Total Posts:135|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Secular arguments against homosexuality

teddy2013
Posts: 119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2013 8:04:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
GrretKadeDupre on his religious forum post ,If Gay Sex Is Immoral Why Aren't Handstands? asked if a moral argument can be made against homosexuality without invoking religion? I can make that argument. 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 posts 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 other people out there making those arguments.
The_Master_Riddler
Posts: 24
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2013 8:58:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I usually don't debate about gay marriage because it is a hard topic to really make sound arguments against. Especially since us Americans have a tendency to lean more towards human rights and how people feel than morality.
Stay Alive, Solve Riddles
The_Master_Riddler
P.S. Can I have your autograph?
teddy2013
Posts: 119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2013 9:13:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/25/2013 8:58:36 PM, The_Master_Riddler wrote:
I usually don't debate about gay marriage because it is a hard topic to really make sound arguments against. Especially since us Americans have a tendency to lean more towards human rights and how people feel than morality.

I appreciate your post. In your debate arguments against gay marriage, you used secular arguments, which I prefer over religious ones. My moral opposition to homosexuality is more a personal viewpoint, whether then one I use to advance stands on issues. Thanks again
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2013 9:15:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/25/2013 8:07:13 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
Overpopulation doesn't exist.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
teddy2013
Posts: 119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2013 9:30:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/25/2013 9:15:49 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 1/25/2013 8:07:13 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
Overpopulation doesn't exist.

I encourage everyone to check out 16kdams link, its too an article he wrote himself. His arguments are excellent and without a single Bible verse.
http://social-conservatism.blogspot.com......
lannan13
Posts: 23,111
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2013 10:12:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Well many people view it as different and gayness itself is still a taboo. Many people fear what they don't understand
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
Franz_Reynard
Posts: 1,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2013 10:14:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/25/2013 9:15:49 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 1/25/2013 8:07:13 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
Overpopulation doesn't exist.

rthat's a funny one.

So, I was awatching Heros on Netfliz, right? And, it rather tickleed me that if 93% of the hman population were eradicated, then hered still be 490,000 people left.

Fuucking roackes.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2013 10:24:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
You made no moral arguments. You made an argument from naturalism, with no moral foundation; if you're wearing clothes, that's unnatural, as well, and therefore as unnatural as homosexual sex. More so, in fact, as it is actually perfectly natural to be homosexual (since most of the animal kingdom has animals that, at least occasionally, engage in homosexual acts, but no animals that we know of wear clothes).
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Franz_Reynard
Posts: 1,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2013 10:27:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/25/2013 10:24:27 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
You made no moral arguments. You made an argument from naturalism, with no moral foundation; if you're wearing clothes, that's unnatural, as well, and therefore as unnatural as homosexual sex. More so, in fact, as it is actually perfectly natural to be homosexual (since most of the animal kingdom has animals that, at least occasionally, engage in homosexual acts, but no animals that we know of wear clothes).

There is no moral argument against homosexaul sex.

Homosexuals are having sex right now. How is htat affecting you?

Answ3er that, please.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2013 11:02:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I was replying to teddy, not you. My point was that he hadn't done what he said he did. I actually see no coherent secular arguments.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
teddy2013
Posts: 119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2013 11:06:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/25/2013 10:27:23 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
At 1/25/2013 10:24:27 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
You made no moral arguments. You made an argument from naturalism, with no moral foundation; if you're wearing clothes, that's unnatural, as well, and therefore as unnatural as homosexual sex. More so, in fact, as it is actually perfectly natural to be homosexual (since most of the animal kingdom has animals that, at least occasionally, engage in homosexual acts, but no animals that we know of wear clothes).

There is no moral argument against homosexaul sex.
The only effect on me right now would be if their being too loud or using my bed (I would have to change the sheets). The question though is whether a secular case can be made on moral grounds, against homosexuality.


Homosexuals are having sex right now. How is htat affecting you?

Answ3er that, please.
teddy2013
Posts: 119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2013 11:32:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/25/2013 11:02:50 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
I was replying to teddy, not you. My point was that he hadn't done what he said he did. I actually see no coherent secular arguments.

