To all homophobes - are you going far enough?

[Dorian Gray]

Some of you say homosexuality is unnatural and is therefore wrong. I say, why stop there?

Wearing earrings is unnatural, so I think that no one with earrings in or piercings or tattoos should be allowed to get married.

Wearing clothing is also unnatural and wrong, so clothing-wearers are barred from marriage too!

And wearing clothing is also frowned upon in the Bible. Witness the Genesis story where Adam and Eve were initially frowned upon by God for wearing fig leaves. I have both biology AND religion on my side.

Haircuts? Wrong. Technology? Unnatural and Wrong! In fact, everyone reading this right now should be banned from marriage.

Marriage ITSELF is unnatural. Animals, even those who mate for life, don't have weddings, they just stay together for life. They don't need the unnatural and wrong ceremony and piece of paper to make them stay together. So marriage should be outlawed.

Drugs are also unnatural, except for marijuana. And since marriage is outlawed, there is no such thing as premarital sex. Besides, sex is the MOST natural thing of all, so sex is completely NOT outlawed.

We should return to God's grace, return to the state of being naked hairy lovemonkeys.

We've got to get ourselves back to the Garden.

 

[c0rbin]

I believe that, in this forum, you are preaching to the choir.

No one can damn homosexuality without religion (pun intended).

 

[LW]

Drugs are also unnatural, except for marijuana.

Too bad that you have wait for a lightning strike to start a fire near you before you can smoke any of it naturally.

 

[LostAngeles]

I have another one!

Vaccinations, many antibiotics, transfusions, organ transplants, and surgery are all unnatural too!

Therefore anyone who uses those is wrong, especially if they've lived past the age of 35.

Here's some more:

Money's unnatural.
Religion's unnatural.
Science's unnatural.
Education's unnatural.
Buildings are unnatural unless your a termite.
Homeopathy's unnatural.
The Internet's unnatural.

 

[Charlie Monoxide]

I always felt that watching Pat Robertson and Pat Buchannon having unprotected anal sex as being somewhat natural.

Charlie (they've been doing it to the public for years) Monoxide

 

[Cleon]

I always felt that watching Pat Robertson and Pat Buchannon having unprotected anal sex as being somewhat natural.

[inigomontoya]

I vow, on the sword of my father, that until my dying day I will never forgive you for the mental image you have just given me.

[/inigomontoya]

 

[Blue Monk]

<inigomontoya>

I vow, on the sword of my father, that until my dying day I will never forgive you for the mental image you have just given me.

</inigomontoya>

I agree.

Gee Charlie, I know it can sometimes be hard to find anything good on TV but if that's the best you can do you might try picking up a book.

I don't even want to know who's on top.

 

[LostAngeles]

[inigomontoya]

I vow, on the sword of my father, that until my dying day I will never forgive you for the mental image you have just given me.

[/inigomontoya]

I see you never read the story four years ago about Gore's sloppy seconds with Dubya after Cheney was done. I think Nader might have gotten in on the action too. I've tried to block most of that from my memory.

 

[Dorian Gray]

Buchanan, Robertson, Coulter, Bush, Rice, Laura, Cheney


Next stop, Pols Gone Wild! Orgygate! Then we defeat the entire Middle East by dropping pictures of the whole affair down on it.

Dorian (they would give up without a fight, Mr. Monoxide) Gray

 

[LostAngeles]

Buchanan, Robertson, Coulter, Bush, Rice, Laura, Cheney


Next stop, Pols Gone Wild! Orgygate! Then we defeat the entire Middle East by dropping pictures of the whole affair down on it.

Dorian (they would give up without a fight, Mr. Monoxide) Gray

I actually want to see Coulter in an adult film just for her dirty talk.

 

[varwoche]

I actually want to see Coulter in an adult film just for her dirty talk.

Please, no. I don't presently have the will to muster my "Coulter is the anti-viagra" rant.

 

[Phrost]

Coulter is HOT. I'd much rather have her as a spokesperson for my ideaology than Michael Moore.

At least she's pleasant to look at.

 

[Rob Lister]

I believe that, in this forum, you are preaching to the choir.

No one can damn homosexuality without religion (pun intended).

That's not necessarily true, pun withstanding. Arguments could be made that condoning it is not in the best interest of society in general. I'm not sure they'd be great arguments but...

Also, it's icky unless it's between two hot babes -- say Paris Hilton and that Nicole Richie twit. So long as neither girl looks like Janet Reno, I see no problem.

 

[Cain]

Some of you say homosexuality is unnatural and is therefore wrong. I say, why stop there?

Wearing earrings is unnatural, so I think that no one with earrings in or piercings or tattoos should be allowed to get married.

Wearing clothing is also unnatural and wrong, so clothing-wearers are barred from marriage too!

And wearing clothing is also frowned upon in the Bible. Witness the Genesis story where Adam and Eve were initially frowned upon by God for wearing fig leaves. I have both biology AND religion on my side.

