You cannot support anything you have said with even a single study. That is the true definition of circular reasoning.
That is why your argument means nothing.
You want to change the law yet you cannot produce a single study to back up anything you are claiming about sexual orientation.
I find it particularly amusing you attack my side (the majority in the country no less) with delusional claims of not knowing how to debate.
Debating requires an argument supported by a listing of facts. Not from your own personal opinion, true facts. Studies backing your claims up.
Your inability to support your theories is painfully clear:
If my theory is correct it may make my argument correct.If one presumes that homosexual orientation may not be inherited, and since heterosexuality is just another form of a sexual orientation, deductive reasoning dictates that heterosexuality TOO may not be inherited. If it is unclear where sexual orientation originates, that INCLUDES heterosexuality.
To support your claim that sexual orientation has an equal chance of surfacing in any individual from birth you must provide some sort of evidence to support your claim. You cannot arrogantly think your act of faith can be used as justification for overturning written law.
Again just so you can't wiggle out again, your argument is pure theory.
If you wish to continue this fallacy of theory unsupported by even a single study, please explain why the sexual organs of male and female are designed for procreation.If one presumes that homosexual orientation may not be inherited, and since heterosexuality is just another form of a sexual orientation, deductive reasoning dictates that heterosexuality TOO may not be inherited. If it is unclear where sexual orientation originates, that INCLUDES heterosexuality.
Now please explain how for thousands of years even before written or oral language, males and females miraculously "figured out" their heterosexual orientation and propagated the species for thousands of years?
And since you do not understand what circular reasoning is, allow me to educate you. Circular reasoning is having no evidence to support your claims simply relying on "because it is". ie your argument.
You can't call my arguments circular since I can point to nature and traditional procreation being heterosexual. That is my evidence and I will provide more since you failed to grasp basic sex ed class in the 4th grade.
And if sexual orientation is heritary which you laughably claim without evidence, then why are homosexuals such an incredibly small number compared to heterosexuals? Do you have any evidence to explain this either or are you going to run back to the world of theory?
Since all life is designed to procreate this statement of yours shows how pathetic your position truly is.First he presumes that humans were designed to procreate. He offers no evidence nor logic to substantiate this. This is, as with Charles, a false premise...already negating anything that comes afterward.
But since you feel you need proof that humans were desiged to procreate, we'll go back to 4th grade science class. Amazing your denial of the most basic common knowledge.
THE HUMAN REPRODUCTIVE SYSTEM
You will find how the male inserts his penis into the womb of a woman, drops his seed and how that seed makes its way to her egg where life begins.
Now, unless you have evidence that denies human beings were designed for procreation, please end this ridiculous line of argument if you can even call it that.
So, there goes another one of your theories down the drain. 4th grade science class taught us how humans are designed for procreation.
Oh and how do you explain the menstrual cycle? Is that just another wild eyed theory of heterosexuality?
Just in case you need proof of the menstrual cycle,
Normal Menstrual Cycle Overview: What is a Menstrual Cycle?
The menstrual cycle is the series of changes a woman's body goes through to prepare for a pregnancy.
And how do women get pregnant again CC? It wouldn't be through heterosexual sex would it? Oh my!
Wrong again. The act of homosexuality has occurred throughout history, it has never been proven to be natural which goes to the core of your fallacy argument.Second, homosexuality also occurs in nature, so on the right/wrong scale it is equivalent to heterosexuality.
So, now that I've blown your sad theory away that heterosexual "orientation" or behavior or whatever other spin word you want to use to deflect away from homosexuality has been backed up with science and your inability to explain how the first humans "learned" how to procreate without oral or written language, please list all studies you have that show homosexual orientation has a natural history beyond the act being in history.
I will say it for the 9th time. You want to change the law as it is written. To do that, you need to back up your theories with documented facts, not your personal opinions.
The very fact you wrote 3 messages in a row shows your insatiable belief (and it is belief since you cannot support it with facts) you have to keep trying to convince me and others without any supporting facts actually shows how weak your case to change the law really is.
You use selective observation (ie the act of homosexuality is enough to claim it is equal to heterosexual behavior), circular reasoning (the inability to provide evidence to support your claim but drawing conclusions anyway), misdirection and false emphasis (your inability to address the very fact you want a law changed based on your theories) as your primary failed argument structure.
Its a sad web of falsehoods and castigation of your counterparts that displays the utter weakness in your case which is based on pure faith and a house of cards.