The debate "Religion in Politics will limit the rights of the one who does not believe in the certain religion." was started by
October 25, 2016, 3:57 pm.
27 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 12 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Tobibroek posted 1 argument, Nemiroff posted 70 arguments, PsychDave posted 31 arguments, neveralone posted 20 arguments to the agreers part.
neveralone posted 78 arguments, historybuff posted 1 argument, Nemiroff posted 7 arguments to the disagreers part.
Tobibroek, Bodaciouslady16, CrazePhil, PsychDave, jack_tim_45, Nemiroff, Blue_ray, human, ProfDoke and 18 visitors agree.
dalton7532, historybuff, neveralone, monikofos, Jericho and 7 visitors disagree.
that's a people problem though. not only religion. they are the ones people wouldn't vote on
You're right. Jesus did not say to do those things. But they are being done in the name of his religion. That's why I am concerned when people talk about religion in politics. There is no guarantee that they will be good, rational people like yourself or fanatical extremists like the Westboro Baptist Church. There is a spectrum ranging from wonderful human beings to white supremacists who all claim to be the voice of Christianity.
yeah sorry thinking of ghandi sorry get them mixed up somehow. but Jesus did stop stonings and other acts of violence
Jesus did not ever tell us to do those things. u are thinking of extremist who we do not want representing us. I usually try to avoid using the extremes of anything because they are rarely condone by the people they supposedly support and would like the same courtesy
did Buddha stop protests?
I think your thinking of ghandi or mendela.
There are also Christians who firebomb abortion clinics and beat and kill gay people. My problem isn't with Jesus or Budda. It is with people who interpret their message to condone violence in their name.
he made people protest peacefully which stopped them from doing it violently. this is a world problem that idk on the answer but what I put below would hopefully put us on the right path.
a) stop looking at labels. b) when the other side gives their opinion on a bill or whatever sit down and listen. ask how it might help or harm and then make ur decision.
and in every way of life. this is a problem that the world needs to find an answer for. idk on what it is but I believe with help we can find out or at least get the stone rolling
I agree that we need to be less decided by labels and parties bi don't know how we can fix it, but a lot more gets accomplished when people are willing to work together.
With respect to Budda and Jesus stoping violence and conflict, those stories absolutely exist. The problem is that we are not dealing with them, but with their followers. You may be willing to talk about things and debate, but many people on all sides of religious debates are not. Throughout history there has been a great deal of religiously based conflict and violence look at the conflicts in the middle east. I am in no way painting all religious people as violent zealots, but you must admit that those people do exist in every faith.
I don't think that Buddha stopped any violence, but either way I don't see your point? how will religion cut the partisanship in politics?
not agaisnt politics let me explain better sorry.
people in politics usually only look at if ur a Democrat or Republican and if ur not in there party they will disagree no matter what. this can happen in religion too. this is something that needs to be fixed.
didn't Budda prevent a violent conflict? and Jesus stop stoning?what u perceive as fact like people who have blond hair and blue eyes may not be a fact to another like the rest of the world.n it calling u Hitler just saying that's what he did. again would make it where u can't use that in gov so please stop bringing it up
what do you mean religion goes against the biggest thing in politics?
religion has never prevented fighting, in fact disagreements over belief has lead to the biggest conflicts. a battle over reason can he settled with facts or logic, a battle over religion, in which both sides have the "God said so" argument which go against each other has no resolution aside from death, conversion, or displacement.
but my idea of the religion in politics has to go agaisnt the biggest thing in politics. fighting each other no matter what it's about. after u get over that it's cake
great ain't it.how is it that we both seem to in the end agree on it? I seem to assume too much (will work on it).
personally, I consider humanity's accomplishments to be 100% natural, and I'd gladly make that argument in a thread devoted to it, however in other debates, I would have to defer to the official definition. the point of official definitions is not to demonstrate power or who is right, it's to give us a common language so we can talk to each other instead of over each other's heads.
even if considering human creations as natural, the realm of natural is still limited, whereas unnatural literally contains everything else. resuurection, telekenises, unicorns, gremlins, talking kangaroos, animals larger than the largest animal, etc.
also to clarify, it has nothing to do with wildlife specifically, or earth. suns, blackholes, galaxies are all 100% natural yet in no way wildlife.
so when u say nature u just mean wildlife. I figured u included the whole earth which includes city's where all kind of things happen
because we are discussing what is natural or not. anything animals do is natural. that is why we are discussing animals.
everything else. plastic, resurrection, telekinesis, anything supernatural, being bigger than the biggest known animal, giant bugs, ant sized people, space ships, internal combustion engines, steel.
OK we can agree on that. I apologize. so why are we talking about other animals
does anything not happen in nature?
my definition does not say that, you are assuming again. please stop. if you are confused ask, but you are having a horrible track record in your assumptions.
this is what I mean when I say you assume / twist words.
Noone ever said it is natural for US to have 6 to 8 legs. that may be YOUR INCORRECT interpretation of our words, but all it means is that you have to read more carefully.
we said if it appears in nature it is natural. animals in nature often have 6 to 8 legs... that is natural for animals, that doesn't make it natural for all animals. it is not natural for humans. have you ever seen a human with 6 to 8 legs?!? no, therefore we are saying that IS NOT natural for humans.
as Dave stated already, it's not that difficult.
what I'm saying is its broad. like it's saying it's natural for us to have eight eyes and six legs. which doesn't sound natural to me
though ur def. literally says everything is natural so is there a such thing as unnatural?
haha nice ending but I do know what it means but it only says the good and there is rarely any kind of situation that only has good.
some people have to learn not to pee on the electric fence by doing it. by it saying they don't get in fights ur actually harming them when they finally do get in one. though I don't wish to fight sometimes u have to
I'm finding it hilarious that you take a quote saying that they are more competent and less likely to break the rules and saying that's a bad thing.
The site is not biased, they are peer reviewed journal articles. I suspect that you don't know what that means, so I will explain the significance.
