Gay marriage more important than law in Mass.

That's only one side of the story. Nature also equipped women with the desire to "hold onto" a man in order to secure her and her children's protection. It's a complementary relationship. Man wants sex; he must protect & provide. Woman wants protection and provision; she must put out. This limits the number of women a man can have.

Let’s really get in touch with nature. What percentages of animals, besides humans, wear clothing? Let’s go all natural and not wear clothes. Aren’t artificial and synthetic fibers, by definition, artificial and not natural? Natural food must be better than artificially processed food. Let’s do away with artificial food including artificial sweetener. Saw goodbye to Nutrasweet.

Oh. I’m on a roll. Consider the medical field. Cancer is a natural process of aging in that if you live long enough, it is highly likely that you will develop a cancer. Chemotherapy and radiation treatment is artificial. We should do away with such things and let nature run its course.

What about women who want children and desire to reproduce but are unable to naturally do so. Drug treatment is too unnatural. Artificial insemination is artificial so we should not use that. Sorry, lady, but your genes stop here.
 
Let’s really get in touch with nature. What percentages of animals, besides humans, wear clothing? Let’s go all natural and not wear clothes. Aren’t artificial and synthetic fibers, by definition, artificial and not natural? Natural food must be better than artificially processed food. Let’s do away with artificial food including artificial sweetener. Saw goodbye to Nutrasweet.

Oh. I’m on a roll. Consider the medical field. Cancer is a natural process of aging in that if you live long enough, it is highly likely that you will develop a cancer. Chemotherapy and radiation treatment is artificial. We should do away with such things and let nature run its course.

What about women who want children and desire to reproduce but are unable to naturally do so. Drug treatment is too unnatural. Artificial insemination is artificial so we should not use that. Sorry, lady, but your genes stop here.


LOL!!!!! Matt...you rock!!:thup: :thup: :thup:
 
Let’s really get in touch with nature. What percentages of animals, besides humans, wear clothing? Let’s go all natural and not wear clothes. Aren’t artificial and synthetic fibers, by definition, artificial and not natural? Natural food must be better than artificially processed food. Let’s do away with artificial food including artificial sweetener. Saw goodbye to Nutrasweet.

Oh. I’m on a roll. Consider the medical field. Cancer is a natural process of aging in that if you live long enough, it is highly likely that you will develop a cancer. Chemotherapy and radiation treatment is artificial. We should do away with such things and let nature run its course.

What about women who want children and desire to reproduce but are unable to naturally do so. Drug treatment is too unnatural. Artificial insemination is artificial so we should not use that. Sorry, lady, but your genes stop here.


Wasn't that you in another thread, bemoaning the "slippery slope" fallacy? You are taking one thing I said and applying to unrelated topics.
 
Let’s really get in touch with nature. What percentages of animals, besides humans, wear clothing? Let’s go all natural and not wear clothes. Aren’t artificial and synthetic fibers, by definition, artificial and not natural? Natural food must be better than artificially processed food. Let’s do away with artificial food including artificial sweetener. Saw goodbye to Nutrasweet.

Oh. I’m on a roll. Consider the medical field. Cancer is a natural process of aging in that if you live long enough, it is highly likely that you will develop a cancer. Chemotherapy and radiation treatment is artificial. We should do away with such things and let nature run its course.

What about women who want children and desire to reproduce but are unable to naturally do so. Drug treatment is too unnatural. Artificial insemination is artificial so we should not use that. Sorry, lady, but your genes stop here.

What the fuck does this have to do with what Nienna said? Are you on Ritalin?
 
Let’s really get in touch with nature. What percentages of animals, besides humans, wear clothing? Let’s go all natural and not wear clothes. Aren’t artificial and synthetic fibers, by definition, artificial and not natural? Natural food must be better than artificially processed food. Let’s do away with artificial food including artificial sweetener. Saw goodbye to Nutrasweet.

Oh. I’m on a roll. Consider the medical field. Cancer is a natural process of aging in that if you live long enough, it is highly likely that you will develop a cancer. Chemotherapy and radiation treatment is artificial. We should do away with such things and let nature run its course.

What about women who want children and desire to reproduce but are unable to naturally do so. Drug treatment is too unnatural. Artificial insemination is artificial so we should not use that. Sorry, lady, but your genes stop here.

You're on a roll all right ... into irrelevancy, as usual. You need to give up debate and take up crochet. Even if you can't crochet one can only assume you are better at that than debate.

NOTHING you mention as comparison in your post has ONE DAMNED THING to do with the topic.
 
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#natural
The Appeal to Nature is a common fallacy in political arguments. One version consists of drawing an analogy between a particular conclusion, and some aspect of the natural world -- and then stating that the conclusion is inevitable, because the natural world is similar:

"The natural world is characterized by competition; animals struggle against each other for ownership of limited natural resources. Capitalism, the competitive struggle for ownership of capital, is simply an inevitable part of human nature. It's how the natural world works."

Bullshit. How many times are you going to try this same stupid argument that gets shot down each and every time?

