Stealth Moose
Umbrella Elite
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Let's ignore the fact that you probably did not and do not even now know who Stephen Covey is.
I do. But that's irrelevant. You made the assertion. I expect you to back it up. You did not preface anything you said as something other than your own viewpoint.
Let's ignore the fact that you did not understand what I meant by use of the phrase and instead ran with your own version of what you want that phrase to mean.
You didn't provide it in a meaningful context and refused to elaborate on it for days, despite me asking you repeatedly to bring reason to the table. You can pretend to be exasperated at my 'inability to get it', like you tried to do with the 'we're having language issues here', but you're the one in control of your own ability to communicate. I have a high level of education, I'm well read, and I'm intelligent. Unless you're not speaking English, there's no reason why I should be unable to understand you.
Unless you're not making sense.
You included some animals humping other animals to suggest that homosexuality is natural.
Let's revisit what I posted:
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
This is a loaded usage of the term 'natural principles', since these same 'natural principles' are often just religious morals redefined as natural to exclude alternative descriptions of otherwise morally neutral acts. Like you know, being gay. How dare they upset the natural order of things.Can you actually define what 'natural principles' are in your own words?
[list]
[/list]
I await your well-thought out reply.
My point still stands.
The question presents itself :"Natural" under exactly what conditions?
A question you failed to answer. Your 'definition' requires extensive elaboration, for the same reason "A Kivpf is similar to a devvwerw and has iubifsf characteristics" requires extensive elaboration.
Again, you have asserted, by advocating this quote and using it in direct response to my point, that there is a natural order of things, and that morality can be divined by what already is, since a naturally occurring order is observable in nature and not a man-made system.
So me showing you gay animals is a bit of a take that! to your poorly thought out attempt at establishing a moral argument.
Also, you still avoided the original argument prior when it came to whether or not you equated an adult belief in Santa, or the Easter Bunny, or Insert Fictional Creature Here with Christianity, even though you pretty much accused Islam of being this 9/11 spawning monster and implied that anyone who doesn't worship Christ is potentially dangerous.
Good job slipping that nose.
Given what those conditions REALLY might be, are the animals in that picture you presented photo-ed IN their natural state?
To answer your question with another, with good intention, are they depicted in an unnatural state? I mean, did they slip and fall into each other's asses? Or perhaps the film crew arranged them in that way? Or did they naturally have inclinations and instincts which led them to have a homosexual encounter?
First, however, let's get a standard definition of "natural".Simply "Googling" the word yields the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
adjective: natural
1.
existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.
"carrots contain a natural antiseptic that fights bacteria"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is useful.
Were we to with the first part as our definition "existing in ... nature",
there would scarcely be any point in a discussion.
So according to the above definition, those animals balls-deep in each other are in a natural state. After all, they are nature, in nature, not man-made or caused, having gay sex.
Computers and atomic bombs could [b]exist in nature.[/b]
No, this is wrong. Computers and atom bombs are not found in nature and are man-made.
The second part is the limiter that provides some practical meaning:
"not made or [b]caused by humankind".I am not at all sure that the animal humping behavior depicted in your small picture collage satisfies this part.[/b]
So there's a group of gay advocates out there, sweeping the globe and making all these animals have unnatural gay sex?
Especially not if we focus on a specific example like the elephants.For it is well-known that people in prison perform homosexual acts.
It is less well-known that animals behave similarly.
It is even less well known that, for animals who roam and migrate, otherwise large-looking tracts of land, are, in fact "prison" of a sort,
in the sense that they are cut off from resources, fraught with trauma and stress, and discouraging to the fostering of normal behavior and relationships.
In point of fact, that picture resonated for me.
For I've recently seen not only elephants humping other elephants, as in your picture, but also elephants humping rhinos.
And elephants [b]goring
rhinos.
And elephants killing rhinos.The latter you see in nature.
From that standpoint alone you could argue it is "natural".[/b]
So long story short, animals are in free roaming prisons and are forced into unnatural gay/interspecies sex?
What's your proof for this anyways?
If you knew not the history, you might even argue it was un-caused by humankind.And you'd be wrong:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-B5W4lq_LmU
3 min 4 sec
Clearly, this is binding proof that any and all homosexual events in nature are man-made.
Your ability to use sources in appropriately is quite amazing.