The morality of homosexuality

[Errinundera]

"The crime is life, the sentence is death!"

Life is a congenital disease.

[Niur]

Nope.

So why don't they count?

Because when you do everything in your power to destroy something, intentional or not, without doing everything in your power to destroy your self, you are no longer considered part of that thing you are tryng to destroy, but an enemy of it.

[JJ Place]

Humanity no longer occurs in nature, it occurs against nature.

Bullshit. Everything. In. Existence. Is. Natural.

I consider nature to be everything except humanity.

What if I'm not human? Can I then assist in said purge and enjoy the world all to myself?

I would need proof your not human. DNA, and explosives.

Can I take the word of Fred Phelps? He says gays aren't human.

Just another person trying to save the homosexuals from the purge.

How is humanity, which desended, evolved from, and ultimatly is intertwined with, nature, apart from nature?

[Grave_n_idle]

You could, perhaps, argue - that things that are artifacts constructed by mankind might not be 'natural' in the strictest sense, since they don't occur in 'nature', except in as much as we make them do so.

Of course, byt the same logic, a beaver's dam isn't 'natural' either... so, it looks like a losing argument.

Humans, on the other hand? We are natural, almost by definition

Since the things that happen in the brain are the product of natural forces, I fail to see how the products of human thought are any less natural than anything else.

Like I said, it's an argument, but a losing one.

It suggests a quibbe over 'natural' that ultimately isn't sustainable.

Now - if we could just prove the existence of aliens, ghosts and ghouls, or gods... we might have some kind of alternative that we could, maybe, argue as not 'natural'.

[Blouman Empire]

Humanity no longer occurs in nature, it occurs against nature.

Fail, it was an attack on people who say because homosexuality happens in nature it is perfectly alright.

What? I was responding to a comment that said that becuase sex happend in nature it was okay for the virus that is humanity to do it, but human sex does not occur in nature, only in humanity.

Yeah well I wanted a new tangent.

[Grave_n_idle]

"The crime is life, the sentence is death!"

Life is a congenital disease.

And love is a social disease.

Yeah. I went there.




*shame spiral*

[Niur]

"The crime is life, the sentence is death!"

Life is a congenital disease.

Human life.

[Grave_n_idle]

Humanity no longer occurs in nature, it occurs against nature.

Bullshit. Everything. In. Existence. Is. Natural.

I consider nature to be everything except humanity.

What if I'm not human? Can I then assist in said purge and enjoy the world all to myself?

I would need proof your not human. DNA, and explosives.

Can I take the word of Fred Phelps? He says gays aren't human.

Just another person trying to save the homosexuals from the purge.

How is humanity, which desended, evolved from, and ultimatly is intertwined with, nature, apart from nature?

Arbitrary desire.

[Niur]

"The crime is life, the sentence is death!"

Life is a congenital disease.

And love is a social disease.

Yeah. I went there.




*shame spiral*

Human love.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Because when you do everything in your power to destroy something, intentional or not, without doing everything in your power to destroy your self, you are no longer considered part of that thing you are tryng to destroy, but an enemy of it.

How does this make black holes unnatural? Besides, we could do FAR more than we are now to fuck up the environment. Also, your logic is extremely convoluted and it's quite hard for me to believe you're actually being serious. Are you sure you're not just trolling?

[Grave_n_idle]

"The crime is life, the sentence is death!"

Life is a congenital disease.

And love is a social disease.

Yeah. I went there.




*shame spiral*

Human love.

If I respond to this by calling it a load of shit... can I expect your response to be "human shit"?

[Niur]

Because when you do everything in your power to destroy something, intentional or not, without doing everything in your power to destroy your self, you are no longer considered part of that thing you are tryng to destroy, but an enemy of it.

How does this make black holes unnatural? Besides, we could do FAR more than we are now to fuck up the environment. Also, your logic is extremely convoluted and it's quite hard for me to believe you're actually being serious. Are you sure you're not just trolling?

No, just exeggrating my point of view. If I was actually trolling, my spelling would be much better than it is now.

[Niur]

"The crime is life, the sentence is death!"

Life is a congenital disease.

And love is a social disease.

Yeah. I went there.




*shame spiral*

Human love.

If I respond to this by calling it a load of non-human shit... can I expect your response to be "human shit"?

No.

[Allbeama]

I would say he is better than most people who hold positions unsupported by facts and evidence, in that he admits this is the case.

But I don't get how one can be okay with holding nonsense positions. It's like admitting that they don't care if what they think is actually true. How is that even possible?

Truly it is a mystery of life. I think he just wants to be contrary and obstinate.

[JJ Place]

Because when you do everything in your power to destroy something, intentional or not, without doing everything in your power to destroy your self, you are no longer considered part of that thing you are tryng to destroy, but an enemy of it.

How does this make black holes unnatural? Besides, we could do FAR more than we are now to fuck up the environment. Also, your logic is extremely convoluted and it's quite hard for me to believe you're actually being serious. Are you sure you're not just trolling?

No, just exeggrating my point of view. If I was actually trolling, my spelling would be much better than it is now.

Humanity, when you look at all the problems that have ever faced this Planet, is a relitivly lesser problem to the planet. We accually make atempts to clean up our mess, something no other problem on Earth has ever done for this planet. Also, humanity has atempted to destroy itself many-a-times, in many-a-places, in may-a-ways. You're completly sure you wanted humanity, and yourself, destroyed?

[Allbeama]

Nope.

So why don't they count?

Because when you do everything in your power to destroy something, intentional or not, without doing everything in your power to destroy your self, you are no longer considered part of that thing you are tryng to destroy, but an enemy of it.

