Homosexuality Facts

[MishMish]

YT2095 said in post # :

"But I do not like evasive arguments "

 

I think I can hardly be accused of being "Evasive"! LOL

 

if you`de have read, the common denominator in most of my argument has been that of un-naturalness(sp)

but other argue that it IS natural, I then point out OTHER things that occur naturaly that we consider wrong, and all of a sudden eveyone jumps on the YT bandwaggon?

now, make you point a little more READ of the previous post, then we`ll chat

 

Yes it is evasive if you deny you have been discussing morality

 

And no am not convinced by your argument why you are now adopting the not everything matural is appropriate line.

 

You have your conclusion already, and are using the evidence one way first (that it is not natural) then when it is pointed out that it is natural you switch to the not everything natural is appropriate line.

 

Maybe evasive does not describe that last, but is shifty. Is not good form, at a minimum, and does not address what your real concern or basis may be but is, best I can tell, simply trying to find some argument, any argument, to support your preformed conclusion

[Sayonara]

MishMish said in post # :

Sayonara, I do not know the names of the different fallacies, I just know that appeal to what the majority believes is one. If YT were arguing that slavery is wrong, assuming we were living in a slave society, and you were to say he is out of touch with societal norms my response would be so what, YT is right. Your assumption is that society is not biased. In the specific case of homosexuality you may be correct, but does not make your argument correct. What is needed, from both of you, is some objective or outside standard which can be applied to judge the question.

I see what you mean now.

 

I agree that there is potential for bias in either direction. The problem I have is that his conclusions regarding so many facets of homosexuality are so flawed, that I do not think it is right or fitting to publically purvey them as 'fact'. Perhaps this causes me to over-suscribe to the opposite position, but if it does it's the least of the reasons and, imho, no bad thing.

[YT2095]

if you see attacking a problem from both sides as evasive, then you`ve just succesfully redefined the word.

 

I state from the outset that is unnatutal agreed?

 

they say it IS Natural agreed?

 

I say, then OK, if it`s "Natural" here`s some "Natural" things that occur, does that make it ok also?

 

 

I fail to see anything from you other than a lack of debating skills, and pehaps a reasonably open mind (a good thing).

 

 

NEXT....

[atinymonkey]

Who, where?

 

 

 

 

 

 

What?

[Sayonara]

YT2095 said in post # :

if you see attacking a problem from both sides as evasive, then you`ve just succesfully redefined the word.

 

I state from the outset that is unnatutal agreed?

 

they say it IS Natural agreed?

 

I say, then OK, if it`s "Natural" here`s some "Natural" things that occur, does that make it ok also?

 

 

I fail to see anything from you other than a lack of debating skills, and pehaps a reasonably open mind (a good thing).

 

 

NEXT....

 

WTF? He makes more cohesive arguments than you have in this thread.

 

I think by now "writhing" is a better word than "evading".

 

YT said in his previous post:

if you`de have read, the common denominator in most of my argument has been that of un-naturalness

[JaKiri]

YT2095 said in post # :

Slavery is wrong!

 

 

now I`ll just sit back and wait for the hordes to attack me for saying that too!

 

So what you're saying is that people who oppose restrictions on homosexuality support slavery?

[YT2095]

LOL @ sayo, writhing??? in what dude, homophilic propaganda?

 

mrl said "So what you're saying is that people who oppose restrictions on homosexuality support slavery? "

 

well you tell me? is that I`m saying? you seem to presume everything else by your own meanings as and when it suits you

 

to anyone else interested hoverever, I clearly and plainly stated that slavery is wrong, nothing more, nothing less.

[Sayonara]

YT2095 said in post # :

LOL @ sayo, writhing??? in what dude, homophilic propaganda?

No dude, in a confused argument.

 

You could do with consolidating it all with clearer terms of reference. It seems to be generally agreed that sexual acts are out of scope, the same can probably be said for morality.

