Now playing on dirty.radio: Loading...

  Dirty Forums > world.

Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 06-30-2009, 05:18 PM
Sean
Where in the world...?
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: US
Posts: 1,437
Re: is there anyone else who is pro-life AND pro-gay rights, or is it just me?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deckard View Post
Stimpee: I actually kind of appreciated the point you were trying to make re. the fish. If we take sanctity out of the equation, awareness of self and awareness of suffering are very good barometers for what some of us view as morally right or wrong. (I fully recognize that means I'm probably living unethically if not hypocritically in some ways, but I accept that is an inconsistency on my part between my own ideals/ethics and how close I choose to stick to them).
It's tough being omnivores who have evolved such a heightened aptitude for empathy. I think that's one of the reasons that we as a species still rely so heavily on religious concepts to get by in life - religion allows us to view ourselves as special, even superior to other species. The pain a cow, or a chicken, or even a fish feels isn't a major consideration as we eat a steak, pork chop, or fish n' chips because those animals weren't made in "God's image" like we were. So if you remove the conceit of religious beliefs from the equation, the fish comparison actually does become relevant. What life is worth valuing? If we're willing to be so flippant about the lives of the animals we eat and use for clothing and such, then why is a cluster of cells that hasn't even begun to resemble a human being yet held as so sacred?

Please keep in mind that I'm a meat-eating atheist, so I'm not trying to advocate a vegan diet or anything here. I'm personally at peace with the fact that humans are simply a link in a food chain, and that a portion of our diet requires the nutrients we can get from meat. And I generally place the preservation of human life above other animals simply because I am a human, and the survival of all species depends on self-preservation. I'm just interested in the contradictions we face at this point in our species' evolution, and it's undeniable that as we learn more about the planet we live on and the space around us, we're forced to re-examine many of our long-held beliefs that have been shaped largely by religious dogma. Which, incidentally, leads quite nicely into the other half of this thread's subject that's been passed over so far - gay rights.

Aside from religiously-based views of homosexuality, what's the problem with affording all the same rights to gays that straight people enjoy? As I've said before, the whole concept of marriage being between a man and a woman made far more sense in the past when procreation was a necessity for survival - families needing more hands to tend the fields, do the chores and such. But at this point in our history, marriage has simply become a public declaration and celebration of our commitment to the person we've chosen to share our lives with. And along with it has come a set of rights that respect that commitment, and make it easier to get through difficult situations as a couple. Or how about children? How do those who oppose gay adoption justify the consequences of that position? Why would they rather see a child denied a loving home at all than see them raised by a loving gay couple?

If we as a species are capable of empathy that extends all the way to an unformed cluster of cells in the womb, then why is it so hard to extend the same empathy to a fully matured man who finds themselves physically and emotionally attracted to other men, or a woman attracted to other women? What is the actual threat that justifies a law called "The Defense of Marriage Act"? It even amazes me that a name like that has been assigned to it....the DEFENSE of marriage...as if there were a bunch of gay people with torches and pitchforks coming to burn down marriage with their gayness or something.

I believe it's time that we as a species thought a little more. We're capable of it, but we're lazy. Instead of applying critical thought, we use religious dogma and "tradition" as a crutch. Or we allow politics to trump knowledge, as in the case of the 212 House Representatives that opposed the Waxman-Markey climate-change bill the other day, defending their positions with statements such as saying climate change is a “hoax...perpetrated out of the scientific community” - a declaration that was actually met with applause. But religion and tradition says that gays are bad, so they don't get the same rights as the rest of us. And religion says human life is sacred, so abortion must be banned (although we'll kill the doctors who perform them). It's extremely disheartening, and we're not going to survive as a species if we don't start thinking better.

