dontamend.com

[Natoma]

Ahem..... Joe's definition is from Webster
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=natural

You're a little late with that one. This was already established and debated.

 

[RussSchultz]

Does anybody sell popcorn here?

 

[Silent_One]

You're a little late with that one. This was already established and debated

.

So you lost that one, eh?

Russ, pass the popcorn.

 

[Natoma]

Correct.

An opinion is made in the absense of positive knowledge. If positive knowledge is known, then what you speak about is not an opinion.

Still, an opinion, no matter how ludicrous, can never be wrong. Someone's assertion that the dots in the sky are pin pricks in a giant black sheet that gives us glimpses of god's power is correct. We have a supposition of what those distant stars are, but we don't know.

Someone's assertion that the zodiac symbols are indeed gods are indeed correct, because we don't know if they are or not.

Science only has "provable within a certain degree of uncertainty" basis for their claims. So within that certain degree of uncertainty, I believe the sun revolves around the earth, and VD is passed by mental telepathy.

 

[Natoma]

You're a little late with that one. This was already established and debated

.

So you lost that one, eh?

Russ, pass the popcorn.

That is still up for debate.

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.

And that is now how we're on the matter of opinion.

 

[RussSchultz]

I personally dislike the definition bandied about that an opinion is anything that has not yet been proven with enough certainty.

The statement of fact/subjective evaluation dichotomy is so much more clear. Mirriams definition # 1 is all you need, for those of you who are dictionary devotees.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

My morals tell me that acceptance of marriage should be a state level decision. Right now, that is not what we have. It is federally accepted.

Really? You can be legally married to your partner in N.Y.?

Oh I entertained it. I considered it. Then I considered you a fool for it. Happy?

No, because that's not what you did or said. You said that anyone who believes that homosexuality is wrong...is wrong. No matter what the reasoning is...they must be ignorant, or contradictory, etc.

You say that no matter WHAT the actual comparison is between homsexuality and beastiality is, it's wrong.

You never claimed to FIRST consider the arguments. You have made up your opinion first, and reject all BASIS of all other opinions as not possibly legitimate.

Go ahead, name me one "valid" basis, in your opinion, in which someone can arrive at the opinion that homosexuality is wrong. I'm not saying to support their opinion. I'm asking if you can recognize any basis for such an opinion to be valid.

And yet the percentage of people with this opinion has decreased dramatically since the 50s and 60s.

Does make a case for the laws dictating, or at least strongly affecting the moral fabric of a society no?

We've had this discussion before. You can make a case either way. Changing laws affect the moral fabric...or the changing moral fabric affects the laws.

(Of course, I realize that by my saying a case can be made either way, means that I accpet the BASIS for your opinion. I also of course realize you don't understand this concept, and therefore will just flat out reject any opinion other than your own.)

Heh. Just wait. It's coming.

Thank you for admitting that you were wrong. It may indeed come. It hasn't come yet.

It either case, it won't impact my personal moral stance on the issue.

I stated that this is not the case. The Anti-Miscegenation laws became law, despite the fact that they conflicted with the constitution. They were later repealed, yes, but that doesn't negate the fact that they indeed became law and were indeed law for a good 80 years.

Now you're splitting hairs. Sigh. Will it make you happy to say that I implied that a law will not be created, and remain on the books if it contradicts the constitution?

Obviously "unconstitutional" laws are legistlated. Otherwise we wouldn't need a supreme court. It's very purpose is to stike down unconstitutional law (or uphold constitutionally sound ones).

As I said, my personal, inherent, moral code has nothing to do with pedophilia and beastiality. It's illegal, so that's enough for me. It doesn't matter whether or not I agree or disagree with those practices.

It matters to me. And it matters for the sake of you actually being consistent with your previously moral opinion on homosexuality. Which is of course, why you won't answer it. You're damned no matter how you answer it. (Not beastiality, but pedophilia and incest, which can involve concenting individuals.)

SHOULD any laws against incest or pedophilia be striken down? (Either because YOU believe they are constitutionally protected, or because YOU think they are not wrong?)

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Still, an opinion, no matter how ludicrous, can never be wrong.

It can't be right or wrong.

Someone's assertion that the dots in the sky are pin pricks in a giant black sheet that gives us glimpses of god's power is correct.

No, he's not correct. That's an opinion. (Unless it has at least been positively esatblished that God exists...)

Someone's assertion that the zodiac symbols are indeed gods are indeed correct, because we don't know if they are or not.

No, that assertion is not correct or incorrect. It's an opinion. It's neither.

