LIfe in "Conservative Christian" America?

Damn Yankee said:
1. Morality is defined by the world's major religions, all which state that homosexuality is immoral.
2. Since there is no procreation with homosexual relationships, that subset of society would simply die out. Natural relationships result in a sustainable species.
Click to expand...

1. Religion is not the only source of morality.
2. Homosexuality has been observed in numerous species. That, by definition, makes it natural. If you want to say it is not suitable for procreation, you would be correct.
 
1. The worlds major religions are the recognized main sources that define morality.
2. Homosexual behavior has been observed in a small percentage of individuals in some species. That in no way addresses my argument.
 
Damn Yankee said:
1. The worlds major religions are the recognized main sources that define morality.
2. Homosexual behavior has been observed in a small percentage of individuals in some species. That in no way addresses my argument.
Click to expand...

1. By members and followers of those religions. But members of other, smaller, religions do not and neither do atheists.
2. The fact that the behavior has been observed in other species and in natural settings is enough to call it natural. Homosexuality is a relatively small percentage of humans as well. It is natural if it is observed in nature in any but single instances.
 
1. There will always be folks with views that differ from the mainstream. That doesn't re-define morality.
2. No, and again you've failed to refute my argument. For some I might ask to them to "try again" but I have no doubt that would be wasted key strokes.
 
Damn Yankee said:
1. There will always be folks with views that differ from the mainstream. That doesn't re-define morality.
2. No, and again you've failed to refute my argument. For some I might ask to them to "try again" but I have no doubt that would be wasted key strokes.
Click to expand...

1. There will always be those who wish to force their morality on the innocent. That does not make the innocent immoral.
2. I don't have to refute your argument other than to show that homosexuality is natural. That it happens in numerous species in their natural environment shows it to be natural and happening naturally.
 
1. The world's major religions aren't forcing morality on anyone. They just define it.
2. OK Let's look to M-W for applicable definitions of the word natural.


2a : being in accordance with or determined by nature b : having or constituting a classification based on features existing in nature
8a : occurring in conformity with the ordinary course of nature
10a : growing without human care; also : not cultivated <natural prairie unbroken by the plow> b : existing in or produced by nature

Nope. Homosexuality is not natural.
 
Damn Yankee said:
1. The world's major religions aren't forcing morality on anyone. They just define it.
2. OK Let's look to M-W for applicable definitions of the word natural.


2a : being in accordance with or determined by nature b : having or constituting a classification based on features existing in nature
8a : occurring in conformity with the ordinary course of nature
10a : growing without human care; also : not cultivated <natural prairie unbroken by the plow> b : existing in or produced by nature

Nope. Homosexuality is not natural.
Click to expand...

2a : being in accordance with or determined by nature It fits this description, since it has been observed occurring in natural settings, and therefore determined by nature.
b : having or constituting a classification based on features existing in nature It fits that description, since it has been observed and classified as a distinct and repeated behavior in nature.

8a : occurring in conformity with the ordinary course of nature The animals observed were conforming to their nature, and it was not a singular event. In fact, in several species it appears to be part of the ordinary course of that subset of the species.

10a : growing without human care; also : not cultivated <natural prairie unbroken by the plow> b : existing in or produced by nature The animals observed were not cultivated or trained by humans. Also the behavior was produced by nature and exists in nature.

So yes, it is in fact natural.
 
2a. No, the behavior was determined by the individuals.
2b. The issue here is behavior, not features, which are physical.
8a. No, since the ordinary course of nature is procreation.
10a. No, as the animals were not "growing" since growth of the species depends on procreation.
10b: Nor does it exist in nature, only in deviant individuals; production requires procreation.
 
Damn Yankee said:
2a. No, the behavior was determined by the individuals.
2b. The issue here is behavior, not features, which are physical.
8a. No, since the ordinary course of nature is procreation.
10a. No, as the animals were not "growing" since growth of the species depends on procreation.
10b: Nor does it exist in nature, only in deviant individuals; production requires procreation.
Click to expand...

2a So you are saying that homosexual behavior is determined by the individual animal, but heterosexual behavior is determined by nature?
2b There is some feature that effects their behavior, be it instinct or whatever.
8a Not all animal behavior has to do with procreation. If animals of different species participate in this behavior with no training or input from humans, it is their natural behavior. These animals did what they did in their natural setting and were guided by nature.
10a The definition did not specify growth of the species, so growth of the individual fits in that definition.
10b It obviously exists in nature, since it ha been independently observed in numerous species. That it does not result in procreation does not change that. For them to produce requires procreation, but they were created by nature.
 
Damn Yankee said:
2. No, and again you've failed to refute my argument. For some I might ask to them to "try again" but I have no doubt that would be wasted key strokes.
Click to expand...

It is hard to believe that you are arguing that a behavior, observed in numerous species in their natural environment is not natural.
 
2a. Yes, since it is a deviancy. Just because an individual develops a deviant behavior doesn't make that behavior natural.
2b. Probably an environmental stress, lack of habitat, or some other deviancy.
8a. See 2a.
10a. See 2a.
10b. You'll need to cite evidence where this exists in nature.
 
Damn Yankee said:
2a. Yes, since it is a deviancy. Just because an individual develops a deviant behavior doesn't make that behavior natural.
2b. Probably an environmental stress, lack of habitat, or some other deviancy.
8a. See 2a.
10a. See 2a.
10b. You'll need to cite evidence where this exists in nature.
Click to expand...

2a It is a naturally occurring behavior. If it were only an individual you mighthave a point. But it has been observed in numerous species.
2b "Probably"? Nice idea, but without any evidence it doesn't mean much here. The behavior has been observed in healthy populations.
8a As I said, not all behavior is related to procreation. You are welcome to ignore this, but it does not change the facts.
10a My previous statement still stands.
10b Evidence where this exists in nature? Ok, I can do that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

That gives you a list of animals with documented homosexual behavior. I used this for ease of posting, and for the extensive references which provide backup for the statements made in the article.
 
Maybe gay behavior in the locker room led to the expulsion, like this scene which depicts Cap'n Barstool's avatar character in hot gay action:







sterling%2Barcher%2Bnaked%2Bgay%2Bfight%2B3.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top