To publish an article in a peer reviewed journal, you first have to submit it. It then goes to other experts in the field who look for errors, omissions, or inconsistencies. If they find any, the paper is rejected and doesn't make it to print.
The fact that they disagree with you doesn't mean they are biased. It means that you are wrong.
it makes perfect sense. both exist in nature therefore natural. it's kinda funny you trying to argue that.
and it was one of the ones.... it was #1 lol
also your own dictionary has my definition as a clearly defined #1 definition.
my definition matches all defintions, yet yours blatantly contradicts the first and primary definition of the term.
and if anything I can also claim "ur saying that"
there's a big difference between black and gay
ur def. was none of the ones we looked at please provide where u got it. also it does contradict itself because again ur saying it's natural to have two legs and also six which makes no sense or logic.
that is about u saying that it's natural to be gay when only .017? show gay BEHAVIOR.key word behavior. sometimes people act like idiots but does that mean they are?
u are saying that
"rated significantly higher in social, school/academic, and total competence and significantly lower in social problems, rule-breaking, aggressive, and externalizing problem behavior than their age-matched counterparts"
how does there parents being gay help in academics?
some people need to break the rules to learn. also it sounds like these children will be pushed over for the rest of their life. this site sounds really biased to because it's pretty much saying that gay marriage makes ur child completely perfect and it also sounds to me that it will mess with his/her head
it's not stupid, it's the definition.
your assumption that everything has to be categorized as an "exception" or a "law" is stupid.
I'm not struggling the concept is just stupid
then there's nothing saying it's natural
For simplicity of people reading, the eighth argument is that it imposes acceptance on all of society.
This is not really a moral argument in itself. Would you agree that you shouldn't be able to discriminate against someone for their race? We impose acceptance on people when to do otherwise violates someone's rights.
If the refusal to accept something violates someone's rights, it would be morally wrong not to defend them. Replace the word gay with black and ask yourself if it would be acceptable for a government policy to discriminate. And it is discrimination since there are financial and legal ramifications of marriage such as tax codes, child custody and pension plans. Would you say a same sex couple does not deserve the same legal rights?
No. Kids are not better off with a mom and dad. Here is a list of articles on the subject.
Wow. I've never seen anyone struggling with a simple concept this much. If it exists in nature, it is natural. That's it. There is nothing tricky or surprising about it.
No, it is not a contradiction. There is no "natural law" about how many legs species have just like there is not one regarding sexual orientation.
also ur def. contradicts itself. some species have two legs so that's natural. but would that not make species with six unnatural? or vice versa
I would say the eighth and first but let's focus on the eighth since the first is hard to understand without experiencing God first.
I wouldn't say it's worse that I disagree but study's show that u are better off with a mom and dad agreed?
so it saying a insect with only two legs and wears clown make up is as natural as any other?
still to a degree agaisnt but let's just agree to disagree on that one
mother or a father*
aka single parent family. how is 2 mothers worse than 1.
the first one isn't even a question about morality, it's a linguistic technicality, regardless of its validity.
we just handled. #2, but regardless, we agreed naturalness also has nothing to do with morality.
#3 is also irrelevant, some children grow up with either a mother or a child, kids with 2 adults are already far better off by default.
not going through the whole list. pick the one you feel is strongest.
If it exists in nature it is not against natural law. How is this still such an challenging concept for you? I don't know how we can make it any simpler.
Basically chart of general views on homosexuality. Largely it is Abrahamic religions that oppose homosexuality. Other might consider it lustfull and disprove on those grounds but aren't actually opposed to it otherwise.
idk just give a simple answer to each because I think they all make good points as long as u open ur mind to them instead of just immediately assuming there wrong
also what God says it isn't wrong?
how have we debunked it? u keeping ur position that the exception makes the rule isn't debunking something it's just annoying.
none of those arguments are "God said so" but none of them are valid either regarding ethics. pick any of them and I will show you.
No, they aren't. We've just gone through debunking "it violates natural law." "It is offensive to god" is inherently a pointless argument in this debate because it demonstrates why religion should not be included in legal discussion. It is offensive to YOUR God, not God in general.
Pick a point and we will debunk it, otherwise you have done nothing but prove that fundamentalist Christian websites agree with fundamentalist Christians, not that they are objective and logical.
I'm showing that it's not just." because God said so". all are valid points.
and which of those arguments do you wish to champion?
I would say on the these feelings are natural would but that doesn't matter that is not what this vines about.
only "God said it's bad" nothing else.
however I'm no authority on the matter, so unless you want to add a source, I'll return to my original point that gay marriage has no secular argument that I've heard about its unethicalness.
it depends on context. I also think the order of the definitions are not arbitrary. the first one is the primary definition. others evolve from variations in speech like slang.
obviously if one says "these feelings are natural" they are not talking about them occurring in the wild. but if you are talking about occurrence in the wild.... as we are here.... the first one, to me at least, is the obvious definition.
that's what I was talking about.
I went with unnatural only because u brought it up and I didn't want to argue about which agruement to go to so I went with urs.
word usage is harder. like I said about ironic words have many meaning and it can fail u at times
meaning that the first 1 does not support my argument.
how? I think it perfectly supports my argument!
we are in agreement over the fact being unnatural doesn't make something inmoral, (which BTW I don't think was your view yesterday, will check)
as for usage, I don't think your using it right.
I said the only one supporting either of us is the third
but you did say it, you said the only definition valid to both points was the third.
only implies not others right?
so we're in agreement that it depends on the def. we use?
I'm not saying it doesnt
it is abnormal, and I will agree that has nothing to do with good or bad.
however it is natural. because it occurs in nature as per definition #1
but monogamy happens even less than gayness in nature, so if gay is unnatural because it's so rare, monogamy is also unnatural cause it's even more rare.
why doesn't the definition regarding occurrence in nature fit in an argument regarding occurrence in nature?
your not making any sense
it's abnormal but that doesn't mean it's bad
according to you, monogamy is unnatural and abnormal.
monogomy isn't what we are arguing about we are talking about if gay is natural
I'm saying who decides which is valid?
no technically the others can too but they don't fit ur def. so I thought u wouldn't use them
it could be
still more than monogomy
again less than one percent exist in nature
no by ur own site it's less than 1?
