Quote :

"Christ was responding to the rich man who wanted to become the perfect follower of Christ since he was insistent in asking so. We are called to put our faith before everything else and be willing to do so. What is so uncomfortable about that?"

Hmm... that sounds like it goes against the very most basic laws of survival! We should abolish Christianity.

7/12/2006 10:11:45 PM

You can't take the bible literally

Oh...Except when you're trying to make a point and the only thing you have to back it up is the bible itself.

7/12/2006 10:11:51 PM

Actually, he claimed something about a position blah blah, which was shitty diction and STILL exhibits his lack of expertise in logic.

Logical soundness applies to arguments. Was it actually wrong to assume that a guy who "got an A+ in symbolic logic" would apply the terms properly?

Jesus dude, go back to the sand box.

7/12/2006 10:12:21 PM

Quote :

"Thank goodness science and technology have improved. We can overcome all sorts of obstacles these days, a few folks not making babies being a fairly minor one.""

You can file it, mold it, or use it as toilet paper, I really do not care. Why are you so insistent on violating the separation of church and state? You want the state to become involved in religious practice only when it suits your purpose.

This has been the typical crux of your arguments.

7/12/2006 10:13:11 PM

This isn't a religious issue, it's a social one. You can get legally married without stepping foot in a Church. Letting gay people get married isn't infringing on YOUR rights.

7/12/2006 10:14:06 PM

^^I'd be happy if the government put all the marriage benefits under civil unions, and then stopped using the term "marriage" entirely.

[Edited on July 12, 2006 at 10:14 PM. Reason : ^s]

7/12/2006 10:14:08 PM

go back to the tweezer store, because you are clearly going to need a smaller pair.

please, show me where he said her argument was sound. SHOW ME. don't say ONE MORE FUCKING WORD ABOUT IT until you show me where he said "Bridget has a sound position, but her logic is flawed."

and no, your idea of an implicit statement doesn't count, because you are so full of shit that if you died tomorrow, EPA regulations wouldn't allow you to be buried within 2 miles of a water supply.

Quote :

"This isn't a religious issue, it's a social one."

remind me again, who invented marriage? here's a hint, dickweed, it wasn't the US gov't

[Edited on July 12, 2006 at 10:15 PM. Reason : ]

7/12/2006 10:14:56 PM

Quote :

"Hmm... that sounds like it goes against the very most basic laws of survival! We should abolish Christianity."

Having material goods is a basic law of survival? Is this the law according to Contrast?

7/12/2006 10:15:23 PM

Quote :

"Having material goods is a basic law of survival? Is this the law according to Contrast?"

Giving up what things you have that help you survive, i.e. tools, money, and so forth -- is unnatural. My point is Nietzsche's. Christianity's rules are counter to nature's.

[Edited on July 12, 2006 at 10:17 PM. Reason : Punctuation lends clarity lol]

7/12/2006 10:16:28 PM

McDanger, you're shaping it as a social issue. A legal marriage as it is has been recognized for hundreds of years comes directly from a religious origin whether you care to admit it or not.

7/12/2006 10:17:11 PM

having money is quite unnatural, actually. why should we keep it?

7/12/2006 10:17:37 PM

^^Then why is it you can get married in front of nobody but a judge?

[Edited on July 12, 2006 at 10:18 PM. Reason : .]

7/12/2006 10:17:53 PM

Quote :

"remind me again, who invented marriage? here's a hint, dickweed, it wasn't the US gov't "

if you actually took SOC 201, you'd learn that marriage has existed in nearly every society as a form of social welfare.

[Edited on July 12, 2006 at 10:19 PM. Reason : asdf]

7/12/2006 10:19:04 PM

Quote :

"burr0sback: I don't seem to recall society accepting this... If we did, would we really be having this conversation right now?"

I think I made it very clear that they were accepted as "spinsters" and "bachelors."

Why do you want them to remain spinsters and bachelors?

[Edited on July 12, 2006 at 10:20 PM. Reason : sss]

7/12/2006 10:19:18 PM

Quote :

"having money is quite unnatural, actually. why should we keep it?"

If we find ourselves in a position where we have money, the natural thing to do is to use it (spend it) in such ways as will help us survive -- certainly to give it away is not natural.

7/12/2006 10:19:30 PM

Quote :

"please, show me where he said her argument was sound. SHOW ME. don't say ONE MORE FUCKING WORD ABOUT IT until you show me where he said "Bridget has a sound position, but her logic is flawed.""

He said her position. Seeing as how soundness applies to an argument, not a "position" as he defines it (a statement of opinion? wouldn't that just be true or false? he's just illustrating his lack of understanding here).

Funny enough is, you're demonstrating your ineptitude as well! Great job. Oh, and I don't need tweezers, I have a gorgeous girlfriend who you pine and lust after who's more than willing to satisfy me. Must be sour fucking grapes to live your life, man.

Quote :

"McDanger, you're shaping it as a social issue. A legal marriage as it is has been recognized for hundreds of years comes directly from a religious origin whether you care to admit it or not."

It does in some contexts (and mostly in historical rewrites), but it has a social use. It helped solidify estates and cleaned up the mess of where somebody's belongings went after passing on. Do you REALLY think Catholic priests cannot marry because of some "holy" reason? The Church didn't want them marrying/having kids because they didn't want to lose control of their land.

[Edited on July 12, 2006 at 10:21 PM. Reason : .]

7/12/2006 10:19:45 PM

So it's not natural to care about anybody other than yourself? Being a self righteous selfish prick is what life is all about?

It sounds like Nietzche would have been against gay marriage since it goes against nature.

7/12/2006 10:21:21 PM

Who gives a shit what Nietzsche thinks, are you arguing with Nietzsche?

Quote :

"So it's not natural to care about anybody other than yourself?"

Of course its natural to care about other people. Love is quite natural.

Quote :

"Being a self righteous selfish prick is what life is all about?"

Nope but it's a hell of a perk.

[Edited on July 12, 2006 at 10:23 PM. Reason : .]

7/12/2006 10:22:20 PM

Quote :

"Do you REALLY think Catholic priests cannot marry because of some "holy" reason? The Church didn't want them marrying/having kids because they didn't want to lose control of their land."

Actually the Priests, who solely make the choice to receive Holy Orders and thus take a vow of chastity, do so because their role is too important to divide their time and efforts between a wife/family and their Parish/flock. It's a tough demand, to be sure, but the reasoning behind it is equally sound.

7/12/2006 10:24:56 PM

Quote :

"So it's not natural to care about anybody other than yourself? Being a self righteous selfish prick is what life is all about? It sounds like Nietzche would have been against gay marriage since it goes against nature."

Yes, he would. I am presenting his argument in order to illustrate this:

1. Gay marriage is counter to the "laws of nature."
2. So is Christianity.
3. We as a society still think Christianity is OK despite that it opposes nature, and we give Christians the same rights as anyone else.
4. We as a society think gay marriage is NOT OK, in your case because it opposes nature, and we don't give gays the same rights as anyone else. This is retarded.

[Edited on July 12, 2006 at 10:26 PM. Reason : .]

7/12/2006 10:25:20 PM

Hahaha you are a GOOD little Catholic.

It's a relic, man. They didn't want to lose their land to heirs. Eliminating marriages kept them from having legitimate heirs. Pretty handy, eh?

Why do other sects let their clergy marry? I guess they're not as busy or good at their job as Catholic priests. I guess child molestation really takes it out of you after a long day at "work".

7/12/2006 10:26:46 PM

Quote :

"So when you make a reference to the judiciary overstepping its bounds, I'm a total idiot to assume you're talking about homosexual marriage court cases. "

You are an idiot to assume anything. It would be simpler to read the statement that was written and respond to it as it was written, instead of "assuming" your own set of facts.

7/12/2006 10:29:47 PM

Quote :

"Who gives a shit what Nietzsche thinks, are you arguing with Nietzsche?"

Well I'm arguing with 2 people specifically who are Nietzsche disciples.

Quote :

"Why do other sects let their clergy marry? I guess they're not as busy or good at their job as Catholic priests. I guess child molestation really takes it out of you after a long day at "work"."

Other sects run into unforeseen problems as well and are not as accessable because of time constraints and demands from having split duties to God and family.

