Total Posts:275|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Homosexuality unnatural?

bulproof
Posts: 25,184
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2013 10:43:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/17/2013 10:31:38 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Homoxuality is found in over 1,500 species. Only 1 species has homophobes. Now who is unnatural?

MEDS?
Is there a prize for the right answer?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2013 11:00:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/17/2013 10:31:38 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Homoxuality is found in over 1,500 species. Only 1 species has homophobes. Now who is unnatural?

God created homosexuality to deceive those who are not.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2013 11:02:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/17/2013 11:01:10 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
Define homosexuality.

Also scientific sources in relation to the definition.

If you don't understand what homosexuality is by now, then you're not of this world.
bulproof
Posts: 25,184
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2013 11:03:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/17/2013 11:00:19 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 8/17/2013 10:31:38 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Homoxuality is found in over 1,500 species. Only 1 species has homophobes. Now who is unnatural?

God created homosexuality to deceive those who are not.

I played that in reverse at 33rpm and heard what it really meant.
borno IS AS SMART AS A FENCE POST. I think god is talking to me.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2013 11:04:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/17/2013 11:03:48 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/17/2013 11:00:19 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 8/17/2013 10:31:38 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Homoxuality is found in over 1,500 species. Only 1 species has homophobes. Now who is unnatural?

God created homosexuality to deceive those who are not.

I played that in reverse at 33rpm and heard what it really meant.
borno IS AS SMART AS A FENCE POST. I think god is talking to me.

Fence posts are much smarter than unbelievers like you.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2013 11:06:30 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/17/2013 11:02:54 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 8/17/2013 11:01:10 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
Define homosexuality.

Also scientific sources in relation to the definition.

If you don't understand what homosexuality is by now, then you're not of this world.

I am aware of the different definitions. However, if the two having a discussion have different interruptions, the debate will not commence smoothly.
The OP was vague.
bulproof
Posts: 25,184
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2013 11:07:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/17/2013 11:04:58 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 8/17/2013 11:03:48 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/17/2013 11:00:19 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 8/17/2013 10:31:38 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Homoxuality is found in over 1,500 species. Only 1 species has homophobes. Now who is unnatural?

God created homosexuality to deceive those who are not.

I played that in reverse at 33rpm and heard what it really meant.
borno IS AS SMART AS A FENCE POST. I think god is talking to me.

Fence posts are much smarter than unbelievers like you.

Just played that in reverse at 33rpm and it said borno takes it up the arse cos he lost the little dick he had!
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2013 11:10:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/17/2013 11:07:58 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/17/2013 11:04:58 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 8/17/2013 11:03:48 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/17/2013 11:00:19 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 8/17/2013 10:31:38 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Homoxuality is found in over 1,500 species. Only 1 species has homophobes. Now who is unnatural?

God created homosexuality to deceive those who are not.

I played that in reverse at 33rpm and heard what it really meant.
borno IS AS SMART AS A FENCE POST. I think god is talking to me.

Fence posts are much smarter than unbelievers like you.

Just played that in reverse at 33rpm and it said borno takes it up the arse cos he lost the little dick he had!

Just played that in reverse at 33rpm and it said borno takes it up the arse cos he lost the little dick he had!

All unbelievers come to these kinds of comments once they've tried arguing with the Truth.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2013 11:14:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/17/2013 11:10:05 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 8/17/2013 11:07:58 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/17/2013 11:04:58 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 8/17/2013 11:03:48 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/17/2013 11:00:19 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 8/17/2013 10:31:38 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Homoxuality is found in over 1,500 species. Only 1 species has homophobes. Now who is unnatural?

God created homosexuality to deceive those who are not.

I played that in reverse at 33rpm and heard what it really meant.
borno IS AS SMART AS A FENCE POST. I think god is talking to me.

Fence posts are much smarter than unbelievers like you.

Just played that in reverse at 33rpm and it said borno takes it up the arse cos he lost the little dick he had!

Just played that in reverse at 33rpm and it said borno takes it up the arse cos he lost the little dick he had!

All unbelievers come to these kinds of comments once they've tried arguing with the Truth.