"I'm not saying it's not I'm asking how it is"
but you are saying the first def is not valid
"the only def. that seems to validate either of our arguments is the third"
if the 3rd Def is the only valid one, then the first one must not be valid, right?
so how is the 1st one not valid?
It exists in nature. That is the definition. How is this so hard for you?
gay animals is more common than monogamy
I'm not saying it's not I'm asking how it is
if it has enough occurrence but gay animal do not
how is the first Def not valid?
You don't think existing in nature is relevant to whether or not something is naturally occurring?
why would u choose one in the first place? the only def. that seems to validate either of our arguments is the third
when someone says "these feelings are natural" definition #3 is clearly the valid one, the others don't make sense.
but since we are talking about occurrence in nature, why would you not use definition #1, which is in reference to occurrences in nature, unless your just judging validity by convenience?
there's about three def. and they have over thirteen usage. here's one.
which is why I'm asking you to find definition #3 in its full form to see if it's relevant according to official sources, not us.
again who decides where it applies. I don't think either of us get too
your definitions link had a section for full definitions that includes examples of when it's used. find yours there and see if it's relevant.
And when you looked at that reference, were you unable to read the first definition? That would be the one relevant to whether homosexuality is natural.
The third definition would apply to statements like "it's only natural".
says who? u? why do either of us get to decide which def. applies anywhere?
look up the definition for ironic in regular terms then look it up in reading terms and u will get two diff. definitions.
I am using a different def. than u apparently all that it takes for u to say it's natural is for it to happen in nature. in nature some animals have sex with there siblings si by ur def. having sex with ur siblings is natural.
I am following ur logic which seems to be a double standard. so i would say it's the other way around.
definitions don't change
a definition always changes depending on the context. we had to agree on a def. to use in a diff. debate before why is this diff.?
Wow. You really don't understand debate.
The point was made that homosexuality is unnatural. We demonstrated that it can be found in nature and is thus natural.
That's it. No one but you suggested you have sex with your brother. You seem incapable of following simple logic, so how can we debate.
and you are the one changing the criteria of the comparisons at your convenience.
a section of species are born on two legs while another are born with six. these are physical while we are talking mental. two diff. areas agreed?
some things are have to be looked at as a species like how many legs u have. others can be over all species or some depending on what it is. u r the one that started the comparison to other species.
So one species walking upright is natural but hundreds engaging in same sex is unnatural? Which is bigger, one or hundreds?
Do you honestly not see why your sliding definitions would make meaningful debate impossible?
so now only 1 species has to do something regularly for it to be natural? and hundreds of animals do homosexual actions regularly... so natural?
I'm not trying to. u sounded very mad.
but we as a species overall walk on two legs and since that's a majority then my def. would say it's natural.
I found a diff. site that says there's 5,500 species of mammals but his site was a total of gay species not just mammals so if u have a site that does just gay mammals then we can do that instead.
I am calm now. you aren't twisting my words.
and the reason I said we are done is because we can't debate if we don't agree on definitions. your definition of natural vs unnatural may be subjectively right to you, but are objectively wrong compared to official definitions.
your own definitions also imply that walking on 2 legs is unnatural and wrong since it is more rare than homosexual behavior. very few species can do it, and only 1 does it habitually.
I think it's a sin but I also think we have free will and I shouldn't judge people and that they are free to do what they want.
How many of the species on that site are mammals?
In that case, why did you decide to take up the anti-gay line of argument in the thread if you disagree with it?
again I put a site above it that said the amount of species if ur not willing to read what I put why are u debating this because that sounds more like trolling to me. and I think u can be a great debater so please read and try to understand what I'm saying.
They don't. So by your standard it's unnatural.
not if every species or a overly large amount of said species walks on two legs
look at statement below and calm down its only a debate.
no. but it does go agaisnt the Christian religion so a Christian Church can't marry u but u can still get married if u want
we are done arguing, your definitions are all screwed up or your just making them up specifically for this debate.
according to you walking upright, being monogamous, and (ty dave) having under 6 legs is abnormal, unnatural, and we shouldn't do it. -.-
if ur a hexapod then six is natural but humans are supposed to have two so if I suddenly grew a third leg would that not be unnatural?
Heck, having less than 6 legs is unnatural by his standard.
"How many of those animals are insects or otherwise not capable of gay sex? That's why your oversimplified math undermines your argument."
how is asking if that mattered oversimplifying it? also he is argued that were no better than animals objectively so insects should definitely not matter.if I missed it then what is it?
again he say were even but even if we exclude those ur percentage is still .1875%
something overall looked at to be normal.
something overall to be looked at as abnormal
Again, let's try to keep it simple for you.
If you had the power to, would you ban gay marriage? If so, why?
walking on 2 legs happens in only a handful of species. walking on 2 legs is unnatural according to neveralone.
total species on earth = 8.7m has units
you didn't mention species anywhere there. you just put 8.7m into some math, no units.
"if there not capable how could they be gay?"
reread psychdave's sentence cause you clearly missed the point... again.
he is talking about insects, who out of the 2.8m species are probably 2 million. are not capable and why YOUR estimate is stupid. mammals, birds, and maybe even reptiles are more than capable. considering sea annenomies (also animals) IS STUPID.
"no but u r saying that because there is such a small amount than u can still make the rule that it's natural. I simply saying there such a small amount that it shouldn't be considered natural."
it was a total of all species on earth that's estimated to be 8.7 million. how does that not have units?
I'm not comparing bugs just species. I was actually thinking the other way around so I think we are having miscommunication so if it's from me again I apologize.
u gave the site that gave the numbers. what would u call that. either u didn't read it or u overlooked it if u didn't see this.
gave site and right below the numbers do I have to stayed everything slowly and overly clear to u?
u said there were hundreds of gay animals and again I gave a site that gave the total amount of animals and did simple math. what part do u not understand?
what moves exactly?
