Natural And Normal

[OCA]

Gandhi please explain how homosexuality is natural and normal AMONG HUMAN BEINGS with the ability to think critically.

[glockmail]

:popcorn:

[OCA]

I see this fucking topic is being ignored by the the queer apologist du jour.

[glockmail]

I see this fucking topic is being ignored by the the queer apologist du jour. Whick one? Missleman is probably the #1 queer enabler. Just not du juor (today).

[OCA]

Whick one? Missleman is probably the #1 queer enabler. Just not du juor (today).

Oh no Missle is right up there but du jour is Gandhi.

[Lightning Waltz]

Please define your terms.

Is owning a gun "natural"?
Is having red hair "normal"?

[OCA]

Please define your terms.

Is owning a gun "natural"?
Is having red hair "normal"?

Yes on both accounts.

[Lightning Waltz]

Yes on both accounts.

Again, not enough information. Please define what you mean by those terms.

Your answer does tell me some things, however.
"Natural" has nothing to do with biology, necessarily.
"Normal" has nothing to do with frequency of occurance, necessarily.

[diuretic]

Gandhi please explain how homosexuality is natural and normal AMONG HUMAN BEINGS with the ability to think critically.

I don't think we have a poster called Gandhi.

Maybe that's why there's no response?

[OCA]

I don't think we have a poster called Gandhi.

Maybe that's why there's no response?

Maybe you're right, maybe its rhodent(sp?) worshiper.

Gandhi knows exactly who he is.

[diuretic]

OCA, I know what you mean, I just wonder if it's necessary, that's all.

[Hagbard Celine]

Gandhi please explain how homosexuality is natural and normal AMONG HUMAN BEINGS with the ability to think critically.

Sexuality is innate. I'm sure you can't argue about your own sexuality. Did you decide to like women or do you just like them? It's the same way with homos. They like what they like. Either stop obsessing over their existence or come out of the closet. One or the other.

[Guernicaa]

Gandhi please explain how homosexuality is natural and normal AMONG HUMAN BEINGS with the ability to think critically.
Why is "natural" to own a gun OCA?

[Hagbard Celine]

Yes on both accounts.

So that's what's wrong with OCA! He's a ginger!

[Guernicaa]

If we see homosexuality in other species, it's a clue that a living thing which is not barred by a thought that has essentially made them "trained" to think one way (Christianity), they will act upon their natural feelings which is to have sex with your own sex.

If Christianity was the truth of the world...why are humans the only ones who know about it? Why aren't animals praying?
Where do animals go when they die? Humans and chimps share 99% of their DNA...they have intelligence. Why hasn't Jesus Chimp come down to save them?

The fact of the matter is that humans do have more intelligence (because we were lucky to evolve that way), and humans also have the capacity to imagine things and make up excuses for things they don't understand (i.e. Christianity)...therefore we have these imaginary beliefs holding back an acceptance of natural occurrence because we use words such as "deviant".."immoral"..."abomination"...You know...all the words that stem from the "moral Christians".
What is a moral??? How can we define such a generalized term used for cheap political gain by conservatives? Do you really believe that volunteering to go to war (regardless of the situation) is more moral than being gay?

[LOki]

Gandhi please explain how homosexuality is natural and normal AMONG HUMAN BEINGS with the ability to think critically. Is it not fair to assert that homosexuality is <a href="http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/normal">conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern</a> of human behavior?

Is it not fair to assert that homosexuality is <a href="http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/natural">being in accordance with or determined by</a> <a href="http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/nature">the genetically controlled qualities of a person</a>?

Is it not fair to assert that homosexuality is <a href="http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/natural">implanted or being as if implanted by nature (i.e. seemingly inborn)</a>?

Is it not fair to assert that homosexuality is <a href="http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/natural">having a specified character by</a> <a href="http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/nature">an inner force or the sum of such forces in an individual</a>?

Is it not fair to assert that homosexuality is <a href="http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/natural">occurring in conformity with</a> <a href="http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/nature">the ordinary course of the physical constitution or drives of a person</a>?

Is it not fair to assert that homosexuality is <a href="http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/natural">a physical or real existence as contrasted with one that is spiritual, intellectual, or fictitious</a>?
If not, why not?