Unbelievers are the only ones who have it right. You are still believing in invisible wizards that don't exist.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2013 11:23:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/17/2013 11:14:47 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/17/2013 11:10:05 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 8/17/2013 11:07:58 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/17/2013 11:04:58 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 8/17/2013 11:03:48 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/17/2013 11:00:19 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 8/17/2013 10:31:38 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Homoxuality is found in over 1,500 species. Only 1 species has homophobes. Now who is unnatural?

God created homosexuality to deceive those who are not.

I played that in reverse at 33rpm and heard what it really meant.
borno IS AS SMART AS A FENCE POST. I think god is talking to me.

Fence posts are much smarter than unbelievers like you.

Just played that in reverse at 33rpm and it said borno takes it up the arse cos he lost the little dick he had!

Just played that in reverse at 33rpm and it said borno takes it up the arse cos he lost the little dick he had!

All unbelievers come to these kinds of comments once they've tried arguing with the Truth.

Unbelievers are the only ones who have it right. You are still believing in invisible wizards that don't exist.

And what is right to you?
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2013 5:00:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/17/2013 10:31:38 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Homoxuality is found in over 1,500 species. Only 1 species has homophobes. Now who is unnatural?

"An example is the effort by Bishop John Shelby Spong to show that homosexual acts are OK because some animals practise them. As it stands, the argument is invalid. To make it valid, another premise is needed that states: whatever animals do is OK.

1) Animals practise homosexual acts;
2) Whatever animals practise is OK;
C) Homosexual acts are OK.

To prove the argument to be sound, that premise must be proved to be true. Conversely, to prove the argument to be unsound, the premise must be shown to be false. This can be done by showing that it leads to a ridiculous conclusion:

1) Animals practise rape and cannibalism;
2) What animals do is OK;
C) Rape and cannibalism are OK.

Now if one does not accept the conclusion, if one is logical one must reject one or more of the premises. As (1) is empirically true, (2) must be the false premise. So Spong"s argument contains a false premise and is thus unsound."

http://creation.com...
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2013 5:22:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/17/2013 5:00:33 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 8/17/2013 10:31:38 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Homoxuality is found in over 1,500 species. Only 1 species has homophobes. Now who is unnatural?

"An example is the effort by Bishop John Shelby Spong to show that homosexual acts are OK because some animals practise them. As it stands, the argument is invalid. To make it valid, another premise is needed that states: whatever animals do is OK.

1) Animals practise homosexual acts;
2) Whatever animals practise is OK;
C) Homosexual acts are OK.

To prove the argument to be sound, that premise must be proved to be true. Conversely, to prove the argument to be unsound, the premise must be shown to be false. This can be done by showing that it leads to a ridiculous conclusion:

1) Animals practise rape and cannibalism;
2) What animals do is OK;
C) Rape and cannibalism are OK.

Now if one does not accept the conclusion, if one is logical one must reject one or more of the premises. As (1) is empirically true, (2) must be the false premise. So Spong"s argument contains a false premise and is thus unsound."

http://creation.com...

God created homosexuality to deceive those who aren't homosexuals.

God created black people to deceive the people who aren't black.

God created skinny people to deceive fat people.

God created satan to deceive all His people who believe in boogie men in the woods.
silverxseed
Posts: 64
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2013 8:04:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/17/2013 5:00:33 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 8/17/2013 10:31:38 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Homoxuality is found in over 1,500 species. Only 1 species has homophobes. Now who is unnatural?

"An example is the effort by Bishop John Shelby Spong to show that homosexual acts are OK because some animals practise them. As it stands, the argument is invalid. To make it valid, another premise is needed that states: whatever animals do is OK.

1) Animals practise homosexual acts;
2) Whatever animals practise is OK;
C) Homosexual acts are OK.

To prove the argument to be sound, that premise must be proved to be true. Conversely, to prove the argument to be unsound, the premise must be shown to be false. This can be done by showing that it leads to a ridiculous conclusion:

1) Animals practise rape and cannibalism;
2) What animals do is OK;
C) Rape and cannibalism are OK.

Now if one does not accept the conclusion, if one is logical one must reject one or more of the premises. As (1) is empirically true, (2) must be the false premise. So Spong"s argument contains a false premise and is thus unsound."

http://creation.com...

