StarGateWars Forums

Way, if you want to argue that homosexuality is unnatural, than monogamy is much more unnatural, monogamy rarely happens in nature whereas homosexuality is a common occurrence. The only way this is false is if we don't consider the world around us to be nature, in which case I think you must be getting the concept of what is or isn't natural from human sources, which obviates the point.

I have no issue what so ever defining natural as that which is dictated by the creator God and if you require I explain it that way I am totaly and completely comfortable with that. Please see the other statments I made in the posts regarding reasons against the value of Homosexual marriage because to level my argument to one issue is not doing it justice.

What I wish people would understand about me is although I am well versed in science and philosophy I have absolutly no issue with scripture being my foundation for any and every argument. My faith and belief in God are the core of who I am and as such effect if not dictate my every decision so much as I am not acting out of sinful passions.

Right, so the argument that homosexuality is unnatural is just a redressing of it being against scripture? In that case why make it at all? Why not just continue with your original argument?

fireball37 wrote:Way, if you want to argue that homosexuality is unnatural, than monogamy is much more unnatural

as over rated as some my say it is, it a some thing u decide to do

fireball37 wrote:Right, so the argument that homosexuality is unnatural is just a redressing of it being against scripture? In that case why make it at all? Why not just continue with your original argument?

Because it is a widely accepted argument made by people of religious background and those of a non religious background. My response to you was simply to show that I have neither the need nor the desire to hide my presuppositions. The argument from nature is a good one and it can be argued that it is wrong but that doesn’t make it invalid, as all arguments go I say it is unnatural and have supported that with my views both religious and non religious (although I have already admitted I am religious that doesn’t make everything I say invalid) Then you get to argue this point with why it is natural or ignore the point whatever you decide.

What I have asked though is that you also address my other arguments. The problem you will run into is that most arguments for homosexuality are fallacies because they adopt band wagon logic (please look up what this is if you don’t already know before making an argument).

On the point of monogamy, for some species it is natural and for some it isn’t. If a species that is monogamous acts counter to that natural state then the action is unnatural this is a widely accepted thought and understanding.

P.S. As a marriage and family counselor i would love to show the insane amount of evidence that supports the value of monagamy over casual sex

Band wagon logic for homosexuality? I was under the impression that it was the opposite, the idea of homosexual acts make lots of people feel uncomfortable and they often use this as the basis of an argument. They just label it as 'wrong' with no further exploration into even there own reasons for this supposition. As for the other way, I have to disagree with you in your statement that because many agree with it it must be false, many disagree with slavery on what could be considered 'band wagon logic' and that doesn't make it any more unreliable...

papa~smurf wrote:

fireball37 wrote:Way, if you want to argue that homosexuality is unnatural, than monogamy is much more unnatural

as over rated as some my say it is, it a some thing u decide to do

Polygamy is unrespectful to women...as it's like you consider them like trophies or similar thing. Only cultures where it still remains, are likely to be the ones where women have no rights, or almost none. Sure many men like this concept, but it strikes the "the liberty of one stop where the other(s)' starts", and since men and women are equal in our society, thus it is forbidden.
And I'm sure you guys know that polyandry exists too? or not?

Exactly, polygamy is natural and it's wrong, calling things unnatural doesn't mean that they are ethically sound or unsound, humanities nature is to be unnatural, to be more than what we were. Homosexuality may be a stage in human evolution that should be explored, not shunned for archaic reasoning.

First off, Band wagon Logic is a poor argument because it is not an argument. It's lazy and it is not based of critical thought. Basically it’s the same as if everyone jumped off a bridge would you also. Now I am not directly trying to insult anyone, instead I am just trying to explain why this falacy is so bad. If you would type band wagon logic into a search engine you will get some good explanations.

Secondly, you seem to have a very different view of what is natural or how what is natural is determined. Now, many social evolutionists have said for years that man is not a monogamous but rather that he is driven to procreate as much as possible to continue his line. I highly disagree with this account based on psychology it is fairly clear to see that we were created to be monogamous. Humans instinctively seek relationships it is a basic and needed drive for a person’s survival we learn everything through relationships, and most theories ion the stages of devilment include a stage of trust. Now some may say that is true and at the same time claim casual sex is fine but they would be vastly underestimating the emotional attachment sex carries with it. There certainly are a lot of people that engage in casual sex however they will likely find that there encounters are meaningless and empty; this is especially true for women who are less likely to suppress their emotions. Again though the issue of nature is not my only argument.

You're argument is flawed, you assume that because many people believe in gay rights that it is band-wagon logic, but that's ridiculous, you're trying to say that gay rights are wrong by arguing that lots of people believe in it despite it being wrong in your opinion, does circular reasoning mean much to you? You call it unnatural, although you earlier admitted that your view of natural tendencies doesn't come from nature but from scripture, so please, if we're going to argue can we at least get to the point instead of using all these proxies?

fireball37 wrote:You're argument is flawed, you assume that because many people believe in gay rights that it is band-wagon logic, but that's ridiculous, you're trying to say that gay rights are wrong by arguing that lots of people believe in it despite it being wrong in your opinion, does circular reasoning mean much to you? You call it unnatural, although you earlier admitted that your view of natural tendencies doesn't come from nature but from scripture, so please, if we're going to argue can we at least get to the point instead of using all these proxies?

