CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Can Nature Create Something Unnatural?
Cartman has openly stated that the art of explanation is unnatural, humans are the only creatures capable of this, therefore humans are the only creature capable of doing the unnatural (therefore nature can give rise to naturalness). I emphatically disagree with this as (i believe) it obstructs logic.
I refute his notion with: Humans are natural; everything that humans do therefore must be natural as whatever is done, is done by something natural (humans).
Nature:
Theworldanditsnaturallyoccurringphenomena,togetherwith the laws that govern th
2)everything that humans do therefore must be natural as whatever is done, is done by something natural (humans).
2 presupposes the conclusion. You are saying that something that is natural can't create something unnatural because natural things can't create something unnatural. This is logically flawed at least.
An alternate definition of natural is anything that is not created by humans. In that context it is true that humans create the unnatural. Under that definition humans still came about through nature and would be considered natural. Therefore, the natural can create something unnatural.
In order to win this debate all I have to do is show one instance of nature creating the unnatural and I have succeeded.
You are saying that something that is natural can't create something unnatural because natural things can't create something unnatural. This is logically flawed at least.
This is logically sound- nature cannot produce something unnatural for something to fit outside the laws of nature/physics would have to exceed naturalness (in other words be supernatural). Your position is that it can which is logically invalid with obviousness.
In order to win this debate all I have to do is show one instance of nature creating the unnatural and I have succeeded.
In order to win a different debate regarding a different definition of natural you must provide what you have done so far. As for this debate you have only succeeded in showing your incompetency.
---
An alternate definition of natural is anything that is not created by humans. In that context it is true that humans create the unnatural. Under that definition humans still came about through nature and would be considered natural. Therefore, the natural can create something unnatural.
I have constantly established that i am not using the alternate definition of natural so i will not entertain this statement; i will however entertain: "it is true that humans create the unnatural. Under that definition humans still came about through nature and would be considered natural. Therefore, the natural can create something unnatural."
Why is it that humans creations render unnaturalness yet other species (creations) do not? Would you consider a birds nest natural?
This is logically sound- nature cannot produce something unnatural for something to fit outside the laws of nature/physics would have to exceed naturalness (in other words be supernatural).
What you just said is logically sound, but what you said before was missing the part about exceeding naturalness. Your argument said that something natural cannot create something that is unnatural simply because nature cannot create something that is unnatural without any justification.
Your position is that it can which is logically invalid with obviousness.
No, you missed what my position is apparently. I provided a logically valid position that says the answer is yes that was independent of yours.
In order to win a different debate regarding a different definition of natural you must provide what you have done so far. As for this debate you have only succeeded in showing your incompetency.
That's because you cheated and added the definition after I posted. You have to demonstrate why your definition of natural is the only definition of natural that can be used. When you say no to the debate question you are saying that under no circumstances can unnatural come from natural, but there are other definitions which say you are wrong. The burden is on me to show one instance where it is true. I have succeeded in that.
I have constantly established that i am not using the alternate definition of natural so i will not entertain this statement;
You can't reject the definition because you don't like it. Sorry, that isn't how it works. In the context of your definition you are right. In the context of my definition I am right. Since there is a context where the debate question is answered "yes" you lose.
Why is it that humans creations render unnaturalness yet other species (creations) do not? Would you consider a birds nest natural?
BY DEFINITION. Why is this so hard for you to comprehend? The definition states that something is natural if not built by humans.
What you just said is logically sound, but what you said before was missing the part about exceeding naturalness. Your argument said that something natural cannot create something that is unnatural simply because nature cannot create something that is unnatural without any justification.
It was evident what i was saying, i just had to slightly elaborate more because it takes you so long to get it.
That's because you cheated and added the definition after I posted. You have to demonstrate why your definition of natural is the only definition of natural that can be used.
"Cheated".... Eveyone was confused about which definition of natural i was using so i provided one...
When you say no to the debate question you are saying that under no circumstances can unnatural come from natural, but there are other definitions which say you are wrong.
Under no circumstances unnatural can come from natural GIVEN THE DEFINITION PROVIDED. Why is this so hard to follow?
The burden is on me to show one instance where it is true. I have succeeded in that.
Not given the definition provided.
You can't reject the definition because you don't like it. Sorry, that isn't how it works.
What are you talking about? I never even stated that i did not "like the definition". I only stated that I typically use a definition when i describe nature- and i was using a specific definition when describing nature.