That example is certainly missing something: harm. Rape and cannibalism harm other beings whil homosexuality does not. This is a moral argument while the actual topic here is whether or not homosexuality is unnatural. However, this should stand to say that there is nothing inherently immoral about homosexuality.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2013 8:32:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/17/2013 5:00:33 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 8/17/2013 10:31:38 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Homoxuality is found in over 1,500 species. Only 1 species has homophobes. Now who is unnatural?

"An example is the effort by Bishop John Shelby Spong to show that homosexual acts are OK because some animals practise them. As it stands, the argument is invalid. To make it valid, another premise is needed that states: whatever animals do is OK.

1) Animals practise homosexual acts;
2) Whatever animals practise is OK;
C) Homosexual acts are OK.

To prove the argument to be sound, that premise must be proved to be true. Conversely, to prove the argument to be unsound, the premise must be shown to be false. This can be done by showing that it leads to a ridiculous conclusion:

1) Animals practise rape and cannibalism;
2) What animals do is OK;
C) Rape and cannibalism are OK.

Now if one does not accept the conclusion, if one is logical one must reject one or more of the premises. As (1) is empirically true, (2) must be the false premise. So Spong"s argument contains a false premise and is thus unsound."

http://creation.com...

There was no argument presented. But if there was, it would tend to be more along the lines of homosexuality not being unnatural. I think me and the OP think that it is OK also, but that wasn't what has been suggested here.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2013 9:06:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/17/2013 8:04:22 PM, silverxseed wrote:
At 8/17/2013 5:00:33 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 8/17/2013 10:31:38 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Homoxuality is found in over 1,500 species. Only 1 species has homophobes. Now who is unnatural?

"An example is the effort by Bishop John Shelby Spong to show that homosexual acts are OK because some animals practise them. As it stands, the argument is invalid. To make it valid, another premise is needed that states: whatever animals do is OK.

1) Animals practise homosexual acts;
2) Whatever animals practise is OK;
C) Homosexual acts are OK.

To prove the argument to be sound, that premise must be proved to be true. Conversely, to prove the argument to be unsound, the premise must be shown to be false. This can be done by showing that it leads to a ridiculous conclusion:

1) Animals practise rape and cannibalism;
2) What animals do is OK;
C) Rape and cannibalism are OK.

Now if one does not accept the conclusion, if one is logical one must reject one or more of the premises. As (1) is empirically true, (2) must be the false premise. So Spong"s argument contains a false premise and is thus unsound."

http://creation.com...

That example is certainly missing something: harm. Rape and cannibalism harm other beings whil homosexuality does not. This is a moral argument while the actual topic here is whether or not homosexuality is unnatural. However, this should stand to say that there is nothing inherently immoral about homosexuality.

Ok, I'm with you and agree that it's a moral argument. Morality separates us from animals, so the homosexuality in animals argument is unsound. Just because animals do it doesn't make it ok for humans.

Now, on to the moral issue. What standard of morality are you using to support the claim that homosexuality is moral?? What is the source of that moral position??
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2013 9:32:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/17/2013 8:32:42 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 8/17/2013 5:00:33 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 8/17/2013 10:31:38 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Homoxuality is found in over 1,500 species. Only 1 species has homophobes. Now who is unnatural?

"An example is the effort by Bishop John Shelby Spong to show that homosexual acts are OK because some animals practise them. As it stands, the argument is invalid. To make it valid, another premise is needed that states: whatever animals do is OK.

1) Animals practise homosexual acts;
2) Whatever animals practise is OK;
C) Homosexual acts are OK.

To prove the argument to be sound, that premise must be proved to be true. Conversely, to prove the argument to be unsound, the premise must be shown to be false. This can be done by showing that it leads to a ridiculous conclusion:

1) Animals practise rape and cannibalism;
2) What animals do is OK;
C) Rape and cannibalism are OK.

Now if one does not accept the conclusion, if one is logical one must reject one or more of the premises. As (1) is empirically true, (2) must be the false premise. So Spong"s argument contains a false premise and is thus unsound."

http://creation.com...

There was no argument presented. But if there was, it would tend to be more along the lines of homosexuality not being unnatural. I think me and the OP think that it is OK also, but that wasn't what has been suggested here.

I read several claims into the OP.

