• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ideal Parents and abortion

Paleocon said:
You don't understand the natural law argument. Please familiarize yourself with it before making further strawmen.

(No I don't actually expect that you of all people will bother to familiarize yourself with an opposing POV when it is easier to just make strawmen arguments)
Click to expand...

I understand it and it is absurd.
 
It's not their call any more than it's mine. You're saying without marriage their lives are pointless or without access to our kids there's no reason to live.(scouts) If they're all that simple they need a good therapist.
 
I think it's more like one group competes and the other is weird.
 
You can't see how they're different? I'm sure they are very nice but to merge them into a normal male/female type relationship is try to force the square peg into a round hole. I'm sorry California is such a poor example for the rest of the country but that's what they are. Any time something happens out there the rest of the country should be very cautious about following. Your friends are your choice and knowing and having a variety of friends adds spice to life but spice and morals should not be confused. I know many homosexuals and I treat them with respect and I always will. That doesn't mean I'm willing to compromise my morals to accommodate homosexuals and I am offended they treat what I consider sacred with so little respect. I drew a line at marriage and once that was crossed my concern for your sensibilities or theirs dissolved.
 
Paleocon said:
I've had enough of this intellectual dishonesty. He made comments about celibate gays, that have no relevance to this conversation. You're going on ignore.
Click to expand...

Celibate gays? You can't even make that claim about gay priests.
 
I have a lot less contact with homosexuals than you do but I do and I wish them no ill will. I hope they live happy lives but when homosexuals and their supporters crossed some moral boundaries that was just too far. I will always treat them with respect and I will obey the law.
 
Paleocon said:
I've had enough of this intellectual dishonesty. He made comments about celibate gays, that have no relevance to this conversation. You're going on ignore.
Click to expand...
Can you point to the quote where celibate is mentioned? The dishonesty is entirely yours here, but not unexpected. It must be a fundamental Catholic requirement. As for you ignoring me, I really do not give a ****e, you clearly are ignoring a lot more.
 
First rule of natural law arguments: Ignore actual human nature, replace with what you wish to conceive of as human nature.

Second rule of Natural law arguments: Do NOT, I repeat do NOT, have any understanding of biology when making such arguments.

Any questions?
 
sneakosview said:
You can't see how they're different? I'm sure they are very nice but to merge them into a normal male/female type relationship is try to force the square peg into a round hole. I'm sorry California is such a poor example for the rest of the country but that's what they are. Any time something happens out there the rest of the country should be very cautious about following. Your friends are your choice and knowing and having a variety of friends adds spice to life but spice and morals should not be confused. I know many homosexuals and I treat them with respect and I always will. That doesn't mean I'm willing to compromise my morals to accommodate homosexuals and I am offended they treat what I consider sacred with so little respect. I drew a line at marriage and once that was crossed my concern for your sensibilities or theirs dissolved.
Click to expand...

Name one thing different than they have sex with the same gender? You tried once already and most or all of the things applied to myself and MANY straight people I know. Same when I was in a couple....we both felt the same about what you listed.

Again...you only assume difference in people you KNOW are gay or are more flamboyant. (THere are plenty of women who flaunt their sexuality too...doesnt make them lesbians) What you keep missing is the millions that ARE no different and you dont know they're gay.
 
sneakosview said:
I have a lot less contact with homosexuals than you do but I do and I wish them no ill will. I hope they live happy lives but when homosexuals and their supporters crossed some moral boundaries that was just too far. I will always treat them with respect and I will obey the law.
Click to expand...

What moral boundaries? Different...worse?...ones than fornicators and adulterers? Hmmm, they're allowed to marry!

What moral boundaries? Because to legislate against, them, they need to be non-religious in nature AND/OR show some harm to society/the state.
 
Tucker Case said:
Step 1: ignore actual facts about nature, use the word "natural" to describe that which you like.
Step 2: Obtain Underpants
Step 3: ????
Step 4: Profit!
Click to expand...

Thanks for showing your ignorance.
 
