What Don't You Like About The Gay Community?

BTW, your signature is a strawman as you apparently do not understand the Biblical definition of sin.

 

It can't be a strawman because it isn't the misrepresentation of somebody's argument to make them easier to attack. It is merely an opinion.

Perhaps you should learn the meanings of words before you use them.

 

Apparently regardless of their credibility.

The "reference" you posted didn't have any science in it. Merely assumptions.

I posted a reference that not only used all the data your source used but did not then jump to any conclusions. It simply presented the data which was the same data that your source used but it made no effort to interpret that data.

Btw weren't you complaining about a question not getting answered? Are we just going to forget about that?

 

What part of using the word "sin" incorrectly is not a misrepresentation?

 

Credibility is in the eye of the beholder. Or are you that naive?

As the quote I posted states, "There are lies, damn lies and statistics." The data is not acquired nor analyzed in a vacuum. It is often gathered with biased questioning and/or methodology and analyzed by flawed human beings. Your references are no less flawed than those I posted.

 

It still can't be a strawman because it still isn't the misrepresentation of somebody's argument to make them easier to attack. It is still merely an opinion.

And your opinion on what the word sin means isn't really relevant.

It's good to see you have abandoned your argument regarding homosexuality, but to then attack my signature, by calling it a cowardly lion or tin man, or strawman, or whatever nonsense you decide to call it, really doesn't make you appear any more intelligent.

 

Must make it convenient for you to hold such fallacious beliefs.

So why should I trust a source that begins the questioning process with a conclusion? That isn't how science works.

Your reference had no science to speak of in it. Your source referencedthe same research that was listedin my source. But yours being a lobbyist did so to confirm an antecedently held belief. The raw data thatboth sources used didn't support the conclusions the Frc had made. Do you know what studies were referenced in your source? Did you even read the article?

And again, that question you said I didn't answer, what was it?

 

Sin has a specific meaning. If you wish to redefine the word, then include you definition for the sake of the debate.

You are now using the strawman fallacy to claim I am evading the original argument while you avoid my reply to your post. Defend your position and stop taking us down another bunny hole.

 

FYI, The basic definition of sin is breaking Gods law. 1John 3:4, "Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law; for sin is the transgression of the law." The punishment for sin is in Rom 6:23 "..the wages of sin is death."

 

You are naive. Science is not done in a vacuum. Scientists begin discovery with their own worldview and biases. The science you choose to believe was done by humans with a bias. Is this concept that difficult for you to comprehend?

 

Don't need to redefine it. I didn't violate its meaning.

My positron is that my signature isn't a misrepresentation of anybody's argument. It's a statement, there forit cannot be a straw man. I didn't avoid anything, I stressed this directly three times now.

- - - Updated - - -

well I didn't so thanks for the lesson.

 

Let me try to explain it to you youngster. Sin has nothing to do with who one is, but what one does. I care less if you believe you were born an adulterer, a thief, a murderer or a 1957 Chevy. It is how you act on your whims and temptations that determines if you sin against God..

 

No, but scientists often go through several painstaking processes to avoid their biases. Therefore they are honestly seeking an answer.

A lobbyist doesn't preform any science. Read your source.

True there is going to be a little bias in everything, but it's hard for me to believe there is an unseen cabal of "gay-Nazis" plucking the strings of fate. Is this possible? I would say remotely at best. Your position relies on this remote at best possibility.

 

Than you agree with my signature?

It's not a sin to be who you are no matter what anybody says.

Because who you are isn't how you act right?

 

Since sin doesn't really exist, your whole point is moot.

 

So you believe that because an individual is a scientist, he is automatically objective and no scientist begins research with a bias towards the end result? Is that what you are claiming?

Do you also claim that a lobbyist only has available to him, flawed and biased research, and never any scientific data?

Define cabal. Since Americans are fearful of being labeled any sort of _______phobic or ____ist, the minority (even just one individual complaint) the 99.9% of Americans who disagree must comply or face job loss, ridicule, law suits, etc.

You have been (unsuccessfully) making sweeping generalizations to attempt to make you point, but we do agree every human being has their own biases and worldview through which they interpret the world around them.

 

This is like saying it is not a sin to be a 1957 Chevy. But, as your signature seems to suggest, homosexuality is abhorrent to and a sin against God but you choose to ignore the sin for your own pleasure.

- - - Updated - - -

What is you proof of this, or is this just your false hope that you will never be judged for your sins?

 

Read what I posted.

No, I said they interpret data to match their preconceived conclusion.

Google it.

So?

- - - Updated - - -

I don't buy that garbage.

 

You're the one who brought up sin, so it is you who has the burden of proof.

 

I have no burdens, especially not because you say so.

 

You made the claim in logical discussion the one with the claim holds the burden of proof.

 

Proof of what, that we are sinful people? that our sins are an affront to God? that God abhors homosexuality? that we all are sinners? that we have free will to sin or not? What is you point?

 

well, yes, butI really don't care about that, and I know you can't prove it.

I ment your original claim. The one you haven't defended yet

 

So if I can defend it then you will then change your point of view? To what level and to whose satisfaction must my defense rise?

 

no, if you prove your point, I couldn't honestly hold mine.

There are only two levels. Fact or not. The level must be fact.