Canada leaders accept gay marriage ruling

[Natoma]

To put it bluntly, it was an exercise in the game of semantics that you so much like to play.

p.s.: In other words I was busting your balls.

That's find and dandy Natoma, but...as Joe uses the word "naturally" he is correct, yes?

Oh most certainly. But his definition is neither here nor there. I consider it fundamentally flawed. Just as flawed as those judges definitions of what "Natural" was when interracial coupling was illegal in this country.

 

[Natoma]

"Homosexuality isn't natural, therefore it's OK for governments to discriminate against homosexuality"

...various examples of homosexuality in nature...
...examples of government-sanctioned relationships that can't result in children...
...examples of the possibility of a homosexual couple engaging in child-rearing, either through adoption or more exotic technological means...

"That's not my definition of natural."

"What's your definition of natural?"

"That which isn't homosexual."

Circular arguments are always air-tight. I wonder why Natoma bothers to argue with you.

Sometimes I don't antlers. Sometimes I just take his form of debating and turn it against him. See my post about busting his balls. It can be quite fun sometimes.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

"Homosexuality isn't natural, therefore it's OK for governments to discriminate against homosexuality"

Care to pull the post where I said that?

...various examples of homosexuality in nature...

And various examples of OTHER things that "occur in nature", that obviously are not accpetable in human society...negating any potential argument of "it's natural by that definition, therefore it's OK".

...examples of government-sanctioned relationships that can't result in children...

Examples which completely ignore and don't refute my definition of "natural".

...examples of the possibility of a homosexual couple engaging in child-rearing, either through adoption or more exotic technological means...

Where of course "artificial" is the antihisis of "natural"...

"That's not my definition of natural."

Because it's not. My definition was stated VERY EARLY ON, before most of this hullabulloo, and has remained consistent.

"What's your definition of natural?"

"That which isn't homosexual."

Wrong.

My definition of natural is as above. I'll repeat it for you.

If you randomly pick out a male and a female from the whole population of humans on the planet earth, and put them toegether in a sexual relationship, it's POSSIBLE to have offspring as the result. You might "pick" an infertile person (resulting in no child), a female who's 90 (resulting in no child), etc. But you WILL at some point pick a pairing that will result in offspring.

If you randomly pick out two same sex individuals from the whole population, put them in a sexual relationship, you will NEVER have offspring as the result. No matter how many pairings you choose, offspring will NEVER result.

The difference between "natual sexual relationship" and "unnatural sexual relationship", by my definition, is the difference between POSSIBLE and NEVER.

Homosexuality fits in my definition of "unnatural sexual relationships."

So does, for example, HETEROSEXUAL relationships between two different species that can not result in offspring. So, beastiality fits into my definition of "unnatural sexual relationships." And no, I'm not "equating" beastiality and homosexuality on all levels. I equate them only on the level of "unnaturalness".

Circular arguments are always air-tight. I wonder why Natoma bothers to argue with you.

Unfortunately for you, this is not a circular argument. I wonder if you actually read these posts. Contradictory arguments (artificial doesn't necessarily mean "unnatural") are always easy to pick apart. For that reason, I also wonder why Natoma bothers to argue with me.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Sometimes I don't antlers. Sometimes I just take his form of debating and turn it against him. See my post about busting his balls. It can be quite fun sometimes.

Yes, quite fun to watch you try and derail a discussion rather than just say "You're right, Joe. I see your point.".

Sounds more like you tripped over your own two feet going up the stairs and followed it up with "I meant to do that!"

 

[Heathen]

Yes, but science does not make us god's. Because we can do things, doesn't mean we should. Particularly finding new ways to have offspring. There's plenty of children in the world to go around, why spend capitol to find out ways to make more?

I agree. There should be a point to any research.

However the world's first genetically engineered child has been born in order the save the life of her older brother. Without the experiments you seem to be against this boy would die and the parents would be childless. For them it's a good thing. although certain applications of it may not be.

Everything in science has it's use. Some, to the layman, are harder to see than others.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Oh most certainly. But his definition is neither here nor there. I consider it fundamentally flawed.

Problem is, my definition is "here", but you haven't in any way shown how it's "fundamentally flawed." But don't let that stop you from making an ass out of yourself.

You can disagree with my definition, but for it to be "fundamentally flawed", means you should be able to explain how.

 

[Natoma]

Homosexuality fits in my definition of "unnatural sexual relationships."