Tucker Case said:
First rule of natural law arguments: Ignore actual human nature, replace with what you wish to conceive of as human nature.

Second rule of Natural law arguments: Do NOT, I repeat do NOT, have any understanding of biology when making such arguments.

Any questions?
Click to expand...

Uhhhhh...what's "Biology"? Is that somethin like two ologies or what? Oh, or every other ology, maybe?
 
Granted, some gay parades can be something I don't want to watch, but to claim gays flaunt their sexuality is also absurd if that is a contrast to heterosexuals. Heterosexuals "flaunting sexuality" is basically what 50% of all TV is, 98% of porn, and 75% of all advertising.

There no prudishness in the "heterosexual community." And, of course, all heterosexuals are acting in concert with each other for secret agendas too.
 
Paleocon said:
Then explain it.
Click to expand...

In terms of being used for anti-gay campaign, the "natural law" claim is that only coitus (vagina sex) without any contraceptives and only for the purpose of procreation is "natural" because the singular "natural" purpose of sex is procreation of the species.

Thus, masturbation, oral sex, anal sex, using contraceptives, vasectomies, having sex with any woman who had a hysterectomy, or any manner of sex other than specifically for procreation is "unnatural." In that, then gay sex is put into this - for which generally all the other "unnatural" sex is rationalized to somehow be ok because it is between opposite genders - making the whole thing worthless and lacking any logic or integrity.

It is a perversion of the word "natural" to a singular definition for an agenda, and then declaring your proof is your own mis-definition of a commonly used word.
 
Last edited:
Homosexuality is what it is and it's not what I think of when defining normal. I have no hate for homosexuals I have a problem with them saying they're just like me. I always supported making sure they had partnership rights but not marriage. The next act in this play will be to sue churches that refuse to play or at least get their tax exempt status removed if they don't. Just to make it clear I don't want to know what anybody does in their bedroom and I don't appreciate being forced to know.
 
I'm religious so you should understand the boundaries that have been crossed.
 
joko104 said:
In terms of being used for anti-gay campaign, the "natural law" claim is that only coitus (vagina sex) without any contraceptives and only for the purpose of procreation is "natural" because the singular "natural" purpose of sex is procreation of the species.
Click to expand...

Well then they're just oblivious to biology, since it has been proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that sex is also a way to form stronger social bonds in higher order primates. Anyone making a claim as obviously retarded as "sex is only for procreation" should definitely be forced, by law, to wear a helmet and mittens at all times for their own protection.
 
sneakosview said:
Homosexuality is what it is and it's not what I think of when defining normal.
Click to expand...


Who gives a **** what you think of when you think of normal? Honestly, where did you get the silly idea that you are so important as to define "normal"?

I have a problem with them saying they're just like me.
Click to expand...

There's some more of that self-important bull****. Get the **** over yourself, you aren't special.
 
joko104 said:
In terms of being used for anti-gay campaign, the "natural law" claim is that only coitus (vagina sex) without any contraceptives and only for the purpose of procreation is "natural" because the singular "natural" purpose of sex is procreation of the species.

Thus, masturbation, oral sex, anal sex, using contraceptives, vasectomies, having sex with any woman who had a hysterectomy, or any manner of sex other than specifically for procreation is "unnatural." In that, then gay sex is put into this - for which generally all the other "unnatural" sex is rationalized to somehow be ok because it is between opposite genders - making the whole thing worthless and lacking any logic or integrity.

It is a perversion of the word "natural" to a singular definition for an agenda, and then declaring your proof is your own mis-definition of a commonly used word.
Click to expand...

Nope. Self abuse, sodomy, contraception, and sterilization are all also unnatural.
 
Paleocon said:
Nope. Self abuse, sodomy, contraception, and sterilization are all also unnatural.
Click to expand...

Did you just call "masturbation" self-abuse so that you could achieve step one of my explanation of your position? And you pretended I was ignorant about your position. too funny :lol:

Bonus literacy lesson: You just started off pretending he was inaccurate and then proceeded to paraphrase what he said.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom