Schools in tennessee k-8 not allowed to discuss gays.

[Draconian Races]

When a man can fully turn into a female, or vice versa (not just a transgender operation. I mean fully. Chemically, physically, everything) I wont complain so much. And because they still wouldnt be breeding by themselves. Animals in nature cant breed male-on-male. It still requires a female.

Nope. You already dismissed the Appeal to Nature earlier on. You don't get to fall back on it now.

And as for the argument, I can once again post Craig's article, which people will once again deny because they don't like it or say the numbers are 'unfounded'. But I fully believe that he is correct (although he takes a softer view to them)

Unfortunately, belief does not truth make. His numbers are unfounded (I take a softer view to them) and no amount of pixie dust will change that.

Im 'falling back on it' because thats what people do about queers. "Well theres alot of homosexual animals in nature".
So if you render mine irrelevant, you're agreeing theirs is too.

And I think that most of the numbers on queers are unfounded. I dont think there are very many honest scientists or case studies. So I dismiss most numbers as irrelevant XD But Id rather believe the slant that leans my way, than the slant that the (probably homosexual or bi) scientists often put on the numbers.

[The Black Forrest]

Nope. You already dismissed the Appeal to Nature earlier on. You don't get to fall back on it now.



Unfortunately, belief does not truth make. His numbers are unfounded (I take a softer view to them) and no amount of pixie dust will change that.

Im 'falling back on it' because thats what people do about queers. "Well theres alot of homosexual animals in nature".
So if you render mine irrelevant, you're agreeing theirs is too.

It invalidates your trite argument of homosexuality being a choice.

And I think that most of the numbers on queers are unfounded. I dont think there are very many honest scientists or case studies.

Ahhh scientists are only dishonest if their data goes against your beliefs

So I dismiss most numbers as irrelevant XD But Id rather believe the slant that leans my way, than the slant that the (probably homosexual or bi) scientists often put on the numbers.

So which type of scientists are you talking about here?

[Geniasis]

Im 'falling back on it' because thats what people do about queers. "Well theres alot of homosexual animals in nature".
So if you render mine irrelevant, you're agreeing theirs is too.

Please. You're just trying to have your cake and eat it too. At least pretend to be sorry that you got caught with your hand in the cookie jar.

And I think that most of the numbers on queers are unfounded. I dont think there are very many honest scientists or case studies. So I dismiss most numbers as irrelevant XD But Id rather believe the slant that leans my way, than the slant that the (probably homosexual or bi) scientists often put on the numbers.

And here we come to the crux of the issue. You'd rather believe that the pastor who goes into the issue with his mind made up already is being more accurate than the scientists, that obviously only disagree with you because they themselves are homosexual.

Does it take a lot of energy to deny reality that much?

[Wikkiwallana]

Again, the burden of proof is on you. And no "argument" you've made has fulfilled that obligation.

Ive already pointed out that it doesnt produce children, is religiously immoral, and I believe is immoral in general.

None of which have anything to do with law in this country.

[Draconian Races]

Im 'falling back on it' because thats what people do about queers. "Well theres alot of homosexual animals in nature".
So if you render mine irrelevant, you're agreeing theirs is too.

Please. You're just trying to have your cake and eat it too. At least pretend to be sorry that you got caught with your hand in the cookie jar.

And I think that most of the numbers on queers are unfounded. I dont think there are very many honest scientists or case studies. So I dismiss most numbers as irrelevant XD But Id rather believe the slant that leans my way, than the slant that the (probably homosexual or bi) scientists often put on the numbers.

And here we come to the crux of the issue. You'd rather believe that the pastor who goes into the issue with his mind made up already is being more accurate than the scientists, that obviously only disagree with you because they themselves are homosexual.

Does it take a lot of energy to deny reality that much?

Except you, by saying I cant rely on that analogy, are confirming they cant either.

And yet there was a scientist who said numbers that Craig quoted, and noone believes him.

I think that most polling places call up the people they think will agree or disagree with the point they want. With a few members of the opposition for good measure.
I believe both 'Christian' and secular sources do this.
So numbers on either side arent always believable to me.. but Id rather go with those on my side.

[Greater Tezdrian]

And yet there was a scientist who said numbers that Craig quoted, and noone believes him.

Source. We wants one. Plus, you now have 666 posts. Coincidence much?

[The Black Forrest]

Please. You're just trying to have your cake and eat it too. At least pretend to be sorry that you got caught with your hand in the cookie jar.



And here we come to the crux of the issue. You'd rather believe that the pastor who goes into the issue with his mind made up already is being more accurate than the scientists, that obviously only disagree with you because they themselves are homosexual.

Does it take a lot of energy to deny reality that much?

Except you, by saying I cant rely on that analogy, are confirming they cant either.

