It proves more than anything else posted on this topic, seeing as you are getting it from the mouth of a homosexual themself. You may think I am generalizing, and maybe that is true, but there is really no evidence for either side of this argument.

So, scientific evidence is invalid? Homosexuals have been seen to have different brain chemistry, especially with hormones.

Post actual evidence, and even if you can, being slightly more feminine does not make someone have to be gay, it is up to them.

Tu quoque

"Yes, because no side is providing a good argument, that makes my argument valid"

Even if it proves "more" than anything else in this topic that's meaningless, because it's still not enough to draw a justified conclusion based off of it.

Thank. You.

So, in other words, devilisk, you are saying there is no reason to argue this?

No.

Here's what DrunkenWrestler says



Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Sep 7 2007, 11:50 pm by devilesk.

So Falkoner, I have a quick question for you. It is from Plato's Euthyphro dialogue.

The question Plato asks is this: Does God command something because it is good, or is it good because God commands it?

It is relevant to your ridiculous arguements, trust me. After that I might elaborate...

Drunken had this to say about your argument about God creating nature and therefore nature being right


Also

I can't believe I overlooked this post. Well not really, because I didn't bother to read most of the later pages until recently, because it was so bad.

BUT, z0mg have you never heard of the greeks and romans? LULZ.

No I didn't. He was talking about fault in the context that gay people don't choose to be gay, even if they are brought up that way. I corrected him explaining that the same argument could be used for murderers. There was no obligation at all to explain anything else because that was the only thing I was referring to. I could clarify any time later if you made another question that fault didn't have anything to do with right or wrong. Anyways, if you didn't know whether that was what I meant or not, you shouldn't have assumed anything about it, or you should have asked me a question about it. Either way, you were arguing against something I wasn't arguing about, and I told you why I wasn't arguing about it. That's the end of it. It doesn't even matter who caused the confusion because the confusion has been cleared.

"I corrected him explaining that the same argument could be used for murderers."

And that's ALL you did. Therefore my point still stands, you only agreed with me after the fact.

Not stating it and leaving it for clarification is the equivalent of not even thinking of that point at the time, especially when what you said completely stands alone and you leave nothing in that post that shows you intend to make an inference between that and right/wrong.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Sep 8 2007, 3:37 am by devilesk.

I stopped reading for a while so missed getting rid of all this kind of nonsense.

If you people are going to quote or take information from the Bible, read it yourself first, if you had you would realize that after Christ's atonement many things changed, such as sacrifices were no longer needed to repent, things change, just because it is stated or done once in the Bible doesn't mean that it is suddenly a commandment.


And if you had continued reading you would have read my response to the same answer you just gave.


So because something with an intelligence much lower than ours does something it is fine, is this what you are trying to hint at?


"For behold, this is my work and my glory, to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man"

I think that since you are asking about God I am allowed to quote him, right?

God only commands what is best for us, and wouldn't you consider that a good thing?

Though the following things aren't completly relevant
-Maybe some people could try to debate over this without using religion. Because from what I've read, religion is the main reason anti-gays oppose it.
-What if in whatever dimension of Heaven you believe in had a big sign that said, "Keep your religion to yourself" Though many religious people would probably get angry and riot if this happened as a law, if you already know what you believe in, why are you trying so hard to spread it? Seeing as some of you *ahem*deviliisk*cough* think anyone who doesn't believe in what you want them to believe, just let them live their life and "burn in hell" when it's over. You "know" that there's an afterlife, so just let them "burn in hell" instead of making them miserable in life.
Aaand my own views on gays, I'm disgusted by it, but they can do what they want, as long as they don't go around converting normal bars into gay bars.

Actualy, I would believe what is being referred to is...
an extremely common argument I see.

You did not answer my question buddy. Read it again, and give an actual answer, plz.


No, this shows that it is much more likely to be nature then nuture. Because if it was nuture, only the intelligent species would even think about it beyond their instincts to do it, thus nuture. But, if species that are far less intelligent partake in it, it is further evidence that it is nature. And as ezday said, lots of people try to give the arguement that homosexuality is not in nature.


... That's the thing, if people can just change what is in the bible or what is to be followed by the people of that religion for whatever is convenient for them... then drunken wrestler's point is proved. I personally feel that lots of religious people of your ilk, Falkoner, will not bash things against the bible that are not convient for you to argue, but will still bash guys in order to make it some sort of display of their faith. Are you this overwhelmingly against divorce as well?

I bet he's pro life too. Wow, I can certainly see that being a topic. Abortion.

Too bad all those pious gay bashers have to miss out on this shellfish.

The shrimp is delicious!

I searched the Koran, widely regarded as the word of God... he didn't appear to have said that anywhere.

You basically just repeated yourself, you probably didn't even bother to read the rest of my post. You are missing the point for the sake of winning a meaningless argument. I wasn't making a comment on right or wrong, end of discussion. You arguing against how or why I wasn't doesn't make your original argument that fault has nothing to do with right or wrong valid.