# Are you born gay?



## glockmail

It is an obvious fact that Homosexuals cannot reproduce. Therefore someone cannot have a genetic homosexual parent. Since traits are passed on through generations, it is clear that the trait of homosexuality is not passed on through generations, but is in fact a learned response. Further, since I have known several who have been homosexuals in college and then entered into a heterosexual long term relationship, it is clear that they made a poor choice during a less mature period in their lives.

One argument against this is that a gay man can have sex with and impregnate a woman. However, he would have to become, at least temporarily, a heterosexual to become aroused by that woman, as well as choose the time and place for the relation. Would not that make him a bisexual, not a dedicated homosexual? Further, one would not assume that a heterosexual male would venture from his instincts and become, even temporarily, aroused by another male and choose a time and place for a relation. So why would one assume a homosexual would venture from his instinct for the purpose of insemination? Moreover, if this is how a variant of the species procreates, then where is the evidence to support this? Are there a large percentage of homosexuals, greater than the incidence of homosexuality as a whole, who can claim they have a genetic parent who is also homosexual?

A second argument against my theory is that homosexuals use artificial insemination to procreate. If that were true then homosexuality could never have existed before about 35 years ago.

A third argument against is that homosexuality is the result of some kind of mutation or gene interaction between male and female DNA. If this is so, would homosexuality be in fact a medical abnormality, such as a cleft palette or autism? If that is the case, then why do we have organized groups attempting to normalize and encourage homosexuality? Moreover, where is the scientific evidence to support this? Surely pro-gay groups would have found and exploited this evidence by now.


----------



## Nuc

glockmail said:


> One argument against this is that a gay man can have sex with and impregnate a woman. However, he would have to become, at least temporarily, a heterosexual to become aroused by that woman, as well as choose the time and place for the relation. Would not that make him a bisexual, not a dedicated homosexual?



Maybe you've hit the nail on the head. Everybody's bisexual. It's just a matter of percentage which way you lean. 

Thanks for solving the boards most pressing and frequently debated issue. 

I asked the moderators this before and I'll ask again. Since "Homosexuality" is probably the most popular topic on this forum (more than "sports" or "photography") why doesn't it have its own forum heading? Then the people who are obsessed with the issue will know where to go rather than having to jump between "Religion", "War on Terror" and all the other sections this debate rears its stupid head.


----------



## glockmail

Nuc said:


> ...... Since "Homosexuality" is probably the most popular topic on this forum (more than "sports" or "photography") why doesn't it have its own forum heading? .....


 Maybe because it is an ethical/ religious/ health issue, and we have a lot of people obsessed with the truth, and hate being lied to.


----------



## The ClayTaurus

glockmail said:


> It is an obvious fact that Homosexuals cannot reproduce. Therefore someone cannot have a genetic homosexual parent. Since traits are passed on through generations, it is clear that the trait of homosexuality is not passed on through generations, but is in fact a learned response. Further, since I have known several who have been homosexuals in college and then entered into a heterosexual long term relationship, it is clear that they made a poor choice during a less mature period in their lives.
> 
> One argument against this is that a gay man can have sex with and impregnate a woman. However, he would have to become, at least temporarily, a heterosexual to become aroused by that woman, as well as choose the time and place for the relation. Would not that make him a bisexual, not a dedicated homosexual? Further, one would not assume that a heterosexual male would venture from his instincts and become, even temporarily, aroused by another male and choose a time and place for a relation. So why would one assume a homosexual would venture from his instinct for the purpose of insemination? Moreover, if this is how a variant of the species procreates, then where is the evidence to support this? Are there a large percentage of homosexuals, greater than the incidence of homosexuality as a whole, who can claim they have a genetic parent who is also homosexual?
> 
> A second argument against my theory is that homosexuals use artificial insemination to procreate. If that were true then homosexuality could never have existed before about 35 years ago.
> 
> A third argument against is that homosexuality is the result of some kind of mutation or gene interaction between male and female DNA. If this is so, would homosexuality be in fact a medical abnormality, such as a cleft palette or autism? If that is the case, then why do we have organized groups attempting to normalize and encourage homosexuality? Moreover, where is the scientific evidence to support this? Surely pro-gay groups would have found and exploited this evidence by now.


What's your response to it being a recessive trait?


----------



## dmp

The ClayTaurus said:


> What's your response to it being a recessive trait?



that's pure speculation.   It's no more a recessive trait than serial killers...of course, I'm speculating, too.


