exit.

Our lungs were originally part of our large intestine, and not designed to breathe air at all.

Eh? Where did you get that? And even if its true (which I highly doubt, since the intestine has nothing at all to do with the breathing system), so what? When you grow ovaries in your anus let me know.

They only evolved to breathe air because they were used for 'unnatural purposes'.

Pure speculation on your part with pretty much no basis in fact what-so-ever.

So again, even if we accept your definition of 'unnatural', why is 'because it's unnatural' an argument against anything? And if we accept your definition, doesn't that make evolution unnatural?

Not in the least, because I sure dont remember in my natural evolution class in college any such notion that body parts 'morphing' into other totally different and unrelated organ like some kids transformer cartoon. While a hand/arm might transform into a flipper over a huge amount of time, its still going to have some vestigal remains to indicate it was once a hand/arm and its still an appendage.....your comment seems to indicate that your hand/arm would somehow evolve into something akin to your liver. Thats just not remotely possible.

 

[sanabas]

Sanabas, its not bunk at all. Perhaps you come from a land where its perfectly natural for men to shove their fingers up to the knuckle in someones anus to touch their prostate....I dont. It may get done as part of a medical exam, but trust me....its not something that comes to people to do naturally.

Not at all. I address it just fine. You just dont like how I address it so you merely label it 'bunk' without any real counter-arguement. /shrug.

There's no real argument to counter. 'Homosexuals shouldn't be encouraged, because they're performing unnatural acts' is pretty much the extent of it. It's bunk because you're unable to give a workable definition of unnatural, it's also bunk because even if we did accept your definition of unnatural, other unnatural things are encouraged & accepted.

See. You are not even honest in this. Where in this thread have I said 'its wrong' because its un-natural. I merely made the point that the behavior itself is most likely un-natural because the its plain to someone with common sense that the anus isnt meant to shove things up into it. Considering the number of possible injuries and infections that can occur from such practice, I would think someone with a modicum of intelligence could recognize that its purpose is not an entry way into the body...but an exit.

So if you don't think it's wrong because it's unnatural, why is whether it's natural or not relevant to anything? Or is it simply there as another appeal to emotion, due to you not having any actual arguments, and due to your belief that if you can make enough noise, and spout enough bullfeathers, then you win by default? Is there a Kent Hovind school of argument where they teach you to be a blustering idiot?

Eh? Where did you get that? And even if its true (which I highly doubt, since the intestine has nothing at all to do with the breathing system), so what? When you grow ovaries in your anus let me know.

Pure speculation on your part with pretty much no basis in fact what-so-ever.

Not in the least, because I sure dont remember in my natural evolution class in college any such notion that body parts 'morphing' into other totally different and unrelated organ like some kids transformer cartoon. While a hand/arm might transform into a flipper over a huge amount of time, its still going to have some vestigal remains to indicate it was once a hand/arm and its still an appendage.....your comment seems to indicate that your hand/arm would somehow evolve into something akin to your liver. Thats just not remotely possible.

How about you go and learn some biology, and then get back to me? Start by reading up on mammalian lungs, how they've evolved, and how they develop in foetuses.

 

[GenMarshall]

Funny how an opinion leads to a crazy debate in which we all know that nether side will accept to acknowledges the other person's views on why they hold that particular opinion .

 

[MobBoss]

There's no real argument to counter. 'Homosexuals shouldn't be encouraged, because they're performing unnatural acts' is pretty much the extent of it. It's bunk because you're unable to give a workable definition of unnatural, it's also bunk because even if we did accept your definition of unnatural, other unnatural things are encouraged & accepted.

Be honest here. Have I anywhere in this thread said 'Homosexuals shouldn't be encouraged, because they're performing unnatural acts'? The answer is a real big NO. You cannot even be honest enough to quote me correctly so essentially, your allegation is bunk.

So if you don't think it's wrong because it's unnatural, why is whether it's natural or not relevant to anything?

I dunno, why dont you tell me O flaming flame tosser of bunkness?

Or is it simply there as another appeal to emotion, due to you not having any actual arguments, and due to your belief that if you can make enough noise, and spout enough bullfeathers, then you win by default? Is there a Kent Hovind school of argument where they teach you to be a blustering idiot?

As usual all you do is devolve into insults when you are shown to misquote your opponent. How typical.

Come on then. Make me an arguement on how 'natural' it is to have something run up your bum. By all means rant away.

How about you go and learn some biology, and then get back to me? Start by reading up on mammalian lungs, how they've evolved, and how they develop in foetuses.