1. Homosexuality in humans is natural because animals do it.

Argument is unsound

2. No animals disagree with homosexuality, only humans do.

I don't believe OP can support this claim unless he has some unique ability to communicate with all 1500 species.

3. Anyone who disagrees with acceptance of homosexuality in humans is a homophobe.
4. Anyone who disagrees with acceptance of homosexuality in humans is unnatural.

3 and 4 are refuted by the fact that those who oppose acceptance of homosexuality in humans have valid logical reasons for that opposition. It is neither a phobia, nor is it unnatural.
silverxseed
Posts: 64
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2013 9:36:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/17/2013 9:06:21 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 8/17/2013 8:04:22 PM, silverxseed wrote:
At 8/17/2013 5:00:33 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 8/17/2013 10:31:38 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Homoxuality is found in over 1,500 species. Only 1 species has homophobes. Now who is unnatural?

"An example is the effort by Bishop John Shelby Spong to show that homosexual acts are OK because some animals practise them. As it stands, the argument is invalid. To make it valid, another premise is needed that states: whatever animals do is OK.

1) Animals practise homosexual acts;
2) Whatever animals practise is OK;
C) Homosexual acts are OK.

To prove the argument to be sound, that premise must be proved to be true. Conversely, to prove the argument to be unsound, the premise must be shown to be false. This can be done by showing that it leads to a ridiculous conclusion:

1) Animals practise rape and cannibalism;
2) What animals do is OK;
C) Rape and cannibalism are OK.

Now if one does not accept the conclusion, if one is logical one must reject one or more of the premises. As (1) is empirically true, (2) must be the false premise. So Spong"s argument contains a false premise and is thus unsound."

http://creation.com...

That example is certainly missing something: harm. Rape and cannibalism harm other beings whil homosexuality does not. This is a moral argument while the actual topic here is whether or not homosexuality is unnatural. However, this should stand to say that there is nothing inherently immoral about homosexuality.

Ok, I'm with you and agree that it's a moral argument. Morality separates us from animals, so the homosexuality in animals argument is unsound. Just because animals do it doesn't make it ok for humans.

Now, on to the moral issue. What standard of morality are you using to support the claim that homosexuality is moral?? What is the source of that moral position??

Who is to say that any action that causes no physical, mental, or material harm to another is immoral? Basically, if it harms no one, do what you will

Homosexuality has no potential to do any harm that could not be done by heterosexuality. Can this statement be refuted?
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2013 10:35:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/17/2013 9:32:32 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 8/17/2013 8:32:42 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 8/17/2013 5:00:33 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 8/17/2013 10:31:38 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Homoxuality is found in over 1,500 species. Only 1 species has homophobes. Now who is unnatural?

"An example is the effort by Bishop John Shelby Spong to show that homosexual acts are OK because some animals practise them. As it stands, the argument is invalid. To make it valid, another premise is needed that states: whatever animals do is OK.

1) Animals practise homosexual acts;
2) Whatever animals practise is OK;
C) Homosexual acts are OK.

To prove the argument to be sound, that premise must be proved to be true. Conversely, to prove the argument to be unsound, the premise must be shown to be false. This can be done by showing that it leads to a ridiculous conclusion:

1) Animals practise rape and cannibalism;
2) What animals do is OK;
C) Rape and cannibalism are OK.

Now if one does not accept the conclusion, if one is logical one must reject one or more of the premises. As (1) is empirically true, (2) must be the false premise. So Spong"s argument contains a false premise and is thus unsound."

http://creation.com...

There was no argument presented. But if there was, it would tend to be more along the lines of homosexuality not being unnatural. I think me and the OP think that it is OK also, but that wasn't what has been suggested here.

I read several claims into the OP.

1. Homosexuality in humans is natural because animals do it.

Argument is unsound

What is natural?


2. No animals disagree with homosexuality, only humans do.

I don't believe OP can support this claim unless he has some unique ability to communicate with all 1500 species.

Any observed disagreements?


3. Anyone who disagrees with acceptance of homosexuality in humans is a homophobe.
4. Anyone who disagrees with acceptance of homosexuality in humans is unnatural.