In the context of my definition I am right. Since there is a context where the debate question is answered "yes" you lose.
You honestly cant see how ridiculous you sound.....
-----
BY DEFINITION. Why is this so hard for you to comprehend? The definition states that something is natural if not built by humans.
Oh i know what you're saying entirely; you are using the definition: "existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind."
I just wanted to make sure you were consistent. But your definition is still flawed; the definition states "existing" or "caused", not "created" or "built"- in which such terms can be problematic in logical discourse.
It was evident what i was saying, i just had to slightly elaborate more because it takes you so long to get it.
Just because I know what you are saying doesn't mean you can post logical fallacies and call them logically sound.
Under no circumstances unnatural can come from natural GIVEN THE DEFINITION PROVIDED. Why is this so hard to follow?
IT DOESN'T MATTER. It isn't a debate unless you let all definitions in. You are only right if we eliminate information. There is another word for that and it is "wrong".
What are you talking about? I never even stated that i did not "like the definition". I only stated that I typically use a definition when i describe nature- and i was using a specific definition when describing nature.
Really? You are going to hassle me about using the word like instead of actually discussing what I wrote? Like I said, your specific definition does not cover every case, but your debate question does.
You honestly cant see how ridiculous you sound.....
No matter how ridiculous I sound, the answer to the debate question is clearly yes. Using your definition and ignoring others makes you a fraud.
Oh i know what you're saying entirely; you are using the definition: "existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind."
Really? When I told you this before did you just ignore it?
I just wanted to make sure you were consistent.
That's a total lie.
But your definition is still flawed; the definition states "existing" or "caused", not "created" or "built"- in which such terms can be problematic in logical discourse.
Regardless, under this definition something unnatural can come from something natural.
Not sure how this fits into the argument between you two: Humans have sex to make new humans. Sex, reproduction, pregnancy, and birth are natural things. In Vitro fertilization is considered unnatural by some. If it is unnatural, then a natural process and an unnatural process can lead to the same thing.
So that means the creation of something natural is only functional but not injective. Would that be enough to suggest the converse?
So that means the creation of something natural is only functional but not injective. Would that be enough to suggest the converse?
It doesn't suggest the converse, but creating in vitro fertilization does. He will argue that humans are natural and came up with in vitro fertilization, so it is natural, but you provided a really good example of something unnatural.
Well, as technology advances, we will come up with techniques to directly alter the DNA of fertility-challenged individuals so that they can become pregnant naturally. Where is the line between natural and unnatural? How far can it be moved by technological advancement?
My point is basically that labels are generally cumbersome and only serve to create confusion and conflict. Like Natural vs Unnatural.
Well. For the case where a person's DNA is modified so that they become fertile, would the pregnancy be considered natural or unnatural?
I am just saying labels shift all the time. They make intellectual discourse difficult because every person has a slightly different connotation about most labels.
That is what I mean by drawing the line. The line you chose was that pregnancy is natural, but the procedure was not. Not everyone will agree with that line. It all gets fuzzier as technology progresses.
The line is worthless. Why is anyone making a judgement call on this? Because if the horrible connotation. Well, everyone needs to stop being pricks about it.
"Natural: existing in nature and not made or caused by people : coming from nature"
Only by dropping the second part of this commonly accepted definition does the term "unnatural" become not only illogical, but non-existent. So the answer is that yes, nature can create something unnatural given the entire commonly accepted definition of the word.
Accepting the definition you provide on the other side of the debate renders the word "unnatural" a fiction altogether. In certain contexts this may be an appropriate use of the term, but not generally speaking.
Accepting the definition you provide on the other side of the debate renders the word "unnatural" a fiction altogether. In certain contexts this may be an appropriate use of the term, but not generally speaking.
Precisely, I have clarified that I am not using the more conventional use of the term natural. This is what I believe is causing the most confusion. I have tried to clarify in the description of the debate the context in which i am using the term natural.
You are just playing (I say playing but it is actually very dull) with labels - semantics. Man made or unnatural are the opposite to natural. They are things unique to humans and their activity. If you say that everything that humans do is natural then what on Earth is unnatural to you?
For the context i am using the word 'natural' in nothing in the universe can be considered unnatural. I appreciate conventional uses of the word nature/natural but in this situation said conventions are not applicable.
