Canada leaders accept gay marriage ruling

[Vince]

Considering there are animals (fish and frogs for example) that can change sex at will? Yes, transsexuals are natural.

So, you're going to transpose other, *lower* lifeforms sexual practices on humans as proof. I say call it a day...

PS. Besides, you just vindicated my entire beastiality parallel. So, thanks.

 

[Silent_One]

Considering there are animals (fish and frogs for example) that can change sex at will? Yes, transsexuals are natural.

Don't be stupid, were not fish. Humans can NOT change sex "at will". If you operated on a fish to change it's sex are you going to say thats "natural"?

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Yup. You're taking into account all same sex partnerings right?

Yes, though I had not considered people who artificially change their sex. Which makes them (edit, specifically, their sexuality) unnatural in the first place.

There is a *chance* that offspring could occur from a transsexual female turned male and a regular male having offspring.

What chance? Has it ever occurred? Has sexual interaction between a male and a female turned male (that is two people with penises) resulted in a pregnancy and subsequent birth?

So yes, the chances are greater than zero that any random partnering will have offspring.

Evidence, please.

Your definition of natural can be bent to fit any interpretation.

No, it can't. What interpretation are you talking about?

That is one reason why it is flawed. My definition has no such flaw in it.

Your definition is self-defining. (Natural means in Nature). It's flawed alright. THAT can be bent to mean anything, depending on how you define "nature."

And yes, you can define a *description* from it's parent. What is "oily"? If it contains oil. What is "smelly"? If it smells. What is "natural"? If it occurs in nature.

You can define OIL, and peorple can define it differently. (Is it limited to hydrocarbon based liquids? ). You neeed to qualify oil if you want a concise definition.

You also need to QUALIFY "smells" if you want a precise definition. Most people I know wouldn't say a rose is "smelly." But it does have a fragrance and therefore "smells".

So all you need to do is define "nature." That's all I ask.

Perfectly valid.

If you qualify nature. Otherwise, it's perfectly vague.

 

[Sabastian]

Considering there are animals (fish and frogs for example) that can change sex at will? Yes, transsexuals are natural.

lol, that isn't even a primate based argument, boy that is a stretch. Yeah earthworms are hermaphrodite and fish change sex..... What do your examples have to do with humanity? Even if primates do something it isn’t used as an absolute rational for explaining human behavior.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

No one is saying that homosexuals can reproduce in a same sex situation.

Well, Gee Natmoma, we didn't think you were THAT stubborn. (Though you did argue a while back about something related to mice...)

But the fact that homosexuality does exist in nature does in fact make it natural.

Yes, if your definition of natural means "observed in nature", and you define nature in a specific way.

If we define "natural" as I have, or Vince has (which I have also used EXACTLY the same argument in the past), then we say it is not in fact natural.

It's the fact that you can't seem to agree to disagree on this that is baffling....

 

[Natoma]

Considering there are animals (fish and frogs for example) that can change sex at will? Yes, transsexuals are natural.

So, you're going to transpose other, *lower* lifeforms sexual practices on humans as proof. I say call it a day...

PS. Besides, you just vindicated my entire beastiality parallel. So, thanks.

Uhm, that's not a sexual practice. That is a biological practice.

 

[Natoma]

Dictionary.com:

Natural:

"Of, relating to, or concerning nature"

Nature:

"The material world and its phenomena."

End of story. Homosexuality is natural.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Uhm, that's not a sexual practice. That is a biological practice.

Uhm, human sex changes are neither a sexual practice, nor a bilogical one. It's artificial.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Dictionary.com:

Natural:

"Of, relating to, or concerning nature"

End of story. Homosexuality is natural.

Interestingly, dictionary.com also supplies one (of several) definitions of "nature"

"The processes and functions of the body. "

Last time I checked, heterosexual intercourse has a bodily function of reproduction. Without it, we could not continue as a species. Homosexual intercourse serves no similar bodily function.

End of story. Homosexuality is not natural.

Now, to be clear....

I DO ACCEPT other definitions of "natural" as valid ones. I even accept YOUR definition, Natoma. I accept that you have the "right" to say homosexuality is natural.

I just disagree with you.

It is quite baffling that you, the leftist who is supposed to be "so open and sensitive to other ideas and non descriminitory", will not accept any other definition of "natural" as valid except your own.

 

[Sabastian]

Considering there are animals (fish and frogs for example) that can change sex at will? Yes, transsexuals are natural.

So, you're going to transpose other, *lower* lifeforms sexual practices on humans as proof. I say call it a day...

PS. Besides, you just vindicated my entire beastiality parallel. So, thanks.

Uhm, that's not a sexual practice. That is a biological practice.

So here you say that if a male turns himself into a female he can reproduce like a female?..... just like a female does when a male fish turns female.

BTW I don't think fish change gender at will. (One has to wonder if they even have a will.)

 

[Natoma]

It is quite baffling that you, the leftist who is supposed to be "so open and sensitive to other ideas and non descriminitory", will not accept any other definition of "natural" as valid except your own.

I agree with Webster. Not Joe DeFuria. No state of bafflement is required.

