Homosexuality is a sin; it's unnatural.

[Crimson Raccoon]

Zohwomen, wow. That's crossing well beyond the line of debate, or even argument. Why stoop to such personal attacks and insults? You do the opinion you're representing dishonor, by merely trying (using cheap shots) to make the other side look foolish rather than building up your own side. Now I see what Scazarith was talking about when he mentioned bickering... That's a polite word for it!

I would get into the actual discussion but it's extremely late now where I am. I just felt the need to speak up that, Zohwomen, that last post was out of line. And, I personally would really appreciate it if when you "quote" someone, you actually use the words they said, instead of taking their argument, rewording it into your own take on what they're saying, rearranging it to suit your counterpoint, twisting it to make them sound stupid, and putting it in quotation marks. It seems to be a habit of yours.  

[Xahmen]

Crimson Raccoon

Zohwomen, wow. That's crossing well beyond the line of debate, or even argument. Why stoop to such personal attacks and insults? You do the opinion you're representing dishonor, by merely trying (using cheap shots) to make the other side look foolish rather than building up your own side. Now I see what Scazarith was talking about when he mentioned bickering... That's a polite word for it!

I would get into the actual discussion but it's extremely late now where I am. I just felt the need to speak up that, Zohwomen, that last post was out of line. And, I personally would really appreciate it if when you "quote" someone, you actually use the words they said, instead of taking their argument, rewording it into your own take on what they're saying, rearranging it to suit your counterpoint, twisting it to make them sound stupid, and putting it in quotation marks. It seems to be a habit of yours.

Bwhahahaha what?
Are you serious?

It's now dishonorable to call out illogical fallacies in the supposed "arguments" of your opponent?
That's all I did.
Good God I hope you never get into politics.

It's called paraphrasing, it's a common tool when replying to an argument, because as long as you don't claim that it's a word for word, and you take purposely take anything out of context, it's all fair game.
Personal attacks and insults?
Yeah, I'll admit that I called him a sheltered kid, but I only did so as an after thought, and didn't work it into my main points.

With the first paraphrase, maybe I should have phrased it as such:
"Your claim that homosexuality is a natural occurring thing is irrelevant, as a natural thing for monkeys to do is fling s**t at each other, and even though it's natural it's still wrong to do to another person".
There, now it's all prim and proper, and still makes just about as much sense as my original paraphrasing.

"People are afraid to hurt each others feelings" is a direct quote.

"If someone does something wrong, they have to face the consequences. Homosexuality is wrong..." is also a direct quote that was shortened (hence the "...")

So my response went as such:

Point out illogical fallacy, correct with formulated argument (with some humor), point out illogical fallacy, correct with formulated response (with more humor and berating for using such a blatant fallacy), point out ANOTHER fallacy, correct and berate, POINT OUT ANOTHER DAMN FALLACY, berate (with some aggression because this is getting irritating).
Point out a homophobic comment and point out the laden hate underneath it, probably conjecture but after all of the crap that this reply was, I don't care about holding back.

Finish with "Call it as I see it".

So how's about I tear into yours?

It's simple.
You're sticking up for him because you either didn't read his post, didn't read my post, or you have no idea what makes an argument valid.
Plus lets not forget that you just plain don't like me, some conjecture here, but I'm gonna say it's because I have no problem not agreeing with you.  

[[ k e e l y ]]

Kazydi

[ k e e l y ]

...You have to be kidding me. You completely missed my point and I have a feeling explaining even further won't get you to understand where I'm coming from because you're so blinded by your own opinion.

Well, of course not. Are we both not completely set in our ways of thinking?

That doesn't mean I don't understand where you're coming from. You seemed to be mocking my post with your far fetched metaphor that has nothing to do with the point I was trying to make.

Kazydi

[ k e e l y ]

The point of talking about animals is to explain that it isn't unheard of. It isn't unnatural.

There are plenty of things that are unnatural, but still wrong.

Do you mean natural and still wrong? Can you give me an example of something that is natural and loving that is wrong? I actually do want to know because some things I don't consider until someone else brings it up.

