Yeah, this is completely normal…😳

saintpaulguy

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2009
Messages
10,860
Reaction score
5,368
Points
113
You don't need to know that Ford designed the car, to take the car you have apart and analyze its design.

We know how DNA works. We know homosexuality is part of the natural fluctuations and seen in other species.
That's not really where I'm going with that. There is a theological component when talking about design of the universe. It presupposes an intelligent benevolent designer. That way, when something happens that you don't agree with, you can say "that isn't according to design". Well, whose got the blueprints?
For more on this topic, you can read about St. Thomas Aquinas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Aquinas#Nature_of_God
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
21,792
Reaction score
3,874
Points
113
Would you like to clarify what you meant by "up next people and their pets"? Because it's the same trope used by anti-gay folks who want to ban gay marriage for years....
Yeah, that‘s a potential next rationalization of feelings, just like the professor pedosplaining his feelings.
What exactly does "not normal" "not natural" mean?
I’ve already explained that. Sex was designed for reproduction. Homosexuality is not an intended design. It is however a happenstance or an occurrence.
Because that's not equal treatment. I don't care how many women you sleep with or have in your home. But you only get government/legal benefits for one wife.
Why? Why can’t an argument be made to change the law…b/c “love is love“? Government and law is just a reflection of society‘s beliefs and values, and those can change, no?
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
21,792
Reaction score
3,874
Points
113
That doesn't answer my question. What "normalizing" that is occurring now do you want stopped?

Demanding that I accept it as ordinary. I can accept it without endorsing it.
You seem to like to talk out of both sides of your mouth on this. One post it's "Up next, people and their pets!" and "it's not not normal. It's not natural" and the next it's "of course I don't discriminate." You're not alone in this. It's the dance about half of R's do these days.
Pretty sure I’ve answer that.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
59,748
Reaction score
15,397
Points
113
Yeah, that‘s a potential next rationalization of feelings, just like the professor pedosplaining his feelings.
Is "potential rationalization by a professor" something you're concerned about? Do you think this will translate to a broad push of folks demanding to marry their pet?
I’ve already explained that. Sex was designed for reproduction. Homosexuality is not an intended design. It is however a happenstance or an occurrence.
Not intended according to who? Your religion?

Why? Why can’t an argument be made to change the law…b/c “love is love“? Government and law is just a reflection of society‘s beliefs and values, and those can change, no?
You can make the argument. But either you are demanding more benefits for more wives, which is unequal or you're demanding that the government/legal system divide things 3/4/10 ways which invariably burdens the system and consumes more resources. Also unfair. I don't want you sucking up my tax dollars for you 12 wives. Small government! Fiscal responsibility! Nothing is made more expensive substituting your wife for your husband.
 



KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
21,792
Reaction score
3,874
Points
113
Is "potential rationalization by a professor" something you're concerned about? Do you think this will translate to a broad push of folks demanding to marry their pet?
The point is that is a continuation of eroding traditional principles via rationalizations of various explanations. I never said that it would “translate to a broad push of folks demanding to marrying their pet”.
Not intended according to who? Your religion?
Nature. Whether you believe that is due to nature or god, the purpose of sex is reproduction.
You can make the argument. But either you are demanding more benefits for more wives, which is unequal or you're demanding that the government/legal system divide things 3/4/10 ways which invariably burdens the system and consumes more resources. Also unfair. I don't want you sucking up my tax dollars for you 12 wives. Small government! Fiscal responsibility! Nothing is made more expensive substituting your wife for your husband.
One wife is enough for me. Based on your comment, I guess you have a problem with families having lots of children then too. Lots more tax deductions. In any case, you seem to be admitting that our laws are based on judeo-Christian values. Hmmm.
 



MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
31,509
Reaction score
8,178
Points
113
The point is that is a continuation of eroding traditional principles
Ah, making the pivot away from "not by design" to "well, it's just tradition of the way things ought to be".

