Total Posts:40|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

If Gay Sex Is Immoral Why Aren't Handstands?

Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2013 6:22:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/25/2013 6:05:47 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
If gay sex is immoral why aren't handstands?

Gay sex, premarital sex, donkey sex isn't immoral merely because they aren't how things are supposed to be, but why they are supposed to be a certain way.

Sex is union with anothers soul, and this connection is only persmissable or profitable once a covenant has been made before God.

Handstands are not a union with anothers soul, and are not a sin against yourself or Gods temple.

But, you aren't serious with this question right?
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2013 6:26:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/25/2013 6:25:02 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
Can you support your argument without invoking God?

Probably.. but I don't really care to.

Without God, nothing is moral or immoral; it's all opinion.
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
teddy2013
Posts: 119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2013 7:22:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/25/2013 6:25:02 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
Can you support your argument without invoking God?

I can make the argument without invoking God. My moral opposition to homosexual activity is not based on Bible versus, but on general principles of right and wrong. For me the sexual union of a man and a women is natural. For lack of a better term, their parts go together. Also, this is the only sexual union where something beyond recreation is possible (procreation). I personally find the sexual union of two people, of the same sex immoral. You do not have to invoke God to argue that a man putting his penis into the anus of another man is unnatural, and immoral. There you have it, I made the moral case against homosexuality without a single Bible verse. In my post against gay marriage, and against gays in the military
I made my arguments more secular, because I think there are a lot of people who can be swayed on that basis. I also think a lot of people can be swayed on moral religious grounds, so I am glad there are people such as yourself making those arguments.
Magicr
Posts: 135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2013 8:10:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/25/2013 6:26:56 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 1/25/2013 6:25:02 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
Can you support your argument without invoking God?

Probably.. but I don't really care to.

Without God, nothing is moral or immoral; it's all opinion.

And with God why are some things moral and other things immoral?
Franz_Reynard
Posts: 1,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2013 8:15:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/25/2013 6:22:40 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 1/25/2013 6:05:47 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
If gay sex is immoral why aren't handstands?

Gay sex, premarital sex, donkey sex isn't immoral merely because they aren't how things are supposed to be, but why they are supposed to be a certain way.

Sex is union with anothers soul, and this connection is only persmissable or profitable once a covenant has been made before God.

Handstands are not a union with anothers soul, and are not a sin against yourself or Gods temple.

But, you aren't serious with this question right?

Do animals have souls?

How about those with only one gender, such as some species of lizards? Or those that are asexual, such as sponges?
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2013 8:44:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/25/2013 7:22:18 PM, teddy2013 wrote:
At 1/25/2013 6:25:02 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
Can you support your argument without invoking God?

I can make the argument without invoking God. My moral opposition to homosexual activity is not based on Bible versus, but on general principles of right and wrong. For me the sexual union of a man and a women is natural. For lack of a better term, their parts go together. Also, this is the only sexual union where something beyond recreation is possible (procreation). I personally find the sexual union of two people, of the same sex immoral. You do not have to invoke God to argue that a man putting his penis into the anus of another man is unnatural, and immoral. There you have it, I made the moral case against homosexuality without a single Bible verse. In my post against gay marriage, and against gays in the military
I made my arguments more secular, because I think there are a lot of people who can be swayed on that basis. I also think a lot of people can be swayed on moral religious grounds, so I am glad there are people such as yourself making those arguments.

Alright, first of all: the appeal to nature is a logical fallacy. What is 'natural' doesn't determine what is right or wrong, merely what is. Secondly, even your appeal to nature is botched, seeing as homosexual activity of every kind is very common in the natural world. [1]

I've lost count of how many times I've watched those hostile to homosexuality utilize the appeal to nature, only to be faced with incontrovertible evidence to the contrary. What's even more rich is when they then reverse course and unabashedly point out the fallacy of the very same argument that they just attempted to use! Such candid displays of intellectual dishonesty are a fascinating example of humanity's enormous capacity for self deception.

http://en.wikipedia.org... (it may be from wikipedia, but the list is very well sourced)
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2013 10:47:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/25/2013 7:22:18 PM, teddy2013 wrote:
At 1/25/2013 6:25:02 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
Can you support your argument without invoking God?

