dontamend.com

[Sabastian]

Natoma, you're being horribly thick headed over this insistance that Joe is calling homosexuality equavalent to beastiality, even when he insists it isn't. (And its pretty plain to me that he isn't, either)



I guess I'm a bigoted racist then, also.

Join the club. Once I even denounced the idea that homosexuality is the same as bestiality in an argument on the forums. But because I don't value a homosexual relationship as the equivalent of a heterosexual relationship I am bigoted. If that be the case then none could be more so then I.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Not in this thread, but certainly in other threads Russ.

Link please.

 

[RussSchultz]

Not in this thread, but certainly in other threads Russ.

Sorry, not in that other thread, either.

 

[Natoma]

Russ

For one, I stated that any equivalence or any comparison of the two is completely disrespectful. The comparison alone shows a disrespect for homosexuality.

Fine. Go out today and talk to any random couple on the street and say "Hey, I can make a comparison between your relationship and beastiality. Trust me, it's not equating it, just comparing for logical and reasonable purposes."

Oh yes, there's nothing wrong with comparing my relationship with another human being to someone's relationship with an animal.

There is a difference between being truly tolerant of people and insulting those same people with obviously disrespectful comparisons.

Now that that's cleared up, onto Joe's tripe.

Again, I'm not "equating" homosexuality with beastiality. But the point is, they can be related on some level: it not being the "natural order".

Already denounced.

And my rebuttal to that statement:

It doesn't turn me on, and frankly it does sicken my stomach. But as I've said before, so does heterosexuality. But I'm not going to equate my feelings about beastiality to my feelings of heterosexuality because I don't consider the two comparable by any stretch of the imagination. Just as I don't consider homosexuality comparable to beastiality by any stretch of the imagination.

I know you don't [see heterosexuality and beastiality as comparable - natoma]. I DO see them [homosexuality and beastiality - natoma] as comparable on certain levels, based on what I see as "natural", and so do others.

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".

Oh I tried that route and you began comparing homosexuality with beastiality. Once that happened, all gloves were off.

Oh my, I found a little hot button, did I? Typical liberal. Let's emotions get in the way of reason.

So as I said earlier, I stated that any equivalence or any comparison of the two is completely disrespectful. The comparison alone shows a disrespect for homosexuality.

There is a clear history of these "comparison" attempts, filled with psuedo logic in order to justify those obviously bigoted comparisons. I can compare heterosexual incest to Joe's relationships, hell, even yours Russ, on certain levels, because they are capable of reproduction. So gee, when you do your girlfriend/wife, it's just like if you were doing your sister.

But would I make that comparison? Hell no.

 

[Natoma]

Keep trying to apply some psuedo logic to your bigotry Joe. The KKK dragon members I see on TV do the same thing at their rallies. Male chauvanists will do the same thing in trying to justify their bigotry

Lol...Now you are equating me to the KKK, male chauvanists, etc?

Bigotry is bigotry, prejudice is prejudice, no matter what form it takes, be it sexual orientation, race, religion, or gender. It's also the same no matter if it makes you take action against a certain group, or merely express your viewpoint.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Russ

For one, I stated that any equivalence or any comparison of the two is completely disrespectful. The comparison alone shows a disrespect for homosexuality.

Exactly. This is not in question. You exude INTOLERANCE. Anyone who would dismiss ANY comparison whatsoever without regard to the context and specifics of the comparison, is simply wholly intolerant. This was discussed at length in another thread.

My point of view: Beastiality and Homosexuality can be compared on some specific levels.

Your point of view: No way no how should the two ever be mentioned in the same sentence. Anyone who thinks they can be is a bigot...blah blah. Anyone who is replused by homosexuality is either "ignorant, immature, or inconsistent with their viewpoint."

Intolerance.

It doesn't turn me on, and frankly it does sicken my stomach. But as I've said before, so does heterosexuality. But I'm not going to equate my feelings about beastiality to my feelings of heterosexuality because I don't consider the two comparable by any stretch of the imagination. Just as I don't consider homosexuality comparable to beastiality by any stretch of the imagination.

Um, we UNDERSTAND YOUR OPINION Natoma.

I do consider homosexuality and beastiality comparable at specific levels.

It's all fine and dandy that you don't. We understand this. The point is, you will not entertain or consider any comparison at all as VALID. To you, it's not that you DISAGREE with such comparisons and tolerate the difference in opinion, you feel they are flat out invalid and are completely intolerant.

*Snip the re-tread of the "natural vs. unnatural" debate. *

The point is, as was repeated to you SEVERAL TIMES in the other threads, that to you, your definition of natural is the only acceptable one there could ever be. You are wholly intolerant of any point of view that states otherwise..

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=114254&highlight=beastiality#114254

Agreed. The purpose of my post, is to tell you that we have different definitions, (and that likewise, OTHER) people will have different definitions of "natural"...different from yours, and different from mine. And that just because other's definition of "natural" isn't the same as yours, doesn't make them any less valid....Who are you to tell me or anyone else what the "correct way" is to look at this? That's my point. I understand your defintion, I don't agree with it, but I'm not callining it "incrorrect" either.

