(March 25, 2013 at 4:46 pm)catfish Wrote: Awww, c'mon.... You're just mad because I exposed your first question's presuppositional fallacy and you gave an obtuse (unclear) answer to the definition of "normal" to hide that fact.
You then responded displaying attributes that fit the other (2a) definition. It was fucking classic!

1) I explained that the issue is a matter of perspective. What one person may find difficult to comprehend, another may find quite easy to understand. Theory of minds, man; most people figure this out as toddlers.

2) I'm not the one saying anything is unnatural. If you think homosexuality is unnatural, perhaps the homophobes need to be telling us how they define 'natural.'

(March 25, 2013 at 4:56 pm)TaraJo Wrote: 1) I explained that the issue is a matter of perspective. What one person may find difficult to comprehend, another may find quite easy to understand. Theory of minds, man; most people figure this out as toddlers.

Which is why I asked for clarification of normal

(March 25, 2013 at 4:56 pm)TaraJo Wrote: 2) I'm not the one saying anything is unnatural. If you think homosexuality is unnatural, perhaps the homophobes need to be telling us how they define 'natural.'

Strawmaning me already? Define "normal", not 'natural'...

(March 25, 2013 at 5:01 pm)catfish Wrote: Define "normal".

Actually, normal is when two lines meet in a 90o angle

(March 25, 2013 at 5:01 pm)catfish Wrote: Strawmaning me already? Define "normal", not 'natural'...

If you don't want to be misrepresented, perhaps you should actually present something to begin with. You can't blame us if you're dancing all around without answering any questions.

You've made a claim: to you, homosexuality is not normal. Now, please provide us with your definition of normal, so we can get a little closer to discerning your actual reasons for thinking that and maybe having a real discussion on the subject.

Wouldn't that be just crazy?

(March 25, 2013 at 5:25 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(March 25, 2013 at 5:01 pm)catfish Wrote: Strawmaning me already? Define "normal", not 'natural'...

If you don't want to be misrepresented, perhaps you should actually present something to begin with. You can't blame us if you're dancing all around without answering any questions.

You've made a claim: to you, homosexuality is not normal. Now, please provide us with your definition of normal, so we can get a little closer to discerning your actual reasons for thinking that and maybe having a real discussion on the subject.

Wouldn't that be just crazy?

Shifting the burden of proof? WTF?

(March 25, 2013 at 5:44 pm)catfish Wrote:

(March 25, 2013 at 5:25 pm)Esquilax Wrote: If you don't want to be misrepresented, perhaps you should actually present something to begin with. You can't blame us if you're dancing all around without answering any questions.

You've made a claim: to you, homosexuality is not normal. Now, please provide us with your definition of normal, so we can get a little closer to discerning your actual reasons for thinking that and maybe having a real discussion on the subject.

Wouldn't that be just crazy?

Shifting the burden of proof? WTF?

You made the claim that homosexuality is unnatural and/or abnormal. So, yes, the burden of proof generally lies on the person making the claim. If you want our proof that homosexuality is ok, I can simply point to the overwhelming majority of peer reviewed, scientific studies done on it in psychology, biology, zoology, archaeology and pretty much every field that studies it from a scientific perspective.

If you're asking for our burden of proof that it is normal/natural, we still need to understand what criteria you use to judge the whether something is normal or natural.

There is a shitload of evidence that homosexuality is natural. Just go to a zoo and if you hang around long enough you will see for yourself.

You know what isn't normal or natural? Homophobia. Nope. You won't see that prejudiced shit anywhere in nature. So stfu.

(March 25, 2013 at 5:53 pm)TaraJo Wrote: You made the claim that homosexuality is unnatural and/or abnormal. So, yes, the burden of proof generally lies on the person making the claim. If you want our proof that homosexuality is ok, I can simply point to the overwhelming majority of peer reviewed, scientific studies done on it in psychology, biology, zoology, archaeology and pretty much every field that studies it from a scientific perspective.

If you're asking for our burden of proof that it is normal/natural, we still need to understand what criteria you use to judge the whether something is normal or natural.

No, I made the claim that it was an abomination to which noone responded and you made some snide comment about. You subsequestly directed me to your questions in which you made at least 2 presuppositional fallacies (bolded below). Besides that, you haven't even stated a position yet nor dictated to me what mine is. But I digress, you asked, so I'll answer when the questions are clear and factual.

Quote:1) Homosexuality being normal and natural is extremely well established in the scietific community. It's reached the point where it's so well established that we don't even bother debating it. Sometimes people will try to figure out what causes homosexuality, and we've come to some interesting conclusions from genetics, epi-genetics, prenatal hormone levels, prenatal brain development and even birth order. None of these are things that people have any realistic choice over.

I believe we have some factual errors in your question #1 as bolded above and the italicized portion is just, well, kinda fucking ironic...

To be honest, it doesn't matter. God is just a character in an overly large story book that we just so happen to call "Holy", yet there is no evidence whatsoever that it is.

That's my same view on abortion, polygamy, and all the others.

Also, if God really cared, he'd have killed us all in an instant...