Homosexuality is a choice

[SnakeTongue]

Again, you are attempting to mix mathematics and psychology to try to prove what you believe.

I'm sorry, what you came up with is pure gibberish.

I am sorry if you cannot understand language de-construction.

I am just trying to be objective, hence the mathematics.

Still, I hold my argument.

Call it "gibberish" do not means it cannot be applied.

Do you even check your sources, or do you just find someone who agrees with you and post it?

And sorry, you're wrong. What Titanic Explorer is asking is not a straw man.

Yes, I check all my sources. Twice sometimes.

I think you do not understand the meaning of a "straw man" argument.

 

[JFrankA]

I am sorry if you cannot understand language de-construction.

I am just trying to be objective, hence the mathematics.

Still, I hold my argument.

Call it "gibberish" do not means it cannot be applied.

But math and human reaction and emotion do not de-construct this way. Are you saying that all people are the same? You can't mathematically prove homosexuality is a sickness or not by an equation.

Yes, I check all my sources. Twice sometimes.

Then you should re-check the source of the web site you quoted.

According to the person who wrote the quote himself:

I am an independent researcher who has been involved in small publishing since the late eighties and exposing Zionist and other mendacity and disinformation since the early 90s. I have published a number of books and a large number of pamphlets on a variety of subjects. Some of them are now out of print, permanently or otherwise, but many are still available.

I have published on the Holocaust and Holocaust Revisionism - what is known pejoratively and inaccurately as Holocaust Denial. I have published a book length exposé of Zionist agent and sexual deviant David Irving.

I have published research and polemics against homosexuality, about smoking and cancer, and collections of short stories and verse.

http://www.infotextmanuscripts.org/ITMA.html#HomePageIndex

And he sounds like a credible, non-biased, scientific source to you?

I think you do not understand the meaning of a "straw man" argument.

Let's see: I say a straw man argument is one in which a person argues against a point that their opponent didn't make.

Description of Straw Man

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.

Yup. I got it.

Now, please answer my question:

There are many people I know who are submissive. Few of those submissive people I know love pain. I mean really really really get aroused by being in pain.

Do you think that this sexual preference is chosen? Does someone who is a masochist chosen to be in pain?

If someone does choose to be aroused by being in pain, why would the do that? We are talking hurtful, bruising, bloody and if not careful, dangerous injuries just because they chose that sexual preference.

Or, is it because that person doesn't have a choice and pain is just the thing that makes her/him aroused?

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

I am sorry if you cannot understand language de-construction.

I am just trying to be objective, hence the mathematics.

Still, I hold my argument.

Call it "gibberish" do not means it cannot be applied.



Yes, I check all my sources. Twice sometimes.

I think you do not understand the meaning of a "straw man" argument.

Do you think gay people are attracted to the opposite sex but 'choose' to be attarcted to thye same sex? If so, what is your evidence?



Do you think gay people are lying when they say they have no attraction to the opposite sex? If so, what is your evidence?

If you regard being gay as some kind of deception, then you are just ignorant .
If you regard it as a disorder, then you are an outright gaybasher.

 

[TraneWreck]

No adult could be this infantile.

I take it you have no response.

Was there original sin in the ape world, or does it just turn out nature contains a wide array of behaviors?

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

I take it you have no response.

Was there original sin in the ape world, or does it just turn out nature contains a wide array of behaviors?

'originial sin'?

Are you a religious crackpot as well as a homophobe?

 

[TraneWreck]

'originial sin'?

Are you a religious crackpot as well as a homophobe?

I believe you are reading what I'm saying as the exact opposite of what I'm saying.

I will try to be more clear:

Is homosexuality "natural?"

To even make sense of that concept we have to understand what a homophobe (I'm assuming that the opposition to homosexuality will be largely Biblical) means when they say it's "unnatural." They mean it's a sinful act contrary to the will of God. Sin, of course, entered the world when some dude ate an apple he wasn't supposed to a long time ago.

