What the bloody fuck!? Uschi, for fuck's sake, when you make a bloody argument, stay on motherfucking tangent for the love of fuckin' pete! Your post is filled to the fucking brim with straw mans and its agonizing trying to wade through it.

Quote:

Uschi said:
Natural as 'occuring in nature without outside influance.' Yes canibalism fits under this label. People do practice canibalism and there is evidance which led researchers to believe it is possible that humans all, at one time, have practiced canibalism. This does not mean that there is anything inherently wrong with consumption of human meat. It is my preferance to never partake in the practice because of respect for the other humans around me and the fact that it turns my stomach to think of eating people, but that does not mean there is anything wrong or unnatural about eating any animal meat, even human. In some cultures the consumption of the dead is part of their burial rights and seen as a way to keep the dead loved ones alive in spirit.



Yes, but you see, not only were you trying to contradict the idea that there is a God (and that he's of moral standards), you were also trying to contradict the idea that "natural" traits of this nature aren't anti-life. That's clearly flawed reasoning since baser organisms, your chosen exemplification, live mainly to survive. Pleasure comes second.

Quote:

Fun Fact: Human meat is the healthiest thing for a human to eat since it has all the right nutrients.*



Fun Fact: If you eat the human cerebellum, you get Kuru.

Quote:

By my definition above, homicidal maniacs are natural occurances, yes. Natural design has nothing to do with moral preferances.



But the fact that you've been trying to use a more preferential standard you dub as "respect", as themed throughout your argument, contradicts you again. You were trying to reason animal homosexuality to cement your argument of, ' it’s natural and therefore should be accommodated' (accompanied the ulterior argument, 'Why would God do this if he existed'). Murder is a direct offense upon the recesses of natural life. Sodomy--In every sense and circumstance--Is just as direct even though its methods remain [dissimilar/less quantified (in individual sessions)].

Quote:

If you think there are still moral qualms, that's fine. I'm just establishing, to this point, that homosexuality is a natural occurance.



Since you, yourself, have revealed types of moral qualms, I find the overall intent of the statement as contradicting as your formers.

Quote:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA202.html
"Nothing in the real world can be proved with absolute certainty. However, high degrees of certainty can be reached. In the case of evolution, we have huge amounts of data from diverse fields. Extensive evidence exists in all of the following different forms (Theobald 2004). Each new piece of evidence tests the rest.

The evidence is extensive and consistent, and it points unambiguously to evolution, including common descent, change over time, and adaptation influenced by natural selection. It would be preposterous to refer to these as anything other than facts."





Okay. Fine. They know evolution is fact, but they're not actually certain it's fact, but at the same time, to not say our uncertain notions are certainly fact would be "preposterous". Great.

This doesn't cancel out my argument, it merely repeats it and the adopts an apologetic tone with that link, which, by the way, offers nothing but hypothetical assumptions concerning evolution, no real "consistent and extensive evidence". It's pretty much the same tone that's been repeated over and over for the past 60 years.

Counter-Reference

Quote:

Please give me a real argument against asexual reproduction. There are living creatures (in the oceans mostly) that reproduce asexually. Life can and does exist without genders.



Yeah, there are, and that's lovely for them, but their ability to procreate is dissimilar to ours.

It's hard to tell what your proposed baselines for argument are. Are you trying to say that I should dispute the evolutionist placement of asexual stages within the hypothetical evolution chart (cuz' really, the relevance of your argument rests on your source's confirmability and "certainty") OR Do you want me to counter-argue your attempted contradiction of Christianity's version of Creation (although, in your argument, you mixed your atheistic and secular views in with Christianity when you tried to reason humans evolving from lower sentience whilst doctrine decrees that humans were created. So you fucked up there)?

Quote:

Are these animals abominations before "God?" Should we wipe them off the earth in a massive holucaust? Aren't they technically homosexual since they're transgender? Or is that kind of natural sexual relation ok with you?



Uh, huge problem with that (aside from your judgmental attitude implying that I’m a fanatic). Those sex organs are meant to work with their species' for propagation. With this line of reasoning originating from the basis that humans shouldn't deviate from the proper sexual posture, your argument is rendered invalid since humans have different mechanics.

Quote:

I get the statistics from the two college-level courses I have taken regarding Europe in the Middle Ages. People would reproduce and most (if not all) of their children would die. My main argument here is also not regarding the church. It is regarding society's norms. In the Middle Ages for Western Culture, most of Europe was dominated by the Christian belief system. People of learning were people who could read and the only thing to read were religous texts. All the educated people were monks (all is used loosly, but not too much so). The people in charge of large groups of people ultimately answered to the Pope (since the ultimate rulers got their ques from the Pope's decisions and opinions). Society was dominated by Christianity, thus is had an influance on the people and society of the times. That is why the church is important in this particular aspect of my arguments (although the arguments don't really NEED to referance the church so we can erase the sentance regarding the church above).



But, for some reason, you're getting the idea that "be fruitful and multiply" was the Vatican's motto, when really, it wasn't.

