How can homosexuality not be a perversion?

That does not necessarily follow. Eating is necessary but I don't automatically get pleasure from eating. In fact, a.lackmof eating can cause pain, where a lack of sex does not. So the idea that the pleasure is used to induce the action is not an inherent one, but assumed.

 

Did I say you did?

 

Calling a group less intelligent simply because of the melanin amount and type is bigotry.
Unless you have data/facts showing melanin is a factor of intelligence level. And if that is the case, one would become less intelligent as they tan in the summer months.

Else, blaming intelligence on skin color has no factual bearing.

 

What are you talking about.
The whole fake news BS about many things is shouting down views.

 

No one is claiming that. The intent on engaging in sex can be pleasure alone. Furthermore, just because a consequences of sex is procreation, that still doesn't mean that procreation is the sole purpose of sex

 

What does that have to do with anything? It says nothing towards the factual existence of homosexuality. Considering there are heterosexuals who won't or can't reproduce, and homosexuals who do, their existence doesn't significantly affect the population levels.

 

Robbery and murder are part of nature if you want to think of it that way

 

Yes, I said that. Why are you arguing?

 

I never heard Trump or anyone in Fox or Rush trying to shout down a leftist or cancel a liberal news network. Neither have you. There is no conservative counterpart to antifa. None that is active anyway.

 

Because it's bad manners and a violation of forum rules.

 

Says who?

 

How many gay couples are out there trying to to reproduce with their gay partner?

Anyway, it doesn't change the pervasive bias in favor of heterosexual marriage in every single culture I can think of.

 

None.

Which is, at best, an argumentum ad populum.

 

No one tries to stifle political speech with guns. Anyway that's an extreme generalization. There were 63 million who voted for Trump. How many shot someone?

There it is again ..... "There is no debate!"

Sucks to have a first amendment that allows me to disagree as to what constitutes bigotry, right? Anyway it's protected, no matter what the Howard Deans of this world tell you. I think you are displaying bigotry toward conservatives.

Hey, this is easy!

 

So you agree that most people in every culture are biased, rightly or wrongly, in favor of heterosexual unions? Glad to hear it.

 

And you agree that appealing to that as an argument would be fallacious. Glad to hear it. Though I'm sad to see you shift goalposts so quickly, because the argument you are making here is not the one I responded to. Not even close. Sad.

 

If I were using that as an argument in favor of the superiority of heterosexual unions, you'd have a point. But I don't, so you don't. I don't even remember how we got off on this, but I am pretty sure it wasn't due to someone making a majoritarian argument.

That said, one of the principles of conservatism (real conservatism, not "pro gun low tax anti abortion") is respect for tradition, precisely because our forebears developed our institutions and practices over thousands of years.

It is actually an act of ingratitude to impulsively slough off any time honored tradition. Time will tell whether gay marriage really takes hold society-wide. The constitutionality of it is a separate issue. Nude dancing is protected by the constitution

 

Then I'm glad to hear that you acknowledge that your observation was pointless.

1) Who cares? 2) Tradition for tradition's sake is a fallacy.

If "tradition" were the answer, there would be no "development" over "thousands of years." You are trying to appeal to tradition while praising development that corrected said tradition.

And this is actually an act of logical fallacy. Appeal to tradition is no less a fallacy than appeal to popularity is.

First, great to see you appealing to popularity again, but no one is trying to make "gay marriage . . . take hold society-wide." No one is trying to make gay marriage the majority practice. No one.

Interesting non sequitur.

 

My point was, he might have identified as a woman that day... Lol

Well with regards to that all we really know he did was say things. Sometimes people talk a bigger game than they actually play.

 

Slavery used to be tradition. So was not allowing blacks and women to vote. Were those acts of ingratitude???

 

yeah that option.

I've never heard of full sex.

 

You'd have to show me any problems created by two people if the same sex marrying one another.

I don't know if you're aware of this but two people of the same sex within a marriage can't make children. If the rules surrounding marriage created weaker society that is entirely 100% a heterosexual problem.

Blaming people in a same-sex couple 4 people in opposite-sex couples problems is just passing the buck.

 

I don't think you appreciate the importance of tradition, which is unsurprising, but spirited debate is a tradition too. You would throw it out because, after all, only "appeals to popularity" save it. If it were up to you, no one could even raise the question of whether heterosexual marriage is preferable to homosexual marriage.

The point about nude dancing is that you can't seize upon its protected status and argue that it is therefore accepted. I don't know what's especially interesting about it.

As for the rest of your arguments, they boil down to disrespect for tradition, i.e., shallow thinking and ingratitude.

 

I feel safe in assuming that thank you.

 

Tradition alone? No. Again, appeal to tradition is a fallacy. There can be good traditions and bad traditions. Being a tradition does not inherently make something good or bad.

Nope. I'd throw it out IF THERE WERE NO RATIONAL BASIS FOR IT. Why is this such a difficult concept? You are trying to justify appeals to popularity and tradition by constructing a straw man that pretends I am claiming that something should be rejected BECAUSE it is popular or traditional. That's an equally fallacious position to the one you are advancing.

Your reliance on such inventions is telling. No, that isn't remotely close to any argument I've made. I'd appreciate it if you'd tell the truth about me instead of resorting to such fantasies.

So it is neither interesting nor relevant. Glad we agree.

I'm sorry you are offended that there are people who recall enough of Logic 101 to realize that appeals to tradition are a fallacy. Reality doesn't care about your feelings, however.