Homosexuality is unnatural -fact!

[MrFungus420]

Where did I say it would?

1.) Now you are getting closer to the truth, did the earth rotate around the sun through evolution?

No, so evolution sort of fails on that one doesn't it? God being the designer is becoming a far more logical conclusion.?

Right there. Claiming that because evolution, a biological study, can't explain the Earth revolving around the Sun, something either in astrophysic's or cosmology's bailiwick, is a failure of evolution.

Need I point out how flawed the argument is that is based on an apparently serious misunderstanding of what evolution entails.

Why would you ask me that, I have never hinted it might?

Because, asking if evolution was the cause of the Earth rotating around the Sun makes as much sense as asking cellular biology to explain solar flares.

Evolution is a theory not fact.

Here you are showing that you also don't really understand what a scientific theory entails. A scientific theory, such as evolution, is not a guess. The best explanation for the difference between a scientific law and theory is:
" A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains a whole series of related phenomena." (from: http://wilstar.com/theories.htm)

 

[ngdawg]

If you read the thread from the beginning you will realise that he agrees with either one of two premises, by applying the method of deduction I have establish that he does believe this, however, it can be argued that he didn’t say it, but the conclusion is without doubt.


It is called deductive reasoning.

It's called baiting and you know damned well no one, including Jallman has agreed with a single thing you type.
Not one of your 'premises' holds water. The only thing being deducted here are the minutes we've wasted trying to get you to actuallly THINK with a modicum of logic.
It(penis) fits the hand so as to guide it into the vagina. If you need your hand to do that, you've got more problems then just hating homosexuals.

You respond with twisting and 'back up your claim' when caught with your pants down. You've done nothing but inflame and make some of THE most preposterous statements ever seen here.
Oh, back up my claim, thinks you? Equating homosexuality with pedophilia would be a good start....do you also equate broccoli with bow ties? No? hm....and why? Because one has NOTHING to do with the other.
Penis is 'designed'??? Cars (which you claim are 'natural') are 'designed'.
Let's go off topic for a sec...so, JJ...what do you do for a living? No, really...I want to know....

 

[MrFungus420]

here is what he said again:

your previous assertion was that it was unnatural and thats what made it wrong. So if it is natural, by your own previous assertions, there is nothing wrong with it. Debate finished. You are done

this can be simplified to:

if unnatural then wrong
not unnatural
therefore not wrong.

But, the initial premise was not "if homosexuality is unnatural, then it is wrong". The initial premise was "homosexuality is wrong because it is unnatural".

but, I was teasing him anyway. :2razz:

Yeah, I know that now... :doh

 

[MrFungus420]

Not true, kicking a football can be construed as unnatural yet there is no harm if we all do it, however, the same cannot be said about homosexuality. Therefore, the fact that it is unnatural is enough to conclude it is wrong.

So, even you admit that your claim that "Homosexuality is either unnatural therefore wrong" is a flawed conclusion.

If it is wrong because it is unnatural, then anything that is unnatural is wrong.

 

[FallingPianos]

Homosexuality is either unnatural therefore wrong or Homosexuality is natural yet harmful and unwanted.

That is only if the premise is accepted that everything that is unnatural is wrong.

Not true, kicking a football can be construed as unnatural yet there is no harm if we all do it, however, the same cannot be said about homosexuality. Therefore, the fact that it is unnatural is enough to conclude it is wrong.

to clarify, you are saying that:

homosexuality is [harmful and unnatural]
[harmful and unnatural] things are wrong
therefore homosexuality is wrong.

(the brackets are just to group "harmful and unnatural" as one item.)

is that what you are saying?

Not quite, read what I have said again.

I'll take it more literally this time:

to clarify, you are saying that:

if homosexuality is unnatural it is wrong ("Homosexuality is either unnatural therefore wrong...")

homosexuality is harmful ("there is no harm if we all do it, however, the same cannot be said about homosexuality"

therefore, Homosexuality is either unnatural therefore wrong or Homosexuality is natural yet harmful and unwanted. ("Therefore, the fact that it is unnatural is enough to conclude it is wrong.")

is that what you are saying? if not, please clarify.

 

[jimmyjack]

Again, show me where I made any such assertion, implied or otherwise. If you cant do that, then we are right back to Pacridge's observation that you are just being a jerk and have no interest in real discussion.

You asked:

Well, where did a homosexual come from if not from nature?

So I said: This begs the question: Well, where did a paedophile come from if not from nature?

And we need no debate on whether paedophilia is unnatural; therefore we know homosexuality is unnatural too.

You said:

How do you even begin to arrive at that conclusion? At most you can say that pedophilia is natural but unwanted and harmful.

I said: Then we can say that homosexuality is natural but unwanted and harmful.

You said:

now are you back pedaling and saying that homosexuality is natural now?

So, either jallman believes homosexuality is unnatural therefore it is wrong, or he believes it is natural yet harmful and unwanted.

Which one is it?

 

[jimmyjack]

So, even you admit that your claim that "Homosexuality is either unnatural therefore wrong" is a flawed conclusion.

If it is wrong because it is unnatural, then anything that is unnatural is wrong.

If it is wrong because it is unnatural, then the danger is that it can spread to everyone, because it is beyond nature, this renders homosexuality very wrong and very dangerous.

 

[FallingPianos]

If it is wrong because it is unnatural, then the danger is that it can spread to everyone, because it is beyond nature, this renders homosexuality very wrong and very dangerous.

is it wrong because it is unnatural?

