Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
NO, what it means is, it's natural. Therefore any argument that it is unnatural is wrong.Ergo just because homosexuality is natural, does not mean it is good
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
NO, what it means is, it's natural. Therefore any argument that it is unnatural is wrong.Ergo just because homosexuality is natural, does not mean it is good
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.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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
and conversely, eye-glasses are unnatural, but many people find them beneficial.Poison Ivy is natural, but you won't catch me near it.
and conversely, eye-glasses are unnatural, but many people find them beneficial.