No, it’s your definition of “normal” that’s incorrect. “Normal” doesn’t mean “universal” or “exclusive.” Some sheep are black; that’s normal. “Black sheep are normal” doesn’t mean that all sheep are black, or even that the majority of them are black.

I suspect that you often mean “natural” when you say “normal;” that’s the word that captain_menace used originally. Of course, homosexuality is both natural and normal. And that sentence doesn’t imply that everyone is homosexual, as you seem to believe it does.

No law school. Physics, and then computer science.

As you leftists are so fond of reminding the rest of us, we have to “save the whales, seals, polar bears, spotted owls, speckled frogs, crested newts, etc etc.” ad nauseum.

The same BASIC premise holds true for human beings. In order to “save” them as you say, it is basic to procreate. Homosexuals can’t do that. Therfore (please read this carefully as it applies to those same “nearly extinct” species mentioned earlier), it would be ABNORMAL for them NOT to procreate. If there’s nobody left, there’s nobody to save. It’s really that simple Bob.

Using the left-wing definition of “normal” would lead to the extinction of the species. Therefore, by definition it MUST be abnormal. Got it now?

Your logic is wrong.

“THE BASIC issue is procreation”

Who says it is? You? I say that the BASIC issue is the survival of the species, not just the creation of infants. You say that too, several times, several times in several ways; I’ve quoted one of them above. But for some reason the only thing you’re willing to admit is important to the survival of the species is childbirth.

“if everyone was homosexual, the human race would die out.”

If everyone were unable to gather or raise food, the human race would die out. I would take that to mean that the people who gather or raise food are important to the survival of the species. Do you disagree? Do you disagree because eating is not a “BASIC issue?”

Remember, you said: “Homosexuality is ABNORMAL because it does NOTHING for society as a whole.”

I showed that it did indeed do something very useful for society as a whole. That’s what you’re refusing to consider, because it shows you were wrong.

How’s this for simplicity Bob; if everyone was homosexual, the human race would die out. Simple enough for you? I imagine even a self-agrandizing jackass like yourself can understand that.

Your point was to avoid the basic point. NOWHERE did I say that gays were unable to raise children - and I wasn’t “harsh” as you put it with anyone. People like Mother Theresa CHOSE to remain childless and for one reason or another the others were also childless. THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE and you’re to arrogant to admit it.

The issue is very simple; from a societal point of view, homosexuals CANNOT continue the species through procreation. Like it or not Bob, that’s a biological fact, despite your “dithering.”

As for your comment regarding my other posts, all I can say is that’s a relief. With moronic jackasses like you espousing socialism at every turn, it makes me feel very good to prove you wrong on virtually every turn. Now have a nice day.

SORRY!

But I’ve outlined a way in which they do contribute to the continuation of the species.

(My comments seem to await moderation on some occasions and post immediately on others. Is this something I’m doing?)

And that’s your entire argument against my point. Amazing.

I’m at somewhat of a loss as to whether you just don’t understand my argument or do understand it but are unable to come up with any counterarguments. I can’t believe that you’re writing multiple posts simply to convince me that only a male/female pair can bear a child; you couldn’t be THAT dumb.

One possible conclusion is that you don’t assign any social value to anything other than creating children. The greatest human female in all of history is the one who gave birth to the greatest number of children (even if they all died in infancy); the greatest human male is the one who fathered the largest number of children. Anyone who has never fathered or mothered a child is worthless. (That’s pretty harsh; you’re blasting such people as George Washington, Mother Teresa, Immanuel Kant, and Florence Nightingale.)

I’m pretty sure you do understand me, but are trying to duck the issue with bombast and dither. I’ve looked at some of your other comments on this blog, and that seems to be par for the course.