Same sex marriage

[z1ggy]

No it isn't...and I didn't say it was. The fact that we do that shows that nature takes a back seat to humanity when we want it to.

Put it like this: homosexuality in nature is just an excuse and justification for people to engage in ANY sexual behavior they may have thought was once wrong, but since they WANT to do it, they use the "nature" argument.

That argument is stopped cold as regards the millions of other things that happen in nature that we arbitrarily condemn, and the reason is that it harms others -- I have no issue with that, personally. But my overall point is that homosexual acts are not controlled by nature, they're simply controlled by our desires, so we make excuses to do it...but since we're intelligent enough to control our murderous, cannibalistic nature, why does that not also apply to sexual activity, is my question.

Now, if you want to argue that sexual reproduction is a primary facet of nature, then I'd counter that gays don't "reproduce" together....they just have sex.

Guys, late breaking news: Murdering someone is similar to being gay.

More news at 6.

 

[dank69]

No it isn't...and I didn't say it was. The fact that we do that shows that nature takes a back seat to humanity when we want it to.

Put it like this: homosexuality in nature is just an excuse and justification for people to engage in ANY sexual behavior they may have thought was once wrong, but since they WANT to do it, they use the "nature" argument.

Bullshit. The nature argument is ONLY used by bigots to justify their bigotry. Then when it is pointed out to said bigots that their argument isn't even true, more bigots then misconstrue that discussion to mean that people who understand that it is natural are somehow using that as justification for making it legal. Wrong. The burden is on you to justify why it should be illegal. We are simply pointing out to you that the claim that it is unnatural is false. On top of that, even if it was unnatural, that is still not justification for making something illegal, as you have already shown you agree.

That argument is stopped cold as regards the millions of other things that happen in nature that we arbitrarily condemn, and the reason is that it harms others -- I have no issue with that, personally. But my overall point is that homosexual acts are not controlled by nature, they're simply controlled by our desires, so we make excuses to do it...but since we're intelligent enough to control our murderous, cannibalistic nature, why does that not also apply to sexual activity, is my question.

Now, if you want to argue that sexual reproduction is a primary facet of nature, then I'd counter that gays don't "reproduce" together....they just have sex.

That argument was never started by anyone other than you, so you can feel like you've won something or made some salient point.

 

[Fritzo]

False.

True.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions

A lot of ATOTers should consider at least going Bi...it would double their chances of getting laid.

 

[WelshBloke]

Put it like this: homosexuality in nature is just an excuse and justification for people to engage in ANY sexual behavior they may have thought was once wrong, but since they WANT to do it, they use the "nature" argument.

Ummm, actually the argument was put forward that homosexuality was wrong because it wasn't natural. People were just pointing out that that was wrong and that the nature argument is a spurious reason to be against gay marriage.

Glad to see that you agree with that.

 

[SlowSpyder]

No it isn't...and I didn't say it was. The fact that we do that shows that nature takes a back seat to humanity when we want it to.

Put it like this: homosexuality in nature is just an excuse and justification for people to engage in ANY sexual behavior they may have thought was once wrong, but since they WANT to do it, they use the "nature" argument.

That argument is stopped cold as regards the millions of other things that happen in nature that we arbitrarily condemn, and the reason is that it harms others -- I have no issue with that, personally. But my overall point is that homosexual acts are not controlled by nature, they're simply controlled by our desires, so we make excuses to do it...but since we're intelligent enough to control our murderous, cannibalistic nature, why does that not also apply to sexual activity, is my question.

Now, if you want to argue that sexual reproduction is a primary facet of nature, then I'd counter that gays don't "reproduce" together....they just have sex.

All I'm getting out of the nature argument is that however some argue that nature intended us to be shouldn't matter. It goes both ways.

We don't need to control our animalistic desires if we're not hurting anyone. Consenting adults having sex, regardless of how many of them or if they're hetro or homo doesn't hurt anyone. There's no need to control such behavior because their doesn't need to be. This is completely different from murder, cannibalism, and genocide.

 

[soulcougher73]

No it isn't...and I didn't say it was. The fact that we do that shows that nature takes a back seat to humanity when we want it to.

Put it like this: homosexuality in nature is just an excuse and justification for people to engage in ANY sexual behavior they may have thought was once wrong, but since they WANT to do it, they use the "nature" argument.