----------



## Jennifer.Bush

glockmail said:


> It is an obvious fact that Homosexuals cannot reproduce.
> 
> 
> 
> maybe not with each other but women can go to the local sperm bank and have a baby.
> ,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but is in fact a learned response
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .so children whose family are religious are learing to be gay by their own family?
> 
> 
> 
> Further, since I have known several who have been homosexuals in college and then entered into a heterosexual long term relationship, it is clear that they made a poor choice during a less mature period in their lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> non-gay people make poor choices too
> 
> 
> 
> One argument against this is that a gay man can have sex with and impregnate a woman. However, he would have to become, at least temporarily, a heterosexual to become aroused by that woman,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> or he could be on the down low. with the hate of gays in this country i'm shocked gays every come out the closet
> 
> 
> 
> as well as choose the time and place for the relation. Would not that make him a bisexual, not a dedicated homosexual?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why are u so worry about one sexual liking?
Click to expand...


----------



## theHawk

You won't get an answer because if there is one things liberals despise its when its pointed out to them that homosexuality completely contradicts their most beloved belief - Darwinism.  If Darwinism was true then any homosexual traits would of been eleminated in all species long ago.  Liberalism tries to instill the believe that man's sins such as homosexuality are "natural" and should be encouraged.  They will say homosexuality is exhibited in other animals thus its perfectly normal for a human to do it as well.  What they fail to address though, is many animals also kill their own kind....so where is the line drawn for what is acceptable for humans to do if we look to the animal kingdom for moral guidance?  The answer is of course God drew the line and told us homosexuality is a sin and an abomination as is killing each other.  Liberals however, will tell us that killing is bad but homosexuality is ok.  But where does this guidance come from? --themselves of course.  Since there is no authority in liberalism their morals can change at anytime.  "Killing is bad" but some liberals will turn around and even make excuses for killers in our society, instead of promoting the idea of individual responsibility for a killers own actions liberals are quick to blame society itself...leaving the killer to do what was only "natural" in his environment.  Liberals refuse to acknowlege that homosexuality in humans is largely a result of either early childhood abuse or just selfish gradification.  Natural or not its still wrong.


----------



## dmp

> .so children whose family are religious are learing to be gay by their own family?



Or they were molested, or otherwise sexually abused - OR were neglected. 

See - here's how *I* think it works.

God created us.  Every person has an intrinsic NEED for their Father.  Their spritual Father.  In a mother and father, God shows us many attributes of Himself.  When either of those is lacking, our very SOULS seek out feelings of acceptance, love, importance, discipline, did I mention love?  If, as kids, we do NOT get what we need from or parents we become DRIVEN to find that feeling, however perverted, from others.  Little girls who don't have their daddy's love might because sluts.  Little boys who never have the acceptance and attention of their mothers might become...sluts.   Little boys, Seeking attention and approval will spend time in the company of OTHER men - some of who may have been abused themselves.  Those men may have the little boy sit on their lap, and pretend they are driving over a bumpy road.  After continued abuse, when the person becomes older they assosiate the attention they got as kids with 'love'.  
Anywho - that's getting a bit off topic from my intent - which was 'EVERYONE  is searching for LOVE and ACCEPTANCE from God.  Apart from God, they seek it the first place they can find it.  Parents. Homosexuals.  Whatever.  They may be ignorant of the fact, but I bet ANY homosexual who trully found Christ would no longer need to continue in his/her lifestyle, because GOD would provide all the "masculine love" they need - and HE wouldn't be HURTING THEM to show it. 


Or whatever.


----------



## glockmail

The ClayTaurus said:


> What's your response to it being a recessive trait?


 Researchers have searched for a long time for a "gay gene" and so far have not found one.


----------



## Nuc

Can't you guys find anything else to talk about? If the moderators used the word censor to block out the words "gay", "fag" and "homosexual" there'd be very little content left on the board.


----------



## glockmail

Jennifer.Bush said:


> [1]maybe not with each other but women can go to the local sperm bank and have a baby.
> [2], .so children whose family are religious are learing to be gay by their own family?
> [3] non-gay people make poor choices too
> [4] or he could be on the down low. with the hate of gays in this country i'm shocked gays every come out the closet
> [5]why are u so worry about one sexual liking?