Quote:

#1 - How is this a contradiction? People have grown out of the need for sex to be limited to it's primary function. End of story here.

#2 - The church has nothing to do with anything I'm trying to get across here.



You very clearly argued that the Christian higher ups, way back when, were in a position to profit from a gregarious amount of endorsement for mass breeding at the time (whichever time that may be). The Church wasn't concerned with populating the world, even if that were the case, people would still retain the opportunity for the more deviant sexual acts. Quite simply, your convictions against the church, in this case, don't hold water.

Quote:

Until cigarettes and tattoos and body piercings are made illegal, yes self-mutilation is a viable "alternative rout" for anything. So long as a person's actions do not step on another person's rights, they have the freedom to partake in them.



Tattoos and body piercing do not measure up to the harmful potential of sodomy. Unless someone has an addiction or their piercing/tattoo job is done by an amateur, the effects of.....Uh, the more orthodox tattoos and/or piercing are more or less harmless.

Cigarettes, like forms of Vitamin C and Coca Cola, are a mild stimulant. All three can be abused, but moderate use, as encouraged, isn't bad for one's health. The same can't be said for sodomy.

Quote:

Pre-req learned behavior? What the fuck are you trying to say with that?



I said that the stimulation from either act is a learned process. One can take a pleasure from them, but its a case of trial and error. That's not the case with a penis and a vagina--And please don't lecture me on some people being better at sex than others or some shit. The vaginal nerves won't be missed upon penetration no matter how unskilled the guy or gal is.

Quote:

Sodomy is not a harmless act? So what? Name one thing that doesn't have direct or potential harm in it?



Uh, sorry, but you can't do that. Associating potential harm with direct harm doesn't work. A guy could potentially stub his toe whilst walking up unfamiliar stairs in the dark--And he does. By your implied standard, that would be a direct form of harm because he knew it might happen, but the problem with that is, he didn't want it to happen. "Direct", in this case, would imply full awareness of what you were going to do to yourself.

Quote:

If someone wants to take the risk of skateboarding, who are we to stop them? If someone wants to ride a tricycle, nobody screams 'UNNATURAL!' or "GOD DIDN'T INTEND FOR PEOPLE TO HAVE WHEELS!' If an adult picks their nose they run the risk of it bleeding. If a person uses q-tips to clean earwax from their ears it has proven ill effects on the person's hearing, but the cops aren't arresting people for succombing to q-tip's temptation.



But no one has the intent to be hurt. There's a big difference.

Quote:

it's not a problem to have anal sex.



Yes. It is.

Quote:

You must have forgotton that I don't believe in 'god' or any of that. I will not use faith as a basis for my arguments.



I didn't. You were trying to use God's lesser sentient creations, animals, to contradict my, and my religion's belief system by illustrating their tendency to masturbate and release sexual energy in whatever way they can, so I merely argued the point whilst staying on the same field. You've merely repeated my argument just now, but with your spin on it.

Quote:

Since it is a base instinct to reproduce it is interesting that a 'soulless creature' such as an ape might have survived when they like to have sex without creating babies.



What the hell is this supposed to mean!? Just because it doesn't have a soul, that doesn't mean we think any less of it, as you imply. We don't feel it's at all bound by our morals due to its lower sentient status. It's not going to be judged when it dies.

Quote:

Wow. That's what's called a 'slippery slope' argument. Those arguments are invalid and mostly brought up by zealots jumping to a great amount of conclusions in a short time-frame. The association with NAMBLA at the end was similar to someone saying (without justifying how) someone is acting like Adolf Hitler.



You know, I never really thought you'd stoop to that--Never would I think you'd resort to a "zealot" knee-jerk.

There's nothing "slippery slope" about it. I realize that you don't like to think that homosexuals have a mental disorder on par with pedophiles, fetishists, serial killers, etc., but the possibility is so apparent, you'd be foolish to disregard it so quickly. With the given idea that homosexuals should have the right to have sex through sodomy 'cuz' they were born that way' being legal, NAMBLA is given its legal chance to step through a very non-technicality in the legal cracks. Their tone is natural attraction as well, and that gives them lee-way--Too fucking much to overlook. By all reasoning and logic, with that kind of bullet proof defense, anyone whose killed a person could have their indictment expunged simply because they say their minds have this urge that they were born with.

Hell! Texas is the best example of one of the beginnings for this snowball effect. I'm sure we're all aware of the arrested gay couple whose crime and defense was able to overturn the law. You may not want to agree with the effects of their sexual behavior, but this situation has some very apparent foreshadowing.

Quote:

Homosexuality will cause society to crumble and be destroyed? Really? Christianity killed Rome, not their homosexual practices (which made their warriors more ferocious to defend every one of their lives).



Are you trying to say that the Christians who were executed and tortured in Rome brought it on themselves? If so, fuck off.

Quote:

Romans and Greeks and many many other societies lasted for LONG periods of time when sodomy was acceptable.



