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.
Thank you for making my point for me CC. You can't cite any study to support your claims.
All you can do is proclaim your adversaries don't understand you. Its a sad and pathetic style of argument but considering how weak your argument is, not surprising.
BTW, you've been posting all this time and still can't get my name right? Hint: There are only two t's in Texmaster. Try to pay more attention to detail. It does explain how sloppy your arguments are though when you can't even get this right.
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.
Pointing out your lies is just getting easier the more your post
Second, homosexuality also occurs in nature, so on the right/wrong scale it is equivalent to heterosexuality.
Busted. Again. Your lies are more and more transparent. Its painfully clear you made that exact claim. Poor CC, can't even keep up with his own posts.
Appeal to nature logical fallacy. You should make that your new username you use it so often.
Nice dodge to my challenge. No shocker though.
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.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA
Ok this has to be the dumbest response you've made so far. By far, this is the worst argument I have ever seen on this issue.
I've already given you links explaining the function of the penis and vagina when it comes to procreation yet you continue this sad but now extremely amusing denial of basic 4th grade science.
hint: There's a reason they are called "reproductive organs" CC :rofl
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.
I've already explained it twice but I'll break out the crayons for you once more. It proves the natural connection between heterosexuality and nature. Cannibalism has also been around since the begging of time. An act does not make it natural. Your inability to prove any natural connection to homosexuality is just sad you keep clinging to it.
Which is precisely what you are doing. Thank you.
Actually I have supported my argument by citing the history of the species and the sexual drives and woman's sexual cycles for pregnancy that only heterosexual sex and produce a child naturally.
You on the other had have provided no evidence. None, nada, zilch, nothing. That is why your argument is a circular one.
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.
Logical fallacy is a parent definition to other specific fallacies. Its painfully obvious you didn't even know that.
Now please, point to the
specific fallacy you are claiming and quote what I said thats supports this laughable charge.
Hint: Googling a term you don't understand is pretty obvious. Try not to do it again.
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:
Another lie by you.
I quote:
Second, homosexuality also occurs in nature, so on the right/wrong scale it is equivalent to heterosexuality.
Please make your decesion on what false argument you are going to go with next time mmmkay?
And also, your theory on the rates of homosexuality are ridiculous and do not fit in with biological genetics.
From the guy who claims genetics has nothing do with it. Then says it does. Then says it doesn't :rofl
If blue eyes are inherited, why are their fewer blue eyed people? Read a bit on genetics to understand this concept.
Thats called a recessive gene and it can be
proven
Are you going to claim now that homosexuality is a recessive gene therefore going back to your original genetics argument?
Please make up your mind as to what argument you are going to make and stick with it.
Again, all irrelevant to the argument.
LOL Of course you would say that since it proves heterosexuality has a genetic basis in nature.
All you are doing is discussing procreation and the heterosexual act.
Yeah. Kinda goes to my entire point. lol
You STILL can't grasp the difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior.
And you STILL can't prove homosexuality is a natural sexual orientation in any way shape or form.
Guess what? Someone who is homosexual can, through a heterosexual act, procreate.
Thanks for making my point for me, again. The point being that ONLY heterosexual sex can propegate the species naturally. There is NO natural function of homosexuality and therefore no basis in considering it as natural as heterosexual orientation as you have claimed then denied you made the claim.
There, now that I have dismissed the "procreation" part of your argument, what are you going to do?
Thats your problem. You can't dismiss procreation as a key component to heterosexual sex because it is a
requirement to propegate the species unlike homosexuality which you can't even prove is as likely as heterosexual orientation even though you made that specific claim.
Hell, you wont even admit what the function of a sexual organ is :lol:
: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.
Actually what I was addressing if you had read carefully, was your argument that just because homosexuality has been found throughout history that somehow makes it natural.
again, your quote:
Second, homosexuality also occurs in nature, so on the right/wrong scale it is equivalent to heterosexuality.
Do you even bother to read what you claim? My response to you was just because homosexuality has been found in history does not make it natural. Cannibalism, human sacrifice have both been found in the history of man but that in no way makes them natural. It is the flimsiest of arguments you use to support yourself.
And once again, without a fact or study to support your claim. :2wave:
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.
Dodging again I see. I'll repeat:
Please 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.
Go right ahead....
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.
Still can't admit the burden of proof is on the side that wants to
change the law
Sad really because you know you can't prove it which is why you try to dishonestly shift the burden of proof on your opposite side.
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.
If you want to send a positive public message support your claims with some hard facts from actual studies instead of staying in the world of theory.
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.
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.
Once again you prove you cannot prove anything you are claiming. You are permanently stuck in the world of theory and you refuse to get out because you can't find the evidence that supports your claims.
Its a sad sad little world you have made for yourself and your denial of even basic sexual function and the role of sexual organs in the body itself makes it all the more calamitous.
But I do want to thank you for this line.
Please show one study that clearly demonstrates that the penis and vagina were designed for procreation.
If I had room in my sig, this would be there in lights. It is by far the funniest argument I have ever seen on this issue. Makes for a great laugh.