Who couldn't see that coming. :ROFLMAO:
 



MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
31,509
Reaction score
8,178
Points
113
God designed DNA such that it would make gay people, on purpose, because God knew that would help control overpopulation.

You can't disprove it. :)
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
59,748
Reaction score
15,397
Points
113
The point is that is a continuation of eroding traditional principles via rationalizations of various explanations. I never said that it would “translate to a broad push of folks demanding to marrying their pet”.
What will it lead to then? "Next up people and their pets!" seems like it leads somewhere more sinister than "erosion of values" via college think-pieces that 99.9% of people will never read.....

Nature. Whether you believe that is due to nature or god, the purpose of sex is reproduction.
So 99% of all sex is "unnatural"?

One wife is enough for me. Based on your comment, I guess you have a problem with families having lots of children then too. Lots more tax deductions.
Our tax system is not the best. A flat tax is the answer! Steve Forbes 2024! (is he still alive)?

In any case, you seem to be admitting that our laws are based on judeo-Christian values. Hmmm.
Your point is?
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
59,748
Reaction score
15,397
Points
113
Oh come on. You’re sitting here right now and demanding that I accept it as normal. You and the entire left. If not, what are you arguing?
No, I'm calling out your fence-sitting. You want to bring up how abnormal and unnatural it is and bring up people marrying their pets. But also pretend you're Mr. tolerant of gay people. Which is it?

The only demand is equal treatment by the government.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
21,792
Reaction score
3,874
Points
113
What will it lead to then? "Next up people and their pets!" seems like it leads somewhere more sinister than "erosion of values" via college think-pieces that 99.9% of people will never read.....
Sinister is your word and conclusion. But you’re ignoring that it was somewhat, albeit not exclusively, a tongue in cheek comment. Is this where you say “lighten up Francis”?
So 99% of all sex is "unnatural"?
No. Reproduction doesn’t have to be the goal. Sexual attraction is a natural physiological phenomenon designed to encourage reproduction. If reproduction is not possible, it’s purpose is not by design or evolutionary possible.
Our tax system is not the best. A flat tax is the answer! Steve Forms 2024! (is he still alive)?
I’m all for a flat tax. But you’re deflecting.
Your point is?
Pretty simple. Judeo-Christian values traditionally did not accept homosexuality as natural or normal. In fact, they reject it...so as we are less guided by those founding values, we move away from those values and the laws change to reflect a different value system. The slippery slope.
 



MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
31,509
Reaction score
8,178
Points
113
"Encouraging reproduction" is not the only consideration for God's design.

I won.

You can shut it down now.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
21,792
Reaction score
3,874
Points
113
No, I'm calling out your fence-sitting. You want to bring up how abnormal and unnatural it is and bring up people marrying their pets. But also pretend you're Mr. tolerant of gay people. Which is it?

The only demand is equal treatment by the government.
I believe I’ve fully explained my position. If someone has a handicap, I don’t have to favor the handicap to suggest that they shouldn’t be discriminated against. I can also accept that handicaps exist, though not necessarily intended by nature.

Just to avoid another line of questioning, I’m making an analogy.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
59,748
Reaction score
15,397
Points
113
If reproduction is not possible, it’s purpose is not by design
So, sex between people over 50 is unnatural?
Pretty simple. Judeo-Christian values traditionally did not accept homosexuality as natural or normal. In fact, they reject it...so as we are less guided by those founding values, we move away from those values and the laws change to reflect a different value system. The slippery slope.
If it's a slippery slope, shouldn't we ban gay marriage and drive gay people back into the closet like it was in the good old days? Weren't we a "more Christian" nation then?
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
21,792
Reaction score
3,874
Points
113
So, sex between people over 50 is unnatural?
You’re not comprehending. I said reproduction does not have to be the goal and the sexual attraction as a physiological phenomenon‘s purpose is to encourage reproduction. It doesn’t mean that it can’t exist without it. Obviously, a man can be attracted to a man, but the existence of the attraction is without the original purpose b/c men can’t reproduce with men.
If it's a slippery slope, shouldn't we ban gay marriage and drive gay people back into the closet like it was in the good old days? Weren't we a "more Christian" nation then?
Marriage is a religious sacrament, but society, b/c it‘s laws and values are based on J-C values, embraced it as law. But that bridge has been crossed and I’m not interested in wasting time arguing its existence. But you know that Barack Obama held the position that marriage was between a man and a woman before he became President. Was he lying or did he change his mind? What was your feeling in the 90’s?
 



