Homosexuality a non religious issue?

[DanieltheDragon]

I think this is all smoke screen. Forget religion Z, I do a lot more than you think. Disagreeing with homosexual marriage is not about religion but reality.

Homosexuality is a non religious issue. Nobody has any benefit in a great range of activities from homosexuality to head butting a brick wall. No one wants to be a homosexual, just like no one wants to be blind. So why enshrine homosexuality?

Since that is true then really what is the motive behind gay marriage?

Mostly it's about sacrificing one group of people to our own needs. I want to live a certain way and so I will fight that they can live how they want as well.

The fact that God in the Bible is for traditional marriage is a bonus.

Is there a secular reason to be against homosexuality?

Do homosexuals hate their homosexuality?

Is the reason for gay marriage sacrificing one group for our own needs?


From:http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 91&start=0

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 37 by Haven]

Tongues, fingers, dildos, whatever don't change or affect the argument because the argument isn't what fits but pattern matching.

Even if a circle fits in a square hole it's still not the correct answer.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 37 by Haven]

Tongues, fingers, dildos, whatever don't change or affect the argument because the argument isn't what fits but pattern matching.

Even if a circle fits in a square hole it's still not the correct answer.

How do you determine what is correct?

This is what you need to spell out and support.

A penis penetrating an anus and rubbing up against the prostate can make someone climax. This has been documented. Why would there be a biological mechanism for sexual climax located in the Anus?If the pattern matching is wrong why does it work.

The female genitally is a fairly complex sexual system comparative to the penis. For some women outside stimulation is the only way to reach climax, others still need both internal and external stimulation, and some just need internal stimulation. Individually it can be any combination during varying time of the year month or day. One could argue that Penial Penetration into the vagina is incorrect pattern matching for some individuals.


So given the above example can you support your claim of pattern matching failure?

You need to be able to support your claim if you can't you should concede the argument.

[Haven]

[Replying to post 37 by Haven]

Tongues, fingers, dildos, whatever don't change or affect the argument because the argument isn't what fits but pattern matching.

Even if a circle fits in a square hole it's still not the correct answer.

Two things:

1) Please (non-circularly) define "pattern matching."

2) Please explain how one can derive an "ought" or "should" from the way things are in nature. I always thought that was the naturalistic fallacy.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 43 by Haven]

Well the naturalistic fallacy is whenever you argue nature designed it. I think God designed it.

But yes if hurting each other is possible then arguing it is immoral to hurt each other does suffer from the naturalistic fallacy. I never considered that.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to Wootah]

If god designed it why would he design it so men could climax from being anally penetrated and women could climax from oral stimulation or females rubbing their genitalia among each other?

[Bust Nak]

Tongues, fingers, dildos, whatever don't change or affect the argument because the argument isn't what fits but pattern matching.

Even if a circle fits in a square hole it's still not the correct answer.

But we are talking about a cylinder fitting into a circular hole of the corresponding diameter. If physical compatibility isn't what you are talking about, then what pattern were you referring to?

[Clownboat]

Tongues, fingers, dildos, whatever don't change or affect the argument because the argument isn't what fits but pattern matching.

Even if a circle fits in a square hole it's still not the correct answer.

But we are talking about a cylinder fitting into a circular hole of the corresponding diameter. If physical compatibility isn't what you are talking about, then what pattern were you referring to?

I wonder the same thing, which is why I brought up 'tongue darting the fart box? (That and it was fun to type).

If pattern matching was a real thing, what makes the tongue of a women different than the tongue of a man?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 47 by Clownboat]

Clearly a woman's tongue is poisonous. Something about Eve and original sin or something. How that relates to female to female relations I don't know.

[Wootah]

In relation to male or female tongues I didn't actually mention the sex and you can imply I meant all tongues.

Tongues, fingers, dildos, whatever don't change or affect the argument because the argument isn't what fits but pattern matching.

Even if a circle fits in a square hole it's still not the correct answer.

I'm not arguing you can't stick what you want where you want, I'm also not arguing it isn't desirable at times to stick what you want where you want. I'm saying that regardless of that we still know what is meant to go where.

Pattern matching: The ability to identify patterns.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern_r ... sychology)

Am I using the right phrase to describe my point? I am open to a better clinical definition.

Try this game and tell me how you go: http://pbskids.org/barney/children/game ... sgame.html

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 46 by Bust Nak]

I actually read this and thought of this verse in the bible

Matthew 8:20New International Version (NIV)

Jesus replied, “Foxes have dens and birds have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head.�

Either Jesus was unique or had a massive pattern matching failure.