I've enjoyed our other arguments as well but I would guess we both have very strong options on this and keep overlooking the others side if I have done this I apologize.i have been known to be stubborn but usually it's my mind racing further than the conversation and if this has happened I apologize.
if there not capable how could they be gay?
no but u r saying that because there is such a small amount than u can still make the rule that it's natural. I simply saying there such a small amount that it shouldn't be considered natural.
"Homosexuality is quite common in the animal kingdom, especially among herding animals. Many animals solve conflicts by practicing same gender sex."
from your last link.
so even if we go by YOUR estimate. it may be rare among bugs and nonsocial basic animals, but among HERDING ANIMALS, big, our sized, socially complex, mammals "it is quite common"
so you keep comparing us to bugs that don't even have brains, and keep thinking that is in any way relevant to the discussion.
because they didn't have units. therefore naked.
I gave the site and right below it I gave the numbers. how is that naked?
also thank u Dave for getting is back on track.
yes and no. in the Christian faith u couldn't get married but I believe in free will and if u wanted to get married in a diff. religion then that's fine but I can't give a good argument on the Christian marriage because I haven't talked to a gay Christian and I know there are some and I would like to understand there side.
it doesn't matter that the numbers are from a link, you can't just give naked numbers. they have to have units. a number can come from anywhere and you didn't even say they came from the link. you just started listing numbers.
that was actually pointed toward u. should have put ur name on it so Dave I apologize if u thought that was toward u. I have gave u the percentage of how many in the world are estimated to be gay and u just keep ignoring it. if the table was turned u would be all over me for not talking about it but u instead are trying to say I don't know what I'm talking about but u gave the site with how many are gay and I gave a scientific site that gave the number of species and did a simple math problem. what part of this makes my argument null?
How many of those animals are insects or otherwise not capable of gay sex? That's why your oversimplified math undermines your argument.
Beyond even that, you still are taking the fact that it is natural to construct some kind of rule. Birds fly, does that mean all animals fly as a rule? Do you really not understand why such reductions into absurdity don't help you?
my issues with you here are
1. (putting words in my mouth) claiming that I gave numbers or implying that I was giving you instructions when I wasnt
2. citing random numbers without saying what any of those numbers represent:
"I divided 999 divided by 8.7mil. and put the period two to the right to represent a percentage. found a site that estimates there's 1500 so that puts ur total estimate at .017?" wtf?!!!!!
3. continuing to defend such moves despite me telling you repeatedly I never said that.
none of this has anything to do with your views or opinions, just your ability to argue effectively, and honestly our past discussions are the only thing keeping me from believing your just a troll trying f***ing with me. unfortunately that only leaves stubborn stupidity as the only explanation. hopefully my insistence on pointing this out will show you to not assume/twist and to label what the hell it is you are talking about.
the second site that u gave.
I gave u sites and I said it.https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110823180459.htm
8.7 mil. to be estimated. how many are gay? u said hundreds and at 999 u get .011? gay. would that not be considered the exception?
u can't blame me for u not reading it.
"statistics is guessing u got me right on."
you didn't give statistics. you just listed random numbers. 1500, 999, 2.8m. no units, no labels. no nothing. meters, grams, people, salt grains, I have no idea what you were talking about, so yes, guessing. at this point I'm not questioning your views but your basic ability to understand and communicate effectively, which is a epic fail at this point.
"u gave the number of gay animals and I divided it by total animals to bring it into focus."
when did I give a total number of gay animals?
"just because u don't agree with the evidence doesn't make it a lie."
he never said it's a lie. he said it's not relevant. adding insects and sea annenomies to our discussion of social animals is stupid. it's not a lie, it's just irrelevant and moronic.
Let's bring it back to the main topic. Would you ban gay marriage, and if so why?
why would I need to when we are talking about gay and not people who lay eggs or don't have sex? I gave a site that has an estimated amount of species in total and he gave one that did one for gays. how is this oversimplifying a simple math problem?
again r u really saying that since .017? if animals are gay that it is natural? u are again using the exception to make the rule. my point is just because an animal does it doesn't mean we should. not that I want to sleep with my brother. haha if u can't understand that the exception shouldn't make the rule then that by the same logic is ur failing.
look around u. everything u see probably wasn't even thought of a hundred years ago. one example could be the car. another AIs another is vehicles another is planes. do I have to go on with our achievements?
I'm trying to understand but u are making it hard when such a small amount in the whole of things are gay and u are trying to say it's natural. have been going off ur agruement this whole time. u want to know what's hard is when I give good points and the opposition ignore them. like when I told nemiroff that his third site agrees with me he continued to ignore it and didn't even bother to check it out.
just because u don't agree with the evidence doesn't make it a lie. u have accused me of doing this and multiple other things which are frankly not true and u r either being dishonest or blinded by ur side
Did you take into account how many do not have sex at all? Did you take into account those that lay eggs? Did you do any basic research, or again oversimplify the point to the extent that it is meaningless?
The main argument religious people use against gay rights is that it isn't natural. It has now been thoroughly demonstrated that it can be found in nature, so it is natural. No one suggested you emulate it, so unless you really are asking for permission because you want to sleep with your brother, it is not relevant. If you find that hard to understand, that is your own failing.
I would say the achievement of plankton is more impressive. They convert the CO2 we produce back into oxygen, which allows life on the planet. Thays why it is a subjective measurement, not an objective one. As soon as you it is your opinion, it is not objectives, as you claimed it to be.
I don't think you say things on a whim, but you do seem to respond without actually understanding the point you are responding to and, when this is pointed out, you dig in your heels and refuse to learn. It makes debating almost impossible because you are too busy having your own conversation about what you want us to say and ignoring the actual argument.
u gave the number of gay animals and I divided it by total animals to bring it into focus.
u gave the site for gay species and I gave the total amount so these so these are ur words through the site u provided.http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/1500-animal-species-practice-homosexuality.aspx
the 999 useless and doesn't matter. the 1500 is the amount gay the 8.7 is the estimate of how many species are in the world. I gave u sites and explained it earlier u must of overlooked it and or didn't read the site provided. yes giving statistics is guessing u got me right on.
