Page: 1 2 3 Next > Jump to:  Bottom  Last Post
 mcboozerilla
Male, 30-39, Europe
 649 Posts
|
Wednesday, February 08, 2012 5:57:17 AM
I'm so bored of this topic too. |
|
 Wendypants
Female, 30-39, Canada
1030 Posts
|
Sunday, February 05, 2012 8:44:53 AM
Sorry, I have forgotten the name of the author but it was a very interesting read!
And that post was also for people who insist that homosexuality interrupts procreation.
:) |
|
Wendypants
Female, 30-39, Canada
1030 Posts
|
Sunday, February 05, 2012 8:43:32 AM
I know I'm really late in replying to all these posts but I have to post something at EgalM!! Read the book "A natural history of sex"... in it you find out about a variety of lemmings/moles. There are only female ones; there have only ever been female ones! How do they procreate, you ask? They take turns pretending to be males; the lemming/mole in the female role spontaneously gets pregnant. Yup, how's that for your immaculate conception?
So shut the drat up about how it's unnatural and wrong; if god didn't want homosexuality in his world, why is it everywhere? |
|
 xCYBERDYNEx
Male, 18-29, Southern US
4798 Posts
|
Wednesday, February 01, 2012 2:03:51 AM
@8BitHero, you look like something I'd wipe my ass with.
 |
|
 HiEv
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
384 Posts
|
Tuesday, January 31, 2012 10:25:37 PM
@CynicalGamer: "Arguing against whether or not being gay is natural against the use of air conditioners? WTF? Being gay is not natural."
A) "Gay is not natural": False. Examples of homosexual behavior are found in nature, ergo, gay *is* natural. (see here)
B) Underlying assumption "Natural is good": False. Anthrax, asbestos, and most gamma ray bursts are natural, but they can kill you dead.
C) Underlying assumption "Not-natural stuff is bad": False. Air conditioning, eyeglasses, etc., on the other hand, are not natural, but *are* good.
B & C are both part of what is known as the "naturalistic fallacy".
Anyways, I think we should go back to the original definition of marriage in the Bible, when it was between one man and one or more women.  (Genesis |
|
 wake_n_bake
Male, 18-29, Southern US
657 Posts
|
Tuesday, January 31, 2012 8:56:45 PM
"When a man can be completely comfortable around gay people, when he doesn't need to posture and display aggression toward those he believes are beneath him/a threat to him; when he can be courageously vulnerable and sweet, gentle and kind,--in short when he is utterly confident in his own Masculinity- there is nothing sexier than that."
This has nothing to do with someones comfort about their sexuality. This is just your own fantasy of a man. Men tend to "posture themselves" and act aggressively because we're male, and that's what most of us do.
If I'm being a dick to someone and not acting "gentle and kind", chances are it's because they just said something stupid or are wearing a tapout shirt, not because I'm uncomfortable with whether or not I'm attracted to another man.
Seems like just about 99% of women are attracted to that macho poo too. |
|
 Sonsglow
Male, 18-29, Western US
175 Posts
|
Tuesday, January 31, 2012 3:04:00 PM
This is *not* an issue of America being far behind. It's an issue of the whole world oppressing homosexuals. There are only 9 countries that have legalized marriage equality worldwide (technically 10, but you can't count South Africa as it is only legal on paper; in practice, homosexuals are routinely raped and murdered there). There are, however, 6 US states wherein marriage equality has been established - 7 if you include DC. What I'm saying is that marriage equality in the United States would almost double the current availability of it worldwide. Even at that, it would still leave about 93% of the world's population with inequality in regard to the issue of marriage. |
|
 8BitHero
Male, 18-29, Europe
5417 Posts
|
Tuesday, January 31, 2012 8:12:49 AM
America still to far behind |
|
 patchgrabber
Male, 30-39, Canada
5252 Posts
|
Tuesday, January 31, 2012 6:17:03 AM
So yes the term applies. It is more an attack on the person than the issue.
