dontamend.com

[Joe DeFuria]

snip to get to the heart of the matter.

Thank you for finally seeing that. Now maybe we can move past the "It's not natural" argument and into why you think it's right or wrong, excluding the "it's not natural" argument, because as you've admitted, the implication of right and wrong is separate from what is natural and what is not wrt this issue.

I guess we'll never move past it, because it's not natural to me. Put another way, Homsexuality is both unnatural and wrong to me.

If you do indeed want to get past this, then accept that someone can tell you "Homosexuality not natural," and your response should be "Well I disagree,...how do you define natural?" Not "no, homosexuality is unarguably natural, because I have this dictionary that uses a redundant definition and it says so."

 

[Natoma]

Ok lets try this another way.

Using every possible definition of "Natural" that is available and relevant to this discussion, homosexuality can and does fit the bill. If you wish to discuss why you don't think it is not natural, then you can use a particular interpretive portion of the definition which does not fit all circumstances, due to our differing opinions of what is right and what is wrong.

When I look for a definition or a solution to a problem, I try to find one that addresses all situations if possible. In this case, homosexuality does indeed make the case as natural. If you are comfortable with the fact that your definition fails in certain instances, then so be it.

However, I am not comfortable with that circumstantial failure, which is why I personally do not accept "what is inherently right or wrong" as a definition to build an entire belief from. If you base an entire belief around natural only being an off-white or beige color, then you could preclude that caucasians are not natural, or dark skinned blacks are not natural. But that does not work in all circumstances that you could apply that definition. It is subject to failure. The definition I use is not subject to that failure, and that is why I accept it as the definition, while your definition is subject to failure.

A house built on sand cannot suffer a hurricane while a house built upon stone can.

Thank you bible studies. hehe.

 

[Himself]

Everything is natural if mankind didn't invent it. Cancer is natural, being eaten by a bear is natural, but I wouldn't exactly consider either one desirable. In fact both are something to avoid at all costs.

Is homosexuality normal? Is it a perversion? Does it really matter? Seems to me that you guys feel what you feel about the subject and playing word games isn't going to prove one of you right.

 

[Natoma]

Everything is natural if mankind didn't invent it. Cancer is natural, being eaten by a bear is natural, but I wouldn't exactly consider either one desirable. In fact both are something to avoid at all costs.

Is homosexuality normal? Is it a perversion? Does it really matter? Seems to me that you guys feel what you feel about the subject and playing word games isn't going to prove one of you right.

And that, in elegant summation, is precisely the point. I feel the natural/unnatural argument is already settled when using definitions that don't fail in any circumstance wrt this issue. We're playing word games at this point to try and make a case for one side of the argument one way or another.

I feel the right/wrong/normal/abnormal argument is a separate one and should be debated separately from the "It's natural/unnatural" argument.

As you stated. Cancer is natural. Being eaten by a bear is natural. Death is natural. They are not desirable, but that is an individual interpretation and not an absolute.

I could never argue that cancer is unnatural simply because I think it's wrong. I could never argue that being eaten by a bear is unnatural simply because I think it's wrong. I could never argue that death is unnatural simply because I think it's wrong. But I could make my case as to why I think those thing are "wrong" wrt my own individual interpretation. But I could never say that they are unnatural because of my own particular bias toward the situation.

That is precisely what I've been trying to get across.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Everything is natural if mankind didn't invent it. Cancer is natural, being eaten by a bear is natural, but I wouldn't exactly consider either one desirable. In fact both are something to avoid at all costs.

Is homosexuality normal? Is it a perversion? Does it really matter? Seems to me that you guys feel what you feel about the subject and playing word games isn't going to prove one of you right.

And that, in elegant summation, is precisely the point. I feel Natoma's aversion to acknowledging someone else's belief that homosexuality "isn't natural" to be, well, pointless.

I feel the right/wrong/normal/abnormal argument is a separate one and should be debated separately from the "It's natural/unnatural" argument.

I'm sure you do feel that way.

I feel that natural/unnatural is intertwined right/wrong. You simply want me to "drop" the term "unnatural" for some reason...even though you admit it has nothing to do with right/wrong?

