Is that the ultimate definition of irony?
Only homosexuals can give birth to homosexuals, only homosexuals cant procreate.

 

Well yes, alright, that's a fair point. But probably the subject of a separate thread.

 

"Now"? As opposed to when, precisely?

 

I think sir is confusing heterosexual with homosexual. Now THAT'S irony!!

 

Never, would be my arguement.

 

cough, I was quoting context.

yes, I did edit my original statement

 

You stated that homosexuality was genetic. Therefore a homosexual must have homosexual parents according to your reasoning.

 

And you're entitled to your opinion. Just be aware, please, that there is evidence out there that refutes your opinion. You just need to be prepared to accept that it exists I guess.

 

Are you confusing genetic with hereditary? I think you might be.

 

ge·net·ic (j-ntk) or ge·net·i·cal (--kl)
adj.

1) Of or relating to genetics or genes.
2) Affecting or affected by genes, as a disorder or deficiency.
3) Of, relating to, or influenced by the origin or development of something; ontogenic.


Source: The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary
Copyright © 2002, 2001, 1995 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company

I refer you to point number 3.

you have intermittantly referred to empirical evidence to the contrary, yet have offered no sources to date.

 

Quoting

 

Chip,
Just checking it wasn't a question that I should answer. However unfounded and anti-scientific my responces seem to be today.

 

Neither will I. I'm not doing anybody's leg work, sorry.

Genetic in this sense, if we're being pedantic, doesn't necessarily imply hereditary, although whilst we're at it, there is *some* (sorry, couldn't resist) suggestion that there's a hereditary element to it too. Who knows. But take time to talk to a few homosexuals, Peanuts, ask them if they thought that being homosexual was just a trendy thing to do. Ask them, with the additional risks, stigmas, prejudices and so on that are involved, why it wouldn't be a whole lot easier to "accept" (in your world) that they are really heterosexual, and stop living a lie. Go on.

 

I wouldn't know where to find any though

Chip

 

Exactly, Chip, exactly.

 

You have shown a basic lack of understanding here.

Have I ever stated that homosexuals are heterosexuals in disguise? Have I ever stated that homosexuals are living a lie?
I think if you look back at this thread, (and the previous one that followed an almost identical course with D-B-W) I have *NEVER* () stated as you suggest.
What I have stated throughout though is that **** sex is not natural.

Please do not attempt to assume anything about my social cicle or the sexuality of anyone within it.

You have seen a moot point, you have misinterpreted it, you have acted on that misinterpretation.

 

But I bet Ive met and know a few though

Chip

 

I have not referred to evidence to back up my arguement, you have, I have asked you to prove that evidence, or at least let us all in on it.

My evidence is Darwin, Charles. The Origin of Species.

 

Peanuts, please tell me when the patronisation ends. It will be a relief, believe me. All I'm saying, yet again, to address the very specific point you are highlighting, is that **** sex IS natural, because consenting adults choose to engage in it, whether they be men and women in a heterosexual relationship, or men in a homosexual relationship. Making a distinction between **** sex and any other form of sexual activity is totally irrational. You're defining "natural" to suit your own arguments, beliefs and prejudices. Is that clear enough?

 

That book is as old and outdated as many of the opinions being displayed here. I think you've proved the point eloquently now.

 

This thread could run forever. Can't you two just agree to disagree.

Chip

 

Ah, I understand now. You have a vastly superior intellect to all of us 'normal' folks. Indeed so vast that it is clearly superior to that of Darwin himself.

No wonder we don't have a clue what you're banging on about.

 

Hang on a minute.... Darwin's theory IS flawed........ all to do with his theory regarding survival of the fittest... which isn't accurate...so in a nutshell AR has a valid point..........

 

Outrageous!
You are saying that dictionary definition, convention and understanding need not apply to words as you use them.
I fail to see any patronisation, other than picking up on your points of arguement and dispelling them with fact, and futhermore, I have referenced all my points of fact.
You have provided an arguement based on heresay, then when questioned you refuse to provide source quoting, "Not doing other's legwork".
Please, look in the dictionary, any encyclopeadia or even google it: because it is engaged by consenting adults it is not natural. Natural means "of the way of nature". There is nowhere that defines natural as having anything whatsoever to do with consenting adults, or any adults for that matter.
If (as is the case here) your reasoning is based on flaw from the outset, how can anything you are unwilling to back up with fact be taken seriously?
Crazy, as well as foolish all rolled into one. A fact is not a fact until it is proven to be so.


That is most definately poor form in any debating circles you care (or not as may be the case) to consider!

 

To highlight the pointlessness of this arguement, I am going to say no more on the matter and simply let it lie.
Unlike someone a page or so back who said the same thing but couldnt resist just a little while later.

 

 

Homosexuality may be seen as unnatural, but how far do you take it exactly? I cannot get my head around people who think two men having sex is unnatural How many "men" on here have given their lass one up the ***? Is that unnatural as the sperm won't fertilise the egg up that tunnel Oral sex with a woman: unnatural? Sperm won't reach her ovaries through her throat Get real you homphobic cess pits

 

Are you surfing from a prison cell?

 

Well said Anne, couldn't have put it better myself

 

It's called foreplay isn't it. Not unnatural , no.

Chip