As for the predicted comment about child molestation, the abominable act of a few individuals do not define the whole Priesthood and their role, nor should it.

7/12/2006 10:32:28 PM

Quote :

"1. Gay marriage is counter to the "laws of nature." 2. So is Christianity."

That's only if you buy Nietzsche's bill of goods, which pretty much anybody who has any set of religious beliefs would not.

7/12/2006 10:37:29 PM

Quote :

"Well I'm arguing with 2 people specifically who are Nietzsche disciples."

Wrong! See the funny thing about secular folks is that we can draw our ideas from many places. I draw some concepts from Nietzsche that I agree with, but to call me a disciple? Tsk tsk, everything really IS black and white to you, isn't it?

Quote :

"As for the predicted comment about child molestation, the abominable act of a few individuals do not define the whole Priesthood and their role, nor should it."

Pedophilia is far from the worst thing the Priesthood has committed.

7/12/2006 10:38:02 PM

Quote :

"That's only if you buy Nietzsche's bill of goods, which pretty much anybody who has any set of religious beliefs would not."

No, that's only if you buy the very few things that I said in this thread. You don't have to take all of Nietzsche's arguments because of just one.

BTW there's only one person on this thread whom you could call a "disciple" of Nietzsche, by any stretch of the imagination, and that would be McDanger.

7/12/2006 10:40:14 PM

Quote :

"I think I made it very clear that they were accepted as "spinsters" and "bachelors." Why do you want them to remain spinsters and bachelors?"

And I think it's pretty damned clear that you have no facts to back up that assertion.

Quote :

"If we find ourselves in a position where we have money, the natural thing to do is to use it (spend it) in such ways as will help us survive -- certainly to give it away is not natural."

but why should we ever have money? it's unnatural. Why should we ever have a job? Job's are unnatural. Why should I have a car? I can walk. A car is unnatural.

Quote :

"He said her position."

OK, but SHOW ME WHERE HE SAID HER POSITION WAS SOUND. That's the key, needledick.

Quote :

"It does in some contexts (and mostly in historical rewrites), but it has a social use."

What? Someone used a religious thing for his own gain? STOP THE PRESSES!!!

Quote :

"1. Gay marriage is counter to the "laws of nature." 2. So is Christianity. 3. We as a society still think Christianity is OK despite that it opposes nature, and we give Christians the same rights as anyone else. 4. We as a society think gay marriage is NOT OK, in your case because it opposes nature, and we don't give gays the same rights as anyone else. This is retarded."

Sorry, buddy, but you haven't proven that Christianity is counter to the laws of nature. Your "argument" falls apart at step 2. Rather, you've taken one teeny tiny passage from Christianity's holy texts and proposed that that passage represents the entirety of Christianity. This is what we call a "Strawman."

Quote :

"Wrong! See the funny thing about secular folks is that we can draw our ideas from many places."

In other words, you pick and choose whatever is convenient to you at the time. Glad to know you have no backbone

[Edited on July 12, 2006 at 10:42 PM. Reason : ]

7/12/2006 10:40:56 PM

Look burro, I don't have all night to explain everything under the sun to you so I made an easy to read Venn diagram:

Quote :

"In other words, you pick and choose whatever is convenient to you at the time. Glad to know you have no backbone"

Actually, it's called knowing that one person hasn't figured everything out. It's called careful examination and re-examination. It's called questioning everything and refining your beliefs once you have better data and better reasoning skills from practice. It's what mature human beings do. It's what humans beings with a shred of awareness do, those who understand that nobody is even close to nailing every subject 100% correctly, and who understand that a variety of situations in life require a variety of techniques and tools. It's what human beings who aren't you do.

[Edited on July 12, 2006 at 10:46 PM. Reason : .]

7/12/2006 10:45:59 PM

Quote :

"In other words, you pick and choose whatever is convenient to you at the time. Glad to know you have no backbone"

tell me, McDanger, why are you avoiding my question? Why won't you show me where he stated that Bridget's position was sound? All of your moaning and bitching and pissing practically depends on that having happened, otherwise you've just gone on and on about something that was never said.

7/12/2006 10:48:17 PM

Quote :

"but why should we ever have money? it's unnatural. Why should we ever have a job? Job's are unnatural. Why should I have a car? I can walk. A car is unnatural."