Haircuts? Wrong. Technology? Unnatural and Wrong! In fact, everyone reading this right now should be banned from marriage.

Marriage ITSELF is unnatural. Animals, even those who mate for life, don't have weddings, they just stay together for life. They don't need the unnatural and wrong ceremony and piece of paper to make them stay together. So marriage should be outlawed.

Drugs are also unnatural, except for marijuana. And since marriage is outlawed, there is no such thing as premarital sex. Besides, sex is the MOST natural thing of all, so sex is completely NOT outlawed.

We should return to God's grace, return to the state of being naked hairy lovemonkeys.

We've got to get ourselves back to the Garden.

C0rbin:

I believe that, in this forum, you are preaching to the choir.

No one can damn homosexuality without religion (pun intended).

Well, if you cruise on over to the PETA thread you will arguments that follow a similar form: eating animals is natural, therefore it's alright. When one infers moral values from from facts, one commits the naturalistic fallacy.

 

[Rob Lister]

Re: Re: To all homophobes - are you going far enough?

C0rbin:


Well, if you cruise on over to the PETA thread you will arguments that follow a similar form: eating animals is natural, therefore it's alright. When one infers moral values from from facts, one commits the naturalistic fallacy.

Nice hijack, Cain. Did you all ever decide on what 'morality' was?

Edit to ask: if you can't infer a concept from facts, what good is the concept?

 

[Cain]

Re: Re: Re: To all homophobes - are you going far enough?

Nice hijack, Cain. Did you all ever decide on what 'morality' was?

Edit to ask: if you can't infer a concept from facts, what good is the concept?

My Dear Rob,

I realize you have this urgent, irrepressible need to reply rapidly and foolishly on topics such as this one.

I am not "hijacking" this thread. If anything, it's in danger of being held hostage to your impressive stupidity. I am merely presenting an example, a recent example, of a similar non-sequitur. Finally, I am talking specifically about moral values, like the parent post in this thread, not some general, undefined notion of "concepts."


Fraternally yours,
Cain

 

[Rob Lister]

Re: Re: Re: Re: To all homophobes - are you going far enough?

My Dear Rob,

I realize you have this urgent, irrepressible need to reply rapidly and foolishly on topics such as this one.

*** Assumes facts not in evidence(rl).

I am not "hijacking" this thread. If anything, it's in danger of being held hostage to your impressive stupidity. I am merely presenting an example, a recent example, of a similar non-sequitur. Finally, I am talking specifically about moral values, like the parent post in this thread, not some general, undefined notion of "concepts."

I'm glad I impress you. So, did you all ever decide on what 'morality' was?

Edit to ask: If morality is not a concept, what is it?

 

[Cain]

I'm glad I impress you. So, did you all ever decide on what 'morality' was?

Yes, we decided. Two people are punching up a rough draft that will be circulated and criticized by everyone else. The interim report should be released on our site some time in early August. Check with me for updates.

Edit to ask: If morality is not a concept, what is it?

Morality is a concept. Equality is a concept. Justice is a concept. The mistake is to derive an "ought" from an "is". When homophobes say that homosexuality is unnatural, and therefore immoral, they're mistaken. It's a non-sequitur, regardless of whether or not being gay is "unnatural." The same even applies to atheists who would rather nature dictate their values than inspire them.

 

[Rob Lister]

Yes, we decided. Two people are punching up a rough draft that will be circulated and criticized by everyone else. The interim report should be released on our site some time in early August. Check with me for updates.

I didn't think so.

Morality is a concept. Equality is a concept. Justice is a concept. The mistake is to derive an "ought" from an "is". When homophobes say that homosexuality is unnatural, and therefore immoral, they're mistaken. It's a non-sequitur, regardless of whether or not being gay is "unnatural." The same even applies to atheists who would rather nature dictate their values than inspire them. [/B]

Using Nature as the basis for morality may or may not be appropiate. Obviously, it isn't the basis I'd chose except perhaps in a tangential sense. Still, did these 'atheists' make these arguments here concerning homosexuality? They might argue your case for you. Since the original argument is, in your eyes at least, a non-sequitur, perhaps the opposite is true. Perhaps it is moral because its natural.

 

[Cain]

Using Nature as the basis for morality may or may not be appropiate. Obviously, it isn't the basis I'd chose except perhaps in a tangential sense. Still, did these 'atheists' make these arguments here concerning homosexuality? They might argue your case for you. Since the original argument is, in your eyes at least, a non-sequitur, perhaps the opposite is true. Perhaps it is moral because its natural.

Ugh. No. Look, Rob, it doesn't matter whether homosexuality is natural or unnatural. That has no dierct bearing on the morality of the behavior. I recall a girl in the news smoked a plant thinking it was okay because it was natural (unlike those evil, manufactured drugs). Well, that's not necessarily the case, and she almost paid for it with her life.

If nature has any "goal," it is to propagate one's genes. Does that mean birth control is immoral? Does that mean having lots and lots of children is moral? C'mon.