But I could make my case as to why I think those thing are "wrong" wrt my own individual interpretation.

Let me try this again, in hopes you can actually see how "natural/unnatural" fits in to my opinion on homosexuality.

* I can give you an opinion that that homosexuality is "wrong."

* I can tell you that reproductively speaking, the relationship is not "natural." (my definition of Natural.) . That it is inherent to me, that the simple biology of human reproduction, which wholly excludes same sex reproduction, dictates that homosexuality is not "natural" to me.

It's not a simple case of "Homosexuality is not natural." To me, it's "Homosexuality is wrong, because the relationship to bilogical reproduction is not natural to me."

This, of course, is your cue to regurgitate the "infertile couple" and similar arguments to which I've responded to numerous times.

Suffice to say we won't agree on this of course.

I simply resent the notion that you won't accept any line of argumentation in which the term "natural" can fit in some way into one's explanation for their opinion.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

The definition I use is not subject to that failure, and that is why I accept it as the definition, while your definition is subject to failure.

Of course your definition is subject to failure.

A new species of fish evolves in a lake that was formed by man's building of a dam.

Is that species "natural" or "unnatural?" It would not have existed if not for the interference of man.

Isn't "man" part of Nature to begin with? At what point exactly does something go from "natural" to "unnatural"? Is it man interfering himself, or man-made "technology" interfering? To what extent?

 

[Natoma]

Dinosaurs died out and mammals came to dominance because of an asteroid impact. Was that natural? Of course it was.

Nature responding to man's influence and evolving wrt that influence is most certainly natural. Oh and btw, Dams are natural. See Beavers.

 

[RussSchultz]

My popcorn is getting stale.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Nature responding to man's influence and evolving wrt that influence is most certainly natural.

There you go again...Nature responding to man's influence? More redundant definitions. You have not defined "nature" for us. (Or is nature just "inherently known"...but how can that be?)

I take a gun and shoot a wild turkey. The Turkey's death is a "natural" response to my influence. You're telling me the turkey's death was "natural?"

 

[Natoma]

Everything is natural if mankind didn't invent it. Cancer is natural, being eaten by a bear is natural, but I wouldn't exactly consider either one desirable. In fact both are something to avoid at all costs.

Is homosexuality normal? Is it a perversion? Does it really matter? Seems to me that you guys feel what you feel about the subject and playing word games isn't going to prove one of you right.

And that, in elegant summation, is precisely the point. I feel Natoma's aversion to acknowledging someone else's belief that homosexuality "isn't natural" to be, well, pointless.

I never said your belief isn't correct wrt the defined term of natural. I said that it fails in some circumstances (due to our different definitions of right/wrong wrt this situation), and that is why I do not accept it as valid when trying to build an entire argument against homosexuality.

You can't build an argument on an inherently flawed premise.

You are doing this:

* Natural to you means what is inherently right or wrong.

* Because you believe homosexuality is wrong, it is therefore unnatural.

However, give that same definitional construct to someone else, say, me:

* Natural to me means what is inherently right or wrong.

* Because I believe homosexuality is right, it is therefore natural.

I'm doing this:

* Natural to me means what is found in nature.

* Homosexuality is found in nature, therefore it is natural.

However, give that same definitional construct to someone else, say, you:

* Natural to you means what is found in nature.

* Homosexuality is found in nature, therefore it is natural.

You see? Your definitional construct fails when you give it to anyone else. Mine does not.

I feel the right/wrong/normal/abnormal argument is a separate one and should be debated separately from the "It's natural/unnatural" argument.

I'm sure you do feel that way.

I feel that natural/unnatural is intertwined right/wrong. You simply want me to "drop" the term "unnatural" for some reason...even though you admit it has nothing to do with right/wrong?

That is your interpretation of right/wrong. However, as I've shown, your interpretation is merely that. An interpretation. My interpretation of what you choose to use as the definitional construct of natural conflicts with yours as they are completely polar opposites. The definition you choose to use fails under scrutiny. Mine on the other hand does not, as I stated earlier.

But I could make my case as to why I think those thing are "wrong" wrt my own individual interpretation.

