Conquer Club

gryffin13 wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:I don't. I know it is wrong to have children intentionally brought up by gays thoug, and that is every developmental psychological principle from Freud onward you flout by allowing Gay Marriage.

I got behind in the forum, and as I am catching up I have to talk about this. I know that someone called him out on this already but I have to.

My dad is a psychologist, and there is absolutely no actual evidence that suggests that gays will make bad parents or cause any problems to a child while raising him.

Precisely because no studies have been made. Empirically we have no proofs, however, analytically, based on every sychologist since Freud, this is obviously going to have a disastrous effect.

Napoleon Ier wrote:Precisely because no studies have been made. Empirically we have no proofs, however, analytically, based on every sychologist since Freud, this is obviously going to have a disastrous effect.

Obviously.....because?

Napoleon Ier wrote:Precisely because no studies have been made. Empirically we have no proofs, however, analytically, based on every sychologist since Freud, this is obviously going to have a disastrous effect.

since you love conjecture so much, what kind of "disastrous effects" do you anticipate?

Ahhh, here we have a young specimen of the Nappy-Rash Shrew that has been disturbed in its habitat. Observe closely as this specimen defends its position by attempting to muddy the water by spraying arbitrary wikiguesses from its colon. It accompanies this defence mechanism by trying to scare its natural predators with high-pitched yelping while it digs itself deeper into the muck that constitutes its nesting ground...

Napoleon Ier wrote:No, I'm trying to tell you Finnis isn't the supreme authority on natural law.

Obv. Philosophy tends not to lend itself to 'supreme authorities'.

However, you'll struggle to find a 'natural lawyer' who has disagreed with the basic tenets of NLNR since its publication. Why will you struggle to find such a person? Well, it's because the work is such a phenomenally good update of the natural law tradition that nobody who supports it as a theory actually disagrees with it in any substantial way.

What's the point of the above your feeble mind enquires? Well allow me to tell you: The point is that the man who natural lawyers regard as their leading light does not support your bizarre opinions on the subject, and neither do any other respected jurisprudence scholars who believe in natural law as a doctrine.
In other words, you don't know what you're talking about, and anybody who does know anything about the topic thinks you are wrong.

How are those apples anyway?

Napoleon Ier wrote:The fact you've heard of John Finnis, maybe looked at his name on a wikipedia page after googling natural law, doesn't suddenly make him the only authority on a subject.

Heh heh, I'm afraid that I'm ever so slightly better acquainted with Professor Finnis than that... But please, feel free to argue in ignorance of who he is, and the importance that his works have in this field of human understanding.

I appreciate that in most subject areas the work of one individual scholar does not dictate the intellectual landscape. But your insistance on attempting to belittle Finnis' importance to natural law is a lot like trying to belittle Albert Newton's significance to motion physics. His works are simply so important to the topic that it's impossible to conduct a sensible debate without arguing inside their paradigm; I appreciate that you don't know anything about natural law, so this error on your part will take some time to dawn on you. But you really are sounding astoundingly ignorant here.

Am I impressing this on you sufficiently by the way? Do you understand the scale of your errors in this field? I'm really not quite sure that you're aware how enormously ignorant you sound to people who know the first thing about this topic.

Napoleon Ier wrote:You should know that natural law was addressed a long while back before the seventies by a fellow called St. Augustine of Hippo (look him some time, yeah?), and since by Aquinas, Hobbes and others.

Yes yes, I'm well aware what wikipedia has to say about the timeline of thinkers in this subject... but do you actually have a point here? Or are you just trying to imply that I haven't read any of those author's material?

The latter? Petty ad hominem again? Ought to have guessed really shouldn't I?

Napoleon Ier wrote:Now you're constant inability to understand Thomist principles and your repeated reference to "nature" in the context of this debate as having biological implication demonstrate clearly to me you have little understanding of the subject in which you are feigning intellectual superiority.

Feel free to explain which principles I'm not understanding here. Y'know, specifically. That shouldn't be so hard for you right, what with you being a bona fide expert on this topic area... should it?