I can make the argument without invoking God. My moral opposition to homosexual activity is not based on Bible versus, but on general principles of right and wrong. For me the sexual union of a man and a women is natural. For lack of a better term, their parts go together. Also, this is the only sexual union where something beyond recreation is possible (procreation). I personally find the sexual union of two people, of the same sex immoral. You do not have to invoke God to argue that a man putting his penis into the anus of another man is unnatural, and immoral. There you have it, I made the moral case against homosexuality without a single Bible verse. In my post against gay marriage, and against gays in the military
I made my arguments more secular, because I think there are a lot of people who can be swayed on that basis. I also think a lot of people can be swayed on moral religious grounds, so I am glad there are people such as yourself making those arguments.

http://rationalwiki.org...

Also, there are over 1,500 species of animals that have homosexual intercourse. Is it still "unnatural" now that a giant chunk of nature does so?
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Franz_Reynard
Posts: 1,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2013 10:52:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/25/2013 8:44:30 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 1/25/2013 7:22:18 PM, teddy2013 wrote:
At 1/25/2013 6:25:02 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
Can you support your argument without invoking God?

I can make the argument without invoking God. My moral opposition to homosexual activity is not based on Bible versus, but on general principles of right and wrong. For me the sexual union of a man and a women is natural. For lack of a better term, their parts go together. Also, this is the only sexual union where something beyond recreation is possible (procreation). I personally find the sexual union of two people, of the same sex immoral. You do not have to invoke God to argue that a man putting his penis into the anus of another man is unnatural, and immoral. There you have it, I made the moral case against homosexuality without a single Bible verse. In my post against gay marriage, and against gays in the military
I made my arguments more secular, because I think there are a lot of people who can be swayed on that basis. I also think a lot of people can be swayed on moral religious grounds, so I am glad there are people such as yourself making those arguments.

Alright, first of all: the appeal to nature is a logical fallacy. What is 'natural' doesn't determine what is right or wrong, merely what is.

How could one demarcate right and wrong from what is?

LOL @ how hard I had to concentrate to write that sentence.
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2013 11:14:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Why would you assume handstands aren't immoral?
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2013 11:40:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/25/2013 10:52:05 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
At 1/25/2013 8:44:30 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 1/25/2013 7:22:18 PM, teddy2013 wrote:
At 1/25/2013 6:25:02 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
Can you support your argument without invoking God?

I can make the argument without invoking God. My moral opposition to homosexual activity is not based on Bible versus, but on general principles of right and wrong. For me the sexual union of a man and a women is natural. For lack of a better term, their parts go together. Also, this is the only sexual union where something beyond recreation is possible (procreation). I personally find the sexual union of two people, of the same sex immoral. You do not have to invoke God to argue that a man putting his penis into the anus of another man is unnatural, and immoral. There you have it, I made the moral case against homosexuality without a single Bible verse. In my post against gay marriage, and against gays in the military
I made my arguments more secular, because I think there are a lot of people who can be swayed on that basis. I also think a lot of people can be swayed on moral religious grounds, so I am glad there are people such as yourself making those arguments.

Alright, first of all: the appeal to nature is a logical fallacy. What is 'natural' doesn't determine what is right or wrong, merely what is.

How could one demarcate right and wrong from what is?

LOL @ how hard I had to concentrate to write that sentence.

Ah, this is a misunderstanding, I believe. My sentence was unclear. My point was that when one says that something is natural all that one are saying is that it 'is', that it exists. This does not say anything about whether it is right or wrong. When people say that anything which exists is 'unnatural' it is a sort of cop-out. They are creating this artificial class of things which are, indeed, natural (since they exist) but which they have arbitrarily decided are wrong for reasons that are never really sufficiently explained. An example of this are anti-GMO fanatics who claim that, in the case of two plants, one of which has had a particular gene engineered into it, and the other of which has had said gene selectively bred into it, one is right and one is wrong. This is despite the fact that they both simply possess whatever protein that gene coded for. They use the terms 'natural' and 'unnatural' to make an contrived and dishonest distinction between the two.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2013 12:25:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Anyone who even is even slightly acquainted with me on this site knows that I was playing devil's advocate; however, my original post still remains unanswered.