Um...no. Maybe you need to read wiki, because if you did you might see that there were rational arguments to the issue, but since apparently his derisive comment is all you noticed, then went and cried ad hominem because you had nothing of note to say.
you will actually see what I typed was "Argumentum ad Hominem."
Now go fire up wikipedia and learn a little something.
Red herring. |
|
Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
9533 Posts
|
Monday, January 30, 2012 10:04:49 PM
You are citing one instance of my exchange with "it" while I am talking about the responses as a whole. They have been just shy of abusive and attacking from the beginning.
The argument you were making deserves abuse and attack:
It's irrelevant to everything.
You're applying it in a way which is wildly inconsistent.
Then there's the cherry on the cake - your bizarre scenario of everyone being homosexual. That has no relevance to reality.
You might or might not be intelligent and/or well educated.
Your argument is dumb. Very dumb. Amusingly dumb. It deserves to be derided, in case anyone is fooled into thinking it makes any sense. |
|
Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
9533 Posts
|
Monday, January 30, 2012 9:58:20 PM
Just thought I should point out to you braniacs who have been going out of your way to prove that I was incorrect when I supposedly said "ad hominem" when if you scroll down you will actually see what I typed was "Argumentum ad Hominem."
Now go fire up wikipedia and learn a little something.
I could read Latin 30 years ago, thank you. Besides, it's a common phrase in modern English.
'ad hominem' is the usual shortening because that's the key point of the phrase.
And you're trying to distract attention from the fact that what you claimed I wrote was not what I actually wrote and it wasn't ad hominem.
Well, that didn't work. |
|
 CynicalGamer
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
164 Posts
|
Monday, January 30, 2012 9:30:12 PM
Just thought I should point out to you braniacs who have been going out of your way to prove that I was incorrect when I supposedly said "ad hominem" when if you scroll down you will actually see what I typed was "Argumentum ad Hominem."
Now go fire up wikipedia and learn a little something. |
|
CynicalGamer
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
164 Posts
|
Monday, January 30, 2012 9:26:31 PM
@patchgrabber
You are citing one instance of my exchange with "it" while I am talking about the responses as a whole. They have been just shy of abusive and attacking from the beginning. Using key words to put me in a specific light despite my attempts at legitimate discourse. So yes the term applies. It is more an attack on the person than the issue.
This whole thing has turned into nothing more than a few people trying to bully their opinion onto others and assuming they are correct because they are the most abrasive and "loud." |
|
 QueenZira
Female, 18-29, Midwest US
1760 Posts
|
Monday, January 30, 2012 1:44:38 PM
I've been sipping my tea and musing a bit, and having done so... well here's my nugget o' wisdom for the day.
When a man can be completely comfortable around gay people, when he doesn't need to posture and display aggression toward those he believes are beneath him/a threat to him; when he can be courageously vulnerable and sweet, gentle and kind,--in short when he is utterly confident in his own Masculinity- there is nothing sexier than that.
Just a little food for thought from chick world straight guys... |
|
Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
9533 Posts
|
Monday, January 30, 2012 10:55:25 AM
So while you're right that homosexual behaviour is quite common in many other animal species, homosexuality as the term is applied to humans is not.
But I reject the whole argument anyway. Humans are different to all other animals in some ways and so the comparison is deeply flawed. It's also part of the "natural" argument, which is a false appeal to authority applied ludicrously inconsistently and is therefore utterly meaningless. It's an argument used by people who don't have an argument and are hoping no-one will notice. |
|
Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
9533 Posts
|
Monday, January 30, 2012 10:52:15 AM
EgalM says; "There is no homosexuality in the animal world."
I'm sorry mate but that isn't quite true. There are a vast array of documented cases of homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom.
Right...but EqalM didn't say that there is no homosexual behaviour in the animal world. You're talking about different things.
The modern human concept labelled "homosexuality" is absent in other animals, but that's inevitable because it's defined in human terms and humans are significantly different to other animals. We have a different type of mind. Much of what we do doesn't happen with other animals.