3 and 4 are refuted by the fact that those who oppose acceptance of homosexuality in humans have valid logical reasons for that opposition. It is neither a phobia, nor is it unnatural.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2013 1:26:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/17/2013 10:31:38 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Homoxuality is found in over 1,500 species. Only 1 species has homophobes. Now who is unnatural?

This statement is about as point-missing as it is embarrassing. To begin with, we don't determine whether an action is morally permissible or morally proscribed or morally laudable just because it occurs in the animal kingdom; after all, incest, "murder," "rape," etc. also occur in the animal kingdom. Now, without appealing to background assumptions, why value one over the other (note: rhetorical question)? Second of all, this silly little catchphrase you utter, often so triumphantly and confidently yet cluelessly expressed, is, if anything, knock down evidence that the person who has uttered this childish nonsense, this laughable liberal sound-byte, either has (i) completely and utterly misunderstood the sense in which "unnatural" is being used by the opponent of same sex marriage or anyone who deems homosexual acts specifically and other paraphilic acts generally immoral on Aristotelian-Thomist grounds; (ii) hasn't a clue on what grounds homosexual acts are seen as immoral and so is attacking a pathetic straw man that no one defends; or (iii) already has dismissed Aristotelian-Thomistic Natural Law without even having read about it or understanding it and thus revealing himself as the bigot one readily froths at the mouth to proclaim he abhors.

But we knew that already...
bulproof
Posts: 25,184
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2013 2:12:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/17/2013 9:32:32 PM, medic0506 wrote:
1. Homosexuality in humans is natural because animals do it.
ahahahahahahaha
no seriously
ahahahahahahahaha
Who could possibly have such a fvcknuckle intellect to claim this. I propose only a fvcxknuckle new age "christian".
Just so you fvcknuckles know, that is an erstwhile "christian" who refuses to behave in a manner prescribed by the Christ after whom they erroneously name their CULT.
Hate was anathema allegedly to Christ and yet holds precedence in the "new age christianity"
Misnomer
Misnomer
Misnomer
Misnomer
Misnomer
Misnomer
Misnomer
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2013 2:15:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/18/2013 1:26:05 AM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 8/17/2013 10:31:38 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Homoxuality is found in over 1,500 species. Only 1 species has homophobes. Now who is unnatural?

This statement is about as point-missing as it is embarrassing. To begin with, we don't determine whether an action is morally permissible or morally proscribed or morally laudable just because it occurs in the animal kingdom; after all, incest, "murder," "rape," etc. also occur in the animal kingdom. Now, without appealing to background assumptions, why value one over the other (note: rhetorical question)? Second of all, this silly little catchphrase you utter, often so triumphantly and confidently yet cluelessly expressed, is, if anything, knock down evidence that the person who has uttered this childish nonsense, this laughable liberal sound-byte, either has (i) completely and utterly misunderstood the sense in which "unnatural" is being used by the opponent of same sex marriage or anyone who deems homosexual acts specifically and other paraphilic acts generally immoral on Aristotelian-Thomist grounds; (ii) hasn't a clue on what grounds homosexual acts are seen as immoral and so is attacking a pathetic straw man that no one defends; or (iii) already has dismissed Aristotelian-Thomistic Natural Law without even having read about it or understanding it and thus revealing himself as the bigot one readily froths at the mouth to proclaim he abhors.

But we knew that already...

THIS is the post I meant to reply to, when I responded elsewhere.

The point is that there ARE those who make the "homosexuality is unnatural" argument. That YOU don't make that argument (since it's absurd, foolish and stupid) is irrelevant. That the argument fails to address actual moral concerns (as you note) is irrelevant. There are those who claim that homosexuality is unnatural. The ones who do so ignore that it is clearly a natural phenomenon.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2013 4:04:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/17/2013 10:31:38 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Homoxuality is found in over 1,500 species. Only 1 species has homophobes. Now who is unnatural?

Wow, just wow, I see the "usual suspects" with their usual bullsh*t replies.

The argument here isn't it is natural therefore it is good (appeal to nature fallacy). It is a reply to show how we constantly have to hear the knock down argument against gay marriage which is, its so unnatural.