This isn't to say that the "animals do it so it's natural" argument is valid. It's not; animals kill their babies, but this has no bearing on the fact that it's immoral for a person to kill their babies.

People aren't mere animals. People aren't plants, either, so that GMO argument fails too.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2013 12:26:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/25/2013 11:14:29 PM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
Why would you assume handstands aren't immoral?

Because no one with authority, or even claiming to have authority, says handstands are immoral.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2013 2:12:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/26/2013 12:26:55 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/25/2013 11:14:29 PM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
Why would you assume handstands aren't immoral?

Because no one with authority, or even claiming to have authority, says handstands are immoral.

God just told me and I qoute, thou shalt not do handstands for it is an abomination to the Lord.

Now sure I could be lying, I am probably lying, but you can't be 100% certain that I am lying..........so now what ?

But on a more important note, people don't have an emotional reaction to the thought of some one or even two people doing hand stands, now think about two dudes going at it anal style, maybe this whole homo thing has nothing to do with the divine, its really about us, its always being about us, we just pass the buck to God, hey its what God wants, or what God hates.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2013 2:33:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/25/2013 6:26:56 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 1/25/2013 6:25:02 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
Can you support your argument without invoking God?

Probably.. but I don't really care to.

The best you could do is make a telolgicially themed argument, which is -to put it politely- philosophical hogwash.

Without God, nothing is moral or immoral; it's all opinion.

Oh, my. We... agree? Remarkable.
Tsar of DDO
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2013 2:37:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/26/2013 2:12:31 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 1/26/2013 12:26:55 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/25/2013 11:14:29 PM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
Why would you assume handstands aren't immoral?

Because no one with authority, or even claiming to have authority, says handstands are immoral.

God just told me and I qoute, thou shalt not do handstands for it is an abomination to the Lord.

Now sure I could be lying, I am probably lying, but you can't be 100% certain that I am lying..........so now what ?

Lol. I don't know. I think you just made history.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
Conductor
Posts: 8
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2013 3:34:02 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Me Conductor the ongoing failed cult perpetuator: There is NO legitimate evidence for 100% Supernatural god(s)!

Story book natural law is just more biblical story book invented by story book thomas Aquinas LOL!

Much much better luck next times!

Your student & generic unsuccessful figurative Saviour, moi!
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2013 10:01:14 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Because handstands are AWESOME!
granted, some people seem to like gay sex too..

but handstands are universally so :)
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2013 11:30:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Of course gay sex isn't immoral. If two people agree to intercourse, and nobody is being forced against there will, the go for it...I have failed to see one convincing argument for why it's immoral. "God says so" is such a moronic answer as well, and is extremely hard to take seriously.
DudeWithoutTheE
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2013 11:47:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/26/2013 12:25:53 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
Anyone who even is even slightly acquainted with me on this site knows that I was playing devil's advocate; however, my original post still remains unanswered.

This isn't to say that the "animals do it so it's natural" argument is valid. It's not; animals kill their babies, but this has no bearing on the fact that it's immoral for a person to kill their babies.

People aren't mere animals. People aren't plants, either, so that GMO argument fails too.

When the whole argument is 'It's against nature' it's not fallacious to point out that it occurs in nature. This, amusingly enough, is EXACTLY what Skepsi was talking about a few posts up. "Why is it natural in animals but not in humans?" is a valid objection.

The 'natural' argument as a syllogism appears to be:

It is immoral to use any part of your body for a purpose other than that intended by nature.

The existence of genitalia is for the natural purpose of heterosexual intercourse.

Therefore, using them for anything else is immoral.

Are you against kidney transplantation? The 'natural' purpose of my kidney is keeping ME alive.

What about soccer? The 'natural' purpose of my feet is to walk about on.

Are you against fellatio? The natural purpose of a man's penis is not to insert into someone's mouth, nor the mouth to give pleasure.

Hell, it's arguable using that formulation that swimming is immoral.