There's a video of a chimp *********** a frog. Is that "unnatural?" Well, since "unnatural" means "sinful," I'm curious if Chimpanzees underwent a similar fall from grace. Otherwise they're acting in accordance with the will of God as he created them.

This is all gibberish, of course, animals, especially those more closely related to us, will hump, molest, and frotage against anything that affords them a bit of carnal pleasure. Two dudes kissing is well accounted for in the natural world, and thus cannot be considered "unnatural."

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

I believe you are reading what I'm saying as the exact opposite of what I'm saying.

I will try to be more clear:

Is homosexuality "natural?"

To even make sense of that concept we have to understand what a homophobe (I'm assuming that the opposition to homosexuality will be largely Biblical) means when they say it's "unnatural." They mean it's a sinful act contrary to the will of God. Sin, of course, entered the world when some dude ate an apple he wasn't supposed to a long time ago.

There's a video of a chimp *********** a frog. Is that "unnatural?" Well, since "unnatural" means "sinful," I'm curious if Chimpanzees underwent a similar fall from grace. Otherwise they're acting in accordance with the will of God as he created them.

This is all gibberish, of course, animals, especially those more closely related to us, will hump, molest, and frotage against anything that affords them a bit of carnal pleasure. Two dudes kissing is well accounted for in the natural world, and thus cannot be considered "unnatural."

"Otherwise they're acting in accordance with the will of God as he created them."




Which god. Odin? Zeus?

Sorry, there is no skygod living in a cloud.
The worship of a god is 'unnatural'.

 

[TraneWreck]

"Otherwise they're acting in accordance with the will of God as he created them."




Which god. Odin? Zeus?

Sorry, there is no skygod living in a cloud.
The worship of a god is 'unnatural'.

You need to work on reading comprehension.

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

You need to work on reading comprehension.

You need to work on your homophobia- odds are you are a closeted gay person with serious self loathing issues.

 

[SnakeTongue]

Homosexual behavior has been observed all throughout the animal kingdom, among primates, elephants, whales, and other mammals. It's natural, and nothing to be ashamed about.

"Natural" is not equivalent of "nature".

The assumption that homosexual behaviour is a defined biological trait and it have being observed as a ordinary sexual conduct among the animal kingdom do not have any base so ever in scientific research.

Meanwhile, to apply the word "natural" to define the homosexual behaviour as something heritable and part of an unchangeable nature is a language's fallacy.

Homosexual behaviour define the same-gender human sexual conduct. It cannot be compared with nature's environment because is an artificial human condition. Nature do not have a biological device which enables the homosexual behaviour to mate and procreate.

The homosexual behaviour is defined as "unnatural" because do not represent the ordinary course of the biological nature and is not part of the main core of the anthropological human evolution.

nat·u·ral
[nach-er-uhl, nach-ruhl] Show IPA
–adjective
14.
in accordance with the nature of things: It was natural that he should hit back.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/natural

nature
c.1300, "essential qualities, innate disposition," also "creative power in the material world," from O.Fr. nature, from L. natura "course of things, natural character, the universe," lit. "birth," from natus "born," pp. of nasci "to be born," from PIE *gene- "to give birth, beget" (see genus). Original sense is in human nature. Meaning "inherent, dominating power or impulse" of a person or thing is from late 14c. Nature and nurture have been contrasted since 1874.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=nature&searchmode=none

-

So, when that chimp decides he's going to rape the frog, is that natural? Or have chimpanzees suffered a similar fall from grace like we humans?

Did some dumb chimp eat a banana he wasn't supposed to a couple thousand years ago thereby releasing evil into the chimp world and creating a class of frog-humpers?

It is "natural" from the point of view of the chimp. But note that the chimp is not living under "natural" conditions. That means, to say that is natural, would be necessary observe this behaviour (during a great length of time) in a environment without the "artificial" interference of the human presence.

 

[SnakeTongue]

But math and human reaction and emotion do not de-construct this way. Are you saying that all people are the same? You can't mathematically prove homosexuality is a sickness or not by an equation.