 

[ngdawg]

If it is wrong because it is unnatural, then the danger is that it can spread to everyone, because it is beyond nature, this renders homosexuality very wrong and very dangerous.

HUH????? :shock:
Back up your claim

 

[jallman]

You asked:


So I said: This begs the question: Well, where did a paedophile come from if not from nature?

And we need no debate on whether paedophilia is unnatural; therefore we know homosexuality is unnatural too.

You said:

I said: Then we can say that homosexuality is natural but unwanted and harmful.

You said:

So, either jallman believes homosexuality is unnatural therefore it is wrong, or he believes it is natural yet harmful and unwanted.

Which one is it?

I know what you are trying to do...you are offering two choices and neither with any relevance or logical foundation in what I said. I am given the choice of either accepting the homosexuality is unnatural therefore wrong, or, the choice of stating homosexuality is akin to pedophilia because they are both natural occurences. Its quite transparent. How about this...you stop forcing a relationship between pedophilia and homosexuality and I will agree that homosexuality is not normal in nature. At least we can make some progress.

Of course, if you want to drop the charade and admit to your bigotry and homophobia, we can do that too. I mean, you have proven that you dont care how we arrive at the conclusion that homosexuals are particularly bad, just so long as we arrive at that final conclusion. Pathetic. Actually, disgusting.

 

[talloulou]

the danger is that it can spread to everyone, because it is beyond nature, this renders homosexuality very wrong and very dangerous.

Do you honestly believe homosexuality can spread? As in it's catchy or contagious?

 

[Plain old me]

Debate Conclusion:

Homosexuality is either unnatural therefore wrong.

Or

Homosexuality is natural yet harmful and unwanted.

Okay doke, if you want to get debate-technical...

Your first conclusion relies on the assumption that everything unnatural is wrong, whilst this has clearly been shown to be at least debatable with examples such as plastics etc.

The second conclusion relies on the assumption that just because another 'natural' thing (peadophilia) is harmful, then another 'natural' thing (homosexuality) is also harmful. As many have pointed out these two things are in no way similar enough to draw those sorts of comparisons, and so the argument does not work either way.

As I have said, so what if your idea that homosexuality is unnatural is accurate, what then? The only evidence you have provided that it is causing any serious detriment to society is a peice of debatable anecdotal evidence, and general truths, such as falling birthrate, which are far too significant to have been caused in any real way by homosexuality.

 

[Sir_Alec]

What?! This debate is still going on. jimmyjack you're totally cornered and you still claim you are right. Lose your ego man.

 

[Pacridge]

I comprehend them completely. I even have the intelligence to understand your statement, when it says: “your” instead of: you are.

Just as I thought, it's not an act. You can read, you can comprehend...so you're simply being a jerk and trying to twist others words. Thanks for clearing that up. Now stop with the jerk behavior.

 

[cherokee]

I always did like Mary Ann, I use to wonder if she was a screamer or a squealer....:mrgreen:
But now since Homosexuality is contagious I'm leaning toward the professor.

We must find the cure!:lol:

God the chit you come up with jimmyjack....

 

[jimmyjack]

I always did like Mary Ann, I use to wonder if she was a screamer or a squealer....:mrgreen:
But now since Homosexuality is contagious I'm leaning toward the professor.

We must find the cure!:lol:

God the chit you come up with jimmyjack....

Where did I say it was contagious?

 

[tecoyah]

If it is wrong because it is unnatural, then the danger is that it can spread to everyone, because it is beyond nature, this renders homosexuality very wrong and very dangerous.

Either you impied it here....or I really need to revisit my unerstanding of the English Language.

(Hint....My reading comprehension is quite advanced)

 

[Thorgasm]

If it is wrong because it is unnatural, then the danger is that it can spread to everyone, because it is beyond nature, this renders homosexuality very wrong and very dangerous.

Is homosexuality contagious? Do you feel like you are "coming down" with it? It seems like you really are obsessed with this topic.

 

[jimmyjack]

Either you impied it here....or I really need to revisit my unerstanding of the English Language.

(Hint....My reading comprehension is quite advanced)

I wish your spelling was as advanced: “ impied” “unerstanding”.

I spread butter on slices of bread; does that mean butter is contagious?

 

[jimmyjack]

Is homosexuality contagious? Do you feel like you are "coming down" with it? It seems like you really are obsessed with this topic.

How are you advancing the debate?

 

[Thorgasm]

How are you advancing the debate?

The debate hasn't advanced since post one. Why should that change now?

 

[jimmyjack]

The debate hasn't advanced since post one. Why should that change now?

How are you advancing the debate?

 

[ngdawg]

Ok. That's it.
MOD!! Someone....stop this troll....He's not debating, he's not providing insight, he's not even answering questions as to his motives or train of thought....

 

[Thorgasm]

How are you advancing the debate?

It takes two sides to have a debate. You are the one holding the debate back by ignoring logic and wallowing in logic fallacies.

 

[jallman]

It takes two sides to have a debate. You are the one holding the debate back by ignoring logic and wallowing in logic fallacies.

His interest lies not in the discussion of the natural vs unnatural causes of homosexuality, but rather in making everyone capitulate to the idea that homosexuals are bad people and, therefore, worthy of scorn. As I have shown, it doesnt matter how he forces that conclusion, so long as that very conclusion is the outcome of the conversation. He already abandoned the principle assertion of this debate once and switched gears by trying to force an erroneous relationship between pedophilia and homosexuality. HE cant win this and he knows it. As Pacridge said, he is just being a jerk. If anyone deserves to be put on ignore, its him.