[THREAD SPLIT] - LQTBQ/Homosexuality/Etc

[mechtheist]

Another topic you know nothing about; is anyone surprised?



And no one said otherwise. I have always agreed that homosexuals are a minority. So please stop burning straw. However, will you ever actually address the point and defend your claim? You have failed to define normal human society yet again, so I guess not. Did you realize that without defining normal human society, you are just holding an empty bag?



I already rejected your attempt to equate normal human society to simply reproduction. That is far too narrow a definition for such a term. Beyond that, you already agreed that homosexuals could reproduce; thus, this argument is moot. Why you keep bringing it up when you already agree it is wrong is beyond me.



Straw man. Will you ever argue in good faith?



Laughably myopic. I reject your definition of ordinary human society as simply reproduction. That is far too narrow a description for such a term. Look what it forces you to say—what a joke.



Several actually, pleasure is one of them. Someone that is born producing a low sperm count still has genitals, right?



Again, several functions, such as a third hand.



You realize that there are very few parts of our anatomy that have a 1:1 use, right? And you recognize that our anatomy is not tied to a Plutonic ideal, right?



What if I decided to use my mouth to give pleasure to my partner's genitals? Again, our anatomies are not tied to a Plutonic ideal.



You realize that having a child does not negate being a homosexual, right? One can do both. Again, you are exposing your biases and shallow thinking on this topic.



You realize that having a child does not negate being a homosexual, right? One can do both. Again, you are exposing your biases and shallow thinking on this topic. However, I am glad you dropped the suicide talk. I will take that as you admitting you are wrong. Thank you.



Really? That is not your argument? I must ask, what is your argument then? Because when I first asked you to cite a source for your claim, all you have done to support it is point out that homosexuality is a minority. So, please point out exactly how what I said above does not sum up your argument thus far. Because I agree, your premise is faulty.



This reply appears to have no bearing on the point I was making. Want to try again?



Again with the straw man. Will you ever argue in good faith? I guess when you know you are wrong and have been repeatedly exposed as wrong, erecting strawmen is all one can do.



Since deviant means departing from norms or standards, it becomes the norm or standard when one adds deviancy to society. Duh.

If only you would define normal human society and provide a citation for your original claim, you might start to be making a point. But, until then, your semantics will get you nowhere.



You said back in the 70s when talking about miscegenation. Just because you can make a bigoted statement does not mean it means anything. Provide a citation that homosexuality is against normal human society or keep being a joke.



I doubt that.



That is because you already have all the benefits. Also, glad to see that you admit to whining. Not sure why you would think that is a backfire on me.



Exactly. We already know you are not wise.



I doubt that.



I doubt that.



I do not think this is likely. There are tons of people in the US that are proud to have ancestors that fought for the Confederacy. It would not surprise me to find out that BoganUSAFFLClerk is one of them.



Wow. So when I summed up your argument as:



I was right. Well, glad to see you admit it now even though you could not earlier.



Yeah. That fits you well. I mean, so far, you have only supported your opinion about homosexuals with other opinions you hold. You provide no evidence for anything and have only played semantics to defend your opinion.



The economy and pandemic.



Special pleading.



Citation needed.



Says the guy that is whining on the internet.



Yet, no one cares about your feelings. Provide a citation.



This is a modus operandi for BoganUSAFFLClerk, reading the headlines but not the article.

It's hopeless, BoganUSAFFLClerk [whjich I always see as Bogusasfuck for some reason] is incapable of seeing the implications of his words and reads too much BS into all kinds of shit like what 'normal' means. It's very clear he doesn't approve of gays and believes them to be bad for society but he can't come up with a reason other than we don't reproduce, which is a bogus as fuck argument and would mean all folks who choose to not have kids are deviants, abnormal, and somehow will doom society. Plus, telling a lot of these people who commit suicide, usually youngsters, that they should just grow a spine is really horrific, heartless and hateful.

 

[Collecemall]

I think I lost 7 IQ points reading the posts from the troglodytes in this thread.

 

[Led Zeppelin]

I think I lost 7 IQ points reading the posts from the troglodytes in this thread.

A fool and his IQ points are soon parted.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I think I lost 7 IQ points reading the posts from the troglodytes in this thread.

I am sorry about that. I will try harder next time.

 

[ldmitruk]

I think I lost 7 IQ points reading the posts from the troglodytes in this thread.

Only 7

 

[Led Zeppelin]

Only 7

It was all he had!

