Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[ShackledNation]

Logic: reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.
Validity: the quality of being logically or factually sound; soundness or cogency
Soundness: based on reason, sense, or judgment
Cogent: clear, logical, and convincing

Is there a reason you are listing all of the things your argument lacks?

I list those things, as a means to get you to again claim that my argument lacks them, without the reasonable basis of taking those definitions and setting them against my argument and showing where that argument lacks the traits intrinsic to those definitions. Proving, through the exercise that your claim is BASELESS. All toward establishing evidence that leads to the PROOF that your relativist conclusion is: DELUSIONAL.

Feel better?

I already pointed out very clearly that your argument is an equivocation. You can deny it all you want, but that doesn't change reality.

LOL! The coolest thing about a text forum, is that it's produced IN WRITING... thus exists AS A RECORD OF ITSELF.

A record in which there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that provides you having taken ANY of those definitions and setting them against my WRITTEN ARGUMENTS and showing through those OBJECTIVE STANDARDS that my argument was fatally flawed.

However a record wherein a Relativist refuses to so specify, choosing instead to remain as vague as possible using subjective 'feelings' over the objective standards... so as to rest their reasoning upon an addled implication... toward the hope of sustaining what they perceive as a popularly held position, IS proof of the delusion common to and typical of, relativism, which is what my argument seeks to establish.

Which is pretty cool, given that THAT is what the record of this thread: DEMONSTRATES.

FTR: 'Illogical fallacy' is a redundancy. Fallacy is illogical. Demonstrating yet again what a graduate of the USMA, would know.

There is a detailed record of you posting an equivocation and it being torn down. You are just ignoring the record. You also continually post strawman arguments, since you have failed to counter the arguments I am actually making. What you can your "objective standard" is a petty fallacy of equivocation. Get back to me when you have something valid.

 

[ShackledNation]

LOL! Sadly, for you... your argument rests ENTIRELY upon equivocation.

Specifically, wherein you need to cull from the definition of NORMAL, distinction from contexts which rest upon SIMILARITY.

You claim that because homosexuality occurs in nature, it is NORMAL... despite the SAME DEFINITION: ESTABLISHING THAT WHERE SUCH DEVIATES FROM THE STANDARD ESTABLISHED BY NORMALITY, such is ABNORMAL.

Which if you're keeping score, is DOWN THE MIDDLE: the use of ambiguous language to conceal the truth or to avoid committing oneself to that which they otherwise know to be a falsity.

False. I even stated homosexuality is statistically abnormal. Your problem is equivocating statistical normality with morality.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

LOL! Sadly, for you... your argument rests ENTIRELY upon equivocation.

Specifically, wherein you need to cull from the definition of NORMAL, distinction from contexts which rest upon SIMILARITY.

You claim that because homosexuality occurs in nature, it is NORMAL... despite the SAME DEFINITION: ESTABLISHING THAT WHERE SUCH DEVIATES FROM THE STANDARD ESTABLISHED BY NORMALITY, such is ABNORMAL.

Which if you're keeping score, is DOWN THE MIDDLE: the use of ambiguous language to conceal the truth or to avoid committing oneself to that which they otherwise know to be a falsity.

False. I even stated homosexuality is statistically abnormal. Your problem is equivocating statistical normality with morality.

The statistical abnormality; meaning the instances of homosexuality which occur as a tiny percentage of the population: is IRRELEVANT... What IS RELEVANT: is that Homosexuality DEVIATES FROM THE PHYSIOLOGICAL DESIGN; the design which establishes the standard common to human physiology, the standard which assures VIABILITY OF THE HUMAN SPECIES: A DESIGN WHICH PROVIDES FOR THE PERPETUATION OF THE SPECIES... and THAT IS RELEVANT: BECAUSE IT ALONE: ESTABLISHES THAT HOMOSEXUALITY DEVIATES FROM THE PHYSIOLOGICAL STANDARD: THUS ESTABLISHING THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS ABNORMAL SEXUALITY.

 

[Syriusly]

LOL! Sadly, for you... your argument rests ENTIRELY upon equivocation.

