Quote:
|
Originally Posted by martinguerre
1. Unnatural isn't a biological term.
2. Homosexuality exists in many different species.
3. If homosexuality is in any way genetic, it may be linked to traits that increase survival of near relatives. Extra adults in a group can help provide for and protect children.
4. Line? Why? Oral sex is pretty "unnatural" but i'd hate to be the one to tell the TFP that that was being outlawed.
it's a totally specious arguement...he's defining the terms to his liking, then ssetting up a false conclusion.
|
1. It need not be a biological term. There are many things that are unnatural "biologically." Perhaps it is best stated that is "Bio-illogical."
2. There are many things other species do that we do not. We are not animals. Would you have me lay on the sidewalk and lick my nuts (only if i could!)? How about kill and eat my young? The "other species" arguement is long dead.
3. There are many traits, as well as behaviors, that "Man the Species" has outgrown. Nonetheless, this is a very good point - and was perhaps very practical when we beating off lions with sticks and living in caves. Since the biggest arguement of "straights"
against homosexuality is the questionable effect the gay lifestyle has on children, this is probably
not something you should include in an arguement
for the support of gay rights.
4. Line? Why? . . .Why? Why you can't be serious can you? There most definately need to be lines drawn to outline what is acceptable behavior within a society or a culture and it is up to the members of that society or culture to debate where those lines are and how far they will be drawn. That is what this debate is - societies members, pencil in hand, arguing over
where to draw the lines. They
will be drawn. In fact we had all, straight gay or whatever, better hope to hell we continue to draw lines of all kinds or we see all manner of human excrement doing things that will appall the sensibilities of every one of us.
Where this line goes, and how far, is where the debate is.
It is interesting to live history is it not?
*** it's a totally specious arguement...he's defining the terms to his liking, then setting up a false conclusion ***
False in your view. This is what an arguement is - define the terms, weigh them against your own experience and knowledge (not the same between any two people) and state a conclussion. Everybodies conclussion that is different than yours will be a "false conclussion."