News:

And we're back!

Main Menu

Naturalist argument against homosexuality

Started by Martinus, February 16, 2013, 05:07:15 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Viking

Quote from: PDH on February 16, 2013, 03:59:33 PM
Wait a minute...did mart start another useless gay thread?

Gay related logical fallacy thread :contract:
First Maxim - "There are only two amounts, too few and enough."
First Corollary - "You cannot have too many soldiers, only too few supplies."
Second Maxim - "Be willing to exchange a bad idea for a good one."
Second Corollary - "You can only be wrong or agree with me."

A terrorist which starts a slaughter quoting Locke, Burke and Mill has completely missed the point.
The fact remains that the only person or group to applaud the Norway massacre are random Islamists.

fhdz

Quote from: Viking on February 16, 2013, 04:01:08 PM
Quote from: PDH on February 16, 2013, 03:59:33 PM
Wait a minute...did mart start another useless gay thread?

Gay related logical fallacy thread :contract:

Yes, be fair, PDH - it's actually a useless naturalism thread.
and the horse you rode in on

Viking

Quote from: fahdiz on February 16, 2013, 04:21:54 PM
Quote from: Viking on February 16, 2013, 04:01:08 PM
Quote from: PDH on February 16, 2013, 03:59:33 PM
Wait a minute...did mart start another useless gay thread?

Gay related logical fallacy thread :contract:

Yes, be fair, PDH - it's actually a useless naturalism thread.

naturalism hijack
First Maxim - "There are only two amounts, too few and enough."
First Corollary - "You cannot have too many soldiers, only too few supplies."
Second Maxim - "Be willing to exchange a bad idea for a good one."
Second Corollary - "You can only be wrong or agree with me."

A terrorist which starts a slaughter quoting Locke, Burke and Mill has completely missed the point.
The fact remains that the only person or group to applaud the Norway massacre are random Islamists.

dps

Quote from: Martinus on February 16, 2013, 05:17:01 AM

To a lesser degree I feel the same about the "inborn" vs. "acquired" debate. To me this is another intellectual red herring. Consenting adults should be free to do whatever they want, as long as they are not harming anyone else. Whether they were born that way or got that way later on should not matter in the slightest.

The problem with this is that whether certain character traits or behaviours that are almost universally considered negative--pedophilia, for example---are inborn, a matter of upbringing, or something else entirely has implications for how children should be raised. 

Martinus

Quote from: dps on February 16, 2013, 04:39:38 PM
Quote from: Martinus on February 16, 2013, 05:17:01 AM

To a lesser degree I feel the same about the "inborn" vs. "acquired" debate. To me this is another intellectual red herring. Consenting adults should be free to do whatever they want, as long as they are not harming anyone else. Whether they were born that way or got that way later on should not matter in the slightest.

The problem with this is that whether certain character traits or behaviours that are almost universally considered negative--pedophilia, for example---are inborn, a matter of upbringing, or something else entirely has implications for how children should be raised.

Yes, but it has no implication for whether a person with such traits should be allowed to act on them.

I am not saying that it is useless or irrelevant to examine this scientifically, but I think it has no bearing on the marriage equality debate.

Darth Wagtaros

Quote from: Viking on February 16, 2013, 04:24:26 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on February 16, 2013, 04:21:54 PM
Quote from: Viking on February 16, 2013, 04:01:08 PM
Quote from: PDH on February 16, 2013, 03:59:33 PM
Wait a minute...did mart start another useless gay thread?

Gay related logical fallacy thread :contract:

Yes, be fair, PDH - it's actually a useless naturalism thread.

naturalism hijack
He hijacked himself?
PDH!