The idea of homosexuality being wrong has nothing to do with choice. I may be a born thief, a born liar, a born pediphile. I may not have chosen to be these things; but that doesn't make it right. Morality is the set of innate laws that cause a society to function. A society cannot function or survive if everybody murdered. A society cannot survive if everybody stole. A society would completely disappear in one generation if everyone was gay. Wrong is not right because you were born wrong. Sorry
@mikedonovandad Your statment can be picked like this. Hurting is imoral. The problem in your statment is the "hurt", the thief "hurts" the one he/she robs, a liar "hurts" the one he/she lies to (or lies not to hurt but could end up hurting even more), a Pedophile "hurts" a child. (a murdere "hurts" the victime and his/her loved once) However a homosexual in his (or her) behaviur hurts no one. Therby Homosexualety is moral in this showcase.
@TainDK What virtue do you know that would hurt humanity if everyone participated? answer...none----What vice do you know that would hurt humanity if everyone participated? answer...all----no matter what the immediate damage or the ultimate damage, that act of homosexuality is a perversion of what the obvious usage of human sexuality. sorry--no way around it. I'm not angry or even hateful of gays. I simply cannot agree with the lifestyle
@mikedonovandad The none and all part describes apparently all, heterosexuals as well i'm guessing you do not agree with that lifestyle as well then... The act of sex is a "perversion"! the act of being gay or straight (or bi) is not. The only reason you might find it perverted is you haven't seen the world lately sex is everywhere for your sake not less perverted but in society approved and tolerated, Hence Sex is not "wrong" any more, Sorry no way around it. I don't hate you I (try 2) argue =P
@TainDK ---huh? Sex isn't a perversion. Perversion can be defined by "something that is used outside of it's intent and design" A male penis in a female vagina is not perverted because this is the design. A male penis going into a male booty is a perversion. Outside of it's purpose and design. Sorry if everybody did this the human species would die in forty years
@mikedonovandad, let me correct your misperception about the human body. God created men with an intense pleasure center inside their anus, which responds favorably to stimulation. Clearly, it was God's design for men to experience this sort of pleasure, and since He keeps creating gays and keeping them on His planet, that speaks for itself too. It's only man-made prudishness that compels anyone to believe the absurd myth that being gay, or same-sex encounters could be "wrong".
@MattFrame That pleasure center inside a mans anus does not have 2 b pleased by a man. Also Gods allows people 2 b born with 1 leg Is this Gods design? People r born blind. Is this Gods design? These are flaws that have entered a fallen world because of the initial sin of fallen mankind (and I only am using Biblical reference because U brought up GOD. Name 1 virtue that if everybody practiced it, would do damage 2 mankind. This is why homosexuality is not a virtue but a vice. sorry u r wrong
@MattFrame Why does that pleasure center hve to be pleased by a penis. Why not a finger. Just because i have a penis does that mean I can go play the bongos with it. Or maybe instead of shaking hands, we should just pull out our penis and slap it around a little. Or maybe because I have a penis i should stick it up somebodies butt.--The challenges that GOD allows us to have are for us to overcome, not sumbmit to. If I'm born blind I learn to function as if I could see. Heterosexuality lol
@mikedonovandad: "Why does that pleasure center hve to be pleased by a penis."
Why should it NOT be?
"Just because i have a penis does that mean I can go play the bongos with it"
Petulance will not help your case. Just so you know.
"The challenges that GOD allows us to have are for us to overcome, not sumbmit to"
Right, so gays' challenge to stand up against mindless bigotry, and accept themselves as gay, the way God made them, should be applauded. Hatred is a challenge to overcome.