Specifically, wherein you need to cull from the definition of NORMAL, distinction from contexts which rest upon SIMILARITY.

You claim that because homosexuality occurs in nature, it is NORMAL... despite the SAME DEFINITION: ESTABLISHING THAT WHERE SUCH DEVIATES FROM THE STANDARD ESTABLISHED BY NORMALITY, such is ABNORMAL.

Which if you're keeping score, is DOWN THE MIDDLE: the use of ambiguous language to conceal the truth or to avoid committing oneself to that which they otherwise know to be a falsity.

False. I even stated homosexuality is statistically abnormal. Your problem is equivocating statistical normality with morality.

The statistical abnormality; meaning the instances of homosexuality which occur as a tiny percentage of the population: is IRRELEVANT... What IS RELEVANT: is that Homosexuality DEVIATES FROM THE PHYSIOLOGICAL DESIGN; the design which establishes the standard common to human physiology, the standard which assures VIABILITY OF THE HUMAN SPECIES: A DESIGN WHICH PROVIDES FOR THE PERPETUATION OF THE SPECIES... and THAT IS RELEVANT: BECAUSE IT ALONE: ESTABLISHES THAT HOMOSEXUALITY DEVIATES FROM THE PHYSIOLOGICAL STANDARD: THUS ESTABLISHING THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS ABNORMAL SEXUALITY.

Bat Guano crazy- now with big red letters and underlining.

 

[ShackledNation]

LOL! Sadly, for you... your argument rests ENTIRELY upon equivocation.

Specifically, wherein you need to cull from the definition of NORMAL, distinction from contexts which rest upon SIMILARITY.

You claim that because homosexuality occurs in nature, it is NORMAL... despite the SAME DEFINITION: ESTABLISHING THAT WHERE SUCH DEVIATES FROM THE STANDARD ESTABLISHED BY NORMALITY, such is ABNORMAL.

Which if you're keeping score, is DOWN THE MIDDLE: the use of ambiguous language to conceal the truth or to avoid committing oneself to that which they otherwise know to be a falsity.

False. I even stated homosexuality is statistically abnormal. Your problem is equivocating statistical normality with morality.

The statistical abnormality; meaning the instances of homosexuality which occur as a tiny percentage of the population: is IRRELEVANT... What IS RELEVANT: is that Homosexuality DEVIATES FROM THE PHYSIOLOGICAL DESIGN; the design which establishes the standard common to human physiology, the standard which assures VIABILITY OF THE HUMAN SPECIES: A DESIGN WHICH PROVIDES FOR THE PERPETUATION OF THE SPECIES... and THAT IS RELEVANT: BECAUSE IT ALONE: ESTABLISHES THAT HOMOSEXUALITY DEVIATES FROM THE PHYSIOLOGICAL STANDARD: THUS ESTABLISHING THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS ABNORMAL SEXUALITY.

Less than 1% of people are blood type AB negative. AB negativity deviates from the physiological design of human beings, most of which are O positive or A positive. Therefore, AB negative blood types are immoral, because they deviate from the human physiological norm.

See how stupid your argument is if you apply it consistently?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Logic: reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.
Validity: the quality of being logically or factually sound; soundness or cogency
Soundness: based on reason, sense, or judgment
Cogent: clear, logical, and convincing

Is there a reason you are listing all of the things your argument lacks?

I list those things, as a means to get you to again claim that my argument lacks them, without the reasonable basis of taking those definitions and setting them against my argument and showing where that argument lacks the traits intrinsic to those definitions. Proving, through the exercise that your claim is BASELESS. All toward establishing evidence that leads to the PROOF that your relativist conclusion is: DELUSIONAL.

Feel better?

I already pointed out very clearly that your argument is an equivocation. You can deny it all you want, but that doesn't change reality.

LOL! The coolest thing about a text forum, is that it's produced IN WRITING... thus exists AS A RECORD OF ITSELF.

A record in which there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that provides you having taken ANY of those definitions and setting them against my WRITTEN ARGUMENTS and showing through those OBJECTIVE STANDARDS that my argument was fatally flawed.

