Right wing conservatives are evil? Well, I have evidence that they are.

Berb's bizarre analysis to the contrary, I am going to come out swinging on this.Essentially you have three sentences which make no logical progression at all. This is quite ironic since the first sentence is that humans are able to reason, and then you proceed not to.Let me do this semi-symbolically so you understand where the problem is...Hu = Humanity
Ho = Homosexuality
Re = Reason
NL = Not Logical
UN = UnNatural1) Hu can Re
2) Ho is NL
Therefore
3) Ho is UNBesides having to prove that homosexuality is in fact not logical (and that this differs in some way from hetero love), you have to show some link that makes not logical lead to not natural.As far as I can tell hetero love is generally illogical, it is all emotion. Even love for a God, faith itself, is not about logic. That makes it unnatural? How?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

but I can't see anything illogical about homosexuality. The word 'illogical' refers to reasoning

---

To other animals we are far beyond. We can reason. Homosexuality doesn't seem reasonable, it just doesn't make sense. Through seeing things so far, I understand that Man and Woman is the resonable fit in nature. This reasoning leaves the possibility of homosexuality pointless, or unproductive and without reason, or logic.

quote:

---

Try again.

---

I thought we were past this sort of annoying response.

---

Social Darwinism enjoyed widespread popularity in some European circles, particularly among ruling elites during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. During this period the global recession of the 1870s encouraged a view of the world which saw societies or nations in competition with one another for survival in a hostile world. This attitude encouraged increasing militarization and the division of the world into colonial spheres of influence. The interpretation of social Darwinism of the time emphasized competition between species and races rather than cooperation.

holmes writes me:

quote:

---

You somehow missed that in my post I stated that the actual definition in use (by Buz and the Bible) is slightly different than the dictionary def I was giving.

---

No I didn't, but the definition you gave has no resemblance whatsoever to the definition you're assigning to buz. It is not just "slightly different". That makes it difficult to figure out why you brought it up.

quote:

---

The context of the Bible makes it not "according with normal HUMAN feelings", but rather "according with GODs feelings".

---

I don't care how God feels. I do care when people condemn other people for no other reason than their own perception of how God feels.The point is this: if someone condemns homosexuals and I notice it and have the time, I will take issue. I don't care if the condemnation is based on the bible, the koran, a dictionary, something Jerry Falwell said or anything else. Again, this is something you're going to have to learn to live with.

quote:

---

I stated quite clearly that I was going ahead with the dictionary def (which was close) just to illustrate what I was saying.

---

Well okay, but it didn't "illustrate" anything, except maybe that your point is exceedingly silly.

quote:

---

...your bobbing and weaving to avoid this point only devalues your ability to reason in my eyes.

---

And this matters because?

quote:

---

In any case, you don't need to debate your case any more.

---

Then why don't you drop it?

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!

This topic is sort of trivial, probably off topic, and generally overly disscussed. But you can check out the reply to berberry, it would be eggactly what I would respond to you with. Same ideas from the both of you.

---

Social Darwinism enjoyed widespread popularity in some European circles, particularly among ruling elites during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. During this period the global recession of the 1870s encouraged a view of the world which saw societies or nations in competition with one another for survival in a hostile world. This attitude encouraged increasing militarization and the division of the world into colonial spheres of influence. The interpretation of social Darwinism of the time emphasized competition between species and races rather than cooperation.

First, you'll need a much more specific reply to me. While berb was right, and similar, mine differed from his in that I broke down your argument and showed what was missing.You have a couple premises missing, as well as some sort of evidence.However I will deal with your reply to Berb. I am uncertain how you do not see what homosexuality "produces". You would be correct in saying that it does not produce "children", but that is not the end all of human interaction, reasons for human interaction, and certainly what limits the naturalness of human interaction.Do you go to movies, restaurants, read books, play sports with friends, talk to others, get massages? What do any of these produce? Pleasure. Bonding. Experience.None of them are necessary, or are inherent to the human condition as a whole. Yet they are important. They don't make sense logically, but arise naturally when humans get together (or are even alone). Right?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

prophex writes me:

quote:

---

Homosexuality doesn't seem reasonable, it just doesn't make sense.

