It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Your testimony for Christ should cause the unbelieving world to hate you, not applaud you.
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Originally posted by Garfee
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Annee
BS - - - homosexuality is as normal and natural as you are.
It's neither.
If homosexuality were in fact "normal" they would comprise more than 3-4% of the population.
If homosexuality were in fact "natural" they would be able to reproduce.
They exact opposite is true, homosexuality is the rare exception and against nature.
You have stated that you believe partnerships without children or the ability to have children is unnatural.
I see bigotry everywhere and am constantly disgusted by it but you win the prize for today's stupidest comment.
Shame on you.
Can you read?
1. Show me where I stated "partnerships without children" is unnatural.
2. Show me where I said "the ability to have children" is unnatural.
You either are a liar or need to find your reading glasses, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Your testimony for Christ should cause the unbelieving world to hate you, not applaud you
A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic.
Originally posted by Akragon
Im on your side my friend, i just have little patients for people who use bullsh!t as their arguement... This is the same guy that throws the "red hering" garbage when he can't figure out what to say as a response...
Unfortunatly unlike you, i will not deal with those who willingly chose blindness to the scriptures...
But as i've said, im still learning
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Akragon
Lol wuuut? You did commit the red herring fallacy, that's commonly called "changing the subject". You went from one topic we were discussing to another one that was irrelevant to the original topic we were discussing.
That IS a "red herring" fallacy.
A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic.
Leviticus 20:13 If a man has sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman, the two of them have committed an abomination. They must be put to death; their blood guilt is on themselves.
Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by NOTurTypical
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Your testimony for Christ should cause the unbelieving world to hate you, not applaud you
Perhaps you might want to read that book again, this time open your eyes when you read it...
The only ones that "hated" jesus were the ones that couldn't handle the truth. He asked people to abandon all they had and come follow me, and most would not.
As i've said before, you are clueless to the real teachings of the bible...
But walk your path...
Originally posted by Garfee
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Originally posted by Garfee
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Annee
BS - - - homosexuality is as normal and natural as you are.
It's neither.
If homosexuality were in fact "normal" they would comprise more than 3-4% of the population.
If homosexuality were in fact "natural" they would be able to reproduce.
They exact opposite is true, homosexuality is the rare exception and against nature.
You have stated that you believe partnerships without children or the ability to have children is unnatural.
I see bigotry everywhere and am constantly disgusted by it but you win the prize for today's stupidest comment.
Shame on you.
Can you read?
1. Show me where I stated "partnerships without children" is unnatural.
2. Show me where I said "the ability to have children" is unnatural.
You either are a liar or need to find your reading glasses, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
Right here: "If homosexuality were in fact "natural" they would be able to reproduce. "
Open your bigoted, disgusting eyes.edit on 5-4-2011 by Garfee because: spelling
Originally posted by Garfee
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Originally posted by Garfee
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Annee
BS - - - homosexuality is as normal and natural as you are.
It's neither.
If homosexuality were in fact "normal" they would comprise more than 3-4% of the population.
If homosexuality were in fact "natural" they would be able to reproduce.
They exact opposite is true, homosexuality is the rare exception and against nature.
You have stated that you believe partnerships without children or the ability to have children is unnatural.
I see bigotry everywhere and am constantly disgusted by it but you win the prize for today's stupidest comment.
Shame on you.
Can you read?
1. Show me where I stated "partnerships without children" is unnatural.
2. Show me where I said "the ability to have children" is unnatural.
You either are a liar or need to find your reading glasses, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
Right here: "If homosexuality were in fact "natural" they would be able to reproduce. "
Open your bigoted, disgusting eyes.edit on 5-4-2011 by Garfee because: spelling
Originally posted by Akragon
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Akragon
Lol wuuut? You did commit the red herring fallacy, that's commonly called "changing the subject". You went from one topic we were discussing to another one that was irrelevant to the original topic we were discussing.
That IS a "red herring" fallacy.
A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic.
actually no, i was pointing out that you use weak arguements such as that when you have no clue what else to say....or you'll just say ....weak fallacy blah blah blah...
Right here: "If homosexuality were in fact "natural" they would be able to reproduce. "
Open your bigoted, disgusting eyes.
A: being in accordance with or determined by nature
B : having or constituting a classification based on features existing in nature
You have stated that you believe partnerships without children or the ability to have children is unnatural.
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Originally posted by Akragon
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Akragon
Lol wuuut? You did commit the red herring fallacy, that's commonly called "changing the subject". You went from one topic we were discussing to another one that was irrelevant to the original topic we were discussing.
That IS a "red herring" fallacy.
A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic.
actually no, i was pointing out that you use weak arguements such as that when you have no clue what else to say....or you'll just say ....weak fallacy blah blah blah...
No, it's called "Debate 101". In that class you learn that you refuse to answer fallacies of logic in debate. You refuse to do so because when a fallacy is used in part of an argument it renders the entire argument invalid. it's important for one to know what the fallacies are so they can attempt not to include them in his or her own arguments. There are both formal and informal fallacies that should never be used and one should never allow others to use.
Saying hateful things will indeed cause others to hate you.
Dude, most of your arguements are stacked with flaws, and illogical inconsistancies...
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Akragon
Dude, most of your arguements are stacked with flaws, and illogical inconsistancies...
Are you going to provide evidence of this or shall we all just take your arbitrary opinion?
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Garfee
Right here: "If homosexuality were in fact "natural" they would be able to reproduce. "
Open your bigoted, disgusting eyes.
I know I said that. "Natural" means:
A: being in accordance with or determined by nature
B : having or constituting a classification based on features existing in nature
So with that, if homosexuality were in fact "natural" or according to nature then males could impregnate each other. Females could impregnate each other. Homosexuality is not natural or according to nature because neither can do so.
Secondly, you made the comments that I claimed:
You have stated that you believe partnerships without children or the ability to have children is unnatural.
That's a straw man argument, I never said "partnerships without children" is unnatural. I also never said "the ability to have children" is unnatural. In fact the opposite we see in nature on a consistent basis, the ability to reproduce offspring is quite natural.
Lastly, you yourself are bigoted towards individuals who think homosexuality is wrong in God's eyes. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
I know I said that. "Natural" means:
A: being in accordance with or determined by nature
B : having or constituting a classification based on features existing in nature
So with that, if homosexuality were in fact "natural" or according to nature then males could impregnate each other. Females could impregnate each other. Homosexuality is not natural or according to nature because neither can do so.
Originally posted by Garfee
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Garfee
Right here: "If homosexuality were in fact "natural" they would be able to reproduce. "
Open your bigoted, disgusting eyes.
I know I said that. "Natural" means:
A: being in accordance with or determined by nature
B : having or constituting a classification based on features existing in nature
So with that, if homosexuality were in fact "natural" or according to nature then males could impregnate each other. Females could impregnate each other. Homosexuality is not natural or according to nature because neither can do so.
Secondly, you made the comments that I claimed:
You have stated that you believe partnerships without children or the ability to have children is unnatural.
That's a straw man argument, I never said "partnerships without children" is unnatural. I also never said "the ability to have children" is unnatural. In fact the opposite we see in nature on a consistent basis, the ability to reproduce offspring is quite natural.
Lastly, you yourself are bigoted towards individuals who think homosexuality is wrong in God's eyes. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.
Christian, meet mr real-life not believing in a fake god.
You wrote "If homosexuality were in fact "natural" they would be able to reproduce. "
That to me means you believe that if you are a couple but cannot or do not wish to produce offspring, you are against the laws of nature.
Of course, all of your garbage comes from an evil, dark and hateful book so I shouldn't expect anything less than the filth you have been spouting.