My arguments were the following
1. Secular- I do not think you would disagree with this.
2. Moral based- I was simply expressing my personal moral beliefs, not the basis from which I would change laws,but for purposes of how I see the world. Everyone is entitled to their personal values.
3. My arguments are simply written, and easy to understand, which is coherent.
Now you may not agree with them, which is fine. You will find more detailed secular arguments in 16kadams attachment, and laanan13 debate arguments against gay marriage. My original moral arguments are posted below.
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.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2013 11:42:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Your argument basically says that you personally find it immoral, but that doesn't mean it actually is immoral. That would be like if I said that I personally find that a lion is a zebra. That doesn't mean the lion is a zebra.

Your naturalistic argument is actually considered a logical fallacy. Just because something is natural does not mean it is moral. Murder and cannibalism are natural-they occur in many, many animal species, including humans, but that does not mean they are moral. It is also refuted by the fact that homosexuality is natural. Homosexuality has been linked by scientists to epigenetic factors and it occurs in at least 1500 animal species, including apes that are close relatives to humans.
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2013 12:39:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
This thread, and others like it, are very interesting. While I often find arguments against gay marriage very unconvincing, the arguments that supporters of gay marriage bring up in their defense are always either:

absurd, or

dishonest (see below)

At 1/25/2013 9:15:49 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 1/25/2013 8:07:13 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
Overpopulation doesn't exist.

Thanks for referring me to 16kadams' blog; it's awesome. It's nice to be reminded that homosexual activists have the burden of proof, and have failed to meet it over the past 30 years or so.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2013 6:39:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/26/2013 12:39:49 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
This thread, and others like it, are very interesting. While I often find arguments against gay marriage very unconvincing, the arguments that supporters of gay marriage bring up in their defense are always either:

absurd, or

dishonest (see below)

At 1/25/2013 9:15:49 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 1/25/2013 8:07:13 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
Overpopulation doesn't exist.

Thanks for referring me to 16kadams' blog; it's awesome. It's nice to be reminded that homosexual activists have the burden of proof, and have failed to meet it over the past 30 years or so.

Actually, they don't have the burden of proof. There are three moral categories:

1. Moral (I have an obligation to do this).

2. Amoral (I have neither an obligation to do this nor an obligation to not do this)

3. Immoral (I have an obligation to not do this).

Until you can prove that an action is either moral or immoral, we consider it amoral(ex. eating a peanut butter sandwich). You have to prove something either way. Activists are saying that it is amoral, so they have no burden of proof.
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2013 3:44:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/26/2013 6:39:50 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/26/2013 12:39:49 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
This thread, and others like it, are very interesting. While I often find arguments against gay marriage very unconvincing, the arguments that supporters of gay marriage bring up in their defense are always either:

absurd, or

dishonest (see below)

At 1/25/2013 9:15:49 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 1/25/2013 8:07:13 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
Overpopulation doesn't exist.

Thanks for referring me to 16kadams' blog; it's awesome. It's nice to be reminded that homosexual activists have the burden of proof, and have failed to meet it over the past 30 years or so.

Actually, they don't have the burden of proof. There are three moral categories:

1. Moral (I have an obligation to do this).

2. Amoral (I have neither an obligation to do this nor an obligation to not do this)

3. Immoral (I have an obligation to not do this).

Until you can prove that an action is either moral or immoral, we consider it amoral(ex. eating a peanut butter sandwich). You have to prove something either way. Activists are saying that it is amoral, so they have no burden of proof.

Ok, but even if I were to concede your arguments, homosexual activists have the burden of proof to show that homosexuality is not a mental disorder.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2013 4:09:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/26/2013 3:44:17 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/26/2013 6:39:50 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/26/2013 12:39:49 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
This thread, and others like it, are very interesting. While I often find arguments against gay marriage very unconvincing, the arguments that supporters of gay marriage bring up in their defense are always either:

absurd, or

dishonest (see below)

At 1/25/2013 9:15:49 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 1/25/2013 8:07:13 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
Overpopulation doesn't exist.

Thanks for referring me to 16kadams' blog; it's awesome. It's nice to be reminded that homosexual activists have the burden of proof, and have failed to meet it over the past 30 years or so.