Let me try this again, in hopes you can actually see how "natural/unnatural" fits in to my opinion on homosexuality.

I see exactly how it fits with your opinion on homosexuality. I just said that that definition fails when you give it to me, or someone else who does not believe in the way you do. Homosexuality occurring in nature cannot be debated at all. Definitions are not one way or another. They are complements to one another. What I use as the definition of natural fits every instance of its usage. Your definition does not fit every instance of its usage.

* I can give you an opinion that that homosexuality is "wrong."

* I can tell you that reproductively speaking, the relationship is not "natural." (my definition of Natural.) . That it is inherent to me, that the simple biology of human reproduction, which wholly excludes same sex reproduction, dictates that homosexuality is not "natural" to me.

Reproductively speaking, post menopausal sex is incapable of producing a child. Simple biology of human reproduction wholly excludes post menopausal sex which should also then dictate to you that post menopausal sex is not "natural" to you.

It's not a simple case of "Homosexuality is not natural." To me, it's "Homosexuality is wrong, because the relationship to bilogical reproduction is not natural to me."

As I said before, neither is a post menopausal relationship. In that case, "Post Menopausal sex is wrong, because the relationships to biological reproduction is not natural to you."

This, of course, is your cue to regurgitate the "infertile couple" and similar arguments to which I've responded to numerous times.

See? No "infertile couple" regurgitation.

Suffice to say we won't agree on this of course.

Indeed. But thankfully I use definitional constructs for this particular idea that does not fail in every instance, nor does it require any special case qualifiers.

I simply resent the notion that you won't accept any line of argumentation in which the term "natural" can fit in some way into one's explanation for their opinion.

I stated why I don't accept it. It fails depending on the point of view of the person asked. My line of argumentation does not. You can have your line of argumentation and you can fight for your opinion through that line of argumentation, but the fact of the matter remains that it is flawed because of its failures under a different perspective.

Homosexuality occurs in nature and therefore it is natural, wrt a definition of natural. That cannot be disputed.

Homosexuality is wrong and therefore it is unnatural, wrt a definition of natural. That most certainly can.

My definition of natural does not fail under any scrutiny. Yours most certainly does.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

My popcorn is getting stale.

That's OK...it's just natural for that to happen. 8)

 

[Natoma]

Nature responding to man's influence and evolving wrt that influence is most certainly natural.

There you go again...Nature responding to man's influence? More redundant definitions. You have not defined "nature" for us. (Or is nature just "inherently known"...but how can that be?)

I take a gun and shoot a wild turkey. The Turkey's death is a "natural" response to my influence. You're telling me the turkey's death was "natural?"

Nature: The material world and its phenomena.

Thus, if a fish evolves due to man's influence, that is indeed natural. Evolution is nature's natural response to outside stimuli, no matter what that stimuli is, be it man, extraterrestrial, animal, virus, bacteria, or otherwise.

 

[Natoma]

My popcorn is getting stale.

That's OK...it's just natural for that to happen. 8)

Indeed it is.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

You can't build an argument on an inherently flawed premise.

How can an "inherent belief" be inherently flawed?

You are doing this:

* Natural to you means what is inherently right or wrong.

* Because you believe homosexuality is wrong, it is therefore unnatural.

No, I'm doing what I said I'm doing. I'm saying homosexuality is wrong, because inherntly, the reproductive aspects / consequences of homosexuality is wrong.

You see? Your definitional construct fails when you give it to anyone else. Mine does not.

No, my definitional construct does NOT FAIL. You keep failing to grasp that IT'S PERFECTLY OK for someone else's inherent definition of natural can lead to different conclusions.

That's the entire point. I ACCPET THE FACT that someone else can say it IS natural to them. You simply can't bring yourself to do it for some reason.

That is your interpretation of right/wrong. However, as I've shown, your interpretation is merely that. An interpretation.

No kidding? As if anyone else's interpretation of right and wrong is anything else?

My interpretation of what you choose to use as the definitional construct of natural conflicts with yours as they are completely polar opposites. The definition you choose to use fails under scrutiny. Mine on the other hand does not, as I stated earlier.

