18 Nov 10
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhat examples did you ask for when you referenced in nature then?
i do not accept the humans are animals argument for it cannot be proven that animals are actually aware of what they are doing, any more than a dog which tries to make love to the end of a sofa knows that its an inanimate object. Also sexual behaviour in animals may be absolutely detrimental for humans. Lions for example may mate and then hunt down ...[text shortened]... ficial for humans. Multiple sexual partners leads to all sorts of difficulties for humans also.
You said this, the part I quoted in my last post
"he states that to him homosexuality in this context is unnatural, now that being the case, can anyone site any other reference in nature where two entities of the same sex cohabit in a sexual relationship and look after the young? If there is no point of reference then we must assume that yes indeed, he was telling the truth and that indeed it runs contrary to nature and on that basis must be deemed unhealthy, or at very least unnatural."
------------
As far as your bit about animals not knowing what they're doing, I find a lot more awareness in some animals than some of the people I come across in life 😉
I'm not one to say that every connection must be present for the argument to make sense. Fact is, sexual activity is a instinctual thing. It stems from the basic part of the brain all mammals pretty much share. Endorphins are released because it's a thing for the preservation of life, same when you eat, it's just a drive in us. Just because we can evaluate it in such terms and apply abstract meanings to it doesn't mean it's much more than the animal behaviors we witness.
For lions (your example) the social structure is ultimately different and allows for it. As humans, there are plenty who do it, and sure it, more than not, fails but that's due to a different social structure. Somewhat taboo across a lot of levels as well. The fact that we do see homosexuality and parenting it in nature means it shows a relation to our patterns "as humans". It shows it as a natural made function. The fact that we can hold views that perceive what we're doing doesn't separate it from nature.
18 Nov 10
Originally posted by John W Boothi am not spiteful, i need to eat my dinner now, i shall be watching little house on the prairie as i do so, its my favourite program, good American values, you should watch it 🙂
And yet you already made your assertions beforehand, dude. Cute.
Jeez there are some spiteful pieces of work on this forum.
18 Nov 10
3 edits
Originally posted by John W BoothFor the most part, it seems that the "Christians" on this forum are fundamentalists with high levels of ignorance and therefore bigotry. There seems to be little point in trying to get them to engage in open, honest and intelligent discussion. Be prepared for a heavy dose of avoidance, denial, willful ignorance, incoherent thinking, hypocrisy, etc. At times it can be shocking and appalling.
Now THAT is a case of skulking off after getting mangled on a public forum, if EVER there was one.
18 Nov 10
Originally posted by John W Boothmangled? mangled, obviously you haven't been in Sauchiehall Street Glasgow on a Saturday night, that's mangled! these petty petitions have no effect Mr. Booth, the dogs howl, the crow crows and the caravan trundles forward!
Now THAT is a case of skulking off after getting mangled on a public forum, if EVER there was one.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
18 Nov 10
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneYou are hardly a paragon of academic virtue. Three times I have set before you three simple questions -- do you admit the right of religious freedom? should the state compel churches arbitrarily? and, can you name any state which does not exempt religious organisations in some way from anti-discrimination laws? For some reason, no answer has been forthcoming and your basic argument has simply been to compare me with the KKK. Time and time again you prove your self an immature debater. Next thing you will say 'You only say that because of your Catholic upbringing' or 'You only say that because you're a college student just arguing for the sake of it'. You can't claim any moral high-ground.
For the most part, it seems that the "Christians" on this forum are fundamentalists with high levels of ignorance and therefore bigotry. There seems to be little point in trying to get them to engage in open, honest and intelligent discussion. Be prepared for a heavy dose of avoidance, denial, willful ignorance, incoherent thinking, hypocrisy, etc. At times it can be shocking and appalling.
18 Nov 10
Originally posted by Conrau KCase in point.
You are hardly a paragon of academic virtue. Three times I have set before you three simple questions -- do you admit the right of religious freedom? should the state compel churches arbitrarily? and, can you name any state which does not exempt religious organisations in some way from anti-discrimination laws? For some reason, no answer has been forthcomin ...[text shortened]... a college student just arguing for the sake of it'. You can't claim any moral high-ground.
19 Nov 10
2 edits
Originally posted by Conrau KI have little doubt that you sincerely believe that you have made sound arguments and have refuted any and all counter arguments. More's the pity.
Haha. Whatever. The questions are there. I have put forward my arguments and responded to your single counter-argument. It is you who refuse to debate and are rather churlishly evasive.
As I said, "...shocking and appalling" and "there seems to be little point in trying to get them to engage in open, honest and intelligent discussion".