The problem is, you don't seem comfortable with others having the Position of being repulsed by homosexuality. You seem to argue (correct me if I'm wrong), that anyone who is genuinely repulsed by homosexuality, isn't looking at it "the right way" (your way.)

------ Further down the page ----

3) You can't imagine that some people think that homosexuality is wrong, and at the same time have a valid premise for that belief.

3) No I can imagine it. I live through that kind of bias every day. Heh. They can even have what they deem is a valid premise. But I don't consider it to be valid, which goes back to point #2 you stated.

Read my last quote and your response to it again.

You cannot fathom that someone believes homosexuality is wrong, and also has a valid basis for that belief. That is the very definition of intolerance.

Just because you may recognize that someone has a valid basis for an opinion, doesn't mean you have to agree with that opinion. I think that's where you are stuck.

I guess you're just afraid acknowledge a BASIS for an opinion as valid?

 

[Sabastian]

Bigotry is bigotry, prejudice is prejudice, no matter what form it takes, be it sexual orientation, race, religion, or gender. It's also the same no matter if it makes you take action against a certain group, or merely express your viewpoint.

Do you think pedophiles are acceptable? What of those whom engage in bestiality? Obviously you don't like to sleep with woman... everyone discerns and all are prejudice.

 

[Natoma]

I can compare heterosexual incest to your relationship with Sara, on certain levels, because you are capable of reproduction, just like an incestuous relationship.

So gee, when you do your wife, it's just like if you were doing your sister or your mom, on certain levels. Yea...

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Bigotry is bigotry, prejudice is prejudice, no matter what form it takes, be it sexual orientation, race, religion, or gender. It's also the same no matter if it makes you take action against a certain group, or merely express your viewpoint.

Glad we agree on that.

Including the toargets of other groups of incestual couples (same family), pedophilia (age), etc.

Guess you're a bigot as well.

 

[Natoma]

Bigotry is bigotry, prejudice is prejudice, no matter what form it takes, be it sexual orientation, race, religion, or gender. It's also the same no matter if it makes you take action against a certain group, or merely express your viewpoint.

Do you think pedophiles are acceptable? What of those whom engage in bestiality? Obviously you don't like to sleep with woman... everyone discerns and all are prejudice.

Pedophilia and Beastiality are illegal. Not to mention child protection laws and animal protection laws that also work to prohibit those sexual activities. Whether I think they are acceptable or not is moot.

Homosexuality is not illegal. Whether you or anyone else thinks it's acceptable or not is moot.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Pedophilia and Beastiality are illegal. Not to mention child protection laws and animal protection laws that also work to prohibit those sexual activities. Whether I think they are acceptable or not is moot.

That's the best dodge you could come up with?

No, it's not moot. It's a simple question. Put another way, are the laws that prohibit those sexual activities just?

I guess if the amendment passes that prohibits any relationship other than "one man and one woman" from being called a "marriage", then the question of whether or not you think it should be, is irrelevant.

 

[Natoma]

Oh and btw,

The point is, as was repeated to you SEVERAL TIMES in the other threads, that to you, your definition of natural is the only acceptable one there could ever be. You are wholly intolerant of any point of view that states otherwise..

My definition of natural just happens to be the one found in the dictionary. So you're right, I don't accept your attempts to redefine what is in the dictionary.

And before someone brings up "oh but you're trying to redefine what marriage means!!!," here is a definition of marriage from the dictionary as well.

"A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage"

 

[Joe DeFuria]

My definition of natural just happens to be the one found in the dictionary. So you're right, I don't accept your attempts to redefine what is in the dictionary.

That's great for you! So what happens when the dictonary is revised? I guess the only "correct" definition is that which is in the current dictonary from a specific publisher?

How do you keep your beliefs straight?

And before someone brings up "oh but you're trying to redefine what marriage means!!!," here is a definition of marriage from the dictionary as well.

"A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage"

Gee, Natoma, definition number 1:

"The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife. "

Sorry, I don't accept any "susequent" definitions of words (Yours is FOURTH on the list for heaven's sake!) that conflicts with the primary one.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

My definition of natural just happens to be the one found in the dictionary. So you're right, I don't accept your attempts to redefine what is in the dictionary.

That's great for you! So what happens when the dictonary is revised? I guess the only "correct" definition is that which is in the current dictonary from a specific publisher?

How do you keep your beliefs straight?

And furthermore, MY definition of "natural" is precisely in the dictonary:

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=natural

1 : based on an inherent sense of right and wrong

.

Gee...all these "dictonary definitions" that are at odds with one aother, eh, Natoma?

What happens when "one's inherent sense of right and wrong" conflicts with whatever definition you are using?

I hope you've gotten the point. Please spare us the "dictonary terms" as some legitimate form of "rebuttle"

 

[Natoma]

My definition of natural just happens to be the one found in the dictionary. So you're right, I don't accept your attempts to redefine what is in the dictionary.