"I divided 999 divided by 8.7mil. and put the period two to the right to represent a percentage. found a site that estimates there's 1500 so that puts ur total estimate at .017?"
your doing the math so how is this MY estimate? once again STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH. I do not appreciate it. did I bring any of these numbers into here?
I don't even know 999, 8.7m, or 1500 OF WHAT????? why don't you even mention what the hell you are measuring? am I supposed to read your mind? or should I just start guessing like you apparently like to do?!
I divided 999 divided by 8.7mil. and put the period two to the right to represent a percentage. found a site that estimates there's 1500 so that puts ur total estimate at .017?
I didn't say they made it up I'm saying that it shouldn't be a reason that being gay is alright
so what are u saying besides it happens in nature since we are talking about if being gay is alright?
where did you get 0.011%
I'M NOT SAYING ANY OF THAT. I'M SAYING IT OCCURS IN NATURE AND NOT SOMETHING HUMANS MADE UP.
THAT IS ALL. anything beyond that is not coming from me, but from your own head.
though thank u for putting the * instead of letters since it's offensive to me and would just make u look like a child. so again thank u.
wait u would say .011? doesn't make it an isolated event?
I'm not I'm trying to understand but such a small amount in the big picture of things makes it hard to agree that it's natural.
u are using them to say it's natural therefore OK to do and I am giving something else that's natural for animals to do but humans don't. if u were saying that it's natural for animals therefore it's natural for humans then yes. is that not ur argument? that since some animals are gay it makes it natural therefore it's natural that humans do it? or have I missed something and ur only talking about animals?
I am trying to understand why u think it's natural that's all.
this is no disagreement of opinion. this is basic twisting of words. and that is not something that allows for a casual continuation of a conversation.
I'm not f***ing saying exception should be a rule. And I'm not telling you how to bond with your cousin. I'm saying IT EXISTS, in more than just isolated incidents. it happens in nature therefore it is natural.
it is not nearly a majority, it is not an exception or a rule. there is no f***ing rule. it just happens. stop twisting my words.
how the f*** does me telling you that lions have gay sex to increase bonds mean you should act like lions with your brother? monkeys pick and eat flees off each other's back to bond, does me pointing that out the same as me suggesting next time your out on a date you should remove your date's shirt and start eating her flees?!?
if your incapable of distinguishing between an arbitrary example that isn't even within our culture or species and a personal suggestion, then we have nothing to talk about. I don't need to deal with such stupidity.
8.7 mil. to be estimated. how many are gay? u said hundreds and at 999 u get .011? gay. would that not be considered the exception?
we were both talking about and I gave an opinion. also do u not think what we have accomplished isn't great?
I wouldn't use the God says so. we can and would give logical reasoning. I would never make a law that went agaisnt another's religion because that goes agaisnt freedom of religion.
nice insinuating there but I understand perfectly I just have a diff. opinion that is why were here is it not?u seem to think I say stuff on a whim but this ain't true I think logically about what I'm saying so please before u say that I'm wrong first consider what I have to say.
back to what this vines about. I would want cooperation with all major religion and especially atheist and I would love if we had a talk about an upcoming law and we all listen and try to understand the other side. that is why I am still on this app. to understand
I'm trying to understand but from my side it sounds like u r trying to make the exception make the rule.
by saying it's natural most people assume that it's OK to do which is what were talking about. like the lion example. it says they do that to strengthen bonds so how is that gay? sure I can find a diff. way but most animals just go by instinct do they not?
how many species are there in the world as a whole? we don't even know so it's hard to say it's natural when hundreds even thousands probably do it. like I said the exception doesn't make the rule
somethingg that is common in nature
We have "done things so unbelievably astonishing that it is breathtaking" is not an objective reason, it is a subjective one.
I don't have any problems with religious people in politics, I have a problem with people using "God says so" as justification for laws. That is what started the gay rights debate. The only arguments I have ever heard to attack gay rights are religiously based. If you wouldn't appreciate alcohol being banned by a Muslim leader, what makes you think your religion let's you take rights away from someone else?
I also have a problem with someone who can't follow logical arguments in politics since if you can't understand why something is a bad idea, you would go ahead and do it, but that is in no way based on religious beliefs.
you do present logical arguments but you are incapable of understanding the arguments of others in this situation.
I give you an example to demonstrate it's existence and you assume I'm implying you should mimic that behavior. I'm sorry but that was just stupid. that has nothing to do with different view points. just stupidity.
and no, pointing out several species that do it routinely and hundreds of species that do it occasional makes it pretty freakin natural.
what the hell is your definition of natural?
also dave I answered ur question a while back if ur still interested
sometimes physical diff. don't matter. u would agree with this idea if it was about transgenders but I suspect u will argue agaisnt it. I would say the soul but u will say it doesn't exist and we will debate for a couple of hours until finally it simply comes to that u can't keep religion out as much as we can't keep atheism. which ironically I would never consider.
I have gave logical arguments and I have not just been hating on him because I just want to. if sharing and defending my opinion is being a troll then we all are.
it is a rarity there by not natural. what u r saying is one instance in a thousand test proves it true. which sounds more biased than letting the rest of the test dictate what's happening. also it says homosexual behavior not that they are. what lions only have sex with male lions?
our intelligence. since u can't accept the idea of an soul. so are u saying that a pig is equal to man?
and u are providing why atheist shouldn't rule any gov. but thank u for taking it back to the main idea.
if u want to continue the gay debate I will make a diff. site to do it.
also if anyone is trolling it's y'all because u won't even consider the other side u just instantly think there wrong
please reread ur 3rd site and u will see that it says it's unnatural.
thank you dave.
to your other point,
aside from our accomplishments, what physical feature of ours differs even slightly from that of an animal?