And yet there was a scientist who said numbers that Craig quoted, and noone believes him.

You don't understand what is wrong?

I think that most polling places call up the people they think will agree or disagree with the point they want. With a few members of the opposition for good measure.

And how would they do that? Every household is different.

I believe both 'Christian' and secular sources do this.
So numbers on either side arent always believable to me.. but Id rather go with those on my side.

No. The data would be dismissed outright.

[Geniasis]

Except you, by saying I cant rely on that analogy, are confirming they cant either.

False, if only because you're trying to claim that it's being used to prove something that it isn't. The argument that homosexuality occurs in nature isn't being used to justify it, but to demonstrate that the claim that it is "unnatural" is false. When you shot down the Appeal to Nature argument earlier, you were shooting down an argument that wasn't actually being made. So all you really did was forfeit your right to seriously use that argument here.

And yet there was a scientist who said numbers that Craig quoted, and noone believes him.

Can you source that?

I think that most polling places call up the people they think will agree or disagree with the point they want. With a few members of the opposition for good measure.
I believe both 'Christian' and secular sources do this.
So numbers on either side arent always believable to me.. but Id rather go with those on my side.

Make up whatever narrative you have to, amirite?

[The Corparation]

And I think that most of the numbers on queers are unfounded. I dont think there are very many honest scientists or case studies. So I dismiss most numbers as irrelevant XD But Id rather believe the slant that leans my way, than the slant that the (probably homosexual or bi) scientists often put on the numbers.

SO basically what you're saying is that you are ignoring every study that contradicts your beliefs? And rather then arguing against the data on scientific grounds you resort to Ad hominem attacks against the scientists who collected it and who's sexual orientation is irrelevant.

[Dyakovo]

Again, the burden of proof is on you. And no "argument" you've made has fulfilled that obligation.

Ive already pointed out that it doesnt produce children¹, is religiously immoral², and I believe is immoral in general³.

1: So? Are you saying everyone who is infertile should be killed as well?
2: Only matters if they happen to belong to the same religion as you.
3: "You believe" would be the key part there. No one gives a rat's ass what you believe.

[Dyakovo]

Nope. You already dismissed the Appeal to Nature earlier on. You don't get to fall back on it now.



Unfortunately, belief does not truth make. His numbers are unfounded (I take a softer view to them) and no amount of pixie dust will change that.

Im 'falling back on it' because thats what people do about queers. "Well theres alot of homosexual animals in nature".¹

And I think that most of the numbers on queers are unfounded. I dont think there are very many honest scientists or case studies. So I dismiss most numbers as irrelevant XD But Id rather believe the slant that leans my way, than the slant that the (probably homosexual or bi) scientists often put on the numbers.²

1: Generally only in response to homphobes saying "teh ghey isn't natural!!!1!"
2: Translation: "I dismiss anything that doesn't agree with my beliefs."

[Draconian Races]

And yet there was a scientist who said numbers that Craig quoted, and noone believes him.

Can you source that?

Thomas Schmidt, Straight and Narrow? (Downer’s Gove, Ill.: Inter-Varsity Press, 1995).

And I think that most of the numbers on queers are unfounded. I dont think there are very many honest scientists or case studies. So I dismiss most numbers as irrelevant XD But Id rather believe the slant that leans my way, than the slant that the (probably homosexual or bi) scientists often put on the numbers.

SO basically what you're saying is that you are ignoring every study that contradicts your beliefs? And rather then arguing against the data on scientific grounds you resort to Ad hominem attacks against the scientists who collected it and who's sexual orientation is irrelevant.

\

It is relevant because it could, consciously or unconsciously, color the study.

And as I said, I think that everyone plays with their studies. Even the ones on my side. And since both arent fully reliable, why not take the ones I agree with

[Geniasis]

Oh right. I'd forgotten about Schmidt and his creative cherry-picking of the Bible.

Anyway, I thought you said you had as source from a scientist?

[The Black Forrest]

Can you source that?

Thomas Schmidt, Straight and Narrow? (Downer’s Gove, Ill.: Inter-Varsity Press, 1995).

You do know he is not a scientist right?

SO basically what you're saying is that you are ignoring every study that contradicts your beliefs? And rather then arguing against the data on scientific grounds you resort to Ad hominem attacks against the scientists who collected it and who's sexual orientation is irrelevant.

\

It is relevant because it could, consciously or unconsciously, color the study.

And as I said, I think that everyone plays with their studies. Even the ones on my side. And since both arent fully reliable, why not take the ones I agree with

That is false. People in the science world tend to want explanations. Some might try to hold onto a bad argument especially if they made a career out of it. But the majority? Nope.

[Unhealthy2]

"Objective morals" is an oxymoron. They cannot exist.