Okay, I'm just rambling now, but I did try to keep it somewhat on topic....
__________________
Download all my remixes

Last edited by Sean; 06-30-2009 at 05:24 PM.
  #102  
Old 06-30-2009, 07:28 PM
bryantm3
It's Written In The Book!
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: alpharetta
Posts: 1,101
Re: is there anyone else who is pro-life AND pro-gay rights, or is it just me?
Quote:
Originally Posted by stimpee View Post

There will always be abortions. Making it illegal will just mean more women die in the process. Nobody wants to have an abortion. Nobody wakes up in the morning, thinking 'I hope I get pregnant so I can have an abortion.' This is why contraception exists. I don't know of any person who thinks abortion is an easy solution. Why would anyone want to go through the pain, humiliation, and emotional stress of having an abortion if they could prevent it? Contraception isnt 100%.
practically, in the way i spelled it out, abortion would only be illegal in the states that wish to make it illegal, while some basic abortion rights would be defined for every state. no one in this entire thread has once addressed the issue of practicality in a state-by-state situation, even though i have addressed it many times. instead, all i'm getting is an emotionally-based argument about how abortions and pregnancies are complicated. yes, they are complicated. i realize this. but i have not once propounded that all abortions should be made illegal. i think there should be abortion disincentives, such as abortions being illegal in certain states, however, if a woman really wishes to have an abortion, it is possible, but inconvenient.

Quote:
The bible says that abortion is wrong. What gives the church the right to dictate to government its "moral" values? What happened to separaton of church and state? God shouldn't have any say in the matter because not everybody believes in his existence.
have you read the bible recently? abortion is never mentioned in the bible at all; however, there is a mention of a woman in the old testament who eats her own child. this is not about separation of church and state. your argument is full of holes. what if i argued that because murder is forbidden in the bible, the government cannot dictate that murder is illegal because of the separation of church and state? it's not a religious issue, it's an issue of basic inalieable rights that every human being has.


Quote:
Until a foetus can survive outside the mother's body, it is not a human being and should not enjoy the same rights as the mother does. Until that point, if you ask, who has the right to live, the woman or the foetus? It should be the woman, every time.
this isn't a proven scientific fact, this is your opinion. and secondly, it isn't that cut-and-dry, the independence of the baby depends on how old it is. at 24 weeks, a baby can live in an incubator, at 37 weeks a baby can live with constant attention by the mother such as breastfeeding, etc. at 18 months after birth a child requires less attention, but still needs help eating, and so on. a child cannot be independent until he or she is about 10 years old.

Quote:
I wish pro-lifers would put their energy and convictions into bettering education and the availability of contraception. Prevent the problem instead of rabidly opposing one of its solutions. Nobody is trying to make them do something they don't want to do. They should extend that courtesy to others who don't share their beliefs.
i AM for increasing availability of contraception. has anyone here read this thread? it seems that all the pro-choicers here are giving a generic argument against the generic pro-lifer without actually conversing with me or taking any of my opinions seriously. i find it extremely comedic that y'all are so upset with isilirunite for not reading your arguments thoroughly and not considering everything you have to say when that is -exactly- what you're doing to my argument. instead of considering what i have to say, the same old generic pro-choice argument points are thrown out and none of the new things i have introduced in this discussion have even been considered.

Quote:
I'm spent with this thread. If you want to carry on imposing your religious values on people I dont want to hear about it.

over and out.
i'll make sure to send you a free gideons' bible when i start fining people for lack of religious texts in their vehicles.
  #103  
Old 06-30-2009, 09:09 PM
myrrh
a small-minded madman
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: minneapolis
Posts: 248
Re: is there anyone else who is pro-life AND pro-gay rights, or is it just me?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean View Post
It's tough being omnivores who have evolved such a heightened aptitude for empathy. I think that's one of the reasons that we as a species still rely so heavily on religious concepts to get by in life - religion allows us to view ourselves as special, even superior to other species. The pain a cow, or a chicken, or even a fish feels isn't a major consideration as we eat a steak, pork chop, or fish n' chips because those animals weren't made in "God's image" like we were. So if you remove the conceit of religious beliefs from the equation, the fish comparison actually does become relevant. What life is worth valuing? If we're willing to be so flippant about the lives of the animals we eat and use for clothing and such, then why is a cluster of cells that hasn't even begun to resemble a human being yet held as so sacred?
Well, your point is only really relevant in accordance to Christianity, which views that Man was created in "God's image". Most other religions, don't have that concept.