Sorry, but I'm afraid that grand appeals to undefined ideas aren't actually much good to you.

As for the biological references, I'm well aware of how they do and do not fit into arguments of 'natural law'.
However, the biology references that I made in my last post were actually an entirely seperate attack on your box-fort of an argument argument, and were in no way connected to my jurisprudential arguments. Sorry that you didn't realise your defences couldn't be demolished from several different angles... but that's what happened.

Feel free to come back and cough up yet more meaningless verbage when you've actually understood my arguments though.

Hang on, what was that about feigning intellectual superiority? I didn't quite catch it, I think it got drowned out by the death rattle your pompous, fallacious, little argument just made.

Napoleon Ier wrote:Now both Aquinas and Augustine claim that natural law is the "essence of a substance that unify soul and body", and view it in a strictly ontological sense, and in it is found the virtue that marked perfection in man's pre-lapsarian state.

No shit Sherlock... I honestly had no idea.

Remind me what your point is again?

Napoleon Ier wrote:I argue, that homosexuality, being contrary to natural law, since it is a psychological phenomenon created by societal and enviromental factors

Evidence for that proposition? None again... should have guessed.

Also, aren't you running back to the biology references that you just tried to banish from this discussion? Pre-lapsian states be damned, you've no proof of what we did or didn't do to one another before we became city-dwellers, and as such this argument falls down.

No proof that homosexuality isn't 'natural' + No proof that it's induced by societal/environmental factors = No substance to what you're saying.

Once again, a windy pre-amble to divert our attention from the fact that you don't know what you're talking about, then a proposition supported by no evidence. When is your pre-pubescent mind going to understand learn that kind of bullshit just doesn't wash here. Try saving it for the playground eh? We've really got better things to waste our time with.

Napoleon Ier wrote:society cannot recognise a union of homosexuals as such a union furthers the damaging psychlogical and societal effects of homosexuality (which are real and measurable, homosexuals are more likely to become criminal or sociopathic, all the studies demonstrate it).

Sorry, but studies which you imagined and made up in your head don't actually count.

Show us the proofs you claim you have, and then we might start taking you seriously. But just bullshitting us with crap you heard your daddy say in the pub isn't going to work.

Napoleon Ier wrote:However, I would say a civil union contract is an acceptable recognition as the state has no right to impose it's dictates on individuals

Proof? Jurisprudential Doctrine? Logical supporting argument?

I agree that civil union is the very least that we should be permitting, but this is yet another example of you just spitting out bald assertions, and vainly hoping that it's going to be accepted as gospel truth.

Seriously, learn to actually rationally debate and argue before wasting our time with garbage. Just throwing long words you found on wikipedia around, and then following up with simple statements of your opinion isn't going to win you any arguments. You'll just get chewed up and spat out by people who actually know what they're talking about. Again.

I'd love to debate this issue further, but rather than pursuing this albeit amusing discussion where anything which might upset your cosy little wrld view is dissmissed by your supposed expertise in the field of, ah, well, actually knowing who John Finnis may be, I think I'll stick to responding to people wh actually want to offer reasons to me why they believe society should officially recognise an abnormal and unnatural behaviour.
Anyway, I'm sure you got your self-gratificatory sexual kick after you actually found a book you could refer to and used it to hence accuse everyone else of ignorance because they happened to not mention it, and felt really happy with yourself afterwards. Enjoy your meal of vegetables and lychee fruit flavoured with artificial sweetner before you read page 2 of Philosophy for Dummies, and settle down for a nice evening of gay S&M porn with yout other metrosexual bum chums who were unable to get a girl and so resorted to getting what they could from other eyebrow plucking men.

Napoleon Ier wrote:All your viewpoints are conditioned and are inherrently flawed. You simply assume this magical gay gene exists, I tell you homosexuality is a psychologically influenced characteritstic that can be changed. Plenty of studies agree.

