How can homosexuality not be a perversion?

Here's my suggestion...don't prefer homosexual marriage? Then don't marry someone of the same sex. That was easy. Next?

 

I don't think you even took logic 000, or if you did, you forgot it all.

If I were to say "The proof that heterosexual unions are preferred by over 50% of the members of every society is this: most people agree with me on this statistical claim."

I never made such a claim. Since you don't seem to even disagree that all societies in fact prefer that heterosexual unions predominate (for whatever reason), and instead want to insist that only bigotry drives this preference, I see no point in arguing.

I will try to find the post that started this nonsense, but I am pretty sure it wasn't anything like "We know that homosexuality is disfavored because most people disfavor it."

 

I've taken multiple logic courses, aced them all, and tutored.

Then you'd be stuck having to explain why your argument keeps shifting and what it is supposed to demonstrate.

I agree that your straw men demonstrate that there is no point to arguing.

KK

 

I don't know ... your points are just too profound, I suppose.

No, actually, the problem is that you reject a perfectly rational basis, which a previous poster laid out for you. You may disagree, but that doesn't make it irrational. Well, to you it perhaps makes it irrational. Anyway , here you go:


But not all choices are equally beneficial for society. Society is best served by a definition of marriage being man and woman in a committed relationship.

Society is not best served by encouraging same sex marriage, marriage between 2 men and one women, or encouraging a man and woman living together in an uncommitted relationship. Society doesn't benefit by encouraging family units that consist of single mothers and children.

It's pure commonsense to know that children are crucial to our future...and prioritizing the best scenario for them should be the focus when society rates what arrangement is worthy enough to stand apart as most valued.

People can choose whatever partner they like providing said partner is of age. And choosing a homosexual relationship might be fine for them but it is not and never will be equal to the importance held by the heterosexual relationship.

An elegant, logical, perspicacious argument to which one of your brethren replied, "Pure and total rubbish." I think he wanted to say something even more inelegant.

Fortunately, debates are not won and lost with such blunt tools.

 

I've addressed the fallacies in the OP, which you have failed to defend. Repeatedly.

And now you are introducing new fallacies of your own.

The benefits to society that you propose can be accomplished simply by having both same-sex and heterosexual marriage. There is no benefit to society for denying same-sex marriage. You keep fabricating a scenario (or at least your arguments depend on a false scenario) where there is a choice between only homosexual marriage and heterosexual marriage. No one is advocating for homosexual marriage TO THE EXCLUSION of heterosexual marriage. No one is buying the fantasy world that your argument requires.

Newsflash: single mothers are going to happen whether you want to "encourage" it or not. You can superstitiously choose to value that mother less if you want, but it has nothing to do with a reasonable debate.

 

Then I can only hope you display a better command of the basics in the future.

If you were to say "Everyone agrees that slavery is wrong," you presumably wouldn't retreat before the argument that your statement is fallacious due to its "mere" popularity.

At least I hope you wouldn't.

 

The example argument you give is a fallacious one. It is a bad argument. I wouldn't retreat because I wouldn't resort to such a piss poor argument. I'd use a better one.

 

It wasn't even my proposal, it was another guy. And I said it was a reasonable argument, whereas you call it an irrational appeal to tradition.

The problem here remains, in my opinion, intolerance. It's not enough to say you disagree, you have to allege bigotry and declare all further discussion illegitimate

Sorry, I don't tolerate intolerance.

 

https://www.goodmorningamerica.com/culture/story/30-countries-sex-marriage-officially-legal-56041136

 

Lol, when you are so desperate that you have to conflate "bigotry" with textbook logical fallacies in order to play make-believe that the textbook logical fallacies don't exist.

Sorry, but we don't give out participation trophies for arguments. Bad arguments are bad arguments. I'm not going to let them slide just to protect someone's feelings.

Feel free to "tolerate" irrationalism. Sorry, I prefer rational arguments.

No, it isn't enough to disagree. I explain why I disagree. I'm sorry that offends you, but the offense you take to reason won't make reason go away.