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
19 Nov 10
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneI have little doubt that you sincerely believe that you have made sound arguments and have refuted any and all counter arguments. More's the pity.
I have little doubt that you sincerely believe that you have made sound arguments and have refuted any and all counter arguments. More's the pity.
As I said, "...shocking and appalling" and "there seems to be little point in trying to get them to engage in open, honest and intelligent discussion".
I am not so arrogant as to claim that I am always right. I have acknowledged that balance between equal opportunity and religious rights is tricky. I have named situations where I believe that the state can justifiably suspend religious rights. But you have not even deigned to reply to my arguments. You have simply argued ‘the KKK thought they were right too’, not even acknowledging my three counterarguments: 1. the state, while respecting religious rights, often must suspend religious rights when they are pose public danger (as in the case of anti-vilification laws), 2. the KKK is not a religious organisation and wouldn’t even fall under the scope of anti-discrimination laws anyway, 3. it may equally be countered, and equally absurdly, that the Nazis similarly thought that they were justified in interfering with religious organisations.
I really can’t imagine how you can think you have presented any sort of respectable debate. You have typified the very sort of evasiveness you criticise. You have avoided questions I directly posed to you on multiple occasions. You have not even bothered to respond to counter-arguments and when I question your support for some comment, rather than defend it, you simply make ad hominem attacks.
I am in fact quite open to criticism and will change my mind when confronted with plausible reasons. Only a few months ago I moved over to the atheist side. Perhaps at the moment I think I am Catholic. I do however regularly change my mind. I am available for open and honest discussion. And in case you want to accuse me of homophobia at some point, I am gay, a fact which I have mentioned in the past.
19 Nov 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau KListen, you can't even seem to be able to acknowledge that my pointing out that even the KKK believes their bigotry is "justified" does not entail a charge of racism. That you jumped to that conclusion is one thing, but that you insist on framing it as such is another. If you are unable or unwilling to wrap your mind around something this basic, what's the point of addressing the other flaws in your position or getting you to understand mine?
[b]I have little doubt that you sincerely believe that you have made sound arguments and have refuted any and all counter arguments. More's the pity.
I am not so arrogant as to claim that I am always right. I have acknowledged that balance between equal opportunity and religious rights is tricky. I have named situations where I believe that the state ...[text shortened]... to accuse me of homophobia at some point, I am gay, a fact which I have mentioned in the past.[/b]
You're still quite young and seem to have a lack understanding of yourself as well as of the world you live in. Hopefully with time this will change. One of the things that you'll hopefully come to understand is that it can be very difficult to free oneself of deeply ingrained patterns of thought and beliefs (especially those ingrained in ones formative years). I have a friend in her early 50's who is really struggling to do just that, but can't seem to get past herself. Good luck to you.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
19 Nov 10
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneListen, you can't even seem to be able to acknowledge that my pointing out that even the KKK believes their bigotry is "justified" does not entail a charge of racism. That you jumped to that conclusion is one thing, but that you insist on framing it as such is another. If you are unable or unwilling to wrap your mind around something this basic, what's the point of addressing the other flaws in your position or getting you to understand mine?
Listen, you can't even seem to be able to acknowledge that my pointing out that even the KKK believes their bigotry is "justified" does not entail a charge of racism. That you jumped to that conclusion is one thing, but that you insist on framing it as such is another. If you are unable or unwilling to wrap your mind around something this basic, what's th really struggling to do just that, but can't seem to get past herself. Good luck to you.
Look, I am over that point (although I do not believe I said you accused me of racism, rather of justifying racism). As you can see from previous post, there were several objections to your argument here. Even now, when I have clearly grouped them together, you cannot even respond to them. Surely it's not a reading problem. Come on, you are such a hypocrite. You accuse others of evasiveness but now you do it repeatedly. It really does astound me.
You're still quite young and seem to have a lack understanding of yourself as well as of the world you live in. Hopefully with time this will change. One of the things that you'll hopefully come to understand is that it can be very difficult to free oneself of deeply ingrained patterns of thought and beliefs (especially those ingrained in ones formative years). I have a friend in her early 50's who is really struggling to do just that, but can't seem to get past herself. Good luck to you.
Don't be condescending. You're nothing more than a ridiculous bigot who has never been able to acknowledge when he is wrong. My religious commitments do not interfere with my ability to make sound judgments. I regularly change my mind and I am able to criticise the Catholic Church. Furthermore, my point here extends to religious organisations, such as the JWs, whom I very strongly rail against. Once again you resort to the typical ad hominem.