I have no idea what studies you are referring to. I would like to see them. And remember, no homemade studies, official peer review studies with scientific accuracy. You can't argue some sort of genetic link, since in identical twins if one is homosexual, there is a 52% chance that the other is too. Whereas with fraternal twins there is only a 22% chance that if one is the other will too. And with adoptive brothers, there is only an 11% chance that one will be gay if the other is too.

Also, studies have shown that gay people tend to have longer ring fingers in relation to their index fingers. How could psychology's affect that?

There are all sorts of studies and signs that point to the fact that there is at least a small (probably larger) genetic factor in homosexuality.

Oh and I don't believe there is a magical homosexuality gene. There are most likely many genes that play some part in a genetic predisposition towards homosexuality that environment, and mental state affect.

I suppose you can agree that genetics may have a small influence, but only because they pre-dispose to influence from enviromental factors. The fact gay peple have been cured in large numbers is sufficient evidence.

As for the studies :

A study of 518 sexually-tinged mass murders in the U.S. from 1966 to 1983 determined that 350 (68%) of the victims were killed by those who practiced homosexuality and that 19 (44%) of the 43 murderers were bisexuals or homosexuals

P Cameron, Is homosexuality disproportinatly associated with murder Midwestern Psychology Assn, presented in Chicago 1983[/i]

Napoleon Ier wrote:I suppose you can agree that genetics may have a small influence, but only because they pre-dispose to influence from enviromental factors. The fact gay peple have been cured in large numbers is sufficient evidence.

As for the studies :

A study of 518 sexually-tinged mass murders in the U.S. from 1966 to 1983 determined that 350 (68%) of the victims were killed by those who practiced homosexuality and that 19 (44%) of the 43 murderers were bisexuals or homosexuals

P Cameron, Is homosexuality disproportinatly associated with murder Midwestern Psychology Assn, presented in Chicago 1983[/i]

First off, finding a correlation between homosexuality and murder in no way proves any psychological causes of homosexuality.

Second I don't understand how a study consisting only of "sexually-tinged mass murders" could effectively generalize the composition of all mass murderers. And I doubt that that is actually true. This is an extremely flawed study.

Third, they have done studies showing that mass murderers are also affected by genetics and unique brain types so you can't assume that murder is a psychological fault anyway.

And lastly, your claim that "gay peple have been cured in large numbers is sufficient evidence" is blatantly false. Very few people have actually been "cured".

One could potential ask oneself, even once you get past the clear biases that may be present in the reasearch...why would homosexuality lead an individual to commit murder. Is it perhaps because homosexuals are worse people than the rest of us? Possibly. Do we believe that all people who murder are on some essential level worse than everyone else? Clearly we dont. We dont believe those who put people to death via the death penalty are worse than you or I...we assume they are only doing their job. We do not condemn the troops for killing individuals, they are only performing their duty. We also give leniancy to those who commit murders in the cases of extrodinary circumstances...such as crimes of passion.

hence, murder is not something that is necessarily done because of a flawed persona. Seemingly, murder like most other actions, is done in context or the social world that the person lives and interacts in. Murder however, is a rather serious act...which would necessarily require some rather serious circumstances.

Should we not question what about the lives of these individuals may have led them to commit murder. Could it possibly have to do with a lifetime of not being able to be integrated into society, because people refused to accept them? Is it impossible that the discrimination and subjugation they were forced to deal with for decades could not have led them to such a solution?

But your right, it does make sense to take any group of people you dont like and continue to discriminate against them.