Repeating it several times doesn't make it true. The definition I choose is inherently open to interpretation.. I accept this. You have a problem with it.

Is that so hard to understand? Natoma, if all morals and views of right and wrong were not open to interpretation, we'd live in a pretty simply world, wouldn't we?

I see exactly how it fits with your opinion on homosexuality. I just said that that definition fails when you give it to me, or someone else who does not believe in the way you do.

Precisely my point. I accept this. I am TOLERANT of this. I really have no idea what you're trying to get at.

You: your definition is open to interpretation.
Me: I know. That's what I keep telling you.
You: but your definition is open to interpretation!
Me: Yes, and I'll try and explain my interpretation.
You: but your definition is open to interpretation!
Me: Uh....

Homosexuality occurring in nature cannot be debated at all.

So?

Definitions are not one way or another. They are complements to one another. What I use as the definition of natural fits every instance of its usage. Your definition does not fit every instance of its usage.

*Smacks self on head*

So?

Reproductively speaking, post menopausal sex is incapable of producing a child.

Menupause is biological safeguard against producing flawed children (via eggs that are 'too old'), as well as protection for the mother. (Increased risk to life when birthing at later and later ages). Reproductively speaking, menopause is essential to healthy reproduction.

Simple biology of human reproduction wholly excludes post menopausal sex which should also then dictate to you that post menopausal sex is not "natural" to you.

Menupause is a crucial aspect of the biology of human reproduction itself. It certainly does not dicatate to me that post menopausal sex is not natural.

See? No "infertile couple" regurgitation.

Actually, it was. As the female was infertile.

Indeed. But thankfully I use definitional constructs for this particular idea that does not fail in every instance, nor does it require any special case qualifiers.

Thankfully, I accpet the fact that your definitional construct is different than mine. Thankfully, I'm more tolerant than you are.

I stated why I don't accept it. It fails depending on the point of view of the person asked.

Now you're going in circles.

Me: You should accept it, because it's interpretive (and therefore can fail depending on the person you ask.)

You: I don't accept it, because it's interpretive.

My line of argumentation does not. You can have your line of argumentation and you can fight for your opinion through that line of argumentation, but the fact of the matter remains that it is flawed because of its failures under a different perspective.

The fact of the matter is you are intolerant of other points of view, and therefore see it as flawed.

Homosexuality occurs in nature and therefore it is natural, wrt a definition of natural. That cannot be disputed.

And is also irrelevant.

My definition of natural does not fail under any scrutiny. Yours most certainly does.

Correct. Under the scrutiny of any intolerant person, it will fail.

 

[Bigus Dickus]

Erm.... more ridiculousness.

(1) There is a strong scientific argument that homosexuality is a disorder, be it psychological or genetic. In either case, it drastically reduces the chances for carriers and their sparse offspring to reproduce, in essence lowering the chances of survivial for that line, unless you want to argue that gay people have other properties (being good decorators or some such) that makes them more likely to reproduce by non-conventional methods (e.g., a female may want to be artificially inseminated using the sperm of a gay man because she believes him to be more intelligent and kind than the average straight man she has met). Otherwise, they are less fit. Less fit = bad in evolutionary terms.

(2) Many words have multiple definitions. The one that fits the most cases is not the correct defintion. The correct defintion is the one that fits the context of the specific case in quesiton. The argument between you and Joe is simply over what the appropriate context is, and thus what the appropriate definition is. From each of your viewpoints, you are using the correct context (you, that something found in nature is the context you're talking about, and Joe, that the context of natural is with respect to an inherent sense of right and wrong). Both valid viewpoints, just a disagreement over the appropriate context. Claiming that your viewpoint is "more correct" because the definition you happen to have chosen is the appropriate one for a wider variety of contexts is silly. Shame.

(3) If you want to push the issue, anything you can find that is physicall real is natural. From pink paints to genetically altered corn to humans with plastic hearts. It's all natural, which IMO renders Natoma's preferred definition rather useless, though he is certainly correct in using it in the context of his arguments.