Science only has "provable within a certain degree of uncertainty" basis for their claims. So within that certain degree of uncertainty, I believe the sun revolves around the earth, and VD is passed by mental telepathy.

Provide your evidence to support those claims, and we'll see the the general community establishes your belief as positive fact. Good luck.

 

[RussSchultz]

I spit (ptooie!) on your definitions of opinion, Joe.

 

[Natoma]

My morals tell me that acceptance of marriage should be a state level decision. Right now, that is not what we have. It is federally accepted.

Really? You can be legally married to your partner in N.Y.?

How do you come to this question? I said marriage, not homosexual marriage. Marriage right now is only for heterosexuals. So why would I make a statement about my me and my partner wrt marriage?

Oh I entertained it. I considered it. Then I considered you a fool for it. Happy?

No, because that's not what you did or said. You said that anyone who believes that homosexuality is wrong...is wrong. No matter what the reasoning is...they must be ignorant, or contradictory, etc.

For the reasons you gave and others gave, yup. I listened to those reasons after you stated that you believed that homosexuality was wrong. I asked why, and you gave your reasons, as did others.

I entertained it, I considered it, then I came to my own conclusion about those statements.

You say that no matter WHAT the actual comparison is between homsexuality and beastiality is, it's wrong.

You never claimed to FIRST consider the arguments. You have made up your opinion first, and reject all BASIS of all other opinions as not possibly legitimate.

You've made your comparisons, as has vince. I consider them all wrong, after I listened to them, because frankly I had never heard any arguments comparing homosexuality with beastiality before in my life. Most people I know are smarter than that.

Go ahead, name me one "valid" basis, in your opinion, in which someone can arrive at the opinion that homosexuality is wrong. I'm not saying to support their opinion. I'm asking if you can recognize any basis for such an opinion to be valid.

Oh a "valid" basis would be religion. Do I agree with that opinion and think it's right? Nope. Do they think it's valid and acceptable, yup. Do I think they're wrong for having that belief? Yes. Do I consider the "proof?" Yes.

Doesn't change my opinion on the matter.

And yet the percentage of people with this opinion has decreased dramatically since the 50s and 60s.

Does make a case for the laws dictating, or at least strongly affecting the moral fabric of a society no?

We've had this discussion before. You can make a case either way. Changing laws affect the moral fabric...or the changing moral fabric affects the laws.

Agreed, you can make the case either way. This was never in dispute. You offered up your opinion and I offered a counterpoint.

Heh. Just wait. It's coming.

Thank you for admitting that you were wrong. It may indeed come. It hasn't come yet.

I see nowhere where I admitted any incorrectness. If you're speaking about the first part of my post you quoted, then see my first explanation above.

It either case, it won't impact my personal moral stance on the issue.

As I said before, your personal moral stance on the subject doesn't matter to me. What matters to me is what the government says about my relationship wrt the legality/illegality of it. And so far, so good ty very much Supreme Court and Sodomy Laws.

I stated that this is not the case. The Anti-Miscegenation laws became law, despite the fact that they conflicted with the constitution. They were later repealed, yes, but that doesn't negate the fact that they indeed became law and were indeed law for a good 80 years.

Now you're splitting hairs. Sigh. Will it make you happy to say that I implied that a law will not be created, and remain on the books if it contradicts the constitution?

Yes, it will.

Obviously "unconstitutional" laws are legistlated. Otherwise we wouldn't need a supreme court. It's very purpose is to stike down unconstitutional law (or uphold constitutionally sound ones).

Agreed.

/me points to sodomy laws, and soon marriage laws excluding homosexuals

As I said, my personal, inherent, moral code has nothing to do with pedophilia and beastiality. It's illegal, so that's enough for me. It doesn't matter whether or not I agree or disagree with those practices.

It matters to me. And it matters for the sake of you actually being consistent with your previously moral opinion on homosexuality. Which is of course, why you won't answer it. You're damned no matter how you answer it. (Not beastiality, but pedophilia and incest, which can involve concenting individuals.)

SHOULD any laws against incest or pedophilia be striken down? (Either because YOU believe they are constitutionally protected, or because YOU think they are not wrong?)

Whatever reasons you divulge out of my lack of a need to respond is fine and your opinion. I respect your right to your opinion, not the content of your opinion.

And in my opinion, I do not need to divulge my personal "moral" opinions on your questions, and that lack of a need is merely my opinion, which is neither right nor wrong. The government has said what it needs to say on these subjects, in my opinion.