Celibacy I can see being explained away as not using the parts at all, therefore not using them for non-approved methods. But the others remain problematic.
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2013 3:30:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/26/2013 11:47:48 AM, DudeWithoutTheE wrote:
At 1/26/2013 12:25:53 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
Anyone who even is even slightly acquainted with me on this site knows that I was playing devil's advocate; however, my original post still remains unanswered.

This isn't to say that the "animals do it so it's natural" argument is valid. It's not; animals kill their babies, but this has no bearing on the fact that it's immoral for a person to kill their babies.

People aren't mere animals. People aren't plants, either, so that GMO argument fails too.

When the whole argument is 'It's against nature' it's not fallacious to point out that it occurs in nature. This, amusingly enough, is EXACTLY what Skepsi was talking about a few posts up. "Why is it natural in animals but not in humans?" is a valid objection.

Ah, I see.

The 'natural' argument as a syllogism appears to be:

It is immoral to use any part of your body for a purpose other than that intended by nature.

The existence of genitalia is for the natural purpose of heterosexual intercourse.

Therefore, using them for anything else is immoral.

Are you against kidney transplantation? The 'natural' purpose of my kidney is keeping ME alive.

When someone's life can be saved, the exception is allowed.

What about soccer? The 'natural' purpose of my feet is to walk about on.

And run. This isn't a valid objection.

Are you against fellatio? The natural purpose of a man's penis is not to insert into someone's mouth, nor the mouth to give pleasure.

As a Catholic, I believe it's wrong --at least-- to climax in your wife's mouth. Don't quote me on it, though. I don't want AlwaysMoreThanYou or Nur-Ab-Sal to burn me at the stake for heresy.

Hell, it's arguable using that formulation that swimming is immoral.

Not really.

Celibacy I can see being explained away as not using the parts at all, therefore not using them for non-approved methods. But the others remain problematic.

Not really.

That's how I see it.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2013 3:49:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The further problem is, that if you try to skirt the real implications of the "natural" argument by creating a special class in which there is only humans, you still haven't solved the dilemma.

We have now a much more limited pool of defining "natural", but it still contains "natural" gayness... how do you prove that it's unnatural to do the gay sexytimes? It's been present throughout history.

The argument that "well, the gays wouldn't procreate" is obviously foolish. After all, about the same percentage of people are left handed as are gay, and not everything that supports a species' continued existence is directly related to procreation.

It's pretty much only divine command theory that provides an actual reason that holds up within its own framework for why gay sex is immoral...not that I accept DCT as a legitimate theory overall, of course.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2013 8:25:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/26/2013 3:49:47 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
The further problem is, that if you try to skirt the real implications of the "natural" argument by creating a special class in which there is only humans, you still haven't solved the dilemma.

We have now a much more limited pool of defining "natural", but it still contains "natural" gayness... how do you prove that it's unnatural to do the gay sexytimes? It's been present throughout history.

The argument that "well, the gays wouldn't procreate" is obviously foolish. After all, about the same percentage of people are left handed as are gay, and not everything that supports a species' continued existence is directly related to procreation.

It's pretty much only divine command theory that provides an actual reason that holds up within its own framework for why gay sex is immoral...not that I accept DCT as a legitimate theory overall, of course.

Humans are a special class because they are the only species that can reason and make conscious choices. I don't see how this presents a dilemma. Pedophilia is unnatural, wouldn't you agree? It's forced sex on an individual that doesn't desire sex, and can't procreate, by one that can. It's supposedly a result of being molested as a child; a vicious, self-perpetuating cycle.

I always thought the left-hand argument was absurd. It doesn't matter which hand is dominant, the same functions can be done with them. But with sex, the same functions can't be done in a gay couple as in a straight couple. It's a horrible analogy.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2013 8:36:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/26/2013 8:25:31 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/26/2013 3:49:47 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
The further problem is, that if you try to skirt the real implications of the "natural" argument by creating a special class in which there is only humans, you still haven't solved the dilemma.

We have now a much more limited pool of defining "natural", but it still contains "natural" gayness... how do you prove that it's unnatural to do the gay sexytimes? It's been present throughout history.

The argument that "well, the gays wouldn't procreate" is obviously foolish. After all, about the same percentage of people are left handed as are gay, and not everything that supports a species' continued existence is directly related to procreation.