[Guernicaa]

Is it not fair to assert that homosexuality is <a href="http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/normal">conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern</a> of human behavior?

Is it not fair to assert that homosexuality is <a href="http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/natural">being in accordance with or determined by</a> <a href="http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/nature">the genetically controlled qualities of a person</a>?

Is it not fair to assert that homosexuality is <a href="http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/natural">implanted or being as if implanted by nature (i.e. seemingly inborn)</a>?

Is it not fair to assert that homosexuality is <a href="http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/natural">having a specified character by</a> <a href="http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/nature">an inner force or the sum of such forces in an individual</a>?

Is it not fair to assert that homosexuality is <a href="http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/natural">occurring in conformity with</a> <a href="http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/nature">the ordinary course of the physical constitution or drives of a person</a>?

Is it not fair to assert that homosexuality is <a href="http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/natural">a physical or real existence as contrasted with one that is spiritual, intellectual, or fictitious</a>?
If not, why not?
Be easy...
Too many facts are hard for OCA to handle.

[nevadamedic]

Oh no Missle is right up there but du jour is Gandhi.

Gandhi?

[OCA]

Is it not fair to assert that homosexuality is <a href="http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/normal">conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern</a> of human behavior?

Is it not fair to assert that homosexuality is <a href="http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/natural">being in accordance with or determined by</a> <a href="http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/nature">the genetically controlled qualities of a person</a>?

Is it not fair to assert that homosexuality is <a href="http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/natural">implanted or being as if implanted by nature (i.e. seemingly inborn)</a>?

Is it not fair to assert that homosexuality is <a href="http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/natural">having a specified character by</a> <a href="http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/nature">an inner force or the sum of such forces in an individual</a>?

Is it not fair to assert that homosexuality is <a href="http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/natural">occurring in conformity with</a> <a href="http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/nature">the ordinary course of the physical constitution or drives of a person</a>?

Is it not fair to assert that homosexuality is <a href="http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/natural">a physical or real existence as contrasted with one that is spiritual, intellectual, or fictitious</a>?
If not, why not?


No, no, no, no and no.

There is no irrefuteable evidence, even after many decades and billions spent on research, of queerness being anything other than a choice.

If there is please present it, modern science would love for you to present what they have never found.

[LOki]

No, no, no, no and no.

There is no irrefuteable evidence, even after many decades and billions spent on research, of queerness being anything other than a choice.

If there is please present it, modern science would love for you to present what they have never found.Denying there is evidence, does not mean there is no evidence. Demanding irrefutable evidence while allowing your simple denial of evidence to be refutation is the safest of intellectually disingenuous havens for you, so I'm not at all interested. Yet you could answer some questions: Why is it not fair to assert that homosexuality is <a href="http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/normal">conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern</a> of human behavior?

Why is it not fair to assert that homosexuality is <a href="http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/natural">being in accordance with or determined by</a> <a href="http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/nature">the genetically controlled qualities of a person</a>?

Why is it not fair to assert that homosexuality is <a href="http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/natural">implanted or being as if implanted by nature (i.e. seemingly inborn)</a>?

Why is it not fair to assert that homosexuality is <a href="http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/natural">having a specified character by</a> <a href="http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/nature">an inner force or the sum of such forces in an individual</a>?

Why is it not fair to assert that homosexuality is <a href="http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/natural">occurring in conformity with</a> <a href="http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/nature">the ordinary course of the physical constitution or drives of a person</a>?

Why is it not fair to assert that homosexuality is <a href="http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/natural">a physical or real existence as contrasted with one that is spiritual, intellectual, or fictitious</a>?

[glockmail]

.......
Why is it not fair to assert that homosexuality is <a href="http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/natural">being in accordance with or determined by</a> <a href="http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/nature">the genetically controlled qualities of a person</a>?

Why is it not fair to assert that homosexuality is <a href="http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/natural">implanted or being as if implanted by nature (i.e. seemingly inborn)</a>?

Why is it not fair to assert that homosexuality is <a href="http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/natural">having a specified character by</a> <a href="http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/nature">an inner force or the sum of such forces in an individual</a>?

