• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Redefining Marriage

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
OK I'm done with this thread. I should have known better than to post here. This is anything but an honest two-way dialogue. Any source I give that doesn't favor the gay-marriage view is unacceptable. I doubt any source is good enough, if it doesn't favor your view. Yes, the National Review is conservative. Obviously that means it's garbage. But it does represent the opinion of an awful lot of people in this country of ours. Again, that means nothing.
It's a source for opinion, not facts. More reliable facts would come from scholarly articles or government agencies, which are neither pro nor con.
 

misanthropic_clown

Active Member
Believe you me, people who go out with the express intention of getting drunk are not dissuaded if only wine or beer is available. You should have seen the university ski trip I went on where a vomit trough had to be dug in the snow to prepare for the beer relay.

In all seriousness, though, I think you may be misunderstanding how "spirits" (distilled alcohol) are generally used by those with an intention to get hammered. For the most part, they are mixed with juices, sodas, tonic water or some other liquid to bring the alcohol content down to a similar level as a glass of wine or a pint of beer. General rule: 1 glass of wine = 1 pint of beer = 1 vodka and tonic (or a shot).

Mixing is usually where the trouble ensues. For some obscure, unknown reason 1 glass of wine + 1 pint of beer + 1 vodka and tonic does not equal 3 pints of beer, as any experienced drinker will tell you.

Well, I certainly disagree. I believe in freedom, and a big part of that is acknowledging the fundamental right of people like the students you know to learn for themselves what happens when you have three pints of lager and two shots of tequila and a couple cement mixers, and how it differs from what happens when you just have 7 shots of tequila or 7 pints of beer.

Well, my ignorance of detailed drinking culture is perhaps understandable but I would like to take you on your last point: Would you allow every substance to be open to experimentation?
 

misanthropic_clown

Active Member
NO, what it means is, it's natural. Therefore any argument that it is unnatural is wrong.

That wasn't even part of the point of the persons post (and I have no idea how or why I have come to be it's advocate)- the naturalness was not under question, rather it was assumed from the start. What the point was that just because something is natural does not make it good or desirable. 'Naturalness' is not the factor (or at least, not the only factor) considered for what is moral, thus any argument about what is natural or unnatural is largely redundant.
 

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
That wasn't even part of the point of the persons post (and I have no idea how or why I have come to be it's advocate)- the naturalness was not under question, rather it was assumed from the start. What the point was that just because something is natural does not make it good or desirable. 'Naturalness' is not the factor (or at least, not the only factor) considered for what is moral, thus any argument about what is natural or unnatural is largely redundant.

What often happens is this conversation:
Anti-Gay Proponent: "Homosexuality is unnatural."
Gay Proponent: "No, it's not. It's found in hundreds of species."
A-G P: "That doesn't make it right."

It's goal-post moving. No, it doesn't make it right, or wrong. It just makes it natural, which is the point under discussion. It sheds no light on its moral value. Which, for the record, is positive.
 

Alceste

Vagabond
Well, my ignorance of detailed drinking culture is perhaps understandable but I would like to take you on your last point: Would you allow every substance to be open to experimentation?

Yes. The US with its preposterous stance on criminalizing substance experimentation has got the world's largest incarceration rate. One out of every thirty-two American adults were behind bars, on probation or on parole as of 2005, according to the Washington Post. The bill for taxpayers, not including the cost of prosecution and enforcement, adds up to over 40 billion dollars a year.What people put into their own bodies is their own business.
 

Magic Man

Reaper of Conversation
Well, my ignorance of detailed drinking culture is perhaps understandable but I would like to take you on your last point: Would you allow every substance to be open to experimentation?

I would, unless it's shown to be straight-up poison, and even then... As long as everything comes with a warning. For instance, cigarettes come with a warning about how dangerous they are. If you want to try them, it's your risk. If everything else had such warnings, I would have no problem with adults being able to try them at their own risk.
 

Magic Man

Reaper of Conversation
That wasn't even part of the point of the persons post (and I have no idea how or why I have come to be it's advocate)- the naturalness was not under question, rather it was assumed from the start. What the point was that just because something is natural does not make it good or desirable. 'Naturalness' is not the factor (or at least, not the only factor) considered for what is moral, thus any argument about what is natural or unnatural is largely redundant.

The point with the "natural/unnatural" argument is that whether or not something is natural has no bearing on it's moral nature. Many opponents of homosexuality appeal to it being unnatural as one of the reasons it's wrong. Two ways to refute that argument are to show that it is quite natural, and that its naturalness or unnaturalness is irrelevant to its moral nature. So, when someone uses the argument that homosexuality is natural, they are not saying that just because it's natural, it's good. They are only saying that it's not bad because it's unnatural.
 

DallasApple

Depends Upon My Mood..
Oh and by the way..Right now Im benefitting from an unaturally cooled enviroment..Its called "air conditioning"...Its already 86 degree outside at 9:50 am in the morning..And Im enjoying about a 75 degree room as I sit here..

woo..Im chilly..I think i might just put on a sweater.. ;)

Love

Dallas
 
Top