However a record wherein a Relativist refuses to so specify, choosing instead to remain as vague as possible using subjective 'feelings' over the objective standards... so as to rest their reasoning upon an addled implication... toward the hope of sustaining what they perceive as a popularly held position, IS proof of the delusion common to and typical of, relativism, which is what my argument seeks to establish.

Which is pretty cool, given that THAT is what the record of this thread: DEMONSTRATES.

FTR: 'Illogical fallacy' is a redundancy. Fallacy is illogical. Demonstrating yet again what a graduate of the USMA, would know.

There is a detailed record of you posting an equivocation and it being torn down. You are just ignoring the record. You also continually post strawman arguments, since you have failed to counter the arguments I am actually making. What you can your "objective standard" is a petty fallacy of equivocation. Get back to me when you have something valid.

LOL! It gets pretty sad... but rarely more sad than THAT!

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

LOL! Sadly, for you... your argument rests ENTIRELY upon equivocation.

Specifically, wherein you need to cull from the definition of NORMAL, distinction from contexts which rest upon SIMILARITY.

You claim that because homosexuality occurs in nature, it is NORMAL... despite the SAME DEFINITION: ESTABLISHING THAT WHERE SUCH DEVIATES FROM THE STANDARD ESTABLISHED BY NORMALITY, such is ABNORMAL.

Which if you're keeping score, is DOWN THE MIDDLE: the use of ambiguous language to conceal the truth or to avoid committing oneself to that which they otherwise know to be a falsity.

False. I even stated homosexuality is statistically abnormal. Your problem is equivocating statistical normality with morality.

The statistical abnormality; meaning the instances of homosexuality which occur as a tiny percentage of the population: is IRRELEVANT... What IS RELEVANT: is that Homosexuality DEVIATES FROM THE PHYSIOLOGICAL DESIGN; the design which establishes the standard common to human physiology, the standard which assures VIABILITY OF THE HUMAN SPECIES: A DESIGN WHICH PROVIDES FOR THE PERPETUATION OF THE SPECIES... and THAT IS RELEVANT: BECAUSE IT ALONE: ESTABLISHES THAT HOMOSEXUALITY DEVIATES FROM THE PHYSIOLOGICAL STANDARD: THUS ESTABLISHING THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS ABNORMAL SEXUALITY.

Less than 1% of people are blood type AB negative. AB negativity deviates from the physiological design of human beings, most of which are O positive or A positive. Therefore, AB negative blood types are immoral, because they deviate from the human physiological norm.

See how stupid your argument is if you apply it consistently?

LOL! I stand corrected... this is without a doubt, the saddest response I've read in well over two decades of internet debate.

.
.
.

Well, what I see is how stupid you get when trying to contest my argument. Not sure if that helps ya much here, but that's as close as I can get.

For instance, I tell you that my argument is NOT contesting statistical anomalies... then I explain to ya WHY and specify the HOW... in why and how my argument is NOT arguing stats, as well as to provide you with a painful level of specifics of the how and why that IS my argument... and YOUR response is to pretend that none of that happened, and that your own feelings of what my argument IS, is all that is relative to your need for what my argument MUST BE!

With regard to "Blood type"... such are all perfectly in sync with human physiology, except where the composition of the blood is such a 'type' that the deviancy common TO THAT TYPE threatens the viability of the body. Same with shoe size, whether one is an inee or an outee... a lefty or righty... or one's skin color, hair color or favorite color... .

 

[ShackledNation]

LOL! Sadly, for you... your argument rests ENTIRELY upon equivocation.

Specifically, wherein you need to cull from the definition of NORMAL, distinction from contexts which rest upon SIMILARITY.

You claim that because homosexuality occurs in nature, it is NORMAL... despite the SAME DEFINITION: ESTABLISHING THAT WHERE SUCH DEVIATES FROM THE STANDARD ESTABLISHED BY NORMALITY, such is ABNORMAL.

Which if you're keeping score, is DOWN THE MIDDLE: the use of ambiguous language to conceal the truth or to avoid committing oneself to that which they otherwise know to be a falsity.

False. I even stated homosexuality is statistically abnormal. Your problem is equivocating statistical normality with morality.