Kazydi

[ k e e l y ]

Is it possible for you to discuss the issue of homosexuality like an adult? Here you were complaining about how sheheartsthings was trying to start a debate and you're using exaggerated metaphors that are not the same.

Personal insults now? I choose not to respond to that. As for my problem with sheheartsthings earlier (which was resolved; thanks for opening up the can again) I believed that she was trying to start a fight rather than a debate. Those are two different things.

You were mocking me. Either you were intentionally mocking me or you didn't read into my post.

Kazydi

[ k e e l y ]

I'm not really sure how I feel about the relatives issue. I just know that it can lead to some very strange genetic problems. I haven't made up my mind about this one, though, honestly. And I don't think that's a problem. I keep an open mind.

I keep an open mind to things, but once I've experienced something, I make up my mind as to whether I'm down with it or not. I close my mind like I close my front door; weird stuffs going on in the neighborhood. And these are exactly the kinds of things that people worried the door WOULD be opened for.

That seems to go against my idea of what of what Jesus teaches. Regardless if someone is different (and not endangering), shouldn't you open your door to everyone? You don't need to understand them or agree with them, but they are still human created in God's image.

"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments" (Matthew 22:36-40).  

[marzipancakes]

[ k e e l y ]

I'm not really sure how I feel about the relatives issue. I just know that it can lead to some very strange genetic problems. I haven't made up my mind about this one, though, honestly. And I don't think that's a problem. I keep an open mind.

This.
And, anyway, looking at the Bible, aren't we all relatives of Adam and Eve, anyway? God made Adam, made Eve FROM Adam, and then the world was populated by them from there on out, yes?

Kazydi - You seriously think that just because two people have the same sexual organs means that they are incapable of loving each other? I'm sorry but that is ridiculous. For one, your theory on it being "personal lust" could be completely wrong, because what about couples who don't have sex or do anything sexual and still love each other?

Zah-gender - Ilu. xd  

[Crimson Raccoon]

Zahwomen, you didn't work any personal insults into your main points? Reading your post, the main point I got that you were trying to make is "You are an idiot, and a very small, sad little person." It's a paraphrase. =P

Some of your quotes were paraphrases, but others were not. What/where were you quoting when you wrote, "Homosexuality isn't a choice, it's a genetic goof-up, and it doesn't just occur in man." I could not find Kazydi saying anything like that anywhere. Perhaps I missed it, but that is a difficulty that comes with using quotes that are so disconnected from what was actually said.

Kazydi

Wait, so because the animals do it, that makes it ok? Monkeys fling poo. Shall I defecate into my hand and throw it at your face because I don't like you? Lions sit around on their a** all day, while all the lioness' do the work. And then the lion's get to eat first. Shall we start running society that way? Or maybe I could act like a dog, or most any animal in the animal kingdom for that matter, and touch you and have sex with you or whoever I wanted whether they consented or not? I would think not.

Your rendition of Kazydi's above argument about animals is extremely misleading, and it was done for the purpose of making him look foolish. You focus on an example he gave (monkeys flinging feces), rather than the point he was making, and you focused on it as though it was the only example he gave, and as though it was the entirety of the argument. You rendered it, "Who cares if it [homosexuality] can be natural, it's still unnatural, monkeys fling s**t, therefore being gay is still wrong."

The center of his argument was not about what monkeys do, but about the principle that animal behavior should not be the standard for human behavior. He was stating his opinion based on his worldview, a worldview in which humans are elevated above the other animals, and that therefore their behavior should be elevated as well. It is a common worldview, and a Biblically-based one; and this being a Christian guild, participants in it should be willing to respectfully listen to these principles so they can understand them whether or not they agree with them.

His argument was simply that just because animals do something, that does not in itself make it alright for humans to do. You can disagree with that opinion and worldview, you can point out if you think it was not a fitting response to what [ k e e l y ] had said, but it is not a logical fallacy.

So your response, "Seeing as homosexuality has been recording in frogs, chimps, apes, swans, ducks, dogs, humans, and penguins, I'd say that it occurs more commonly in nature than s**t-flinging," does nothing to counter his point. You argued against the example he gave, about monkeys, rather than the point it was supporting.

