ALTRAV,

Two fallacies in one post. You're not doing too well here.

<<Being [gay] is [against the laws of nature].>>

What is your evidence for this?

Either way, to argue that homosexuality is therefore wrong or undesirable is to fallaciously appeal to nature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature

<<If [being gay] was never accepted for thousands of years, there is no reason we should accept it now.>>

This is the Appeal to Tradition fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition

AJ you do not contribute to this forum if all you do is sit back and reject everything because you don't like it, and you reject everything I say, so why are you still here taking up space that someone older and more experienced could better contribute.

There is no doubt as to what is natural by way of DNA. When a child is born there are certain immediate tests that are carried out to check its health status.

The greater majority pass with no physical or health issues.

On the other hand every now and then one is found to have some disorder/s. These babies are ABNORMAL.

Being queer is not normal for homo-sapiens, no. In any form of assessment you will find many forms of living creatures that do not conform to the mold of a male or a female homo-sapiens.

Albino's, midgets, hermaphrodites and many more.

I'm wasting my time. I am not getting through to you but I know those out there who are not scared of peer pressure or what someone thinks about them, agree with me.

And another thing, I don't mind you bagging me because I know you have nothing to contribute, but stop bagging nature and tradition/history.

Both were around much longer than your small brain could ever comprehend. And both are my evidence of what you seek from me.

To ALTRAV. Thankyou for your reply of 26th December.
I have adjusted your argument to be:

Homosexuality cannot be natural because:
A. nature requires all creatures to reproduce.
B. A homosexual couple (assuming to the exclusion of any others) cannot procreate.
C. Therefore homosexuality is not natural.
Further, t
D. Because homosexuality is not natural it is a state of being best described as a "disorder".
E. Homosexuality is a minority (of the human experience).
F. As a minority homosexuals should be felt sorry for.
G. Our feeling sorry (for homosexuals) should be of the same kind we extend to midgets and albinos.

I did notice in your reply that you began using the word “normal”.
Because the words “normal” and “natural” suggest quite different things have you expanded your argument?
If this is the case, then it does seem to me that introducing "normalcy" weakens your views.
I say this because what is normal (or usual or expected) is such an imprecise concept - at best used as a generalisation whilst at the same time acknowledging there will be a spectrum of “not normalness”.
Your argument based on “naturalness” seems stronger without introducing the vagueness of normalcy

ALTRAV,

This is an online debating forum. If you say something that is wrong and I rebut it, then that is contributing. If you want to have your beliefs to go challenged, then either don't contribute, or go down the road to www.butthurtfreeopinion.com.au, but you don't get to accuse me of not contributing just because you don't like me discrediting your absurd claims.

<<... you do not contribute to this forum if all you do is sit back and reject everything because you don't like it, …>>

It has nothing to do with what I do and do not like. This should be evident in the fact that I always explain why it is that you are wrong. I will discredit your absurd claims for so long as you make them.

<<Being queer is not normal for homo-sapiens, no.>>

You need to explain why, though. You have not yet done this. And before you appeal to reproduction, consider that homosexuality may play another role in nature and the implications this would have for your fallacious appeal to nature. You HAVE studied the evolution of homosexuality, I take it?

<<... stop bagging nature and tradition/history.>>

At no point have I bagged nature or tradition. I have merely pointed out that appealing to them, in order to distinguish right from wrong, is fallacious.

<<... both [nature and tradition] are my evidence of what you seek from me.>>

Only they're not evidence of anything. Do you not understand what a fallacy is? Clearly you didn't read the links I posted before.

Ashbo, thanks for picking me up on the word 'normal'.

I do believe that what is natural is also normal so I am not surprised if I used the word at some point.

You see nature does throw up the odd left ball. Albino's, midgets, queers etc.

In describing nature we have to see that it is also normal.

So when describing something as un-natural, it is also abnormal. Again by description and definition.

The argument the queers want to promote to justify their very being and therefore equality is that because they exist then they are natural and therefore normal.

Yes they are. To other queers. Not to normal and natural homo-sapiens.

I describe normal as the 99% of the population. Not the small minority that are so few they do not constitute a number worth counting. ie; a very small number by comparison that cannot justify their 'equality' mantra.

Now AJ, I do well enough explaining. If you don't like it tough. Stop asking me to prove things. I make a statement, you disagree, but you don't give me a reason.

Your attacks/response to me is as fallacious as you contend of me, or have you conveniently forgotten your comments and associated links where you accuse me of being 'fallacious' re nature and history.

Mate, honestly most of your phsycobable is incomprehensible, the rest is irreprehensible!

. Dear AL TRAV, . I note your particular attachment to norms and the importance you place on them. But, as I indicated in my previous post, I tend to agree with Jacques Monod that nature arose simply as a result of “chance and necessity” (where chance is a “random variable” and necessity an “inevitable event”) which means that there are no such things as divine plan, perfection, or norms so far as nature is concerned. What you indicate as examples of norms are what Jacques Monod refers to as the “invariant reproduction” or “invariance” of the morphogenetic processes that build the macroscopic structure of living beings. He notes that living beings and crystalline structures share this property that renders them unlike all other known objects in the universe. . Here is some additional information which may be of interest to you : « There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation » [The American Psychological Association] « The stages of psycho-social development toward adult heterosexuality are clearly demarcated, known and understood by developmental psychologists, and are so obviously learned that heterosexuality is clearly not genetically mandated. Surveys of adult homosexuals show conspicuous deficits in several of these developmental stages – showing that homosexuality is cultural and environmental rather than genetic » [Whitehead, Neil E., PhD] . (Continued …) .