(4) You weren't showing the circuitous arguments of anyone when you kept making statements about "moot because it's legal, moot because it's illegal." Several of those types of statements from you were in direct response to being asked about your personal moral stance on pedophilia and beastiality. They were tools used to dodge the question. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Nature: The material world and its phenomena.

Thus, if a fish evolves due to man's influence, that is indeed natural. Evolution is nature's natural response to outside stimuli, no matter what that stimuli is, be it man, extraterrestrial, animal, virus, bacteria, or otherwise.

In other words, everything is natural. Yay.

As I said, a Turkey's natural response to being shot in the head is to die. Perfectly natural...

 

[Natoma]

You can't build an argument on an inherently flawed premise.

How can an "inherent belief" be inherently flawed?

I believe killing is unjust but capital punishment is fine. There is an inherent flaw to that inherent belief in that they are contradictory by nature.

You are doing this:

* Natural to you means what is inherently right or wrong.

* Because you believe homosexuality is wrong, it is therefore unnatural.

No, I'm doing what I said I'm doing. I'm saying homosexuality is wrong, because inherntly, the reproductive aspects / consequences of homosexuality is wrong.

As are the reproductive aspects / consequences of post menopausal relationships.

You see? Your definitional construct fails when you give it to anyone else. Mine does not.

No, my definitional construct does NOT FAIL. You keep failing to grasp that IT'S PERFECTLY OK for someone else's inherent definition of natural can lead to different conclusions.

I never said it couldn't lead to different conclusions. I just said that because my definition does not fail under all circumstances, I choose to accept my definition over yours. As I stated earlier, I don't like taking definitions that fail in certain circumstances. My definition is a 100% absolute. Your definition is not 100% absolute.

That's the entire point. I ACCPET THE FACT that someone else can say it IS natural to them. You simply can't bring yourself to do it for some reason.

Actually I do accept that Joe. I accept that you believe thus. I just see it as fundamentally flawed, due to the fact that what you choose to use as your definition for natural is fundamentally flawed due to the fact that it does not fit all criteria 100% of the time.

I seriously don't know why you're upset over this. I accept that you feel the way you do. That doesn't mean that I accept your particular opinion on the matter, because frankly that's all it is. An unprovable opinion. Homosexuality is wrong and therefore unnatural. Give it to me and Homosexuality is right and therefore natural. This is simply unprovable because we are dealing with opinions.

My belief on the matter, however is 100% provable and repeatable. Homosexuality is found in nature. It is natural.

Simple Scientific Methodology.

That is your interpretation of right/wrong. However, as I've shown, your interpretation is merely that. An interpretation.

No kidding? As if anyone else's interpretation of right and wrong is anything else?

That's what I stated just above. Right and wrong are opinions. They can be proved or disproved quite easily. Thus it is not something to try and build a case upon because it has its flaws.

However, homosexuality being found in nature cannot be disproven. It is an absolute. There is the difference between our ideas. Mine is fact. Yours is opinion.

And as you've stated before, once knowledge is known, it is no longer opinion. It becomes either a fact or a falsehood. And since we know your stance is not provable in every case, it cannot be a fact. Thus by simple process of elimination it must be a falsehood.

My stance is provable in every case, thus it is a fact.

Thus, your opinion is no longer valid, because we have knowledge to the contrary.

My interpretation of what you choose to use as the definitional construct of natural conflicts with yours as they are completely polar opposites. The definition you choose to use fails under scrutiny. Mine on the other hand does not, as I stated earlier.

Repeating it several times doesn't make it true. The definition I choose is inherently open to interpretation.. I accept this. You have a problem with it.

I agree that the definition that you choose is inherently open to interpretation. I merely stated that your interpretation is flawed because it does not fit all circumstances.

But you can definitely come to any conclusion you wish to come to. I accept that completely as that is your right under the first amendment. However, I do not have to accept your position on the matter. Just your right to make your position. I can easily point out the flaws in your position, and that is all I am doing.

I see exactly how it fits with your opinion on homosexuality. I just said that that definition fails when you give it to me, or someone else who does not believe in the way you do.

Precisely my point. I accept this. I am TOLERANT of this. I really have no idea what you're trying to get at.