 

Because you have ZERO proof melanin amount and type is a factor of intelligence. You are making it up.

If people got less intelligent when they go out in the sun and tan, then, you may have a link.

 

Is this a joke? I specifically said the arguments you're trying here to rebut were examples of bigotry.

 

Proud boys, KKK, White Nationalists, Neo Confederates. There's a slew of RW activist groups. Some have killed people.

Liberal news network? You mean all the real news networks? Not the far left or far right as Fox/Rush/tRUMP are?
You think anything not Fox or Rush is left. Which it's not. Most any ways.

 

Saying blacks are less intelligent isn't bigotry. Bigotry is intolerance to something or someone.
It could be considered racist, but not bigotry.

 

It is leftost antifa who's slogan is "by any means necessary." I haven't seen a klansman participating in any significant extent in any effort to shout down a leftist or even a liberal. Not in the laet 30 years or so. They are quite marginalized. On campuses, they are non existent.

Proud Boys as I understand it are active on the westcoast, but they aren't trying to shut down debate on campuses. Contrast the left, which tries to do it coast to coast, and often succeeds.

 

Maybe you think marriage is useless and destructive. Why is it destructive? It is helpful financially and when one partner is sick the other one can visit etc. what is destructive is homophobes who cannot comprehend that there are others who want to have similar opportunities that heterosexual marriages have. Do you only see marriage for the purpose of having babies?

 

Oh the extremism again. If one believes that gay people should be allowed to marry an extreme they conclude that we think a mother and father in the home is outdated.Only extreme is a nothing gray
You may want to go back to the 1950s but let me guess you are a man in a white man

 

Got anything to back that up other than studies that compare single mothers to heterosexual couples? How about a study that actually compares homosexual couples raising children to heterosexual couples doing the same? And while we're at it, how about you inform us what is a child's "best chances in life" involve. Let's see if you can manage it without circular reasoning.

 

What does contraception have to do with whether or not pleasure is a natural purpose of sex?

And your evidence on this is.....?

 

What law against killing does an animal violated when it kills? Please be sure to include section and paragraph of the appropriate legal code.

 

Again context. If we are talking about a life partner, i.e. spouse, unless they are volunteering for new medical techniques, none. However, as I noted a gay man and a gay woman can make that attempt, and they would be partners in that endeavor. Thus you do indeed have a gay couple reproducing. That said you seem to be limiting procreation to only those who are in an marriage of some sort, regardless of whether you recognize it by that name or not. Reproduction does not require such a joining, legal or otherwise. Gay men have stood stud for women with sterile husbands. They may or may not be involved with the child's life. Likewise, gay women have been a surrogate when the wife was sterile, with the same potential for involvement. Additionally, and as I have mentioned before, just because they are sexually and romantically attracted to their own sex, it doesn't mean that all gays are automatically repulsed by having sex with the other. And they will happily do so in other to have children of their own.

That's like talking about the pervasive bias in favor of right handed equipment in every single culture. Of course, heterosexual marriage is is the more pervasive. Heterosexual are the majority. There is no denying this and none try. But none of that has anything to do with the ability of homosexuals to reproduce, or marry.

 

In this context dick and being an defacation hole are basically the same. Interesting

 

I would prefer that people be married, and to each other, before they have children.

This is radical or something?

 

I doubt there are studies proving it either way. Not to your and my satisfaction anyway.

But I can't imagine a child preferring or being indifferent to his parents being unknown to him, or absent. That's why adopted kids, when grown, go on quests to find their biological parents. One of the things driving their quest, as I know from personal experience, is "why did they abandon me?" It's not "I wonder what my ethnicity is."

If that concern doesn't move you, or if it strikes you as rare or trivial, we are living in different universes.

 

It can be, but the natural purpose of sex cannot be pleasure alone under the right biological circumstances. That was my point.

Sex won't always result in pleasure will it? However it will always result in pregnancy under the right biological circumstances. And this would've been the case before man made contraception was introduced.