I said, if you find yourself in a position where you have money. How you got there is irrelevant to whether your next action is natural. If a tiger is after you and you have a car, do not walk.

Quote :

"Sorry, buddy, but you haven't proven that Christianity is counter to the laws of nature. Your "argument" falls apart at step 2. Rather, you've taken one teeny tiny passage from Christianity's holy texts and proposed that that passage represents the entirety of Christianity. This is what we call a "Strawman.""

OK, then I'll narrow it down to just giving away your money for nothing. Charity is unnatural. I'll walk you through it.

1. Gay marriage is counter to the "laws of nature."
2. So is charity.
3. We as a society still think charity is OK despite that it opposes nature, and we give contributors to charity the same rights as anyone else.
4. We as a society think gay marriage is NOT OK, in your case because it opposes nature, and we don't give gays the same rights as anyone else. This is retarded.

7/12/2006 10:48:45 PM

Look I've already addressed you, you fucking mongoloid.^^

He DID say position, but what he said made no fucking sense. I gave him the benefit of the doubt and filled in the word as "argument" to him, so that it made sense. Once it made sense, it still wasn't fucking correct.

You are hilariously wrong on virtually everything you say and think.

[Edited on July 12, 2006 at 10:49 PM. Reason : .]

7/12/2006 10:49:46 PM

actually, "charity" has been shown to occur in nature in some species of animals. you lose again.

and no, it doesn't "not matter" that you wound up with money. If money is unnatural, then any situation involving the use of money is unnatural. period. Anything you do with an unnatural thing is, by definition, unnatural.

^ Look, needledick, I didn't ask where he said "position" or where he said "argument." I asked "where did he say the following words in the same order: Bridget's argument[position] is sound."

for someone bitching about someone else's lack of logic, you sure have a hard time at very simple tasks involved in the formation of a logical argument.

[Edited on July 12, 2006 at 10:52 PM. Reason : ]

7/12/2006 10:50:46 PM

Charity can be a good thing because it can help to hold together the human social organism. I don't understand why people equate "natural" with self-serving shortsightedness. Self-serving people with some wisdom and maturity understand charity as a good thing for maintaining a whole. Charity can also be misplaced.

Quote :

"^ Look, needledick, I didn't ask where he said "position" or where he said "argument." I asked "where did he say the following words in the same order: Bridget's argument[position] is sound.""

He didn't, and now you're going to run off thinking you've scored a victory. It's another one of your many thoughts that are laughably wrong. Who the fuck let you out of chit chat anyway? I've already explained to you what he said, and why it's wrong under his interpretation or my generous (and admittedly subconscious) reinterpretation.

Quote :

"and no, it doesn't "not matter" that you wound up with money. If money is unnatural, then any situation involving the use of money is unnatural. period. Anything you do with an unnatural thing is, by definition, unnatural. "

Hey, Christ would probably agree with you. That's why he said to lay down your belongings.

[Edited on July 12, 2006 at 10:55 PM. Reason : .]

7/12/2006 10:53:47 PM

Quote :

"actually, "charity" has been shown to occur in nature in some species of animals. you lose again."

I'm glad you brought that up, because homosexuality has also been shown to occur in nature in some species of animals. Looks like it's exactly as natural as charity!

Quote :

"and no, it doesn't "not matter" that you wound up with money. If money is unnatural, then any situation involving the use of money is unnatural. period. Anything you do with an unnatural thing is, by definition, unnatural."

Actually, money is a survival tool. Originally we bartered for survival (I'm a hunter, you're a farmer, we trade fur for food). Then, we created money to facilitate trade. It was the natural thing to do.

7/12/2006 10:56:43 PM

Quote :

"I'm glad you brought that up, because homosexuality has also been shown to occur in nature in some species of animals. Looks like it's exactly as natural as charity!"

aahhahaha

7/12/2006 10:57:34 PM

actually, Christ told that man to give up his belongings, because possessions meant everything to that man. Its ok, though, picking and choosing what you want to believe is a whole lot better than actually understanding that which you ridicule.

Quote :

"He didn't, and now you're going to run off thinking you've scored a victory."