@MattFrame Because the Penis has a small opening that is highly suceptable 2 disease if toxins, bacteria, germs, or viruses enter. The Butt is filled with all of the above. Your backside was not design as an entrance but as an exit. If you dont understand that, then u will never understand. Also, the challenges that God allows are meant to overcome not stay the same. If I was born Gay then I need 2 adjust my life 2 either the heterosexual lifestyle or not marry at all. Being single is fine also
@mikedonovandad, I hate to tell you, but any orifice on the human body can be infected with toxins; the gender or orientation of the individual aside. Who says the anus was designed solely as an exit, any more than the vagina or mouth? God would not have created men with a pleasure center inside the anus if your assertion were true. The Lord's own design proves you wrong. If you have a problem with it, complain to Him and see if He'll alter His concept. Good luck with that, LOL.
@MattFrame Thanks 4 telling me bout orifices. But of course any orifice can be infected; but the penis going in the butt is much more suseptible than the finger. Sorry I think it's OBVIOUS that the vagina was designed 4 the penis. You know that's where babies come from. The mouth is definitely an entrance cause last time I checked FOOD goes there. Also last time I checked toxic waste comes out of you butt. Why would I put something with an opening into my body in a toxic waste exit.--u r funny
@mikedonovandad: "it's OBVIOUS that the vagina was designed 4 the penis."
So was a man's anus, as evidenced by the pleasure center God created in there. Two pleasure centers (the penis and the anus) in tandem was clearly His plan for the gay men He created.
"toxic waste comes out of you butt"
Your personal anal issues do not hold true for the general population.
God made plans that you do not understand, and therefore, reject and condemn them. Your issue is with Him. Sign a petition. :)
It is a choice.If you don't love the opposite sex, than don't engage in sexual intercourse(marriage).Your love to God should be greater than anything else in your life,and if God says which He did that homosexuality is not what He intended than you should accept that and devote your love to God instead.Sexual desirelust and fornication are as equally sinful to homosexual acts,but do remember the attraction and orientation is not sinful if you cannot help it, but don't engage in gay intercourse.
Something I've NEVER been able to understand is how hets. cannot ask themselves, "When and/or how did I become straight?!" Yet, they expect us to believe that Gays somehow *did*?! Of course, Maggie Gallagher and her group (NOM) is misleading the public using known Logical Fallacies based in fear-mongering!!!
People never CHOOSE to be attracted to people of the same sex...Why would anybody do that? You are either attracted to people of the same sex, attracted to both sexes or attracted to people of the opposite sex.
Homosexuality is not about love but sexuality. People choose to be gay not because they can't fall in love with the opposite sex but because they're not attracted to the opposite sex. That's why it's called "sexual" orientation. And that's why I'm starting to think it's wrong...could I be right? I'm not sure what to think.
"Moraly wrong therefore a choice" I don't think everyone views it that way.
Your first premise as well as your second commits the naturalistic fallacy.If we can find a connection between homosexuality and nature, then we must surrender our moral objections to it. The error is in thinking that one has anything to do with the other. It doesn't. Con...
Philosopher David Hume argued that it is impossible to produce a deductively valid argument with factual premises and an ethical conclusion. In short, you can't get an "ought" from an "is." This is called the naturalistic fallacy. Does a natural tendency towards violence justify assault? Does a natural desire for food justify theft? Does a natural aversion to homosexuals justify gay-bashing? Of course not. con..
Robocop example... The body malfunctioned? this in no way justifys the murder spree. The deaths were still wrong. We'd understand why robo did it but we wouldn't say good job on those deaths you sure got em good. We would have to FIX robocop to NOT "malfunction" again. Now as for a comparison could we then say that a homosexual body has malfunctioned and is in need of repair? Con..
As for your "preference" example.. It makes no sense, If i "prefered" killing people over not killing people does that mean i am justified in killing people? You cannot equate preference with ethics, unless your a moral relativist in which case it doesn't really matter what you do,, nothing is really wrong in that case. Fortunately objective morals exist....
I dont see how a homosexual couple wishing to "raise" a child not bear one, since they obviously CANT, is unnatural. the man in this video did not claim that homosexuals wished to bear children, nearly have one the needs a good home AKA adopt one and raise it. you seem to think it is against our nature to wish to raise a child since we cant bear them. but i don't think so since naturally one has instinctual desires to raise and protect children even if they are not one's own.