It's like someone saying they are psychotic contextualizing the word interchangeably with the term 'crazy/hyper-active'- meaning, they aren't using the proper psychological definition for 'psycho' rather a conventional interchangeable use of the word crazy/hyper-active.
I think it is more like arguing that a rock is colourful because everything in the world has colour. It voids the word colourful and nature of any meaning whatsoever.
Not only is this a scientifically ignorant analogy it's also not representing my stance effectively. Do you think literary scholars didn't debate words when coming up with certain definitions and uses for them? Are you saying their work was entirely meaningless?
But let's just say your statement was scientifically accurate, is there a logical problem with that statement? If not, for someone to refute such a statement, would that make them illogical?
Language really is not your strong point as youve admitted many times. I think you should avoid trying to debate semantics.
Do you think literary scholars didn't debate words when coming up with certain definitions and uses for them? Are you saying their work was entirely meaningless?
You still havent come up with any definition of unnatural that is adequate. There are things in the world that we label as unnatural. What does it mean when people say that? You are saying that the word has no use. We are saying that it does and have explained why. Your ego is too huge to accept that - your problem.
But let's just say your statement was scientifically accurate, is there a logical problem with that statement? If not, for someone to refute such a statement, would that make them illogical?
Your argument is everything is natural because unnatural doesnt exist. It is circular. Once again it boils down to your usual arguing style of 'nuhuh your wrong' over and over.
Here is what I stated to Cartman: The act of explaining phenomenon is natural amongst humans; to which he replied that such a thing is unnatural as humans are the only species that does so rendering such a trait an unnatural trait. This absurdity led to this debate. An absurdity nonetheless as not only him saying that because humans are the only ones that does something renders that something unnatural; but also an absurdity as he is claiming a natural entity doing something that conforms with the laws of nature doing the unnatural.
P.S. He was basically saying 'religion' is unnatural because humans created the ideology, so basically if we find that chimps also have some sort of religion then religion now becomes natural... This didn't bother me too much as I am glad to know he is not only scientifically illiterate his illiteracy spans to general simplistic sectors of education. Essentially I must be more patient with this simpleton.
Bit of a narcissistic rage with the upvoting yourself there eh. Haha.
He was basically saying 'religion' is unnatural because humans created the ideology, so basically if we find that chimps also have some sort of religion then religion now becomes natural
Exactly. It would be an incredible discover to find that religion existed in nature - that it was natural. I dont see what you dont understand.
illiteracy spans to general simplistic sectors of education. Essentially I must be more patient with this simpleton.
As a 'dyslexic' person have you considered that maybe it is you that is the simpleton that cant understand the word unnatural? No one has supported you on this debate. A little introspection is needed me thinks.
I believe that your aggressive focusing on 'votes' obstructs your your intellect resulting in such simplistic arguments being unascertainable.
But I believe that you only disputed this comment just to illuminate my 'apparent' self-up-voting. You're first refutation consists of the amazement of discovering religion in other species as if that was what I was adressing- I was actually addressing how erroneous it is to say that only naturalness can be ascribed to a phenomenon only insomuch as it can be observed in more than one species (you are completely disregarding the fact that each species has certain characteristics that is unique to them.
As a 'dyslexic' person have you considered that maybe it is you that is the simpleton that cant understand the word unnatural? No one has supported you on this debate. A little introspection is needed me thinks
You must get on this site just to troll as I have clearly listed a definition in the description from which I have made an irrefutable sound argument upon.
This also illustrates your simplistic intellect as you have blatantly disregarded what dyslexia is given that you keep ascribing my asserted ignorance to a disability that infringes on my symbolic grammar- a word which you hysterically expressed your ignorance of, hysterical indeed as you are, supposedly, an English teacher (which is like being an astronomer not knowing how far away the sun is).
But again I believe you just commented just to explain to everyone that I up-voted myself (which isn't true but who cares? Well except for you, but your presence is meaningless on this site unless you're disputing some idiot religious individual who is throwing out apparent erroneous assertions; a disputation that simple people, as yourself, can somewhat handle).
I believe that your aggressive focusing on 'votes'
It is not aggression. It is just me laughing my arse off at how fragile your ego is. You post something, your accounts sign in one by one, and you have 4 up votes. It's very sad
ou're first refutation consists of the amazement of discovering religion in other species as if that was what I was adressing- I was actually addressing how erroneous it is to say that only naturalness can be ascribed to a phenomenon only insomuch as it can be observed in more than one species (you are completely disregarding the fact that each species has certain characteristics that is unique to them.