---

How do you figure? Homosexuals are attracted to members of their own sex. It's entirely reasonable that they would act on that attraction. It makes perfect sense.

quote:

---

I understand that Man and Woman is the resonable fit in nature.

---

Nothing unreasonable about "man and woman", of course. But it doesn't follow that "man and man" or "woman and woman" is unreasonable. That's what we call a non sequitur.

quote:

---

This reasoning leaves the possibility of homosexuality pointless, or unproductive and without reason, or logic.

---

But that isn't reasoning. It's like saying: "I understand that vanilla ice cream topped with chocolate sauce is a reasonable fit in nature. This leaves the possibility of chocolate ice cream with chocolate sauce pointless, unproductive and without reason." Yet some people like chocolate ice cream with chocolate sauce, and they will insist on eating it that way. Why is that unreasonable?

quote:

---

I thought we were past this sort of annoying response.

---

If you do not want an annoying response, you shouldn't make an annoying post.

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!

Great, that's a good point to start an argument with Buz then. However, whether his God feels that or not, is not refutable by addressing some totally irrelavent point like it happens in nature.Fer chris'sakes people eat shellfish in nature and God hates that too, and thus is considered "unnatural". People sleep with animals and God hates that, considers it "unnatural". Whether it is unnatural-1 does not hinge on whether it is unnatural-2. I did not have a problem regarding what you took issue with. Indeed, I supported all but one of your arguments. What I don't have to "learn to live with" is how you formulate your arguments. Logic is on my side on that.Unless you are asking me to "learn to live with" the fact that you are illogical. I certainly can, and so can others, but your words and thoughts get devalued. You know I am pretty good with logic. I have this perverse feeling you are going to understand what I am saying, when I make myself clearer this time. It is hard for me to understand anyone being irrational.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Okay, holmes, I thought I had a clear idea of your point, this post confirms it. I understand what you're saying fully (and thus I will quit saying that you're not making sense), but I don't agree.

quote:

---

However, whether his God feels that or not, is not refutable by addressing some totally irrelavent point like it happens in nature.

---

It isn't irrelevant. There is no acceptable definition of "unnatural" by which the word can be incontrovertibly applied to homosexuality.Nor is it illogical. What occurs in nature is necessarily natural, god and his intentions be damned. To you, this might be a quibbling point (I would still disagree, but I can at least follow you) - and I can understand if you say you have little patience for quibbling - but it isn't illogical.

quote:

---

You know I am pretty good with logic.

---

Yes, I do know that. I'd even say you're better than "pretty good". And your point makes sense, but it is only one way of looking at the issue and isn't the only logical one.

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!

This is just not worth pursuing.Immediate gratification is not productive.

---

Social Darwinism enjoyed widespread popularity in some European circles, particularly among ruling elites during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. During this period the global recession of the 1870s encouraged a view of the world which saw societies or nations in competition with one another for survival in a hostile world. This attitude encouraged increasing militarization and the division of the world into colonial spheres of influence. The interpretation of social Darwinism of the time emphasized competition between species and races rather than cooperation.

prophex writes:

quote:

---

Immediate gratification is not productive.

---

That is highly insulting. You are speaking of things you know nothing about. Most homosexuals are interested in far more than immediate gratification.Is this how you always deal with arguments that go over your head? You just hurl an insult or two and dismiss any subject you can't understand as though it were beneath you?

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!

Homosexuality does make sense. Evidence is mounting in studies of humans and non-human animals that homosexuals perform care-giving roles in social units and thus benefit the survival of the population as a whole.Thus, in some cases, "Male and Male" and "Female and Female" are also reasonable fits in nature. It is only pointless by your simple logic: no direct reproduction = unproductive/pointless. However, an examination of evidence suggests a scenario where homosexuals essentially engage in "indirect" reproduction by aiding the survival of their young kin.Just because you don't immediately see a "point" doesn't make it "pointless".

quote:

---

But that isn't reasoning. It's like saying: "I understand that vanilla ice cream topped with chocolate sauce is a reasonable fit in nature. This leaves the possibility of chocolate ice cream with chocolate sauce pointless, unproductive and without reason." Yet some people like chocolate ice cream with chocolate sauce, and they will insist on eating it that way. Why is that unreasonable?