Either you are incapable of following or forming logical arguments, or you are a troll.
Homosexuality is found in nature, therefore the argument that it is unnatural is incorrect and null.
We are animals. Nothing more and nothing less. Find one attribute we have that no other animal does. Others use tools, build structures, and change their environment to better suit them. We have exceeded all others in scale, but that doesn't change our nature. What part of us does your "unbiased" opinion think is objectively better? Keep in mind the definition of objective.
You are providing an excellent example of why laws need to be based on reason and logic, not religious bias.
and that it's OK.
u seem to insinuate that.
again this is what the animals are doing. the lions specifically.
that is again what these animals are doing and if u think that it's wrong for us to do it then u are going agaisnt ur idea that "it is natural so it's OK to do it"
by giving these examples u are saying it's natural therefore OK to do then when I ask u if it's OK to do u say nothing which I assume means no so u are having what u would call a double standard.t hat is something annoying
I've repeatedly said one thing. gayness occurs in nature.
I never said:
"u say there are animals that do things that are gay. if so then that animal species is gay"
"if I want to be closer to somone I should have sex with them?"
"so are u saying if I want to bond with my brother I should have sex with him?"
I have no idea why you consistently twist my words. giving you an example is not suggesting you perform that task. it's getting rather annoying.
hey that's what u r saying not me.
we have by far done many more things than them. Im not bias when I say we are objectively better.
but we are different are we not. we have done things so unbelievably astonishing that it is breathtaking. animals overall have not gotten anywhere near us. so I don't think we can really be included unless u note these differences.
a species is not gay. that makes no sense. no species is 100% homosexual. how does a few gays make an entire species gay?! species don't even have sex, animals do!!!! no part of that statement makes any sense.
so humans are exactly like animals in nearly every objective way, but are excluded because you or others have a predisposed bias.
nothing outside of the animal kingdom has muscles like ours, no eyes, ears, noses, or brains. blood is another thing not found anywhere outside of animals, but is a common and basic component of an animal. every inch of our body screams animal, even our cells are identical to other animals yet very different from bacteria, plants, or fungi.
u say there are animals that do things that are gay. if so then that animal species is gay and this is not true.
that is one.
same def. but would put a note that humans go beyond this def.
I am not calling animals gay in general...
I said gayness happens under natural circumstances consistently. you don't need a majority for that.
and there is an official definition of animals
a living organism that feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli.
is there anything wrong with that definition? would you like to suggest a different one?
no I'm saying that to call animals in general gay u need a majority rule not isolated events. human do amazing things or at least the majority do that is one reason why we are diff.
no. would u say one penguin able to fly makes it natural no u would say i most penguins can fly then it is natural for them to fly
I would say why are you following?
you just listed a bunch of reasons why humans are awesome because they are different, now your saying doing anything different from the majority is bad. which is it?
just because it's not the majority doesn't mean it doesn't happen in nature, which means it is still 100% natural.
and the best.
that is a malleable def. some def. wouldn't consider human others would to diff. extent
a handful vs a majority. which is logically the one we should follow? I would say a majority
yup, we are awesome.
we aren't the first animals to do something new, but we are the latest, and our new is newest.
what is the definition of animal?
"But while hundreds of species have been documented doing it on isolated occasions, only a handful have made it a habitual part of their lives, says Vasey."
think about that. a handful of species, that habitually engage in homosexual acts (as in most memebers) and hundreds of species doing it in isolated occasions (like humans)
not only did we find examples of other homosexual instances in nature, we find species that do it as a routine.
look at the animals around u. do they make city's. laws? do they create or are they imaginary. for the most part no. so why haven't other animals done the same as us? because we have gone further than being animals.
"Despite Bagemihl's roster of examples, homosexual behaviour still seems to be a rarity. We have probably missed some examples, as in many species males and females look pretty much alike. But while hundreds of species have been documented doing it on isolated occasions, only a handful have made it a habitual part of their lives, says Vasey." 8th paragraph of 3rd site.
we are the greatest animal. the apex hunter. no other animal poses a threat to us besides ourselves as we have taken over the world.
still animals tho. we aren't the first species to dominate. the trilobites were the first animal to do so. some say the water bear (forgot it's official name) is still the reigning champ.
the first line is definitely not from that article, the article literally says the exact opposite.
and the reason they aren't fully homosexual is because they don't only have sex with males but also females... but they also aren't monogamous.
the fact remains the do gay shit regularly. and no, it's not a rarity.
yes but we have gone above just being animals.
homosexual behaviour still seems to be a rarity.
But for all the homosexual pairings the females indulge in, Vasey is clear that they are not truly homosexual.
both from ur 3rd site
I am not saying we are like animals. we are animals. that is a fact.
however the only thing I'm implying is that it is natural. the end. no point after that. I'm just countering the argument that it is unnatural. nothing else.
the site was pretty clear. why don't you tell me what you thought the site meant.
by saying animals do it so it's natural ur saying we are like animals. I believe we can do better than that. if we work together.
again one of ur own sites says it's not please stop ignoring that and address it
but we have gotten above just animals that just do what they need to survive. also it depends on what u say makes us human.
and we are animals. specifically mammals, one of the 5 great apes.
that's what lions do. I'm not telling you to mimic animal behavior. I'm just saying it is natural
"Currently, homosexual behavior has been documented in over 450 different animal species worldwide."
so u think we are like animals? also what about that last site that u gave that said it wasn't? the first was silly, the second had some lions that strengthen bonds by having sex but does that mean if I want to be closer to somone I should have sex with them?
it's okay. we make mistakes it's part of being human.
if their religion says it's okay then sure but if it doesn't it gets harder.i have never met anyone who was Christian and gay so idk why they think it's right. the only thing I know is I don't feel like it is and the Bible never mentioned gay marriage but there was a town where people had sex anywhere and with anyone and God destroyed it.
those lions are but one example of homosexuality within the animal kingdom, making it perfectly natural.
the whole point of the example was for it to be not man. and lions were not the only species presented as evidence. it was quiet a substantial list.
