(06-20-2012, 02:14 PM)nackidno Wrote: [ -> ]Oh, you play that card. Sorry I won't argue with you then ignorant one, since you think we are equal to pedophiles.
I find this statement ironic in its own right, as it calls me ignorant yet proceeds to leave me in "ignorance" by use of ad hominem rather than attempting to support their own assertion. Do you not recall that homosexuality used to be a declared mental disorder? Yet, it is no longer declared that because people asserted "gay rights" and "love." The same line of reasoning can be used for other forms of sexuality, but i'm "the ignorant one" for realising this?
(06-20-2012, 02:47 PM)spukrian Wrote: [ -> ]Choosing to label something as something else is not the same as being the label. Or are you arguing that it should be ok to be a homosexual as long as the homosexuals choose to identify themselves as heterosexuals?
I realise choosing the label is not the same as being the label, hence my previous statement and why i claimed A and B were in contradiction. As for your question: No, i don't believe lying is the right thing to do.
(06-20-2012, 02:47 PM)spukrian Wrote: [ -> ]It's the other way around, "growing up to be a homosexual" follows from "not their own choice".
True, but that wasn't your original statement.
(06-20-2012, 02:47 PM)spukrian Wrote: [ -> ]Why doesn't my analogy have any bearing?
Your correlation between being left-handed and being gay is being born with it. Even though being "left-handed" and being "right-handed" also deals with effort put towards the "skill," for being either does not imply lack of the other (and therefore neither would homosexuality imply the lack of heterosexuality), but we know use of either can be shown through science, specifically anatomy (a form of science that has no reason to support homosexuality); homosexuality cannot. If you think it can or if you think you have undeniable scientific evidence for homosexuality, you may post it. Stating that you are not a scientist and therefore seek not to speculate on the matter would be irrelevant, since you would be directing me to, at least presumably, a scientist.
(06-20-2012, 02:47 PM)spukrian Wrote: [ -> ]Oh, I understand, you like to nitpick. I haven't actually modified my arguments at all, I've just tried to clarify them. You, however, seem to get hung up on details. The reason I mentioned "people having sex in public" and "people trespassing on private property" is because those are two acts that are illegal, even when heterosexual people do them.
So, do you think that two homosexuals kissing in public are hurting people? Please explain.
I am not one who likes to feign ignorance for the sake of providing the benefit of the doubt. For this reason i put a lot of thought into what i say. If someone can find something (logically) wrong with my statement, i would then be better off and better prepared for any future statements i decide to make. If you find the fact that i would prefer for you to provide better statements either annoying or a form of destructive criticism, i would say don't expect me to stop.
While i can derive that something being in a person's business may involve someone getting hurt, it is not limited to that. I also do not believe pain itself defines when something is morally wrong. Having said that, unless perhaps they're doing some really kinky kissing, i wouldn't say kissing causes pain.
(06-20-2012, 02:47 PM)spukrian Wrote: [ -> ]Like I said, I haven't modified anything. But hey, why do you think homosexuality should be forbidden? I'd honestly like to know.
Two reasons: I believe in the absolute authority which declares it as such, and (therefore) it contradicts what i would coin "the law of most compatibility." This "law" i do not limit to just the physical; i also include relational, which applies likewise to heterosexuals and any other forms of sexuality. I believe following such a rationale would create better relationships overall, for things like lust would be a deviation from such a "law."
If you don't believe in God, that is not an issue i would have to address, for without an absolute authority, "right" and "wrong" are equals. In which case, you shouldn't care whether i am for or against homosexuality.
(06-20-2012, 02:47 PM)spukrian Wrote: [ -> ]Oh, I see, do you want me to give you a list of what activities of homosexuals that I condone of? What I'm trying to get across to you is that homosexuality should be judged by the same criteria as heterosexuality. I'm sorry that I didn't spell this out from the start.
If providing a list means a more sound argument, then i probably do, but you have already stated that homosexuality should be judged under the same criteria as heterosexuality. However, heterosexuals do not engage in homosexual acts except when they want to be homosexuals.