However, the fact is that we, as humans, are superior to the rest of the animals. And this is because we have the ability to choose and think out our actions. We don't just go on instinct like the animals do. This makes us vastly different than the animals. When a lion is hungry, it is going to go hunt and kill some other animal to satisfy it's hunger. When we are hungry, we can choose to wait awhile before eating, or not even eat at all.

This is why the fish thing doesn't hold water for me. However, an interesting thing could be said that because people like you (no offense, here) hold this opinion, it actually allows humans to act like animals. After all, if we evolved from animals, then there is justification for us acting like them. And this is where the whole marriage thing comes into play. Marriage is yet another thing that separates us from the animals. If you come out of the club at the end of the night and see the dogs running around, you will see them all chasing down that one female dog. Then they get, and do their thing, and away she goes. How is this not different then a lot of human behavior, especially in modern times? Seriously, think about it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean View Post
Aside from religiously-based views of homosexuality, what's the problem with affording all the same rights to gays that straight people enjoy? As I've said before, the whole concept of marriage being between a man and a woman made far more sense in the past when procreation was a necessity for survival - families needing more hands to tend the fields, do the chores and such. But at this point in our history, marriage has simply become a public declaration and celebration of our commitment to the person we've chosen to share our lives with.
I may have used to agree with you here, but I don't anymore. This is because I have been doing a lot of research about older civilizations, and to be honest, I don't think that they were much different then us today. Sure we may have cars and phones etc, and they had horses and donkeys and message boys, but aside from the material way of living, we are the same. If you look into the way past civilizations developed, they are the same as us. At a certain point in Roman history, procreation was now longer a necessity for survival. Then came the Islamic Empire, then came the Renaissance. Once a culture moves from a total farming life to a city based life, then it is no longer needed to procreate for survival's sake. We, at least in the Western world, are at this point again. However, this could change in a heartbeat, like it did when WWII happened. And that was just sixty years ago.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean View Post
how about children? How do those who oppose gay adoption justify the consequences of that position? Why would they rather see a child denied a loving home at all than see them raised by a loving gay couple?
To be honest, this is just a personal moral issue. There is really nothing to say that a gay couple CAN'T raise a child, and give him or her a loving home etc. However, from my point of view, a person is not born as a homosexual. People may be born with desires that are of a person of the same sex, and in the case of a homosexual, he or she is choosing to act on those desires. In my system of morals, to act upon these desires is a huge sin. This is because by acting upon such desires goes completely against the natural disposition of man.

Because of the above, I can never say that it would be 'okay' for a gay couple to adopt or raise a child. Once again, it is not because they are incapable of it - I personally know a Lesbian couple who raised a girl who is 21 now and she is, in a general sense, perfectly normal. It is simply because I could not put a child into a situation that I consider to be morally wrong. To me it is similar to giving a child to an alcoholic (who is of the non-violent type). The alcoholic could be perfectly capable of providing a loving and caring home, however most people would object to giving a child to him or her. Why? Because most people think that it is wrong to expose a child to that type of behavior.

So where do we draw the line? This is the issue I have with how society is going. There are no longer any lines to be draw, and everything is becoming 'okay'. This to me is bad, and the 'traditions' of society are there for a reason, even if we no longer remember what that reason is.
  #104  
Old 07-01-2009, 04:19 AM
Deckard
issue 37
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: South Wales
Posts: 1,244
Re: is there anyone else who is pro-life AND pro-gay rights, or is it just me?
Quote:
Originally Posted by myrrh View Post
However, from my point of view, a person is not born as a homosexual.
Technically they're born asexual. If we're talking about potential, then they are as much born a homosexual as a heterosexal is born a heterosexual. ie. with the genetic predisposition of a sexual attraction that will kick in a decade or so later.