Just in one species? I said in human beings. They are different. A hospital is unnatural / man made because they are a human creation for example. Do you agree?
Last year I taught 3rd graders the difference between natural and man made. They didn't seem to have such a problem with it but then again they didn't have your ego so could actually admit their errors and learn.
It is not aggression. It is just me laughing my arse off at how fragile your ego is. You post something, your accounts sign in one by one, and you have 4 up votes. It's very sad
And to make this sound more true than it is you ignore the fact that I use each account actively. When I switch from one to another I argue a few points on that account, then switch repeat, etc. Secondly how would JavaScript and Harvard cause 5 up-votes given that I cant up-vote myself on this account? Lastly, why are you so concerned about votes? And if it was just funny to you, then why feel the need to keep posting on all of my arguments that has up-votes that I am up-voting myself?
Just in one species? I said in human beings. They are different. A hospital is unnatural / man made because they are a human creation for example. Do you agree?
Did you not understand anything that I just said? Please look over my statement and address it properly. Do you need me to dumb it down a little so you (an English teacher) can understand a little better.
Last year I taught 3rd graders the difference between natural and man made. They didn't seem to have such a problem with it but then again they didn't have your ego so could actually admit their errors and learn.
You taught them one definition. You can teach a child that gold is an color but that doesn't mean that they will later not understand that it is a element also.
Okay so under your definition a hospital is natural. Yes please dumb it down for me. I think your definition of nature means nothing at all. Nature is everything. Great definition. Very useful.
Oh and by the way is your obsession with me teaching English. It is something I do in my spare time. My formation is in law and I am a medical student. How about you mention one of those once in a while
This does not explain you obsessive need to comment every singe time. Most times you don't comment with a comical patina.
I think your definition of nature means nothing at all. Nature is everything. Great definition. Very useful.
I cannot really tell you where to go in order to find Webster's contacts but I shall see what one of my schools English professors suggests.
Oh and by the way is your obsession with me teaching English. It is something I do in my spare time. My formation is in law and I am a medical student. How about you mention one of those once in a while
Well... I honestly don't care about what you claim your other disciplines are, the fact that you teach English yet:
1 - you didn't (or perhaps still don't) know the definition of Grammar given that you have said that syntax and vocabulary is entirely separate from it;
2- you have openly stated murder is objectively wrong while asserting it as fact given the definition then kind of turned away once you began to realize that it more of a philosophical argument rather than a semantic one- you did this once you realized Amarel wouldn't agree that murder is objectively wrong.
3- you have recently stated objective beauty exists, but in the context it was used in then it would entail subjectivity. No one thing can be objectively beautiful.
Beautiful- pleasing the senses or mind aesthetically.
Objective:
1: not dependent on the mind for existence; actual.
2: (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
Now, please do let me know if 1, 2, or 3 is illusory as I will be happy to site these debates.
--
Oh and the dumbed down illustration you have requested:
Just because a phenomena is seen by only one species then that does not render it unnatural. To say: "religion is only seen in humans therefore it is unnatural" is erroneous at best as certain species have certain characteristics that are unique to them. We don't call platypuses unnatural because they are mammals that lay eggs and has venom. We dint call the Gila monster unnatural because it a lizard that is venomous.
Religion (true ones) is just a system that is used to explain things, the art of explanation was evolved in humans as it was a necessity for survival- just like other animals, such as the platypus, has evolved to do things that was essential for survival. Just because some things may seem weird does not somehow make it unnatural.
Just because a phenomena is seen by only one species then that does not render it unnatural. To say: "religion is only seen in humans therefore it is unnatural" is erroneous at best as certain species have certain characteristics that are unique to them. We don't call platypuses unnatural because they are mammals that lay eggs and has venom. We dint call the Gila monster unnatural because it a lizard that is venomous.
So basically i make an arguement against something and you just repeat the same thing I have already addressed over and over. You and LibProlifer should hook up.
Im not going to debate the objectivity with you. I think it is very interesting and complex you think it is very simple and that everything is subjective. I have explained why i believe there is an objective element to morality. You dont want to address my arguments on thst but rather just want to state over and over that ig is subjective because it is subjective because it is subjective because dictionary. Well good for you.
