There is nothing to cry about.
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.
Poor textmaster. Still doesn't get it. Still can't understand that there are two ways to discount an argument: information or logic. Yours was simple enough to dispose of through logic. There is none in it.
Your inability to support your theories is painfully clear:
If my theory is correct it may make my argument correct.
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.
See, and this is where you continue to fail. You attribute a position to me that I never made. Tell me where I said that there was an equal chance of being gay or straight? Bet you can't find it, because I never said it. Now, I know that you must attribute to me a position that I never made, simply because my actual position so badly destroys yours, but please try to debate honestly.
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.
Appeal to nature logical fallacy. You should make that your new username you use it so often.
Please show one study that clearly demonstrates that the penis and vagina were designed for procreation. A word from the designer, the only one who really knows this would be nice. :lol:
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?
Please explain how this has anything to do with the discussion. I'll give you a hint...it doesn't. And while you're at it, perhaps you can explain why homosexuality has been around since the beginning of recorded history....and undoubtedly beyond that.
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.
Which is precisely what you are doing. Thank you.
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.
These are examples of the appeal to nature logical fallacy...another fallacy that you do not understand. This is why your argument is invalid and irrelevant.
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?
Misrepresenting my position, again. I never claimed that sexual orientation is hereditary. You might want to read my posts a little more carefully. Might help to educate you not only on the issue, but so you don't constantly err in misrepresenting folks:
Guess what? I never claimed that you are born with ANY sexual orientation. Research shows that one's sexual orientation, gay OR straight is created by a one, some, or a combination of the following factors: biology; heredity; hormonal/chemical/genetic structure; social constructs. What the actual make up IS, is unknown, but these are the components that are possible.
And also, your theory on the rates of homosexuality are ridiculous and do not fit in with biological genetics. If blue eyes are inherited, why are their fewer blue eyed people? Read a bit on genetics to understand this concept.
Since all life is designed to procreate this statement of yours shows how pathetic your position truly is.
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!
Again, all irrelevant to the argument. All you are doing is discussing procreation and the heterosexual act. You STILL can't grasp the difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior. Guess what? Someone who is homosexual can, through a heterosexual act, procreate.
There, now that I have dismissed the "procreation" part of your argument, what are you going to do? :lol:
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.
:lol: Still don't know the difference between "acts" and "orientation". I'm guessing that this is deliberate because that admission would relegate your position to nothing but rubble.
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.
You have done nothing of the sort. All you have done is demonstrate that you do not understand the issue, genetics, or the difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior. Yeah...I think that about covers it.
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.
Say it 100 times. Until you understand the difference that I have mentioned MORE than 9 times, your position on this is meaningless. And inaccurate.
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.
No, I wrote 3 messages in a row to dispel all the myths that folks like you are presenting. I consider it a public service to correct inaccuracies like yours.
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.
I demonstrated how your position is completely illogical. You have addressed none of the challenges that I have made to the logic of your position, successfully. That makes your position what is known as a "losing" position. If you
can address any of my logical destruction of your position, I'd like to see it. Thus far, you've given us a big goose egg.
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.
Poor textmaster. I know, it must suck to have been so thoroughly demolished. Feel free to keep posting your non-logic, your logical fallacies, and your inaccuracies. I will continue to deftly demonstrate how invalid they are.
