 |
|
|
|
| If Gays Say It's Ok To Be Gay Because It's Found In Nature, Then It's Ok For Me To Hunt And Kill Because It's Found In Nature. |
| I am insatiably hungry and would love a thrill as a predator. It's driving me crazy to feel so domesticated and not free. I just live in an urban area where I can't hunt. Ugh. I'ma cook steak. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with the statement in its essence. That is you are justified in the assertion because it is
both true and valid. I have indeed heard the argument that homosexuality is found in nature, and
therefore, is ok in our civil society. As has been pointed out many "natural behaviors" are
considered immoral. Such as in nature we find mothers eating their young, etc.; but find it morally
repugnant in our society. So, the biggest point you are making, and I agree, is that one cannot
justify a behavior as moral just because it is found in nature. Therefore, it weakens the progay
argument of acceptability of their lifestyle on this basis. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
You logic is sound g-man. But i have to pick it apart. And doing so through logic of my own. They
are both found in nature and that is valid. Your moral obligation and civility also dissolve if we
truly were engaged in nature like the rest of animals.
I know you better than that. Watch how you argue. You previously mentioned that homosexuality is a
sin, there3fore its a second nature or not even natural. Hunting is something i am not so sure about
existing before adam and eve as it wasnt necessary but do you see where i am going? Unless you liked
eating meat hat was sacraficed after you put your sins on the lamb and the blood was tajken to the
altar. So hunting is out of necessity. Your desireto hunt must be linked to a nutritional value. You
aren't getting enough meats poin blank. You cannot escape civility that you desire to take a break
from. You used an argument to justify nature. And the inconsistency i found is between necessity of
hnting and the abnormality that sex would be considered. I would agree with you. But i really had to
think about it. Eveyone disagreed and i figured as much that something underlying was involved.
Your initial staement was good but the fact that biblical proportions are involved in your say now
reconfigures how we must approach this argument.
Make an argument where necessity is pit agaist sin.
For example: It is not immoral to be a prostitute if that is the only means of feeding your
family.
Watch the footwork. Not immoral = amoral = immoral because they all are not moral.
And we can always undermine the argument: "who says thats the only way? We can always farm and not
blow the man down for some potatoes and corn."
You intellectualized a broken argument from the start. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
If you plan to drop out of civilization and go live and hunt on a desserted island then I'd say yes,
you have every right. The problem though, especially with your analogy, is both you and the people
who are gay do live in civilization. The fundamental principle maintaining civilization is one
person's rights end when they interfere with some other person's rights. Applying that to both your
scenarios - a gay couple is a pair mutually consenting on doing what they're doing. No one's rights
are being violated. It doesn't cause physical harm to you. Now looking at the 2nd scenario - where
you literally go and kill and eat whatever or whomever you want - then you most likely are violating
someone else's rights - whether it be their human right to life and liberty, or their property
rights if it's their pet you just ate, or mutual public rights like if you desecrate a peaceful
public park by slaughtering a duck.
Gays can claim natural source to their condition in part because it doesn't hurt anyone when they
do. Hunters can't however say they can hunt and kill whatever they want because it indeed does hurt
others when they do. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
It's just as stupid when you are stupid as when Lord9 is stupid. Hopefully, you won't make a career
out of it. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Strictly speaking the dialogue starts with anti gay rhetoric that states that homosexuality is wrong
because it's unnatural, which is patently false. The pro gay movement does not hang their hat on
that argument it is simply a response to a fallacious attack to say, yes in fact homosexuality does
occur within nature. The reason it is ‘OK to be gay’ is because as long as it doesn’t impinge
on someone else’s rights we are morally and legally obligated to allow each individual as much
freedom to decide their own destiny as we reasonably may.
All of which is aside from the fact that there are plenty of venues in which you may hunt and kill
if you wish. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Oh gottfried, please you almost sound like dlmiller with this debate topic. Quincel put it quite
adequetly, I can engage in sex with a man without harming him or anyone else in society. Whereas if
I go out hunting and kill something I'm pretty guarenteed to be harming someone in society. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
If you can hunt without harming anyone else, just as Gays can sodomise without harming anyone else,
then go ahead. But that means you need to stick to public animals and public property, and get
licenses to ensure safety. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
The debate’s a little too cut and dry for my tastes. Hunting is an act found in nature and humans
do participate in such acts. There’s just rules set in place as to what we're able hunt and when.
Likewise, homosexuality is an act found in nature and humans do participate in them too. But
there’s also rules set in place as to who and what we can participate in such acts with. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 For and Against Recent Activity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
20 Nov 2009 11:07
Sign In