1.	That possibility was addressed in post 1. If that were true then homosexuality could never have existed before about 35 years ago.
2.	Children learn from others in addition to their families, ie: schools and peers.
3.	Yes, like drugs, crime, and fattening foods. However there are no huge influential lobby groups to support these other poor choices.
4.	Ive not heard that term before.
5.	Simple: I seek the truth.


----------



## dmp

Nuc said:


> Can't you guys find anything else to talk about? If the moderators used the word censor to block out the words "gay", "fag" and "homosexual" there'd be very little content left on the board.



I'm thinking we filter the word 'noahide' to appear as the word 'queer'


----------



## glockmail

Nuc said:


> Can't you guys find anything else to talk about? If the moderators used the word censor to block out the words "gay", "fag" and "homosexual" there'd be very little content left on the board.



Its called freedom of speech, which is a codified right. You also have the right not to pay attention, an action that actually requires less effort than participation.


----------



## Nuc

glockmail said:


> Its called freedom of speech, which is a codified right. You also have the right not to pay attention, an action that actually requires less effort than participation.



I didn't say you "shouldn't" talk about it, I asked if you have anything else to talk about. Evidentally not.


----------



## Nuc

dmp said:


> I'm thinking we filter the word 'noahide' to appear as the word 'queer'



Or how about changing the word "masonic lodge" to "gay bar"? And "masons" to "fruitcakes"?


----------



## Avatar4321

I think the "why" someone is gay is completely irrelevant to the discussion on whether its right or not. It doesnt matter if you are born with the urges or its a choice. Its perfectly natural to be violent, dishonest, arrogant, intolerant, etc. Does that make it right?

I have always found it rather odd that the pro-homosexual people always advocate that people need to be tolerant of homosexuals because its natural to be homosexual yet you expect people to ignore their natural state of intolerance. Why should people avoid intolerance, which is perfectly natural, and not avoid homosexuality? It just doesnt make sense.


----------



## Hobbit

First off, Nuc, stop trolling.  Homosexuality as a political football is one of the issues of our day and deserves to be talked about.  You can either accept this or go away, but don't post in a thread if all you're going to try to do is de-rail it.

Now, back to the topic at hand.  The strongest evidence currently available for homosexuality as a choice vs. born that way is a new study in pre-natal hormone levels.  Apparantly, a small percentage of pregnancies feature a hormonal imbalance while the baby is still in development.  Children born after these hormonal imbalances tend to behave a bit contrary to their gender (affeminate men, butch women) and are far more likely to engage in homosexual behavior than those without this imbalance.

However, the desire or not matters little.  As human beings, we are expected to rise above our impulses to benefit us in the long run.  Many people remain monogamous or even celibate against their impulses for a variety of reasons, and given the potential health problems of homosexuality, I think we would do best to discourage, not endorse, that activity, in much the same way that society discourages smoking, drinking, overeating, and other 'natural,' but harmful behaviours.


----------



## glockmail

Nuc said:


> I didn't say you "shouldn't" talk about it, I asked if you have anything else to talk about. Evidentally not.


 Evidently you haven't been reading any other posts.


----------



## glockmail

Nuc said:


> Or how about changing the word "masonic lodge" to "gay bar"? And "masons" to "fruitcakes"?


 FYI my marriage reception was at a Masonic Lodge, of which my father-in-law was, and still is a member. I assure you he is neither gay nor a fruitcake.


----------



## Nuc

glockmail said:


> FYI my marriage reception was at a Masonic Lodge, of which my father-in-law was, and still is a member. I assure you he is neither gay nor a fruitcake.



In-joke, DMP was referring to one of the other forum members who has a few obsessions. Among them the Masons.


----------



## glockmail

Avatar4321 said:


> I think the "why" someone is gay is completely irrelevant to the discussion on whether its right or not. It doesnt matter if you are born with the urges or its a choice. .....



I disagree, as it goes to the crux of the issue, can they being treated differently under US laws? The Declaration of Independence states that all men are created equal, therefore if someone is born with a trait, then that trait should have no bearing on their rights. But if someone chooses to have a trait, then that person can legally be treated differently.

Example of chosen traits are a criminal (may be incarcerated) or a medical doctor (may be able to prescribe narcotics).


----------



## glockmail

Hobbit said:


> .....The strongest evidence currently available for homosexuality as a choice vs. born that way is a new study in pre-natal hormone levels.  Apparantly, a small percentage of pregnancies feature a hormonal imbalance while the baby is still in development.  Children born after these hormonal imbalances tend to behave a bit contrary to their gender (affeminate men, butch women) and are far more likely to engage in homosexual behavior than those without this imbalance......