kg21

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 25, 2021
Messages
3,098
Reaction score
1,390
Points
113
So, sex between people over 50 is unnatural?

If it's a slippery slope, shouldn't we ban gay marriage and drive gay people back into the closet like it was in the good old days? Weren't we a "more Christian" nation then?
I've always said, bang your boyfriend into oblivion.

It's not marriage though. If they took marriage away from you, you could still bang your boyfriend into oblivion.
 





saintpaulguy

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2009
Messages
10,860
Reaction score
5,368
Points
113
I've always said, bang your boyfriend into oblivion.

It's not marriage though. If they took marriage away from you, you could still bang your boyfriend into oblivion.
Think that one through. Are unmarried heterosexual couples unable to have intercourse where you live?
 


howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
59,748
Reaction score
15,397
Points
113
You’re not comprehending. I said reproduction does not have to be the goal and the sexual attraction as a physiological phenomenon‘s purpose is to encourage reproduction. It doesn’t mean that it can’t exist without it. Obviously, a man can be attracted to a man, but the existence of the attraction is without the original purpose b/c men can’t reproduce with men.
You're making a religious argument, not a scientific one. That is the point.

Marriage is a religious sacrament, but society, b/c it‘s laws and values are based on J-C values, embraced it as law. But that bridge has been crossed and I’m not interested in wasting time arguing its existence. But you know that Barack Obama held the position that marriage was between a man and a woman before he became President. Was he lying or did he change his mind? What was your feeling in the 90’s?
And I don't care if your church refuses to marry gay people or divorced people or Catholics to non-Catholics. But we do not live in a "Judeo-Christian" theocracy, despite the fact that a large chunk of one of our political parties very much wishes it were so.

30 years ago, a majority of people thought gay people were "abnormal and unnatural" because they didn't know any. Or they didn't realize they did. So they believed the worst things they were told about them. That changed for the majority of people. Unfortunately it's taken some much longer and some will never get there. Racial attitudes followed a similar path.
 


KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
21,792
Reaction score
3,874
Points
113
You're making a religious argument, not a scientific one. That is the point.
I am absolutely NOT making a religious argument about the normalcy of heterosexual sex and homosexual sex. Let me know when a man can impregnate another man or a woman a woman. That’s science idiot.
And I don't care if your church refuses to marry gay people or divorced people or Catholics to non-Catholics. But we do not live in a "Judeo-Christian" theocracy, despite the fact that a large chunk of one of our political parties very much wishes it were so.

30 years ago, a majority of people thought gay people were "abnormal and unnatural" because they didn't know any. Or they didn't realize they did. So they believed the worst things they were told about them. That changed for the majority of people. Unfortunately it's taken some much longer and some will never get there. Racial attitudes followed a similar path.
No one said we live in a religious theocracy, but if you don’t recognize that our society and laws were significantly based on Judeo-Christian principles, you’re an idiot.

Science regarding homosexuality didn’t change in the last 30 years. Social values changed. Thanks for making my argument for me.
 
Last edited:

Wally

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
12,704
Reaction score
5,592
Points
113
I am absolutely NOT making a religious argument about the normalcy of heterosexual sex and homosexual sex. Let me know when a man can impregnate another man or a woman a woman. That science idiot.
Who cares?
🤷🏼‍♂️
 




Top Bottom