(Environmental factors may or may not contribute to that outcome - none of us knows for sure at this stage - but either way, by the time a person is 11 or 12, same-sex attraction is as natural and innate and feels as impossible to alter as opposite-sex attraction is for heterosexuals)

Quote:
Originally Posted by myrrh View Post
People may be born with desires that are of a person of the same sex and in the case of a homosexual, he or she is choosing to act on those desires.
Here though, you're defining the word homosexual in a more narrow way than it is typically used. Virgins can be homosexual as well as heterosexual. If a straight person stopped having sex, they wouldn't cease to be heterosexual. Sticking to the most commonly-accepted definitions and framing this as the rights and wrongs of sexual activity will avoid confusion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by myrrh View Post
In my system of morals, to act upon these desires is a huge sin. This is because by acting upon such desires goes completely against the natural disposition of man.
Your argument is flawed in several ways:

1) There is no single "natural disposition of man" in the way that you insinuate. If 6% or whatever (for the sake of argument) of the population have a fundamental attraction to members of the same sex, that is their natural disposition. It exists naturally, thus it's perfectly natural. It just makes it less common. Common and natural (as in innate) are not the same thing.

2) The fact that the natural disposition of that 6% rules out the ability to sexually procreate doesn't make the disposition (or behaviour) of that 6% less natural or less innate. It just means it doesn't fit into the cycle of natural reproduction.

3) There exists no single reasoned argument that links morality to the mere fact that something doesn't fit into the cycle of natural reproduction. I say no reasoned argument - there are of course plenty of arguments that resort to the world's many creation myths.

To most of the rest of us though, right and wrong are typically not decided by:

a) whether something is common
b) whether something leads to procreation

If you're judging this whole issue objectively, it should be quite telling that most opponents of homosexuality are more likely to subscribe to one of the various creation myths with their primitive ideas about sin (despite you using the words "in my system of morals") whereas those who resort to reason alone are far more likely to reach the conclusion that there is nothing morally wrong with it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by myrrh View Post
To me it is similar to giving a child to an alcoholic (who is of the non-violent type). The alcoholic could be perfectly capable of providing a loving and caring home, however most people would object to giving a child to him or her. Why? Because most people think that it is wrong to expose a child to that type of behavior.
1) Argumentum ad-populum. You have not actually explained why the parental behaviour in question (same-sex togetherness and occasional displays of affection) should be considered morally wrong. There may be an argument about the greater likelihood of promiscuity amongst gay couples, and the affect on familial stability - but that's a different argument to the one you're putting. I would hope rigorous adoption procedures would filter out the latter and identify those most likely to offer a stable family unit.

2) What do you fear will happen if you "expose a child" to same-sex 'togetherness' and occasional displays of affection? My guess is they will simply be more likely to end up tolerant and broad-minded. More likely to grow up appreciating that homosexuality is not a sin. There is no evidence that they will grow up gay any more than the millions of heterosexual parents of homosexuals were able to make their offspring straight, despite the overwhelming social pressure (and in most cases, personal desire) to conform to heterosexuality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by myrrh View Post
So where do we draw the line?
I'm somewhat amazed you need to ask. Consenting adults? Harming no-one else? All pretty standard stuff. Rules out bestiality, paedophilia and all the other horrors that slippery slope proponents wave around. Panic about where to draw the line is unnecessary. We can - and do - always draw a line.
  #105  
Old 07-01-2009, 04:20 AM
Deckard
issue 37
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: South Wales
Posts: 1,244
Re: is there anyone else who is pro-life AND pro-gay rights, or is it just me?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean
...as if there were a bunch of gay people with torches and pitchforks coming to burn down marriage with their gayness or something.
Shhhhhhh!!!
  #106  
Old 07-01-2009, 09:57 AM
jOHN rODRIGUEZ
SystematicallyDisadsomthg
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: THE PLAsTIC VOORRTEEXXX!!!
Posts: 3,570
Re: is there anyone else who is pro-life AND pro-gay rights, or is it just me?
Yeah, and make EVERYONE in the world gay. That would be scary, I mean, all these witty trash talking bitches EVERYWHERE. I WOULD commit suicide if that happened.
__________________
8=====)~~(=====8