Most commonly use definitions of nature (within the context of the conversation you two were having) encompass that which is not created or impacted by humanity. By that definition, nature can not created that which is unnatural, only humanity could. Those definitions also hold that humanity itself is not natural, distinguishing between the realm of nature and the realm of humanity.
The definition I am using for natural is very simple- anything that exists and is produced by nature (or fits within the laws of nature).
Those definitions also hold that humanity itself is not natural, distinguishing between the realm of nature and the realm of humanity.
These are definitions directed towards religious discourse (the only way humans would be unnatural is if they weren't created in the way the laws of nature would entail (e.g. man being created by a rib)). This absurdity is not what I am arguing.
(the only way humans would be unnatural is if they weren't created in the way the laws of nature would entail (e.g. man being created by a rib)
That is hardly the only way. Common thought regarding humanity, be it with or without merit, is that we are indeed separate from other mammals, and indeed animals as a whole. Now considering we are within Animalia and we are Mammalian, that seems to be pretty silly, but it is still an incredibly widely held (if not overwhelmingly held) belief. With that belief being held, it is quite easy to separate us from the animal kingdom, and thus hold that our creations are not "natural".
I never said that it did, I merely stated that the idea of a human doing something outside the laws of nature is rather fictitious (or in the event that it actually happens supernatural).
but it's not the only definition.
I have told Cartman that there is 33 definitions of natural which illuminates the ambiguity of the term; however, he asserts that my use of natural is erroneous which of course is an erroneous assertion itself.
I have told Cartman that there is 33 definitions of natural which illuminates the ambiguity of the term;
You think 33 definitions help eliminate ambiguity? Why don't you create a debate about what ambiguity means? If there is one, just one definition that states that unnatural can come from nature, you lose. You have the burden of showing for every possible definition of unnatural that it can't come from nature.
It's a ''natural' human trait to present an outlandish theory, which is a self evident contradiction in terms, and then try to present it as a fact for the purposes of debate/argument. The very fact that we're here commenting on the topic shows that it's also a creative thread worth argument. My slant on the issue that all and everything which nature creates, must, by definition, be natural.
I guess it depends on your definition of unnatural, but I agree with you. If you believe in evolution, then humans, along with all other living organisms, are part of nature.
Can nature create something that is unnatural? ------ NO
The word nature is used in many meanings.
"untouched natural environment"
"Laws of nature"
"Mother nature"
"Human nature"
The question as posed in the OP is referring to the force of nature creating something. In this usage the word is understood to be (without) the influences of humans. The confusion of posts on this topic are rooted in the nuanced meanings of nature.
There is a decent amount of evidence to say that they are right in claiming that. So what? That does not mean that pedophiliac activity should be legal, as it obviously shouldn't considering it involves rape.
Yes and it also says that Homosexuality does not get to change our marriage laws just because they say they are born that way. Any person could use the same ludicrous argument to excuse their behavior. They will say they did it because they were born that way.
Even if it were true that Gays are born that way which I don't agree with, it matters not. Their sexual orientation is not normal or natural no matter how many times they try to force the Christian faith to agree. It does not deserve changing our marriage laws.
Save your thousand rapid fire responses because I will not be responding.
1) Why don't you agree that homosexuals are born that way? What evidence do you have that proves it's not from birth? If it's a choice, can you prove it by choosing to be gay for a day? I'm sure God would understand, as you could choose to go back, and think of how quickly this argument would be over!
2) Why does homosexual marriage hurt marriage laws?
Don't respond if you don't want to, but if you don't plan on responding, get off this site.
I will respond to the least of the extremists on this Liberal site. It is very hard finding an intelligent person willing to admit their controlling ideology, their hypocrisy and double standards.
I have no idea if a person is born a certain way or chooses to be bi sexual, or chooses to be straight and them changes to being Gay, or chooses to desire Children, or chooses to desire foot fetishes etc. etc. etc.
We have millions of weird people out there and if you think you know if they were all born that way, you are a liar!
There is no proof either way about any group of people. There have been psychologists and others who believe gays are born that way but have a mental disorder(until threatened by Gay activists). There are those who believe they were abused as a child or seduced as a teenager, etc.
I believe it is a choice because no one is FORCED to have sex with anyone. It is a choice. Whatever inner desires they may have towards different people may change in their lifetimes. When teenagers go through puberty, they can be curious about both sexes during this time.
