Homosexuality is natural/unnatural. Cont.

An interesting debate I was having on YouTube with a particular fellow.  I’m not saying I’m right and he’s wrong, what I’m trying to demonstrate here is that he’s not following his own train of logic and therefore needs to rethink how he came about his conclusions and mend his logical process.  I’m not saying I’m right, just saying that I’m following my own logic and my logic is sound.
 
Key:

User Name

Text

Point/Commentary

Counter point

ogirv101

Two sterile poeple are unnatural, there is a malfunction in the DNA that doesn’t allow them to reproduce. These organisms will die off, and will not be able to reproduce and carry its genes in the gene pool, being another victim of natural selection.

Also, no homosexuals cannot reproduce, when you say they can reproduce but they chose not to is actually offensive to homosexuals. So you’re saying homosexuals choose to be homosexuals? Is that what you’re saying?  Where does he get that I implied this?

einreisender314

I am saying that some homosexuals choose not to have their genetic material continued on to further generations, just as some heterosexual people choose not to have their genetic material continued on to further generations.

As for the Atheism/Philosophy dichotomy, I have three simple letters: Zen.
–RK

ogirv101

So you’re saying homosexuals choose to be homosexual? Can you prove that claim with scientific evidence? How can I trust such an offensive comment to homosexuals? You’re saying homosexuals choose not to further their gene pool, so in other words you’re calling homosexuality a mental disease?

Give evidence for homosexuality being a choice, or otherwise I want an apology towards the homosexual community.  This is important.  [6]

einreisender314

What? Homosexuality is not a choice. I’m saying they often do not want to further their genes, but there are many heterosexual couples that also do not want to further their genes.
At no point did I say homosexuality was a choice.
–RK

ogirv101

No, being homosexual is by definition not being able to furhter its genes due to the inability to reproduce. You obviously are taking bisexuality into this, homosexuality is the sexual orientation in which same sex is preferred. This means they can’t reproduce becaus they don’t have the opposite sex to reproduce with.  No, homosexuality is by _his_ definition an organism that prefers to have sex with it’s own gender.

Also, thoese heterosexuals are irrelevant, but they are nontheless still a victim of natural selection. Ceirtan priests have also been victims, I’m just proving a point.

einreisender314

Your definition of homosexuality is anyone that exclusively has sex with members of their own gender? (I’m not accusing, I’m asking)
Is then your definition of heterosexuality anyone that exclusively has sex with members of their opposite gender?
What then is your definition of bisexuality? Is it (A) someone who has sex with members of both genders, or (B) someone who has had sex with both genders?   This is important.  [7]
–RK

ogirv101

No, homosexuality is the prefrence of only one sex, but a true homosexual wouldn’t have sex with the opposite gender. There are either two options: homosexuality is a choice in which an organism consciously decides to being defective in natural selection; or homosexuality is a defective characteristic in which an organism can’t choose but is defective nontheless.

</div>

einreisender314

I’m not here to troll however:
ogirv101: "Give evidence for homosexuality being a choice, or otherwise I want an apology towards the homosexual community. "
Followed then by: ogirv101: "homosexuality is a choice in which an organism consciously decides to being defective"
Also, you failed to define bisexuality, which is needed to continue this thread on a basis of logic.
–RK

ogirv101

You’re not trolling, you’re quote mining. You just used a logical fallacies, because there were two choices. I didn’t conclude any of the the two to be correct, next time try a little better and you pathetically attempt to use a logical fallacy.

Also, bisexuality is irrelevant.

einreisender314

Bisexuality is an issue because you are assuming that I am taking bisexuality into this (as you’d stated earlier) therefore if I am bringing it in, there is obviously a need of a definition.
Homosexuals CAN reproduce, there is nothing wrong with them genetically that prevents them from being able to reproduce.
–RK

ogirv101

So from the concept that homosexuals can reproduce but choose not to, in reality you’re saying homosexuality is a choice. If it’s a choice then it’s a mental disease in which they are inferior to organisms that can reproduce, is that what you’re implying?

Also bisexuality is the prefrence of both sexes.  This is important.  [8]

einreisender314

No, I am saying that reproduction is a choice. Some homosexuals make a choice to reproduce, some don’t. Just as some heterosexuals make a choice to reproduce and some don’t.

By your logic then, can a straight person have sex with someone of the same gender successfully and still be straight? And can a gay person have sex with someone of the opposite gender and still be gay?
–RK

ogirv101

What homosexuals choose to reproduce? If they choose to reproduce then they’re BISEXUALS not homosexuals….. You obviously aren’t understanding the point aren’t you?

No, if a straight person has sex with same sex gender, then they are by definition bisexual. This is important.  [9]

einreisender314

Suppose they prefer to have sex with someone of the opposite gender but have sex with someone of the same gender then?
–RK  [10]

ogirv101

I’m getting tired of this, I don’t think i can go on. We obviously have differing views, and I don’t think any of us are going to change our minds.

einreisender314

First you say: "No there is no such thing as a gay gene, a person chooses to be homosexual"
Also: "…you’re saying that homosexuality is a polygenic trait without having evidence…but you have no evidence, and in fact it contradicts evidence."
Then: "Give evidence for homosexuality being a choice, or otherwise I want an apology towards the homosexual community. "
So therefore you it is you who should adhere to your own logic. 
–RK  As per notes [2], [6]

einreisender314

You say: "…homosexuals are unnatural because they cannot survive natural selection."  <span style="color: rgb(128, 0, 128);”>As per note [1]
And: "…if an organism can’t produce naturally they are unnatural nad (sic) fall victim to natural selection…"  As per note [3], [4]
Then: "Also bisexuality is the prefrence (sic) of both sexes."  As per note [8]
Last: "If they choose to reproduce then they’re BISEXUALS not homosexuals…"  As per note [9]
I ask, if they prefer one gender, and merely choose to have sex at the need for reproduction but would prefer not to, then they are what?  [11]
–RK 
As per notes [1],[3],[4], he says that homosexuals can’t reproduce and fall victim to natural selection because they CANNOT pass on their genes.  As per note [5] he defines a homosexual as someone who prefers to have sex with the same gender and in note [8] defines bisexuals as someone who prefers to have sex with both genders.  He also refutes my possible definition of bisexuality as given in note [7](b) while claiming that definition via note [9] therefore not adhering to his own logic yet again.

ogirv101

I said I don’t feel like continuing the debate, but from the looks of it you really did quotemine me, you have been doing this the whole time. Logical fallacies don’t win debates. Your integrity is morally bankrupt.  Also note how he refused to answer my questions posed in notes [10],[11].
 
Again, I’m not claiming to be right, I’m just claiming not to violate my own logic.  I ask, did I use circular logic, and can someone define "quotemining?"  Did I, in fact, use logical fallacies, and if so, where?  And, did he violate his own logical paterns?
–RK