[JaKiri]

YT2095 said in post # :

to anyone else interested hoverever, I clearly and plainly stated that slavery is wrong, nothing more, nothing less.

 

Perhaps you're failing to read your own posts, or did I imagine a second sentence in the one I quoted, one that supports my inference?

[YT2095]

Sayonara³ said in post # :

It seems to be generally agreed that sexual acts are out of scope, the same can probably be said for morality.

 

there`s that word "Morality" again? where do you get this from???

 

I don`t think I`ve even once mentioned it outside a quote from you?

[Sayonara]

YT2095 said in post # :

there`s that word "Morality" again? where do you get this from???

 

I don`t think I`ve even once mentioned it outside a quote from you?

 

See reply #95.

 

In any case, I was describing the change in the scope of the discussion in general - and others have certainly discussed morality. Not everything is about you, y'know?

[JaKiri]

YT2095 said in post # :

 

there`s that word "Morality" again? where do you get this from???

 

I don`t think I`ve even once mentioned it outside a quote from you?

 

How can a discussion of the rights of homosexuals to practice (or similar) NOT BE ABOUT MORALITY?

[Sayonara]

MrL_JaKiri said in post # :

How can a discussion of the RIGHTS of homosexuals to practice (or similar) NOT BE ABOUT MORALITY?

 

Before anyone gets excited, note the key word in there.

[JaKiri]

Sayonara³ said in post # :

Before anyone gets excited, note the key word in there.

 

Brucey Bonus!

[TheCorinthian]

If the people who wrote the Bible are so smart, how come they're dead?

 

Sorry, I might be damaging the argument a bit here.

[rockstarjaiden]

yeah i think you are. homosexuality has nothing to do with moralities... or religion... in fact in religion... homosexuality is... in the christian world... seems like it's almost forbidden. it's like you're... a spawn of satan if you like your own sex. it's a chemical imbalance in the brain is all...

[rockstarjaiden]

and going back to homosexuality being caused by rape and child molestation.... http://www.truthwalk.com says, "Sociologists tell us that there are major commonalities in the background of those who say that they struggle with homosexual attraction. The most common experience is physical or sexual abuse. The second most common is a physically or emotionally absent father, which makes it difficult for a boy to secure his own masculinity. One of these factors is almost always present for a male struggling with homosexuality."

 

http://web.ask.com/redir?bpg=http%3a%2f%2fweb.ask.com%2fweb%3fq%3dwhat%2bcauses%2bhomosexuality%253f%26o%3d0%26page%3d1&q=what+causes+homosexuality%3f&u=http%3a%2f%2ftm.wc.ask.com%2fr%3ft%3dan%26s%3da%26uid%3d24244041842440418%26sid%3d34244041842440418%26qid%3d808A6406BD0F874D9B109F2CAFF73D26%26io%3d2%26sv%3dza5cb0de9%26o%3d0%26ask%3dwhat%2bcauses%2bhomosexuality%253f%26uip%3d42440418%26en%3dte%26eo%3d-100%26pt%3dWhat%2bcauses%2bhomosexuality%253f%26ac%3d7%26qs%3d0%26pg%3d1%26ep%3d1%26te_par%3d194%26te_id%3d%26u%3dhttp%3a%2f%2fwww.truthwalk.com%2fQ%2520and%2520A%2fhomosexualcauses.html&s=a&bu=http%3a%2f%2fwww.truthwalk.com%2fQ%2520and%2520A%2fhomosexualcauses.html&qte=0&o=0

[fafalone]

"Sociologists tell us..." Hows about "Data presented in <reputable journal> shows that ... <citations>"

[MishMish]

YT2095 said in post # :

if you see attacking a problem from both sides as evasive, then you`ve just succesfully redefined the word.

 

I state from the outset that is unnatutal agreed?

 

they say it IS Natural agreed?

 

I say, then OK, if it`s "Natural" here`s some "Natural" things that occur, does that make it ok also?