 

[BoganUSAFFLClerk]

Another topic you know nothing about; is anyone surprised?

Freespeech can be offensive speech. Most other countries don't have freespeech and/or they don't have the same right to freespeech approximation.

And no one said otherwise. I have always agreed that homosexuals are a minority. So please stop burning straw. However, will you ever actually address the point and defend your claim? You have failed to define normal human society yet again, so I guess not. Did you realize that without defining normal human society, you are just holding an empty bag?

I already gave examples of normal societal traits you just haven't been listening - waste of time.

I already rejected your attempt to equate normal human society to simply reproduction. That is far too narrow a definition for such a term. Beyond that, you already agreed that homosexuals could reproduce; thus, this argument is moot. Why you keep bringing it up when you already agree it is wrong is beyond me.

"Could" reproduce and "going to" reproduce are two separate things. Just because I "could" go out and murder someone doesn't mean I am "going to" now does it? Stop making dumb arguments.

Straw man. Will you ever argue in good faith?

That is ironic considering the history of my first being here. I didn't get any good faith arguments only insults with you included.

Laughably myopic. I reject your definition of ordinary human society as simply reproduction. That is far too narrow a description for such a term. Look what it forces you to say—what a joke.

I never argued that normal solely consists of reproduction. Notice in your very statement above you claim I haven't defined normal in regards to society. Which is it? Did I not define it or did I define it? It can't be both. Pull your head out.

Because you are so contradictory and hypocritical I see no reason in continuing.

 

[BoganUSAFFLClerk]

I think I lost 7 IQ points reading the posts from the troglodytes in this thread.

Interesting: "Troglodytes" - plural.

 

[BoganUSAFFLClerk]

You think gays have been granted more entitlements than anyone in the known world? This is astoundingly daft and even more astoundingly ignorant. I'll just mention a couple of counterexamples: The very rich and royalty. How many really entitled elites have a bunch of assholes clammoring to get to SCOTUS in order to destroy their lives?

Yes. Take a look at the so called transgenders competing. These people usually amount to people thinking they are men or women and dating their same biological sex which makes them gay.

I can't arbitrarily go out of category and compete now can I?

Absolutely they have the most rights their victim cards get refreshed and stamped daily by the left.

They have infinite support meanwhile it is completely opposite when applied to me or people like me.

It is ridiculous to the point hyperbole.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Freespeech can be offensive speech. Most other countries don't have freespeech and/or they don't have the same right to freespeech approximation.

As I said, another topic you know nothing about. Sad.

I already gave examples of normal societal traits you just haven't been listening - waste of time.

Giving examples and defining something is not the same thing. It is not a waste of time, and it is key to your argument.

"Could" reproduce and "going to" reproduce are two separate things. Just because I "could" go out and murder someone doesn't mean I am "going to" now does it? Stop making dumb arguments.

Again, homosexuals have and do have children. If they already do, then how could this be a dumb argument?

That is ironic considering the history of my first being here. I didn't get any good faith arguments only insults with you included.

Citation for me only insulting you.

I never argued that normal solely consists of reproduction. Notice in your very statement above you claim I haven't defined normal in regards to society. Which is it? Did I not define it or did I define it? It can't be both. Pull your head out.

You have not defined it, and you just keep implying it to be a reproduction. Anyone that can read can see that you are doing that.

Because you are so contradictory and hypocritical I see no reason in continuing.

You have not pointed out one contradiction or hypocrisy on my part, but I keep pointing them out for you. This statement appears to be a case of the pot calling the silverware black.

Thus, you failed ever to back up your claim. Therefore, I accept your defeat on yet another topic.

 

[BoganUSAFFLClerk]

As I said, another topic you know nothing about. Sad.

What do you think "approximation" implies? It is simple people cannot say the same things in other countries compared to what U.S. citizens can say legally. Germany I cannot references things about Nazis. Germany has no freedom of speech due to it being offensive. Offensive Speech is freedom of speech here end of story end of argument.

Giving examples and defining something is not the same thing. It is not a waste of time, and it is key to your argument.

Yet you ignore those very traits I bring up in order to define. Traits make up what a something is. Traits can and do define things. For example a trait of transportation is locomotion. You define transportation due to the fact that they use locomotion to TRANSPORT something or someone to another location.

Again, homosexuals have and do have children. If they already do, then how could this be a dumb argument?

Argument is dumb because you are talking about a tiny percentage of LGBTQ which are not homosexual by definition those would be BISEXUAL.

