EMW

I don't think that NS's arguments are valid. That is a matter of opinion.

I will have to respectfully disagree with you. Think about the boundary issue. If we push hard enough and break down this barrier, then we are that much closer to destroying barriers regarding drugs, rampant sex, murder, pornography, NAMBLA, etc. Once we say that something taboo is acceptable, other taboo activities (harmful or otherwise) will have less of a case to be illegal or considered wrong. Once we go far enough, get liberal enough, then there will eventually be no limits. When that day comes society will be really screwed up, and it'll be because we had to see how far we could go.

No, homosexuality doesn't harm society as it stands. Infact NS, it is probably doing society a favor by limiting population

.
Then that does seem to show that you support it in some way. There are many things that would do society a favor but are still wrong.

Rackfocus, the articles were found with a google search on "homosexuality harmful to society"

If sex is strictly for procreation, then heterosexual couples should only have sex to have children.

You know church teaching, and I don't need to quote it to you. Sex is fine in a marriage and if it is open to life. Please don't twist my meanings around. There's options such as natural family planning, in which a women can learn her cycle so well that her fertility time can be narrowed down to a week. The couple can do whatever in the other 3 weeks with a success rate of 99.999% which is far better than contraceptives.

No, it is not an invalid argument. It matches your case completely. I know that it is extreme, but it is still totally valid, as you still have not given a good reason against my point. You cant. Just like VIPs last post, when its up to human perspective, anything can be accurate. Look at the logic of your argument, it contradicts itself, no matter what extremes you take it to. We can back up if you would like, marrying underage. I could use your argument against you here too. Taking it to the extreme just contrasts it more, and makes it more easy to get the picture.

Chopping off a hand in the OT was totally legit. So you can say, "why dont we do that today if the Bible never changes?" Well, it doesn't. This is what I mean by you being in the Word. You would know that Jesus set a new way. This punishment is not the case anymore. If we listen to the whole Bible, you would know that chopping off a hand is not acceptable. And if you truly understood the Bible, you would realize that it had to be written by God! There is absolutely no no no feasible way that it could have possibly come close to being written by man. The prophecies, the science, everything. So your society statement only applies to the individual society (us), and nothing against the Bible.

And NS, I was disagreeing with your post about diseases being spread. That is a human choice. But it looks like you have this right on, I am not contradicting you at all.

And no, I am not for it, not in a million years. I said that out of context of your argument. Debates go on forever when individual facts are taken, and I know that those facts you provided could probably be twisted very easily, so I was saving the trouble. I think it is better to step out and look at the full picture of what it is doing for future generations to come, not to each individual involved...

And how does the act positively affect society as a whole?

I added more to that post. I think we posted at the same time, so I didn't get to read your reply.

It doesn't what so ever. You are dead on...

*Hi-five* Great, we're all on the same pages as far as understanding our beliefs go then.

I've lived among many different religions, and all religious texts are interpreted differently. In the Muslim religion, stealing is worthy of getting your hand chopped off, and adultery (female) was rewarded with death by stoning in the OT.

Well, I think the people fighting against you on this topic are all Christians. Also, that doesn't mean the Muslim religion is correct? Take for example the Mormon religion. They have the bible and the Book of Mormon. They added to the bible and I suppose that the Muslim religion did too.

They created there own rules I guess you could say, but I am not either, so I believe that their religion is in fact... Wrong.

O my gosh. Yeah, Muslims and Mormons do not follow the Bible at all. Totally invalid argument. They are not a denomination, they are a totally different religion.

Neighborhood Studios wrote:
Rackfocus, the articles were found with a google search on "homosexuality harmful to society"

If you quote articles, you need to link the articles.

If sex is strictly for procreation, then heterosexual couples should only have sex to have children.

You know church teaching, and I don't need to quote it to you. Sex is fine in a marriage and if it is open to life. Please don't twist my meanings around. There's options such as natural family planning, in which a women can learn her cycle so well that her fertility time can be narrowed down to a week. The couple can do whatever in the other 3 weeks with a success rate of 99.999% which is far better than contraceptives.