Your not talking evolution, your talking cellular development in the womb and how it occurs. Two totally different things. Sure organs in the body can have similiar cell types, but that does not equate to them having similar function. Are you really trying to sell us some junk science opinion that what goes on in a womb is 'evolution' as opposed to fetal cellular growth? And you have the nerve to tell me to go learn some biology. /sheesh.

 

[sanabas]

Be honest here. Have I anywhere in this thread said 'Homosexuals shouldn't be encouraged, because they're performing unnatural acts'? The answer is a real big NO. You cannot even be honest enough to quote me correctly so essentially, your allegation is bunk.



I dunno, why dont you tell me O flaming flame tosser of bunkness?

So again, why does it matter if it's natural or not?

As usual all you do is devolve into insults when you are shown to misquote your opponent. How typical.

Misquoted? Nope. Cherrypicking quotes and using them out of context is your specialty, not mine.

Come on then. Make me an arguement on how 'natural' it is to have something run up your bum. By all means rant away.

Nope. Two problems. First one is you can't come up with a workable definition of what's natural and what's not. You give me an objective definition of natural, and then I'll give you an argument for it either way. Second one is that I don't care whether it's natural or not, because it makes no difference whether it's natural or not.

Your not talking evolution, your talking cellular development in the womb and how it occurs. Two totally different things. Sure organs in the body can have similiar cell types, but that does not equate to them having similar function. Are you really trying to sell us some junk science opinion that what goes on in a womb is 'evolution' as opposed to fetal cellular growth? And you have the nerve to tell me to go learn some biology. /sheesh.

As I said, go and learn some biology and then get back to me. Learn how mammalian lungs evolved. Learn how mammalian lungs develop in the womb. Come back and bluster some more then.

 

[Yeeek]

Okay moboss 1 ; me 0.

Though i'm pretty sure to have read rabout elationship with sexual intercourse between spartan soldiers. Maybe i got confused with other city states or under Alexander's era.


But, can we agree that having sexual affairs with your slave for example was perfectly normal, right? Even if he was still in his early teen.

 

[MobBoss]

So again, why does it matter if it's natural or not?

I never said it did. I even agreed that by my definition of intended use, kissing would probably be un-natural as well.

Misquoted? Nope. Cherrypicking quotes and using them out of context is your specialty, not mine.

Then by all means show me the post in this thread where I say what you allege. Word for word. Put up or shut up.

Nope. Two problems. First one is you can't come up with a workable definition of what's natural and what's not. You give me an objective definition of natural, and then I'll give you an argument for it either way. Second one is that I don't care whether it's natural or not, because it makes no difference whether it's natural or not.

Sure I did. I said what is natural is what is the organs intended design and usual function is - not what humans do with it beyond that context. And while it might not make any difference to YOU my wookie friend, it may very well make a difference to someone else whos opinion matters just as much as yours does.

As I said, go and learn some biology and then get back to me. Learn how mammalian lungs evolved. Learn how mammalian lungs develop in the womb. Come back and bluster some more then.

In other words you cannot refute what I said, or back up your assumption. Merely repeating your statement with your hands over your ears and going lalala doesnt add anything to the discussion. I think most of us know the difference between 'evolution' and 'cellular development' thank you very much. So what if lungs use the same type of cells as another part of the body? Do you think that indicates that somehow the function of the two separate organs is somehow related? Heck no. Its just how the body develops in the womb. Develops....not evolves.

 

[sanabas]

I never said it did. I even agreed that by my definition of intended use, kissing would probably be un-natural as well.

Then by all means show me the post in this thread where I say what you allege. Word for word. Put up or shut up.

Can't be bothered searching. So I'll concede that you don't think homosexual marriage is bad because it encourages and/or condones unnatural behaviour. I'll concede that you're not justifying your bigotry with 'they're unnatural'.

So do you have any actual justification for your bigotry, or for why homosexual marriage is bad?

Sure I did. I said what is natural is what is the organs intended design and usual function is - not what humans do with it beyond that context. And while it might not make any difference to YOU my wookie friend, it may very well make a difference to someone else whos opinion matters just as much as yours does.

And I explained to you the problems with that definition, and why it's not an objective or useful one. But since there's no chance of you giving a decent definition, I'll play along with the one you gave:

Since it's only humans who can use body parts for something other than 'its natural, intended function', and all other animals are merely acting naturally, according to instinct, one example of the anus being used for sexual pleasure in our close relatives would be enough to prove that it's natural, wouldn't it?