You: your definition is open to interpretation.
Me: I know. That's what I keep telling you.
You: but your definition is open to interpretation!
Me: Yes, and I'll try and explain my interpretation.
You: but your definition is open to interpretation!
Me: Uh....

I haven't done anything like that. I've stated time and time again that the definition you use is open to interpretation. I merely stated that it is flawed because you can have a different interpretation and I can have a different interpretation. It does not fit all cases. My definition on the other hand does fit all instances and is not open for interpretation. It is binary. It either occurs in nature or it does not. No interpretation required. It is fact.

Reproductively speaking, post menopausal sex is incapable of producing a child.

Menupause is biological safeguard against producing flawed children (via eggs that are 'too old'), as well as protection for the mother. (Increased risk to life when birthing at later and later ages). Reproductively speaking, menopause is essential to healthy reproduction.

Wrong.

Menopause is not a biological safeguard against producing flawed children. Women are born with roughly 400 Eggs. A finite supply. The female body cannot produce anymore than 400 Eggs it is born with. 400 eggs released at a rate of 1 per month lasts exactly 33 years 4 months. Once that supply is exhausted, menopause sets in. Puberty begins roughly 12-14 years of age in females. 33 years 4 months later, you're looking at 45 - 47 years of age, i.e. the average onset of menopause.

Menopause is not essential to healthy reproduction. It is the result of the lack of reproductive capability left in that body.

Simple biology of human reproduction wholly excludes post menopausal sex which should also then dictate to you that post menopausal sex is not "natural" to you.

Menupause is a crucial aspect of the biology of human reproduction itself. It certainly does not dicatate to me that post menopausal sex is not natural.

See above. Menopausal reproduction is simply impossible. Therefore, by your definition, since human reproduction wholly excludes post menopausal sex, then it is unnatural to you, by definition.

My line of argumentation does not. You can have your line of argumentation and you can fight for your opinion through that line of argumentation, but the fact of the matter remains that it is flawed because of its failures under a different perspective.

The fact of the matter is you are intolerant of other points of view, and therefore see it as flawed.

If I were intolerant of your viewpoint I wouldn't be having this discussion with you. I would simply ignore you.

Intolerant: Unwilling to endure or support.

If I were intolerant, I would not endure these discussions would I. Certainly I am not intolerant.

 

[Natoma]

Nature: The material world and its phenomena.

Thus, if a fish evolves due to man's influence, that is indeed natural. Evolution is nature's natural response to outside stimuli, no matter what that stimuli is, be it man, extraterrestrial, animal, virus, bacteria, or otherwise.

In other words, everything is natural. Yay.

As I said, a Turkey's natural response to being shot in the head is to die. Perfectly natural...

Actually yes. Everything is natural. A turkey's natural response to being shot in the head is not necessarily to die. It could also go on living. Either result is natural. Death or Life. Life or Death.

 

[Natoma]

(1) There is a strong scientific argument that homosexuality is a disorder, be it psychological or genetic. In either case, it drastically reduces the chances for carriers and their sparse offspring to reproduce, in essence lowering the chances of survivial for that line, unless you want to argue that gay people have other properties (being good decorators or some such) that makes them more likely to reproduce by non-conventional methods (e.g., a female may want to be artificially inseminated using the sperm of a gay man because she believes him to be more intelligent and kind than the average straight man she has met). Otherwise, they are less fit. Less fit = bad in evolutionary terms.

White skin drastically reduces the chances of survival for a particular line, as opposed to dark skin, because of the intensified radiation that gets through which causes cancer.

Thus it is a genetic disorder because of evolutionary principles.

(2) Many words have multiple definitions. The one that fits the most cases is not the correct defintion. The correct defintion is the one that fits the context of the specific case in quesiton. The argument between you and Joe is simply over what the appropriate context is, and thus what the appropriate definition is. From each of your viewpoints, you are using the correct context (you, that something found in nature is the context you're talking about, and Joe, that the context of natural is with respect to an inherent sense of right and wrong). Both valid viewpoints, just a disagreement over the appropriate context. Claiming that your viewpoint is "more correct" because the definition you happen to have chosen is the appropriate one for a wider variety of contexts is silly. Shame.

