View Single Post
Old 12-06-2003, 12:55 AM   #75
CloseTheBlastDo
Rookie
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 185
Quote:
PS - CTBD: good to see you again. It's been a while .
Good to speak to you again too man

Although I disagree with a lot of the stuff you are saying (heh, it wouldn't be the same otherwise ), it's refreshing to debate this kind of stuff with a person like yourself.

At the very least it feels like we are having a constructive conversation, which is more I can say for a lot of the other instances I've tried to debate topics like these...

Quote:
That's different. An animal can't be consenting because it can't think like a human being.
I was about to make the same point - you beat me to it
Actually, I would say that while the animal COULD be consenting for all you know, I think you'd be hard pressed to prove it in a court of law!!
..so I think we can sensibly say that to err on the side of caution is the correct way to go for this topic, and assume that the animal isn't gonna be too happy about it!!

Quote:
Two gay men or women are thinking properly and are aware of their situation. They're not animals. You've just compared them to animals...
While I know full he wouldn't mean this kind of insinuation, I'm afraid he's not making it easy for people to NOT think this either.
..I'd choose your analogies more carefully if I were you MK - because the above idea is insulting and doesn't do justice to the issue...

Quote:
Most of my argument is moral - but in our rationality thread, we pointed out that moral arguments, while valid, are often not as strong as "factual" arguments. And moral arguments are being mocked in here, so...
Right -I understand. But we also pointed out that moral arguments are individual. They are not 'external' truths - they are internal.
To illustrate the point - MY morals say to me : freedom of choice and the ability to live the way you want to live (as long as it does not DIRECTLY affect the well-being and freedom of others). And from my point of view, you are mocking MY morals by saying these people can't do this - with (as far as I'm concerned) no better reason than YOU don't think it's right...

...so this is why moral arguments can't really be discussed in a 'scientific' manner- they are totally objective...

...is it REALLY that hard for you to imagine that two people of the same sex can REALLY fell just as much in 'love' for each other as a hetrosexual couple? As crazy, or as outlandish, or as offensive as the idea sounds to you, are you so sure that it's not even possible?!
Because I think this is what it ALL comes down to. If you simply refuse to accept this is even a possibillity, then of course you will never look at the issue objectively.

Of course, to do this - you simply have to believe that a hell of a lot of gay people - in fact I feel confident in saying MOST - are flat out liars. Or totally self-delusional.
You also have to discard all the modern medical evidence.

..if your willing to do this then, well - I guess you'll come to whatever conclusion you want to (or that which your religion prescribes for you)
CloseTheBlastDo is offline   you may: quote & reply,