First, no, it doesn't prove it, but with this sort of science, proof is rare, overwhelming empirical evidence is all we can go on.
Second, I'm sorry t say it takes more than just your opinion of a study, you can't just reject actual studies I give you, then mention a mysterious esoteric society called "they" that have done "studies" and clai them as gospel truth.
Third, yes, genes to an extent influence behvious. But are seriously advocating abandoning all frm of moral responsibility?
My point, to conclude, is simple enough. Outside a normal and healthy desire for women, exist sexual oddities. These range from pedophilia to less harmful homosexuality. It isn't hard to understand that, and there is no evidence t suggest homosexuality is a "healthy" or "normal" condition : it is just a paraphilia, which today has found a place in a sick and decadent society.

you are portraying sexuality too limited here...first and foremost, what do you do about the large number of intersexed people out there. They were born with both sexual organs, and frequently as a way of trying to give them a better life, doctors surgically remove one of the organs and raise the child as the opposite sex. Frequently however, the individuals spend their lives feeling like they are the wrong sex...clearly this falls outside your limited analysis.

Biologically these indivduals (less than 1 percent of children in America, but still a pretty large number) exist, and as a result of their operation, may engage in homosexual activity (because of the identification and attraction to a sex thats not necessarily their own). What do you do with these people? Your conception of sexuality is too limited to allow for them, so necessarily you must either cast them aside or fail to acknowledge them entirely.

If you look at sexuality through too small and discriminating a lense, you fail epicly to understand it as part of the human condition.

[quote="Napoleon Ier"

I think I'll stick to responding to people wh actually want to offer reasons to me why they believe society should officially recognise an abnormal and unnatural behaviour.[/quote]
See, the problem here is that you haven't actually said why it's abnormal and unnatural.

Anyway, I'm sure you got your self-gratificatory sexual kick after you actually found a book you could refer to and used it to hence accuse everyone else of ignorance because they happened to not mention it, and felt really happy with yourself afterwards. Enjoy your meal of vegetables and lychee fruit flavoured with artificial sweetner before you read page 2 of Philosophy for Dummies, and settle down for a nice evening of gay S&M porn with yout other metrosexual bum chums who were unable to get a girl and so resorted to getting what they could from other eyebrow plucking men.

There's this thing called ad hominem argument. It's a fallacy.
And when your entire argument consists of it, it's generally not a good thing.

Napoleon Ier wrote:overwhelming empirical evidence is all we can go on.

I'm admittedly a late comer to this discussion but are you saying that a "study" with a sample size of 43 murderers is overwhelming empirical evidence or have you presented other studies earlier in this thread?

It isn't a fallacy. I'm not using it as an argument, only a demonstration of dancing retard's gender and role confusion crisis resulting from an accute elektra complex and slow autonomous reactions.

Napoleon Ier wrote:It isn't a fallacy. I'm not using it as an argument, only a demonstration of dancing retard's gender and role confusion crisis resulting from an accute elektra complex and slow autonomous reactions.

while we are trashing some of your failures to hold views that are concurrent with accepted versions of reality today....much of psychology has by in large disregarded freuds notions of developement, including the ever popular electra complex.

Napoleon Ier wrote:First, no, it doesn't prove it, but with this sort of science, proof is rare, overwhelming empirical evidence is all we can go on.

Well let's look for that overwhelming empirical evidence then.

Second, I'm sorry t say it takes more than just your opinion of a study, you can't just reject actual studies I give you, then mention a mysterious esoteric society called "they" that have done "studies" and clai them as gospel truth.

Did you just... what the...seriously? Are you accusing others of resorting to studies they're not mentioning?

Third, yes, genes to an extent influence behvious. But are seriously advocating abandoning all frm of moral responsibility?

That isn't what he said.

My point, to conclude, is simple enough. Outside a normal and healthy desire for women, exist sexual oddities.

I thought you were against the whole black and white view of sexuality? Didn't you say there was a broad spectrum?

These range from pedophilia to less harmful homosexuality.

Quite a small range there.

It isn't hard to understand that, and there is no evidence t suggest homosexuality is a "healthy" or "normal" condition : it is just a paraphilia, which today has found a place in a sick and decadent society.

Oh I see, homosexuality is just a hip new fad? Figures something that has been around since mankind existed and even before that is just now finnally emerging as this society is so sick and decadent.

Jolly Roger wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:overwhelming empirical evidence is all we can go on.

I'm admittedly a late comer to this discussion but are you saying that a "study" with a sample size of 43 murderers is overwhelming empirical evidence or have you presented other studies earlier in this thread?