You are correct. Sorry about that. I should have confirmed who started the line of argument.
I'm glad you wouldn't ban gay people from the church, but the question is, would you permit gay marriage?
those are lions not man.
I think nemiroff started that line of reasoning and I just let him go with it so we didn't have an argument about what to argue:-)
relationship with God to be my purpose. u can use whatever God u want or none it doesn't matter as long as ur willing to cooperate with other people's views instead of attacking them.i never said control I said be a part of. big difference.a so for fact and logic with an open mind instead of a close one. I don't blindly follow someone when they say."because God says so. no one can say that. we talk to God and search for his will not some pope or other person pushing for their own reasons.
some ideas have evolved to help humanity understand him. I am not saying if someone who is gay can't come in church because their gay on the contrary I would welcome them with open arms because I want them to know a personal relationship with God. something I hope all of u will know.
also something I would do if was in politics per say. though I don't think I would last long since I would go agaisnt the curruption immediately:-)
Are you intentionally misinterpreting the argument, or honestly not following it?
You claimed that homosexuality is not natural. Nemirof showed you examples from nature. Therefore unless God screwed up and made sinning lions, it is natural.
Your new approach seems to be that natural doesn't matter and that we are "above animals". You for seem to realize that this undercuts you argument that it is wrong for being unnatural. If what is natural doesn't matter because we are worth more than animals, then it cannot be deemed wrong for not being in nature.
Finally, you are using the Bible, and only the Bible, to dictate right from wrong when you say we have a purpose given in the Bible. This makes your argument no better than Muslims demanding women wear the burka because it is what is right in their religion. You have given up on reason and logic and defaulted back to "God said so" which is exactly why religion cannot control government. There is not arguing with a believer saying it is God's will, even if it is not true. It has been used to justify atrocities in the past, which is why we demand reason ow, not blind obedience to scripture.
If you believe that homosexuality is wrong based only on God's Word in the Bible, you had better also believe in every other old testament rule, or you are a hypocrite for picking and choosing rules that suit you. If you have ever worked on the sabbath, you should happily submit to being killed.
u are the one that brought animals not me.
I don't trust wiki because I can literally go on there now and put on it Hitler was a girl. that is not fact.
no just trying to figure ur view, why u think it's right, and what to do. I think the best way to share ur diff. opinions and ideas with somone is by first understanding how they think and who they are.
... and if you want a woman you have to make an elaborate dance where you shake your head and headbutt competitors.... why would you think I was implying you should mimic animal behavior ?!?
I was showing 1 of a multitude of examples of animal homosexuality from 3 different scolarly sites... at your request.
you appear to be deflecting.
so are u saying if I want to bond with my brother I should have sex with him? that's what I am getting from that sentence and I would prefer not to. also would u not say we are above animals in the first place?
to answer ur question we would have to go to the roots of what it is to be man. for u it's probably from evolution or something that makes us some small insignificant thing in the universe. I choose to think that we're worth more that we're above animals. that we have a purpose to be here that was given in the form of the Bible. u can choose not to accept this and that's OK but u can't say my position is pointless or if my reasoning is true does not have merit just like I can't to u.
I've been through the "it's not natural" argument so many times that I'm tired of rehashing the same arguments. We will point out vast amounts of scientific research showing homosexuality in nature, and you will ignore it. Therefore I'm going to going to try a novel approach.
Let's ignore the evidence already given and assume humans are the only species with homosexuality, thus justifying your claim that it is unnatural. We are also the only species that lights our environment with electricity, making that unnatural. We are the only species that builds and drives cars. We are the only species that travel to space. We are the only species to record fictional television shows for entertainment. Why are these unnatural acts acceptable, and homosexuality is wrong?
"Lions are also homosexual. Male lions often band together with their brothers to lead the pride. To ensure loyalty, they strengthen the bonds by often having sex with each other."
from the middle link
the links give numerous examples. a few that aren't explicit don't excuse the others that are more obvious.
either way everything is natural. everything we make, including plastic uses things made by nature. we are natural, thus everything we create is natural.
of course penguins guard the egg there hardwired too. the giraffe could of had an itchy neck it was too vague of an example
never states a specific example
Despite Bagemihl's roster of examples, homosexual behaviour still seems to be a rarity. But for all the homosexual pairings the females indulge in, Vasey is clear that they are not truly homosexual. from ur own site.
please give better site than wiki.
so we make it where we can't
if ur talking about animals that have both sexes then this just got weird.
of course your ability to reason remains intact, and any argument you present, ethical or otherwise will be considered. that however has not stopped religious policy makers from using the "God said so" argument, which is no longer debateable.
of course it's natural. everything is natural. nature made it. we are not the only species to exhibit homosexuality.
we can give logical reasoning. our brains didn't die when we took up religion.:-)
biologically it goes agaisnt nature because we were made to complete each other. gay marriage is like trying to get a calf from 2 bulls.
which religion that goes toward God says it's right?again the biologica thing.
which are in the Bible.
u missed an *.agreed.y each kick them off if thy don't behave.r religion gives us clarity on what's right and wrong
ethics are different among different religions. if you feel something is unethical, give secular reasons not based on "I was told so" for why that behavior is unethical.
gay marriage for example has no secular argument against it ethical. inefficency is not an ethical complaint so it's unproductiveness doesn't make it immoral.
citing tradition is also irrelevant to ethics. one can make a technical argument about the terminology of the word marriage, but not really any ethics violations.
the only argument against it ethically is that a higher power dubbed it wrong, which depends on which book you read his laws from and whether you believe that book to begin with.
some things are obvious. don't kill, don't steal, are clearly unethical.
how about being an ******, or trolling online. is that ethical? no. should we penalize them? no. some cultures it's a yes. they have good points, so do we. ethics are fluid, even within reason.