It's unnatural since they "naturally" cannot bear a child. I'm not saying that they don't desire to raise a child. I'm saying that if you stick to the natural arguement then adoption/artificial insemination is "unnatural", since child bearing requires a male and a female. Also thats only if I grant the whole "it's natural arguement therefore it's ok". Which I don't since it commits the naturalistic fallacy.
If homosexuality is natural. One would have to argue that homosexuals who sought to have children would be doing something that is against their nature and therefore wrong. If we were to argue based on nature the appropriateness of homosexuality we'd also have to argue in the next breath that it would be unnatural, immoral, inappropriate, wrong for homosexuals to raise children. Artificial insemination of lesbians, adoptions by homosexual males, all of that would be wrong, against nature.
If two males or two females getting together is something natural and therefore appropriate. Then naturally speaking, two men/women cannot bare children as it is impossible since the necessary organs for life are not present in eitherset of couples. They would be going against nature in seeking children. I thought i was pretty clear on my first comment.
If a man and women get together and are not capable of having kids then they are what? If a gay couple can adopt a kid due to overproduction by straight couples then the gay couples are what ?
Note: When I presented that argument it was only a side arguement. It's not the main focus. Read my other postings. Now to address your question. If a man and woman are incapable of coceiving a child it's because something in either or both reproductive systems is not functioning properly. They need to be fixed and if they cannot then adoption is perfectly normal. Why, because a male and a female naturally can reproduce. Just because you have a rare instance of (fill in the blank) now and again
doesnt forfeit heterosexuals from adoption. On the other hand it is Impossible for a male and male or female and female couple to concieve. Again I most note that is not the main focus of my arguement. I do not agree with the naturalistic arguement, namely that something is moral becuase it is "natural".
Oh but a healthy gay person can conceive and they do. Even if it is not by means of their mate. Adoption implies that straight couples are conceiving and disgarding their offspring. Have you looked at the numbers of kids who are not adopted but need homes? If a couple is capable and has the means to love and care for a kid then let them do it. But if you want to say "natural" it is what happens in nature. Then you have to define nature.
I thought I made it clear that the naturalistic arguement is not the main focus and furthermore I don't even agree with the naturalistic arguement. Hence, I do not want to say "natural" as you put it. In fact I oppose such a notion. The only reason I mentioned it was to illustrate a point in refference to homosexual adoption. Also I can reply to what you stated but I feel like it will get us nowhere. Rather I re-suggest that you read my other postings and I'll wait for a reply.
I am not switching nor baiting. If you read the entire posting of what I have written. You will see I am in and have always been in opposition to the naturalistic arguement and I have indeed only used it to make a point. If you cannot refute my actual arguement thats fine, but please don't say I've been unfair.
Ok I don't know how else to put it. But, you're obviously not paying attention to what I've written or don't understand what I've written. I do NOT support the natural arguement, therefore I don't need to show that anything exists in nature. It appears as tho you are either choosing to ignore my actual arguement or that you actually don't understand it. Read all the comments on this video and you will find my actual arguement. If you are unwilling to do so then there is nothing I can do.
Well cupcake you might want to remove the original post I responded to which you do make a case for the natural argument. In fact the posts here seem to be all about you trying to back up the natural argument. Except for mine. You tucked your tail between your legs and ran away. I am bored with you so don't respond. I am done with you
Wrong again You obviously did not read my actual arguement. Which is David Hume's naturalistic fallacy. Namely, To say that something is right because it is natural commits the naturalistic fallacy. "If we can find a connection between homosexuality and nature, then we must surrender our moral objections to it". The error is in thinking that one has anything to do with the other. It doesn't. It is impossible to produce a deductively valid argument with factual premises and an ethical conclusion.
In short, you can't get an "ought" from an "is." This is called the naturalistic fallacy. Does a natural tendency towards violence justify assault? Does a natural desire for food justify theft? Does a natural aversion to homosexuals justify gay-bashing? Of course not. If you read ALL the comments on this vid not just the ones you are responding to you will see that I only used the natural arguement to make a point. You obviously didn't read it since you say I'm running away.