It shows much arrogance to assume humans can feasibly destroy all of nature, especially considering that science suggests that if/when we destroy ourselves and most current life today on Earth, nature itself will still only have taken a barely perceivable scratch from what we have done. I mean to destroy all of nature would require a significant amount of influence. Unless we possess a technology capable of destroying the entire universe, that I am not aware of.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

It shows much arrogance to assume humans can feasibly destroy all of nature, especially considering that science suggest that when we destroy ourselves and most current life today, nature itself will still exist. I mean to destroy all of nature would require a significant amount of influence. Unless we possess a technology capable of destroying the entire universe, that I am not aware of.

Well according to his intentionally awkward definition of nature, nothing outside of Earth counts as natural.

[Allbeama]

It shows much arrogance to assume humans can feasibly destroy all of nature, especially considering that science suggest that when we destroy ourselves and most current life today, nature itself will still exist. I mean to destroy all of nature would require a significant amount of influence. Unless we possess a technology capable of destroying the entire universe, that I am not aware of.

Well according to his intentionally awkward definition of nature, nothing outside of Earth counts as natural.

That is simply retarded.

[Niur]

It shows much arrogance to assume humans can feasibly destroy all of nature, especially considering that science suggest that when we destroy ourselves and most current life today, nature itself will still exist. I mean to destroy all of nature would require a significant amount of influence. Unless we possess a technology capable of destroying the entire universe, that I am not aware of.

Well according to his intentionally awkward definition of nature, nothing outside of Earth counts as natural.

That is simply insane.

I don't deny it.

[Allbeama]

It shows much arrogance to assume humans can feasibly destroy all of nature, especially considering that science suggest that when we destroy ourselves and most current life today, nature itself will still exist. I mean to destroy all of nature would require a significant amount of influence. Unless we possess a technology capable of destroying the entire universe, that I am not aware of.

Well according to his intentionally awkward definition of nature, nothing outside of Earth counts as natural.

That is simply insane.

I don't deny it.

I suppose you are like Flameswroth then.

[Riaka]

"The crime is life, the sentence is death!"

Life is a congenital disease.

And love is a social disease.

Yeah. I went there.




*shame spiral*

Human love.

If I respond to this by calling it a load of non-human shit... can I expect your response to be "human shit"?

No.

I'm pretty sure that means, yes, he can.

[JJ Place]

Humanity no longer occurs in nature, it occurs against nature.

Bullshit. Everything. In. Existence. Is. Natural.

I consider nature to be everything except humanity.

What if I'm not human? Can I then assist in said purge and enjoy the world all to myself?

I would need proof your not human. DNA, and explosives.

Can I take the word of Fred Phelps? He says gays aren't human.

Just another person trying to save the homosexuals from the purge.

Phelps has no goodness in his body, or his soul.

[Flameswroth]

I think he's talking about it in terms of the actual belief, not the manner in which it is conveyed. That is to say, being 'pro-gay marriage' is the PC thing right now -- anyone openly against gay marriage is considered a bigot and a fiend who comes home crazier than usual and cuts up Heath Ledger's face.

Bigotry is essentially condemnation without rational justification. As we've seen on this thread, even with me giving them an open and honest chance, they still can't manage to form even a single logical reason that homosexuality and homosexual activities are wrong, and yet they still have a problem with gays. This fits my definition of bigotry. If they could rationally justify it, it wouldn't be bigotry. Thus condemnation of serial killers isn't bigotry.

That wasn't really my point. You did not see how your pro-SSM view is PC, since the manner in which you declare it is not PC (blunt, etc). I was simply responding that in today's society, pro-SSM in and of itself is the PC side of an argument, which may have been what he was driving at.

As for the other post, I'm not sure how "PC" can be used as a dismissive tactic for a given topic. Political correctness (adjectivally, politically correct; both forms commonly abbreviated to PC) is a term denoting language, ideas, policies, and behavior seen as seeking to minimize social offense in gender, racial, cultural, sexual orientation, handicap, and age-related contexts. (link). Surely it becomes obvious though that being pro-SSM is far more "PC" than anti-SSM, doesn't it? It's not a matter of whether "PC" is a good or bad thing, though I will concede that there are some that use "PC" in a derogatory manner.

[Whole Conviction]

That wasn't really my point. You did not see how your pro-SSM view is PC, since the manner in which you declare it is not PC (blunt, etc). I was simply responding that in today's society, pro-SSM in and of itself is the PC side of an argument, which may have been what he was driving at.

As for the other post, I'm not sure how "PC" can be used as a dismissive tactic for a given topic. Political correctness (adjectivally, politically correct; both forms commonly abbreviated to PC) is a term denoting language, ideas, policies, and behavior seen as seeking to minimize social offense in gender, racial, cultural, sexual orientation, handicap, and age-related contexts. (link). Surely it becomes obvious though that being pro-SSM is far more "PC" than anti-SSM, doesn't it? It's not a matter of whether "PC" is a good or bad thing, though I will concede that there are some that use "PC" in a derogatory manner.

In the context you were using it, it sure looked like a dismissive if not derogatory thing. I fail to see what your point was if it wasn't 'meh, it's all just PC.'

[Betapeg]

In my opinion, homosexuality is like smoking or drinking excessively, not so much a moral issue but a lifestyle issue. Homoseuality is an unhealthy lifestyle, they are more than 60 percent likely to contract aids and many other disease.

And where did you get these ridiculous stats? Your susceptibility to sexually transmitted diseases corresponds to your level of promiscuity and use of protection. Not sexual preference...