How can homosexuality not be a perversion?

That isn't the point. This is why I'm asking you about being 'on point'.

See? Think about what is on point here.

Do I have explain it to you? I suppose I do, since you keep pressing this red herring question.

THe fact that homosexuals can't have babies is irrelevant to debate of whether or not the activity is perverse, or unnatural.

The logic you're using goes something like this 'if everyone were homosexual, the species would become extinct'.

But, since we are talking about nature. Well, then nature is relevant. What occurs in nature, in reality, must, therefore, be pertinent to the argument.

so, what does, indeed, occur in nature?

See? In nature, homosexuals overcoming the population to the exclusion of heterosexuals is not a plausible reality. It hasn't happened, ever, that I know of. In Nature, there will ALWAYS be a vast supply of heterosexuals to further the race. Nature produces anomalies OTHER than homosexuality who can't further the race, as well, and yet you focus only on homosexuals. It sounds like bigotry, but I won't go that far.

Therefore, your question is premised on a red herring.

Not to mention the simple fact that homosexuality is not limited to humans, it's in the animal kingdom as well, and by that measure, homosexuality is a natural biproduct of nature.

Homosexuality is natural. It's pervasive.

There is no other conclusion one can draw after a thorough examination of nature, on the whole, is made.

is it an anomaly? One could make that argument.

But anomalies are natural, nature if rife with them. Well over a hundred million people in the world are gay.

 

I am of the impression that homosexuality is a beloved attribute in Brazil and I also sense that your line of reasoning is embedded with thorns, looking for a double meaning in anything to do with the discussion on homosexuality ... just as you are doing at this very moment. I mentioned TV (all media actually) because where I live homosexuality is sublimely praised in many, many ways and the slightest question of its acceptability is censored altogether. I have now “substantiated my claim” on the point of "in plain sight". Are you satisfied?

 

I'm simply stating that there are no circumstances known to mankind and the history of the planet were two people of the same sex were able to lay together and produce a child.

If you know of any case the contradicts that it will be interesting to see it. I'm sure biological science would be very surprised!

 

Nobody in this discussion has refuted that. Many of us are trying to explain that it is not a valid argument against non-heterosexuality, FatBack. It's irrelevant.

 

Since your argument is predicated on your second sentence, I'm just going to counter that statement.

The desire for children has nothing to do with my premise.

Lust leads to sex, sex leads to children, intended or otherwise, eventually.

Because of 'eventually' we exist. That's the only design of nature. Lust will ultimately lead to children, and that fact alone, is the mechanism by which we exist. Love has nothing to do with it, intent has nothing to do with it, success at prevention has nothing to do with it. The juggernaut of nature's lust eventually produces offspring, and is why we are here, come hell or high water.

It's similar to fruits have seeds, not all fruits on a tree will have them, but many do, and not all seeds will take root as the fruit falls and decays, but some seeds will, whether the tree wants it or not. Thus nature produces fruit, eventually, It's just force of nature that offspring come to be. Nature doesn't get into details, style, who wants what, type of sex, gender, or any of that. Nature says, "I'll give humans sexual desire, and eventually I will get my babies." That's it.

My premise, therefore, stands, which is: "we exist because of lust". By lust, I mean, sexual desire (without any further qualification).

 

Lust isn't the problem. Humans are the problem.

FYI, my beliefs are more in accord with eastern philosophy, ie., 'karma' 'reincarnation' 'nature rewards right conduct'. EP treats nature as a divine thing, but there isn't really a 'god' in the christian sense, but there is divinity, an eternal soul.

 

Now you're running with myth. A male can get erections even when he doesn't want to. It happens to male rape victims a lot. Even so a willing homosexual male, assuming that he could not get it up on his own, could also use Viagra. It's not only possible, it's been done.

 

I noticed that you failed to answer the question. Would you be suddenly turned into a homosexual or a bisexual if you were forced to engage in homosexual sex by threat to your or a loved one's life?

 

Maybe it's a miscommunication on my part. I was not trying to say that lust will not result in children. I am saying that it might not be the primary motivator, at least in given eras.

 

Selfish pleasure is not the purpose of sex.

 

There is no contradiction. A person is not a behavior.

 

Yes it is, if someone wants it to be that way. Don't tell other people what to do, or they will tell you what to do.....

 

Why do you consider sex with a consensual partner "selfish"? Both are pleasuring each other. I would call that the opposite of selfish

 

Has that person showed remorse for, and subsequently ceased, his/her behavior of raping and child molesting? If so, then yes. Why would I define a person's whole life by a particular moment/period of one's life.

All people sin. All people have skeletons in their closet. Even the worst of the worst of sinners can feel true remorse for their 'old ways', set those evil ways aside, and subsequently adopt 'new ways' that are good. "Go, and sin no more", as the Bible says.

Precisely.

 

Can't do that.

 

Well, in the cases of rape or child molestation, it may have been a particular “moment/period” in time for the criminal but it’s a lifetime of hell for the victims. But hey…who cares about the victims as long as the criminal shows “remorse”, amiright?!

 

Says who? If someone is doing it because they get pleasure out of it, then obviously it IS the purpose of sex, for them. If you don't get any pleasure out of it, then that's your problem.