No, I am not.

I am saying that all the words are symbols.

The universe of the numbers can prove more than you think.

Then you should re-check the source of the web site you quoted.

According to the person who wrote the quote himself:

http://www.infotextmanuscripts.org/ITMA.html#HomePageIndex

And he sounds like a credible, non-biased, scientific source to you?

Yes, he is credible to me. When the scientific debate is focused over language construct, he is far better than your "semantics". He is a skilled and professional writer.

Let's see: I say a straw man argument is one in which a person argues against a point that their opponent didn't make.

You are right:

Again, you are attempting to mix mathematics and psychology to try to prove what you believe.

I'm sorry, what you came up with is pure gibberish.

Person [SnakeTongue] has position ["Gender Identity" is a fallacy].
Person [JFrankA] presents position [mathematics and psychology] (which is a distorted version of ["Gender Identity" is a fallacy]).
Person [JFrankA] attacks position [mathematics and psychology].
Therefore ["Gender Identity" is a fallacy] is false/incorrect/flawed.

Yup. I got it.

Now, please answer my question:

In the right time.

 

[SnakeTongue]

Well, since "unnatural" means "sinful,"

Since when, how and where?

 

[kuroyume0161]

"Natural" is not equivalent of "nature".

The assumption that homosexual behaviour is a defined biological trait and it have being observed as a ordinary sexual conduct among the animal kingdom do not have any base so ever in scientific research.

Meanwhile, to apply the word "natural" to define the homosexual behaviour as something heritable and part of an unchangeable nature is a language's fallacy.

Homosexual behaviour define the same-gender human sexual conduct. It cannot be compared with nature's environment because is an artificial human condition. Nature do not have a biological device which enables the homosexual behaviour to mate and procreate.

The homosexual behaviour is defined as "unnatural" because do not represent the ordinary course of the biological nature and is not part of the main core of the anthropological human evolution.

Sentience isn't a biological trait observed in the animal kingdom except by one species - among billions over Earth's history. So, does that make it unnatural as well? You are equivocating and using special pleading. But the situation is definitely special. Humans are not like other organisms therefore using arguments that involve exemplification in nature are not totally efficacious. That homosexuality has a biological (note: NOT genetic totally or exactly) factor is rather VERY WELL ESTABLISHED. So what is your argument again?

 

[SnakeTongue]

You need to work on your homophobia- odds are you are a closeted gay person with serious self loathing issues.

Originally, homophobia was psychiatric jargon invented to describe a person's fear of homosexual inclinations in him or herself. "Gay" activists simply stole the term and redefined it as "hate and/or fear of homosexuals."

Scott D. Lively

 

[SnakeTongue]

That homosexuality has a biological (note: NOT genetic totally or exactly) factor is rather VERY WELL ESTABLISHED. So what is your argument again?

No, no biological "factor" was even found yet.

Would you provide evidence to prove your point?

 

[SnakeTongue]

Sentience isn't a biological trait observed in the animal kingdom except by one species - among billions over Earth's history. So, does that make it unnatural as well?

You are affirming that "homosexual behavior" is equivalent to "sentience", which is false.

sentient
1630s, "capable of feeling," from L. sentientem (nom. sentiens) "feeling," prp. of sentire "to feel" (see sense). Meaning "conscious" (of something) is from 1815.

sentient
1
: responsive to or conscious of sense impressions <sentient beings>
2
: aware
3
: finely sensitive in perception or feeling

Sentient means the capability of a given living being respond to its own feelings. Such responses can be observed not just in human beings, but also in the animal kingdom.

Therefore, "sentience" is a "natural" biological trait because is wired in the nervous system of all living beings.

"Homosexual behavior" is not a biological trait and is not wired in the nervous system. It is an exclusive definition for same-gender sexual conduct.

