How many times are you going to say the same thing...yanno tucker I always liked you and thought alot of you...I didnt realize till tonight what your really about..live and learn
I've always liked you and I still do. One view that a person holds doesn't change my opinion of them as a person.
But I'll be the first one to admit that I can be a dick. It's a part of who I am. I'm not afraid to admit that truth.
You stated 3 times that I am acting like a victim...your full of ****...you keep saying the same thing over and over and you act like its what meaningful or something ?
It's meaningful, whether or not you want to acknowledge that meaning or not. Your views on how you are being "victimized" are dictating your behavior in this thread.
You keep trying to put words in my mouth and you keep telling me how illogical my arguments are.
I'm not putting words into your mouth. I quoted the post where you said you weren't changing your views unless you want to and it's abundantly clear that any attempt to present a logical rebuttal to your stated position will be ignored by you. that people's arguments won't make a lick of difference. I've seen you doing this repeatedly in this thread.
Your argument
is illogical because it is impossible for it to be consistent. First, you have to change the definition of "normal" from one premise to the next in order to make it work.
Let's look at his quote of yours:
"
If homosexuality was normal...94% of the world would be homosexual and 6% straight..
if it was NORMAL for two men or two women to be a MOMMY AND A DADDY there would be no need for both men and women there would be either one or the other"
In the bolded part, you define normal as being a product of percentages (i.e. normal = common). In the underlined part, you are defining normal as a matter of biology (i.e. normal = natural).
If we use the same definitions across the entire statement, though, one of the parts would be obviously false. It doesn't matter which one of the definitions we choose.
This is called the fallacy of equivocation.
Now, further exacerbating the issue is the fact that normal and abnormal, no matter what definition is used, have no bearing on legality or morality.
Things that are normal are illegal and are often considered immoral, while things that are abnormal are often legal and can often be consider moral.
To explain, I will give examples of every type (I am using the two definitions that you have demonstrated n that previous quote). That means my examples will always fit with both definitions):
Worldwide, unprovoked violence against other people is normal (it is statistically very common, and it is natural). It is also illegal in most instances and most people consider it immoral as well. The "normalness" of it does not prevent it from being illegal or immoral.
Artificial limbs are abnormal (they are both uncommon and they are not natural). But they are legal and they are certainly not immoral. The fact that they are abnormal does not automatically make them illegal or immoral.
this demonstrates that the sole criterion that you are using for your arguments plays no discernible role in the things that you are using it to support.
Now, you might be using "normal" to mean "right or proper". If so, then you are using circular logic to support your position since the premise already contains the conclusion.
Now, you can go right back to telling me to kiss your ass for explaining that, or you can take a moment to consider your own views critically. Now remember, just because your reasoning is flawed right now doesn't mean your conclusion is automatically flawed. It's hypothetically possible that your conclusion is true, but without valid reasoning to support it, it's totally impossible to make that determination.
I'm not asking you to change your opinion. I'm asking you to take a serious and objective look at the reasoning you have given for that opinion. I'm asking you to apply that same reasoning to other things
besides gay marriage while maintaining a consistent definition of normal (that
doesn't mean "moral").
If you want to believe that homosexuality is unnatural (i.e. that it does not occur in nature), so be it. It's impossible to logically argue that unnatural things are immoral because they are unnatural while typing on a computer, though, because one cannot possibly hold that position while typing on a computer. You can even continue to consider it abnormal. It doesn't matter because whether or not it is abnormal has no bearing on the gay marriage issue, logically speaking.
As I said, I have no interest in changing your opinion on homosexual marriage. I
do want you to take a critical look at your arguments for that opinion, though. But, like I said, you are free to tell me to kiss your ass.
Stop acting like children. Cease with the personal attacks or else.