Actually, they don't have the burden of proof. There are three moral categories:

1. Moral (I have an obligation to do this).

2. Amoral (I have neither an obligation to do this nor an obligation to not do this)

3. Immoral (I have an obligation to not do this).

Until you can prove that an action is either moral or immoral, we consider it amoral(ex. eating a peanut butter sandwich). You have to prove something either way. Activists are saying that it is amoral, so they have no burden of proof.

Ok, but even if I were to concede your arguments, homosexual activists have the burden of proof to show that homosexuality is not a mental disorder.

Entirely false. You have to prove that something IS a mental disorder. If I say that wanting to eat chicken is a mental disorder, the BOP is on me and not on you. Statements of affirmation are the ones that require proof, not statements of default.
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2013 8:33:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/26/2013 4:09:20 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/26/2013 3:44:17 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/26/2013 6:39:50 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/26/2013 12:39:49 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
This thread, and others like it, are very interesting. While I often find arguments against gay marriage very unconvincing, the arguments that supporters of gay marriage bring up in their defense are always either:

absurd, or

dishonest (see below)

At 1/25/2013 9:15:49 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 1/25/2013 8:07:13 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
Overpopulation doesn't exist.

Thanks for referring me to 16kadams' blog; it's awesome. It's nice to be reminded that homosexual activists have the burden of proof, and have failed to meet it over the past 30 years or so.

Actually, they don't have the burden of proof. There are three moral categories:

1. Moral (I have an obligation to do this).

2. Amoral (I have neither an obligation to do this nor an obligation to not do this)

3. Immoral (I have an obligation to not do this).

Until you can prove that an action is either moral or immoral, we consider it amoral(ex. eating a peanut butter sandwich). You have to prove something either way. Activists are saying that it is amoral, so they have no burden of proof.

Ok, but even if I were to concede your arguments, homosexual activists have the burden of proof to show that homosexuality is not a mental disorder.

Entirely false. You have to prove that something IS a mental disorder. If I say that wanting to eat chicken is a mental disorder, the BOP is on me and not on you. Statements of affirmation are the ones that require proof, not statements of default.

Homo sapiens are heterosexual as a species. It's a scientific fact. We aren't hermaphroditic slugs, transgendered aphids, asexual amoebas or homosexual lizards.

Besides, homosexuality was removed from the DSM for non-scientific reasons. The burden of proof remains unsatisfied with gay activists.
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 8:39:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/26/2013 8:33:18 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:

Homo sapiens are heterosexual as a species. It's a scientific fact. We aren't hermaphroditic slugs, transgendered aphids, asexual amoebas or homosexual lizards.

By that argument, anyone who does anything that the majority does not do is acting "unnaturally". It's absurd.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2013 8:41:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/26/2013 8:33:18 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/26/2013 4:09:20 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/26/2013 3:44:17 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/26/2013 6:39:50 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/26/2013 12:39:49 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
This thread, and others like it, are very interesting. While I often find arguments against gay marriage very unconvincing, the arguments that supporters of gay marriage bring up in their defense are always either:

absurd, or

dishonest (see below)

At 1/25/2013 9:15:49 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 1/25/2013 8:07:13 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
Overpopulation doesn't exist.

Thanks for referring me to 16kadams' blog; it's awesome. It's nice to be reminded that homosexual activists have the burden of proof, and have failed to meet it over the past 30 years or so.

Actually, they don't have the burden of proof. There are three moral categories:

1. Moral (I have an obligation to do this).

2. Amoral (I have neither an obligation to do this nor an obligation to not do this)

3. Immoral (I have an obligation to not do this).

Until you can prove that an action is either moral or immoral, we consider it amoral(ex. eating a peanut butter sandwich). You have to prove something either way. Activists are saying that it is amoral, so they have no burden of proof.

Ok, but even if I were to concede your arguments, homosexual activists have the burden of proof to show that homosexuality is not a mental disorder.

Entirely false. You have to prove that something IS a mental disorder. If I say that wanting to eat chicken is a mental disorder, the BOP is on me and not on you. Statements of affirmation are the ones that require proof, not statements of default.

Homo sapiens are heterosexual as a species. It's a scientific fact. We aren't hermaphroditic slugs, transgendered aphids, asexual amoebas or homosexual lizards.

Besides, homosexuality was removed from the DSM for non-scientific reasons. The burden of proof remains unsatisfied with gay activists.