It's 518 mass murders.

The ther two "classic" studies are :

Saghir and Robins, who found in a study that there was "less stability" and "more criminality" in their homosexual sample grups.

Bell and Weinberg wh took 100 gays and 500 heterosexuals and discovered greater psychiatric disturbance amongst the gay sample.

I'm simply arguing that homosexuality is the result of unfortuante psycholgical damage, so in many cases, not a choice. But something that ought to be cured, though no one has right to impse that cure, I am no socialo-fascist.

Look Napoleon, I have had enough debates to realize that there is no way we will convince you of anything other than what you want to believe, but I strongly urge you to talk to a PhD/MD psychologist?psychiatrist or geneticist and find out what the "expert" opinion is. Do it in private and don't tell them what you think ahead of time so there is no embarrassment or shame if what they say differs from your original beliefs. And if they don't differ then you confirm your beliefs, but if they do differ please consider changing your views based on the evidence. You seem intelligent so I know you have it in you to change your mind based on new/previously unheard evidence.

Napoleon Ier wrote:It isn't a fallacy. I'm not using it as an argument, only a demonstration of dancing retard's gender and role confusion crisis resulting from an accute elektra complex and slow autonomous reactions.

So those who do not hold proclivities such as the status quo become criminals due to the confusion caused by society not accepting them?

Well even if this were provable it only goes towards society accepting all creed, colours and preferences (of consenting adults) in equal measure.

No ostracism: no psychological damage ergo no crime from the criminally insane gay mafia!

Is this what you are saying Nap?

Napoleon Ier wrote:Saghir and Robins, who found in a study that there was "less stability" and "more criminality" in their homosexual sample groups.

Homosexual behavior has been observed among 1,500 species, and in 500 of those it is well documented. This is a major argument against those calling into question the biological legitimacy or naturalness of homosexuality, or those regarding it as a meditated social decision.

I don't know of any Penguin mass murderers

Heimdall wrote:I don't know of any Penguin mass murderers

That's because they keep it silent.

Do you really think all those expeditions lost on the northpole were due to faulty equipment and getting lost?

THE PENGUINS ARE PLOTTING!

*runs away screaming*

Snorri1234 wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:First, no, it doesn't prove it, but with this sort of science, proof is rare, overwhelming empirical evidence is all we can go on.

Well let's look for that overwhelming empirical evidence then.

Yep...read it and weep snorri.

snorri wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:Second, I'm sorry t say it takes more than just your opinion of a study, you can't just reject actual studies I give you, then mention a mysterious esoteric society called "they" that have done "studies" and clai them as gospel truth.

Did you just... what the...seriously? Are you accusing others of resorting to studies they're not mentioning?

Yes....read the post he made, he said "they have done studies". After I'd picked out those studies for him the least he could do was actually bother to substantiate his sources.

Snorri1234 wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:Third, yes, genes to an extent influence behvious. But are seriously advocating abandoning all from of moral responsibility?

That isn't what he said.

No.Its the direct implication of his post. Oh...I forgit yu couldn't follw a basic progression from some premises to a conclusion.

Snorri1234 wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:My point, to conclude, is simple enough. Outside a normal and healthy desire for women, exist sexual oddities.

I thought you were against the whole black and white view of sexuality? Didn't you say there was a broad spectrum?

Yes. These paraphilias exist to varying degrees from nought upward within all.

Snorri1234 wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:These range from pedophilia to less harmful homosexuality.

Quite a small range there.

I'm sorry, do you want me to go thrugh all the paraphilias I can think of?I guess considereing your wide personal experience of them I could hardly compare with your massive list.

snoriii1234 wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:It isn't hard to understand that, and there is no evidence t suggest homosexuality is a "healthy" or "normal" condition : it is just a paraphilia, which today has found a place in a sick and decadent society.

Oh I see, homosexuality is just a hip new fad? Figures something that has been around since mankind existed and even before that is just now finnally emerging as this society is so sick and decadent.