Even if they cannot exist, which I see no reason to assume, the phrase "objective morality" is not an oxymoron, because it's not self-contradictory. There's no such thing as a good Michael Bay movie, but it's not logically impossible for there to be one.

[Grave_n_idle]

Again, the burden of proof is on you. And no "argument" you've made has fulfilled that obligation.

Ive already pointed out that it doesnt produce children, is religiously immoral, and I believe is immoral in general.

There's no reason to require people to have children. Married or otherwise.

Your moral code is fine - for you. Your religion is fine - for you. Don't expect others to feel like you're saying anything that matters to them.


In other words, you've got one 'justification' that fails to justify, and two 'justifications' that explain why YOU shouldn't engage in gay sex, or marry someone of your own gender, or whatever.

[Unhealthy2]

"Its natural" or "They love each other" or "It wouldnt hurt you" seem to be the justifications for it... non of that makes it 'good' or 'ok'.

"It doesn't cause any harm to anyone." is a completely valid reason to think it okay. If morality is no longer concerned with actual well being or harm, then said "morality" is so completely disconnected from reality as to be utterly meaningless. An action being wrong just because is incoherent. Morality is derived from deeper metaphysics. It is not foundational itself.

[Norstal]

Again, the burden of proof is on you. And no "argument" you've made has fulfilled that obligation.

Ive already pointed out that it doesnt produce children, is religiously immoral, and I believe is immoral in general.

And as much as I want to ban Christianity from ever existing, I can't and I won't for the simple reason that it would be incredibly irrational to want to do that.

[Unhealthy2]

Ive already pointed out that it doesnt produce children,

Neither does 99.9% of all human activity and over 50% of heterosexual sexual activity. Hell, I'm pretty sure that not even a majority of unprotected hetero sex produces children.

is religiously immoral,

No such thing. Something is either immoral, not immoral, or there is no moral value to anything. Something can't be "immoral for this religion" anymore than something can be "true for me." It's incoherent.

Just because your religion opposes x, that doesn't make x immoral. For it to be the case, your religion would have to literally ALWAYS be correct in moral issues no matter the circumstances. Not only can you not prove this, it can actually be proven conclusively false because of the contradictory nature of morals in your religion. Your religion cannot always be correct because it's not always self-consistent. Hence, your religion saying it's immoral means jack shit.

and I believe is immoral in general.

Belief is irrelevant to actual truth.

[Draconian Races]

[quote="Grave_n_idle";p="5762403"
Your moral code is fine - for you. Your religion is fine - for you. Don't expect others to feel like you're saying anything that matters to them.
[/quote]

And yet queers would be protected by anti-discrimination laws, and thus Id be forced to go against my religion if they wanted service from any business I ran.

[Unchecked Expansion]

And yet queers would be protected by anti-discrimination laws, and thus Id be forced to go against my religion if they wanted service from any business I ran.

Your religion doesn't force you to open a business. Don't want to have to obey the law and serve people? Get a job where you won't have to deal with people.

[Grave_n_idle]

And yet queers would be protected by anti-discrimination laws, and thus Id be forced to go against my religion if they wanted service from any business I ran.

So, your argument for what the law should be... is based on your own dislike for obeying the law?

There's a simple solution, of course. If you can't do a job according to the rules... don't do the job?

[The Black Forrest]

[quote="Grave_n_idle";p="5762403"
Your moral code is fine - for you. Your religion is fine - for you. Don't expect others to feel like you're saying anything that matters to them.

And yet queers would be protected by anti-discrimination laws, and thus Id be forced to go against my religion if they wanted service from any business I ran.[/quote]

So you have magical powers to know who is gay and who is not?

[The Corparation]

[quote="Grave_n_idle";p="5762403"
Your moral code is fine - for you. Your religion is fine - for you. Don't expect others to feel like you're saying anything that matters to them.

And yet queers would be protected by anti-discrimination laws, and thus Id be forced to go against my religion if they wanted service from any business I ran.

So you have magical powers to know who is gay and who is not?[/quote]
Don't you know, you can always tell who is gay by their sassy and flamboyant speech and their good taste in fashion.

[Alowwvia]

[quote="Grave_n_idle";p="5762403"
Your moral code is fine - for you. Your religion is fine - for you. Don't expect others to feel like you're saying anything that matters to them.

And yet queers would be protected by anti-discrimination laws, and thus Id be forced to go against my religion if they wanted service from any business I ran.[/quote]

Why would you even worship a god who's obviously a massive bigot? It makes no sense. If the douchebag even exists, it's obvious he wants his so-called chilrdren to suffer for things outside their control, or for the faults of others. All said, Yahweh is sort of an ass. So why listen to what he has to say?