  #107  
Old 07-01-2009, 11:20 AM
Sean
Where in the world...?
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: US
Posts: 1,437
Re: is there anyone else who is pro-life AND pro-gay rights, or is it just me?
Quote:
Originally Posted by myrrh View Post
Well, your point is only really relevant in accordance to Christianity, which views that Man was created in "God's image". Most other religions, don't have that concept.
The "God's image" point specifically is derived from Christianity, Catholicism and all their derivative religions, yes. But the idea of human superiority to other species does tend to show up in many religious beliefs in various other forms, so my point isn't unique to Catholics and Christians. And even religious beliefs aside, many people simply share in the human propensity for fear-based conceit by making sweeping assumptions about things they don't understand (which incidentally, is the foundation of religious mythology). I'm not certain of course what motivates your position on the subject specifically, but you do actually go on to illustrate this point when you say:

Quote:
Originally Posted by myrrh View Post
However, the fact is that we, as humans, are superior to the rest of the animals. And this is because we have the ability to choose and think out our actions. We don't just go on instinct like the animals do. This makes us vastly different than the animals. When a lion is hungry, it is going to go hunt and kill some other animal to satisfy it's hunger. When we are hungry, we can choose to wait awhile before eating, or not even eat at all.
Out of curiosity, what exactly are you basing these conclusions on? Personal beliefs, or religious teachings maybe? Either way, the facts don't bear out your conclusions. In recent decades, testing and observation of a variety of animals has revealed that they share our ability to reason, think, conceptualize, and even be creative (highly recommended article). For example, Orangutans have been observed fashioning dolls of sorts out of twisted up bundles of leaves that they then proceed to cradle, pretending they're babies. This requires far more than instinct - it involves the cognitive sophistication to visualize a baby, the creative process of fashioning something into an abstract representation of a baby, and then the imagination necessary to pretend it's a baby. And even some birds, creatures we share no significant common ancestry with, have shown the development of thought and creativity on a level that allows them to conceptualize their goals enough that they take the time to plan and build tools in order to achieve them. As an example, here's a summary of some experiments done with a New Caledonian crow in which a piece of meat was tucked into a basket at the bottom of a glass tube, out of the crow's reach:

The scientists had placed two pieces of wire in the room. One was bent into a hook, the other was straight. They figured Betty (the crow) would choose the hook to lift the basket by its handle.

But experiments don't always go according to plan. Another crow had stolen the hook before Betty could find it. Betty is undeterred. She looks at the meat in the basket, then spots the straight piece of wire. She picks it up with her beak, pushes one end into a crack in the floor, and uses her beak to bend the other end into a hook. Thus armed, she lifts the basket out of the tube.

"This was the first time Betty had ever seen a piece of wire like this," Kacelnik said. "But she knew she could use it to make a hook and exactly where she needed to bend it to make the size she needed."

They gave Betty other tests, each requiring a slightly different solution, such as making a hook out of a flat piece of aluminum rather than a wire. Each time, Betty invented a new tool and solved the problem. "It means she had a mental representation of what it was she wanted to make. Now that," Kacelnik said, "is a major kind of cognitive sophistication."


Now these examples may not be on par with the extent of human ability to think - I mean hell, we've gone to the freakin' moon and landed probes on Mars for cryin' out loud. But just because a cheetah runs far, far faster than us doesn't mean we're incapable of running. We're just not evolved to be as fast a runner as cheetahs, exactly as other animals haven't evolved to be as complex a thinker as humans. But the abilities to "choose and think" themselves are in no way unique to us.