In other words you cannot refute what I said, or back up your assumption. Merely repeating your statement with your hands over your ears and going lalala doesnt add anything to the discussion. I think most of us know the difference between 'evolution' and 'cellular development' thank you very much. So what if lungs use the same type of cells as another part of the body? Do you think that indicates that somehow the function of the two separate organs is somehow related? Heck no. Its just how the body develops in the womb. Develops....not evolves.

I know the difference between evolution and development, I'm not sure if you do. I can't be bothered doing research for you, I certainly can't be bothered typing stuff out from a textbook. I'll give you a link to click on, in the assumption that it might have something useful for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/lungs One more time, go and learn how mammalian lungs evolved, go and learn how mammalian lungs develop, work out that you're being asked to do 2 different things, not the same one in two different ways, and then come back and bluster a bit more.

 

[MobBoss]

Can't be bothered searching.

And you call what I put here bunk?

So do you have any actual justification for your bigotry, or for why homosexual marriage is bad?

One. I am not a bigot. Two. Sure I got justifications why I am against it. Many of them. All of which would be bunk to you in light of your closed and intolerant mind.

Since it's only humans who can use body parts for something other than 'it's natural, intended function'

Did I say this? Or is this your assumption?

and all other animals are merely acting naturally, according to instinct, one example of the anus being used for sexual pleasure in our close relatives would be enough to prove that it's natural, wouldn't it?

Now wait a second....are you telling me that animals receive sexual pleasure by receiving anal sex? And you know this how?

I know the difference between evolution and development, I'm not sure if you do. I can't be bothered doing research for you, I certainly can't be bothered typing stuff out from a textbook. I'll give you a link to click on, in the assumption that it might have something useful for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/lungs One more time, go and learn how mammalian lungs evolved, go and learn how mammalian lungs develop, work out that you're being asked to do 2 different things, not the same one in two different ways, and then come back and bluster a bit more.

Sigh. That doesnt refute what I am saying at all or impact what is the 'natural' function of an anus is. How about you attempt to make a point. By bringing up the theory that our lungs and a fish's gas bladder evolved over the course of millenia from some intestinal gas bag are you attempting to state that the anus is slowly evolving into genitalia or sex organ? Again, that is just non-sensical.

 

[sanabas]

And you call what I put here bunk?

Sure do. Because it is.

One. I am not a bigot. Two. Sure I got justifications why I am against it. Many of them. All of which would be bunk to you in light of your closed and intolerant mind.

One. Yes you are. Two. All of which justifications would be bunk on the basis that there's no logic involved in them. My mind is open, and only intolerant of disingenuous idiots. If you actually have an argument, why not post it?

Did I say this? Or is this your assumption?

I believe you err greatly in attributing human labels to animal actions. Animals act merely out of need. If they have an urge, they act on it and if the nearest outlet for that urge is a same gender animal, then oh well.

When my dog humps my leg he is not trying to 'better his species'. He is merely action upon his uncontrollable urge at the moment. No more, no less.

Animals do no 'practice' homosexuality anymore than they 'practice' licking their own orifices. They just do it out of need.

Sure I did. I said what is natural is what is the organs intended design and usual function is - not what humans do with it beyond that context.

Sounds like it to me. Animals are merely doing what comes naturally, humans are able to go beyond natural urges and do unnatural stuff too.

Now wait a second....are you telling me that animals receive sexual pleasure by receiving anal sex? And you know this how?

Did I say this? Or is this your assumption?

I merely asked a simple yes/no question: If I accept your definition of natural, then would one example like this show that homosexual sex involving the anus is natural? Yes or no?

Sigh. That doesnt refute what I am saying at all or impact what is the 'natural' function of an anus is. How about you attempt to make a point. By bringing up the theory that our lungs and a fish's gas bladder evolved over the course of millenia from some intestinal gas bag are you attempting to state that the anus is slowly evolving into genitalia or sex organ? Again, that is just non-sensical.

I'll explain my point again for you, since you seem to have ignored it in favour of some more disingenuous twaddle. If I accept your definition of natural, then evolution must not be natural, because things being used for other than their 'intended purpose' can cause evolutionary change. The evolution of lungs is just one example of that.

Therefore your definition of 'natural' is rubbish, or evolution is unnatural. Which is it?

 

[MobBoss]

Sure do. Because it is.

Sorry, but no. And it sure as hell isnt simply because you label it so.

One. Yes you are.

