Sexual Orientation - Page 6

DVaut1 · #51 04-13-2005, 01:52 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[censored] what would be "best" for me, I want whats best for my country and the population as a whole.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think these two ideas are mutually exclusive; there are a great deal of conservatives (like every free market capitalist?) who feel what's best for YOU is what's best for your country.

kurto · #52 04-13-2005, 01:53 AM

LOL Honestly, are you a parody poster?

"Your challenge is bogus." I guess if you arbitrarily say so. If one believes the premise that people choose to be gay, one has to believe that everyone can arbitrarily choose their sexuality. So, if you believe the ridiculous notion that people choose their sexuality, my challenge makes perfect sense.

"It's natural for a man and a woman to have sex." Who says? "Natural" is usually defined as happening in the natural kingdom. Homosexuality has not only persisted throughout human history, it is also found with other species all over the natural kingdom. So you're already starting your response with a scientific falsity. No surprise.

"That, afterall, is how we all came to be here. So, to deviate from the natural you have only possibilities." Since homosexuality exists in nature, they are not deviating from nature. Honestly, you are a parody poster, right?

"1.) someone chooses to deviate" So this conclusion is drawn from your erroneous premise.
"2.) someone has a defect that makes them deviate" Who, besides the usual bigotted homophobes, says its a defect?

"So, are you saying that people who are homosexual are defects? " LOL does anyone take you seriously?

kurto · #53 04-13-2005, 01:56 AM

"The inherent state of sexual beings is male-female. Arguing against this is a fools errand." You're being ironic, right? The inherent state of homosexual beings is male-male or female-female. You seem to misuse words a lot.

"My only premise is that liberals are hypocrites (not like conservatives aren't) but they get free passes." My primary premise is you like to make up mindless platitudes and pretend you're saying something.

kurto · #54 04-13-2005, 02:05 AM

What is a "radical neocom"? Is this a new madeup word?

"I must thank all of you radical neocoms for proving my point so clearly in this thread." I enjoy people who arbitrarily declare their point proven.

"I personally cannot understand why any man would be homosexual." I guess that's because you're not gay. Gay men can't understand why someone would want to have sex with a woman. This seems so basic.

"I could care less what you think of me because you express a lot of hatred" Yep. All these people arguing about giving gays equal rights to marry their loved ones... they're hatred is so apparent. They should be more tolerant and loving by arguing to deny rights to gay people.

"and I really wouldn't associate with you much if I knew you if you are anything like what you have shown here." I can see why you wouldn't want to hang out with people who don't agree with all of your generalizations.

Dead · #55 04-13-2005, 02:07 AM

Jaxmike and I hang out all the time.

He's not a bad guy, really.

Although he does tend to put both his hands on his ass, when we're in the gay bar. It's like he's trying to protect it or something.

kurto · #56 04-13-2005, 02:14 AM

"He's not a bad guy, really." I have no reason to doubt he could be a nice guy. But he does seem a lot closeminded. I've never seen someone so taken by generalizations. And he seems to use faulty logic and misuse definitions to support his beliefs. A lot of projection.

A lot of reasonable and nice people shut down when it comes to politics. Like a religion, they shut out anything that contradicts their beliefs, ignoring anything that contradicts them... And then the generalizing. He twists two examples of 2 politicians making (arguably) questionable statements and concludes.... ALL LIBERALS are intolerant.

That would be like me pointing out that the Republican Senator who was paying a woman to have sex with her children (I forget his name, but I believe he was from CT)... and concluding that all Republicans are pedophiles.

If we hung out, we'd just have to avoid politics. (though I enjoy a juicy debate)

"Although he does tend to put both his hands on his ass, when we're in the gay bar. It's like he's trying to protect it or something." He should just pop a cork in there and relax.

bholdr · #57 04-13-2005, 03:05 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Actually its not. More on that follows.

[/ QUOTE ]

the 'appeal to nature' is accepted by any serious student of philosophy and argumentation as a fallicy. this is not up for debate- any educated person should know this... it's an accepted convention of debate. did you go to college? if not, then i understand your confusion.

[ QUOTE ]
The inherent state of sexual beings is male-female.

[/ QUOTE ]
not if they're geniticly predisposed to be male-male or female-feamle... 'inherant' is a clever rephrasing of 'natural' which is, again, a fallicy.

the rest of your post is too jumbled to make any sense, please respond in a coherant manner and i will reply in kind.

bholdr · #58 04-13-2005, 03:20 AM

BULLSHIIT

you continue to duck my question. if i had asked wether or not you thought cold-blooded murder was immoral, would you have responded the same way? of course not. you lack the courage of your convictions, and once again reveal your cowardice and ignorance.

i meet people like you all the time. too bad, really...

you are a COWARD! [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img] you may not respond that it isn't up to you to pass judgement, that is the escape-hatch of bigots that know that they are busted... it's an ambigous and non-commital response... if you really felt that it was not up to you to pass judgement, you would not be against marrige of homosexual couples- where you ARE passing judgement. instead of respond directly to my criticisims, you resort to clever wordplay and the dissection of semantic minutia. You ARE judging, but are AFRAID/ too smart to admit it, in the face of your obvious hipporacy (this time i use the term in an idiomatic sense and not the dictionary definition).

you clearly fit every defintition that webster has supplied and i have posted... why do you think you're the only conservative defending your 'arguments' (and i use that term very loosely, you clearly don't even know what an argument is...) in this thread? it's because the others are too smart to get behind your indefensible arguments!

i'm turning your setting back to "ignore" i'll give you another chance in a few weeks to grow up and join the reasonable discussion that educated people here try to carry on.

bholdr · #59 04-13-2005, 03:22 AM

[ QUOTE ]
"It's natural for a man and a woman to have sex." Who says? "Natural" is usually defined as happening in the natural kingdom. Homosexuality has not only persisted throughout human history, it is also found with other species all over the natural kingdom. So you're already starting your response with a scientific falsity. No surprise.

[/ QUOTE ]

exactly, which is why serious logicians consider the 'appeal to nature' a fallicy of argument.

bholdr · #60 04-13-2005, 03:24 AM

[ QUOTE ]
What is a "radical neocom"? Is this a new madeup word?

"I must thank all of you radical neocoms for proving my point so clearly in this thread." I enjoy people who arbitrarily declare their point proven.

"I personally cannot understand why any man would be homosexual." I guess that's because you're not gay. Gay men can't understand why someone would want to have sex with a woman. This seems so basic.

"I could care less what you think of me because you express a lot of hatred" Yep. All these people arguing about giving gays equal rights to marry their loved ones... they're hatred is so apparent. They should be more tolerant and loving by arguing to deny rights to gay people.

"and I really wouldn't associate with you much if I knew you if you are anything like what you have shown here." I can see why you wouldn't want to hang out with people who don't agree with all of your generalizations.

[/ QUOTE ]

you should post here more often.