Why is it not fair to assert that homosexuality is <a href="http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/natural">occurring in conformity with</a> <a href="http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/nature">the ordinary course of the physical constitution or drives of a person</a>?

Why is it not fair to assert that homosexuality is <a href="http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/natural">a physical or real existence as contrasted with one that is spiritual, intellectual, or fictitious</a>?[/list]

1. Queers make up 1% of the population. That’s not standard or regular; it’s deviant and abnormal.
2. Queers make a choice to engage in their practices.
3. Queers can’t reproduce by engaging in their chosen sexual activity, therefore are unable to pass on a “queer gene”.
4. Irrelevant to the discussion.
5. “Ordinary” implies “normal”. See item 1.
6. Irrelevant to the discussion.

[LOki]

1. Queers make up 1% of the population. That’s not standard or regular; it’s deviant and abnormal.Being 1% of the population is irrelevent to the assertion that homosexuality is <a href="http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/natural">being in accordance with or determined by</a> <a href="http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/nature">the genetically controlled qualities of a person.</a>

Perhaps you are asserting that it is not standard or regular to discover that 1% of the population is homosexual. If so, why would that be?


2. Queers make a choice to engage in their practices.Homosexuals that do not engage in homosexuality, are no less homosexuals, than Heterosexuals that do not engage in heterosexuality.

This "choice" argument as presented appears to be a bit irrelevent.


3. Queers can’t reproduce by engaging in their chosen sexual activity, therefore are unable to pass on a “queer gene”.Perhaps sexual preference is determined by more than one gene. Then it could be passed to children from heterosexuual "carriers."


4. Irrelevant to the discussion.Says you, who can't refute it.


5. “Ordinary” implies “normal”. See item 1.Item 1 patently fails to address this on a number of different levels.


6. Irrelevant to the discussion.You're not getting away so easily on this one either.

[glockmail]

[1]Being 1% of the population is irrelevant [sic] to the assertion that homosexuality is <a href="http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/natural">being in accordance with or determined by</a> <a href="http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/nature">the genetically controlled qualities of a person.</a>

Perhaps you are asserting that it is not standard or regular to discover that 1% of the population is homosexual. If so, why would that be?

[2]Homosexuals that do not engage in homosexuality, are no less homosexuals, than Heterosexuals that do not engage in heterosexuality.

[3]This "choice" argument as presented appears to be a bit irrelevant [sic].

[4]Perhaps sexual preference is determined by more than one gene. Then it could be passed to children from heterosexual [sic] "carriers."

[5]Says you, who can't refute it.

[6]Item 1 patently fails to address this on a number of different levels.

[7]You're not getting away so easily on this one either.

1. You applied my first answer to your first question. No wonder you got confused.
2. If people don’t behave like queers than they are not queer. Likewise with thieves and rapists.
3. Choice is completely relevant to the discussion. See item 2.
4. Perhaps it is. Then why hasn’t genetics proved this? How do you explain queers who stopped being queer and joined the normal team?
5. I have no need to refute something that is irrelevant to the discussion.
6. Nonsensical. See item 1 above.
7. Ditto to item 5 above.

[LOki]

1. You applied my first answer to your first question. No wonder you got confused.I see. Still, are you asserting that it is not standard or regular to discover that 1% of the population is homosexual. If so, why would that be?


2. If people don’t behave like queers than they are not queer. Likewise with thieves and rapists.This does nothing to refute the notion that homosexuals that do not engage in homosexuality, are no less homosexuals, than heterosexuals that do not engage in heterosexuality.


4. Perhaps it is. Then why hasn’t genetics proved this?I don't know that it hasn't.

How do you explain queers who stopped being queer and joined the normal team? [/QUOTE]Homosexuality does not prevent a homosexual from engaging in heterosexual sex, any more than heterosexualty prevents heterosexuals from engaging in homosexual sex; all the parts are there--it's an issue of preference. If you demand that heterosexual preferences are genetically hard wired, you are being intellectually disingenuous if you assert that homosexual preferenced CAN'T be hard wired.


5. I have no need to refute something that is irrelevant to the discussion.You have no desire to recognize relevence if it doesn't support your prejudice.


6. Nonsensical. See item 1 above.Ordinary to a person is different than ordinary in a population. Your dismissal is nonsensical.