Now you are just being insulting again (gee surprise, surprise). You have no idea of what my tolerance is of homosexuals in any way, shape or form. My non-support of gay marriage in particular does not make me a bigot. Hell, there are gays that dont support it...are they bigoted? Please. But in any event take your baseless insults elsehwere, I dont care to hear them.

My mind is open, and only intolerant of disingenuous idiots.

Again more insults. It seems you have found your niche in the art of debate.

I guess the only real thing we have learned from this exchange (beyond your ability to insult and misquote) is that I think it un-natural for foreign objects to be inserted into the anus while apparently you think it quite natural. That, and apparently you think homosexuals are engaging in evolutionary change since they are using something for beyond its 'intended purpose'.

Needless to say, I dont think we are going to agree on anything.

Thus I am off to bed. Far too tired to make anything more of aussie insult speech for the night.

 

[sanabas]

Sorry, but no. And it sure as hell isnt simply because you label it so.

You're yet to post a coherent argument, and you're yet to respond to coherent arguments from others with anything other than cherrypicking, disingenuous rhetoric, taking stuff out of context, insults, and flat out lies. That's why I call it bunk.

Now you are just being insulting again (gee surprise, surprise). You have no idea of what my tolerance is of homosexuals in any way, shape or form. My non-support of gay marriage in particular does not make me a bigot. Hell, there are gays that dont support it...are they bigoted?

Very true. I can only infer from what I read in your posts. And your posts indicate that you're a bigot.

Please. But in any event take your baseless insults elsehwere, I dont care to hear them.

Again more insults. It seems you have found your niche in the art of debate.

Merely responding in kind. If you don't like them, why use them.

I guess the only real thing we have learned from this exchange (beyond your ability to insult and misquote) is that I think it un-natural for foreign objects to be inserted into the anus while apparently you think it quite natural. That, and apparently you think homosexuals are engaging in evolutionary change since they are using something for beyond its 'intended purpose'.

you're yet to respond to coherent arguments from others with anything other than cherrypicking, disingenuous rhetoric, taking stuff out of context, insults, and flat out lies.

Prime example right there.

Needless to say, I dont think we are going to agree on anything.

Thus I am off to bed. Far too tired to make anything more of aussie insult speech for the night.

Well, since you're unable to address any of my points, and simply run away, that must mean I win. :kthxbai

 

[MobBoss]

You're yet to post a coherent argument, and you're yet to respond to coherent arguments from others with anything other than cherrypicking, disingenuous rhetoric, taking stuff out of context, insults, and flat out lies. That's why I call it bunk.

Bub, I havent cherry picked anything here and I have merely stated my opinion and only my opinion in regards to what I consider 'natural'. However, you cannot tolerate outside opinion and thus engage in your current course of action.

Very true. I can only infer from what I read in your posts. And your posts indicate that you're a bigot.

My posts indicate I dont agree with you. That hardly makes me a bigot. Going to ask you nice, one last time. Stop it with the bigot namecalling.

Well, since you're unable to address any of my points, and simply run away, that must mean I win. :kthxbai

How mature. I suppose thats the extent of your debate skills? Some sort of odd form of playground 'touched you last'?

Pa-the-tic.

Perhaps if you post something meaningful I may reply. But I am willing to bet that aint going to happen.

 

[Gingerbread Man]

Why does this topic always get so heated?

Look, everyone has a different idea of what is right, and what is wrong. We can spend forever trying to get one to adopt the others' concept of morality, but it sure isn't going to solve any disputes. I am never going to accept that gay marriage is wrong, and for all I know MobBoss is never going to accept that gay marriage is right.

I don't believe MobBoss is a bigot. I think he is wrong, but I don't think he's a bigot. Even if I did think MobBoss was a bigot, what would it achieve to call him one?

Similarly, it wouldn't be helpful at all for someone like MobBoss (not saying he does, but I constantly hear other Christians say them) to claim I'm not a Christian, or that I'm supporting sin, or am encouraging the destruction of moral society by supporting gay marriage. So many anti-gay marriage groups call themselves 'pro-family', or 'pro-marriage', or even advocates for parents and children. As if gay marriage supporters want to eat babies and force divorces. Its cheesy, at best.

I believe that these kinds of words are being used in the political domain simply to create a wedge. We're all falling victim to this wedge. Maybe if we didn't all adopt these wedge politics, we'd already be half-way towards some kind of coexistence.

On a lighter note, this thread made at least 100 posts before heated debate started. Even more surprisingly, I think this is the first time votes in favour of SSM have reached as high as 75% in this forum. Must be something in the water...