 

 

I fail to see anything from you other than a lack of debating skills, and pehaps a reasonably open mind (a good thing).

 

 

NEXT....

 

How I see it, you attempted to find some outside standard for your argument, that it is not natural. And then demonstrated, quite convincingly if unwittingly, that the standard you had chosen does not correlate to your notion of what is right or wrong.

 

Whether it is natural or not has no bearing on the argument, and you have yet to set out what the real basis for your position is. The closest I saw was back in the other thread when you said something about the Church establishing marriage. That sort of caught my eye, wondered about all those people who somehow managed to get married through various institutions without the benefit of Christianity, but chose to not pursue it at the time.

 

As for my debating skills, have not claimed any. I never took logic or debate or critical thinking, and my outside efforts to teach myself logic did not get me far. But I have fairly recently turned my attention to spotting fallacies and elevated examining underlying assumptions to model status. Being unable to in real time has caused me problems. I mostly practice on debates between others still, however, which I realize is a bit unfair and makes me something of a nuisance at times.

 

And on that note, MrL, would say your charge against YT re homosexuality and slavery is also unfair.

 

And so back to the topic, problem here being am no longer sure what that is.

 

If this is a discussion of legal rights, based on being a continuation of the previous thread, we run into a problem of different systems. If it is a question of what legal rights should be, we are discussing ethics.

 

And far as I'm concerned, rights should only be restricted when exercising those rights causes harm to others.

[JaKiri]

MishMish said in post # :

And on that note, MrL, would say your charge against YT re homosexuality and slavery is also unfair.

 

I don't see any other way to interpret 'Slavery is wrong! I'll expect you'll jump all over me on that too!!!!' without assuming the parallel between (at least in his eyes) slavery and homosexuality.

[JaKiri]

rockstarjaiden said in post # :

yeah i think you are. homosexuality has nothing to do with moralities... or religion... in fact in religion... homosexuality is... in the christian world... seems like it's almost forbidden. it's like you're... a spawn of satan if you like your own sex. it's a chemical imbalance in the brain is all...

 

Whut?

[Sayonara]

MrL_JaKiri said in post # :

I don't see any other way to interpret 'Slavery is wrong! I'll expect you'll jump all over me on that too!!!!' without assuming the parallel between (at least in his eyes) slavery and homosexuality.

I think what YT meant with the slavery post was that he expected everyone to jump on him for saying slavery is wrong - when it's clearly a good moral position - just because they were all on the "YT stomping bandwagon".

 

Of course, since people were bashing his (still unqualified imho) opinions and not YT himself, the logic doesn't hold. It's the anti-homophobia bandwagon, not the "YT and anything he says" bandwagon.

[Glider]

It's the disadvantage of arguing a point based only on a 'feeling of rightness'. Arguments presented under those circumstances will always be attempts to rationalise a stance, rather than evidence in support of it. One becomes emotionally attached to the argument, as it is based on a personal emotional response (in effect, the argument becomes an extension of one's self), and therefore, very defensive of it.

[Dudde]

alright ladies, stop the flame war and get back on topic before yer all banned!!

 

shiver me timbers, y'all act like a buncha vagabonds

 

I don't know anybody who is unnaturally gay, most of the people I know attracted to the same sex are quite natural to me.

 

I would like YT to scientifically explain why they aren't natural, or not make another "gays are bad" comment

 

 

/serious about the flame war

[MishMish]

MrL_JaKiri said in post # :

 

I don't see any other way to interpret 'Slavery is wrong! I'll expect you'll jump all over me on that too!!!!' without assuming the parallel between (at least in his eyes) slavery and homosexuality.

 

I had introduced slavery as an analogy for society being biased, and YT picked up on it as a joke of sorts, that since he's being assailed for his position it is he, not his position, being criticized

 

Since I had introduced it, felt particularly obligated to step back in to point out how things fell