That argument is stopped cold as regards the millions of other things that happen in nature that we arbitrarily condemn, and the reason is that it harms others -- I have no issue with that, personally. But my overall point is that homosexual acts are not controlled by nature, they're simply controlled by our desires, so we make excuses to do it...but since we're intelligent enough to control our murderous, cannibalistic nature, why does that not also apply to sexual activity, is my question.

Now, if you want to argue that sexual reproduction is a primary facet of nature, then I'd counter that gays don't "reproduce" together....they just have sex.

Not sure about you but i dont have any desire to murder or eat another human. You might want to seek help.

 

[Retro Rob]

Bullshit. The nature argument is ONLY used by bigots to justify their bigotry. Then when it is pointed out to said bigots that their argument isn't even true, more bigots then misconstrue that discussion to mean that people who understand that it is natural are somehow using that as justification for making it legal. Wrong. The burden is on you to justify why it should be illegal. We are simply pointing out to you that the claim that it is unnatural is false. On top of that, even if it was unnatural, that is still not justification for making something illegal, as you have already shown you agree.

I don't make the unnatural argument...I simply believe personally that ANY sexual activity outside of man/woman marriage is wrong...I don't impose that on others, and I allow people the freedom to disagree and make SSM legal if they so choose.

I have no dog in the fight.

That argument was never started by anyone other than you, so you can feel like you've won something or made some salient point.

I think you know I wasn't speaking about this thread...I was speaking about the tons of other threads where the "1500 species of animals" argument is used time and time again, and I was presenting it in here and objecting to it.

Someone is bound to trot it out sooner or later here as well.

 

[Retro Rob]

Not sure about you but i dont have any desire to murder or eat another human. You might want to seek help.

I don't have any desire to have sex with another man, so its not natural, right?

See how that works? So does that make it unnatural now?

 

[dank69]

I don't make the unnatural argument...I simply believe personally that ANY sexual activity outside of man/woman marriage is wrong...I don't impose that on others, and I allow people the freedom to disagree and make SSM legal if they so choose.

I have no dog in the fight.



I think you know I wasn't speaking about this thread...I was speaking about the tons of other threads where the "1500 species of animals" argument is used time and time again, and I was presenting it in here and objecting to it.

Someone is bound to trot it out sooner or later here as well.

You specifically called me a hypocrite. You also accused me of cherrypicking. I guess that was you speaking about other threads though.

 

[dank69]

I don't have any desire to have sex with another man, so its not natural, right?

See how that works? So does that make it unnatural now?

Nothing in his post mentioned anything about what is natural. You need to forget about the natural angle because it is irrelevant to all but the most ignorant of people, like Vaux.

 

[Retro Rob]

You specifically called me a hypocrite. You also accused me of cherrypicking. I guess that was you speaking about other threads though.

Anyone arbitrarily ignoring nature when it doesn't fit their particular view is a hypocrite.

 

[nehalem256]

True.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions

A lot of ATOTers should consider at least going Bi...it would double their chances of getting laid.

In 67, Nero ordered a young freedman, Sporus, to be castrated and then married him.[64][65][66][67] According to Dion Cassius, Sporus bore an uncanny resemblance to Sabina, and Nero even called him by his dead wife's name

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nero

Therefore gay marriage.

 

[soulcougher73]

I don't have any desire to have sex with another man, so its not natural, right?

See how that works? So does that make it unnatural now?

I never stated it wasnt natural (for some). But if it harms other people (or animals in some cases) it is right to condemn it. You not wanting to the butt sex doesnt harm anyone or anything. So therefore there is no reason to condemn it and you should support it unless you like to discriminate against others for being different than you.

 

[soulcougher73]

Anyone arbitrarily ignoring nature when it doesn't fit their particular view is a hypocrite.

 

[K1052]

Another RobM pseudo-moralistic faith based excrement throwing adventure. Just like every gay marriage thread.

It must be tough on the old guy having to watch the power of religious social conservatism in the political sphere slowly erode to the nothing that it should be.

 

[DrPizza]

Unions are fine just dont get in my face with it.

I think the point is, get out of THEIR face. Mind your own damn business, not theirs. They're not invading YOUR space, telling you what you can and can't do, you're the one invading THEIR space, telling them what they can and can't do.

 

[soulcougher73]

I think the point is, get out of THEIR face. Mind your own damn business, not theirs. They're not invading YOUR space, telling you what you can and can't do, you're the one invading THEIR space, telling them what they can and can't do.

:thumbsup:

 

[SlitheryDee]

It also gave us Hitler, Stalin, Dahmer, Gacy...because murder is a huge occurring in nature, so we agree and that's also acceptable.

Aside from it "hurting people", why reject what nature has given us?

Yes, and as social animals we identified them for what they were and aligned ourselves against them, which is the natural response. You can't say "aside from hurting people" in this conversation. That is the sole determining factor that allows us to differentiate what we will stand against, and what we need not worry ourselves with. It is what separates SSM and Hitler, Stalin, Dahmer, and Gacy. it is the only point that is relevant to the argument you are presenting.

 

[dank69]

Anyone arbitrarily ignoring nature when it doesn't fit their particular view is a hypocrite.

I ignore it even when it fits my particular view. Intelligent people ignore things they have determined to be irrelevant.

 

[dank69]

Yes, and as social animals we identified them for what they were and aligned ourselves against them, which is the natural response. You can't say "aside from hurting people" in this conversation. That is the sole determining factor that allows us to differentiate what we will stand against, and what we need not worry ourselves with. It is what separates SSM and Hitler, Stalin, Dahmer, and Gacy. it is the only point that is relevant to the argument you are presenting.

Aside from hurting people, why should we reject hurting people?

 

[brycejones]

I think the point is, get out of THEIR face. Mind your own damn business, not theirs. They're not invading YOUR space, telling you what you can and can't do, you're the one invading THEIR space, telling them what they can and can't do.

Yep......

 

[Retro Rob]

Yes, and as social animals we identified them for what they were and aligned ourselves against them, which is the natural response. You can't say "aside from hurting people" in this conversation. That is the sole determining factor that allows us to differentiate what we will stand against, and what we need not worry ourselves with. It is what separates SSM and Hitler, Stalin, Dahmer, and Gacy. it is the only point that is relevant to the argument you are presenting.

Actually, there is an "aside from hurting people" because history is rife with MILLIONS who murdered and didn't care if it hurt others...ISIS is a living example of that.

 

[MrDudeMan]

So now abnormality is grounds for discrimination?

It should be when it comes to breeding. Propagating genes and/or mutations that couldn't naturally spread is only possible because we've managed to circumvent nature in some ways. Gay people couldn't create offspring before technology came along, which means their genes wouldn't propagate unless they had a little mishap where they slipped and fell on the genitalia of the opposite sex.

I couldn't give two shits who gets married to whom or if they raise kids, but all this talk about nature is just stupid. Without technology, gay people have to engage in natural, normal sex to spread their genes. Just because a dick will fit in a butthole doesn't mean it was meant to go there nor would sticking it there be a viable way to spread your genes. You either put it in a vagina or use a test tube.

Snap your fingers and erase all heterosexual people from the planet - what happens next? Humans either fuck each other the way they were meant to fuck (P in V), or they all die. It's really that simple.

 

[SlitheryDee]

Actually, there is an "aside from hurting people" because history is rife with MILLIONS who murdered and didn't care if it hurt others...ISIS is a living example of that.

I don't understand your point. Why does mentioning that people historically hurt and killed other people make any case other than that harm caused is the sole basis for determining what we should be morally against? Why do you think historians deigned to record all those instances you mention? I think it's to help us figure out what not to do.

 

[soulcougher73]

It should be when it comes to breeding. Propagating genes and/or mutations that couldn't naturally spread is only possible because we've managed to circumvent nature in some ways. Gay people couldn't create offspring before technology came along, which means their genes wouldn't propagate unless they had a little mishap where they slipped and fell on the genitalia of the opposite sex.

I couldn't give two shits who gets married to whom or if they raise kids, but all this talk about nature is just stupid. Without technology, gay people have to engage in natural, normal sex to spread their genes. Just because a dick will fit in a butthole doesn't mean it was meant to go there nor would sticking it there be a viable way to spread your genes. You either put it in a vagina or use a test tube.

Snap your fingers and erase all heterosexual people from the planet - what happens next? Humans either fuck each other the way they were meant to fuck (P in V), or they all die. It's really that simple.

So what you are saying it technology made gays? Cool theory bro