Every time you use a logical fallacy, the terrorists win, do you want the terrorists to win ?
"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
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2013 10:04:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/17/2013 9:36:10 PM, silverxseed wrote:
At 8/17/2013 9:06:21 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 8/17/2013 8:04:22 PM, silverxseed wrote:
At 8/17/2013 5:00:33 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 8/17/2013 10:31:38 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Homoxuality is found in over 1,500 species. Only 1 species has homophobes. Now who is unnatural?

"An example is the effort by Bishop John Shelby Spong to show that homosexual acts are OK because some animals practise them. As it stands, the argument is invalid. To make it valid, another premise is needed that states: whatever animals do is OK.

1) Animals practise homosexual acts;
2) Whatever animals practise is OK;
C) Homosexual acts are OK.

To prove the argument to be sound, that premise must be proved to be true. Conversely, to prove the argument to be unsound, the premise must be shown to be false. This can be done by showing that it leads to a ridiculous conclusion:

1) Animals practise rape and cannibalism;
2) What animals do is OK;
C) Rape and cannibalism are OK.

Now if one does not accept the conclusion, if one is logical one must reject one or more of the premises. As (1) is empirically true, (2) must be the false premise. So Spong"s argument contains a false premise and is thus unsound."

http://creation.com...

That example is certainly missing something: harm. Rape and cannibalism harm other beings whil homosexuality does not. This is a moral argument while the actual topic here is whether or not homosexuality is unnatural. However, this should stand to say that there is nothing inherently immoral about homosexuality.

Ok, I'm with you and agree that it's a moral argument. Morality separates us from animals, so the homosexuality in animals argument is unsound. Just because animals do it doesn't make it ok for humans.

Now, on to the moral issue. What standard of morality are you using to support the claim that homosexuality is moral?? What is the source of that moral position??

Who is to say that any action that causes no physical, mental, or material harm to another is immoral? Basically, if it harms no one, do what you will

I'm asking about the source of your moral code. Do you have an objective source for your morality, or is it subjective?? If it is subjective then it is not consistent, thus I can refute it by simply saying that my morality is different than yours. At that point we're basically at a stalemate because, for all intent and purpose, subjective morality is just basically our opinion.

Homosexuality has no potential to do any harm that could not be done by heterosexuality. Can this statement be refuted?

Sure, homosexuality causes people to veer away from that which is natural. One side effect is increased types of STD's and cancers, as well as increased psychological problems.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2013 10:11:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/17/2013 10:35:32 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 8/17/2013 9:32:32 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 8/17/2013 8:32:42 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 8/17/2013 5:00:33 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 8/17/2013 10:31:38 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Homoxuality is found in over 1,500 species. Only 1 species has homophobes. Now who is unnatural?

"An example is the effort by Bishop John Shelby Spong to show that homosexual acts are OK because some animals practise them. As it stands, the argument is invalid. To make it valid, another premise is needed that states: whatever animals do is OK.

1) Animals practise homosexual acts;
2) Whatever animals practise is OK;
C) Homosexual acts are OK.

To prove the argument to be sound, that premise must be proved to be true. Conversely, to prove the argument to be unsound, the premise must be shown to be false. This can be done by showing that it leads to a ridiculous conclusion:

1) Animals practise rape and cannibalism;
2) What animals do is OK;
C) Rape and cannibalism are OK.

Now if one does not accept the conclusion, if one is logical one must reject one or more of the premises. As (1) is empirically true, (2) must be the false premise. So Spong"s argument contains a false premise and is thus unsound."

http://creation.com...

There was no argument presented. But if there was, it would tend to be more along the lines of homosexuality not being unnatural. I think me and the OP think that it is OK also, but that wasn't what has been suggested here.

I read several claims into the OP.

1. Homosexuality in humans is natural because animals do it.

Argument is unsound

What is natural?

Depends on the species.

2. No animals disagree with homosexuality, only humans do.

I don't believe OP can support this claim unless he has some unique ability to communicate with all 1500 species.

Any observed disagreements?

I don't know because I can't communicate with those species, nor can I read their body language, etc.

That's not how BoP works, anyway. OP makes a positive claim and it is on him to support it, not on us to refute it.

3. Anyone who disagrees with acceptance of homosexuality in humans is a homophobe.
4. Anyone who disagrees with acceptance of homosexuality in humans is unnatural.