Now, if you want to change the definition of "Natural" to fit your needs or whatever, I suggest you contact whatever governing body rules over the english canon of definitions, and try there.

Until then, your definition of natural is invalid.

 

[Sabastian]

It is quite baffling that you, the leftist who is supposed to be "so open and sensitive to other ideas and non descriminitory", will not accept any other definition of "natural" as valid except your own.

That idea, Joe is a total sham. If you disagree they tend to suggest that you are in need of re-education, until you agree I presume. The left used freedom of speech for years to defend their political agendas and now they have the reigns that the church used to hold as societies moral compass are looking to suppress freedom of speech.....

 

[Silent_One]

Again-

Natoma wrote:

Well then we need a definition of what's natural and what isn't. But , that's not possible is it? Society always seems to change what is natural and what isn't.

Not possible?
Well, .... which opinion do we wish to support? The definitions of natural is full of appropriate.....er...definitions....


1.) Present in or produced by nature: a natural pearl.
2.) Of, relating to, or concerning nature: a natural environment.
3.) Conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature: a natural death.
4.)
a.) Not acquired; inherent: Love of power is natural to some people.
b.) Having a particular character by nature: a natural leader.
c.) Biology: Not produced or changed artificially; not conditioned: natural immunity; a natural reflex.
5.) Characterized by spontaneity and freedom from artificiality, affectation, or inhibitions. See Synonyms at naive.
6.) Not altered, treated, or disguised: natural coloring; natural produce.
7.) Faithfully representing nature or life.
8.) Expected and accepted: "In Willie's (Natoma's ) mind (gay)marriage remained the natural and logical sequence to love" (Duff Cooper).
9.) Established by moral certainty or conviction: natural rights.
10.) Being in a state regarded as primitive, uncivilized, or unregenerate.
11.)
a.) Related by blood: the natural parents of the child.
b.) Born of unwed parents: a natural child

Estabilishing a definition is easy, defending it is hard

"But , that's not possible is it?'.......

 

[Natoma]

So here you say that if a male turns himself into a female he can reproduce ..... just like a female does when a male fish turns female. BTW I don't think fish change gender at will. (One has to wonder if they even have a will.)

No I said there is a "chance" that reproduction can occur. Probability then nudges above 0%, which was Joe's definition of natural. Though that is neither here nor there anymore.

Natural as defined by English Canon does indeed include Homosexuality. Which means that Joe's line of debate is now, completely, bunk.

 

[Natoma]

"But , that's not possible is it?'.......

Uhm, homosexuality occurs in nature Silent_One in different species across the globe. Homosexuality in human beings is an inborn trait. No production or change is required. You are trying to make what point now?

Oh I see. But my comment was based on the fact that society always changes the societally accepted definition of natural to fit its own prejudices and biases, even though it does not fit with the english canon's definition of natural.

That is society's failing. Not the definition of the word.

 

[Sabastian]

So here you say that if a male turns himself into a female he can reproduce ..... just like a female does when a male fish turns female. BTW I don't think fish change gender at will. (One has to wonder if they even have a will.)

No I said there is a "chance" that reproduction can occur. Probability then nudges above 0%, which was Joe's definition of natural. Though that is neither here nor there anymore.

Natural as defined by English Canon does indeed include Homosexuality. Which means that Joe's line of debate is now, completely, bunk.

You will note Natoma I edited my response. To:

So here you say that if a male turns himself into a female he can reproduce like a female?.....

Sorry bout that.

EDIT: So homosexual families don't occur in nature so therefor, homosexual families are un-natural.... right? That is what I thought too.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

I agree with Webster. Not Joe DeFuria. No state of bafflement is required.

Um, Natoma....I also agreed with Webster (or whatever dictionary.com is). That's the point. (Or did you again not read my post?)

Now, if you want to change the definition of "Natural" to fit your needs or whatever, I suggest you contact whatever governing body rules over the english canon of definitions, and try there.

I didn't change any definition. I used one of several provided. Read my post again.

Until then, your definition of natural is invalid.

Wrong. Our definitions of natural are different.

 

[Natoma]

Sabastian:

No I'm saying that if you take a born female, and pair her up with a transgendered female (someone who was male but is now female), there is a chance of reproduction taking place.

The odds are *very* slim, but they are definitely greater than 0. Even if it is statistically small, almost infinitesimally so.

 

[Sabastian]

Sabastian:

The odds are *very* slim, but they are definitely greater than 0. Even if it is statistically small, almost infinitesimally so.

The odds are absolutely 0% that two sperm could ever create a human, or for that matter two eggs. Zero......

 

[Silent_One]

Silent_One wrote:

"But , that's not possible is it?'.......

Uhm, homosexuality occurs in nature Silent_One in different species across the globe. Homosexuality in human beings is an inborn trait. No production or change is required. You are trying to make what point now?

Oh I see. But my comment was based on the fact that society always changes the societally accepted definition of natural to fit its own prejudices and biases, even though it does not fit with the english canon's definition of natural.

That is society's failing. Not the definition of the word.

The point is that there are several definitions of natural that fit different circumstances.