No.

...heterosexuality is natural, whilst homosexuality is a "reparative" attempt to achieve sexual pleasure when the normal heterosexual outlet proves too threatening...

(Sandor Rado)


So to conclude :

1. read
2. think
3. post

in that order

Napoleon Ier wrote:
Yep...read it and weep snorri.

I'm waiting....

Yes....read the post he made, he said "they have done studies". After I'd picked out those studies for him the least he could do was actually bother to substantiate his sources.

I was just pointing out the hilarity of you claiming others are referencing to studies they don't cite.

No.Its the direct implication of his post. Oh...I forgit yu couldn't follw a basic progression from some premises to a conclusion.

And I "forgit" you couldn't make one post without an ad hominem attack.

Gryf wasn't saying anything that could've been construed as "abandoning all forms of moral responsibility". You were jumping to conclusions.

I'm sorry, do you want me to go thrugh all the paraphilias I can think of?I guess considereing your wide personal experience of them I could hardly compare with your massive list.

Not so much personal experience. But..
A.) You're the same guy almost equating homosexuality with pedophilia, so I wondered how you'd fit the massive list between them.
B.) Don't ever mention homosexuality as a paraphillia again.

No.

...heterosexuality is natural, whilst homosexuality is a "reparative" attempt to achieve sexual pleasure when the normal heterosexual outlet proves too threatening...

Threatening? Threatening? What are you on?

So to conclude :

1. read
2. think
3. post

in that order

GFY.

Dear Sweet Jesus.

Will someone just explain why gay marriage is so bad?

What? No one can? No one can offer anything other than emotionally based conjecture and supposition? All you have is misinformation and lies?


Ok, problem solved. End of thread.

Dancing Mustard wrote:Ahhh, here we have a young specimen of the Nappy-Rash Shrew that has been disturbed in its habitat. Observe closely as this specimen defends its position by attempting to muddy the water by spraying arbitrary wikiguesses from its colon. It accompanies this defence mechanism by trying to scare its natural predators with high-pitched yelping while it digs itself deeper into the muck that constitutes its nesting ground...

Napoleon Ier wrote:No, I'm trying to tell you Finnis isn't the supreme authority on natural law.

Obv. Philosophy tends not to lend itself to 'supreme authorities'.

However, you'll struggle to find a 'natural lawyer' who has disagreed with the basic tenets of NLNR since its publication. Why will you struggle to find such a person? Well, it's because the work is such a phenomenally good update of the natural law tradition that nobody who supports it as a theory actually disagrees with it in any substantial way.

What's the point of the above your feeble mind enquires? Well allow me to tell you: The point is that the man who natural lawyers regard as their leading light does not support your bizarre opinions on the subject, and neither do any other respected jurisprudence scholars who believe in natural law as a doctrine.
In other words, you don't know what you're talking about, and anybody who does know anything about the topic thinks you are wrong.

How are those apples anyway?

Napoleon Ier wrote:The fact you've heard of John Finnis, maybe looked at his name on a wikipedia page after googling natural law, doesn't suddenly make him the only authority on a subject.

Heh heh, I'm afraid that I'm ever so slightly better acquainted with Professor Finnis than that... But please, feel free to argue in ignorance of who he is, and the importance that his works have in this field of human understanding.

I appreciate that in most subject areas the work of one individual scholar does not dictate the intellectual landscape. But your insistance on attempting to belittle Finnis' importance to natural law is a lot like trying to belittle Albert Newton's significance to motion physics. His works are simply so important to the topic that it's impossible to conduct a sensible debate without arguing inside their paradigm; I appreciate that you don't know anything about natural law, so this error on your part will take some time to dawn on you. But you really are sounding astoundingly ignorant here.

Am I impressing this on you sufficiently by the way? Do you understand the scale of your errors in this field? I'm really not quite sure that you're aware how enormously ignorant you sound to people who know the first thing about this topic.