His argument includes that just because frogs, chumps, and every other animal on earth may engage in homosexuality, that doesn't necessarily mean it's acceptable for humans to do, and he gave several examples of animal behavior that most people would agree is not socially acceptable. But instead of addressing that, or perhaps pointing out that he misunderstood [ k e e l y ]'s main point, you aggressively accused him of being illogical and of deliberately trying to derail the argument.

You've tried to marginalize everything Kazydi and I say just by writing us off as having "no idea what makes an argument valid."

You belittle me by saying my motivation is that I "just plain don't like you," and suggesting that it's simply because you don't agree with me.

If you look at my posts earlier in this topic, you will find that they are quite logical, quite respectful, and quite willing to engage someone who disagrees with me. In fact, even though sheheartsthings disagrees with me and Scazarith is of my opinion, I actually defended sheheartsthings when I felt Scazarith had been unfair to her. This is found at the bottom of page 1 of this topic. My coming to Kazydi's defense has nothing to do with his position in the controversy.

I enjoy having discussions and debates, that's why I'm here. I hope I have not said anything to make it seem that I don't like you, because it's not true. I've been in discussions with you in other topics, and your position on the issues has never had an effect on my treatment toward you. I responded with all friendliness and openness to your argument against me in the Creationism vs. Science thread of this guild. I do hope you reply to it, it was an interesting discussion.

I appreciate that [ k e e l y ] has moved the discussion on, passing over this drama and focusing back on the issue of the topic.  

[Xahmen]

Crimson Raccoon

Zahwomen, you didn't work any personal insults into your main points? Reading your post, the main point I got that you were trying to make is "You are an idiot, and a very small, sad little person." It's a paraphrase. =P

Some of your quotes were paraphrases, but others were not. What/where were you quoting when you wrote, "Homosexuality isn't a choice, it's a genetic goof-up, and it doesn't just occur in man." I could not find Kazydi saying anything like that anywhere. Perhaps I missed it, but that is a difficulty that comes with using quotes that are so disconnected from what was actually said.

Kazydi

Wait, so because the animals do it, that makes it ok? Monkeys fling poo. Shall I defecate into my hand and throw it at your face because I don't like you? Lions sit around on their a** all day, while all the lioness' do the work. And then the lion's get to eat first. Shall we start running society that way? Or maybe I could act like a dog, or most any animal in the animal kingdom for that matter, and touch you and have sex with you or whoever I wanted whether they consented or not? I would think not.

Your rendition of Kazydi's above argument about animals is extremely misleading, and it was done for the purpose of making him look foolish. You focus on an example he gave (monkeys flinging feces), rather than the point he was making, and you focused on it as though it was the only example he gave, and as though it was the entirety of the argument. You rendered it, "Who cares if it [homosexuality] can be natural, it's still unnatural, monkeys fling s**t, therefore being gay is still wrong."

The center of his argument was not about what monkeys do, but about the principle that animal behavior should not be the standard for human behavior. He was stating his opinion based on his worldview, a worldview in which humans are elevated above the other animals, and that therefore their behavior should be elevated as well. It is a common worldview, and a Biblically-based one; and this being a Christian guild, participants in it should be willing to respectfully listen to these principles so they can understand them whether or not they agree with them.

His argument was simply that just because animals do something, that does not in itself make it alright for humans to do. You can disagree with that opinion and worldview, you can point out if you think it was not a fitting response to what [ k e e l y ] had said, but it is not a logical fallacy.

So your response, "Seeing as homosexuality has been recording in frogs, chimps, apes, swans, ducks, dogs, humans, and penguins, I'd say that it occurs more commonly in nature than s**t-flinging," does nothing to counter his point. You argued against the example he gave, about monkeys, rather than the point it was supporting.

His argument includes that just because frogs, chumps, and every other animal on earth may engage in homosexuality, that doesn't necessarily mean it's acceptable for humans to do, and he gave several examples of animal behavior that most people would agree is not socially acceptable. But instead of addressing that, or perhaps pointing out that he misunderstood [ k e e l y ]'s main point, you aggressively accused him of being illogical and of deliberately trying to derail the argument.