It depends what those ethics are based on. The Westboro Baptist Church spends a great deal of time thinking about what they consider ethical, but I wouldn't use them as a metric for new laws. I certainly don't paint all Christians with that brush, but there is a spectrum from fanatics to reasonable people. Thays why I don't agree with religiously based ethics and laws. I would always prefer laws based on evidence, logic and science (where applicable).
I understand that but as a religious person myself I would never force a law that would go agaisnt someone elses religion and with the right people come up with a way to have all of them represented fairly on what's right and wrong that could further help the US.
gay marriage would fall under ethical as well but that's a dif. argument. also would u not say people who constant look at what's ethical might have the best ideas on it?
There is no problem with religious people in office. The problem arises when laws are based on religious teachings. If you wouldn't want Jewish politicians banning you eating shellfish, Muslim politicians banning alcohol, you understand why others disagree with your religious views becoming law. There are fundamental thinks (murder, theft, etc) that should be prohibited regardless of religious justification, but if the only reason to ban something is because it is against your religious beliefs, imagine someone's perspective who does not believe as you do and explain why they should follow that rule.
Some topics, like abortion, have ethical and logical arguments independent of religious beliefs. Others, like gay marriage, do not (as far as I have seen).
we just need to go back to our roots.
well uve seen my arguments. I've repeatedly praised the message and ideas jesus spread, and when I mock a Christian over these moral issues I don't use #christiansarebad, I use #fakeasschristian cause the views and priorities are (in my outside opinion) against the values of jesus.
it's sad and harms what people view today's Christians. I hate it and I try to get people to see we aren't like that.
I also agree that they are fake Christians using their religion to increase their power and wealth.
it is unfortunate and needs to change I'm not disagreeing on that. I'm saying that's not the whole picture.
yay if they dont follow God they need to have some reform and change. these are things that we need but they don't make it where we shouldn't have a voice. just a different one that can properly show what Christians are or should be if it's a majority
I absolutely do not demonize Christians as a whole. but although they may not be the majority (they may be), the prominent, loudest, and most powerful Christian voices, in this country at least, are trying to push their views on others who may not be believers. that is unfortunately a fact.
I believe that criticizing the prominent and powerful voices is a valid form of generalization as these people are often elected or accepted as the official representatives of these groups, not arbitrary non elected examples.
also I agree that my actions alone don't display all Christians but neither I think does urs. I think like I said if more Christians looked to God and not to judgment which some are trying to do. don't extinguish us out because of some bad eggs.we are not meant to be like u have seen and here are some of us trying to change this view
nonreligious may agree with it or not, but correctness isn't the issue. the nonreligious will have to make mundane arguments in favor of banning same sex marriage, arguments that can be debated, refuted, or defended. a religious argument of "God said it" can only be countered by "no he did it" and neither of those have any proof within this world. the issue is not the validity or morality of proposed policies but the ability to argue for / against them.
we don't follow a man like the Catholics we follow God who tells us not to judge or we will be judge.(scripture can't remember exact location sorry). what really would be the Christian view is u can if u want but it can't happen in a Christian Church because it goes against our faith.
if u actually read a Bible u will find that we aren't supposed to be these judgmental tyrants that I think u see. like I said before Jesus tells us to love all and to not force our religion down others throats. I think u have seen the bad side to religion just like I've seen the bad side of atheist. should we really let the bad persuade what we think about a group?or should we help each other and pull ourselves out of these stereotypes and work together for what we all want. everyone to have a great life and to be happy.
also by forcing us out of gov. u r going agaisnt our right of speech. our voices are just as credible as yours. we look to a God who tells us many things that if ur interested could go on a diff. vine or u could take down ur ideas of Christians and look further in the Bible to how were supposed to be. I won't say were perfect because we are human and we make mistakes but that in itself shouldn't be the noose u hang us from.in short we can do better and if given a chance will.
i could say that atheist could make religion illegal and set up places so that we can open our eyes like u think (I think it was u who said this) we should.
that's not only based on Christians. people don't agree with it who aren't religious as well. religion is just a scrap goat
neveralone, just like your personal experience with feminists does not represent all feminists, the actions of a single christian, like yourself, don't necessarily represent the actions of Christians in general. even if true, a few anecdotal cases are not sufficient evidence to describe broader trends. you really should abandon that line of argument. it's a fallacy.
I said they could. whether they do or not "God did it" is not only a compelling argument to the religious, it is the ultimate reason.
and yes they do. for example the argument that "God made Adam and eve not Adam and Steve" in the gay marriage debate is entirely based on god.
@nemiroff no we don't. we have been in America since the beginning and what u stated has never happened.u want proof listen to the pledge and look at the Constitution.
@ tobi. do u mean the Catholic faith? I'm talking Christian. we only follow God and Jesus. everyone can agree the Bible version(because some argue he ain't real and that's a diff. debate.) of Jesus was a good man.
also I have been on this app on many political parts and I never put "because God says
religious groups are very different from political parties in 1 sense.
if a political party tries to promote a view, it has to give rationale, mundane proof. a religious group can just say "because God commanded it"
I get that, but most likely if the church will do such thing. I'm not against religious at all don't get me wrong.
and goes agaisnt our freedom of speech
also we are no diff. than any other party. what u r saying is Luke saying that there shouldn't be a Republican or Democrat party.
we don't force our religion on u either.
Those formulations of a moral code influence politics regardless of whether you are atheistic or not. All experience formulates ideology, and rejection and removal of certain experiences is bigoted.
unless for some reason they tried to force atheism on people. but that seems unlikely.
@rogueamerican - those are all personal things. not politics in general.
@neveralone - being an atheist is a lack of belief. it shouldn't have any affect on politics.
Why? What if my religious view teach me murder is wrong? That lying is bad? That i shouldnt sleep around with women?
it rarely does. would u say being atheist would influence ur decisions as a politician?
he didn't say the religion of one politician. he said religion in politics. the religious beliefs of politicians should not influence politics.
It really depends and can go either way.
I'm religious and if I was president I wouldn't limit ur rights. also u can day the same thing about atheist.