 

Procreation (the possibility of it, as well as the duties and responsibilities attendant upon it) is at the very basis of marriage as an institution, and to separate that from marriage is to render the whole institution irrelevant and unnecessary.

Marriage is a union between a man and a woman in which both of them are joined together as a single body. This specific union is formed and officially recognized via a contract between the man, the woman, and some sort of authority. Marriage is about providing an environment (and a solid foundation) for having and raising children. "Gay marriage" (it is not a marriage) is simply a mockery/bastardization of marriage.

No. You are trying to change the principle of the matter via fallaciously appealing to "the abnormal" as if it were "the normal".

It doesn't debunk anything. I have already called out your fallacy here and explained why it is a fallacy.

I have already addressed this fallacy of yours here: http://politicalforum.com/index.php...-a-perversion.561613/page-128#post-1073408710

Repeating it, rather than addressing my rebuttal to it, does not make it true.

You have not debunked anything for the reasons I have provided in the linked post above.

No it doesn't. See the link I provided above.

No.

No, because infertility is ABNORMAL... it is NOT NORMAL... It does not change THE PRINCIPLE OF THE MATTER, which is about what is NORMAL.

The mistake is yours, as you keep fallaciously trying to equate "the abnormal" to "the normal". You keep trying to act as if rare abnormalities somehow negate the normal, that they somehow negate the principle of the matter.

See my link above. This has all already been addressed there.

 

It is indeed a purpose of sex. Sex, like other actions and body parts, has multiple purposes, and they do not always have to be met. Sex can be for procreation without pleasure, and it can be for pleasure without procreation, or it can be for both. It can also be for exercise or trade.

 

That gay people are born in to the world as gay is a natural process. It is their nature. Calling it a perversion is a judgement founded in religious based moralistic beliefs, masquerading as a belief in a violation of natural law.

 

Wait.......what?

Supreme Court Declares Same-Sex Marriage Legal In All 50 States

States cannot keep same-sex couples from marrying and must recognize their unions, the Supreme Court says in a ruling that for months has been the focus of speculation. The decision was 5-4.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, seen as a pivotal swing vote in the case, wrote the majority opinion. All four justices who voted against the ruling wrote their own dissenting opinions: Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

"They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law," Kennedy wrote of same-sex couples in the case. "The Constitution grants them that right."
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...ules-all-states-must-allow-same-sex-marriages

 

You are somehow not aware same-sex marriage is legal in the US?

Marriage is whatever two people who are married decide it is. It CAN be about having and raising children. It can ALSO be about two people committing to each other in a union formed and officially recognized via a contract between two people and some sort of authority.
Do you consider a marriage of hetero couples who decide not to have and raise children as not being a marriage? Do you consider this as also being a mockery/bastardization of marriage?

 

In all honesty, I have to counter this as the difference between legal definitions and other definitions. Let's take incest for an example. Typically most people see it as sex between blood related people either 2 or 3 steps removed or less. A sib or parent or child would be one step, for reference. However, per many laws, incest can include those who are only related by law. For example, depending on area, Greg and Marsha Brady would be considered as engaging in incest if they were to have sex, even though they share no blood whatsoever. Furthermore, the law includes marriage as part of incest, not just sex. So the legal definition doesn't necessarily match the common definition.

Furthermore, @gfm7175 is referencing a religious definition, and indeed by that specific religion, same sex couples can not be married. What sucks for him is that other religions do define same sex couples as married. This would be similar to some countries recognizing polygamy (usually polygyny), but the US does not. People like him are in denial that marriage has had multiple definitions and forms across time and culture.

 

Oh gods! You've just set him off on his principle kick. Batten the hatches and stand by!

 

I don't think you grasp what 'substantiate' means.

It means that the person with whom you are debating a concept, idea, opinion, etc., is NOT going to take your word for it.

So, what you need to do is provide a link to something, anything, where the data or information presented corroborates your claims. It doesn't have to be perfect, but the more perfect, the stronger your argument.

Otherwise, all you have done is give your opinion, and not a substantive counter argument.

No one cares about your opinion, not yours, mine, or anyone's, we care about how well you can substantiate your position.

THAT is what carries the debate forward. That is what debating is all about.

If you have substantiation to your opinion which counters mine, and your substantiation is sound, I want to know about it, because I want to be on the right side of any issue. What is the right side? The truthful side, wherever the chips may fall.

That being said, often, when someone thinks they have something of substance to support their claim, upon scrutiny, it wasn't as good as they thought it was.

It's all about the caliber of that substantiation. I want to see it, and i will judge if it does, indeed, in point of fact, corroborate your claim.

Also, at times, when one does hold an opinion, of a general nature, it is that opinions of a general nature cannot be substantiated, really. Or maybe a little. Thing is, in such a case, provide the best argument, path of logic, give examples you've seen in media (specific examples of common knowledge), that you can.

Sometimes a well argued idea is about all one can do. Personally, I prefer to debate specific things, and not generalized concepts, so much, because they are pointless and often wind up with 'we'll just have to disagree' end point.

When the debate progresses, we can go deeper, debate the substantiation, and off we go, the discourse moves forward.

That's the whole point.

And, FYI, Brazil elected Bolsonaro, a veritable Trump clone, so not sure you are correct on that first point.