---

I think that you mixed up what I said. I think homosexuality when actually thought about is complete nonsense, probabaly based on pleasure like holmes said, and is really a hinderance to one's true goals in life, and purpose.

quote:

---

How do you figure? Homosexuals are attracted to members of their own sex. It's entirely reasonable that they would act on that attraction. It makes perfect sense.

---

What do they get out of this action on attraction? Does it really mean anything? And, is it really at all productive? When compared to a relationship that is male and female, it seems pointless.

quote:

---

If you do not want an annoying response, you shouldn't make an annoying post.

---

It wasn't your entire response, just the "Try Again" part. If anything I do annoys you, you are entitled to not replying, just press the red "X" on the right hand corner of your screen. You didn't think it was annoying, you added that to combat what I thought about "Try Again".

---

Social Darwinism enjoyed widespread popularity in some European circles, particularly among ruling elites during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. During this period the global recession of the 1870s encouraged a view of the world which saw societies or nations in competition with one another for survival in a hostile world. This attitude encouraged increasing militarization and the division of the world into colonial spheres of influence. The interpretation of social Darwinism of the time emphasized competition between species and races rather than cooperation.

quote:

---

Homosexuality does make sense. Evidence is mounting in studies of humans and non-human animals that homosexuals perform care-giving roles in social units and thus benefit the survival of the population as a whole.

---

Any human can help any other human, this evidence works in any situation with any 2 humans.

quote:

---

It is only pointless by your simple logic: no direct reproduction = unproductive/pointless. However, an examination of evidence suggests a scenario where homosexuals essentially engage in "indirect" reproduction by aiding the survival of their young kin.

---

Which is less effective than the majority of male and female pairs.

---

Social Darwinism enjoyed widespread popularity in some European circles, particularly among ruling elites during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. During this period the global recession of the 1870s encouraged a view of the world which saw societies or nations in competition with one another for survival in a hostile world. This attitude encouraged increasing militarization and the division of the world into colonial spheres of influence. The interpretation of social Darwinism of the time emphasized competition between species and races rather than cooperation.

quote:

---

That is highly insulting. You are speaking of things you know nothing about. Most homosexuals are interested in far more than immediate gratification.

---

Like what?

quote:

---

Is this how you always deal with arguments that go over your head? You just hurl an insult or two and dismiss any subject you can't understand as though it were beneath you?

---

Don't be offended, rather give me an example.

---

Social Darwinism enjoyed widespread popularity in some European circles, particularly among ruling elites during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. During this period the global recession of the 1870s encouraged a view of the world which saw societies or nations in competition with one another for survival in a hostile world. This attitude encouraged increasing militarization and the division of the world into colonial spheres of influence. The interpretation of social Darwinism of the time emphasized competition between species and races rather than cooperation.

quote:

---

Step out of the physical realm, humans are all there is.

---

What on earth is that supposed to mean?

quote:

---

Humans are designed to be male with female, isn't it obvious?

---

For much of the population, yes.But homosexuality occurs in much of nature, including in humans, so that makes it natural.If your religion teaches that homosexuality is wrong, that's one thing, but to say it's unnatural just isn't true.

quote:

---

1. Evidence is interpretive.

---

Absolutely.If one takes into account all of the evidence, what does one come up with WRT evolution?

quote:

---

2. Reality is what I choose to make of it.

---

Actually, reality is there regardless of what you think it is or want it to be.The scientific method is the best way we know of to get as close as we can to the truth of reality about the natural world.If you reject the ToE, you are rejecting many other fields of science which corroborate the ToE.

quote:

---

Because of this I can say that I am apart from the animal kingdom, on a spiritual, and mental basis.

---

No, you are part of nature. It doesn't matter what you think, I'm afraid.You may ALSO have a spiritual basis, you might not. Mentally, however, you are very much an animal.