Originally posted by Proper Knobeven so, its still an ad hominem.
I haven't made a claim that someone's religious disposition makes them unable to see the perspective from another point of view, I'm stating it applies specifically to you. You have admitted as such on this very forum, how you can even begin to try and deny it is beyond me.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
Originally posted by robbie carrobiefine, so i will never see you write that homosexual sex is unclean while their is a doubt in your mind that if its in the bible or not. if you do then it is because it is your personal opinion (which you do not like to share). correct?
exactly
next question. who's opinion is it that anal sex is a health risk, yours or the bibles?
Originally posted by stellspalfieIt does not have to be a health risk to be an abomination to God.
fine, so i will never see you write that homosexual sex is unclean while their is a doubt in your mind that if its in the bible or not. if you do then it is because it is your personal opinion (which you do not like to share). correct?
next question. who's opinion is it that anal sex is a health risk, yours or the bibles?
Leviticus 20:13 (NKJV)
If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.
Galatians 5:19-21 (NKJV)
Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
Romans 1:26-27 (NKJV)
For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
The Instructor
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYet another little gem from Robbie.
I rarely if ever proffer my own personal views on these matters, my opinion has little validity to anyone but me. I dont believe in opinions as a valid form of currency in a debate, empirical evidence and appeal to reason beats it every time.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHuh? Diagnosing a person as homophobic is an "informal fallacy"? You're just making up stuff as you go along, aren't you.
Dude I have been psychoanalysed many times by budding psychoanalysts and diagnosed with various debilitating and mysterious mental ailments. Homophobia is not new, although a somewhat informal fallacy, which seeks to undermine the legitimacy of the text by attacking the personality making the text and is the last bastion of the truly desperate. It a ...[text shortened]... ears to me that anyone so offended must be overly sensitive, after all, the issue is hardly new.
If you're interested in studying an actual fallacy that is highly relevant to this discussion, you may want to read up on the "naturalistic fallacy" or "appeal to nature".
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWell, gee, the idea is for one's opinions to be informed by the evidence and appeal to reason, etc.
I rarely if ever proffer my own personal views on these matters, my opinion has little validity to anyone but me. I dont believe in opinions as a valid form of currency in a debate, empirical evidence and appeal to reason beats it every time.
By the way, if you're so gung-ho about appealing to reason in debates, why don't you actually start doing it in this one. For instance, how can you not realize that your stance against homosexuality is a textbook example of fallacious reasoning, in the vein of appeal to nature?
Originally posted by stellspalfieOnce again i will repeat my stance seeing that you are having trouble understanding it. I have said that it is unnatural, citing the Bible as a reference point. I have provided empirical evidence to substantiate the Biblical stance, medical and physiological, why you keep harping on about irrelevancies and future hypothetical scenarios is perhaps a reflection of the weakness of your arguments, if indeed you have any to make, for as far as i can discern, you amount to something like a gossiping housewife, talking a lot but not really saying anything.
fine, so i will never see you write that homosexual sex is unclean while their is a doubt in your mind that if its in the bible or not. if you do then it is because it is your personal opinion (which you do not like to share). correct?
next question. who's opinion is it that anal sex is a health risk, yours or the bibles?
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJelloI have provided both medical and physiological evidence which substantiates the Biblical claim, the best you can do is to attack personalities and frankly its not worth responding to.
Well, gee, the idea is for one's opinions to be informed by the evidence and appeal to reason, etc.
By the way, if you're so gung-ho about appealing to reason in debates, why don't you actually start doing it in this one. For instance, how can you not realize that your stance against homosexuality is a text book example of fallacious reasoning, in the vein of appeal to nature?
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSubstantiates what biblical claim? That homosexuality is contrary to nature? If so, then clearly you just don't get it.
I have provided both medical and physiological evidence which substantiates the Biblical claim, the best you can do is to attack personalities and frankly its not worth responding to.
Let me explain it more fully for you. Even if you were correct that homosexuality is unnatural (or 'contrary to nature' ), in no way, ipso facto, does that warrant inference to the idea that homosexuality is morally wrong. To suggest otherwise is, as I have already said, a textbook example of fallacious reasoning. Do you understand now?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieCase closed !!!
Once again i will repeat my stance seeing that you are having trouble understanding it. I have said that it is unnatural, citing the Bible as a reference point. I have provided empirical evidence to substantiate the Biblical stance, medical and physiological, why you keep harping on about irrelevancies and future hypothetical scenarios is perhaps a ...[text shortened]... ou amount to something like a gossiping housewife, talking a lot but not really saying anything.
HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Glory be to god! Holy! Holy! Holy!
The Instructor
Originally posted by LemonJelloI have not argued on the basis of whether its morally acceptable or not, but what is natural and/or unnatural. One can only repeat it so many times.
Substantiates what biblical claim? That homosexuality is contrary to nature? If so, then clearly you just don't get it.
Let me explain it more fully for you. Even if you were correct that homosexuality is unnatural (or 'contrary to nature' ), in no way, ipso facto, does that warrant inference to the idea that homosexuality is morally wrong. To su ...[text shortened]... , as I have already said, a textbook example of fallacious reasoning. Do you understand now?