(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...
