Nowhere357

No, the analogy shows that "activity which spreads disease" is not equivalent to "activity which should be prohibited".

BTW your post is the sound of flame-out. :boohoo:

yguy

It's also a moral term.

That, of course, is because they always act in a manner consistent with their animal nature. When humans do the same things, we either see them as degenerates or make excuses for their behavior, as you are doing.

That is irrelevant to the discussion, since legal proscriptions of homosexual acts are not the topic under discussion.

So we get rid of AOC laws which unfairly discrimate against those who are hardwired to desire sex with children. What's the problem?

That's an interesting statement, considering the following:

y: It wasn't a defense, because I haven't proposed a thesis. You have, namely that what have heretofore been known as deviant behaviors may not properly be labelled as such because similar behaviors occur in other animals.

n: Technically you are correct - I was responding to your implied position, and I think you know that. Anyway, you claim here that homosexuality is known as deviant. I claim that it is not deviant - it is natural.

The question is not whether it has been known to be deviant, but whether it is deviant. When you argue against my position, you are seen as arguing that homosexuality IS deviant. If you don't wish to be misinterpreted, then you need specify your position with more clarity.

Evidently I have a reading comprehension problem I am unaware of, since the exchange I've recounted above appears to have you affirming explicitly that my representation of your thesis is correct while stating nothing to the contrary. However, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt if you can show me how this charachterization of your position is incorrect:

Humans are animals.

Homosexual behavior occurs in animals other than humans, and is therefore normal in the animal population.

Therefore, homosexual behavior is normal in humans.

Jinto

Yes, this is correct. Lying, protecting one's family, rape, and masturbation are also normal in humans. However, this is not to say whether any of these activities are right or wrong, only that they are normal.

Nowhere357

mur·der
Function: noun
1 : the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought
2 a : something very difficult or dangerous <the traffic was murder> b : something outrageous or blameworthy <getting away with murder>
The first definition is relevant. "Murder" is a legal term.

Nonsense. First, "animal nature" is not the same as "degenerate". It is our nature to eat food, yguy. Nothing degenerate about that, is there?

Second, I have made no such excuses. As in the last post, you are failing to support your position. Instead, you are making false accusations, and constructing strawmen. Almost as if you are unable to provide any reasonable support for your position.

I wonder what you think the topic is? You find the subject of rights to be irrelevant to this discussion? I wonder why that would be?

What are you talking about? You keep making stuff up, yguy, and maybe people will stop taking you seriously.

NOWHERE: As I already pointed out, you have the premise wrong.
The part in bold referred to your statement that you "haven't proposed a thesis". As the " - I was responding to..." part tried to make clear.

I can understand you're misreading the quote. However, I've also said:

"Yes, killing is natural behavior. Which makes it neither right not wrong - as you admit here, we need to decide whether killing violates rights. "

"And so we must decide whether homosexuality violates rights. "

"The only person who has claimed anything about "superficial similiarities between animals and humans" as justification for "certain behaviors" - is you! I claim only that this "certain behavior" naturally occurs - and you haven't disagreed with that."

"As I already pointed out, you have the premise wrong. I have made no claims based on that article other than "homosexuality is normal animal behavior". There is nothing a priori wrong or unusual about it. "

"As far as I can tell, you are the only one who thought that "here is evidence that homosexuality occurs naturally throughout the animal kingdom" somehow implies that "therefore homosexuality is justified". "


THESE are a few of the examples showing that I have made it clear you are mis-stating my position. Why I wonder do you stick with your misunderstanding, despite all the evidence to the contrary? (Double meaning, there...)


That is not my position.

This is closer:
HS behavior is not a priori deviant.
HS behavior is a normal part of animal behavior.
HS behavior does not violate rights.
THERFORE hs behavior is not deviant.


It should be clear to all lurkers that you are being evasive. Here are a few questions you have evaded:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is evasiveness how you intend to support your position?

In what way is "homosexuality occurs throughout the animal kingdom" and "homosexuality does not violate rights" intellectually bankrupt?

That leaves the question of rights. Unless you think some other criteria is more valid, in which case perhaps you could illuminate us? Exactly what is it that supecedes our rights and responsibilities? What is it that you base your opinion on?

