Replies

"perhaps he's trying to hijack the thread because he doesn't want to discuss the topic at hand: human physiology and hetero/homo sexuality."

I'm discussing the logical basis of your argument, which is awful hard to make using logic and fact. MY topic is that the author of this article rightly criticizes a faulty standard of truth, but does it using an equally faulty standard that is faulty for the same reasons, if you use the scientific definition of truth rather than the unprovable theological view which requires entirely on faith in the inherently unprovable.

I've stated this several times in the thread, yet you keep either nibbling around the edges and not attacking this statement. Is it intentional, or do you just not understand?

The author allows IN THE ARTICLE for other approaches. I've pointed that out to you. He says:******"Regardless from where you believe Mankind originated..."

That he afterwards approaches origins from his own standard of truth doesn't change the facts of the physiology that are the basis of his discussion.

In other words, I don't care how the physiology arrived at the point that it is; I just care about the facts of the physiology that are before us.

Does that make sense?

100% of homosexuals have heterosexual physiology.

Following your "logic" someone who shoves food up their nose or in their ear instead of their mouth is not engaging in an abnormal act or using their body the wrong way?