That's great for you! So what happens when the dictonary is revised? I guess the only "correct" definition is that which is in the current dictonary from a specific publisher?

How do you keep your beliefs straight?

Websters dictionary is accepted as defacto english canon. Whenever there is a revision to Websters dictionary, it makes news. Why? Because that is our definitional language repository.

Oh, and definitions are never changed. Just amended. For instance, gay used to mean "happy" only. Now it means happy and it means homosexual.

Nice try though.

And before someone brings up "oh but you're trying to redefine what marriage means!!!," here is a definition of marriage from the dictionary as well.

"A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage"

Gee, Natoma, definition number 1:

"The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife. "

Sorry, I don't accept any "susequent" definitions of words (Yours is FOURTH on the list for heaven's sake!) that conflicts with the primary one.

The fourth definition doesn't conflict with the first. The first says it is a legal union between a man and a woman as husband and wife. The fourth states that it is also a same sex union. Not, "it is this, but not this."

Duh.

 

[Sabastian]

Bigotry is bigotry, prejudice is prejudice, no matter what form it takes, be it sexual orientation, race, religion, or gender. It's also the same no matter if it makes you take action against a certain group, or merely express your viewpoint.

Do you think pedophiles are acceptable? What of those whom engage in bestiality? Obviously you don't like to sleep with woman... everyone discerns and all are prejudice.

Pedophilia and Beastiality are illegal. Not to mention child protection laws and animal protection laws that also work to prohibit those sexual activities. Whether I think they are acceptable or not is moot.

Homosexuality is not illegal. Whether you or anyone else thinks it's acceptable or not is moot.

I don't give a dam if they are legal or not. You did not answer the question anyhow.

EDIT: It appears Natoma lets the state determine his morals wrt sex now.

 

[Natoma]

I don't give a dam if they are legal or not. You did not answer the question anyhow.

As I said. Your opinion on the matter is moot. Homosexuality is legal, pedophilia and beastiality are not.

EDIT: It appears Natoma lets the state determine his morals wrt sex now.

All's fair right? When homosexual sex was illegal, what was the first thing conservatives used to provie it was wrong? "Oh it's immoral and that's why we have laws against it."

 

[Natoma]

My definition of natural just happens to be the one found in the dictionary. So you're right, I don't accept your attempts to redefine what is in the dictionary.

That's great for you! So what happens when the dictonary is revised? I guess the only "correct" definition is that which is in the current dictonary from a specific publisher?

How do you keep your beliefs straight?

And furthermore, MY definition of "natural" is precisely in the dictonary:

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=natural

1 : based on an inherent sense of right and wrong

.

Gee...all these "dictonary definitions" that are at odds with one aother, eh, Natoma?

What happens when "one's inherent sense of right and wrong" conflicts with whatever definition you are using?

I hope you've gotten the point. Please spare us the "dictonary terms" as some legitimate form of "rebuttle"

Ahem.

Natural: being in accordance with or determined by nature b : having or constituting a classification based on features existing in nature

Right and wrong are qualititative terms. It used to be right to own slaves. It used to be right to bash your wife if she stepped out of line. It used to be right to call your friends and family long distance without using 1-800-CALL-ATT.

The point is, what you deem right and wrong is your opinion only. Opinions can be correct or incorrect. What is found in nature cannot.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

1 : based on an inherent sense of right and wrong.

Gee...all these "dictonary definitions" that are at odds with one aother, eh, Natoma?

What happens when "one's inherent sense of right and wrong" conflicts with whatever definition you are using?

I hope you've gotten the point. Please spare us the "dictonary terms" as some legitimate form of "rebuttle"

Right and wrong are qualititative terms.

Hello?

That's exactly the point.

Natural is also a qualitative term, BY DEFINITION.

I really can't believe you are continuning along this line of argumentation. Your morals are not only influenced by specific dictonary definitions from sepcific publishers at specific times....but now if the primary definition is "qualitative", that means it is to be dismissed?

The point is, what you deem right and wrong is your opinion only.

Exactly....then follows by definition, what you deem natural or unnatural can ALSO be opinion.

Opinions can be correct or incorrect.

Wrong. Opinions are neither. THEY ARE OPINIONS.

What is found in nature cannot.

Wrong again.

What happens when we find a species of fish populated in a man-made lake? Is that fish's existence natural or unnatural?

Almost nothing is black and white, Natoma. The sooner you accept it, the sooner you might start to get along with others and display less intolerance to those who don't happen to share your viewpoint.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

All's fair right? When homosexual sex was illegal, what was the first thing conservatives used to provie it was wrong? "Oh it's immoral and that's why we have laws against it."

And your point?

Morals dicatate laws...not the other way around. It's a simple question, Natoma. Just because a law is passed, doesn't make me change my mind on a moral stance with respect to the issue.

It does to you?

Just answer the damn question already...