The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Gay rights activists deny our moral agency > Comments

Gay rights activists deny our moral agency : Comments

By Shimon Cowen, published 10/8/2016

According to this traditional understanding of the human being, homosexuality does not define the essential dimension – which is the soul or conscience – of any person.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 16
  7. 17
  8. 18
  9. Page 19
  10. 20
  11. 21
  12. 22
  13. ...
  14. 26
  15. 27
  16. 28
  17. All
Toni Lavis:

"I didn't bother to invent a new word, because I had a fairly strong hunch that even if I did, the homophobes would do another swift repositioning of the goalposts."

Why do you think that those who oppose same-sex marriage are automatically homophobes? Same-sex couples are being discriminated against because they are the same sex and not because they are homosexual. Same-sex couples who are heterosexual are also being discriminated against.

There is no way of telling which ones are homophobes and which ones are against all same-sex marriage. It is rather arrogant to act like you know which is which.
Posted by phanto, Tuesday, 16 August 2016 7:36:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
phanto, Tuesday, 16 August 2016 10:41:43 AMphanto, Tuesday, 16 August 2016 10:41:43 AM

"Why do you need to tell me what you or anyone else thinks about me? Why would I care?"

I noted that one other sought to call your attention to the shortfall of logic and reason in your opinions. It was done in moderate, even courteous language, but elicited no change in attitude from you. I sought a confrontational approach that might attract more of your attention. Alas, to no avail.

Why do you post your opinions here if not to arouse like-minded posters or to provoke reactions of disagreement? Why do you post at all if you don't care whether your opinions are respected or not? There's no question whatsoever as to your right to post here whatever genius or tomfoolery you choose, if not to provoke reactions then why do you do it? Would you rather no one responded and your opinions hung there in the ether in splendid isolation? Would you expect people go to an art gallery and ignore all the paintings therein?

You will note that I have addressed the likelihood of your declaiming: "Is this not a forum for the expression of opinions, etc, etc, etc?" Indeed it is! It is your motivation that I would elicit. What purpose prompts you to post your opinions? Do you regard them as holy writ, sacred and inviolable, beyond and automatically immune from the sweaty mass's deliberations?

Cont.......
Posted by Pogi, Tuesday, 16 August 2016 7:40:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
phanto, Tuesday, 16 August 2016 10:41:43 AM. .........Cont.

"If there is nothing to argue against why do you feel the need to present arguments?"
Your bald unsupported assertions are themselves provocative. That is why people are arguing with you. It does appear, however, that at the point in the argument where you are expected to present compelling support for said assertions you present the incomprehensible argument that your opinions, simply because they emanate from you, are supported by some kind of indefinable divine truth, that the entire Cosmos shudders with outrage at the presumption of posters here to discover wherein lie your motives for posting. Your fall-back position tries to shift the burden of providing evidence when you state: "I don't have any [evidence]. It does not mean that I am wrong though." Your tactic here is a millennia old religious one discredited by logic. There is a vanishing chance you may not be wrong, but it certainly does not make you right.

"You need to try an hurt me by trying to make me feel bad about the fact that others think ill of me. This must be the only logical reason for your post - the need to put me down for some reason."

For some [unknown, indefinable] reason? Or is the reason to try to hurt you into feeling bad about.....? Which is it? In fact it is neither. But first, let me advise you that this forum [or even just this topic] does not exist for the purpose of ensuring that you feel good about yourself. When you propose that: "/My claim is that the most pleasurable sex is the sex that you engage in which can lead to procreation. Behaviour which can never lead to procreation can never be the most pleasurable.//", your stance is immediately perceived by some as highly contentious, especially when your choice of words leaves no doubt that you regard that position as inarguable. Cont.......
Posted by Pogi, Tuesday, 16 August 2016 7:41:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
phanto, Tuesday, 16 August 2016 10:41:43 AM
Cont.....

Some other contentious assertions from you:
[1] "You can't be born a homosexual since there is no such thing. There are just heterosexuals who indulge in homosexual type behaviour."

[2] "Heterosexual behaviour can be reasonable but homosexual behaviour is never reasonable."

[3] "No I don't have evidence for any of my opinions but as I said it does not mean those opinions are wrong. If you think that only opinions that are supported by evidence are worth considering then there is no point reading any of mine."

[4] "These things are just observable facts and from these observable facts it seems to me that homosexual activity can never be as pleasurable as heterosexual behaviour can be. If homosexuals are born that way then they have been given a very poor deal by nature."

[5] "Your claim is that oral sex is the best possible sexual pleasure. If that is the best then why would anyone bother to choose sexual behaviour where their genitals come together? How would 'nature' ensure the continuation of the species if it created oral sex as the most desirable choice?"

Every one of the above has been discredited by means of rational argument, evidence and logic.

I give you this undertaking......that while you claim to shift the burden of "proof" from the asserter to the assertee or insist that your unevidenced assertions require no support in order to share equal legitimacy with those assertions which are copiously evidenced, I will oppose and expose the drivel you write. Please consider the advice I offer; Your views are approaching those views held by fanatical religious bigots, minus the threats of violence. I urge you to watch your step and give thought also to the sensibilities of any homosexuals who may read your obnoxious opinions.

Meanwhile, you fail to acknowledge the gross error in your assertion: "No one has sex only for procreation." Both Yuyutsu [p.17 Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 16 August 2016 8:22:08 AM] and I exposed it as fallacious and insupportable.
Posted by Pogi, Tuesday, 16 August 2016 7:43:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Joe,

Legal status is not the be-all and end-all of what determines anomalousness.

<<No, inter-racial marriage did not require any change in the law: it's always been legal, at least in SA and, I suspect, in all States. So there was nothing particularly anomalous about it, any more than marriage between left- and right-handers.>>

Anomalous:
Deviating from what is standard, normal, or expected. (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/anomalous)

But okay, let’s agree there was nothing anomalous about interracial marriage back in the day.

So what?

My analogy is still valid because objecting to same-sex marriage having the same label as opposite-sex marriage would still be as abhorrent and irrational as objecting to interracial marriage having the same label as mono-racial marriage. Furthermore, suggesting that my analogy is racist is, ironically, homophobic.

I’m still yet to hear anyone provide a rational justification for requiring a different word for same-sex marriage.

--

phanto,

You just make this stuff up as you go, and it gets more and more bizarre the further you dig yourself in.

<<Same-sex couples are being discriminated against because they are the same sex and not because they are homosexual.>>

So let me get this straight, those who are against same-sex marriage are not necessarily homophobes because they may oppose two heterosexual people of the same sex getting married - a situation that would never occur for conventional reasons.

That’s what I call getting someone off on a technicality! You should be a lawyer.

Now that you mention it, though, I don’t think most homophobes would be against two blokes (it never seems to be women, because we all love a bit of girl-on-girl action) gettin’ hitched if it were for a laugh, a dare, or to achieve some other means (e.g. succession, migration, custody). So long as they don’t love each other or kiss.

Heck, they’d probably even be allowed to use the same word.

--

Pogi,

Thanks for that refreshing insight into phanto’s bizarre behaviour. Just brace yourself for a psychological assessment of your actions or a torrent of irrelevant questions about why you would want to do this or that.
Posted by AJ Philips, Tuesday, 16 August 2016 8:39:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ,

There was and is nothing anomalous in law about inter-racial marriage.

I rest my case.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Wednesday, 17 August 2016 9:26:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 16
  7. 17
  8. 18
  9. Page 19
  10. 20
  11. 21
  12. 22
  13. ...
  14. 26
  15. 27
  16. 28
  17. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy