Homosexual marriages- against the natures law?

Do you really know what is right and what is wrong? because i don't.

Hi guys,

I joined in this forum because, having read the rules, it seemed like a fascinating diversion. Many of these rules appealed to me. For example:

You may not be right for this section if you.. -Are overly religious, political, patriotic, masculine, feminine, irritable. -Can’t take criticism. -Are not used to serious, logical debate. The following applies: (IMMEDIATE DELETION) -No extremist comments.

I urge you to consider, however, that some of the posts in this thread are in violation of the rules of this forum. In particular, the statement "Sorry, but no amount of scholarly argument no matter how well written, will change the overwhelming majority of people's minds on this issue" is a direct statement that scholarly argument is not what they are here for. Furthermore, the statement "let alone the perverse behaviour we are discussing" is an extremist and inflamatory comment. Any gay people reading this post will surely have been insulted by this.

Another poster felt it necessary to comment about one poster's overreaction, saying: "I think it is easy to resort to that way, but it destroy the debate.....I think." I submit that this is correct. It is difficult to debate rationally with this sort of intolerance going on.

I urge you to enforce the rules on this forum more strictly. Some of us actually like scholarly arguments and serious logical debate, and it is difficult to conduct one whilst blind assertions of faith are submitted as "fact" which "most people know in their hearts", and whilst logical rebuttals engender hostility.

I request that you delete all posts which are in violation of the rules of this forum, and that you do not allow such violations to continue.

Thank you.
Rommie

Elena and Chameleon, you may be right. Perhaps my "passionate feeling about homosexuality" statement may have been a little out of order. I truly hope it wasn't actually offensive because I too believe that debating topics such as this is quite constructive and may help to prevoke thought amongst those that if not for such debate may not have stopped to consider issues such as this.

Rommie, the statement; "Sorry, but no amount of scholarly argument no matter how well written, will change the overwhelming majority of people's minds on this issue" is not a direct statement that scholarly argument is not what I am here for. I do not understand how you drew the conclusion that it was. I was referring to the overwhelming majority of people, not myself. In retrospect it perhaps should have been prefaced with "in my opinion" but that is also a matter of opinion.
So the guidelines for this section state;
You may not be right for this section if you..
-Are overly religious, political, patriotic, masculine, feminine, irritable.
-Can’t take criticism.
-Are not used to serious, logical debate.
The following applies: (IMMEDIATE DELETION)
-No extremist comments.
Rommie, you have appealed to the moderator/s on the grounds that these guidelines have been breached because I used the word "perverse". According to my dictionary, perverse can be used to mean unaccountably wrong. How therefore is the use of that word in any way inflamatory or insulting? Are people who frequent controversial debating forums really so easily offended? I for one don't think so. I give them credit for having enough exposure to serious debate not to be offended.

In conventional debates the topic of the debate is defined. So far the topic of this debate has not been defined. Would anyone like to take a stab at it?
What is `natures law` for example?

It must be wonderful to KNOW what the
overwhelming majority think.
Tony Blair is another who KNOWS.
The day after the Two Towers he KNEW that
the overwhelming majority of Muslims were against
the Terrorist attack. Poor dopey old me, I don't
even Know what the Bloke next door thinks
about Homosexual marriage.