cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
I do not mod this section. In my own, I remove posts for being offensive andor an assault. I don't restrict folks' inalienable right to reveal their stupidity. That would be a truly thankless task. cn
Pope Francis Admits That A 'Gay Lobby' Influences The Vatican
- Thread starter SHOTGUN420
- Start date
I do not mod this section. In my own, I remove posts for being offensive andor an assault. I don't restrict folks' inalienable right to reveal their stupidity. That would be a truly thankless task. cn
NietzscheKeen
Well-Known Member
I will try, but will you first define "natural" for me; just to make sure we are on the same page.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Does the fact that it's been naturally selected to have a significant, stable minority expression in humans since earliest history (and almost certainly before) do? From a biologist's standpoint, that argues not only for "natural" but even more strongly: "conveys a survival benefit". The "unnatural" overlay comes entirely from those who would have you believe that a horribly-edited book is a) unnatural, and b) good nonetheless. Now there is a mind-boggler if I ever saw one. cn
SHOTGUN420
Active Member
You know what I think is natural.
A male and a Female. 2 men together cannot make a baby. The same for 2 women. Its not possible for them to have kids themselves without science , modification or third party .
A male and a Female. 2 men together cannot make a baby. The same for 2 women. Its not possible for them to have kids themselves without science , modification or third party .
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
That requires as a premise the broken argument that sex is strictly for procreation. No modern biologist will hear that without loling messily. That idea comes from the evil fools in black robes. cn
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
You need to shift in your chair. cn
SHOTGUN420
Active Member
I wasn't gonna respond but you like putting words in my mouth. I never said sex is just for procreation. In fact love fucking my wife whenever not just baby making.
I just pointed out a fact 2 people of the same sex cannot create life alone and you came back with nonsense.
Show me 2 people of the same sex who have had a baby without any help from the outside or technology. It's not natural.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
making a baby = procreation, so yes you did. Here is the post in question, should there be any doubt ... rendered verbatim, to protect against edits. cn
SHOTGUN420
Active Member
I think you misread it I like fucking my wife whenever NOT JUST FOR BABY MAKING. Maybe that was just a sad attempt at trolling?
I stand by what I said 2 people of the same sex cannot make a child alone. It's truth. It's unnatural. How can you dispute that?
I stand by what I said 2 people of the same sex cannot make a child alone. It's truth. It's unnatural. How can you dispute that?
NietzscheKeen
Well-Known Member
Kids are thought in grade school in some places about sexuality. It's always in the news....
Plus I'm sure little johnny or jane is going to wonder and ask why he or she has 2 daddys or 2 mommies and not a mommy and daddy like other kids.
Can you prove to me its natural.
You know what I think is natural.
A male and a Female. 2 men together cannot make a baby. The same for 2 women. Its not possible for them to have kids themselves without science , modification or third party .
I see you've given me the burden of proof here.
As for your definition, fair enough; I just didn't want to be uncharitable or for us to wind up debating two different things.
Yes, children are taught ABOUT sexuality in school. There is no point in debating this statement since we agree.
I'm sure Johnny or Jane will notice that they have two fathers or two mothers or two mothers and a father or two mothers and two father ad infinitum, but the answer to "why" will be the same for Johnny as it will be for Jack whom has one mother and one father; they love each other.
... I never said sex is just for procreation. In fact love fucking my wife whenever not just baby making. I just pointed out a fact 2 people of the same sex cannot create life alone and you came back with nonsense. So me 2 people of the same sex who have had a baby without any help from the outside or technology. It's not natural.
I'm a little confused, so maybe you can clarify your stance for me.
Sex is not only for procreation. Sex without the intention of having a child is normal/natural?
Plus I'm sure little johnny or jane is going to wonder and ask why he or she has 2 daddys or 2 mommies and not a mommy and daddy like other kids.
Can you prove to me its natural.
You know what I think is natural.
A male and a Female. 2 men together cannot make a baby. The same for 2 women. Its not possible for them to have kids themselves without science , modification or third party .
I see you've given me the burden of proof here.
As for your definition, fair enough; I just didn't want to be uncharitable or for us to wind up debating two different things.
Yes, children are taught ABOUT sexuality in school. There is no point in debating this statement since we agree.
I'm sure Johnny or Jane will notice that they have two fathers or two mothers or two mothers and a father or two mothers and two father ad infinitum, but the answer to "why" will be the same for Johnny as it will be for Jack whom has one mother and one father; they love each other.
... I never said sex is just for procreation. In fact love fucking my wife whenever not just baby making. I just pointed out a fact 2 people of the same sex cannot create life alone and you came back with nonsense. So me 2 people of the same sex who have had a baby without any help from the outside or technology. It's not natural.
I'm a little confused, so maybe you can clarify your stance for me.
Sex is not only for procreation. Sex without the intention of having a child is normal/natural?
NietzscheKeen
Well-Known Member
I think you may have misunderstood him Cannabineer. I don't recall him saying that sex if only for procreation and even if he did, he is allowed to change his stance within the parameters of this debate.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
kpmarine
Well-Known Member
So what does it being "natural" benefit? My two front teeth are prosthetic. I know a few guys with prosthetic limbs too. These people wouldn't be able to walk without science, modification, or a third party. What about people who are infertile? They can't have children on their own either. You know what's really not natural? Leaving your kids in a foster home.
I would like to pose a couple situations to you. Of these two situations; which do you think is more likely to be the better option, and why?
Situation #1: Little Sally is placed in the foster system at birth and never adopted. Due to this, she receives very little guidance and lives with the constant frustration of not having a stable household. She spends her entire childhood feeling like nobody wants her.
Situation #2: Little Sally is placed in foster care at the same age as #1. However, a gay couple adopts her and provides her with a stable, loving, and affectionate upbringing; coupled with a good moral grounding. She spends her childhood being loved and wanted by a couple that cares about her.
kpmarine
Well-Known Member
So would you be opposed to an infertile straight couple adopting? They also cannot have a child through means that are "natural".
NietzscheKeen
Well-Known Member
I think a distinction needs to be made between "natural" and "normal". The language we are using can be a bit ambiguous. I foresee a great deal of equivocation, whether intentional or not, in the near future.
Normal:
conforming to the standard
Natural:
existing in or formed by nature ( opposed to artificial )
Do we agree upon these terms?
Normal:
conforming to the standard
Natural:
existing in or formed by nature ( opposed to artificial )
Do we agree upon these terms?
kpmarine
Well-Known Member
Part of Shotgun's argument seemed to be that because a gay couple cannot conceive through "natural" means (i.e. intercourse), he is opposed to the idea of them adopting. I think that was what Neer was addressing.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Well if you're a admitting a non-procreative role for sex, your argument self-destructs, no? cn
SHOTGUN420
Active Member
Yes sex without the intent of procreation is natural . He bought a whole different thing into the subject. That's why I said I was going to debate with you and ignore most of them. You know how it is we couldn't even have a small group to have debates and disagreements without the name calling and word twisting.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
"Unnatural" in this context generally means "wrong", and that becomes a moral argument.
S420 admitted a non-procreative role for sex, so that guts his "unnatural" argument imo. Both men and women are wired to get full physical and emotional pleasure from homosex, so trying to extend the "unnatural" argument away from procreation doesn't work either.
So i cannot find any non-doctrinal argument that homosex isn't natural. Nature itself saw to it that it stays in our gene pool, even though it shouldn't propagate by the simplistic premise that only heterosexuals breed. cn
