THIS is what we are warning you all about!!

[Sparko]

How dare you sir!!!



"Abnormal" has a range of meanings from "not typical, usual, or regular" as per your examples, to "not normal; deviant", which is how BtC and others, are using the word in relation to LGBT folk. "Get it?"

oh, I get it. You don't. You must be abnormally dense.

[MaxVel]

Bill’s argument assumes that LGBT people are abnormal...a position NOT supported by the APA, nor any psychological association and related discipline around the world. Nor is it recognised by the Supreme Court and most US States.

LGBT people are abnormal, in the sense I understand BTC to mean - a very small statistical group. He specifically denied making any value judgment.

It IS however, the position of Evangelicals. Bill is an Evangelical hence it’s reasonable to conclude that, despite protests to the contrary, his position is based primarily on scripture...as was the so-called scientific argument against abortion in another thread.

It's a dishonest trick of Evangelicals to disguise their real agenda with the pretence of making a scientific argument. One sees it with the Christian-based Discovery Institute arguing against Evolution. And one sees it in this discussion.

See? You're reacting to (what you think you know about) the person, and rejecting the argument because of that, rather than actually responding to the argument made. You prove my point, and it's no surprise that you're so confused and irrational.

[Sparko]

LGBT people are abnormal, in the sense I understand BTC to mean - a very small statistical group. He specifically denied making any value judgment.



See? You're reacting to (what you think you know about) the person, and rejecting the argument because of that, rather than actually responding to the argument made. You prove my point, and it's no surprise that you're so confused and irrational.

This is typical Tassman. Like when there is an abortion thread and not one person has mentioned God or used religion as an argument. Everytime Tassman will accuse the other side of only being against abortion because of religious reasons. Basically if he can force religion into a subject, he will use it to create a straw man to burn. Even if he has to use entirely convoluted logic like he did here. Everything is about religion, even if it isn't. It's all a conspiracy to Tassman.

[MaxVel]

This is typical Tassman. Like when there is an abortion thread and not one person has mentioned God or used religion as an argument. Everytime Tassman will accuse the other side of only being against abortion because of religious reasons. Basically if he can force religion into a subject, he will use it to create a straw man to burn. Even if he has to use entirely convoluted logic like he did here. Everything is about religion, even if it isn't. It's all a conspiracy to Tassman.

You're only saying that to further your hidden religious agenda </Tassman>

[Sparko]

You're only saying that to further your hidden religious agenda </Tassman>

[Tassman]

This is typical Tassman. Like when there is an abortion thread and not one person has mentioned God or used religion as an argument. Everytime Tassman will accuse the other side of only being against abortion because of religious reasons. Basically if he can force religion into a subject, he will use it to create a straw man to burn. Even if he has to use entirely convoluted logic like he did here. Everything is about religion, even if it isn't. It's all a conspiracy to Tassman.

With regard to abortion debate your so-called “scientific argument" is non-existent. You merely state the bleeding obvious that human zygotes are human.

Nobody disputes this blatantly obvious scientific fact. The issue is a philosophical/theological one, not a scientific one. Namely at what point is this entity entitled to full human rights.

The Supreme Court ruled in its landmark decision that this is not until fetal viability. OTOH religious conservatives (75% White Evangelical Protestants according to Pew Research), argue that it’s from the moment of conception...so clearly there’s a religious component in play, despite your deceitful claim that there's not.

[Tassman]

LGBT people are abnormal, in the sense I understand BTC to mean - a very small statistical group. He specifically denied making any value judgment.

Well he has made "value judgements in reference to LGBT folk, e.g.: “every fantasy”, “aberrant expressions of sexuality”, “deviant sexuality”, “indulging mental illnesses” etc.

"Abnormal" has a range of meanings from "not typical, usual, or regular” to the negative “not normal; deviant". BTC is using “abnormal" in the latter, negative sense.

See? You're reacting to (what you think you know about) the person, and rejecting the argument because of that, rather than actually responding to the argument made.

I know that BTC is an Evangelical Christian, am I wrong? Or are you saying that his faith has no impact on what he believes about correct attitudes to sexuality?

You prove my point, and it's no surprise that you're so confused and irrational.

Argument by derision, typical Max.

[Jedidiah]

already broke.jpg