Posted: Aug 28, 2013 2:35 pm
No, we aren't having that. Here's the warning that announced your last suspension:
[Reveal] Spoiler:
Blip wrote:
!MODNOTE
Mick, this is a warning that your post here, in which you suggest that homosexuality is ‘contrary to nature’ and your post here, in which you suggest that homosexuality is a ‘disorder’, contravene the Forum Users’ Agreement, specifically section 1.2b which prohibits homophobic posting.
As this is your fourth active warning, you will now be suspended from the forum for one month.
Any comments on this modnote or moderation should not be made in the thread as they will be considered off topic. You yourself may email info@rationalskepticism.org if you wish to comment on your suspension.
And here are the two posts to which are linked in that warning:
[Reveal] Spoiler:
Mick wrote:
Many things. Suppose homosexual couple were male. The nature of men does not include becoming preggers, that's the nature of women, that is, in part, their end, or at least that of their reproductive organs. In regards to barren heterosexual couples, there is nothing contrary to their natures, the reason for their barrenness is (save injury or truma, or the like) a privation rather than something contrary to nature.
Mick wrote:Oldskeptic wrote:Mick wrote:Kazaman wrote:
Why's that? If a homosexual is having sex for the end of procreation insofar as they are "open to it," what's the problem?
Many things. Suppose homosexual couple were male. The nature of men does not include becoming preggers, that's the nature of women, that is, in part, their end, or at least that of their reproductive organs. In regards to barren heterosexual couples, there is nothing contrary to their natures, the reason for their barrenness is (save injury or truma, or the like) a privation rather than something contrary to nature.
It is the nature of some men and women to be homosexual, and it seems to be quite common in antiquity as well as today. That some desert dwellers found it offensive to their god has nothing to do with it being natural or not.
No, it is not in their nature, that is a disorder, like club foot. I am using nature in a metaphysical sense, not in the sense you are accustom to.
Were those events describing the wrong suspension?