You've tried to marginalize everything Kazydi and I say just by writing us off as having "no idea what makes an argument valid."

You belittle me by saying my motivation is that I "just plain don't like you," and suggesting that it's simply because you don't agree with me.

If you look at my posts earlier in this topic, you will find that they are quite logical, quite respectful, and quite willing to engage someone who disagrees with me. In fact, even though sheheartsthings disagrees with me and Scazarith is of my opinion, I actually defended sheheartsthings when I felt Scazarith had been unfair to her. This is found at the bottom of page 1 of this topic. My coming to Kazydi's defense has nothing to do with his position in the controversy.

I enjoy having discussions and debates, that's why I'm here. I hope I have not said anything to make it seem that I don't like you, because it's not true. I've been in discussions with you in other topics, and your position on the issues has never had an effect on my treatment toward you. I responded with all friendliness and openness to your argument against me in the Creationism vs. Science thread. I do hope you reply to it, it was an interesting discussion.

I appreciate that [ k e e l y ] has moved the discussion on, passing over this drama and focusing back on the issue of the topic.

Perhaps you misunderstood the point of my post.
I wasn't trying to elevate my point of view of the subject of homosexuality above anybody elses', I was just pointing out how back-asswards Kazydi's post was.
And it was/is.
Not to split hairs, but that "You are an idiot, and a very small, sad little person." thing wouldn't have been a paraphrase, it would have been pseudo-summary. I say "pseudo" because it isn't even a real summary, it's your take on my supposed inflection.  

[Crimson Raccoon]

lol. You're right. It's a pseudo-summary. XD I honestly find it hilarious that you pointed that out. I'm glad we could end this tiff in good humor.  

[Kazydi]

I've come to realized that I've said what I needed to say, and that's good enough for me. neutral  

[Xahmen]

Crimson Raccoon

lol. You're right. It's a pseudo-summary. XD I honestly find it hilarious that you pointed that out. I'm glad we could end this tiff in good humor.

-High five-

@Kazydi
Aw, you aren't going to fire back with a few hilariously out there arguments?
Man, I was just getting into it.  

[[ k e e l y ]]

Crimson Raccoon

Zahwomen, you didn't work any personal insults into your main points? Reading your post, the main point I got that you were trying to make is "You are an idiot, and a very small, sad little person." It's a paraphrase. =P

Some of your quotes were paraphrases, but others were not. What/where were you quoting when you wrote, "Homosexuality isn't a choice, it's a genetic goof-up, and it doesn't just occur in man." I could not find Kazydi saying anything like that anywhere. Perhaps I missed it, but that is a difficulty that comes with using quotes that are so disconnected from what was actually said.

Kazydi

Wait, so because the animals do it, that makes it ok? Monkeys fling poo. Shall I defecate into my hand and throw it at your face because I don't like you? Lions sit around on their a** all day, while all the lioness' do the work. And then the lion's get to eat first. Shall we start running society that way? Or maybe I could act like a dog, or most any animal in the animal kingdom for that matter, and touch you and have sex with you or whoever I wanted whether they consented or not? I would think not.

Your rendition of Kazydi's above argument about animals is extremely misleading, and it was done for the purpose of making him look foolish. You focus on an example he gave (monkeys flinging feces), rather than the point he was making, and you focused on it as though it was the only example he gave, and as though it was the entirety of the argument. You rendered it, "Who cares if it [homosexuality] can be natural, it's still unnatural, monkeys fling s**t, therefore being gay is still wrong."

The center of his argument was not about what monkeys do, but about the principle that animal behavior should not be the standard for human behavior. He was stating his opinion based on his worldview, a worldview in which humans are elevated above the other animals, and that therefore their behavior should be elevated as well. It is a common worldview, and a Biblically-based one; and this being a Christian guild, participants in it should be willing to respectfully listen to these principles so they can understand them whether or not they agree with them.

His argument was simply that just because animals do something, that does not in itself make it alright for humans to do. You can disagree with that opinion and worldview, you can point out if you think it was not a fitting response to what [ k e e l y ] had said, but it is not a logical fallacy.

