10 Reasons why Gay Marriage is Wrong!!

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


If we believe that it is good to marry black folks and it is good to be able to divorce, then you are saying that it is just as good to divorce as marry black folks.

So if it is important to eat and it is important to exercise, then you are saying it is just as important to exercise as it is to eat.

The logical fallacy of what you said is clear enough but switching out a few words show how idiotic what you said is

[Odin]

Not Ben's Aquinas BS again.

[Flubber]

I've always been in favor of more and more men choosing to be or being gay on the simple principle that it increases the ratio of women per male in the heterosexual world.

On the same logic I believe that every gay WOMAN is a tragedy and a loss

[Arrian]

Good. I was starting to worry this thread was going down the road to a serious debate (Ben vs. everybody else, v. 2.5).

-Arrian

[Ben Kenobi]

So if it is important to eat and it is important to exercise, then you are saying it is just as important to exercise as it is to eat.

The logical fallacy of what you said is clear enough but switching out a few words show how idiotic what you said is

Ever hear of bedsores? If you don't move you die, whereas you can survive close to a month without eating.

A better example would have been eating and drinking.

As for divorce, you think it is better to divorce then to marry black people?

[Ben Kenobi]

Not Ben's Aquinas BS again.

Hmm.

"All species have the natural impulse to propagate their kind."

Sounds an awful lot like someone else, eh Odin?

[Whaleboy]

One of those characteristics is a desire to perpetuate the species. This is why it is said that reproduction, and sexual activity with the purposes of reproduction is said to be in harmony with the natural order, because it would also permit the perpetuation of the species, regardless of whether you are a man or an animal.

You answer your own point with the first four words. "One of those characteristics". Life aims to reproduce, homosexuality precludes reproduction; that is undoubted. However, if you were advocating that humanity is nothing but it's urge to reproduce, we might as well legalise polygamy, get rid of marriage on the grounds that it's a waste of sperm, and kill off all the old people because they consume resources that could be spent on creating young.

You see the problem with your 1-dimensional argument there?

If we should expect human beings to act contrary to the natural order, then you are also bringing in a whole host of assumptions about the heirarchy of man. I would agree with you on certain things, even as I disagree that we see no similarities between man and the rest of the natural world.

As for homosexuality in higher mammals, you would be running up against the assumption that the natural order is for an organism to perpetuate itself.

An obvious observation would be that of society... living together as a social group spawns a whole new class of behaviour; perhaps homosexuality is one of them, since all the species in which this behaviour is observed are social. One could say it is a product of the same circumstance that brings about language, speech, technology, and according to some philosophers, consciousness itself.

Or more sense to say that agape is contrary to the natural order? If you mean the latter, then really, yes you are right that there is nothing wrong with agape between two men. However, I suspect you mean the former.

In which case, by your logic, it's akin to those same men choosing a life of celibacy, or perhaps being infertile. THey are of course equal in the eyes of the natural order.

You are right that we are not permitted to to do these things against someone who does not consent, but what is the argument against doing this to animals who, after all are not considered persons? Why is it wrong for me to sleep with an animal if I am in fact permitted to act contrary to the natural order of things?

That depends. If you believe that animals are mere objects not capable of feeling pain, then you might as well be ****ing your pillow! If you believe that animals are capable of feeling pain, then you're opening a whole new philosophical can of worms, but then, I believe Christian ethics would preclude cruelty to animals. The argument against paedophilia does not require explanation.

I asked one question. If we accept this assumption against natural order, what is the argument against bestiality? Why is bestiality wrong?

Again, see my objection that your argument re. natural order is not all there is to it. It seems that for you its like a digital switch which imo is not the way to approach this issue.

If we believe that it is good to marry black folks and it is good to be able to divorce, then you are saying that it is just as good to divorce as marry black folks.

wtf? It's good that the world didn't destroy itself in the Cuban Missile Crisis |= it's good that I've just had a payrise.

See what I mean about one-dimensional?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Verto
BTW, did you hear Blizzard backed down on the gay policy thing?

Yeah, I went to their forums to read the posts from outraged bigots. "Think of the children" wasn't used as much as I thought it would be.

In other funny news, the BBC had the story on today and had a picture of the chick who sparked the complaint. There are many young men on the WoW forums saying how they'd love to "convert" her from being a lesbian.

Funny thing is that she's a tranny, and an obvious one at that. lawlz...

[Seeker]

"Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children. "

I've heard the same stuff on all kinds of issues from nuclear family byproducts...about single-parents, etc.

