Ifreann wrote:Tyska wrote:
Google's define function proved good enough to get my point across.
But is of no use as evidence supporting your assertion that being gay is a disorder.At no point have I lied. Be careful not to misinterpret my words.
Correct.
And absolutely does human sexuality have some intention behind it that homosexuality does not serve. Reproduction my friend!
Not so, as has been pointed out to you already.
You are imagining these 'appeals'. Whether intentionally or unintentionally I don't know.
Maybe you just don't understand what I mean by that, but they are plain to see in your posts.
But is of no use as evidence supporting your assertion that being gay is a disorder.
I'm not going to repeat myself anymore. You have doubts go back and read my posts. And if you still disagree that is your issue and not mine.
You assert homosexuality to be a disorder based on the dictionary definition of that word and on your belief that human sexuality has some intention behind it that homosexuality does not serve.
Correct.
And absolutely does human sexuality have some intention behind it that homosexuality does not serve. Reproduction my friend![/quote]
Not so, as has been pointed out to you already.
I must have missed the memo informing me that two men can now create an offspring by having sexual intercourse with each other.Maybe you just don't understand what I mean by that, but they are plain to see in your posts.
At no point did I appeal to anyone's sense of anything. You are concluding that by yourself.
