Legalizing Shoplifting in America

[Dirty Penguin]

Erm... what are you talking about lol? The premise of this arguement is that morality doesn't change because of what characteristics a person has when they are born. It has nothing to with "banishing" anyone.

Again, you seem to misunderstand the arguement. The arguement is that if an animal does it, then it's natural for a human to do it. I never accused homosexuals of being thieves, murderers, or feces throwers(laughing as I type this).

I guess this makes you 0 for 3. The arguement is whether or not homosexuality is love, because I've seen people say "homosexuality is love, so therefore it can't be wrong". Love is caring about the well-being of another person even above your own. Are homosexuals doing this by engaging in a lifestyle that studies have consistently show can take decades off their life and their partner's life? I also never said loving someone makes you gay, or that being gay makes you worthless. If I thought gays were worthless then I'd let them continue in their destructive lifestyle, since they wouldn't be worth my time if I thought they worthless.

You are injecting YOUR MORALITY where it is not wanted. There are tribes around the world where the woman are bare breasted, children run naked, people sport numerous tribal tatoos, and ringd adorn the nose - ears - lips....Are these people wrong for the lifestyle they live???????

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I won't accuse you of spreading hate, but I would say your opinion seems to come from religious grounds and not a rational scientific one.

When it comes to being homosexual men, they have two types of sex: oral and anal. Anal sex will increase your odds of any disease tenfold and thus decrease your life expectancy. Oral sex is another conductor and when one takes into account mouth dieseases that cause bleeding, another greater risk factor.

The least likely of all factors to spread an STD, etc.. is vaginal to penis sex (aka heterosexual sex). Along those lines, the % of getting a disease from a partner holds true for heterosexual couples that engage in anal sex. The poorer the couny, the greater the risk of getting a disease due to oral sex. I'm stating facts.

By that rational, of course gay men would have a lower life expecancy... for they only copulate in the two most "risky" ways.... It has nothing to do with being gay, but with biology.

Yet, the percentage of homosexuals who are monogomous now-a-days compared to heterosexuals is higher. Thus, they have less of a risk of obtaining a disease as do straight people. (Somebody else posted that heterosexuals have a bigger problem with STDs now).

So if the homosexual way of life is wrong for being a bigger "risk" factor (given), are they now more morally better off than the heterosexuals? Very few animals of any type mate for life..... there are "animals" that have a better rate than humans on this.....

EDIT**** VASSAL- perhaps you might like to start a ONE ON ONE DEBATE and invite me to it vs you. Then you won't have to deal with the other stuff you don't care for. Let me know, I'll be happy to engage you.

Additionally partners on both sides can be at risk if they are unclean (such as not bathing before sex). It might not spread disease but with heterosexuals woman can develope yeast infections or urinary track infection. Men can be affected with certain urinary track problems if the woman isn't clean.

 

[FFH]

Shoplifting Seagull in Scotland

That's great, thanks for that link and what a great analogy...

Wow, great thread Vassal, just reading it now...

 

[angellous_evangellous]

That's great, thanks for that link and what a great analogy...

Wow, great thread Vassal, just reading it now...

It's a horrible analogy because it puts homosexuality on the same level as animals running off with things. It is disguisting because it dehumanizes homosexuality.

EDIT: Committed homosexuals have been awarded human dignity in the West since Plato, and this dignity was obviously removed by the Church as the West moved into the Dark Ages.



Plato, Sym. 192a

Some say they are shameless creatures, but falsely: for their behavior is due not to shamelessness but to daring, manliness, and virility, since they are quick to welcome their like. Sure evidence of this is the fact that on reaching maturity these alone prove in a public career to be men. So when they come to man's estate they are boy-lovers, and have no natural interest in wiving and getting children, but only do these things under stress of custom; they are quite contented to live together unwedded all their days. A man of this sort is at any rate born to be a lover of boys or the willing mate of a man, eagerly greeting his own kind.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I wonder if there's going to be any attempt at all by Vassal to defend the OP?

 

[UnTheist]

I wonder if there's going to be any attempt at all by Vassal to defend the OP?

Are 13 pages not enough for him? :slap:

 

[gnomon]

I wonder if there's going to be any attempt at all by Vassal to defend the OP?

I seriously doubt that Vassal will defend the OP.

I would place a bet that another tack will be taken because the views offered up so far are...execrable.

 

[Zephyr]

I doubt Vassal will defend the OP simply because it should be plainly obvious that the OP is not what he intended the thread to be about.

 

[Fluffy]

It's a horrible analogy because it puts homosexuality on the same level as animals running off with things. It is disguisting because it dehumanizes homosexuality.

I agree but I believe that this dehumanizing happens already: every time a pro-gay person argues that homosexuality is natural because animals have homosexual sex.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I agree but I believe that this dehumanizing happens already: every time a pro-gay person argues that homosexuality is natural because animals have homosexual sex.

I disagree. Pointing to homosexuality in nature is useful in determining that homosexuality is just as natural for humans as it is for all other species who practice it as well.

However, human beings unlike most other animals, are able to incoporate rationality and love into the sexual relationship. The example in the OP removes the human element by only focusing on the animal. The absurdity is that we should legalize every uncontrolable animal instinct if homosexual humans have rights on the basis of their biological sexuality.

This paints a very dim view of humanity in general and homosexuals specifically while demonstrating quite clearly the inability of writer of the OP to think critically.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I agree but I believe that this dehumanizing happens already: every time a pro-gay person argues that homosexuality is natural because animals have homosexual sex.

I believe that most of the time when this statement is made, it's in response to an anti-gay claim that homosexuality is "unnatural" and therefore wrong. It doesn't automatically follow that everything "natural" is good, moral and right, but showing that homosexuality occurs in the "natural" world does demonstrate that the anti-gay claim is without foundation.