No one knows for sure but it matters not because it is not normal or natural and not deserving of changing our marriage laws. They have every right to live as they see fit but that does not men changing our marriage laws. Our marriage laws are not some fad where any fringe group can change them. Do you want polygamy, do you want adults marrying consenting teens? It is a slippery slope that need not be. I believe Gays could care less about marriage. What they care about is being sanctioned as normal and marriage in their minds would do this. Gays want everyone to accept their lifestyles as normal and will force their beliefs through the courts on us all. Americans have every right to disagree with any group and we all have the right of our religious beliefs to DISAGREE!
I will respond to the least of the extremists on this Liberal site. It is very hard finding an intelligent person willing to admit their controlling ideology, their hypocrisy and double standards.
Then why don't you admit yours as well? I'd be happy to admit there are aspects of my ideology that involve government control, which I do find unfortunate. Now will you?
I believe it is a choice because no one is FORCED to have sex with anyone. It is a choice.
But sexuality and sexual orientation are about attraction, so do you think the attraction is a choice or not?
No one knows for sure but it matters not because it is not normal or natural and not deserving of changing our marriage laws.
Ignoring the problems with saying it is not unnatural, why do they not deserve their civil right and Constitutional rights?
They have every right to live as they see fit but that does not men changing our marriage laws.
What impact does it have on you to let them marry?
Our marriage laws are not some fad where any fringe group can change them.
Interracial marriage proponents were considered a fringe group with a weird fetish, and they changed them via the courts.
Do you want polygamy, do you want adults marrying consenting teens?
Nothing wrong with the first, though the second doesn't make sense as teens can not enter into a legally binding contract like marriage.
It is a slippery slope that need not be.
Where is the slippery slope in letting two consenting adults get married?
I believe Gays could care less about marriage.
Why do you believe you are justified in telling them what they think?
What they care about is being sanctioned as normal and marriage in their minds would do this.
Again, you are trying to tell them what they think, without even knowing them as people.
Gays want everyone to accept their lifestyles as normal and will force their beliefs through the courts on us all.
First, it is a sexual orientation, not a lifestyle. Second, how could they possibly force beliefs onto anyone? And how are you not forcing your beliefs onto them by preventing them from getting married?
Americans have every right to disagree with any group and we all have the right of our religious beliefs to DISAGREE!
But you do not have the right to deny them their rights just because you disagree, be it from a secular or religious perspective.
You said.... "I'd be happy to admit there are aspects of my ideology that involve government control, which I do find unfortunate."
FINALLY after all these posts where I constantly spoke to the controlling nature of the Left, you admit it. Now you know why I ignore you. I refuse to debate someone who spends so much time trying to deny the obvious.
I have never denied anything. The GOP is not a controlling party. You never give me any examples where the GOP makes new law that forces people to follow their ideology.
The only nauseating thing you do is bringing up a ludicrous argument of how the GOP is making laws banning Gay marriage. HOGWASH! They are fighting to keep the right's of states to keep their marriage laws the way they are and to choose for themselves the laws of their state concerning marriage. The Left is the one forcing Gay marriage laws on the states by the actions of one judge. If you bring that up again I will ignore you.
FINALLY after all these posts where I constantly spoke to the controlling nature of the Left, you admit it. Now you know why I ignore you. I refuse to debate someone who spends so much time trying to deny the obvious.
You are the one denying the obvious: BOTH of our ideologies include control. Every ideology short of anarchism, libertarianism and maybe Marxist Communism do. Why don't you admit it?
They are fighting to keep the right's of states to keep their marriage laws the way they are and to choose for themselves the laws of their state concerning marriage.
There is no right to that. None. Anywhere. You are fighting for Conservatives to deny civil and Constitutional rights to American citizens, and forcing them to adhere to your beliefs. You are a hypocrite.
I will respond to the least of the extremists on this Liberal site. It is very hard finding an intelligent person willing to admit their controlling ideology, their hypocrisy and double standards.
Have you ever changed any of your views, or realize you were wrong about anything? You realize you are much for of an extremist than most.
I have no idea if a person is born a certain way or chooses to be bi sexual, or chooses to be straight and them changes to being Gay, or chooses to desire Children, or chooses to desire foot fetishes etc. etc. etc.