It's pretty much only divine command theory that provides an actual reason that holds up within its own framework for why gay sex is immoral...not that I accept DCT as a legitimate theory overall, of course.

Humans are a special class because they are the only species that can reason and make conscious choices. I don't see how this presents a dilemma. Pedophilia is unnatural, wouldn't you agree? It's forced sex on an individual that doesn't desire sex, and can't procreate, by one that can. It's supposedly a result of being molested as a child; a vicious, self-perpetuating cycle.

I always thought the left-hand argument was absurd. It doesn't matter which hand is dominant, the same functions can be done with them. But with sex, the same functions can't be done in a gay couple as in a straight couple. It's a horrible analogy.

No, it isn't. A Left-handed person doesn't write with their right hand. Can't, unless they get some effed up counter-training. So they can't use their right hand for one of its "purposes".

As regards to pedophilia, I don't know that I would address it as "natural" or "unnatural" at all, and not a single thing you listed was a reason for it to be "unnatural"...but that doesn't stop it from molestation from being monstrous.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2013 8:43:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/26/2013 8:25:31 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/26/2013 3:49:47 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
The further problem is, that if you try to skirt the real implications of the "natural" argument by creating a special class in which there is only humans, you still haven't solved the dilemma.

We have now a much more limited pool of defining "natural", but it still contains "natural" gayness... how do you prove that it's unnatural to do the gay sexytimes? It's been present throughout history.

The argument that "well, the gays wouldn't procreate" is obviously foolish. After all, about the same percentage of people are left handed as are gay, and not everything that supports a species' continued existence is directly related to procreation.

It's pretty much only divine command theory that provides an actual reason that holds up within its own framework for why gay sex is immoral...not that I accept DCT as a legitimate theory overall, of course.

Humans are a special class because they are the only species that can reason and make conscious choices. I don't see how this presents a dilemma. Pedophilia is unnatural, wouldn't you agree? It's forced sex on an individual that doesn't desire sex, and can't procreate, by one that can. It's supposedly a result of being molested as a child; a vicious, self-perpetuating cycle.

I always thought the left-hand argument was absurd. It doesn't matter which hand is dominant, the same functions can be done with them. But with sex, the same functions can't be done in a gay couple as in a straight couple. It's a horrible analogy.

Who says that the only possible function of sex is procreation? Isn't pleasure also a function? What about creating a stronger relationship? The latter two can be done in gay relationships.
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2013 8:58:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/26/2013 8:36:16 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 1/26/2013 8:25:31 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/26/2013 3:49:47 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
The further problem is, that if you try to skirt the real implications of the "natural" argument by creating a special class in which there is only humans, you still haven't solved the dilemma.

We have now a much more limited pool of defining "natural", but it still contains "natural" gayness... how do you prove that it's unnatural to do the gay sexytimes? It's been present throughout history.

The argument that "well, the gays wouldn't procreate" is obviously foolish. After all, about the same percentage of people are left handed as are gay, and not everything that supports a species' continued existence is directly related to procreation.

It's pretty much only divine command theory that provides an actual reason that holds up within its own framework for why gay sex is immoral...not that I accept DCT as a legitimate theory overall, of course.

Humans are a special class because they are the only species that can reason and make conscious choices. I don't see how this presents a dilemma. Pedophilia is unnatural, wouldn't you agree? It's forced sex on an individual that doesn't desire sex, and can't procreate, by one that can. It's supposedly a result of being molested as a child; a vicious, self-perpetuating cycle.

I always thought the left-hand argument was absurd. It doesn't matter which hand is dominant, the same functions can be done with them. But with sex, the same functions can't be done in a gay couple as in a straight couple. It's a horrible analogy.

No, it isn't. A Left-handed person doesn't write with their right hand. Can't, unless they get some effed up counter-training. So they can't use their right hand for one of its "purposes".

Right-handed people can write. Left-handed people can write. Straight people have kids. Gay people CAN'T have kids.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
Franz_Reynard
Posts: 1,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2013 9:00:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"Do you promise to remain faithful to this person, to have and to hold, through sickness and through health, and to bear noise brats until death do you part?"