EqalM went on to point out another explanation for homosexual behaviour in other animals - opportunity. Dogs are the best known example - they'll hump anything when they feel like humping, but they will choose a dog of the other sex if that option is available. Sex for dominance also occurs in other animals. |
|
Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
9533 Posts
|
Monday, January 30, 2012 10:43:27 AM
Well this demonstrates a clear ignorance of what ad hominem actually is. Just because someone calls you dumb doesn't mean it's ad hominem. Angillion used rational arguments to argue his point, then called you dumb. If it were ad hominem, he would have to have used "you are dumb" AS HIS ARGUMENT. Learn you some knowledge because you ARE dumb (and that's not ad hominem either).
I agree with your point about what is and what isn't ad hominem, but I'll also add that CynicalGamer's claim was false - I did not call them dumb. I called the argument they were making dumb, which is a very different thing (and which, obviously, can't possibly be ad hominem). |
|
 Ruffiana
Male, 30-39, Western US
508 Posts
|
Monday, January 30, 2012 9:48:50 AM
These are innane arguements full of logical fallacies and misrepresentations. |
|
QueenZira
Female, 18-29, Midwest US
1760 Posts
|
Monday, January 30, 2012 9:39:47 AM
What exactly would you like to discuss w/ us avatar?
Is there anything in particular that you'd like to tell us about yourself? We're all ears... |
|
 Intaresting
Male, 18-29, Europe
812 Posts
|
Monday, January 30, 2012 8:22:57 AM
Hey, buttsex is great! You should probably try it before you condemn it! |
|
 Kalimata
Male, 30-39, Canada
591 Posts
|
Monday, January 30, 2012 8:10:09 AM
EgalM says; "There is no homosexuality in the animal world."
I'm sorry mate but that isn't quite true. There are a vast array of documented cases of homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom. In rat, deer, dolphin, whale, beetle, and a vast array of other mammal, bird, insect and even reptile populations, homosexuality is very present.
While more on the bisexual side, do some reading on the sexual behavior of Bonobo Chimpanzees.
Being gay isn't a choice. Only the most masochistic person would choose to be the subject of such hate, disgust, and rampant discrimination that many gay people encounter. |
|
 AvatarJohn
Male, 30-39, Southern US
475 Posts
|
Monday, January 30, 2012 7:33:58 AM
Hmmm... no mention of the act of inserting one's penis inside another man's rectum. Interesting how the pro-gay crowd never seems to want to talk about what being gay actually entails. Just sayin'... |
|
patchgrabber
Male, 30-39, Canada
5252 Posts
|
Monday, January 30, 2012 6:57:34 AM
You are layering your own ignorance or misunderstanding onto my statements and then calling me dumb (Argumentum ad Hominem) so there is no reason to continue a logical discussion with you.
Well this demonstrates a clear ignorance of what ad hominem actually is. Just because someone calls you dumb doesn't mean it's ad hominem. Angillion used rational arguments to argue his point, then called you dumb. If it were ad hominem, he would have to have used "you are dumb" AS HIS ARGUMENT. Learn you some knowledge because you ARE dumb (and that's not ad hominem either). |
|
 EgalM
Male, 18-29, Canada
1667 Posts
|
Monday, January 30, 2012 5:52:04 AM
OK, this I will say. There is no homosexuality in the animal world. A dog will hump anything including your leg, doesn't make it a legsexual. If you provide that dog a female, it will hump it. Animals do not make sexual choices like we do, they don't wake up one day and choose to be homosexual.
Were not animals, we do make choices, please stop comparing us together.
I once saw a male dog humping a male dog, than a female came up and started humping the second male making a train. It was funny, but I can tell you 100% they did not know what they were doing. |
|
EgalM
Male, 18-29, Canada
1667 Posts
|
Monday, January 30, 2012 5:45:37 AM
I could defend the natural part with evolution or Christianity. However, who ever feels differently would disagree, regardless of how right I may or may not be. So there is no point in saying anything about it, because unless it's a positive statement, I'll just get chewed out for it. So much for everyone being entitled to their own opinion. |
|
Page: 1 2 3 Next >
|
Back to Listing
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}