Gay Rights

Yes, and I gave you an answer.

If you don't care about the answer, then you shouldn't be posting in the first place. To expect people to read and listen to what you have to say, while ignoring any replies and comments? It's a little dirty, imo.

You expressed an idea, as to why you thought gay-marriage was unnatural. I was trying to show why what you said doesn't line up with what we've learned about the world.

 

Sometimes you ask questions you don't care about to show others a potentially new view.

 

If you think it's acceptable to come here, and expect others to listen to you without having to listen to what they have to say in response? Do not visit this forum. I think it's incredibly unfair and disrespectful to do so. To freely admit that you don't care to engage with the topic at hand? You've just posted your own views and moved on.

Your question was refuted (in-length). Unless you have anything to say in response to that? I'm done.

 

I simply posed a question, not once did I say I wouldn't listen to responses. I just said that I personally have no say in the matter and was just asking to provide another viewpoint.

If I didn't want to listen to what others of said this conversation wouldn't exist. But instead, I stated why i said what I said, only to have you jump to the conclusion I was here to force others to listen to what I have to say without letting them speak.

Which is not only untrue, it's unfit giving your name and actions declare you as someone who is here to debate and spread truth.

 

Not "without letting them speak". Just, without responding to a word they've said.

Also, why, when I responded in full to your initial post, did you not engage with a word I said? Instead, all you said was...

 

Because I made it clear I had/have no intentions to continue a conversation on this thread. Yet you simply seem to miss that and keep quoting me.

 

Then don't. You're not a little child, are you? You don't need your hand held online. If you don't want to reply, don't. If you don't want your ideas and posts criticised or quoted, don't post them in a public forum.

 

Too busy looking in the wrong direction to see what's in store.

 

Lmao that's y0b.

 

I can't believe yob met Ariana Grande in real life. I'm so jealous. I would have loved to go lick some donuts with her. If you know what I mean.

 

wow, This is probably the biggest thread on meepcraft currently.

 

We're talking about the actions of humans that we consider 'unnatural', right? So when I said, "an arbitrary line between humans and other species", I misspoke.

What I meant to say, was that there is an arbitrary line drawn between 'human actions, and the actions of other species', as referenced in my point earlier.

Homosexuality cannot be unnatural by any definition of the word that tries to appeal to other species. We have thousands of examples of homosexual behaviour in other species. Some may argue that we don't see homosexual marriages in other species, though neither do we see heterosexual ones.

If it's defined by 'that which is extremely uncommon', then there are far more innocent acts and tastes that some humans have, that are more rare than homosexuality (5%-10%).

If unnatural is defined as 'that which is man-made' (in an attempt to discredit gay-marriage), then not only do you discredit heterosexual marriage by doing so, but you also have the problem of labeling primitive tools as unnatural (such as spears or rocks). This produces the biggest problem of all, because there any many other species that use rocks, spears and tools for their own benefit. So... it's unnatural for us, and not for them? Usually though, people will try and draw a line at what's man-made and what isn't, by an arbitrary line in history. (i.e. This is complex enough for me to label it man-made)

But this particular 'anti-homoesexual' argument misses the point entirely. Appealing to what is natural or unnatural as any sort of moral guide, is a logical fallacy. Therefore, one which does not need extensive refutation. It's bogus.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-nature

 

In addition, the only meaning of the word natural I can think of that could possibly be used in this debate is:

• (of law or justice) based on innate moral sense; instinctively felt to be right and fair.

And that's basically trying to say: Homosexuality is wrong because I feel like it is.

--- Double Post Merged, Aug 23, 2015, Original Post Date: Aug 23, 2015 ---

As far as I know, monkeys do not use tools. Chimps do, though, and they do so naturally.

A lot of things can be natural, the word has a crap-ton of definitions.

--- Double Post Merged, Aug 23, 2015 ---

Actually, they are.

Well, if you think about it, all nature is is the laws of physics. Basically what evolution is, is: An organism better adapted to survive will survive better. But the universe is just the laws of physics, and matter and energy they are acting upon. Using your line of reasoning, I can say that nature created the planets, and then the planets created life, and life is therefore unnatural.

 

This is my last reply to Dat_Coffee, as they've admitted that they may just be playing devils advocate for their own amusement, and not engaging with me honestly.

Monkeys use bamboo shoots as tools. Are they unnatural now? What about using rocks to chisel away at food/the ground/in trees? Thorns as make-shift talons for birds? Beavers constructing dams?

You keep saying... "The way I see it". Cool. Fan-freakin'-tastic. Why should anyone else believe it though? Because it's just conjecture. The science says that we're an animal, just like the rest of the animal kingdom (albeit a very smart animal). We ARE nature. Our constructions are natural.

I mean... I can't even understand what you're trying to say here.

> Nature can only do so much, but the things nature makes can go beyond nature's limitations,

I mean, what happens if we find a smarter species in nature, or in the cosmos that has created technology/tools that are equal or great than some of ours? Are they unnatural too? This is all relative to your own perspective as a human-being looking out atop the rest of the species that are intellectual inferior to us. If a beaver could think, and talk. Wouldn't it seem hilariously stupid for it to draw the line of what is natural, and what is unnatural at 'beaver-made' and above?

You think we're 'different' from nature. Well, the scientific consensus disagrees with you. Biologists disagree with you. I don't know why you think of nature as one thing, and humans as another. They are one and the same. I mean, animals construct housing for themselves all the time. Some, that you'd never see naturally occur. Are they being unnatural too?

Again, this is all misses the point entirely. This is a thread about gay-rights. And as I already described, the 'argument from nature' is a moot point anyway.

I've already suggested that unnatural is 'outside of the natural realm'.

 

That's what I used to think, but the word natural excludes humans.

 

Humans are organic
therefore they are natural

Also, seriously, can we get back on topic

 

Once or twice I can understand, but this is becoming a pattern. You come into a debate, you argue your point, and you think you're so high and mighty. Then when people don't accept it, you say they're dishonest debaters, and you will refuse to engage with them. The worst part is, you slammed me for telling someone not to bother debating someone. You might want to rethink your hypocritical ways.

 

Naturally, this thread was kind of derailed.

 

Existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind:carrots contain a natural antiseptic that fights bacterianatural disasters such as earthquakes-Oxford

existing in or formed by nature (opposed to artificial ):
a natural bridge.

: existing in nature and not made or caused by people : coming from nature

: not having any extra substances or chemicals added : not containing anything artificial

: usual or expected-merriam-webster

So yes, humans are natural, but nothing we do is.

 

Or... you can visit their profile, where they admit that they're not here to argue honestly.

Me and Fang have exchanged... maybe 40+ posts, total? But they argue honestly. Now, I think they're wrong on a lot of things, sure!

But she doesn't straw-man me (often)

She replies to all the points made

She argues honestly, and does not disingenuously nitpick at every little thing, in an attempt to derail substantive conversation

It's a pleasure to disagree with Fang. And with others in this forum. Not so, with you or Coffee.

--- Double Post Merged, Aug 23, 2015, Original Post Date: Aug 23, 2015 ---

EDIT: See? You did it yet again? Misrepresented what I said.

I berated you for stating that someone is beyond reason. I don't think almost anyone in this forum is.

However, I'm not refusing to engage with you or Coffee for that reason. I do think you can be reasoned with. But you are both so dishonest that the conversation has lost almost all it's enjoyment and benefit for me. Where it takes too long to debunk every nitpick and straw-man you make, and Coffee admits that they don't argue honestly anyway!