Stirring shit or raising objections to a particularly bad line of argument? I guess maybe in your book those are one and the same, I don't know. I'm just trying to keep things honest here, because this whole "aberration" business is just silly, and is really only working by equivocation. You guys are using one definition of the word aberration to classify homosexuality/transgenderism/etc, and then assuming another once they have been classified.
As if once you label something an aberration (for being a deviation from the norm), suddenly that proves your point about its moral character... I don't think so. Its language abuse. Aberration does also have a definition that means something like deviation from good morals... but you don't get to just smuggle that in, and declare victory.
The fallacy goes something like this:
Homosexuality/transgenderism/etc are deviations from the norm...
and deviations from the norm are aberrations...
therefore homosexuality/transgenderism/etc are aberrations...
Aberrations are deviations from moral goodness...
and homosexuality/transgederism are aberrations
therefore homosexuality/transgenderism are deviations from moral goodness.
Surely you must see the problem there... its a classic switcheroo.... shifting definitions... hopefully its not too complex for you 
You're getting hung up in yourself again, wilbur. It's a common thing with you. You post your eternal arguments and questions, never really solving anything, just to see how far you can take the thread.
As has been offered upthread, this issue has been hashed over in this forum repeatedly. Again and again. The only element that was brought into this particular discussion involves trannyism.
Tell you what, wilbur. I'll keep my "particularly bad line of argument" for the simple, real reason that it works for me. I'm rejecting your attempt "to keep things honest here" because, in the end, you're only satisfying your warped sense of reality. And what's so "honest" about your opinion? Other than it's yours and you own it?
Aberration is a term whose definition was posted earlier. You want to play word games and insist on beating that dead horse because the word doesn't suit your purpose. Fine, if that's what knocks you out, hey, I can loan you a hammer for increased pleasure if you like.
Fact is, and this you cannot dispute, homos, rugmunchers, and trannies lie outside the norm. That is a statistical fact. That makes those people aberrations -- and that has nothing whatsoever to do with "morals". They are aberrations from a biological point of view, notwithstanding that mental processes are also inherently biological.
Again, wilbur, your attempts to bring your own sense "right" in this very wrong scenario just doesn't square with me. You aren't going to change my mind, because you can't spin it any other way than what I've said. Abnormal, aberration, it's all essentially the same. You want to take the federal government and assign tasks that the Constitution does not permit.
That won't work for me. It'll work for you libs, of course, but it won't work for me.