No, that is an incorrect success rate. The true rates are ones I would not trust.

* Typical use: 25%

* Perfect use: 1-9%

http://www.pamf.org/teen/sex/birthcontr ... ethod.html

envisageworks wrote:No, it is not an invalid argument. It matches your case completely. I know that it is extreme, but it is still totally valid, as you still have not given a good reason against my point. You cant. Just like VIPs last post, when its up to human perspective, anything can be accurate. Look at the logic of your argument, it contradicts itself, no matter what extremes you take it to. We can back up if you would like, marrying underage. I could use your argument against you here too. Taking it to the extreme just contrasts it more, and makes it more easy to get the picture.

What do you mean I haven't given a good point? You are comparing human sex to sex with animate objects and animals. That is not a valid comparison, and it's one that would get you laughed at in a real debate.
Like I said, you can take anything to the extreme in any debate. Anything. To do so would be doing a great disservice to your argument.

Chopping off a hand in the OT was totally legit. So you can say, "why dont we do that today if the Bible never changes?" Well, it doesn't. This is what I mean by you being in the Word. You would know that Jesus set a new way. This punishment is not the case anymore. If we listen to the whole Bible, you would know that chopping off a hand is not acceptable. And if you truly understood the Bible, you would realize that it had to be written by God! There is absolutely no no no feasible way that it could have possibly come close to being written by man. The prophecies, the science, everything. So your society statement only applies to the individual society (us), and nothing against the Bible.

But if Jesus is God, why would Jesus set a new way? OT God is a pissed off God who suddenly turns chilled because He died (through Jesus)? I'm not attacking...asking really. That has never made sense to me. If God is all knowing, he'd know that He would die for human beings in order to forgive them of their sins...that seems a little redundant. And if human beings have free will, what if Jesus hadn't been killed?

noeylani94 wrote:

I've lived among many different religions, and all religious texts are interpreted differently. In the Muslim religion, stealing is worthy of getting your hand chopped off, and adultery (female) was rewarded with death by stoning in the OT.

Well, I think the people fighting against you on this topic are all Christians. Also, that doesn't mean the Muslim religion is correct? Take for example the Mormon religion. They have the bible and the Book of Mormon. They added to the bible and I suppose that the Muslim religion did too.

As the NT added to the old OT, right?

They created there own rules I guess you could say, but I am not either, so I believe that their religion is in fact... Wrong.

As did Christian churches. Every church formed has done so because it didn't want to abide by the rules their present church was using. A well known example is the Church of England. Henry got angry he couldn't divorce, so he created a brand new religion.

rackfocus wrote:What do you mean I haven't given a good point? You are comparing human sex to sex with animate objects and animals. That is not a valid comparison, and it's one that would get you laughed at in a real debate.
Like I said, you can take anything to the extreme in any debate. Anything. To do so would be doing a great disservice to your argument.

Actually not only is it a well accepted debate tactic, it's in the book. You're comparing homosexual sex to heterosexual sex. You're effectively saying that you can compare apples to oranges but we can't compare apples to squash because they're not both fruits, or something like that. Now it's our job to show you that you're just using ambiguous levels of classification to your own tastes and purposes witch is illegal in a debate. You have not come up with a logical reason why we should not be able to marry animals other than, "Because I said so."

If you quote articles, you need to link the articles.

In all honesty I did a thorough search but was unable to find it again. It was under an Associated Press story, but those get buried quickly. And if you think I'm a liar who was bending the facts to prove a point, then we have deeper issues to solve first. I will not and never have quoted anything that I made up. I've trusted you and I don't think I've given you reason to doubt me.

VIP wrote:
Actually not only is it a well accepted debate tactic, it's in the book. You're comparing homosexual sex to heterosexual sex. You're effectively saying that you can compare apples to oranges but we can't compare apples to squash because they're not both fruits, or something like that. Now it's our job to show you that you're just using ambiguous levels of classification to your own tastes and purposes witch is illegal in a debate. You have not come up with a logical reason why we should not be able to marry animals other than, "Because I said so."

