A secular case against gay marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter Eufrosnia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Stephen168 said:
You have not said anything to refute what I said in post 131, so the OP’s argument is doing just fine so far.
Click to expand...
Please read what I posted. Are you saying that if everyone was celibate that the human race would not go extinct?

Your argument casts far too wide a net.

rossum
 
RevDon said:
You asked **if **it answers the questions posed in the posting to which I was responding. My answer is yes.
You asked if I was in favor of air pollution -another idiotic response from you-- to which I answer no.
Click to expand...
I don’t support air pollution either because is not good as you explained.

I did not ask ‘IF’ I asked “HOW” Please read more carefully
How does that answer the questions?
 
RevDon said:
I do think I could make a case against sodomy outside of marriage in a military environment.
Click to expand...
A case can be made it would not be accepted by the moral relativists though. Not because the case is weak but because relativists are unprincipled.
 
fix said:
What evidence? it is self evident. It is an unnatural act. It is vice.
Click to expand...
In a conversation among people who do not have differences of opinion it is sufficient to say something is self-evident. Among those of differing opinion, evidence is required.
By unnatural do you mean “does not occur in nature”?
“We suffer primarily not from our vices or our weaknesses, but from our illusions. We are haunted, not by reality, but by those images we have put in their place.”
Daniel J. Boorstin
 
Stephen168 said:
I don’t support air pollution either because is not good as you explained.

I did not ask ‘IF’ I asked “HOW” Please read more carefully
How does that answer the questions?
Click to expand...
Originally Posted by Stephen168
How does that answer the questions?
Do you support air pollution?

I believe the question was about an analogy in which someone who wished to have the benefits of Alaskan oil chose or did not choose to live in Alaska, and whether the definition of “Alaska” could change.
 
RevDon said:
In a conversation among people who do not have differences of opinion it is sufficient to say something is self-evident. Among those of differing opinion, evidence is required.
Click to expand...
So if someone claims murder is wrong they need evidence to support such an assertion?
By unnatural do you mean “does not occur in nature”?
“We suffer primarily not from our vices or our weaknesses, but from our illusions. We are haunted, not by reality, but by those images we have put in their place.”
Daniel J. Boorstin
Click to expand...
No I do not means occurs in nature. I mean against human nature.

When vice sits next to virtue then virtue is corrupted.
 
Stephen168 said:
Against nature according to the USMJ, biology, and reason. If fully adopted, would lead the the extinction of man. That is what this thread is about.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry, but your responses are becoming increasingly rabid and unintelligent. The extinction of man argument has been thoroughly dissipated.

I cannot continue to post where nonsense goes as logic.
 
fix said:
So if someone claims murder is wrong they need evidence to support such an assertion?

No I do not means occurs in nature. I mean against human nature.

When vice sits next to virtue then virtue is corrupted.
Click to expand...
If you are engaged in an intelligent conversation and someone asks you to verify your assertions, then it is incumbent on you to either withdraw the statement or give evidence that what you say is true.
I would have no difficulty in presenting evidence that murder is wrong.

What do you mean by “human nature”?
Is it “what most humans do”?
On the contrary, when vice sits next to virtue, the beauty of virtue is made all the brighter.
 
RevDon said:
I’m sorry, but your responses are becoming increasingly rabid and unintelligent. The extinction of man argument has been thoroughly dissipated.
Click to expand...
You have not been able to refute the argument presented by the OP, that is why you want to talk about anything else but the argument. All you want to do is respond. Responding doesn’t have anything to do with the argument.
When I asked you explain you your response in post 135, you ignored it.
RevDon said:
II cannot continue to post where nonsense goes as logic.
Click to expand...
You are not able to stay on point because reason is against you.
 
Stephen168 said:
No one has every produced a child by sodomy. All homosexual activity is sodomy.
As to the subject of this thread

You are not able to refute this
Click to expand...
I absolutely agree that if non reproductive sex were adopted by all it would cause the extinction of humankind (unless mechanical/medical means were to be employed).
So much for that argument.
The proposition is absurd and impossible.

The OP has to do with the secular case against gay marriage, and presupposes that permitting gay marriage would lead to what the poster called his/her first proposition because that which is permitted becomes universally imitated.

Can’t you see how absurd this is?
 
fix said:
A case can be made it would not be accepted by the moral relativists though. Not because the case is weak but because relativists are unprincipled.
Click to expand...
I said I could make a case based on what I believe would be sound principles of military discipline required for the success of mission. I do not consider myself to be a relativist. I do form decisions on the basis of tested principles.
 
Stephen168 said:
You have not been able to refute the argument presented by the OP, that is why you want to talk about anything else but the argument. All you want to do is respond. Responding doesn’t have anything to do with the argument.
When I asked you explain you your response in post 135, you ignored it.

You are not able to stay on point because reason is against you.
Click to expand...
I ignored your post 135 because it was unclear what it was you were asking.
 
RevDon said:
I ignored your post 135 because it was unclear what it was you were asking.
Click to expand...
I asked a poster two yes/no questions:
Do we promote what is harmful to the common good?
Is human extinction good?

You ‘responded’ by rambling on about air pollution yet, you did not seem to answer the questions. So I asked:
How does that (rambling on about air pollution) answer the questions?
 
Stephen168 said:
I asked a poster two yes/no questions:
Do we promote what is harmful to the common good?
Is human extinction good?

You ‘responded’ by rambling on about air pollution yet, you did not seem to answer the questions. So I asked:
How does that (rambling on about air pollution) answer the questions?
Click to expand...
It was a rambling, just as this whole argument about human extinction has been a pointless ramble.
In the example I posted, I demonstrated a clear and present danger to the continued existence of the human race: the inhalation of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere. I enumerated the various harmful results, which can lead to death.
Then I noted that human beings create Carbon Dioxide as they exhale. On the basis of that I concluded several silly positions that could be taken on the basis of the argument that actions that promote the good of humanity should be supported and activities contrary to the good of humanity should be banned.

If you promote breathing, then you are promoting something harmful to the common good, because it could lead to the extinction of humankind.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top