I've never really understood the concept of a 'role-model' anyway and never have. Are there any real people so pathetic as to create themselves in slavish imitation of another? Are kids raised in total isolation?

[Skanky Burns]

Originally posted by Flubber
On the same logic I believe that every gay WOMAN is a tragedy and a loss

Unless its documented online.

[Last Conformist]

An obvious observation would be that of society... living together as a social group spawns a whole new class of behaviour; perhaps homosexuality is one of them, since all the species in which this behaviour is observed are social. One could say it is a product of the same circumstance that brings about language, speech, technology, and according to some philosophers, consciousness itself.

Bedbugs, as far as I know, are not social animals, but they do practice gay sex. Google "homosexual stabbing rape".

[loinburger]

[Ben Kenobi]I am an internet virgin and therefore have every right to dictate the moral norms of non-virgins, net-ready or otherwise.[/Ben Kenobi]

As for the HEATHENS partaking in the ludicrous argument about whether homosexuality is moral or immoral -- The fact that homosexuality occurs in nature does not mean that homosexuality is natural!!!!!

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi




As for divorce, you think it is better to divorce then to marry black people?

I don't see divorce or marriage as being better or worse than each other. There can be bad marriages which can lead to good divorces- or are you saying that a battered an sodomized woman has to stay with her man until death (likely at his hand) us do part.

Is that what you are saying ben . . . that you support wifebeaters ????

Sorry -- I just can't take this serious

[Ben Kenobi]

You answer your own point with the first four words. "One of those characteristics". Life aims to reproduce, homosexuality precludes reproduction; that is undoubted. However, if you were advocating that humanity is nothing but it's urge to reproduce, we might as well legalise polygamy, get rid of marriage on the grounds that it's a waste of sperm, and kill off all the old people because they consume resources that could be spent on creating young.

You see the problem with your 1-dimensional argument there?

Yes, that is the darwinian natural selection argument. I agree with saying that human beings are solely dominated by their natural impulses is incorrect.

However, there is a world of difference between saying this and saying that human beings are not affected in any way by nature. We are not solely spirit, we have bodies.

An obvious observation would be that of society... living together as a social group spawns a whole new class of behaviour; perhaps homosexuality is one of them, since all the species in which this behaviour is observed are social.

One could say it is a product of the same circumstance that brings about language, speech, technology, and according to some philosophers, consciousness itself.

This argument assumes that being gay is a social construct, Whaleboy. To say that being gay is an immutable physical reality would require you to return to some form of natural explanation.

Assuming that we observed this behaviour in certain groups and organisations, we can conclude from there that homosexuality is a learned trait and not innate. You would in fact change your behaviour depending on the social environment in which one was raised.

In which case, by your logic, it's akin to those same men choosing a life of celibacy, or perhaps being infertile. THey are of course equal in the eyes of the natural order.

Sure, if you want to argue that both behaviours are unnatural social constructs.

However, I would suspect most gay people would say there is nothing unnatural, and that their desires for other men are in fact a natural desire and ought not to be suppressed. Are you arguing to the contrary, Whaleboy?

That depends. If you believe that animals are mere objects not capable of feeling pain, then you might as well be ****ing your pillow! If you believe that animals are capable of feeling pain, then you're opening a whole new philosophical can of worms, but then, I believe Christian ethics would preclude cruelty to animals. The argument against paedophilia does not require explanation.

So consent has nothing to do with it then. Now, do you believe that all animals that can feel pain ought to be treated in the same way as people? You are saying it is in fact wrong to sleep with animals because you can cause them pain, but wouldn't that also rule out eating animals since you have to kill them in order to eat them?

So it is insufficient to say that pain is the reason why bestiality is wrong.

Oh, and by the way, Christianity does not bar bestiality on the reasoning that it is animal cruelty. Christianity does not distinguish between homosexuality and bestiality, both are condemned as contrary to natural order.

As for pedophilia, if consent no longer matters, your only standard now is that it could be painful to the child.

[Ben Kenobi]

I don't see divorce or marriage as being better or worse than each other. There can be bad marriages which can lead to good divorces- or are you saying that a battered an sodomized woman has to stay with her man until death (likely at his hand) us do part.

Is that what you are saying ben . . . that you support wifebeaters ????

Sorry -- I just can't take this serious

I don't believe agathon was arguing for divorce only in the case of spousal abuse. It's like having to amputate a limb. You do it if there is nothing else you can do.