So your response, "Seeing as homosexuality has been recording in frogs, chimps, apes, swans, ducks, dogs, humans, and penguins, I'd say that it occurs more commonly in nature than s**t-flinging," does nothing to counter his point. You argued against the example he gave, about monkeys, rather than the point it was supporting.

His argument includes that just because frogs, chumps, and every other animal on earth may engage in homosexuality, that doesn't necessarily mean it's acceptable for humans to do, and he gave several examples of animal behavior that most people would agree is not socially acceptable. But instead of addressing that, or perhaps pointing out that he misunderstood [ k e e l y ]'s main point, you aggressively accused him of being illogical and of deliberately trying to derail the argument.

You've tried to marginalize everything Kazydi and I say just by writing us off as having "no idea what makes an argument valid."

You belittle me by saying my motivation is that I "just plain don't like you," and suggesting that it's simply because you don't agree with me.

If you look at my posts earlier in this topic, you will find that they are quite logical, quite respectful, and quite willing to engage someone who disagrees with me. In fact, even though sheheartsthings disagrees with me and Scazarith is of my opinion, I actually defended sheheartsthings when I felt Scazarith had been unfair to her. This is found at the bottom of page 1 of this topic. My coming to Kazydi's defense has nothing to do with his position in the controversy.

I enjoy having discussions and debates, that's why I'm here. I hope I have not said anything to make it seem that I don't like you, because it's not true. I've been in discussions with you in other topics, and your position on the issues has never had an effect on my treatment toward you. I responded with all friendliness and openness to your argument against me in the Creationism vs. Science thread of this guild. I do hope you reply to it, it was an interesting discussion.

I appreciate that [ k e e l y ] has moved the discussion on, passing over this drama and focusing back on the issue of the topic.

Well since Kazydi isn't going to discuss with me, maybe you will? I just really enjoy this topic. I wrote an essay about gay marriage at my school and they wouldn't accept it because it wasn't what the Church believed (granted I go to a Catholic high school and it was meant to be sent into a contest and they didn't want their school being represented by someone like me)

When Zahwomen said "Homosexuality isn't a choice, it's a genetic goof-up, and it doesn't just occur in man" he was paraphrasing my point, which was directed at the original topic that homosexuality is unnatural. I wasn't trying to use that as a way to justify homosexuality because I know that people, generally of faith, believe humans are on a completely different level than other animals.  

[Crimson Raccoon]

[ k e e l y ]

Well since Kazydi isn't going to discuss with me, maybe you will? I just really enjoy this topic. I wrote an essay about gay marriage at my school and they wouldn't accept it because it wasn't what the Church believed (granted I go to a Catholic high school and it was meant to be sent into a contest and they didn't want their school being represented by someone like me)

When Zahwomen said "Homosexuality isn't a choice, it's a genetic goof-up, and it doesn't just occur in man" he was paraphrasing my point, which was directed at the original topic that homosexuality is unnatural. I wasn't trying to use that as a way to justify homosexuality because I know that people, generally of faith, believe humans are on a completely different level than other animals.

Certainly I'll discuss it. Although, I'm not entirely sure you've said anything so far that I disagree with. As you said, Christ teaches it's right to respect, and even love, other people; regardless of their actions or lifestyle. It's never our place to tell someone they are going to hell, no matter what sin they have committed. After all, we're all sinners, and it would be hypocritical for a Christian who confesses he or she is a sinner to turn around and then think they are better than any other sinner, just because of the particular sin (homosexuality) the other person is committing.

It is only God's place to judge, and to tell people what will get them into hell. And he does tell us; he makes it clear that simply sin is what makes us undeserving to be with him in heaven. He tells us that homosexuality is a sin, along with numerous other things, and he does not in any way emphasize homosexuals as the worst people in the world who should be hated by us. He tells us that all have sinned, and we all need Christ to pay our debt and redeem us, whether we are a homosexual, or an abstinent monk.

Sorry about your essay not being accepted. Private schools can be like that with certain things...