 

[Natoma]

No, he's not correct. That's an opinion. (Unless it has at least been positively esatblished that God exists...)

Fine, then everything we know in science is only an opinion and not fact. Because nothing in science is known 100% to be correct.

 

[Natoma]

I spit (ptooie!) on your definitions of opinion, Joe.

Well, I spit on your spit on Joe's definition of opinion, because it's his opinion and it's neither right nor wrong, but simply an opinion. So there!

 

[Joe DeFuria]

For the reasons you gave and others gave, yup. I listened to those reasons after you stated that you believed that homosexuality was wrong. I asked why, and you gave your reasons, as did others.

I entertained it, I considered it, then I came to my own conclusion about those statements.

No, you did more than that. You came to some unsupportable conclusion about the BASIS for those opinions. Not just the opinions themselves.

Had you said something like, "you know, I can really understand how one can view homosexuality as unnatural, and on that basis see homosexuality as wrong. However, I see homosexuality as RIGHT, for reasons x-y-z."

What you have repeatedly argued is that the BASIS for the opinion has no valid premise...with rediculous notions like "definition X" from the internet dictionary...

You've made your comparisons, as has vince. I consider them all wrong, after I listened to them, because frankly I had never heard any arguments comparing homosexuality with beastiality before in my life. Most people I know are smarter than that.

No you consider them wrong because frankly, you don't believe beastiality is "natural".

As for beastiality, there is no place in nature that shows sex happening between completely different types of animals.

Even though most people I know are smart enough to know that statement is wrong. (Depending of course, on how you choose to arbitrarily define "completley different animals".)

Oh a "valid" basis would be religion. Do I agree with that opinion and think it's right? Nope. Do they think it's valid and acceptable, yup. Do I think they're wrong for having that belief? Yes. Do I consider the "proof?" Yes.

Doesn't change my opinion on the matter.

Hoorah!

So what if my religion tells me homosexual is not "natural"?

As I said before, your personal moral stance on the subject doesn't matter to me.

That's quite in stark contrast to what "all you have asked of me" in the past. You asked me to respect your sexuality the same way as I do heteros, and I told you I didn't.

Then you went off about "my problem."

/me points to sodomy laws, and soon marriage laws excluding homosexuals

Marriage laws excluding homosexuals has little to do with sodomy laws that infringe upon the "right to privacy."

I'm not saying marriage laws excluding homosexuals may at some point be ruled unconstitutional, but certainly not on the basis of some sodomy law decision.

And in my opinion, I do not need to divulge my personal "moral" opinions on your questions, and that lack of a need is merely my opinion, which is neither right nor wrong. The government has said what it needs to say on these subjects, in my opinion.

In my opinion, the only possible reason you could have for not answering a direct question is because you're afraid of your own answer.

 

[Natoma]

And that is your opinion, which I respect in the fact that you have the right to it. But I do not respect the content.

Yay Free Speech.

 

[Natoma]

Oh and btw Joe, did anyone tell you you're beautiful when you're angry?

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Oh and btw Joe, did anyone tell you you're beautiful when you're angry?

When I'm angry, I'll let you know...then maybe you can make a judgement.

 

[Legion]

LOL

I thought we had just gotten through arguing nature shouldn't be the deciding factor in our behaviors. It shouldn't matter what "nature" does as ultimately we do things so differently.

No examples of animals matting out of their species? I have seen numerous animals approach others of different species with sexual intentions (dogs/pigs, dogs/humans, horses/cows, horses/humans, dogs with other species of dogs, etc).

 

[Natoma]

Oh and btw Joe, did anyone tell you you're beautiful when you're angry?

When I'm angry, I'll let you know...then maybe you can make a judgement.

I'm not making any judgements. Just stating my opinion.

 

[Sabastian]

LOL

I thought we had just gotten through arguing nature shouldn't be the deciding factor in our behaviors. It shouldn't matter what "nature" does as ultimately we do things so differently.

No examples of animals matting out of their species? I have seen numerous animals approach others of different species with sexual intentions (dogs/pigs, dogs/humans, horses/cows, horses/humans, dogs with other species of dogs, etc).

Right there is all sorts of nature that we don't like or accept, including portions human nature.

 

[Natoma]

Right there is all sorts of nature that we don't like or accept, including portions human nature.

That's precisely what I argued in another thread. The "naturalness" of homosexuality cannot be debated. Your own personal argument against it or for it is what can most certainly be argued.

But that is a separate argument than joe's "It's not natural" argument.