Citation for me only insulting you.

You have not defined it, and you just keep implying it to be a reproduction. Anyone that can read can see that you are doing that.

Flatly no. I have already said to look at other societies. Do other societies SOLELY consist of reproduction? No. So you argument is moot. What do you think majorities consist of?

You have not pointed out one contradiction or hypocrisy on my part, but I keep pointing them out for you. This statement appears to be a case of the pot calling the silverware black.

How about you saying I am not working on a definition when I have said to look at majorities. You saying I have and have not defined anything for another.

Thus, you failed ever to back up your claim. Therefore, I accept your defeat on yet another topic.

No I have provided evidence/examples not my fault you got caught and burned.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

What do you think "approximation" implies? It is simple people cannot say the same things in other countries compared to what U.S. citizens can say legally. Germany I cannot references things about Nazis. Germany has no freedom of speech due to it being offensive. Offensive Speech is freedom of speech here end of story end of argument.

Wow. Maybe you do know a little more than you were letting on. Glad you recognize it is a legal issue.

Yet you ignore those very traits I bring up in order to define. Traits make up what a something is. Traits can and do define things.

I have never ignored the traits you were bringing up. On the contrary, I correctly summed up your argument based on the characteristics you have brought up thus far. The key is that your basic definition for normal human society is asinine.

Argument is dumb because you are talking about a tiny percentage of LGBTQ which are not homosexual by definition those would be BISEXUAL.

They are homosexuals, and they do have children. Also, an argument is not dumb simply because it undermines yours. However, once an argument is undermined to continue using it is dumb.

Citation for me only insulting you.

Do you think that is an insult!? I have never come across someone with such thin skin before. Wow! Hilarious!

Flatly no. I have already said to look at other societies. Do other societies SOLELY consist of reproduction? No. So you argument is moot.

That would be your argument. Glad that you agree that it is moot. Now I will wait here for you to define normal human society to move on since we agree your original argument was wrong.

What do you think majorities consist of?

The most significant number of a specific group.

How about you saying I am not working on a definition when I have said to look at majorities. You saying I have and have not defined anything for another.

Remember when I correctly summed up your argument like this, and you claimed that I framed your argument incorrectly? Talk about being inconsistent. As I already said:

Yes, homosexuals are a minority group. However, I would disagree that they are not a part of normal human society because of that. Perhaps if you tried defining a normal human society you would also see that just because there are minority groups among it does not make them harmful. Otherwise, it just appears that you are arguing that minorities do not belong in a normal human society. But, of course, you are a bigot after all, so this could be the case.

Care to move forward, or would you like to admit to being wrong again?

No I have provided evidence/examples not my fault you got caught and burned.

Caught and burned? Where? You realize this is a written forum, and people can see our exchanges, right? You have provided nothing but semantics to back your original claim, and just above, you now admitted that the argument you were making for it was wrong. So how exactly am I being caught and burned? It appears evident that after five pages of you failing to support your original claim, who is and is not being caught and burned.

 

[BoganUSAFFLClerk]

Wow. Maybe you do know a little more than you were letting on. Glad you recognize it is a legal issue.

Yes I didn't lead on otherwise. Freedom of Speech is always a legal issue. So why did you say I don't know anything about it?

I have never ignored the traits you were bringing up. On the contrary, I correctly summed up your argument based on the characteristics you have brought up thus far. The key is that your basic definition for normal human society is asinine.

Well again you say I both defined it and didn't define it. That is literally polar opposites. So which is it? Did I define it or didn't I?

They are homosexuals, and they do have children. Also, an argument is not dumb simply because it undermines yours. However, once an argument is undermined to continue using it is dumb.

"Bisexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction, or sexual behavior toward both males and females..."

No literally they are bisexuals at that point by definition not homosexual. You literally cannot be homosexual if you commit sexual acts with the different gender.

Do you think that is an insult!? I have never come across someone with such thin skin before. Wow! Hilarious!

You have used that statement as an insult. What you saying is basically I am incompetent - which is an insult.

That would be your argument. Glad that you agree that it is moot. Now I will wait here for you to define normal human society to move on since we agree your original argument was wrong.

So again I ask did I define or didn't I define it? I don't think you even have a clue you are arguing both.

The most significant number of a specific group.

Right so the argument doesn't apply then.