So does, for example, HETEROSEXUAL relationships between two different species that can not result in offspring. So, beastiality fits into my definition of "unnatural sexual relationships." And no, I'm not "equating" beastiality and homosexuality on all levels. I equate them only on the level of "unnaturalness".

See what I was talking about earlier? Ahh the semantic games you love playing. It's plain as day what your intent is. You are in fact equating homosexuality with beastiality, and trying to hide behind a wall of semanticism to justify what you're saying.

Please. It's so transparent.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

You're sitting here trying to argue semantics with me with regard to what is natural and what is not.

Um, because "what is natural and what is not" is exactly what I'm defining. It's not semantics. It's laying down a supportable definition.

All I did was take that to its extreme and logical conclusion.

No, you took it to an extreme ILLOGICAL conclusion. (Artificial doesn't mean unnatural.).

To put it bluntly, it was an exercise in the game of semantics that you so much like to play.

Wrong, I don't play illogical games.

p.s.: In other words I was busting your balls.

Keep my balls out of this, for obvious reasons.

 

[Natoma]

Sometimes I don't antlers. Sometimes I just take his form of debating and turn it against him. See my post about busting his balls. It can be quite fun sometimes.

Yes, quite fun to watch you try and derail a discussion rather than just say "You're right, Joe. I see your point.".

Sounds more like you tripped over your own two feet going up the stairs and followed it up with "I meant to do that!"

Yep i realized it while I was writing it and instead of deleting the post before it was made public I inserted clever witticisms in order to throw you off the path. You've seen right through me.

 

[RussSchultz]

Its fundamentally flawed...as in I don't agree with it.

 

[Natoma]

Oh most certainly. But his definition is neither here nor there. I consider it fundamentally flawed.

Problem is, my definition is "here", but you haven't in any way shown how it's "fundamentally flawed." But don't let that stop you from making an ass out of yourself.

You can disagree with my definition, but for it to be "fundamentally flawed", means you should be able to explain how.

Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding. If you're not smart enough to figure it out, that's not my problem.

p.s.: I find it funny that yet again you neglected to address how your arguments are as flawed as the arguments once used to denigrate interracial couples.

You snipped this portion of my post:

Just as flawed as those judges definitions of what "Natural" was when interracial coupling was illegal in this country.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

See what I was talking about earlier?

Nope.

Ahh the semantic games you love playing.

It's not semantics....

It's plain as day what your intent is. You are in fact equating homosexuality with beastiality, and trying to hide behind a wall of semanticism to justify what you're saying.

No, It's exactly what I said:

So does, for example, HETEROSEXUAL relationships between two different species that can not result in offspring. So, beastiality fits into my definition of "unnatural sexual relationships." And no, I'm not "equating" beastiality and homosexuality on all levels. I equate them only on the level of "unnaturalness".

Please. It's so transparent.

Please, you're trying to derail the discussion.

I stated my definition of NATURAL SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP. That's not semantics. You have yet to refute that defintion as an invalid one. Using that definition, a sexual relationship qualifies as either natural, or unnatural.

Here's a clue: A sexual relationship between a man and a shoe is also unnatural by my definition. But don't try and pretend that I'm equating that to homosexuality on any other level...good grief.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

So Natoma,

Are you just going to take your usual tactic of throwing insults and topic derailment, or are you going to actually try and invalidate my definition of "natural" which is of course "fundamentally flawed"?

 

[Natoma]

As I said Joe. You're as transparent as air. You just happen to have a higher intellect than the average "Kill the fag!" dumbass on the street and can camoflauge your intents in "logic."

I see right through you.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

So Natoma,

Are you just going to take your usual tactic of throwing insults and topic derailment, or are you going to actually try and invalidate my definition of "natural" which is of course "fundamentally flawed"?

 

[Natoma]

So Natoma,

Are you just going to take your usual tactic of throwing insults and topic derailment, or are you going to actually try and invalidate my definition of "natural" which is of course "fundamentally flawed"?

I've already done so, on numerous occassions. Or did you happen to gloss over the posts in which I brought up the opinions of people who used to denigrate interracial couples with the same "it's unnatural" arguments that you use today?

If you glossed over them, here they are again:

Let's also address the beastiality equation that some folks try to make with homosexuality:

It is stated as a well authenticated fact that if the (children) of a black man and white woman and a white man and a black woman intermarry, they cannot possibly have any progeny, and such a fact sufficiently justifies those laws which forbid the intermarriage of blacks and whites.