How did you determine where the burden of proof lies, exactly? A mere deviation from what you perceive as the "norm" is insufficient for a determination of a mental disorder.
1Devilsadvocate
Posts: 1,518
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2013 8:42:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/25/2013 8:58:36 PM, The_Master_Riddler wrote:
I usually don't debate about gay marriage because it is a hard topic to really make sound arguments against. Especially since us Americans have a tendency to lean more towards human rights and how people feel than morality.

On this site, it's basically imposable to win such a debate, unless you get a total F.F. noob.
I cannot write in English, because of the treacherous spelling. When I am reading, I only hear it and am unable to remember what the written word looks like."
"Albert Einstein

http://www.twainquotes.com... , http://thewritecorner.wordpress.com... , http://www.onlinecollegecourses.com...
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2013 8:43:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/26/2013 3:44:17 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/26/2013 6:39:50 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/26/2013 12:39:49 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
This thread, and others like it, are very interesting. While I often find arguments against gay marriage very unconvincing, the arguments that supporters of gay marriage bring up in their defense are always either:

absurd, or

dishonest (see below)

At 1/25/2013 9:15:49 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 1/25/2013 8:07:13 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
Overpopulation doesn't exist.

Thanks for referring me to 16kadams' blog; it's awesome. It's nice to be reminded that homosexual activists have the burden of proof, and have failed to meet it over the past 30 years or so.

Actually, they don't have the burden of proof. There are three moral categories:

1. Moral (I have an obligation to do this).

2. Amoral (I have neither an obligation to do this nor an obligation to not do this)

3. Immoral (I have an obligation to not do this).

Until you can prove that an action is either moral or immoral, we consider it amoral(ex. eating a peanut butter sandwich). You have to prove something either way. Activists are saying that it is amoral, so they have no burden of proof.

Ok, but even if I were to concede your arguments, homosexual activists have the burden of proof to show that homosexuality is not a mental disorder.

Are you a troll? In multiple threads you seem to be arguing both sides of the argument.
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2013 8:53:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/26/2013 8:41:46 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/26/2013 8:33:18 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/26/2013 4:09:20 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/26/2013 3:44:17 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/26/2013 6:39:50 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/26/2013 12:39:49 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
This thread, and others like it, are very interesting. While I often find arguments against gay marriage very unconvincing, the arguments that supporters of gay marriage bring up in their defense are always either:

absurd, or

dishonest (see below)

At 1/25/2013 9:15:49 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 1/25/2013 8:07:13 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
Overpopulation doesn't exist.

Thanks for referring me to 16kadams' blog; it's awesome. It's nice to be reminded that homosexual activists have the burden of proof, and have failed to meet it over the past 30 years or so.

Actually, they don't have the burden of proof. There are three moral categories:

1. Moral (I have an obligation to do this).

2. Amoral (I have neither an obligation to do this nor an obligation to not do this)

3. Immoral (I have an obligation to not do this).

Until you can prove that an action is either moral or immoral, we consider it amoral(ex. eating a peanut butter sandwich). You have to prove something either way. Activists are saying that it is amoral, so they have no burden of proof.

Ok, but even if I were to concede your arguments, homosexual activists have the burden of proof to show that homosexuality is not a mental disorder.

Entirely false. You have to prove that something IS a mental disorder. If I say that wanting to eat chicken is a mental disorder, the BOP is on me and not on you. Statements of affirmation are the ones that require proof, not statements of default.

Homo sapiens are heterosexual as a species. It's a scientific fact. We aren't hermaphroditic slugs, transgendered aphids, asexual amoebas or homosexual lizards.

Besides, homosexuality was removed from the DSM for non-scientific reasons. The burden of proof remains unsatisfied with gay activists.

How did you determine where the burden of proof lies, exactly? A mere deviation from what you perceive as the "norm" is insufficient for a determination of a mental disorder.

What do you think is sufficient for determination of a mental disorder?
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2013 9:03:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/26/2013 8:53:15 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/26/2013 8:41:46 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/26/2013 8:33:18 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/26/2013 4:09:20 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/26/2013 3:44:17 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/26/2013 6:39:50 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/26/2013 12:39:49 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
This thread, and others like it, are very interesting. While I often find arguments against gay marriage very unconvincing, the arguments that supporters of gay marriage bring up in their defense are always either:

absurd, or

dishonest (see below)

At 1/25/2013 9:15:49 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 1/25/2013 8:07:13 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
Overpopulation doesn't exist.

