You need to figure out what ENGLISH you want to use here.
"Ability to carry out" is not impinged upon. "Ability" does not imply actually taking the action, but rather just the capability to do so.

I have the "ability" just like any guy has.

Whether or not I choose to ACT on that ability is something else. Entirely irrelevant here.

And this entire line of thought is easily dead-ended when one realizes that if this IS a defining factor, then priests and others who decide to remain celibate and don't act upon their "ability to carry out that function" would also be considered impaired.
But of course, the intent was SOLELY to claim gays were, so that argument is either quickly dropped, or an even more arbitrary reason is created to exclude gays but include priests...

Grammar and English garysher.
The phrase is "ABILITY to carry out that function".
Not just the word "function".

I have the "ability to carry out the function" of killing somebody, but I have no desire to.
Does the fact that I do not wish to harm another mean I am not able? Of course not.


Don't lose the context here gar.
And don't try to obfuscate it either.

We're talking about "ability to carry out a function".
And then above, you talk about "motivation".

Whether or not homosexuality is a "behavioral choice" is irrelevant, and obfuscation of my point.
To answer YOUR question, no.
The distinction is irrelevant.

And since you didn't really address my point, I repeat it...
Whether or not I choose to ACT on that ability is something else. Entirely irrelevant here.

And this entire line of thought is easily dead-ended when one realizes that if this IS a defining factor, then priests and others who decide to remain celibate and don't act upon their "ability to carry out that function" would also be considered impaired.
But of course, the intent was SOLELY to claim gays were, so that argument is either quickly dropped, or an even more arbitrary reason is created to exclude gays but include priests...

I see garysher's ban has been lifted - and that he's been here almost solidly for the past 24 hours ranting and raving and obsessing and fantasizing about gay people.

It's nice to know that there are some constants in life.

As always, you attack an analogy for its insignificant differences.
We're talking about the meaning of a phrase "ABILITY to carry out that function".
Your observation is meaningless to the actual meaning of that phrase.
And your complaint is even easier to overcome.

A man can easily be said to have the "ability to carry out the function" of drinking, eating, reproduction, etc, etc while not having the "motivation" to do so.
Just because a man is not hungry or thirsty does not mean he does not have the "ABILITY to carry out the functions" of eating or drinking.

As is typical, you are incredibly short-sighted and can't think ahead more than one post in this little match.


This isn't true either.
People who remain celibate their entire lives aren't considered "defective because they lack the drive to reproduce".

You are making up arbitrary standards that are meaningless.


Your time away has not helped your intellect at all.
I did answer the question.
And "we'll decide on that one" is not a response to my actual argument in any way, shape, or form.

Again, since you can't respond to what I actually said, I'll repeat it.

Don't lose the context here gar.
And don't try to obfuscate it either.

We're talking about "ability to carry out a function".
And then above, you talk about "motivation".

Whether or not homosexuality is a "behavioral choice" is irrelevant, and obfuscation of my point.
To answer YOUR question, no.
The distinction is irrelevant.


So you claim.
Can you show me any reference which defines "ability to carry out a function" differently when the subject matter is "a basic physiological drive"?
No. Of course you can't.
You're just making up stupid crap, and you're not fooling anybody.
On any level...


Another lame response.
And again, since you can't respond to what I ACTUALLY SAID, I'll repeat it:

And this entire line of thought is easily dead-ended when one realizes that if this IS a defining factor, then priests and others who decide to remain celibate and don't act upon their "ability to carry out that function" would also be considered impaired.
But of course, the intent was SOLELY to claim gays were, so that argument is either quickly dropped, or an even more arbitrary reason is created to exclude gays but include priests...


Please try and recognize when your question has already been answered.
And please try and grow some intelligence to stop asking stupid questions.
No, I am not saying it is a "behavioral choice".
And anybody who thinks that the ANALOGY suddenly means other non-mentioned items are equivalent is just plain stupid.
Quit with this crap already. It wins you no points.

Over and over again, you perpetrate this grossly ineffectual arguing technique.
You either put up a response which has no actual argumentative value to prove your point, or you blindly claim you are right, while offering ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF of your claim.

"ability to carry out the function" means just that a person CAN DO something.
Not necessarily that he will or wants to.

Here is what I said:
Just because a man is not hungry or thirsty does not mean he does not have the "ABILITY to carry out the functions" of eating or drinking.

And you are actually insisting that if he is not hungry or thirsty, that means he is NOT able to carry out the function of eating? STUPID!
That can easily and quickly be disproven by a man who is not hungry or thirsty, which I am not at this moment, grabbing a drink of water and eating a cracker.
....
There. DONE!
By YOUR logic, because I was not hungry or thirsty, that means I "was not able to carry out the functions" of eating or drinking.
Two things I JUST DID.

Are you really this brain-dead"?


Again, completely non-responsive to my actual point.
You're trying to change the subject again when you lose, which is often...

People who remain celibate their entire lives aren't considered "defective because they lack the drive to reproduce".
You are making up arbitrary standards that are meaningless.


Again, blindly claiming the opposite, while failing to give ANY SUBSTANTIVE REASON WHY his position is true.
Ergo, I repeat what he could not counter...

I did answer the question.
And "we'll decide on that one" is not a response to my actual argument in any way, shape, or form.

Don't lose the context here gar.
And don't try to obfuscate it either.

We're talking about "ability to carry out a function".
And then above, you talk about "motivation".

Whether or not homosexuality is a "behavioral choice" is irrelevant, and obfuscation of my point.
To answer YOUR question, no.
The distinction is irrelevant.

Gar, can you show me ANY definition of "ability" or "function" where MOTIVATION IS REQUIRED before a person can be said to have an "ability" or to be able to "function"?

Of course you can't.


I suspect I'm just saying what the moderators are thinking.
Your capability to act like an obfuscating < expletive deleted > does not go unnoticed.