This is a very plausible explanation. To be consistent with conservative philosophy and aligning as closely as possible to the ideals of this great nation, I must rephrase the question that started this thread: 

Are You Created Gay?

This is an important distinction, as when God sparks life, which of course is upon conception, the human being is equal in the law to all others. But subtle environmental factors can then begin to make significant changes to Gods plan.

Once earthly factors come into play that legal equality that I referred to earlier can change.


----------



## The ClayTaurus

dmp said:


> that's pure speculation.   It's no more a recessive trait than serial killers...of course, I'm speculating, too.


Of course. Everything regarding the whole gay thing is speculation, more or less.


----------



## The ClayTaurus

glockmail said:


> Researchers have searched for a long time for a "gay gene" and so far have not found one.


But until the entire genome is mapped, there's no way to know fo sure. Certainly a "gay" gene being recessive would explain how it continues to exist despite gays not reproducing, which I thought was the initial point of your post.


----------



## Jennifer.Bush

glockmail said:


> 1.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That possibility was addressed in post 1. If that were true then homosexuality could never have existed before about 35 years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> but they have existed since the start of lif
> 
> 
> 
> yes, like drugs, crime, and fattening foods. However there are no huge influential lobby groups to support these other poor choices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but i wouldn't say being gay is a choice though
> 
> 
> 
> 4Ive not heard that term before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it's pretty much "striaght" men who have gay sex
Click to expand...


----------



## Hobbit

glockmail said:


> This is a very plausible explanation. To be consistent with conservative philosophy and aligning as closely as possible to the ideals of this great nation, I must rephrase the question that started this thread:
> 
> Are You Created Gay?
> 
> This is an important distinction, as when God sparks life, which of course is upon conception, the human being is equal in the law to all others. But subtle environmental factors can then begin to make significant changes to Gods plan.
> 
> Once earthly factors come into play that legal equality that I referred to earlier can change.



I'm saying it's possible.



> I disagree, as it goes to the crux of the issue, can they being treated differently under US laws? The Declaration of Independence states that all men are created equal, therefore if someone is born with a trait, then that trait should have no bearing on their rights. But if someone chooses to have a trait, then that person can legally be treated differently.
> 
> Example of chosen traits are a criminal (may be incarcerated) or a medical doctor (may be able to prescribe narcotics).



No, it's not important, because being born with certain desires is not the same as acting on those impulses.  Kleptomania is a perfectly natural personality disorder, yet we still imprison them when they steal.  Psychopaths are born with a desire to kill others, but they're still imprisoned.  Part of the letter of the law is curbing the desires of others when those desires are harmful to society as a whole.  As it stands, homosexuality is fully legal.  It's just not endorsed, and I see no reason to start now.

The crux of the argument is this, "Are homosexuals being treated equally?"  The answer is that of course they are.  A homosexual enjoys all the same rights as any other human being as guaranteed by the constitution.  There is no right to get married, and even heterosexual couples can have their marriage liscences rejected.  A marriage, as far as the government is concerned, is merely a consolidated legal contract consisting of several other legal procudures, such as inheritance and power of attorney, with the only exclusive procedure being the joint filing of the a federal income tax return, which isn't really that big of a deal.  Some companies only grant health benefits to spouses, but those are private businesses, and it is their right to dispense health care as they see fit, whether it's PC or not.  Take it up with them.


----------



## Kagom

glockmail said:


> FYI my marriage reception was at a Masonic Lodge, of which my father-in-law was, and still is a member. I assure you he is neither gay nor a fruitcake.


I could've swore the Freemasons were the anti-thesis to Christians, or so the debate goes.  I only see smoke and mirrors on that issue 

Everyone already knows my belief on the subject, so I'm sure I need not regurgitate it.


----------



## glockmail

Jennifer.Bush said:


> glockmail said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.	but they have existed since the start of lif
> but i wouldn't say being gay is a choice though
> ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to make my point or your own, Jen? BTW, you look cute with your sister in these outfits!
Click to expand...