Thanks for referring me to 16kadams' blog; it's awesome. It's nice to be reminded that homosexual activists have the burden of proof, and have failed to meet it over the past 30 years or so.

Actually, they don't have the burden of proof. There are three moral categories:

1. Moral (I have an obligation to do this).

2. Amoral (I have neither an obligation to do this nor an obligation to not do this)

3. Immoral (I have an obligation to not do this).

Until you can prove that an action is either moral or immoral, we consider it amoral(ex. eating a peanut butter sandwich). You have to prove something either way. Activists are saying that it is amoral, so they have no burden of proof.

Ok, but even if I were to concede your arguments, homosexual activists have the burden of proof to show that homosexuality is not a mental disorder.

Entirely false. You have to prove that something IS a mental disorder. If I say that wanting to eat chicken is a mental disorder, the BOP is on me and not on you. Statements of affirmation are the ones that require proof, not statements of default.

Homo sapiens are heterosexual as a species. It's a scientific fact. We aren't hermaphroditic slugs, transgendered aphids, asexual amoebas or homosexual lizards.

Besides, homosexuality was removed from the DSM for non-scientific reasons. The burden of proof remains unsatisfied with gay activists.

How did you determine where the burden of proof lies, exactly? A mere deviation from what you perceive as the "norm" is insufficient for a determination of a mental disorder.

What do you think is sufficient for determination of a mental disorder?

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Now, how did you determine where the burden of proof lies, exactly?
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2013 9:11:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/26/2013 9:03:08 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/26/2013 8:53:15 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/26/2013 8:41:46 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/26/2013 8:33:18 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/26/2013 4:09:20 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/26/2013 3:44:17 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/26/2013 6:39:50 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/26/2013 12:39:49 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
This thread, and others like it, are very interesting. While I often find arguments against gay marriage very unconvincing, the arguments that supporters of gay marriage bring up in their defense are always either:

absurd, or

dishonest (see below)

At 1/25/2013 9:15:49 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 1/25/2013 8:07:13 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
Overpopulation doesn't exist.

Thanks for referring me to 16kadams' blog; it's awesome. It's nice to be reminded that homosexual activists have the burden of proof, and have failed to meet it over the past 30 years or so.

Actually, they don't have the burden of proof. There are three moral categories:

1. Moral (I have an obligation to do this).

2. Amoral (I have neither an obligation to do this nor an obligation to not do this)

3. Immoral (I have an obligation to not do this).

Until you can prove that an action is either moral or immoral, we consider it amoral(ex. eating a peanut butter sandwich). You have to prove something either way. Activists are saying that it is amoral, so they have no burden of proof.

Ok, but even if I were to concede your arguments, homosexual activists have the burden of proof to show that homosexuality is not a mental disorder.

Entirely false. You have to prove that something IS a mental disorder. If I say that wanting to eat chicken is a mental disorder, the BOP is on me and not on you. Statements of affirmation are the ones that require proof, not statements of default.

Homo sapiens are heterosexual as a species. It's a scientific fact. We aren't hermaphroditic slugs, transgendered aphids, asexual amoebas or homosexual lizards.

Besides, homosexuality was removed from the DSM for non-scientific reasons. The burden of proof remains unsatisfied with gay activists.

How did you determine where the burden of proof lies, exactly? A mere deviation from what you perceive as the "norm" is insufficient for a determination of a mental disorder.

What do you think is sufficient for determination of a mental disorder?

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Now, how did you determine where the burden of proof lies, exactly?

Check your link again:

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2013 9:39:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/26/2013 9:12:34 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
Nevermind. What's your point? Why did you link to wikipedia?

Because it was the answer to your question. The first sentence is a good summary.
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2013 9:46:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/26/2013 9:39:13 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/26/2013 9:12:34 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
Nevermind. What's your point? Why did you link to wikipedia?

Because it was the answer to your question. The first sentence is a good summary.

Is it so hard to copy & paste? I'm asking you, not wikipedia:

What do you think is sufficient for determination of a mental disorder?
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...