If I choose Joe's context, his definition, that natural is directly related to an inherent sense of right and wrong, then it changes completely. My inherent sense of right and wrong wrt homosexuality shows that homosexuality is indeed right, and thus, in Joe's context, natural. It fails under my interpretation of his contextual definition.

And that is all I've been saying. His interpretation of the definition he chooses is fine. Because it (the definition) fails under certain circumstances however, it is not what I choose to use as my definitional construct. My definitional construct does not fail under any circumstance, thus I consider it a better definition than Joe's.

(3) If you want to push the issue, anything you can find that is physicall real is natural. From pink paints to genetically altered corn to humans with plastic hearts. It's all natural, which IMO renders Natoma's preferred definition rather useless, though he is certainly correct in using it in the context of his arguments.

Quite untrue actually. It does not render my preferred definition useless because of the fact that I've stated that homosexuality is natural because it occurs in nature. I also said that arguing that homosexuality is right or wrong is most certainly something we can do. But you cannot say that it is unnatural simply because it doesn't fit a particular interpretation of a definitional construct, especially when a different interpretation of that definitional construct renders a completely different result.

Look at it this way. You're a scientist. You conduct experiment A with steps 1-5. You get result B. I repeat experiment A with steps 1-5. I get result B. The experiment is scientifically valid.

You conduct experiment C with steps 1-5. You get result D. I repeat experiment C with steps 1-5. I get result F. The experiment is scientifically invalid.

Basically what is this saying? You can argue that you believe homosexuality is right or wrong under any circumstance, and come to a completely different conclusion (experiment C). But you cannot argue that homosexuality is not natural because it always occurs in nature, and you will always get the same result (experiment A).

(4) You weren't showing the circuitous arguments of anyone when you kept making statements about "moot because it's legal, moot because it's illegal." Several of those types of statements from you were in direct response to being asked about your personal moral stance on pedophilia and beastiality. They were tools used to dodge the question. Nothing more, nothing less.

Actually they weren't used to dodge the question at all. Merely to prove a point. And actually, I answered your question wrt beastiality and pedophilia on the last page. I'll copy and paste here so you can read it, if you missed it.

Pedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an individual has a fixation on a prepubescent male or prepubescent female's body, but not necessarily the substance of their personage. They form intense, and sometimes very loving attachments with these children. Yet once the children have gone through puberty, the pedophile loses their fixation and fixates on another child. Healthy, long lasting, relationships cannot be formed in this manner. They end up being nothing but psychically detrimental to both the pedophile and the child.

You could almost mistake Pedophilia for a fetish (and argue that it should be legal in this manner because other fetishes are indeed legal) in the way in which the fixation takes place. However fetishism is a fixation on a particular object (whip fetishes, handcuff fetishes, etc) or nonsexual part of the body (fecal fetishes, golden shower fetishes, etc). Pedophilia is illegal in our society because of these particular facets of the pedophile relationship.

The other laws that make it illegal are child protection laws and statutory rape laws. There have been cases for instance where an 18 year old was thrown in jail because of sexual activity with a 17 year old. Ridiculous, but true.

Beastiality, also known as zoophilia on the other hand is illegal because of animal protection laws which prohibit sexual abuse, physical abuse, and mental abuse. Sexual abuse is deemed as such because animals cannot make their own decisions wrt this matter in human interactions. These laws have been made for their protection from those who would abuse for their own sexual gratification.

The laws prohibiting zoophilia and pedophilia are similar in that fashion. To prevent the non-consensual sexual abuse of another being.

And that I agree with completely. If you want my "moral" opinion on the matter, I agree with any law that prevents the non-consensual abuse of another being, be it sexual and/or physical and/or emotional and/or mental.

 

[Geo]

Well, here's one heterosexual married Republican (RNC member, never voted for a Dem for President, etc) who is also in favor of legalizing gay marriage.

It constantly amazes me how some Republicans can go ballistic about homosexual promiscuity on one hand and then come out against gay marriage on the the other hand. You can't treat a group of people like pariahs and not expect some portion of them to *act* like pariahs. Mainstreaming gays will be good for everyone.