Apparently his reasoning was that human racial groups are so different biologically that, like horses and donkeys, certain combinations produce sterile offspring.

In 1958 — the first time interracial marriage polling was conducted — opposition was far greater than it is to same-sex marriage today. Ninety-four percent of whites disapproved of interracial marriages (Gallup). By contrast, in November 1996, just 56 percent of adults opposed same-sex marriage in a Human Rights Campaign poll.

and

The amalgamation of the races is not only unnatural but is always productive of deplorable results. Our daily observations show us that the offspring of these unnatural connections are generally sick and effeminate

So as I've said before. Your definition of "natural" is just as flawed as theirs was. It's the same argument in a different skin. Whether you want to see that or not is not my problem.

 

[Silent_One]

Natoma wrote:

Oh most certainly. But his definition is neither here nor there. I consider it fundamentally flawed. Just as flawed as those judges definitions of what "Natural" was when interracial coupling was illegal in this country.

You know you can argue away all meaning and definitions untill there is no boundries anymore. By your logic there is no definition of natural anymore. I mean is it so hard to understand what Joe is saying is true? You want to be married to your partner, Great! You want to adopt kids, hey, I'm all for it, there's too many kiids without any loving parents. But is it so hard to admit that you and your partner can't have offspring "naturally"? I mean...jeezzz

Joe wrote:

Yes, quite fun to watch you try and derail a discussion rather than just say "You're right, Joe. I see your point.".

Your right Joe, when it comes offspring and sexual relationships I see your point. (see Notoma it's easy ).

 

[Natoma]

Natoma wrote:

Oh most certainly. But his definition is neither here nor there. I consider it fundamentally flawed. Just as flawed as those judges definitions of what "Natural" was when interracial coupling was illegal in this country.

You know you can argue away all meaning and definitions untill there is no boundries anymore. By your logic there is no definition of natural anymore. I mean is it so hard to understand what Joe is saying is true? You want to be married to your partner, Great! You want to adopt kids, hey, I'm all for it, there's too many kiids without any loving parents. But is it so hard to admit that you and your partner can't have offspring "naturally"? I mean...jeezzz

Uhm, no one is arguing that I can't have kids with my partner. You've missed the point completely in that regard.

 

[Silent_One]

Uhm, no one is arguing that I can't have kids with my partner. You've missed the point completely in that regard.

I've missed the point???? O.K. go knock-up your partner.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

I've already done so, on numerous occassions. Or did you happen to gloss over the posts in which I brought up the opinions of people who used to denigrate interracial couples with the same "it's unnatural" arguments that you use today?

Um, those "opinions" of people used to denigrate interracial couples being unnatural are in fact fundamentally flawed. That doesn't make my definition of natural flawed. What logic are you using again?

Apparently his reasoning was that human racial groups are so different biologically that, like horses and donkeys, certain combinations produce sterile offspring.

And apparently, his he wrong. So his opinion is in fact fundamentally flawed. His opinion is fundamentally flawed because interractial couples CAN and DO produce offspring. We agree on that. So what's your point?

In 1958 — the first time interracial marriage polling was conducted — opposition was far greater than it is to same-sex marriage today. Ninety-four percent of whites disapproved of interracial marriages (Gallup). By contrast, in November 1996, just 56 percent of adults opposed same-sex marriage in a Human Rights Campaign poll.

Point? How does that discredit my definition of "unnatural" again?

The amalgamation of the races is not only unnatural but is always productive of deplorable results. Our daily observations show us that the offspring of these unnatural connections are generally sick and effeminate

And what data did the judge base those observations on?

Are you saying that my "statement of fact" (that homosexual relationships cannot produce offspring without artificial interference) is not correct, or will be proven wrong?

So as I've said before. Your definition of "natural" is just as flawed as theirs was.

Lol! Inthe bizzarro world maybe.

Their definitions of "natural" are fundamentally flawed because the facts they use to support their definition are wrong. My definition of natural is based on a different set of facts.

How it is that you come to judge my definition of "natural" based on someone else's fundamentally flawed argument is just beyond me.

It's the same argument in a different skin. Whether you want to see that or not is not my problem.

It's a completely different argument, whether or not you want to see that is indeed your problem.

I ask you again:

...are you going to actually try and invalidate my definition of "natural" which is of course "fundamentally flawed"?

If my definition is fundamentally flawed, that means the FACTS that I'm using to support it are not actully facts, but falsehoods. (As was the case with the Judge.)