Napoleon Ier wrote:You should know that natural law was addressed a long while back before the seventies by a fellow called St. Augustine of Hippo (look him some time, yeah?), and since by Aquinas, Hobbes and others.

Yes yes, I'm well aware what wikipedia has to say about the timeline of thinkers in this subject... but do you actually have a point here? Or are you just trying to imply that I haven't read any of those author's material?

The latter? Petty ad hominem again? Ought to have guessed really shouldn't I?

Napoleon Ier wrote:Now you're constant inability to understand Thomist principles and your repeated reference to "nature" in the context of this debate as having biological implication demonstrate clearly to me you have little understanding of the subject in which you are feigning intellectual superiority.

Feel free to explain which principles I'm not understanding here. Y'know, specifically. That shouldn't be so hard for you right, what with you being a bona fide expert on this topic area... should it?

Sorry, but I'm afraid that grand appeals to undefined ideas aren't actually much good to you.

As for the biological references, I'm well aware of how they do and do not fit into arguments of 'natural law'.
However, the biology references that I made in my last post were actually an entirely seperate attack on your box-fort of an argument argument, and were in no way connected to my jurisprudential arguments. Sorry that you didn't realise your defences couldn't be demolished from several different angles... but that's what happened.

Feel free to come back and cough up yet more meaningless verbage when you've actually understood my arguments though.

Hang on, what was that about feigning intellectual superiority? I didn't quite catch it, I think it got drowned out by the death rattle your pompous, fallacious, little argument just made.

Napoleon Ier wrote:Now both Aquinas and Augustine claim that natural law is the "essence of a substance that unify soul and body", and view it in a strictly ontological sense, and in it is found the virtue that marked perfection in man's pre-lapsarian state.

No shit Sherlock... I honestly had no idea.

Remind me what your point is again?

Napoleon Ier wrote:I argue, that homosexuality, being contrary to natural law, since it is a psychological phenomenon created by societal and enviromental factors

Evidence for that proposition? None again... should have guessed.

Also, aren't you running back to the biology references that you just tried to banish from this discussion? Pre-lapsian states be damned, you've no proof of what we did or didn't do to one another before we became city-dwellers, and as such this argument falls down.

No proof that homosexuality isn't 'natural' + No proof that it's induced by societal/environmental factors = No substance to what you're saying.

Once again, a windy pre-amble to divert our attention from the fact that you don't know what you're talking about, then a proposition supported by no evidence. When is your pre-pubescent mind going to understand learn that kind of bullshit just doesn't wash here. Try saving it for the playground eh? We've really got better things to waste our time with.

Napoleon Ier wrote:society cannot recognise a union of homosexuals as such a union furthers the damaging psychlogical and societal effects of homosexuality (which are real and measurable, homosexuals are more likely to become criminal or sociopathic, all the studies demonstrate it).

Sorry, but studies which you imagined and made up in your head don't actually count.

Show us the proofs you claim you have, and then we might start taking you seriously. But just bullshitting us with crap you heard your daddy say in the pub isn't going to work.

Napoleon Ier wrote:However, I would say a civil union contract is an acceptable recognition as the state has no right to impose it's dictates on individuals

Proof? Jurisprudential Doctrine? Logical supporting argument?

I agree that civil union is the very least that we should be permitting, but this is yet another example of you just spitting out bald assertions, and vainly hoping that it's going to be accepted as gospel truth.

Seriously, learn to actually rationally debate and argue before wasting our time with garbage. Just throwing long words you found on wikipedia around, and then following up with simple statements of your opinion isn't going to win you any arguments. You'll just get chewed up and spat out by people who actually know what they're talking about. Again.

Napoleon Ier wrote:It isn't a fallacy. I'm not using it as an argument, only a demonstration of dancing retard's gender and role confusion crisis resulting from an accute elektra complex and slow autonomous reactions.

Given that you've now ceased to even pretend to debate before slinging out petty aspersions, I think it's safe for us to conclude that I have won in awesome style. As per usual.

Good day to you sir.