The brain [of an animal] is housed within the skull and is important for controlling:
* Consciousness (mental status, awareness).
* Behavior.
* Voluntary and reflex movements of the head, body and limbs.
* Vital functions such as sleeping, eating, drinking and breathing.
* Conscious recognition of senses (seeing, hearing, taste, touch, and pain).

http://www.vetstreamfelis.com/ACI/December08/VMD1/fre70073.asp

Q: Will my pet be monitored during anesthesia?
A: The neurology service is staffed by experienced licensed veterinary technicians, veterinary assistants, and veterinary technician specialists in anesthesia. Monitoring consists of ECG, invasive and non – invasive blood pressure measurement, oxygen saturation of blood, respiration rate and level of consciousness.

http://www.vetstreamfelis.com/ACI/December08/VMD1/fre70073.asp

-

You are equivocating and using special pleading. But the situation is definitely special.

I am supporting my arguments with well defined evidence and references.

Humans are not like other organisms therefore using arguments that involve exemplification in nature are not totally efficacious.

What do you think human being are made of? Human beings itself?

Have you even heard of cells?

Yes, exemplification from nature is very efficacious.

 

[JFrankA]

No, I am not.

I am saying that all the words are symbols.

The universe of the numbers can prove more than you think.

Not in the case of human emotion and reaction. You cannot calculate how someone is going to feel about something. If that were true, then every advertisement would work perfectly. People would calculate

Yes, he is credible to me. When the scientific debate is focused over language construct, he is far better than your "semantics". He is a skilled and professional writer.

Of course he's credible to you. He agrees with you. Where is his proof? Where are his scientific evidence? What are his credentials that make him an expert in this? All you have is some guy pontificating with nothing to back up his claims and you are using it as a appeal to authority.

You are right:


Person [SnakeTongue] has position ["Gender Identity" is a fallacy].
Person [JFrankA] presents position [mathematics and psychology] (which is a distorted version of ["Gender Identity" is a fallacy]).
Person [JFrankA] attacks position [mathematics and psychology].
Therefore ["Gender Identity" is a fallacy] is false/incorrect/flawed.

No, I am attacking your logic and the way you coming up with a hypothesis. That is NOT a straw man.

In the right time.

The time is now. Put your money where your typing is. I, as well as a lot of other posters here, asked you a direct, straightforward question. You are avoiding it altogether. Not to sound disrespectful, and I'm sorry if I do, but it seems to me that you are stalling for time until you can find a website that has someone blogging away and agrees with your position, then present that as evidence. Or you are trying to come up with some kind of equation to explain away human emotion.

Neither one is evidence. Both are pleading.

Please get into the discussion and answer the question so we can have a real debate.

 

[SnakeTongue]

Not in the case of human emotion and reaction. You cannot calculate how someone is going to feel about something. If that were true, then every advertisement would work perfectly.

I am calculating the meaning of the words, not the feelings of people.

Of course he's credible to you. He agrees with you. Where is his proof? Where are his scientific evidence? What are his credentials that make him an expert in this? All you have is some guy pontificating with nothing to back up his claims and you are using it as a appeal to authority.

Contest the post #530 if you can.

No, I am attacking your logic and the way you coming up with a hypothesis. That is NOT a straw man.

It is not? You just said that you was attacking my logic, not my argument...

I advise you read the definition of "straw man" again.

Please get into the discussion and answer the question so we can have a real debate.

I had answered the questions few times. If the answer did not fit your expectations, try another.

 

[TraneWreck]

You need to work on your homophobia- odds are you are a closeted gay person with serious self loathing issues.

Look, either you're a troll or you're really not smart.

Re-read my posts. Once again, I am arguing the EXACT OPPOSITE POSITION that you think I am.

I would clarify further, but your difficulty with comprehension is kind of amusing.

 

[TraneWreck]

Since when, how and where?

The Bible accounts for "unnatural" things via original sin.

If you have another theory, share it, but every Christian I've read, heard speak, or argue with uses sin as the medium to express the "unnatural" nature of homosexuality.