The statistical abnormality; meaning the instances of homosexuality which occur as a tiny percentage of the population: is IRRELEVANT... What IS RELEVANT: is that Homosexuality DEVIATES FROM THE PHYSIOLOGICAL DESIGN; the design which establishes the standard common to human physiology, the standard which assures VIABILITY OF THE HUMAN SPECIES: A DESIGN WHICH PROVIDES FOR THE PERPETUATION OF THE SPECIES... and THAT IS RELEVANT: BECAUSE IT ALONE: ESTABLISHES THAT HOMOSEXUALITY DEVIATES FROM THE PHYSIOLOGICAL STANDARD: THUS ESTABLISHING THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS ABNORMAL SEXUALITY.

Less than 1% of people are blood type AB negative. AB negativity deviates from the physiological design of human beings, most of which are O positive or A positive. Therefore, AB negative blood types are immoral, because they deviate from the human physiological norm.

See how stupid your argument is if you apply it consistently?

LOL! I stand corrected... this is without a doubt, the saddest response I've read in well over two decades of internet debate.

.
.
.

Well, what I see is how stupid you get when trying to contest my argument. Not sure if that helps ya much here, but that's as close as I can get.

For instance, I tell you that my argument is NOT contesting statistical anomalies... then I explain to ya WHY and specify the HOW... in why and how my argument is NOT arguing stats, as well as to provide you with a painful level of specifics of the how and why that IS my argument... and YOUR response is to pretend that none of that happened, and that your own feelings of what my argument IS, is all that is relative to your need for what my argument MUST BE!

With regard to "Blood type"... such are all perfectly in sync with human physiology, except where the composition of the blood is such a 'type' that the deviancy common TO THAT TYPE threatens the viability of the body. Same with shoe size, whether one is an inee or an outee... a lefty or righty... or one's skin color, hair color or favorite color... .

Homosexuality does not threaten the viability of the body and is just as much a party of human physiology as AB negative blood types. You use scientific terms to disguise what is nothing more than a baseless, bigoted judgment against homosexuals. Your continuous petty insults only further show how lacking in substance your assertions truly are.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

LOL! Sadly, for you... your argument rests ENTIRELY upon equivocation.

Specifically, wherein you need to cull from the definition of NORMAL, distinction from contexts which rest upon SIMILARITY.

You claim that because homosexuality occurs in nature, it is NORMAL... despite the SAME DEFINITION: ESTABLISHING THAT WHERE SUCH DEVIATES FROM THE STANDARD ESTABLISHED BY NORMALITY, such is ABNORMAL.

Which if you're keeping score, is DOWN THE MIDDLE: the use of ambiguous language to conceal the truth or to avoid committing oneself to that which they otherwise know to be a falsity.

False. I even stated homosexuality is statistically abnormal. Your problem is equivocating statistical normality with morality.

The statistical abnormality; meaning the instances of homosexuality which occur as a tiny percentage of the population: is IRRELEVANT... What IS RELEVANT: is that Homosexuality DEVIATES FROM THE PHYSIOLOGICAL DESIGN; the design which establishes the standard common to human physiology, the standard which assures VIABILITY OF THE HUMAN SPECIES: A DESIGN WHICH PROVIDES FOR THE PERPETUATION OF THE SPECIES... and THAT IS RELEVANT: BECAUSE IT ALONE: ESTABLISHES THAT HOMOSEXUALITY DEVIATES FROM THE PHYSIOLOGICAL STANDARD: THUS ESTABLISHING THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS ABNORMAL SEXUALITY.

Less than 1% of people are blood type AB negative. AB negativity deviates from the physiological design of human beings, most of which are O positive or A positive. Therefore, AB negative blood types are immoral, because they deviate from the human physiological norm.

See how stupid your argument is if you apply it consistently?

LOL! I stand corrected... this is without a doubt, the saddest response I've read in well over two decades of internet debate.

.
.
.

Well, what I see is how stupid you get when trying to contest my argument. Not sure if that helps ya much here, but that's as close as I can get.