For people capable of critical though -- which would NOT include YOU -- "nature" and/or "what is natural" forms the basis in general of what is and is not acceptable to mankind.

The fact that you can take your usual relativist bullshit and twist it into everything that it is not is indicative of nothing more than what it is -- twisted bullshit.
 
Okay. I still disagree that sexual reproduction forms the basis of marriage. I'm glad that you never claimed that one must reproduce in order to be allowed to marry. Do we agree, therefore, that the inability to have children should not, in and of itself, be a reason to not allow gay marriage?

The fact is, your argument is completely irrelevant to the topic. The law specifies a criteria, and an activist judge has set himself above the legislature and the law. Rather than enforce the law, the judge has decided to revise it to suit his political agenda.

It's abuse of power, and stepping outside the supposed balance of power between the three branches of government. You're so willing to bitch and whine everytime Bush even LOOKS at the line, how about establishing the same standard for the quacks on your side of the aisle?
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: 007
Matt... I like you... but that is a bunch of :blah2:

Are you sure you want to make that claim?

I mean this is the sick fucker that sat around with his buddies "experimenting" and rubbed each other off. He's also the sick fucker that thinks it's OK for daddy to fuck his daughter.

Is that the sick kind of perverted piss bag you want for a friend?
 
You're on a roll all right ... into irrelevancy, as usual. You need to give up debate and take up crochet. Even if you can't crochet one can only assume you are better at that than debate.

NOTHING you mention as comparison in your post has ONE DAMNED THING to do with the topic.

I’m simply showing another old argument against gay marriage is fallacious.
I basically crushed them all. In this case people say that gay marriage should not be allowed because it is not natural. The unstated and erroneous premise is that what is natural is always good and what is not natural is always bad. That is simply not the case. Therefore that argument falls flat.

Next, please.
 
For people capable of critical though -- which would NOT include YOU -- "nature" and/or "what is natural" forms the basis in general of what is and is not acceptable to mankind.

This is clearly not always the case. People accept smoking. Smoking is not natural. People readily accept chemotherapy. Chemotherapy is not natural. That’s okay. Keep trying.
 
I’m simply showing another old argument against gay marriage is fallacious.
I basically crushed them all. In this case people say that gay marriage should not be allowed because it is not natural. The unstated and erroneous premise is that what is natural is always good and what is not natural is always bad. That is simply not the case. Therefore that argument falls flat.

Next, please.

I hate to be the one to break this to you, matt, but you have yet to crush even the lamest argument mostly because your addled mind is always wandering off into your own little world, but never within the scope of the topic at hand.

As I pointed out in a previous thread ... and one prior to that ... and one prior to that .... NO ONE is stating tht what is natural is also good because it is natural. That is just something you have pulled out of your ass and interjected dishonestly, again.

So, YOUR argument falls flat since YOU cannot differentiate between the use of the term "natural" and the term "good", and continue to superimpose your lack of understanding what's being discussed over the statements of others.
 
This is clearly not always the case. People accept smoking. Smoking is not natural. People readily accept chemotherapy. Chemotherapy is not natural. That’s okay. Keep trying.

And move on down to the next dishonest irrelevant attempted correlation. Are we discussing smoking? No. Are we discussing chemotherapy? No. Just more of your irrelevant relativist CRAP.

There's nothing to "keep trying." You've had your ass handed to you so badly int he past two weeks I don't know why you're even still posting. Oh yeah ... you just don't get it. Your relativist argument sucks and always has. I have more respect for Reneer's argument because he at least is honest .... it's alla bout him and what he wants.
 
As I pointed out in a previous thread ... and one prior to that ... and one prior to that .... NO ONE is stating tht what is natural is also good because it is natural. That is just something you have pulled out of your ass and interjected dishonestly, again.

Then tell me. What does heterosexuality being natural and homosexuality not being natural have to do with anything? People say that homosexual sex is unnatural. What point, besides that, are they trying to make? Okay. For the sake of argument, I’ll agree that homosexuality is not natural. We agree on that small point. I guess that that ends the debate.
 
They do? On what planet?

Earth – on several continents. Even in America, go to any downtown bar that has an out-door patio, preferably on a Friday or Saturday night. You are likely to find several people there who are smoking with some people who are not smoking. Walk down a long stretch of sidewalk. In some places you are likely to find an occasional smoker. You are less likely to find someone say to a smoker, “I’m sorry but I do not accept that. Put that cigarette away now.” Smoking still exists and it is still accepted by many people.
 
I’m simply showing another old argument against gay marriage is fallacious.
I basically crushed them all. In this case people say that gay marriage should not be allowed because it is not natural. The unstated and erroneous premise is that what is natural is always good and what is not natural is always bad. That is simply not the case. Therefore that argument falls flat.

Next, please.

The bolded word is the key. The reason that the premise was unstated was that it was not the premise that I was trying to make. Perhaps the word "nature" was what confused the argument. The idea wasn't so much about nature as it was about self-evidence. The way in which the reproductive organs fit together shows the way they are meant to work. It is self-evident.
 

Forum List

Back
Top