7. Ditto to item 5 above. Yes. Ditto.

[glockmail]

[1] I see. Still, are you asserting that it is not standard or regular to discover that 1% of the population is homosexual. If so, why would that be?

[2] This does nothing to refute the notion that homosexuals that do not engage in homosexuality, are no less homosexuals, than heterosexuals that do not engage in heterosexuality.

[3] I don't know that it hasn't.

[deleted due to posters quote error]

[4] Homosexuality does not prevent a homosexual from engaging in heterosexual sex, any more than heterosexualty [sic] prevents heterosexuals from engaging in homosexual sex; all the parts are there--it's an issue of preference. If you demand that heterosexual preferences are genetically hard wired, you are being intellectually disingenuous if you assert that homosexual preferenced [sic] CAN'T be hard wired.

[5] You have no desire to recognize relevence [sic]if it doesn't support your prejudice.

[6] Ordinary to a person is different than ordinary in a population. Your dismissal is nonsensical.
[7] Yes. Ditto.

1. A regular pattern of human sexual behavior is heterosexuality. Homosexuality is clearly irregular and therefore statistically abnormal. You appear to be arguing something different, and irrelevant to the discussion.
2. Of course it does, as previously stated.
3. If it has then it where is the evidence? It’s not up to me to prove your post 20 assertion.
4. I have never argued that queers are hard-wired. In fact I have maintained to opposite.
5. Again, I have no desire to pursue an irrelevant topic.
6. This issue was clearly addressed previously.
7. Again, I have no desire to pursue an irrelevant topic.

[LOki]

1. A regular pattern of human sexual behavior is heterosexuality. Homosexuality is clearly irregular and therefore statistically abnormal. You appear to be arguing something different, and irrelevant to the discussion.
2. Of course it does, as previously stated.
3. If it has then it where is the evidence? It’s not up to me to prove your post 20 assertion.
4. I have never argued that queers are hard-wired. In fact I have maintained to opposite.
5. Again, I have no desire to pursue an irrelevant topic.
6. This issue was clearly addressed previously.
7. Again, I have no desire to pursue an irrelevant topic.Ok. No game other than flat denial? Fine.

[Hagbard Celine]

Gandhi?

There is an Indian poster here who they call "Gandhi" because he's Indian. Isn't that clever?

[glockmail]

Ok. No game other than flat denial? Fine.
Not exactly on your game today, I see.

[OCA]

Denying there is evidence, does not mean there is no evidence. Demanding irrefutable evidence while allowing your simple denial of evidence to be refutation is the safest of intellectually disingenuous havens for you, so I'm not at all interested. Yet you could answer some questions: Why is it not fair to assert that homosexuality is <a href="http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/normal">conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern</a> of human behavior?

Why is it not fair to assert that homosexuality is <a href="http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/natural">being in accordance with or determined by</a> <a href="http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/nature">the genetically controlled qualities of a person</a>?

Why is it not fair to assert that homosexuality is <a href="http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/natural">implanted or being as if implanted by nature (i.e. seemingly inborn)</a>?

Why is it not fair to assert that homosexuality is <a href="http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/natural">having a specified character by</a> <a href="http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/nature">an inner force or the sum of such forces in an individual</a>?

Why is it not fair to assert that homosexuality is <a href="http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/natural">occurring in conformity with</a> <a href="http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/nature">the ordinary course of the physical constitution or drives of a person</a>?

Why is it not fair to assert that homosexuality is <a href="http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/natural">a physical or real existence as contrasted with one that is spiritual, intellectual, or fictitious</a>?

What evidence am I denying brother?

You got something that modern science doesn't know about yet?:laugh2:

[OCA]

There is an Indian poster here who they call "Gandhi" because he's Indian. Isn't that clever?

Yes, actually it was clever.

[glockmail]

Yes, actually it was clever.
Hadji would have been my choice.
:poke:

[nevadamedic]

Hadji would have been my choice.
:poke:

Hadji?

[glockmail]

Hadji? Oh, young minds. http://www.classicjq.com/info/lists/JQHadji.shtml

[nevadamedic]

Oh, young minds. http://www.classicjq.com/info/lists/JQHadji.shtml

Ok gramps............