For instance, I tell you that my argument is NOT contesting statistical anomalies... then I explain to ya WHY and specify the HOW... in why and how my argument is NOT arguing stats, as well as to provide you with a painful level of specifics of the how and why that IS my argument... and YOUR response is to pretend that none of that happened, and that your own feelings of what my argument IS, is all that is relative to your need for what my argument MUST BE!

With regard to "Blood type"... such are all perfectly in sync with human physiology, except where the composition of the blood is such a 'type' that the deviancy common TO THAT TYPE threatens the viability of the body. Same with shoe size, whether one is an inee or an outee... a lefty or righty... or one's skin color, hair color or favorite color... .

Homosexuality does not threaten the viability of the body

No?

Huh...

Now, that will no doubt come as quite a comfort to those homosexuals who contracted the HIV as a direct result of the behavior in which they engaged as a direct result of the abnormal reasoning they employed, which defined them as homosexual.


So are ya saying that HIV doesn't exist? Or are ya saying anyone CAN get it, and just because the chances of anyone getting it is roughly ZERO, unless their blood comes into contact with the blood of a homosexual, that this fact doesn't serve your own subjective needs, so you're choosing to ignore it.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

... and is just as much a party of human physiology as AB negative blood types.

AB Negative is not an abnormality of the blood. Anemia is an abnormality of the blood. Leukemia is an abnormality of the blood.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

You use scientific terms to disguise what is nothing more than a baseless, bigoted judgment against homosexuals.

So, scientific terms which establish homosexuality as deviating from the standard of human physiology, are bigoted scientific words?

LOL! Lemma ask ya... would ya take a minute to specify which words those are?

And has it ever occurred to you to look up the word "Bigotry"?

Let me help ya through this tough patch. Bigotry: intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

Now... check me if I'm wrong here scamp... but are you or are you not showing intolerance for my opinions, which are most definitely, different from yourself?

Let the record reflect that "The word Bigotry is almost always used by a bigot, toward the hope of discrediting the opinions of those who oppose the opinions of that bigot."

(Can I see a show of hands of those who believe that the above contributor is a graduate of the US Military Academy at West Point? And... LOL! PRINCETON?)

 

[ShackledNation]

You use scientific terms to disguise what is nothing more than a baseless, bigoted judgment against homosexuals.

So, scientific terms which establish homosexuality as deviating from the standard of human physiology, are bigoted scientific words?

LOL! Lemma ask ya... would ya take a minute to specify which words those are?

And has it ever occurred to you to look up the word "Bigotry"?

Let me help ya through this tough patch. Bigotry: intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

Now... check me if I'm wrong here scamp... but are you or are you not showing intolerance for my opinions, which are most definitely, different from yourself?

Let the record reflect that "The word Bigotry is almost always used by a bigot, toward the hope of discrediting the opinions of those who oppose the opinions of that bigot."

(Can I see a show of hands of those who believe that the above contributor is a graduate of the US Military Academy at West Point? And... LOL! PRINCETON?)

Strawman. To repeat the actual argument, which you have yet to respond to:

Homosexuality does not threaten the viability of the body and is just as much a party of human physiology as AB negative blood types. You use scientific terms to disguise what is nothing more than a baseless, bigoted judgment against homosexuals. Your continuous petty insults only further show how lacking in substance your assertions truly are.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Strawman. To repeat the actual argument, which you have yet to respond ...

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.


.
.
.


Obviously the contributor has lost all sense of reason. We know this because it emphatically stated its position was not responded to, despite the FACT that it WAS and in no small degree of specificity; to wit:

Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings Page 453 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

LOL! Sadly, for you... your argument rests ENTIRELY upon equivocation.

Specifically, wherein you need to cull from the definition of NORMAL, distinction from contexts which rest upon SIMILARITY.

You claim that because homosexuality occurs in nature, it is NORMAL... despite the SAME DEFINITION: ESTABLISHING THAT WHERE SUCH DEVIATES FROM THE STANDARD ESTABLISHED BY NORMALITY, such is ABNORMAL.

Which if you're keeping score, is DOWN THE MIDDLE: the use of ambiguous language to conceal the truth or to avoid committing oneself to that which they otherwise know to be a falsity.