"Long periods of time"? Couldn't they have lasted LONGER? I mean, what's a "long reign" in the face of the fact that their actions stagnated their ability to keep going. You do realize that in Rome, Greece, and Athens, there were numerous and growing cases of STDs such as Syphilis, Gonorrhea(sp), and UTI yes? If war and corruption didn't get em', the sex would have.

Quote:

Sodomy is minority = drug trafficing is small and costly to fight === speed up governmental entropy therefore we fall into anti-utopian anarchy



That is a total redefinition of what I said. Thank you for being so misrepresentative.

I said that exercising those perceptions would lead to social imbalance. Drug trafficking is a serious problem with serious risks, but it's mostly the undesirables that feel the pinch, plus there's hardly any success to stopping it, so the view that its not worth fighting has been adopted. Sodomy is not an isolated or small practice that retains any sort of exclusivity to a certain group, it merely retains a majorital use among homosexuals--However, because homosexuals have been legally pampered, the perception that it's only a small group doing it the most and not much anyone else is following suit becomes the adopted view of compromise. To avoid a possibly perceived notion of discrimination (or, in the case of the left, it's a publicity/cash cow), the government hierarchy tolerates such practices. Assuming that the homosexual sentiment towards sodomy would be a growing opinion is a valid hypothesis. A growing fan-base for sodomy is a concept that holds inherent dangers: Raised likelihood of contracted diseases, a sexually ignorant percentage that proportionally accompanies every populace--A government's gotta look out for its inhabitants, I realize that you think, in the case of sodomy, that it's an inhibition of some freedoms, but your very much under-estimating the dangers that follow this so-called harmless behavior. With regular sex, you at least have the ability to not hurt yourself and much less chance of contracting a hygienical disease (Hepatitis, abrasion/rupture, UTI), let alone an STD.

Quote:

Is that right? Give some evidance to support this claim. Show me how homosexuality is making the govenrment disintegrate. Show me how what homosexuals have done to gain rights as humans has done anything not comparable to what Womens Liberation and the Civil Rights Movement did for women and blacks.



Like the Civil Rights Movement that helped women and black people, the homosexual movement is just as dead set on getting more and more rights then is allowed anyone else. So this argument doesn't make much sense to me. However, I've already gone over, to a great extent, the pleading for special rights is current and voluminous here.

I'll be as clear-cut as possible: The institution of legal marriage wasn't designed for homosexuals because it was an invention based on likelihood and convenience. Just because it's only straight people who can marry, that does not suggest an oppression of homosexual rights. It does, however, recite its proper function as a sexually orthodox system, which allows a family monetary lee-way for the sake of its branching growth. Marriage was designed to [support families/potential families]. Homosexuals cannot produce children and, therefore, are not included as likely candidates for marriage. While they can indeed adopt, which, in some cases, would require legal monetary support (depending on their financial history), hence they are indeed afforded stipends as needed. With that, they are also afforded civil unions, which give tax benefits to gay couples. Since they would likely not have financial requisites for family, it is seemingly wasteful to accommodate their legally united status. This is taking into mind that the couple could have manually filed all of their paperwork so as to have their joint finances and power of attorneys. What's more, I find there to be a serious security risk when it comes to [gay civil unions/gay marriage]: There's no actual way to confirm their homosexual status, everything would have to be taken at face value. Straight people could easily pose as gay couples and scam the government.

Quote:

One last thing: Pariah, since when do you give a flying fuck about other people's colon health so much as to demand they change their ways? What does it have to do with you?



I kinda already expressed that. I'm saying sodomy and its damaging effect on the body along with its increased risk for any sort of infection or possible new strain of STD is a concern to me. I'm sure we've all read up on the outbreaks around 30 years ago, and know what's going on in Africa and south-eastern China. These things have a way of snow-balling. Your assertion that the world can't and won't, on a long enough timeline, incorporate sodomy as a casual act is a rather ignorant one, I find.

Quote:

How are the big bad homosexuals out to get you and how have they made your life worse so that you find it necessary to wage a personal tirade against them collectively?



I've already made it clear that I'm not against "big bad homosexuals", but sodomy in general. The only reason I talk about them the most in reference to sodomy is because their populace seems the most predisposed to it. Their concentrated number and voice that it's 'not bad' is a flawed message that effects every societal crevice it saturates, and all of these new legal rights will just give way to more even worse developments than sodomy. And it hasn't made my life worse....Yet. I'm just being pre-emptive.

You see Uschi, the problem is you're being too damn literal. You hear me say society's gonna go belly up and you say 'it hasn't happened at all'. I've made it perfectly clear that we're on the presipice of a chain-reaction. Not an immediate and present doomsday, as you like to portray my arguments as prophesizing. I've also gone over the signs, but you didn't feel like actually addressing what I wrote in the other threads.

Quote:

And I hope Batwoman replies to my reply to her since that's who I started this conversation with. I dislike arguing with Pariah. No offense, P.



No offense taken, but I will ask, however, that when you make a gargantuan argumentative post--PLEASE!! PLEASE!! FOR THE LOVE OF YOUR NON-BELIEF IN GOD!! MAKE SURE YOU STAY ON TANGENT!!