Are gays and lesbians normal?

[eezychair]

---

@eezychair

hahahaa. You are talking about scientific fact but you forgot that you still have the responsibility to make a conclusion basing on that premises. That is simply a naturalistic fallacy.



your argument is simply a false dichotomy.
again, how can you connect gay and lesbian sexual preferences to abnormality.?

Isn't the thread title itself a false dichotomy?

Naturalistic fallacy is the term used loosely to describe arguments which claim to draw ethical conclusions from natural facts. What is the natural fact and who is drawing ethical conclusions?

[eezychair]

I have a few friends, and some distant relatives who are "gay".

Even if they are like that, I treat, respect and look at them as a man, not another 3rd s3x gender.

Still, I do not encourage them on making gay activities.

Another thing, I have no problem with those who are gayish, or binabaye ang lihok. The line is tripped when gay s3xual activities arises.

I do the same too, though sometimes it is pretty awkward.

[eezychair]

@eezychair


your argument is simply a false dichotomy.
again, how can you connect gay and lesbian sexual preferences to abnormality.?

Is it still arguable that the man's sexual organ is designed to fit a woman's sexual organ (perfectly and with a purpose) and not another man's anus (which is for you know what?) Is that connection not obvious?

[ketllac]

@eezychair

Isn't the thread title itself a false dichotomy?

care to elaborate. BTW it is a question not a statement.

Naturalistic fallacy is the term used loosely to describe arguments which claim to draw ethical conclusions from natural facts. What is the natural fact and who is drawing ethical conclusions?

boldface mine. It appears that you don't understand that question. ang gitumbok ana part ikaw ug imong conclusion nga abnormal. It means that it hard to infer from natural facts to draw an ethical conclusion like abnormal or immoral. that is why how can you draw ethical conclusion from the premise derived from natural facts.

[yiennahs]

false dichotomy


if it's not good then it's bad

[ketllac]

Is it still arguable that the man's sexual organ is designed to fit a woman's sexual organ (perfectly and with a purpose) and not another man's anus (which is for you know what?) Is that connection not obvious?

OK let us form a syllogism;

Premise A. (let me revise the premise based on the idea that you've presented) sexual organ on both male and female are perfectly design and with a purpose.

Premise b. Is it still arguable that the man's sexual organ is designed to fit a woman's sexual organ and not another man's anus

conclusion: therefore it is abnormal/immoral.

How can you connect Premise A, B, and most importantly your conclusion to make a valid argument? Mao ni naturallistic fallacy bai. mao related sa imo question nga gi qoute nako ganina. What is the natural fact and who is drawing ethical conclusions.


ang natural fact nga imong gipangutana is ang premise A ug B and ethical conclusion is imong conclusion.

[The Good$!!!]

I hate homos!

[ruji119]

GOD SAID THIS IS HOW WE DO IT!

[yiennahs]

Is it still arguable that the man's sexual organ is designed to fit a woman's sexual organ (perfectly and with a purpose) and not another man's anus (which is for you know what?) Is that connection not obvious?

naglibog lagi ko
how come it's arguable given the fact that the anus itself does not belong to the reproductive system and is not an erectile organ?

[ketllac]

@eezychair

Let us make it simple;

(A) All men are mortal
(b) Osmeña is a man, therefore
conclusion: therefore Osmeña is a politician” is clearly invalid; the conclusion obviously doesn’t follow from the premises.

imo argumento pareha ra ani bai. hehehehe
incoherent nga facts i conekta sa conclusion. kuha na?