A Conservative Case for Gay Marriage - Promoting American Values

  • Thread starter Thread starter WinterBorn
  • Start date Start date
Yurt said:
uh....actually

humping and mounting are BOTH sexual and dominance behavior...sexual when hormones and dominant when not...

just because animals do something means its natural for humans? that was the argument SF made...which i think is weak. people point to homosexual behavior in animals, "nature" and proclaim it is normal/natural....then maybe we should eat our young as well....
Click to expand...

That was NOT my point. SM indicated that people CHOOSE to be gay and that it is not NATURAL. I pointed out that if it was indeed by CHOICE and not natural then WHY do OTHER species also engage in homosexual acts?

Also... do not confuse the issue. There is a difference between normal and natural. Homosexuality is not NORMAL because the vast majority are heterosexual. However, homosexuality IS natural. People do not CHOOSE to be gay.
 
Yurt said:
i do. if you read the CA case that spurred the prop 8 amendment, i think you would see that, legally, there is not much, if any, ground on which to deny same sex couples the right to marry.

http://login.findlaw.com/scripts/callaw?dest=ca/cal4th/43/757.html

i would be curious to get your opinion if you get the chance to read it...you're probably not home sick like me (boring as hell btw), so i don't expect you to wade through it anytime soon
Click to expand...

just in case you missed it...here's the link :)
 
Yurt said:
no...my point is: just because it happens in nature doesn't make it natural or normal
Click to expand...

I did not say it made it normal. But it most certainly is NATURAL.

nat·u·ral (nchr-l, nchrl)
adj.
1. Present in or produced by nature: a natural pearl.
2. Of, relating to, or concerning nature: a natural environment.
3. Conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature: a natural death.
 
Yurt said:
i understand....my point is simply that it is a weak argument to justify homosexual behavior by pointing out that animals engage in the same behavior....
Click to expand...

I DID NOT justify homosexual behavior with that statement. That statement refuted his point that it was unnatural.
 
Superfreak said:
I DID NOT justify homosexual behavior with that statement. That statement refuted his point that it was unnatural.
Click to expand...

then your statement was weak...i suggest you look up the definition of unnatural...saying something happens in nature does not in and of itself refute something is unnatural
 
Superfreak said:
I did not say it made it normal. But it most certainly is NATURAL.

nat·u·ral (nchr-l, nchrl)
adj.
1. Present in or produced by nature: a natural pearl.
2. Of, relating to, or concerning nature: a natural environment.
3. Conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature: a natural death.
Click to expand...

No source = plagiarism.

Plus your definitions prove that queer is not natural.
 
Southern Man said:
Awesome dude, the "if against queers, must be queer" nonsense argument. I win again. :yay:
Click to expand...

It makes as much sense as "you insulted me so I win!", and your comments about "if you will do that to a woman you are halfway to doing to a man" or the "men engage in anal sex because they have small dicks".

In fact, its makes more sense than the "I said homosexuality doesn't exist in nature, I never said anything about queer acts".
 
Southern Man said:
No source = plagiarism.

Plus your definitions prove that queer is not natural.
Click to expand...

If you are going to claim to win debates, you ought to stop lying or making up facts.

"1. Present in or produced by nature: a natural pearl."

That most certainly proves that homosexuality is natural. It is present in nature. Go back and read the link I posted.
 
Southern Man said:
Awesome dude, the "if against queers, must be queer" nonsense argument. I win again. :yay:
Click to expand...

No... but it is pretty telling that the only picture you saw in my last post was of the man ass, not the sexy woman's. It's also telling that you would even compare sex with a woman in the ass is close to sex with a man in the ass.

Also your focus on the sexual aspect of homosexuality being purely male on male, completely ignoring the whole other sect of homosexuals (lesbians).
 
CaptBillyTheKid said:
No... but it is pretty telling that the only picture you saw in my last post was of the man ass, not the sexy woman's. It's also telling that you would even compare sex with a woman in the ass is close to sex with a man in the ass.

Also your focus on the sexual aspect of homosexuality being purely male on male, completely ignoring the whole other sect of homosexuals (lesbians).
Click to expand...

Actually, the woman's picture didn't show up in my browser. I'm not sure why, but it may be because it was deemed pornographic by my filtering system. Just your photo turned up. :palm:

And, actually, it was my Haitian friend who made the statement that you are referring to. I assure you that he ain't gay, and neither one of us had "plowed" the dirt road.

Third, actually, lesbians are included in the terms "homosexuals" and "queers" that I typically use.
 
Yurt said:
false

jesus continually talked about the OT, nothing he says contradicts the OT
Click to expand...

Actually, just about everything he says contradicts it.

The OT is about fear, oppression, intolerance & superstition. The NT - at least the JC parts - are about love, tolerance & fearlessness.

They are diametrical opposites. I always find it amazing that they have been bunched together under one religion.
 
Onceler said:
Actually, just about everything he says contradicts it.

The OT is about fear, oppression, intolerance & superstition. The NT - at least the JC parts - are about love, tolerance & fearlessness.

They are diametrical opposites. I always find it amazing that they have been bunched together under one religion.
Click to expand...

You are obviously ignorant of both the Old And New Testaments.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top