So because it's normal, and because it violates no one's rights, there really is no reason to talk about this any more. Unless you actually HAVE a reason? Do you intend to actually offer any support for your position at all?

Do you claim homosexuality is deviant? Why?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yguy, answer the questions, please.

dk

I don't believe I've used the word prohibited, I'd say deterred by reason, conscience, self respect and if all else fails by law. I always thought people with a modicum of self respect and consideration for others naturally avoided and admonished risky behaviors that spread deadly incurable diseases. It appears you disagree... so

1. Why do so many gay people have so little respect for life, even their own?
2. Why do so many influential liberals view promiscuous sex with liberation?

winstonjen

Prove it. To me, these seem bigoted, unsubstantiated and pretentious. If they dislike life, why would a lot of them want to adopt and raise kids with love?

Jinto

In other words, you do believe such behavior should be prohibited. Thank you.

And marriage is a "risky behavior that spreads deadly incurable diseases?" Or is this only the case when marriage is practiced by gay people?

I wasn't aware that gay people had little respect for life. Perhaps you would like to tell me how you came to that conclusion?

<deleted by moderator>

dk

dk: I don't believe I've used the word prohibited, I'd say deterred by reason, conscience, self respect and if all else fails by law.
Jinto: In other words, you do believe such behavior should be prohibited. Thank you.
dk: Does deterrence mean prohibition?

dk: I always thought people with a modicum of self respect and consideration for others naturally avoided and admonished risky behaviors that spread deadly incurable diseases.
Jinto: And marriage is a "risky behavior that spreads deadly incurable diseases?" Or is this only the case when marriage is practiced by gay people?
dk: Marriage orders the life of a man and women for children. There is no …Or…

dk: Why do so many gay people have so little respect for life, even their own?
Jinto: I wasn't aware that gay people had little respect for life. Perhaps you would like to tell me how you came to that conclusion?
dk: The numbers speak for themselves… “a recent study of gay men aged 18 to 29 found that 18 percent were HIV positive. Another study sampled young gay men aged 17 to 22 from public venues-such as bars, street corners, dance clubs, and parks-and found an overall HIV infection rate of 9 percent, with 21 percent of young African American men infected. In New York City, a study of gay men aged 18 to 24 also found 9 percent to be infected. (Emerging HIV epidemics Harvard AIDs Review). Obviously gay mentors have infected their protégés, if not directly then with a culture of death. Wars don’t have this high of casualty rates.

dk: Why do so many influential liberals view promiscuous sex with liberation?
<quoted text deleted by moderator>
dk: I don’t follow…

dk

I can't prove the sun is going to rise tomorrow. Where did I say gays disliked life? You have mistaken me for someone else.


I'll list a few reasons gays want children… Many gays…

1. have found their lifestyle dehumanizing, their sexual appetites insatiable, and their pain so acute they seek children to rationalize what they suffer.
2. have lived so long with death so close they see children as a means of immortality.
3. understand children as a political statement that implies equality.
4. desire intimate access to children.

It is natural for gays to want children, but its wrong to covet other people’s children, and especially wrong to intentionally deprive children of a nuclear family.

yguy

A purely expedient semantic distinction, since morality is inextricably interwoven with the law. To the extent that it is not, it becomes nothing more than a vehicle through which the guileful may rob the simple of their substance.

Actually, there is, which is why it is slightly embarassing. Same with elimination of bodily waste, a perfectly natural activity which for some reason humans prefer to do behind closed doors. Therefore, we are all degenerate at least to that extent. It is within our power to become more so as a society by countenancing the proclivity to give in to animalistic urges.

Actually, you have done nothing else.

If an absurd consequence may logically be extrapolated from a premise, it follows that the premise is faulty. Therefore, kindly tell me why the consequence cannot be a logical consequence of the premise.

Public copulation (PC) is not a priori deviant.
PC is a normal part of animal behavior.
PC does not violate rights.
THERFORE PC is not deviant.

It appears to me, then, that PC may be justified by your position as easily as can HS. Kindly point out the flaw in the logic. Failing that, it appears your position needs rethinking.

First things first.