Reply With Quote
Stop posting.
So I'm a bible thumper because I used natural as it relates to humans and genetics as a way to direct my opinions?
Stop posting.
Not if he's naturally impotent.
why are you requiring humans to contribute to the gene pool before they can get married? Is there a real possibility that our species will die out?http://www.coastlearn.org/biodiversi...eneticdiv.html
If a man engages in a relationship with the same sex, he doesn't get to contribute any genetic diversity to the human gene pool.
"He's been taken in by the colloquial use of the term "natural" as it's used by bible thumpers, rednecks, and phobes."
So I'm a bible thumper because I used natural as it relates to humans and genetics as a way to direct my opinions?
And if he was accurate by definition which he isn't it still wouldn't matter.
Nowhere is it defined that humans sexuality be contingent on reproduction. Its a byproduct not an absolute. By the shear existence of sexuality it answers for itself that it has a place in society. Even the thumpers cannot deny that if God made everything he/she/it also made sexuals. They love dancing around that.
If the ability to procreate was the only defining variable for equality and equal peer treatment then why isn't he discriminating against people with impotence or baron women? Hermaphrodites and all asexual species?
There is no code book for man. Sexuality doesn't define the value of a human being. There's is no excuse for discrimination and intolerance. No excuse.
dumbest med student ever
Like a puzzleYou're right. But you're wrong in bringing up physiology, since I wasn't arguing on that sub-topic of human biology. Sure I could have argued that genetics drives the anatomical formation of a penis, as does the formation of a vagina. I could have argued that both organs connect like two pieces in a puzzle anatomically, and further subsequent physiological factors offer the ability to conceive. These are things we all know.
If you didn't understand my usage of genetics in this topic already, I feel really sorry for you man.
Why have you determined that to be a "natural" order?The order in which another human being is conceived and simultaneously given a genetic make-up of it's own.
how does one look like a queefer? real question.
Not until you're run from the board. Then I might take another break.
Last edited by BacktoBasics; 07-06-2012 at 01:42 PM.
"One fundamental premise in social debates has been that sexuality is unnatural. This premise is wrong. sexuality is both common and highly essential in the lives of a number of species,"
http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx
Yes. Because it means your apology only applies on the condition that we were offended by what you said.
"If I offended you, I apologize" implies that if you didn't offend us, you don't apologize.
OMFG semantics
I have also made it clear on how I'm using natural in this context. Only everyone chooses to continue to believe it's incoherent and inconsistent.
Way to twist those words in there. You do a good job.So, then, you have sex with women because you love women. The people you love determines the type of sex that you have. Your attraction to women is not, then, a choice you made based on the desire to be a parent.
If you're attempting to build an argument around a particular term -- in this case that sexuality is unnatural -- then, yes, you need to have a definition of that term that is clear and concrete. It is impossible to figure out what you mean by "natural" because the way you have used the term has been unclear and inconsistent.
Have I not made it clear what I mean by natural?
So I get to call everyone out at this moment, including yourself? You guys seem to continue to want to engage in a discussion with me regarding how I'm using natural in this context. I've already stated how it's being used, let's proceed.Okay. And we get to call you out for doing so.
The classic argument I was waiting for someone to give me.It's phobia to dislike and/or be bothered by gay people and their assumed behaviors/activities for no reason other than its difference. It's phobia to be as preoccupied as you clearly are with what gay people do in the bedroom. Further, it is also phobia to jump through such extensive hoops as you have in order to manufacture a medical/biological argument against sexuality in order to justify your personal discomfort.
:::I look for reasons in medicine/biology to argue against sexuality:::
:::I do these things because I find it discomforting of sexuality, since I'm questioning why I'm so discomforted it makes me a bigot, supremacist, and phove:::
Like I alluded to before, this is an all or none thing to you people.
You keep twisting my words to your personal preference. Quit reaching.You can't proclaim you were born a heterosexual when trying to argue that you made a conscious choice to be attracted to women.
No. If one willingly engages in a sexual activity they are gay. This doesn't apply to cases like rape, for example.Not always. There are plenty of sexuals who deny their own attractions and who therefore do not participate in " sexual activity." There are also plenty of people who engage in " sexual activity" (which I assume based on your previous posts you're defining in terms of sex acts) but who aren't gay. I'm thinking prisons and porn here, for example.
Candyman Candyman Semantics
BOO!
Triggered Failure's appeal to Nature is a logical fallacy, anyhow. Wikipedia:
"An appeal to nature is considered to have committed a logical fallacy in stating that something is good or right because it is natural, or that something is bad or wrong because it is unnatural or artificial; This is a fallacy of relevance in that the natural origins of a phenomenon are presumed irrelevant to their desirability, and possibly an informal fallacy if it states that because some natural things are good, therefore all natural things are good. In this type of informal fallacy,[7] nature implies an ideal or desired state of being,[8] a state of how things were, or how they should be: in this sense an appeal to nature may resemble an appeal to tradition."
Second it is actually, like ^ says, an appeal to tradition in almost every way. The majority of humans traditionally practice hetero sex, therefore hetero sex must be natural.
No its just wrong. You do not get to redefine a word to win an argument or worse to avoid looking like a bigot.
Yes and its wrong.
Not context. You are using the word incorrectly.
We aren't twisting your words we are providing you with the proper definitions of the words you misuse. The only one reaching is the guy who can't figure out the proper definitions of the words he uses. Do you know who that guy is? Its you.
And wouldn't a queefer necessarily be a woman, rather than a gay male?
This isn't relevant to how the word natural was used.
people opposing my opinion will read what you provided and automatically say because it's not unnatural, sexuality in nature is therefore natural.
I would agree that sexuality exists in nature, and is therefore natural in mother nature...other species in addition to ours engages in sexual behavior. But in terms of how humans conceive and procreate it deviates from the natural order of things.
hey, the life coach gave me a nickname!
and this applies to women nowadays.....what now?
You always rely on this type of man.
Humans having sex solely for the purpose of reproduction is a concept that also deviates from the natural order of things.This isn't relevant to how the word natural was used.
I would agree that sexuality exists in nature, and is therefore natural in mother nature...other species in addition to ours engages in sexual behavior. But in terms of how humans conceive and procreate it deviates from the natural order of things.
Can you elaborate on what you mean?
There is no end to your stupidity. Its not a matter of its relevance to your misuse of the word. Its relevant to its actual definition. The one everyone recognizes but you.
Your incessant need to misuse and misrepresent "natural" only serves to make you look more and more foolish the longer you carry on.
You're wrong. About 10 people in a few different ways have tried to clue you in to the fact that you're wrong but you refuse to comprehend it.
This is why no one here is interested in engaging in a real debate with you. Who's going to argue with the who redefines words to make a point?
You're not even abandoning rationality so much as you're abandoning actual defined words. You are officially the dumbest person this board has ever seen.
...and I don't throw that out lightly.
Did you even read it? Do you know what it means? Explain it to us? I want to know what you think his post means.You always rely on this type of man.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
