One thing I find encouraging on here!

[Statler Waldorf]

No. I asked what it 'means', not for a definition of heterosexuality (what about women who have sex with men?)

I thought we were talking about men, sorry. A straight person is someone who has sex with only members of the opposite sex. That’s what it means.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

No. I asked what it 'means', not for a definition of heterosexuality (what about women who have sex with men?)

I thought we were talking about men, sorry. A straight person is someone who has sex with only members of the opposite sex. That’s what it means.

You're demonstrating only that you know what the definition of heterosexuality is.

You're not demonstrating you know what it 'is' to be straight; what it means. So I conclude that you don't know, and that the concept is 'nonsensical'.

[Statler Waldorf]

You're demonstrating only that you know the definition if heterosexuality is.

Indeed. You’re the one who draws a distinction between “straight” and “heterosexual” not I.

You're not demonstrating you know what it 'is' to be straight; what it means. So I conclude that you don't know, and that the concept is meaningless.

I’ve already told you, “being gay” and “being straight” are nonsensical terms used to deflect the issue. A straight person has sex with the opposite gender, a gay person has sex with the same gender. Simple as that.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

You're demonstrating only that you know the definition if heterosexuality is.

Indeed. You’re the one who draws a distinction between “straight” and “heterosexual” not I.

You're not demonstrating you know what it 'is' to be straight; what it means. So I conclude that you don't know, and that the concept is meaningless.

I’ve already told you, “being gay” and “being straight” are nonsensical terms used to deflect the issue. A straight person has sex with the opposite gender, a gay person has sex with the same gender. Simple as that.

Also weird how you don't 'get' what homosexuality is.

Now you’re committing the fallacy of equivocation, I said I do not understand what “being gay” means, I understand what homosexuality is. The two are not the same though.

So what's not the same? Is straight and heterosexual ok but gay and homosexual not?

[ShaMan]

It's almost as encouraging as the increase in gay Christian marriages.

"But as I studied the Bible, my view on that subject changed. I now believe that homosexual behavior is appropriate within the confines of a committed, loving, monogamous, lifelong, Christ-centered relationship. Essentially, I'm arguing that a Christ-centered marriage is a good thing, regardless of the gender of the people involved."

[Statler Waldorf]

Now you’re committing the fallacy of equivocation, I said I do not understand what “being gay” means, I understand what homosexuality is. The two are not the same though.

When you were using the term “being gay” I assume you were referring to someone’s sexual orientation, some sense of “being” and “who they are”. That is what I am saying is nonsensical. If you were using it to mean someone who has sex with the same gender then I’d be following you. The equivocation occurs when you try and say that we do not approve of same-sex relationships because of who a person is rather than what they do. That’s my point. I tried to get you to define what “being gay” meant and you could not do so.

This issue is really about definitions though, if two straight men wanted to marry one another (I guess it could happen) I still would not support it. Does that mean I hate straight people? Hardly.

[Losty]

Can someone give me a summary of what's going on here?

[Tonus]

I think it's a discussion of how to determine usage of the term gay or homosexual. ie, does it refer to orientation, or to an act. I tend to prefer the former. Because if it's primarily defined by the act, then I've known a lot of dogs that were, uh... "legsexual."

[StealthySkeptic]

I think it's a discussion of how to determine usage of the term gay or homosexual. ie, does it refer to orientation, or to an act. I tend to prefer the former. Because if it's primarily defined by the act, then I've known a lot of dogs that were, uh... "legsexual."

That, and Statler, he with the "atheists hate God" signature, expects us to take him seriously.

[bennyboy]

wtf not sure if trolling

Anti-gay Detective: So, tell me. . . do you like pretty girls?
Gay dude: No, not that much.
Anti-gay Detective: Aha! So you like ugly girls. I just KNEW you weren't gay!

I really hope you're a poe, because you're not just wrong, you seem to be answering comments in the most maximally ridiculous way that you can find.

No, I am reducing your arguments to absurdity. I’ll explain it to you; it is where you take a person’s argument and demonstrate that it leads to conclusions that are absurd (such as rape and pedophilia being permissible). Fidel has no more logical reason to believe that rape is morally wrong than I do for believing homosexuality is. Any attempted distinction is purely arbitrary and therefore meaningless (as we have seen).

Still a failing argument. In homosexuality, the parties involved have made informed consent. In the case of rape, consent has not been made; in the case of pedophilia, a child does not have the capacity to make informed consent.

The problem with rape and pedophilia isn't the mechanical act. It's the infringement on the will (or devlopment) of the participants. Homosexuality has no such problem.