Actually, yes. Because what you've done is create a strawman. And that was my whole fucking point. You've attacked something that he never said, and the thing he never said was a quite weak assertion in the first place. Probably why a mental midget like yourself chose to attack it.

Quote :

"Originally we bartered for survival"

Show me other animals that depend on bartering for survival. Show me other animals that specialize at tasks within the same species. Then show me animals that use money.

Quote :

"I'm glad you brought that up, because homosexuality has also been shown to occur in nature in some species of animals."

Insanity has also been shown to occur in animals in nature as well, but that certainly doesn't make insanity "natural." It certainly doesn't make an insane individual evolutionally advantageous.

7/12/2006 11:02:16 PM

“It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God”

Pretty. Fucking. Explicit.

"Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor, and you will have a treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me."

Even more explicit. Jesus is my favorite Communist. Funny that his followers are decadent gluttons by his standards.

Quote :

"Actually, yes. Because what you've done is create a strawman. And that was my whole fucking point. You've attacked something that he never said, and the thing he never said was a quite weak assertion in the first place. Probably why a mental midget like yourself chose to attack it."

Hahahah it wasn't a strawman, dude. I STRENGTHENED his point by misunderstanding him as making sense. Going back now and taking him literally, he makes none.

7/12/2006 11:06:48 PM

Quote :

"Show me other animals that depend on bartering for survival. Show me other animals that specialize at tasks within the same species. Then show me animals that use money."

We haven't met any alien races yet. Sorry, monkeys are smart enough to use crude tools but they haven't quite learned to mint bronze. We do know that bartering arose in multiple places on earth among humanity independently. Separate groups of humans inventing the same thing should serve your "other purposes" requirement well enough.

Quote :

"Insanity has also been shown to occur in animals in nature as well, but that certainly doesn't make insanity "natural." It certainly doesn't make an insane individual evolutionally advantageous."

You know what kinds of things do provide evolutionary advantage? Diversity, new and unique behaviors, and the personal liberty to explore that diversity and those behaviors.

7/12/2006 11:08:37 PM

Quote :

"You are an idiot to assume anything. It would be simpler to read the statement that was written and respond to it as it was written, instead of "assuming" your own set of facts."

Ahah, you see... if I took your statement as is:

"I understand this. But what about when the judiciary oversteps its bounds? What check is there upon the power of the judiicary?"

then it would've been you admitting to having zero understanding of our system of checks and balances. But I was able to infer through context what you were actually talking about. It's something quite a lot of non-idiots do on a daily basis.

But hey, why address any of the arguments in the thread when you can nickpick offhand comments all day long.

7/12/2006 11:12:47 PM

Quote :

"Pretty. Fucking. Explicit."

Maybe... to a simpleton like you who doesn't understand the statement.

Quote :

"Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor, and you will have a treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me."

Who is that statement made to? The entire world? Or just one man... And you are the one trying to tell me that Christianity is rubbish...

Quote :

"Hahahah it wasn't a strawman, dude. I STRENGTHENED his point by misunderstanding him as making sense. Going back now and taking him literally, he makes none."

In other words, you CHANGED HIS ARGUMENT. The definition of a strawman. That you claim to have "strengthened" his argument is irrelevant, because it wasn't his argument that you then attacked.

Quote :

"We haven't met any alien races yet."

relevence? You cannot show me that which we cannot observe. But, you can show me examples from things we can observe. Namely, that no other animal uses bartering or money. There may be alien races that use money. Then again, if everything else on their planet doesn't use money, then does that not further strengthen my point? Money would be an abberration, not the norm.

Quote :

"Separate groups of humans inventing the same thing should serve your "other purposes" requirement well enough."

Maybe, but it doesn't address my "other animals," AKA "not humans."

Quote :

"You know what kinds of things do provide evolutionary advantage? Diversity, new and unique behaviors, and the personal liberty to explore that diversity and those behaviors."

Actually, no. "Personal liberty" has nothing to do with it. It's teeny tiny mutations that serve to make a species more likely to reproduce and pass on his genes that provide such an advantage. Forgive me, but a predisposition to not reproducing at all is NOT an "evolutionary advantage." BTW, remind me again what animal other than humans "explore" their "diversity."

