Whose values?

Furion

Well-known member
I like many here, and in society disagree with your opinion. Lets debate it
They only have presuppositions as the base of their arguments. They will tell you Christians have the same.

Here is the problem, christians believe by faith.

Atheists do as well, they just loathe to admit it.

But that's not it either. Presuppositions as your basis for scientific theory on origins is a joke, scientifically.
 

vibise

Well-known member
Uncontrollable urges come in many forms, yes.

For instance some have uncontrollable urges to steal, sometimes they are wealthy with no need to steal.

Everyone must learn to control their urges.
Stealing harms others, but consensual homosexual coupling harms no one.
 

BMS

Well-known member
Stealing harms others, but consensual homosexual coupling harms no one.
Sure based on harm, but seeing as they are both natural urges why discriminate one against the other as harmful.
There is a greater risk of harm with same sex coupling as opposed to man/woman because of the anatomy
 

Temujin

Well-known member
Sure based on harm, but seeing as they are both natural urges why discriminate one against the other as harmful.
There is a greater risk of harm with same sex coupling as opposed to man/woman because of the anatomy
A myth. What harm do you think is caused by anatomical incompatibility? There is not a single sex act performed by homosexuals that is not performed by heterosexuals, in greater numbers.
 

BMS

Well-known member
A myth. What harm do you think is caused by anatomical incompatibility? There is not a single sex act performed by homosexuals that is not performed by heterosexuals, in greater numbers.
Been through that. And also that there are two sexes with compatible anatomies for it. Since that destroys your argument even before one considers harm, it is why you dont accept that reality
 

Temujin

Well-known member
Been through that. And also that there are two sexes with compatible anatomies for it. Since that destroys your argument even before one considers harm, it is why you dont accept that reality
I have just destroyed your argument that there's a greater risk of harm due to same sex coupling as opposed to man/woman. The compatibility of the two sexes is matched by the compatibility of same sex. So both aspects of your argument fail

And yes, we have been through this before. Several times. And you lost every time then too.
 

BMS

Well-known member
I have just destroyed your argument that there's a greater risk of harm due to same sex coupling as opposed to man/woman. The compatibility of the two sexes is matched by the compatibility of same sex. So both aspects of your argument fail

And yes, we have been through this before. Several times. And you lost every time then too.
There are two sexes with compatible anatomy for sexual intimacy regardless of whether you consider harm .
There is no compatibility of one sex, indeed if there was one wouldnt have or need two.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
There are two sexes with compatible anatomy for sexual intimacy regardless of whether you consider harm .
There is no compatibility of one sex, indeed if there was one wouldnt have or need two.
You should have a frank discussion with your gay friends. You will find that there is no problem with compatibility. You are just grasping at straws, if you'll pardon the expression given the context.
 

BMS

Well-known member
You should have a frank discussion with your gay friends. You will find that there is no problem with compatibility. You are just grasping at straws, if you'll pardon the expression given the context.
There are still two sexes with compatible anatomy for sexual intimacy regardless any conversation by anyone. Are you saying there arent?
 

BMS

Well-known member
Only if we all observe your definition of sexual intimacy.

We don't.
The sexual intimacy is because there are two.sexes with compatible anatomy. .. exists regardless of what I think.
Substitute sexual intercourse for sexual intimacy if you wish
 

Temujin

Well-known member
There are still two sexes with compatible anatomy for sexual intimacy regardless any conversation by anyone. Are you saying there arent?
So what. There are two sets of differing anatomy, a and b. Limiting sexual activity to two persons per event, the following combinations work perfectly: as, ab, bb . I am happy to acknowledge this, since it is reality. Why can't you acknowledge it? You invent harm, which when challenged you row back from. There's no biological reason whatsoever to promote one of the other combinations over the other two. It's all a matter of taste. The only exception is the tiny minority of interactions when conception is actively sought. Even then, there are options for the aa and bb couples. Biologically, you have nothing.
 

BMS

Well-known member
So what. There are two sets of differing anatomy, a and b.
There is male and female and some intersex.
Limiting sexual activity to two persons per event, the following combinations work perfectly: as, ab, bb . I am happy to acknowledge this, since it is reality.
the reality is that there are two sexes for it regardless of what combinations you or some others fancy. What you feel about things doesn't change reality.
 
Top