Questo sito fa un ampio uso di JavaScript.
Per favore, abilitare JavaScript nel tuo browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Homosexuality - Genetic
Invia risposta
Ritorna all'indice del forum
Messaggio di
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Messaggio di
Monday
Unless it was the Temple Square incident, stupid D-bags.
Clarify: Are you talking about when
LDS Church security handcuffed two gay men
? And if so, which side are you taking? You're vague.
It's not the incident so much (although I believe th gay couple was wrong, it was Church property and they didn't follow the rules).
It was the protests that followed. And frankly, I'm disgusted at both sides that participated in the protest outside Temple Square.
Messaggio di
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Messaggio di
Monday
it was Church property and they didn't follow the rules
Does everyone, or just the church have the right to handcuff people that are rude them on their property?
Slightly Yes. They own the property and have the right to eject anyone.
Although I don't believe they were handcuffed tbh. It was never proven, just their word against the Church's, and I believe the Church's, they don't lie.
Messaggio di
Squishalot
I love their protests. Oh no, "we weren't doing anything lewd, just anything any other couple would do," no reason why the LDS would disagree!
What I'm more amused by is that they "weren't hanging out... were just going home", but when asked to leave, they refused (from their testimony of events).
Messaggio di
Monday
I love their protests. Oh no, "we weren't doing anything lewd, just anything any other couple would do," no reason why the LDS would disagree!
What I'm more amused by is that they "weren't hanging out... were just going home", but when asked to leave, they refused (from their testimony of events).
Aye.
Like I said, the couple were idiots, but I'm not disgusted with them so much as with all the protesters.
Messaggio di
135207
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Messaggio di
Squishalot
tl;dr: Stop using the word "normal" when referring to deviations of a purely chemical process. It makes your argument weak.
They're not, for the most part. They keep saying 'natural', mostly. Not sure why that was worth such a long rant though.
Messaggio di
150529
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Messaggio di
Skreeran
tl;dr: Stop using the word "normal" when referring to deviations of a purely chemical process. It makes your argument weak.
They're not, for the most part. They keep saying 'natural', mostly. Not sure why that was worth such a long rant though.
It wasn't.
And unless someone can give me a cohherent arguement about why EVERYTHING is natural, for me natural=biological normalNatural, by definition, means "arising from nature."
You can say that homosexuality isn't normal, but it certainly is natural.
Messaggio di
150529
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Messaggio di
Hyperspacerebel
Natural, by definition, means "arising from nature."
You can say that homosexuality isn't normal, but it certainly is natural.
When using definitions, you have to understand context.
Natural, as you want to define it, is used in the context of supernatural vs. natural. The problem is, supernatural has absolutely nothing to do with the issue, and so any definition arising from that distinction is meaningless and irrelevant to the issue.
Let's reinterpret your definition to fit the context. Would you not say it is in man's nature (and every animal's nature) to procreate? That is was nature intended, and thus it is
natural
. Homosexuality is a deviation from that, which hinders that end provided by nature. As such, it would be
unnatural
.
I will note, however, that HSR, your use of parentheses in this aforementioned instance is misleading. Parentheses are used in writing to clarify a statement, and if you wanted to provide an alternative definition for those without a right/wrong belief system, you probably should have specified clearly the circumstances in which the "(unnatural)" should have fit in.
I did...
I'm using both because there are two different groups of people in the discussion, those that believe in right and wrong, and those that don't. For those that do, wrong is the correct term to use for incest. For those who don't, unnatural is the correct term. You're the one imagining them being equal. I never said such a thing.
Dragon just doesn't want to accept it.
I think you're being exceedingly naive.
If knowing the difference between a motivation and a cause makes me naive, then I guess I am.
Messaggio di
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Messaggio di
Hyperspacerebel
When using definitions, you have to understand context.
Natural, as you want to define it, is used in the context of supernatural vs. natural.
False dichotomy. Natural as in Natural vs Artificial.
Reread this entire thread before trying to talk about it. According to the view presented, "artificial" falls under natural too because we're just as much a part of nature and everything we do is done within that context.
I think you're being exceedingly naive.
If knowing the difference between a motivation and a cause makes me naive, then I guess I am.
You're naive because you think people need another reason other than pleasure.
I'm not asking for a reason, I'm asking for the cause. Reasons are arbitrary.
Messaggio di
418624
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Messaggio di
Hyperspacerebel
It's a double standard - straight men love to see two women make out.
I'm straight, and I don't.
Messaggio di
Squishalot
I did...
I meant in your original statement, rather than your clarification.
Messaggio di
Hyperspacerebel
I did...
I meant in your original statement, rather than your clarification.
Fine, but that's besides the point. Even
after
I clarified, Dragon continued to attack that point. You joined in
after
I clarified. It shouldn't be an issue.
Messaggio di
Squishalot
I did...
I meant in your original statement, rather than your clarification.
Fine, but that's besides the point. Even
after
I clarified, Dragon continued to attack that point. You joined in
after
I clarified. It shouldn't be an issue.
I'm not attacking your point though, I'm saying that your delivery was flawed. For future reference, that's all.
Messaggio di
Orranis
tl;dr: Stop using the word "normal" when referring to deviations of a purely chemical process. It makes your argument weak.
They're not, for the most part. They keep saying 'natural', mostly. Not sure why that was worth such a long rant though.
It wasn't.
And unless someone can give me a cohherent arguement about why EVERYTHING is natural, for me natural=biological normalNatural, by definition, means "arising from nature."
You can say that homosexuality isn't normal, but it certainly is natural.
No, you can't say that.
Read the definition i gave. Natural is the thing that was SUPPOSED to happen.
And, don't start the bs, homosexuality is obviously not the intended path.
What do you mean by supposed to happen?
Homosexuality could be humanities self correction attribute. For all we know, homosexuality might have more 'supposed to happen' then heterosexuality at this point.
Invia risposta
Non hai effettuato l'accesso. Per favore,
accedi
per inviare una risposta o
registrati
se non hai ancora un account.