Morals are different from what people deem moral. We as human animals make up rules so we can live together. Like don't kill...unless you are defending yourself. So the rules we make up to try and live together as a group are not universal and vary from place to place. While it may be "moral" to behead your spouse for cheating in one part of the world it is not moral in other parts. It is a taught thing not a natural born thing. It is subjective and learned not inherant
You're reply didnt address my arguement (naturalistic fallacy) rather you've just expressed to me moral relativism. Another topic alltogether.
I will however address you're relativism. If all morals are relative, then the statement "All morals are relative" would be an absolutely true statement. If it is absolutely true, then not all morals are relative and the statement that "All morals are relative" is false.
You see if I answer your question we will be side stepping my other comments on this video which pertain to the actual video itself. In which I refute the logic you expressed therein. I'd rather you reply to those comments because I don't agree with the natural argument and replying to your comment will only lead us away from that. I don't know how else to say it.. I do not support the natural argument. lol
Um, Animals adopt their young in Nature too. For example, in a young baby elephant of monkey looses it's mother, another group might adopt it, including two males of two females. Recently in a US Zoo, two male penguins tried to adopt and raise a baby penguin together. So adoption IS Natural.
And by what you are saying, it is Unnatural for an infertile baron couple or senor citizen couple to adopt.
And apparently you are not going to accept the fact that we've all proved your argument wrong. What's the point in trying to discus anything with you? No matter what evidences or fact we give you, you still wont believe it. Typical religious freak you are.
This is exactly what I mean. Nobody (including you) has addressed my argument. Please read every single comment on this video by clicking view all comments. When your done reading all 30 or so posts. You can come back and address my "actual" argument; which is opposed to the natural argument. Please don't assert something without actually reading. Thank you
The idea of homosexuality being wrong has nothing to do with choice. I may be a born thief, a born liar, a born pediphile. I may not have chosen to be these things; but that doesn't make it right. Morality is the set of innate laws that cause a society to function. A society cannot function or survive if everybody murdered. A society cannot survive if everybody stole. A society would completely disappear in one generation if everyone was gay. Wrong is not right because you were born wrong. Sorry
mikedonovandad 8 months ago
@mikedonovandad Your statment can be picked like this. Hurting is imoral. The problem in your statment is the "hurt", the thief "hurts" the one he/she robs, a liar "hurts" the one he/she lies to (or lies not to hurt but could end up hurting even more), a Pedophile "hurts" a child. (a murdere "hurts" the victime and his/her loved once) However a homosexual in his (or her) behaviur hurts no one. Therby Homosexualety is moral in this showcase.
TainDK 8 months ago
@TainDK What virtue do you know that would hurt humanity if everyone participated? answer...none----What vice do you know that would hurt humanity if everyone participated? answer...all----no matter what the immediate damage or the ultimate damage, that act of homosexuality is a perversion of what the obvious usage of human sexuality. sorry--no way around it. I'm not angry or even hateful of gays. I simply cannot agree with the lifestyle
mikedonovandad 8 months ago
@mikedonovandad The none and all part describes apparently all, heterosexuals as well i'm guessing you do not agree with that lifestyle as well then... The act of sex is a "perversion"! the act of being gay or straight (or bi) is not. The only reason you might find it perverted is you haven't seen the world lately sex is everywhere for your sake not less perverted but in society approved and tolerated, Hence Sex is not "wrong" any more, Sorry no way around it. I don't hate you I (try 2) argue =P
TainDK 8 months ago
@TainDK ---huh? Sex isn't a perversion. Perversion can be defined by "something that is used outside of it's intent and design" A male penis in a female vagina is not perverted because this is the design. A male penis going into a male booty is a perversion. Outside of it's purpose and design. Sorry if everybody did this the human species would die in forty years
mikedonovandad 7 months ago
@mikedonovandad, let me correct your misperception about the human body. God created men with an intense pleasure center inside their anus, which responds favorably to stimulation. Clearly, it was God's design for men to experience this sort of pleasure, and since He keeps creating gays and keeping them on His planet, that speaks for itself too. It's only man-made prudishness that compels anyone to believe the absurd myth that being gay, or same-sex encounters could be "wrong".