False. I even stated homosexuality is statistically abnormal. Your problem is equivocating statistical normality with morality.

The statistical abnormality; meaning the instances of homosexuality which occur as a tiny percentage of the population: is IRRELEVANT... What IS RELEVANT: is that Homosexuality DEVIATES FROM THE PHYSIOLOGICAL DESIGN; the design which establishes the standard common to human physiology, the standard which assures VIABILITY OF THE HUMAN SPECIES: A DESIGN WHICH PROVIDES FOR THE PERPETUATION OF THE SPECIES... and THAT IS RELEVANT: BECAUSE IT ALONE: ESTABLISHES THAT HOMOSEXUALITY DEVIATES FROM THE PHYSIOLOGICAL STANDARD: THUS ESTABLISHING THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS ABNORMAL SEXUALITY.

Less than 1% of people are blood type AB negative. AB negativity deviates from the physiological design of human beings, most of which are O positive or A positive. Therefore, AB negative blood types are immoral, because they deviate from the human physiological norm.

See how stupid your argument is if you apply it consistently?

LOL! I stand corrected... this is without a doubt, the saddest response I've read in well over two decades of internet debate.

.
.
.

Well, what I see is how stupid you get when trying to contest my argument. Not sure if that helps ya much here, but that's as close as I can get.

For instance, I tell you that my argument is NOT contesting statistical anomalies... then I explain to ya WHY and specify the HOW... in why and how my argument is NOT arguing stats, as well as to provide you with a painful level of specifics of the how and why that IS my argument... and YOUR response is to pretend that none of that happened, and that your own feelings of what my argument IS, is all that is relative to your need for what my argument MUST BE!

With regard to "Blood type"... such are all perfectly in sync with human physiology, except where the composition of the blood is such a 'type' that the deviancy common TO THAT TYPE threatens the viability of the body. Same with shoe size, whether one is an inee or an outee... a lefty or righty... or one's skin color, hair color or favorite color... .

Homosexuality does not threaten the viability of the body

Homosexuality does not threaten the viability of the body

No?

Huh...

Now, that will no doubt come as quite a comfort to those homosexuals who contracted the HIV as a direct result of the behavior in which they engaged as a direct result of the abnormal reasoning they employed, which defined them as homosexual.

So are ya saying that HIV doesn't exist? Or are ya saying anyone CAN get it, and just because the chances of anyone getting it is roughly ZERO, unless their blood comes into contact with the blood of a homosexual, that this fact doesn't serve your own subjective needs, so you're choosing to ignore it.


Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings Page 453 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

... and is just as much a party of human physiology as AB negative blood types.

AB Negative is not an abnormality of the blood. Anemia is an abnormality of the blood. Leukemia is an abnormality of the blood.

 

[ShackledNation]

Strawman. To repeat the actual argument, which you have yet to respond ...

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.


.
.
.


Obviously the contributor has lost all sense of reason. We know this because it emphatically stated its position was not responded to, despite the FACT that it WAS and in no small degree of specificity; to wit:

Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings Page 453 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

You gave a strawman argument. A strawman argument is not a response.

No?

Huh...

Now, that will no doubt come as quite a comfort to those homosexuals who contracted the HIV as a direct result of the behavior in which they engaged as a direct result of the abnormal reasoning they employed, which defined them as homosexual.

So are ya saying that HIV doesn't exist? Or are ya saying anyone CAN get it, and just because the chances of anyone getting it is roughly ZERO, unless their blood comes into contact with the blood of a homosexual, that this fact doesn't serve your own subjective needs, so you're choosing to ignore it.

HIV threatens the viability of the body. Homosexuality does not. Now you are equivocating homosexuality with HIV.

AB Negative is not an abnormality of the blood. Anemia is an abnormality of the blood. Leukemia is an abnormality of the blood.

Define abnormality.

 

[RKMBrown]

Strawman. To repeat the actual argument, which you have yet to respond ...

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.


.
.
.


Obviously the contributor has lost all sense of reason. We know this because it emphatically stated its position was not responded to, despite the FACT that it WAS and in no small degree of specificity; to wit:

Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings Page 453 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

You gave a strawman argument. A strawman argument is not a response.