Quote :

"But I was able to infer through context what you were actually talking about."

Ironically, I understand exactly what he meant. And his statement is 100% valid, even in the way you phrased it. You see, as our system is set up, the only real check is in approval. After that, it's almost a free reign. Yes, the House can impeach justices for outright tomfoolery, but what evidence do we have that they would do this? The SC has clearly taken on the role of the legislature at times, and no time was that more evident than when the concept of judicial review was proposed by the SC. There was no check then, or, at the very least, the check failed, because since then the SC has persisted in legislating from the bench.

Moreover, the types of things where the judiciary oversteps its bounds are not likely to be huge. The SC won't wake up tomorrow and say "no voting rights for men named 'John.'" Rather, they unintentionally (at best) slightly overstep their limits. And using that as precedence, a later generation will overstep slightly again. And no one in the House is going to impeach a judge for a slight overstepping. It'd be political suicide. Thus, there is no real check on the judiciary after approval. The President slightly oversteps his bounds? Take it to the SC, or the House impeaches him or whatever. The house oversteps it's bounds? President vetoes it (assuming there is no overriding of the veto) or the SC nullifies it.

7/12/2006 11:33:31 PM

You're missing a huge power the legislature has over the judicial branch.

They can rewrite/clarify the constitution if they see that the judges are misinterpreting it.

But really though... where's an example of a tyrannical judiciary? They're doing their job, and because they occasionally trump the other two branches does not mean they're not equal. I don't see them taking us to war, writing busgets, making policy, etc... They dare to block a few of these actions, and...

"omg they're making Bush abide by the law. omg they're not allowing tax dollars to be used to promote religion. JUDICIAL TYYYYYYYYYRANNY!!1"



[Edited on July 12, 2006 at 11:48 PM. Reason : .]

7/12/2006 11:46:08 PM

Quote :

"Maybe, but it doesn't address my "other animals," AKA "not humans.""

Quote :

"relevence? You cannot show me that which we cannot observe."

You cannot ask for that which we cannot observe. There are no species on Earth that we know about that are intelligent enough to use money, besides humans. If two separate societies of humans are divided by oceans and having no contact with another, they may as well be separate species because the two societies are evolving independently of one another.

But you know, I CAN give you examples of other species that exhibit homosexual behavior.

Quote :

"Actually, no. "Personal liberty" has nothing to do with it. It's teeny tiny mutations that serve to make a species more likely to reproduce and pass on his genes that provide such an advantage. Forgive me, but a predisposition to not reproducing at all is NOT an "evolutionary advantage." BTW, remind me again what animal other than humans "explore" their "diversity.""

Apes. Dolphins. The smart species.

And, homosexuality is not a predisposition not to reproduce. It is a behavioral trend including, but not requiring or being limited to, mating with the same sex.

[Edited on July 12, 2006 at 11:56 PM. Reason : quote nesting b0rked]

7/12/2006 11:49:14 PM

I just wanted to let you men know that seeing my name typed in your arguments...very sexy.

7/12/2006 11:57:58 PM

^I like how they had only one weak response to your all-caps question.

7/13/2006 12:02:38 AM

Quote :

"There are no species on Earth that we know about that are intelligent enough to use money"

in other words money and bartering is unnatural. It's hard for me to believe that something only one species in a bajillion does and which no other observable species does anything similar to is "natural."

Quote :

"where's an example of a tyrannical judiciary?"

ummm, maybe judicial review? you know, when they came out and said "hey, we are now going to take on roles of the legislature."

Quote :

"They can rewrite/clarify the constitution if they see that the judges are misinterpreting it."

And the SC can go out and nullify that if they see fit. Moreover, the legislature has to get the approval of a shit ton of people outside of itself to do so. The SC need only speak it into existence (or out of, as the case commonly is).

Quote :

"I don't see them taking us to war, writing busgets, making policy"

Maybe because those were specifically granted to the other branches and it would be judicial suicide to even attempt those things? There's little reason for the SC to be going to war. But "overturning laws," that sounds like something close to what they might be able to do, right? I mean, in "interpreting," shouldn't they go ahead and overturn unConstitutional things? hmmmm... too bad the Constitution didn't say they could do that.