MattFrame 7 months ago
@MattFrame That pleasure center inside a mans anus does not have 2 b pleased by a man. Also Gods allows people 2 b born with 1 leg Is this Gods design? People r born blind. Is this Gods design? These are flaws that have entered a fallen world because of the initial sin of fallen mankind (and I only am using Biblical reference because U brought up GOD. Name 1 virtue that if everybody practiced it, would do damage 2 mankind. This is why homosexuality is not a virtue but a vice. sorry u r wrong
mikedonovandad 7 months ago
@mikedonovandad: "That pleasure center inside a mans anus does not have 2 b pleased by a man"
But since men have the perfect equipment for it, that was clearly the Lord's design. Why quibble with His decision?
"Also Gods allows people 2 b born with 1 leg Is this Gods design? People r born blind. Is this Gods design?"
Yes. God designs each of us individually The challenges He gives us are unique.
"Name 1 virtue that if everybody practiced it, would do damage 2 mankind."
Heterosexuality.
MattFrame 7 months ago
@MattFrame Why does that pleasure center hve to be pleased by a penis. Why not a finger. Just because i have a penis does that mean I can go play the bongos with it. Or maybe instead of shaking hands, we should just pull out our penis and slap it around a little. Or maybe because I have a penis i should stick it up somebodies butt.--The challenges that GOD allows us to have are for us to overcome, not sumbmit to. If I'm born blind I learn to function as if I could see. Heterosexuality lol
mikedonovandad 7 months ago
@mikedonovandad: "Why does that pleasure center hve to be pleased by a penis."
Why should it NOT be?
"Just because i have a penis does that mean I can go play the bongos with it"
Petulance will not help your case. Just so you know.
"The challenges that GOD allows us to have are for us to overcome, not sumbmit to"
Right, so gays' challenge to stand up against mindless bigotry, and accept themselves as gay, the way God made them, should be applauded. Hatred is a challenge to overcome.
MattFrame 7 months ago
@MattFrame Because the Penis has a small opening that is highly suceptable 2 disease if toxins, bacteria, germs, or viruses enter. The Butt is filled with all of the above. Your backside was not design as an entrance but as an exit. If you dont understand that, then u will never understand. Also, the challenges that God allows are meant to overcome not stay the same. If I was born Gay then I need 2 adjust my life 2 either the heterosexual lifestyle or not marry at all. Being single is fine also
mikedonovandad 7 months ago
@mikedonovandad, I hate to tell you, but any orifice on the human body can be infected with toxins; the gender or orientation of the individual aside. Who says the anus was designed solely as an exit, any more than the vagina or mouth? God would not have created men with a pleasure center inside the anus if your assertion were true. The Lord's own design proves you wrong. If you have a problem with it, complain to Him and see if He'll alter His concept. Good luck with that, LOL.
MattFrame 7 months ago
@MattFrame Thanks 4 telling me bout orifices. But of course any orifice can be infected; but the penis going in the butt is much more suseptible than the finger. Sorry I think it's OBVIOUS that the vagina was designed 4 the penis. You know that's where babies come from. The mouth is definitely an entrance cause last time I checked FOOD goes there. Also last time I checked toxic waste comes out of you butt. Why would I put something with an opening into my body in a toxic waste exit.--u r funny
mikedonovandad 7 months ago
@mikedonovandad: "it's OBVIOUS that the vagina was designed 4 the penis."
So was a man's anus, as evidenced by the pleasure center God created in there. Two pleasure centers (the penis and the anus) in tandem was clearly His plan for the gay men He created.
"toxic waste comes out of you butt"
Your personal anal issues do not hold true for the general population.
