California's top court overturns gay marriage ban

[nate2512]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Definitely eating the young is quite similar to husbandry.

Well that's natural for those animals, the argument is that since animals sometimes eat their young, then if humans wanted to as well, that would be natural. It certainly is not, so you cannot compare animal husbandry to support your argument that its natural.

[a.e.B.O.T.]

Originally Posted by nate2512

Well that's natural for those animals, the argument is that since animals sometimes eat their young, then if humans wanted to as well, that would be natural. It certainly is not, so you cannot compare animal husbandry to support your argument that its natural.

Since when is "it certainly is not" a good rebuttal? So, if you are going to say something, explain yourself, instead of JUST telling people what they can and can not compare this to that to. This is the defense of a six year old, and I am not being sarcastic, this is a way a child would rebuttal.

[TexasWSP]

Originally Posted by a.e.B.O.T.

Since when is "it certainly is not" a good rebuttal? So, if you are going to say something, explain yourself, instead of JUST telling people what they can and can not compare this to that to. This is the defense of a six year old, and I am not being sarcastic, this is a way a child would rebuttal.

Did you even read what he wrote? Humans eating their young is "certainly not" natural.

.......or do you disagree with that? Pretty sure he doesn't need to explain that concept.

[a.e.B.O.T.]

Originally Posted by TexasWSP

Did you even read what he wrote? Humans eating their young is "certainly not" natural.

.......or do you disagree with that? Pretty sure he doesn't need to explain that concept.

He was twisting logic, which EVERYONE seems to do in this thread as opposed to talk straight about the topic. As far as his twisted logic goes, I see his point, but I would never make that point...

[nate2512]

Originally Posted by a.e.B.O.T.

He was twisting logic, which EVERYONE seems to do in this thread as opposed to talk straight about the topic. As far as his twisted logic goes, I see his point, but I would never make that point...

How was that twisting logic? That was completely straight-forward logic as you are going to get in this thread.

[nate2512]

Originally Posted by a.e.B.O.T.

Since when is "it certainly is not" a good rebuttal? So, if you are going to say something, explain yourself, instead of JUST telling people what they can and can not compare this to that to. This is the defense of a six year old, and I am not being sarcastic, this is a way a child would rebuttal.

Since "it certainly is not" is tied together with an entire post and doesn't stand on its own.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by nate2512

Well that's natural for those animals, the argument is that since animals sometimes eat their young, then if humans wanted to as well, that would be natural. It certainly is not, so you cannot compare animal husbandry to support your argument that its natural.

You're not really following the argument well.

Rudey and I were discussing the ethical basis for laws earlier in the conversation, and his comparison with eating your mate was a callback to that. He conflated two wholly different arguments - as did you - which is a legitimate logical fallacy.

Something can be "natural" and wrong - eating your mate is clearly wrong under any ethical standard, so we don't have to rely on a narrow, Christian standard (as we shouldn't, I feel, for lawmaking - apparently the Court agrees). My argument, in its entirety, is that laws banning gay marriage are generally based on religious views, and thus shouldn't hold up to judicial review.

Arguing against gay marriage because it is "unnatural" is demonstrably false - you can argue it is wrong for a litany of other (primarily religious) reasons, but "unnatural" simply doesn't work.

[nate2512]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

but "unnatural" simply doesn't work.

I'm totally following the argument. Someone has yet to give a definitive reason as to why being gay is natural.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by nate2512

I'm totally following the argument. Someone has yet to give a definitive reason as to why being gay is natural.

Because it is occurring in nature. There are people who are gay. These people were not altered by some man made technological method to make them gay, therefore, they are naturally gay.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by AGDee

Because it is occurring in nature. There are people who are gay. These people were not altered by some man made technological method to make them gay, therefore, they are naturally gay.

Not to start another tangent / flame war, but there are people who believe that people choose to be gay.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

Not to start another tangent / flame war, but there are people who believe that people choose to be gay.

Well, they are misinformed and should talk to some of the gay people and find out.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

Not to start another tangent / flame war, but there are people who believe that people choose to be gay.

Originally Posted by AGDee

Well, they are misinformed and should talk to some of the gay people and find out.

Don't think that's gonna help. LOL!

[a.e.B.O.T.]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

Not to start another tangent / flame war, but there are people who believe that people choose to be gay.

Did you choose to be straight? Was there a point during puberty where you made the active choice to choose men over woman?

Gay people do not choose to be gay. Several homosexuals battle with their homosexuality often leading to depression and turbulent youths, before they accept it. I am not saying they are born with it either. The nature vs. nurture argument is still out there that either people are born gay or developments in their childhood shape them to be gay. Either way, it is not an active choice by the individual. The only choice is whether a homosexual conducts homosexual activity, or merely pretend to be heterosexual, or conduct himself in a life of celibacy.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by a.e.B.O.T.

Did you choose to be straight? Was there a point during puberty where you made the active choice to choose men over woman?

For me it was an innate 'decision' - I just always liked boys.

Let me see if I can explain - the concept stems from the fact that God would not create a sinner on purpose, one from birth. The thought is that we are all born being good and righteous in the eyes of God, free from sin. During life, God gives us the chance to decide how we want to live. Whether we want to be good or bad, right or wrong. Since for some, homosexuality is a sin, then people can not be born gay. It is something they decided to do during their lives.

[RU OX Alum]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

Not to start another tangent / flame war, but there are people who believe that people choose to be gay.

if people who think/believe it is a choice aren't gay, then that doesn't really matter