yguy

As I said, until you see fit to defend your indefensible premise, you and I have no further grounds for discussion.

Dr Rick

Until you see fit to defend your indefensible premise, you have no grounds for your assertion, either. Furthermore, since indefensible premises are not defensible, one can not rightly ever see them fit to defend. Demanding someone first defend the indefensible as grounds for discussion is essentially demanding that someone be irrational to have that discussion with you.

In other words, a prerequisite to discussion with you is a demonstration of irrationality.

Nowhere357

Which premise would that be, now? The one where there is no justification for intolerance towards gays?

If I'm wrong, all you need to do is provide justification for intolerance towards gays.

Civilization includes the idea that picking, poking and dumping are personal matters best done in private.

Now, how does that provide justification for intolerance towards gays?

yguy

This one:

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.

yguy responded:

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.

Nowhere357

Civilization includes the idea that picking, poking and dumping are personal matters best done in private.

This includes public copulation by homosexuals.

Now, how does that provide justification for intolerance towards gays?

Yes it does. And you know this. If you disagree, you must show that pc does not violate rights. You must explain why it is okay if people engage in this behavior at the park next to the children, at the store next to the produce, in the seat next to yours at the movies, etc etc.

Your argument fails completely for this reason alone.

And in either case, whether pc does or does not violate rights, how does that provide justification for intolerance towards gays?

You seem to be desperately flailing around for something - anything - to discredit non-biblical morality. Keep trying, maybe you'll find it, and anyway it's fun to watch. Your posts are a fine example of the irrational logic used to support unjust intolerance.

B. H. Manners

Holland?


I think they always put up a pretty good fight when they went to war!

yguy

And what right or rights would those be, exactly? The right not to see anything unpleasant, maybe?

Nowhere357

Yes it does. And you know this. If you disagree, you must show that pc does not violate rights. You must explain why it is okay if people engage in this behavior at the park next to the children, at the store next to the produce, in the seat next to yours at the movies, etc etc.

But you won't/can't, so you lose the debate.

I don't know how you think rights should be formulated, or how you decide right from wrong. But however you do it, is it the case that you support pc? If not, why are you pretending that you do?

Pc violates rights, and you know this, so your logic is wrong and your argument fails. Think of a new idea.

Is that a right? I think you just made that up.

And in any case, whether pc does or does not violate rights, how does that provide justification for intolerance towards gays?

You seem to be desperately flailing around for something - anything - to discredit non-biblical morality. Keep trying, maybe you'll find it, and anyway it's fun to watch. Your posts are a fine example of the irrational logic used to support unjust intolerance.

yguy

And the right or rights which public copulation violates are...?

winstonjen

Perhaps we should ask a couple to copulate 10cm in front of your face after waking you up at 3am, and you can tell us.