God made plans that you do not understand, and therefore, reject and condemn them. Your issue is with Him. Sign a petition. :)
MattFrame 7 months ago
It is a choice.If you don't love the opposite sex, than don't engage in sexual intercourse(marriage).Your love to God should be greater than anything else in your life,and if God says which He did that homosexuality is not what He intended than you should accept that and devote your love to God instead.Sexual desirelust and fornication are as equally sinful to homosexual acts,but do remember the attraction and orientation is not sinful if you cannot help it, but don't engage in gay intercourse.
GrungeGodThenNIRVANA 9 months ago
Homosexual behavior is a choice. That's what makes it a sin.
NYerintransit 1 year ago
@NYerintransit Homosexuality is not a choice. Have you ever asked a gay person this?
kemalmuhal 8 months ago
@kemalmuhal No I have not.
NYerintransit 8 months ago
@NYerintransit You probably should.
kemalmuhal 5 months ago
There is nothing wrong with being gay :)
Kabutopuppy 1 year ago
Something I've NEVER been able to understand is how hets. cannot ask themselves, "When and/or how did I become straight?!" Yet, they expect us to believe that Gays somehow *did*?! Of course, Maggie Gallagher and her group (NOM) is misleading the public using known Logical Fallacies based in fear-mongering!!!
MacMorrighan 2 years ago
What's worse, no one ever calls out Mags on her LFs, such as:
Gay people cannot love their spouse to the extent that a hetero. can.
Legal Gay Marriages "are not" Marriages, and she shouldn't have to pretend that they are, or to pretend that they are equal to a het. marriage.
And, "It's not discrimination if you treat different things differently" (ie. heterosexual committed unions and Gay committed unions).
She's also said that Civil Unions are fine, but still targets those states that do!
MacMorrighan 2 years ago
People never CHOOSE to be attracted to people of the same sex...Why would anybody do that? You are either attracted to people of the same sex, attracted to both sexes or attracted to people of the opposite sex.
cmdrkoenig67 2 years ago 4
Homosexuality is not about love but sexuality. People choose to be gay not because they can't fall in love with the opposite sex but because they're not attracted to the opposite sex. That's why it's called "sexual" orientation. And that's why I'm starting to think it's wrong...could I be right? I'm not sure what to think.
HisAngel100 2 years ago
"People choose to be gay.......but because they're not attracted to the opposite sex."
Is attraction a choice? If it's a choice, then you're telling me you could choose to be into guys if you wanted to?
poolerboy0077 2 years ago
Then heterosexuality is about sex and not love too...Your argument falls apart.
cmdrkoenig67 2 years ago
@HisAngel100 umm I love my girlfriend.......Just saying yeah she's hot but her personality is hotter than her body.
Kabutopuppy 1 year ago
@HisAngel100 HOMOSEXUALITY AS IS HETEROSEXUALS FALL IN LOVE JUST THE SAME. JUST WITH DIFFERENT SEXES.
dorianstark 1 year ago
"Moraly wrong therefore a choice" I don't think everyone views it that way.
Your first premise as well as your second commits the naturalistic fallacy.If we can find a connection between homosexuality and nature, then we must surrender our moral objections to it. The error is in thinking that one has anything to do with the other. It doesn't. Con...
DRod3186 3 years ago
Philosopher David Hume argued that it is impossible to produce a deductively valid argument with factual premises and an ethical conclusion. In short, you can't get an "ought" from an "is." This is called the naturalistic fallacy. Does a natural tendency towards violence justify assault? Does a natural desire for food justify theft? Does a natural aversion to homosexuals justify gay-bashing? Of course not. con..
DRod3186 3 years ago
Robocop example... The body malfunctioned? this in no way justifys the murder spree. The deaths were still wrong. We'd understand why robo did it but we wouldn't say good job on those deaths you sure got em good. We would have to FIX robocop to NOT "malfunction" again. Now as for a comparison could we then say that a homosexual body has malfunctioned and is in need of repair? Con..
DRod3186 3 years ago
As for your "preference" example.. It makes no sense, If i "prefered" killing people over not killing people does that mean i am justified in killing people? You cannot equate preference with ethics, unless your a moral relativist in which case it doesn't really matter what you do,, nothing is really wrong in that case. Fortunately objective morals exist....
DRod3186 3 years ago
I dont see how a homosexual couple wishing to "raise" a child not bear one, since they obviously CANT, is unnatural. the man in this video did not claim that homosexuals wished to bear children, nearly have one the needs a good home AKA adopt one and raise it. you seem to think it is against our nature to wish to raise a child since we cant bear them. but i don't think so since naturally one has instinctual desires to raise and protect children even if they are not one's own.
kitsona 3 years ago
It's unnatural since they "naturally" cannot bear a child. I'm not saying that they don't desire to raise a child. I'm saying that if you stick to the natural arguement then adoption/artificial insemination is "unnatural", since child bearing requires a male and a female. Also thats only if I grant the whole "it's natural arguement therefore it's ok". Which I don't since it commits the naturalistic fallacy.
DRod3186 3 years ago
Well done!
Sivachelvi 4 years ago 2
thanks
i like you
DoctorNotou 3 years ago
If homosexuality is natural. One would have to argue that homosexuals who sought to have children would be doing something that is against their nature and therefore wrong. If we were to argue based on nature the appropriateness of homosexuality we'd also have to argue in the next breath that it would be unnatural, immoral, inappropriate, wrong for homosexuals to raise children. Artificial insemination of lesbians, adoptions by homosexual males, all of that would be wrong, against nature.
DRod3186 4 years ago
pls explain how you draw these conclusions. they seem kinda weak. not really backed up with anything.
kitsona 3 years ago
If two males or two females getting together is something natural and therefore appropriate. Then naturally speaking, two men/women cannot bare children as it is impossible since the necessary organs for life are not present in eitherset of couples. They would be going against nature in seeking children. I thought i was pretty clear on my first comment.
DRod3186 3 years ago
If a man and women get together and are not capable of having kids then they are what? If a gay couple can adopt a kid due to overproduction by straight couples then the gay couples are what ?
badone112002 3 years ago
Note: When I presented that argument it was only a side arguement. It's not the main focus. Read my other postings. Now to address your question. If a man and woman are incapable of coceiving a child it's because something in either or both reproductive systems is not functioning properly. They need to be fixed and if they cannot then adoption is perfectly normal. Why, because a male and a female naturally can reproduce. Just because you have a rare instance of (fill in the blank) now and again
DRod3186 3 years ago
doesnt forfeit heterosexuals from adoption. On the other hand it is Impossible for a male and male or female and female couple to concieve. Again I most note that is not the main focus of my arguement. I do not agree with the naturalistic arguement, namely that something is moral becuase it is "natural".
DRod3186 3 years ago
Oh but a healthy gay person can conceive and they do. Even if it is not by means of their mate. Adoption implies that straight couples are conceiving and disgarding their offspring. Have you looked at the numbers of kids who are not adopted but need homes? If a couple is capable and has the means to love and care for a kid then let them do it. But if you want to say "natural" it is what happens in nature. Then you have to define nature.
badone112002 3 years ago
I thought I made it clear that the naturalistic arguement is not the main focus and furthermore I don't even agree with the naturalistic arguement. Hence, I do not want to say "natural" as you put it. In fact I oppose such a notion. The only reason I mentioned it was to illustrate a point in refference to homosexual adoption. Also I can reply to what you stated but I feel like it will get us nowhere. Rather I re-suggest that you read my other postings and I'll wait for a reply.
DRod3186 3 years ago
switch and bait. I am bored
badone112002 3 years ago
I am not switching nor baiting. If you read the entire posting of what I have written. You will see I am in and have always been in opposition to the naturalistic arguement and I have indeed only used it to make a point. If you cannot refute my actual arguement thats fine, but please don't say I've been unfair.
DRod3186 3 years ago
I said to deem something natural you have to show it exists in nature or in your argument that it does not exist in nature. I am waiting.
badone112002 3 years ago
Ok I don't know how else to put it. But, you're obviously not paying attention to what I've written or don't understand what I've written. I do NOT support the natural arguement, therefore I don't need to show that anything exists in nature. It appears as tho you are either choosing to ignore my actual arguement or that you actually don't understand it. Read all the comments on this video and you will find my actual arguement. If you are unwilling to do so then there is nothing I can do.
DRod3186 3 years ago
Well cupcake you might want to remove the original post I responded to which you do make a case for the natural argument. In fact the posts here seem to be all about you trying to back up the natural argument. Except for mine. You tucked your tail between your legs and ran away. I am bored with you so don't respond. I am done with you
badone112002 3 years ago
Wrong again You obviously did not read my actual arguement. Which is David Hume's naturalistic fallacy. Namely, To say that something is right because it is natural commits the naturalistic fallacy. "If we can find a connection between homosexuality and nature, then we must surrender our moral objections to it". The error is in thinking that one has anything to do with the other. It doesn't. It is impossible to produce a deductively valid argument with factual premises and an ethical conclusion.
DRod3186 3 years ago
In short, you can't get an "ought" from an "is." This is called the naturalistic fallacy. Does a natural tendency towards violence justify assault? Does a natural desire for food justify theft? Does a natural aversion to homosexuals justify gay-bashing? Of course not. If you read ALL the comments on this vid not just the ones you are responding to you will see that I only used the natural arguement to make a point. You obviously didn't read it since you say I'm running away.
DRod3186 3 years ago
Morals are different from what people deem moral. We as human animals make up rules so we can live together. Like don't kill...unless you are defending yourself. So the rules we make up to try and live together as a group are not universal and vary from place to place. While it may be "moral" to behead your spouse for cheating in one part of the world it is not moral in other parts. It is a taught thing not a natural born thing. It is subjective and learned not inherant
badone112002 3 years ago
You're reply didnt address my arguement (naturalistic fallacy) rather you've just expressed to me moral relativism. Another topic alltogether.
I will however address you're relativism. If all morals are relative, then the statement "All morals are relative" would be an absolutely true statement. If it is absolutely true, then not all morals are relative and the statement that "All morals are relative" is false.
DRod3186 3 years ago
Could you explain what you mean by 'natural' and 'in someone's nature' ?
DoctorNotou 3 years ago 2
You see if I answer your question we will be side stepping my other comments on this video which pertain to the actual video itself. In which I refute the logic you expressed therein. I'd rather you reply to those comments because I don't agree with the natural argument and replying to your comment will only lead us away from that. I don't know how else to say it.. I do not support the natural argument. lol
DRod3186 3 years ago
Um, Animals adopt their young in Nature too. For example, in a young baby elephant of monkey looses it's mother, another group might adopt it, including two males of two females. Recently in a US Zoo, two male penguins tried to adopt and raise a baby penguin together. So adoption IS Natural.
And by what you are saying, it is Unnatural for an infertile baron couple or senor citizen couple to adopt.
ofelixdacat 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
... Is anyone who visits this page ever going to address my actual argument??
Apparently you are not going to do that. I do not support the natural argument because it is a falacious one.
DRod3186 2 years ago
And apparently you are not going to accept the fact that we've all proved your argument wrong. What's the point in trying to discus anything with you? No matter what evidences or fact we give you, you still wont believe it. Typical religious freak you are.
ofelixdacat 2 years ago
This is exactly what I mean. Nobody (including you) has addressed my argument. Please read every single comment on this video by clicking view all comments. When your done reading all 30 or so posts. You can come back and address my "actual" argument; which is opposed to the natural argument. Please don't assert something without actually reading. Thank you
DRod3186 2 years ago
@DRod3186 OH MY GOD HAVENT YOU EVER HEARD OF A TURKEY BASTER!!! JEEZE!!!
pualaxkoalaxhfm 1 year ago