Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...
Pants-of-dog wrote:I would not bother replying to Bill Konnoway. The user is simply trying to create traffic for the website to which he or she always links.
Godstud wrote:The truth hurts. It's also pretty much not true. It's plain old discrimination and misinformation.
Children growing up with 1 or no parents are worse off, too.
Discrimination based on good judgment calls is a good thing, not a bad, it's just rational discernment. There's no reason homosexual couples shouldn't be discriminated against, in favor of straight couples which are a much more ecologically natural and time-tested environment for raising children.Discrimination based on anything but FACTS, is discrimination that is BAD. It is no rational discernment without facts to support it.
Godstud wrote: Discrimination based on anything but FACTS, is discrimination that is BAD. It is no rational discernment without facts to support it.
There is no reason for homosexual couples to be discriminated against, unless you are a homophobe.
Question: Should we disallow single mothers or fathers from raising their children simply because it's not best for the child? I mean, they should go up for adoption "in favor of straight couples which are a much more ecologically natural and time-tested environment for raising children.". Right? That would be just a "rational discernment", correct?
You are OK discriminating against homosexuals, but I am sure when it comes to heterosexuals, you sing a different tune.
Your post just SCREAMS bigotry.
Pants-of-dog wrote:Oooh! Another thread where Scherezade goes on for pages and pages without providing a singe example of how LGBT people actually cause any harm.
Scheherazade wrote:It can be logically argued that it causes harm in and of itself, so no 'empirical evidence' needed. Empiricism is junk science anyway and shouldn't be relied on, good logical arguments are much superior.
The burden should be on others to prove it doesn't cause harm, since most logically valid arguments would show it to be aberrance, so no reason to believe otherwise.
Pants-of-dog wrote:
Yes, you presented that argument, and I pointed out that you incorrectly think that your subjective views about natural law are somehow objectively true.
But if you want to go the logical root, you are making the logical fallacy of assuming that something is good because it is natural. If so, then cancer would be good. Ao would tooth decay and arsenic. Or cyanide. One of the two is naturally occuring. I always forget which.
Getting back to empiricism, homosexuality is actually natural and occurs among non-human species.
The burden should be on others to prove it doesn't cause harm, since most logically valid arguments would show it to be aberrance, so no reason to believe otherwise.
Scheherazade wrote:Natural law doesn't just refer to the physical world, but higher laws like mathematics, logic, aesthetics.
It doesn't, no one forces them to partake in gay sex. They're free to marry someone of the opposite sex.
Godstud wrote:
mikema63 wrote:Gay marriage exists, and no one has died and the sky hasn't fallen.
Be as disgusted as you like in your little corner.
That's a strawman, the hamrful effects on ecology and the children who are victim of those faux-unions.
My plan is to work to impose my views of what's disgusting on others, since I believe there's only one correct view of right and wrong, and those who don't agree are on the side of evil. I have no respect for the supposed "autonomy" of others if they go against what something higher than them has ordained.
No. I can see certain physical phenotypes, which […]
OK, so it's good for Europe the US (oil companies[…]
God dammit, Rich. This is like whenever anyone b[…]
The cost-of-living crisis is so bleak that some G[…]