No?

Huh...

Now, that will no doubt come as quite a comfort to those homosexuals who contracted the HIV as a direct result of the behavior in which they engaged as a direct result of the abnormal reasoning they employed, which defined them as homosexual.

So are ya saying that HIV doesn't exist? Or are ya saying anyone CAN get it, and just because the chances of anyone getting it is roughly ZERO, unless their blood comes into contact with the blood of a homosexual, that this fact doesn't serve your own subjective needs, so you're choosing to ignore it.

HIV threatens the viability of the body. Homosexuality does not. Now you are equivocating homosexuality with HIV.

AB Negative is not an abnormality of the blood. Anemia is an abnormality of the blood. Leukemia is an abnormality of the blood.

Define abnormality.

abnormality - : something that is not usual, expected, or normal : something that is abnormal. For example, having AB negative blood type is abnormal.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

AB Negative is not an abnormality of the blood. Anemia is an abnormality of the blood. Leukemia is an abnormality of the blood.

Define abnormality.

ROFLMNAO!

Seriously? I've only done so dozens of times throughout this discussion, but it's no big deal to do it again:

"an abnormal feature, characteristic, or occurrence, typically in a medical context:a chromosome abnormality.• the quality or state of being abnormal."

Abnormal: deviating from what is normal or usual, typically in a way that is undesirable or worrying. Usage: Blood disease presents through the abnormal traits common to cellular behavior in the blood stream.

Your most recent string of concessions are duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

[
abnormality - : something that is not usual, expected, or normal : something that is abnormal. For example, having AB negative blood type is abnormal.

Homosexuality is abnormal, like left-handiness, something we no longer try to cure because it comes from the Devil which people once (falsely) believed. See how that works?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Strawman. To repeat the actual argument, which you have yet to respond ...

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.


.
.
.


Obviously the contributor has lost all sense of reason. We know this because it emphatically stated its position was not responded to, despite the FACT that it WAS and in no small degree of specificity; to wit:

Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings Page 453 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

You gave a strawman argument. A strawman argument is not a response.

No?

Huh...

Now, that will no doubt come as quite a comfort to those homosexuals who contracted the HIV as a direct result of the behavior in which they engaged as a direct result of the abnormal reasoning they employed, which defined them as homosexual.

So are ya saying that HIV doesn't exist? Or are ya saying anyone CAN get it, and just because the chances of anyone getting it is roughly ZERO, unless their blood comes into contact with the blood of a homosexual, that this fact doesn't serve your own subjective needs, so you're choosing to ignore it.

HIV threatens the viability of the body. Homosexuality does not. Now you are equivocating homosexuality with HIV.

AB Negative is not an abnormality of the blood. Anemia is an abnormality of the blood. Leukemia is an abnormality of the blood.

Define abnormality.

[
abnormality - : something that is not usual, expected, or normal : something that is abnormal. For example, having AB negative blood type is abnormal.

Homosexuality is abnormal, like left-handiness ...

No, homosexuality is 'abnormal' like using one's left hand to touch the bathing suit area of a small child Meaning it is the result of a conscious decision to execute an immoral act. Which we do not seek to cure, because it's not a disease as much as it is a presentation of low character.

 

[ShackledNation]

No, homosexuality is 'abnormal' like using one's left hand to touch the bathing suit area of a small child Meaning it is the result of a conscious decision to execute an immoral act. Which we do not seek to cure, because it's not a disease as much as it is a presentation of low character.

1. Homosexuality is not an act.
2. Learn the difference between the words abnormal and immoral. Homosexuality is as abnormal as left-handiness and red hair. Neither the physiological trait of homosexuality, left-handidness, or red hair is immoral, nor are they even questions of morality.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

No, homosexuality is 'abnormal' like using one's left hand to touch the bathing suit area of a small child Meaning it is the result of a conscious decision to execute an immoral act. Which we do not seek to cure, because it's not a disease as much as it is a presentation of low character.

That would make Heterosexuality sticking your tongue into where babies come from, if not where poop comes from, and sucking on what feeds them? If I were you I wouldn't go there.