: Your narrow choice of definition buys you little concession here. Ask a crowd to give you their definitions of natural and normal. What you are going to hear are definitions that rarely conform to your rigid, scientific "phenomenon...in nature" and "modal tendencies" definitions. Thank you for perfectly demonstrating m ypoint. By arguing that "a crowd" has access to the true definition while an individual does not, you demonstrate quite clearly that the definition I provided is indeed accurate.
:Moreover, the definitions you will hear are also included in everyone's dictionary and stand as common knowledge.
This is the same "common sense" that tells us that the sun revolves around the earth, right?
:Both words mean substantially more to the common man than you allow. The mere fact that I am being admonished to limit my definitions to limited scientific terms is a tacit acknowledgement of the weakness of science to address such issues.
More likely, your fear of using terms according to their proper and accepted definitions is based on a recognition that you are indeed standing on very thin ice, as far as your wish to project your personal prejudices onto the entire world is concerned. Following from this, your reaction to my request (that you use the language accurately) looks pretty weak. Dr. C's response was well reasoned and calm. He and I disagree on many points, but we appear to be able to discuss our disagreements like reasonable adults. Your unwillingness to use the language the way it was meant to be used strikes me as a recognition that your argument is weak and your only defense is to redefine all terms to suit your needs. In Lewis Carroll's "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland," the character Humpty Dumpty says "When I use a word, it means what I want it to mean...it's a question of who is to be master, that's all." You, Stuart, have perfectly demonstrated the "Humpty Dumpty principle," and all that remains is for you to fall off your wall.
:Your insistence on using specific terms can only be an angle you are trying to exploit in order to win an argument...
And your paranoia about my motives can only be a symptom of your recognition that it is not logically valid to project your personal aesthetic tastes onto all people at all times in all places. Cone ON, Stu! That is absolutely ridiculous. My "insistance on using specific terms" was a reaction to your repeated use of the terms "normal" and "natural" to mean "in accord with Stu's personal likes and dislikes." I was merely pointing out that not all people have the same likes and dislikes as you, and your use of these terms in this manner was therefore inaccurate.
:but it will have a negligible effect on that majority of men that have a natural and normal repulsion to the activities one participates in when one defines himself as a homosexual. Their dictionaries were written for them and you.
Your point being what, exactly? Yes, many men have the aversion you claim, and this aversion is empirically observable. It therefore satisfies the definitions of the terms I offered. So? As I mentioned, these terms have no moral or ethical content whatsoever.
Let me offer an analogue; broccolli is among the most popular of all vegetables in the US. It is both normal and natural for citizens of the US to eat broccolli. Should we therefore, on the basis of its popularity, force broccolli down the throats of those sick, abnormal and unnatural people who don't like it? Obviously, your argument that what is most common must be best and should therefore be forced on everyone is sheer popycock, Stuart, and you know it.
: To further my point; I have always asserted that God has endowed us with a conscience and a soul.
As there is no empirical, measurable, testable evidence to either support or refute this point, it does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to support your argument, Stuart. Nothing! Nada, zip, zilch. Listen, if I say "the invisible dragon that lives in my garage told me x, y, and z" would you believe that x, y, and z were true, or would you want a bit more data before making that decision to believe or disbelieve that x, y, and z were accurate information? I suspect that you'd want some independent verification of x, y, and z, no matter how trustworthy I claimed my invisible dragon was. What your god may or may not be telling you is not objectively perceivable to external observers, regardless of its reliability to you. The will of god, as it is known to you, can therefore not be used as evidence in support of your points, since I have no way of determining if such a will, as told to me by you, is really god's will or really your will. If you can offer me a certain, reliable way to know that what you tell me is really god's will and not just your will masquerading as god's will, please do so. And don't say "it's all in the bible" because doing so does not solve the problem, it simply extracts you from the equation, to be replaced by a few dozen dead people who aren't here to defend themselves. In addition, as you have not yet offered me any way to determine that your interpretation of the bible is the only "correct" one, how do you propose I go about choosing between the various interpretations I have heard?
:The conscience I speak of is the natural and normal aversion to homosexuality. Science may take note of abnormal animal behavior but it will do little to empirically explain my natural aversion to homosexuality.
There, you and I certainly agree. "Science" (here meaning the "hard" sciences) can't really approach the question of why Stuart is so concerned with other people's sexuality. Psychology might help explain why you are so interested in the sexual activity of gay men, Stu, but you might not like what they have to tell you.
:That will be your job. But do take note that I dissociate you and science if you undertake that task.
Of course you do. If you reject the meanings of standard English words when you are informed that they don't support your prejudices, why would you accept scientific proofs that don't support your prejudices? In fact, your responses to Farinata earlier in this thread already demonstrated your point. Any scientific literature, no matter how well respected by scientists themselves, gets rejected by you when it conflicts with your biases. Despite your lack of background in the disciplines involved, you have a pure, objective sense of what is good science and what is bad science. Good science is that which supports your biases and helps you rationalize your prejudices, right? Forget it, Stu. Real science doesn't work like that.
-Floyd