Remember when I correctly summed up your argument like this, and you claimed that I framed your argument incorrectly? Talk about being inconsistent. As I already said:

Care to move forward, or would you like to admit to being wrong again?

Just as soon as you admit that you have no idea that I have or have not defined society then. You are so contradictory it is hilarious. First you argue my definition sucks and then you say I haven't defined it. Which is it for the fourth time?

Caught and burned? Where? You realize this is a written forum, and people can see our exchanges, right? You have provided nothing but semantics to back your original claim, and just above, you now admitted that the argument you were making for it was wrong. So how exactly am I being caught and burned? It appears evident that after five pages of you failing to support your original claim, who is and is not being caught and burned.

Again the examples have to do with you claiming I haven't defined anything and yet I have defined society according to you. Obviously you cannot logically make the argument that my definition of society sucks and then in the same thread claim I haven't defined it. For the fifth time which is it did I define society or not?

 

[Led Zeppelin]

Yes I didn't lead on otherwise. Freedom of Speech is always a legal issue. So why did you say I don't know anything about it?

Well again you say I both defined it and didn't define it. That is literally polar opposites. So which is it? Did I define it or didn't I?

"Bisexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction, or sexual behavior toward both males and females..."

No literally they are bisexuals at that point by definition not homosexual. You literally cannot be homosexual if you commit sexual acts with the different gender.

You have used that statement as an insult. What you saying is basically I am incompetent - which is an insult.

So again I ask did I define or didn't I define it? I don't think you even have a clue you are arguing both.

Right so the argument doesn't apply then.

Just as soon as you admit that you have no idea that I have or have not defined society then. You are so contradictory it is hilarious. First you argue my definition sucks and then you say I haven't defined it. Which is it for the fourth time?

Again the examples have to do with you claiming I haven't defined anything and yet I have defined society according to you. Obviously you cannot logically make the argument that my definition of society sucks and then in the same thread claim I haven't defined it. For the fifth time which is it did I define society or not?

How do you propose we solve your problem with homosexuality?

 

[BoganUSAFFLClerk]

How do you propose we solve your problem with homosexuality?

It isn't my problem with homosexuality. It is the problem with definitions. If you constrain yourself to what is and what is not normal then homosexuality or anything that is not commonplace within society and considerations based on the commonplace perception then gays don't satisfy those definitions or perceptions.

 

[mechtheist]

It isn't my problem with homosexuality. It is the problem with definitions. If you constrain yourself to what is and what is not normal then homosexuality or anything that is not commonplace within society and considerations based on the commonplace perception then gays don't satisfy those definitions or perceptions.

Your problem is that you think that something that is not normal is therefore somehow 'bad', at least when it's something you don't like. I've demonstrated how this is extreme breathtakinginanity again and again and again. The few objections you've raised to those were also breathtakinginanity as I've also demonstrated, and the objections to those too were breathtakinginanity as I demonstrated, which you failed to address.

Your problem with gays is you don't like them and have to concoct various ways to demean and vilify them to mask your bigotry, but your concoctions only serve to prove it. [There's likely a lot of great cock jokes there but I'm too tired to go there]

 

[mechtheist]

Only 7

I really wanted to post "Wow, I had no idea IQ could go negative" but my relative newness here made me hold my ahole sarcastic tongue, but since you broke the ice so-to-speak, what the hell...

 

[Led Zeppelin]

Your problem is that you think that something that is not normal is therefore somehow 'bad', at least when it's something you don't like. I've demonstrated how this is extreme breathtakinginanity again and again and again. The few objections you've raised to those were also breathtakinginanity as I've also demonstrated, and the objections to those too were breathtakinginanity as I demonstrated, which you failed to address.

Yes this.

 

[*SD*]

Your problem is that you think that something that is not normal is therefore somehow 'bad', at least when it's something you don't like. I've demonstrated how this is extreme breathtakinginanity again and again and again. The few objections you've raised to those were also breathtakinginanity as I've also demonstrated, and the objections to those too were breathtakinginanity as I demonstrated, which you failed to address.

 

[Greg the Grouper]

It isn't even correct to concede homosexuality as 'abnormal' based on minority representation in a population. Normal has never referred to "greater presence in comparison to". Tanker trucks are vastly underrepresented when discussing vehicles on the road; to then conclude that their presence is somehow abnormal, as though it's unusual to see a tanker truck rolling down an interstate or pulling up to a gas station, is absurd.

Something statistically abnormal would be, for example, 90% of patrons at a gay bar being straight men.