----------



## Avatar4321

glockmail said:


> I disagree, as it goes to the crux of the issue, can they being treated differently under US laws? The Declaration of Independence states that all men are created equal, therefore if someone is born with a trait, then that trait should have no bearing on their rights. But if someone chooses to have a trait, then that person can legally be treated differently.
> 
> Example of chosen traits are a criminal (may be incarcerated) or a medical doctor (may be able to prescribe narcotics).



We are talking about behavioral traits, not immutable traits. Thats exactly my point. people are born with traitsts that make the more partial to intolerance and hate. Some are born with traits making them more prone to alcoholism, such as being Irish, that doesnt excuse any actions they take because human nature also dictates that we can control our behaviors despite our nature.


----------



## Jennifer.Bush

glockmail said:


> Jennifer.Bush said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to make my point or your own, Jen? BTW, you look cute with your sister in these outfits!
Click to expand...


----------



## glockmail

Jennifer.Bush said:


> glockmail said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you and Barb please take turns?  :whip3: Just don't leave any marks!
Click to expand...


----------



## dilloduck

Jennifer.Bush said:


> glockmail said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.	but they have existed since the start of lif
> but i wouldn't say being gay is a choice though
> it's pretty much "striaght" men who have gay sex
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it's pretty much "striaght" men who have gay sex
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> :rotflmao: :rotflmao:
Click to expand...


----------



## mattskramer

glockmail said:


> I disagree, as it goes to the crux of the issue, can they being treated differently under US laws? The Declaration of Independence states that all men are created equal, therefore if someone is born with a trait, then that trait should have no bearing on their rights. But if someone chooses to have a trait, then that person can legally be treated differently.
> 
> Example of chosen traits are a criminal (may be incarcerated) or a medical doctor (may be able to prescribe narcotics).



I find the issue of nature vs. nurture to be irrelevant in the discussion of homosexuality too.  What is your position on government employment and discrimination of people of different races or religions?  In hiring people, the government is prohibited from hiring people based on race (a genetic condition) or religion (a choice).


----------



## dilloduck

mattskramer said:


> I find the issue of nature vs. nurture to be irrelevant in the discussion of homosexuality too.  What is your position on government employment and discrimination of people of different races or religions?  In hiring people, the government is prohibited from hiring people based on race (a genetic condition) or religion (a choice).



It's real simple MK----If it is proved that homosexuals are born that way, they feel like they are not responsible for thier behavior and deserve special treatment.


----------



## dmp

mattskramer said:


> In hiring people, the government is prohibited from hiring people based on race (a genetic condition) or religion (a choice).



That's the best argument from your side I've heard.  If we discriminate against 'discrimination' based on ANOTHER choice, why not homosexuality? 

I suppose it's a line-thing.  We have to draw lines.  People's sexual activity is on the side of the line we should NOT protect.


----------



## Nuc

mattskramer said:


> I find the issue of nature vs. nurture to be irrelevant in the discussion of homosexuality too.  What is your position on government employment and discrimination of people of different races or religions?  In hiring people, the government is prohibited from hiring people based on race (a genetic condition) or religion (a choice).



Religion can be a choice, but the fact is that most people "choose" the religion they were born into. 

:hail: 

Convenient that so many of us are born into the right religion, isn't it?


----------



## glockmail

mattskramer said:


> I find the issue of nature vs. nurture to be irrelevant in the discussion of homosexuality too.  What is your position on government employment and discrimination of people of different races or religions?  In hiring people, the government is prohibited from hiring people based on race (a genetic condition) or religion (a choice).



Religion is a learned behavior that has special protection.


----------



## OCA

The factual evidence is clear for anyone with the balls to call a spade a spade, Queer is by choice and not by birth.

Stop with the muddying of the facts with recessive gene this and womb event that, many decades and billions poured into research to find the elusive queer gene and as of this moment nothing, nada. Its a choice just like you choose to pierce your clit and dye your hair pink, nothing less nothing more and people need to be held accountable for this reckless choice and not have special laws created for them.


----------



## dilloduck

OCA said:


> The factual evidence is clear for anyone with the balls to call a spade a spade, Queer is by choice and not by birth.
> 
> Stop with the muddying of the facts with recessive gene this and womb event that, many decades and billions poured into research to find the elusive queer gene and as of this moment nothing, nada. Its a choice just like you choose to pierce your clit and dye your hair pink, nothing less nothing more and people need to be held accountable for this reckless choice and not have special laws created for them.



Did you choose what tastes good to you?


----------



## OCA

dilloduck said:


> Did you choose what tastes good to you?



