sorry i missed this thread. i have butt one thing to add: <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/9WoQQ-mAQeE&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/9WoQQ-mAQeE&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/fbGkxcY7YFU&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/fbGkxcY7YFU&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
What is the fallacy? Just asking because I don't debate this subject very often. I only brought it up because people were talking about nature vs. nurture, etc. And so if it was in someone's nature to like animals, is that okay?
They are already dead when I eat them. I am now benefiting the Earth by using what God has so politely given to me. Excellent comeback though. I did not see it coming.
I should fail at it considering I wasn't trying for it. I seriously didn't expect a comeback, though I knew necrophilia would be next, and I don't think I would have had a good enough answer.
Hahah. OK, fair enough. I was trying to determine if it was sarcasm or not and decided on it since I had already mentioned vegan in the original post. For the record, I'm not trying to be flippant. I'm just asking questions. I have very good friends who are gay and I don't think they're going to hell.
In terms of the forgiveness question, the often repeated argument is that a thief who steals and then seeks forgiveness can be forgiven, but someone who perpetually lives in sin and does not in fact seek forgiveness for that sin, nor attempt to change their lifestyle, is in fact mocking God. Now, all that said, I don't believe it's my responsibility or that of anyone else to ensure that anyone on Earth follows the Will of God. I don't think the Bible asks that of us, and I don't think God would want it. Our mission is to spread the Gospel. If people choose to live their lives a certain way and that way ends up being sinful, that's between them and God, not between them and me, my governor, or my president. Governments do not exist to ensure the morality and the spiritual sanctity of a people. It is not up to .gov to get you to the afterlife, it's up to you.
The fallacy is you are shifting the burden of proof. People make the argument that homosexuality is wrong because it is unnatural. Response: it is perfectly natural.
You're the one with the straw man fallacy now. I said no such thing. My original post didn't even mention homosexuality. And even though I'm responding to a thread about it, my post was more a question of... given that they are all natural, are they acceptable? You're the one that said: So given that bestiality, pedophilia, necrophilia, etc are still around, does that mean they are evolutionarily advantageous? And more to the point... are they acceptable?
There isn't a significant part of the population that would indicate that it is really natural. I haven't seen any studies that would show that. You are talking about some things that also aren't really prevalent in other species. I'm not sure what you are talking about is really natural. Homosexuality, however is a different story.
I'm saying that question shifts the burden of proof. Homosexuals don't have to prove that their lifestyle is acceptable. I think you're confusing some issues here. Being evolutionarily advantageous is not the same as being acceptable. Some opponents of homosexuality (not saying you are one) say that it hurts our species because gay people don't generally procreate. They are trying to use an evolutionary perspective to indict homosexuality. That argument fails, though, when you realize that traits can thrive (as homosexuality has in small, but consistant, numbers over time and across species) that produce non-reproducing offspring (as with bees). The only link you've established between bestiality, etc. and homosexuality is that they exist.
Interspecies sex National Geographic article that states that not only does it happen but that it might be good. Not saying I'm taking the stance that it is good for a dude and a marmoset to get it on, but it is not unnatural. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/03/070314-hybrids.html Pedophilia http://www.registeredoffenderslist.org/what-is-pedophilia.htm That's not that far below the estimates for homosexuality, which I recall was something like 10%.
If you're going to take that stance then I can easily say that about anything then... and we can just drop it at that. Or we can debate it, which is what I thought we're doing? I didn't say being evolutionarily advantageous is the same as being acceptable. You keep setting up straw man arguments to knock them down. I only brought up the evolution thing because you said that it shows that homosexuality is a natural process of nature and has survived the years. So I asserted that since bestiality has survived the years, it must also be natural? And not only would that make bestiality natural but that would make it evolutionarily advantageous. And if I agree with you that both of them are natural... should we accept all things just because they are natural? Would you be okay if OddsOn retracted what he said about it being an illness, agreed it was natural, but said it was not acceptable?