Quote :

"But you know, I CAN give you examples of other species that exhibit homosexual behavior."

And I already addressed that. Reread my above post, buddy. Something simply existing doesn't make it "natural." I've already shown that with money and cars.

Quote :

"Apes. Dolphins. The smart species."

Really. How do apes and dolphins "explore their diversity?" If a chimp was born with yellow hair when the rest of the chimps had black hair, would the rest of the chimps "explore his diversity?" No, they'd throw feces at the yellow-haired chimp.

Quote :

"And, homosexuality is not a predisposition not to reproduce."

Remind me again, how exactly do homosexuals reproduce in an environment that requires heterosexual reproduction? I'm having a hard time figuring this out. Because, behaviors, as you have stated, are involved in evolution. And if I am more predisposed to engage in behaviors that preclude me from engaging in behaviors that are necessary for reproduction, then I find it hard to believe that I will be more likely to reproduce. Moreover, monogamous marriage would completely preclude reproduction among homosexuals who entered it, thus making it wholly "unnatural."

Sure, I might still be able to have sex with women as well as men. But if I'm fucking a man, I'm not going to get him pregnant. Even if I fuck a woman here and there, if I had been fucking only women, I'd be far more likely to have gotten her pregnant, and thus reproduced. Thus, homosexuality effectively reduces one's chances for reproduction, which is all that matters from an evolutionary standard...

Quote :

"I like how they had only one weak response to your all-caps question."

Ironically, someone made a fine argument against her bullshit "question" in all caps. Which is why no one else bothered to respond to it. Being in all caps doesn't make bullshit smell any better.

[Edited on July 13, 2006 at 12:18 AM. Reason : ]

7/13/2006 12:16:36 AM

Quote :

"ummm, maybe judicial review? you know, when they came out and said "hey, we are now going to take on roles of the legislature.""

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution"

How could this be achieved without judicial review?

7/13/2006 12:33:50 AM

Quote :

"burr0sback: Ironically, someone made a fine argument against her bullshit "question" in all caps. Which is why no one else bothered to respond to it. Being in all caps doesn't make bullshit smell any better."

Point me to it, please...

My "question," in case you were confused:

Quote :

"BridgetSPK: EVERYBODY IN THIS THREAD WHO THINKS HOMOSEXUALITY IS A SEXUAL PERVERSION, TELL ME WHY."

I'm drunk so I guess I must have missed this "fine argument." ???

Either way, you guys are still adorable.

7/13/2006 12:46:17 AM

Having a good time, BridgetSPK?

Quote :

"Remind me again, how exactly do homosexuals reproduce in an environment that requires heterosexual reproduction? I'm having a hard time figuring this out. Because, behaviors, as you have stated, are involved in evolution. And if I am more predisposed to engage in behaviors that preclude me from engaging in behaviors that are necessary for reproduction, then I find it hard to believe that I will be more likely to reproduce. Moreover, monogamous marriage would completely preclude reproduction among homosexuals who entered it, thus making it wholly "unnatural.""

Is reproduction necessary to marriage all of a sudden? Marriage is about a union of two people who may or may not raise a family. And you do not have to have children yourself to raise children. Plenty of straight people are leaving their little miracles on doorsteps every day.

Quote :

"There are no species on Earth that we know about that are intelligent enough to use money"

Quote :

"in other words money and bartering is unnatural. It's hard for me to believe that something only one species in a bajillion does and which no other observable species does anything similar to is "natural.""

So by your reasoning, anything unique to humans is unnatural, for instance written communication. We don't know any other species who use the Internet. What are you doing on the Internet, mister nature?

If the number of exhibiting species is what makes something more or less natural, it looks like homosexuality is more natural than money, charity, and a lot of other things.

7/13/2006 12:59:50 AM

^For sure, boo.

7/13/2006 1:09:21 AM

btw bridget ("boo"):

Quote :

"MAYBE BECAUSE IF EVERYTHING BECAME GAY TOMORROW NOTHING WOULD EXIST IN 100 YEARS"

That was the point made. We have been arguing over whether homosexuality goes against human nature ever since.

7/13/2006 1:12:20 AM