3 and 4 are refuted by the fact that those who oppose acceptance of homosexuality in humans have valid logical reasons for that opposition. It is neither a phobia, nor is it unnatural.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2013 10:16:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/18/2013 2:12:24 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/17/2013 9:32:32 PM, medic0506 wrote:
1. Homosexuality in humans is natural because animals do it.
ahahahahahahaha
no seriously
ahahahahahahahaha
Who could possibly have such a fvcknuckle intellect to claim this.

Don't call RationalThinker that, you big meanie-head.

I propose only a fvcxknuckle new age "christian".
Just so you fvcknuckles know, that is an erstwhile "christian" who refuses to behave in a manner prescribed by the Christ after whom they erroneously name their CULT.
Hate was anathema allegedly to Christ and yet holds precedence in the "new age christianity"
Misnomer
Misnomer
Misnomer
Misnomer
Misnomer
Misnomer
Misnomer

Don't know what all that means but, ok.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2013 10:28:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/18/2013 4:04:09 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 8/17/2013 10:31:38 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Homoxuality is found in over 1,500 species. Only 1 species has homophobes. Now who is unnatural?

Wow, just wow, I see the "usual suspects" with their usual bullsh*t replies.

The argument here isn't it is natural therefore it is good (appeal to nature fallacy). It is a reply to show how we constantly have to hear the knock down argument against gay marriage which is, its so unnatural.

It IS unnatural for humans, unless you wish to also defend other sexual aberrancies such as pedophilia, bestiality, rape, etc., as natural behavior for humans.

Every time you use a logical fallacy, the terrorists win, do you want the terrorists to win ?
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2013 12:16:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/18/2013 10:11:27 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 8/17/2013 10:35:32 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 8/17/2013 9:32:32 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 8/17/2013 8:32:42 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 8/17/2013 5:00:33 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 8/17/2013 10:31:38 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Homoxuality is found in over 1,500 species. Only 1 species has homophobes. Now who is unnatural?

"An example is the effort by Bishop John Shelby Spong to show that homosexual acts are OK because some animals practise them. As it stands, the argument is invalid. To make it valid, another premise is needed that states: whatever animals do is OK.

1) Animals practise homosexual acts;
2) Whatever animals practise is OK;
C) Homosexual acts are OK.

To prove the argument to be sound, that premise must be proved to be true. Conversely, to prove the argument to be unsound, the premise must be shown to be false. This can be done by showing that it leads to a ridiculous conclusion:

1) Animals practise rape and cannibalism;
2) What animals do is OK;
C) Rape and cannibalism are OK.

Now if one does not accept the conclusion, if one is logical one must reject one or more of the premises. As (1) is empirically true, (2) must be the false premise. So Spong"s argument contains a false premise and is thus unsound."

http://creation.com...

There was no argument presented. But if there was, it would tend to be more along the lines of homosexuality not being unnatural. I think me and the OP think that it is OK also, but that wasn't what has been suggested here.

I read several claims into the OP.

1. Homosexuality in humans is natural because animals do it.

Argument is unsound

What is natural?

Depends on the species.

So it is natural in humans?


2. No animals disagree with homosexuality, only humans do.

I don't believe OP can support this claim unless he has some unique ability to communicate with all 1500 species.

Any observed disagreements?

I don't know because I can't communicate with those species, nor can I read their body language, etc.

I was asking because it would quickly disprove the statement, not because you have the BOP. That would depend on which belief (animals dislike homosexuality/animals find homosexuality irrelevant) is currently held as true, I believe.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2013 12:18:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/18/2013 10:28:53 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 8/18/2013 4:04:09 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 8/17/2013 10:31:38 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Homoxuality is found in over 1,500 species. Only 1 species has homophobes. Now who is unnatural?

Wow, just wow, I see the "usual suspects" with their usual bullsh*t replies.

The argument here isn't it is natural therefore it is good (appeal to nature fallacy). It is a reply to show how we constantly have to hear the knock down argument against gay marriage which is, its so unnatural.

It IS unnatural for humans, unless you wish to also defend other sexual aberrancies such as pedophilia, bestiality, rape, etc., as natural behavior for humans.

It seems to me that those behaviours are natural, although they are also morally wrong, and arguably detrimental traits.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!