Well accepted within what circles? Not in any personal debate I have encountered, nor on political sites I have debated on.

Laws are in place to prevent these acts. Written laws. Laws more concrete than Biblical teaching. Can laws be changed? Yes, just as easily as Biblical teaching can be interpreted differently to suit the times.

Obviously we are at a stalemate with this point, so it's pretty pointless to keep going in circles.

Neighborhood Studios wrote:

If you quote articles, you need to link the articles.

In all honesty I did a thorough search but was unable to find it again. It was under an Associated Press story, but those get buried quickly. And if you think I'm a liar who was bending the facts to prove a point, then we have deeper issues to solve first. I will not and never have quoted anything that I made up. I've trusted you and I don't think I've given you reason to doubt me.

Of course I am not calling you a liar, NS. It is standard practice among internet debaters to post links to where they get their facts.

Of course I am not calling you a liar, NS. It is standard practice among internet debaters to post links to where they get their facts.

I know. But also keep in mind the the opinion of the writer that I quoted referenced his facts - which you could have easily pulled up for yourself with a quick search. But that's besides the point.

I think we have argued ourselves into a corner as well . Does anyone else have any other point to make?[/quote]

rackfocus wrote:

VIP wrote:
Actually not only is it a well accepted debate tactic, it's in the book. You're comparing homosexual sex to heterosexual sex. You're effectively saying that you can compare apples to oranges but we can't compare apples to squash because they're not both fruits, or something like that. Now it's our job to show you that you're just using ambiguous levels of classification to your own tastes and purposes witch is illegal in a debate. You have not come up with a logical reason why we should not be able to marry animals other than, "Because I said so."

Well accepted within what circles? Not in any personal debate I have encountered, nor on political sites I have debated on.

You've been in a debate crew or club haven't you? It's a debate tactic used in conjunction with levels of classification not unlike an analogy. If there is a valid reason for one classification that is invalid for the next higher classification it's a valid argument. If the reason is valid for both classifications or invalid for both the defendant, (you) has to come up with a valid argument. You have failed to do so. And I know I'm not being very clear on this but it's been a long time. All you need to do is come up with a reason that applies to one but not the other classification, (I don't believe there is one but I don't know, perhaps I just didn't look hard enough) If you continue to say, "because I said so" and "your finished just give it up" that's like saying, "I don't feel like talking about it right now." Follow the rules and back up your statements.

P.S. So what if there's a law against it? Times change.

VIP wrote:

rackfocus wrote:

VIP wrote:
Actually not only is it a well accepted debate tactic, it's in the book. You're comparing homosexual sex to heterosexual sex. You're effectively saying that you can compare apples to oranges but we can't compare apples to squash because they're not both fruits, or something like that. Now it's our job to show you that you're just using ambiguous levels of classification to your own tastes and purposes witch is illegal in a debate. You have not come up with a logical reason why we should not be able to marry animals other than, "Because I said so."

Well accepted within what circles? Not in any personal debate I have encountered, nor on political sites I have debated on.

You've been in a debate crew or club haven't you? It's a debate tactic used in conjunction with levels of classification not unlike an analogy. If there is a valid reason for one classification that is invalid for the next higher classification it's a valid argument. If the reason is valid for both classifications or invalid for both the defendant, (you) has to come up with a valid argument. You have failed to do so. And I know I'm not being very clear on this but it's been a long time. All you need to do is come up with a reason that applies to one but not the other classification, (I don't believe there is one but I don't know, perhaps I just didn't look hard enough) If you continue to say, "because I said so" and "your finished just give it up" that's like saying, "I don't feel like talking about it right now." Follow the rules and back up your statements.

P.S. So what if there's a law against it? Times change.

I never said "because I said so", verbatim or not. Society says so. Written law says so. I've been a moderator on the largest political site on the internet for over four years, and every time anyone uses that argument, their argument is instantly less valid. I did debate my sophomore year of high school, so it's been a while.

Society and law are very relative and subject to change. I'd prefer something a little more concrete please.