Quote:
|
And simply telling me that you have managed to fit homosexuality into you "world view" doesn't answer the question "why" posed in the part of the post you quoted for this answer. Sexual attraction to animals is in a zoophiles "world view" and i think that is f'd up. Just "saying" homosexuality is okay by you just make your moral relative explaining it in a logical manner would be much more enlightening.
|
You seem to consider your presuppositions and wonder as to why I don't conform to them. I
don't have a relativistic morality, and despite you most irrational inclinations,
I (unlike you) don't see zoophilia and homosexuality as morally equivalent. The former causes harm to an non-consenting party, and the latter does not.
Quote:
|
And calling something a fallacy or slippery slope with no justification is just as worthless as your "world view".
|
Actually, I've pointed out the detail of the fallacies you were making in nearly each case. But whatever...
Quote:
|
I have been accused of having a pompous tone before. I'll admit to amping it up a bit here. I have my reasons though.
|
Reasons such as bigotry?
Quote:
|
That's pretty typical. "I'm in a debate, but I don't have to debate my side because I called the other guy fallacious". You hold on to that idea fella. Even though if you would read back, one thing is correct about that sentence, you haven't shown anything. Telling someone something without a "why" isn't showing JACK. I can tell you that the sky is falling, but without any supporting ideas, it's bullshit. Like your last few posts.
|
Like I've said, I did provide justifications and your inability to understand sentence logic due to the clouding of your judgment by your bias inclinations explains this.
Quote:
|
Love doesn't have to be reciprocated, even in a marriage.
|
Watch out, you're making a case of relativism yourself.
Quote:
|
Especially if you are gonna make the idea about marriage "relative" and a "civil rights" issue.
|
Have I ever said such a thing? Again your presuppositions and generalizations are clouding your eyes.
Quote:
And there's where you are incorrect. The concepts are all interrelated. Love starts at the single individual. In heterosexuality, the male's to a female has purpose, reason, and accommodation. When you complete the circle with the female, the natural cycle is as complete as the cycle of water from the ocean to the sky to the ground to the rivers and back to the ocean.
Any other attraction is a break in the natural system. Humans can CHOOSE to gratify their sexual urges with latex, bottles, ben wa balls etc, but only ONE orientation is indicated by nature and should be represented my the word "marriage". You can rationalize all day long. But any rationalization will fall short of the near perfection of heterosexuality.
|
You are right in the context of your hedonistic and lustful view of love. When I say love I mean a compassion, a wanting of the happiness of the other even if it means to be at the expense of your own well-being.
Really, fx, do you love your mother due to the drive for the prorogation of the species?
There clearly is a biological reason for love independent of sex.
Quote:
|
And your ignorance and intolerance is demonstrated by your assertion that I am "intolerant" of homosexuality.
|
Yes, I'm intolerant of intolerance.
Quote:
|
I've never stated that homosexuals shouldn't be able to do anything but call their union a "marriage", but I'm fine with any other legal recognition.
|
Yet, in numerous times you've complained about the consequences to society's moral fiber of 'condoning' homosexuality, and considering it normal.
Quote:
|
You are fine to call that intolerant if you like, but to many gay people, that's just fine.
|
Perhaps, if I were you, I would accuse this sentence of relativism.
Quote:
|
But I guess I should expect that attitude from a relativist such as yourself. Everything is "relative" to your point of view with no real foundation in logic or fact. Sound very philosophical.
|
Wow, fx knows my own philosophy better than I do. Fascinating.
You must be proving one of two things; either the existence of psychic abilities, or the existence of reincarnation, because there's no possible way someone can get that pompously stupid in one lifetime.
Quote:
Definition of philosophy - Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means
|
A simple understanding no doubt. Philosophy can also be understood as self-examination which at its root takes into account evidence.
Quote:
|
I disagree, I understand your relativistic thinking on this subject quite clearly. It's quite transparent. In fact you share a lot with the homosexual crowd. I'm not surprised you agree with their point of view.
|
And your simplistic black and white thinking on this subject is transparent. Just because I consider the act of homosexuality as not going against the grain of some transcendental morality doesn't mean I hold relativism. You obviously know nothing about me.
Quote:
But that's not what you said....Maybe you ought to reflect...
"but in many instances you end up bringing gay issues into other topics"
|
Taking place in a hijacking isn't out of the realm of "bringing gay issues into other topics". You hold some responsibility.
Quote:
|
I say sir again that YOU are a LIAR. And it is up to you to disprove said assertion. Or you can just be a liar. It's up to you. And remember you specifically said "many".
|
Haha, this is a very good example of your distorted logic.
You make a claim and it is to be considered true until someone else proves it wrong.
Quote:
|
But you have been shown to be a liar here and now. I would say that some resemblance of integrity in what you say would be important to an "armchair philosopher" such as yourself. But you've been kicking that reputation in the ass pretty good here lately.
|
And what have you been doing? All I see you doing is sitting in your chair dictating moral authority based on your own subjective reasonings. On the contrary, I've looked at studies and publications on the issue of gender and sexuality.
Quote:
|
And a reason that I advise you to leave THIS debate is the same one that reflects my highlighted part of your statement...You won't sway me because there is NO circumstance that will present homosexuality in a light that totally fulfills the purpose of sexuality the way heterosexuality does. Viewed as a whole of humanity and life on the planet, there is no way you can come up with a reason for homosexuality to be called a "marriage". You can continue if you like...But I don't recommend it.
|
Then as long as you agree that your mind is closed, this would be a good point for me to move no further.
"If you want to achieve peace of mind and happiness, then have faith; if you want to be a disciple of truth, then search" -- Friedrich Nietzsche
Economic Left/Right: -9.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.72
11-23-2007, 09:57 AM
Linear Mode