Well, you might not have an idea, but you know does? People who have studied it. And you should be able to figure it out from personal experience. Did you choose to be straight? What are your favorite foods? Did you choose to like those? You don't choose your preferences. And those who have studied cognitive science have discovered that homosexuality is not a choice. Just because you are ignorant to the science doesn't mean you can make the point that "we don't know." We do. Just because you ignore the facts doesn't mean they don't exist.
We have millions of weird people out there and if you think you know if they were all born that way, you are a liar!
I did not make that argument. However, because of the science that has shown that homosexuality is genetic, I believe that. You have, in the past, been presented with a lot of viable evidence that homosexuality is not a choice. If you want to ignore it, I can't help you. Uneducated ramblings are just that.
There is no proof either way about any group of people. There have been psychologists and others who believe gays are born that way but have a mental disorder(until threatened by Gay activists). There are those who believe they were abused as a child or seduced as a teenager, etc.
Incorrect. The general scientific community who has studied this believe that homosexuality is genetic. The reason people used to argue that is because not enough studies had been done. Some people do believe that homosexuality comes from those who were abused as children or seduced, but there is NO EVIDENCE FOR THAT. There are probably some people who think that homosexuals are giant lizard people in human suits. That doesn't mean that there is scientific doubt about the topic, just that there are ignorant people making claims to fit their personal beliefs, not based on facts.
I believe it is a choice because no one is FORCED to have sex with anyone. It is a choice. Whatever inner desires they may have towards different people may change in their lifetimes. When teenagers go through puberty, they can be curious about both sexes during this time.
Sexual preference and sexual activity are different. You can be straight and have sex with someone of the same gender, that doesn't make you gay. And if inner desires change over life, how does that prove that these desires are a choice?
No one knows for sure but it matters not because it is not normal or natural and not deserving of changing our marriage laws.
Why? WHY? Please explain. If it was genetic, would that change your mind? And don't say just because being straight is a majority, that means everyone other than straight people. Because there are more people of Chinese ethnicity on this planet than any other, should only Chinese people be allowed to be married?
But seriously. What is your evidence that homosexuality is not normal or natural, other than your personal opinion? Where did your personal opinion come from? If it comes from good reason, you should be able to convince others.
They have every right to live as they see fit but that does not men changing our marriage laws. Our marriage laws are not some fad where any fringe group can change them.
If you are going to allow them to live their lives as they see fit, why are you denying the same opportunities (tax breaks, legitimacy, etc.) that you allow others? A homosexual marriage does not inherently hurt anyone in or out of the relationship.
Do you want polygamy, do you want adults marrying consenting teens? It is a slippery slope that need not be.
Both of these are different because they are manful to one or more people in the relationships.
I believe Gays could care less about marriage.
False.
What they care about is being sanctioned as normal and marriage in their minds would do this.
How crazy. They think being treated like everyone else would make them feel like they were being treated equally. What a shame.
Gays want everyone to accept their lifestyles as normal and will force their beliefs through the courts on us all. Americans have every right to disagree with any group and we all have the right of our religious beliefs to DISAGREE!
Right. That's why racists should be allowed to refuse service to blacks. And a misogynistic doctor is allowed to just not serve women. You have a right to disagree. That doesn't give you a right to control other's lives, or force your opinions onto other people.
Homosexuality is found in nature in various animals. Also, it hurts no one provided STD testing and other factors. Save your bigotry, Christians are rejecting it.
Regardless of whether or not it is natural or not, the act of marriage is not a religious one. The ones that happen in churches are religious, the marriage certificate and status changes are not. Since we are talking about marriage laws, that means we are only referring to the secular portion of marriage because the United States follows the separation of church and state.
A marriage certificate and status change associated with it are rights provided to every US citizen, including gay ones. Until there is an amendment repealing the 14th amendment, all citizens must be treated equally under the law.
Let me repeat........................................................................................FOOL!
I never suggested anything like that. I said Pedophiles use the same arguments of Gays. That they are born that way so therefore it is not their choice. The obvious point being just because some believes they are born a certain way, does not make it normal or natural.
From a genetic standpoint, it would be interesting to find gay genes, straight genes or pedophilia genes. Maybe mapping the entire phenotype expression of sexual orientation. Then, you could figure out what is nature, and what is purely nurture.
If pedophilia or necrophilia turn out to be genetic, would that make them acceptable? Open the can of worms of genetic modification to remove undesirable traits? That would definitely be a slippery slope.