I really have no idea how to explain this to you as I have tried twice now, maybe someone else can take a shot please. You clearly do not understand my argument. I have not argued homosexual marriage is wrong because lots of people believe it is acceptable, nor have I argued that every argument for gay marriage is wrong because they are all band wagon fallacies. Instead I simply made the comment that most arguments for Gay rights or for homosexual marriage involve the band wagon fallacy. Now you have claimed my reasoning is circular but that is because you have apparently misunderstood what I was saying so I hope this clears that up. I would also request that you read my posts carefully before using rhetoric, I completely enjoy a good rhetorical response which that would have been had you been right in what you thought I was saying, but since you weren’t the rhetoric works against you unfortunately. I have been kind in my response though. I would have enjoyed being rhetorical back but I understand this is also about learning so I will give you that for free.

Now as for claiming my argument based on the nature of things is invalid because I have been honest about my background and religious beliefs, that is a fallacy called argumentum ad hominem (argument against the man). This fallacy is when you attack the belief of a person rather than address the actual claim. Rather than spending your time pointing and yelling look there he is a Christian (insert facetious tone), why don’t you actually attempt to disprove my assertion that it is unnatural. I admit so have made some arguments towards this which I appreciate but let’s try hard not to make this about my religious views since if you argue against me you will be dealing with a religious person but that does not lessen the impact of my arguments nor does it disqualify them as many in the academic world would like to claim.

@ fireball37, I also want to encourage you to continue in your quest to defeat me in arguments; I appreciate the effort and have enjoyed the debate. I can see you are intelligent and just want to let you know although we disagree that doesn’t mean I don’t respect you as an intelligent person.

I think that your the one who is lacking in rhetoric way.

TheWay wrote:I have no issue what so ever defining natural as that which is dictated by the creator God and if you require I explain it that way I am totaly and completely comfortable with that.

You took science out of the equation when you made this statement, if nature is defined by your religious scripture, than it is scripture that should be spoken about from the start, changing arguments as they fall down is perfectly alright, but trying to combine points from an earlier exploded argument amounts to poor reasoning, I attack the religious element of your argument and you begin calling it unnatural, I attack your view of nature, and you go back to religion using that as boost. Now can we stop discussing semantics and go back to the point at hand.

Homosexuality has existed as part of human culture throughout all of our history but has only been stigmatized since the downfall of Rome, why exactly do you think that todays view on gay people is superior to that of the classical civilizations?

fireball37 wrote:I think that your the one who is lacking in rhetoric way.

TheWay wrote:I have no issue what so ever defining natural as that which is dictated by the creator God and if you require I explain it that way I am totaly and completely comfortable with that.

You took science out of the equation when you made this statement, if nature is defined by your religious scripture, than it is scripture that should be spoken about from the start, changing arguments as they fall down is perfectly alright, but trying to combine points from an earlier exploded argument amounts to poor reasoning, I attack the religious element of your argument and you begin calling it unnatural, I attack your view of nature, and you go back to religion using that as boost. Now can we stop discussing semantics and go back to the point at hand.

Homosexuality has existed as part of human culture throughout all of our history but has only been stigmatized since the downfall of Rome, why exactly do you think that todays view on gay people is superior to that of the classical civilizations?

Yes their has been many cultures throughout history have accepted homosexuality. The ones who have tend to be the most successful. Greeks, Romans, Chinese, African, Persians.

Thriller wrote:

fireball37 wrote:I think that your the one who is lacking in rhetoric way.

TheWay wrote:I have no issue what so ever defining natural as that which is dictated by the creator God and if you require I explain it that way I am totaly and completely comfortable with that.

You took science out of the equation when you made this statement, if nature is defined by your religious scripture, than it is scripture that should be spoken about from the start, changing arguments as they fall down is perfectly alright, but trying to combine points from an earlier exploded argument amounts to poor reasoning, I attack the religious element of your argument and you begin calling it unnatural, I attack your view of nature, and you go back to religion using that as boost. Now can we stop discussing semantics and go back to the point at hand.

Homosexuality has existed as part of human culture throughout all of our history but has only been stigmatized since the downfall of Rome, why exactly do you think that todays view on gay people is superior to that of the classical civilizations?

Yes their has been many cultures throughout history have accepted homosexuality. The ones who have tend to be the most successful. Greeks, Romans, Chinese, African, Persians.

Yet not the British empire, and that was arguably the most successful of the lot.

And one of the most fractured, the british empire was riddled with violence between the indigenous peoples and the colonists, perhaps a little acceptance back then would have bought about a much better modern world today?