Quote:
Originally Posted by myrrh View Post
This is why the fish thing doesn't hold water for me. However, an interesting thing could be said that because people like you (no offense, here) hold this opinion, it actually allows humans to act like animals. After all, if we evolved from animals, then there is justification for us acting like them. And this is where the whole marriage thing comes into play. Marriage is yet another thing that separates us from the animals. If you come out of the club at the end of the night and see the dogs running around, you will see them all chasing down that one female dog. Then they get, and do their thing, and away she goes. How is this not different then a lot of human behavior, especially in modern times? Seriously, think about it.
No offense taken because, factually speaking, humans ARE animals. To say that we "evolved from animals" is misleading - we're simply animals who have gone down our own specific evolutionary path.

And where marriage is concerned, our mating habits are not unique to us. We share similar behavior to quite a variety of animals. Penguins stay with a single mate for life, as do gibbons, wolves, many types of eagles, etc. All told at this point, we've observed that approximately 3% of all animal species share this monogamous behavior with us. Likewise, we share no significant common traits in reproduction with other animals, like sharks or turtles. But again, we certainly aren't unique in this sense.

So when you say my beliefs "allow humans to act like animals", frankly, I don't see what the problem you're trying to illustrate is. We are animals, so of course we act like animals. What's inherently bad about being an animal?

Quote:
Originally Posted by myrrh View Post
I may have used to agree with you here, but I don't anymore. This is because I have been doing a lot of research about older civilizations, and to be honest, I don't think that they were much different then us today. Sure we may have cars and phones etc, and they had horses and donkeys and message boys, but aside from the material way of living, we are the same. If you look into the way past civilizations developed, they are the same as us. At a certain point in Roman history, procreation was now longer a necessity for survival. Then came the Islamic Empire, then came the Renaissance. Once a culture moves from a total farming life to a city based life, then it is no longer needed to procreate for survival's sake. We, at least in the Western world, are at this point again. However, this could change in a heartbeat, like it did when WWII happened. And that was just sixty years ago.
What's odd to me here is that it appears you actually do agree with me. My point is simply that most arguments against gay marriage turn at one point or another to the fact that gay couples are incapable of procreation as reason to restrict gay rights to marry. Yet, as you have confirmed, procreation is not crucial to our survival as a species at this point in human history, so why is it a concern? The fact that other eras in history also illustrate the point has no bearing on it's validity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by myrrh View Post
To be honest, this is just a personal moral issue...
Deckard has spoken eloquently to these points, and I fully agree with him.

Quote:
Originally Posted by myrrh View Post
So where do we draw the line? This is the issue I have with how society is going. There are no longer any lines to be draw, and everything is becoming 'okay'. This to me is bad, and the 'traditions' of society are there for a reason, even if we no longer remember what that reason is.
I disagree whole-heartedly. It's not that there are no lines to be drawn, it's that we've evolved to a level of intelligence, and have amassed enough knowledge that we need to re-evaluate our stances on certain subjects through facts, reason, empathy and foresight. It's not enough now to say that tradition tells us homosexuality is bad, any more than it was enough hundreds of years ago for the church to force Galileo to recant his discovery that the earth orbits the sun because it clashed with traditional teachings. What good does it do us to deny factual knowledge in favor of hurtful dogma? It's a strange, inherently conflicted stubbornness that I don't understand. The most religiously righteous people people out there tend to be the first to point to our ability to think and rationalize as defining human traits, but are then also the first to discount the discoveries and conclusions of those exact traits in favor of clinging to ideals of the past. So which should we be doing? Celebrating our intelligence and inventiveness as a species through exploring and embracing our advances, or suppressing it to the point that we're actually willing to hurt those who don't fit in with our "traditional" preconceptions?
__________________
Download all my remixes

