Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Salu
But it *is* unnatural Graham, by definition (Dictionary=Conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature) ie it's not usual. Neither is it normal; ie what the majority of people in society are, something like 0.5% of the population is gay. It is also deviant as I mentioned earlier. So that's why they face the attitudes of others. The majority of society must feel something against what they are doing or else they would be wholly accepted into society. I don't believe they are...
|
That's a somewhat narrow argument, given that you latched on to one particular definition of "natural" that happens to fit your argument. If we use it in the sense of something that happens in nature, then it is entirely natural it is well documented that homosexual activity does take place in nature.
If we are to use "natural" in the sense of belonging to the majority, does that mean we can legitimately treat anyone who does not conform to the model of "Mr. Average" as a second class citizen? Do you not have any attributes that set you apart from the crowd? Would you be happy if you were treated as a second-class citizen as a result?
__________________
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Salu
I thought "history" was a good answer. Short and succinct and obviously illustrative and more importantly true as opposed to her emotively suggesting that 2 loving people should be able to marry "because they are in love"....
|
If historical precedent is so important to you, I guess you have no problems with buggering young boys?