Last edited by Sean; 07-01-2009 at 05:12 PM.
  #108  
Old 07-01-2009, 01:25 PM
myrrh
a small-minded madman
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: minneapolis
Posts: 248
Re: is there anyone else who is pro-life AND pro-gay rights, or is it just me?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deckard View Post
Technically they're born asexual. If we're talking about potential, then they are as much born a homosexual as a heterosexal is born a heterosexual. ie. with the genetic predisposition of a sexual attraction that will kick in a decade or so later.
If we were born without sexual organs, and they developed after 10 years, then you would have a point. However, we are both as a sex, either male or female. Therefor the natural disposition of a male species is to be with the female of that species and vice versa. Like I said, you may have feels towards a member of the same sex, but to act upon them goes against this natural disposition.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Deckard View Post
though, you're defining the word homosexual in a more narrow way than it is typically used. Virgins can be homosexual as well as heterosexual. If a straight person stopped having sex, they wouldn't cease to be heterosexual. Sticking to the most commonly-accepted definitions and framing this as the rights and wrongs of sexual activity will avoid confusion.
The definition I am using is pretty basic. It says "sexually attracted to people of one's own sex." This is from the dictionary on my laptop. That same dictionary states that a person who is a virgin is someone who has not yet had sexual intercourse. If further goes on to define sexual intercourse as "sexual contact between individuals involving penetration, esp. the insertion of a man's erect penis into a woman's vagina, typically culminating in orgasm and the ejaculation of semen."

So technically, a lesbian who never had been with a man is still a virgin. Same with a man who has never been with a women.

I am just stating this because I am not sure if you meant that a virgin can be both a homosexual and a heterosexual (as in the same time), or they can be either one or the other.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Deckard View Post

1) There is no single "natural disposition of man" in the way that you insinuate.
This I wholeheartedly disagree with. So there is no point in debating what followed it because it is based off your belief in the above.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Deckard View Post

To most of the rest of us though, right and wrong are typically not decided by:

a) whether something is common
b) whether something leads to procreation
I would say that it is our natural disposition that instinctually tells us what is right and wrong.

I am running out of time, I'll address more later.
  #109  
Old 07-01-2009, 01:34 PM
myrrh
a small-minded madman
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: minneapolis
Posts: 248
Re: is there anyone else who is pro-life AND pro-gay rights, or is it just me?
I'll write more of a response to you later, I just want to mention something here.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean View Post

So when you say my beliefs "allow humans to act like animals", frankly, I don't see what the problem you're trying to illustrate is. We are animals, so of course we act like animals. What's inherently bad about being an animal?

So then, if I saw you and your wife walking down the street, and I happen to be horny, you would have no problem if I roundhouse kicked you in the head to knock you out, then bend your wife over and take her right there on the street corner? After all, isn't this how animals act? Would I be wrong, when you say that I raped her, that my response would be that we are animals and I was just acting like one?
  #110  
Old 07-01-2009, 02:12 PM
Strangelet
rico suave
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: lost in a romance
Posts: 815
Re: is there anyone else who is pro-life AND pro-gay rights, or is it just me?
Quote:
Originally Posted by myrrh View Post
So then, if I saw you and your wife walking down the street, and I happen to be horny, you would have no problem if I roundhouse kicked you in the head to knock you out, then bend your wife over and take her right there on the street corner? After all, isn't this how animals act? Would I be wrong, when you say that I raped her, that my response would be that we are animals and I was just acting like one?
I lol'ed. a frog and a horse come up to a body of water. The frog swims across and the horse gallops around it. Would you criticize the horse for not swimming? Would you call the frog not an animal because it swam?

humans are social animals, and therefore require cohabitation and therefore require a body of ethics in order to survive. Its as much our animal-ness to be ethical and treat eachother with compassion as it is natural for the frog to swim.

nice try though. there's a bunch of this kind of fallacy in the book of mormon too.
__________________
"Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it."

- Mark Twain

Post Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:35 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.