Speaking of muddying the argument and over the top obfuscation. Ever heard of taste buds? Never heard of sexual orientation buds, probably because they don't exist.


----------



## dilloduck

OCA said:


> Speaking of muddying the argument and over the top obfuscation. Ever heard of taste buds? Never heard of sexual orientation buds, probably because they don't exist.



All taste buds aren't alike.


----------



## OCA

dilloduck said:


> All taste buds aren't alike.



But they are the reason you like what you eat. There is no such gene for liking the sex that you fuck. Male likes female and female likes male, its the way it is.


----------



## dilloduck

OCA said:


> But they are the reason you like what you eat. There is no such gene for liking the sex that you fuck. Male likes female and female likes male, its the way it is.



I was just curious---I wasn't aware that what tastes good to you is determined by genetics. Or what color you like. Preferences--stuff like that--all genetically determined ?


----------



## glockmail

dilloduck said:


> I was just curious---I wasn't aware that what tastes good to you is determined by genetics. Or what color you like. Preferences--stuff like that--all genetically determined ?



I don't think a color preference is in the same league as a sexual preference. (Note the use of the term 'preference', BTW, which has only recently been changed to the more politically correct 'sexual orientation'.) For instance, I'd take a blue car over my preferred color red if the price was less or it had more desireable options, but to get me to do it with the same gender would take more dough than you got. And, I suspect most men would not be able 'get it up' no matter what you promised them.


----------



## OCA

dilloduck said:


> I was just curious---I wasn't aware that what tastes good to you is determined by genetics. Or what color you like. Preferences--stuff like that--all genetically determined ?



Your correct, you're not aware of much. When you want to have a reasonable debate without stupid shit such as this let us know.

Genetics lol, I said taste buds and this buffoon says genetics LMFAO!


----------



## roomy

Some of those that are born gay, live their whole lives in denial, firing cheap shots at those they see in themselves and hate for it.


----------



## dilloduck

roomy said:


> Some of those that are born gay, live their whole lives in denial, firing cheap shots at those they see in themselves and hate for it.



NOOOOOOOO----say it ain't so !!!


----------



## MissileMan

glockmail said:


> Since traits are passed on through generations, it is clear that the trait of homosexuality is not passed on through generations, but is in fact a learned response.



So you believe that sterile children are only born to sterile parents?


----------



## roomy

dilloduck said:


> NOOOOOOOO----say it ain't so !!!



I know, who would have thunk it, eh?


----------



## Mr. P

> Are you born gay?


Probably, but who knows? Does it really matter? Why?

Are you born Male or female? Black/white/Asian/lefthanded/righthanded?
How the hell did THAT happen? 

*Hey, glocker....when did you make a choice to be hetro? How old were you?*

Stupid thread. Very typical of all our Anti-gay threads here.


----------



## glockmail

MissileMan said:


> So you believe that sterile children are only born to sterile parents?


 No, I think that a genetic malfunction occured, or a physical or chemical accident. I don't see a pro-sterility lobby. You brought up an unrelated issue.


----------



## OCA

roomy said:


> Some of those that are born gay, live their whole lives in denial, firing cheap shots at those they see in themselves and hate for it.



And some of us use idiotic psychobabble to counter arguments on topics they don't know shit about. 

Piss off stupid fucking limey.


----------



## glockmail

Mr. P said:


> Probably, but who knows? Does it really matter? Why?
> 
> Are you born Male or female? Black/white/Asian/lefthanded/righthanded?
> How the hell did THAT happen?
> 
> *Hey, glocker....when did you make a choice to be hetro? How old were you?*
> 
> Stupid thread. Very typical of all our Anti-gay threads here.



It matters for the reasons stated earlier, if you bothered to read them and prepared to discuss in an intellectual manner, instead of attacking someone based on your pre-conceived beliefs, then you would have known that.


----------



## glockmail

roomy said:


> Some of those that are born gay, live their whole lives in denial, firing cheap shots at those they see in themselves and hate for it.



I'm always amazed, but never surprised, at how the politically correct, supposedly 'tolerant and open minded' crowd, always uses gay as an insult. And for merely presenting a valid argument.


----------



## MissileMan

glockmail said:


> No, I think that a genetic malfunction occured, or a physical or chemical accident. I don't see a pro-sterility lobby. You brought up an unrelated issue.



You were the one who claimed that a trait affecting reproduction couldn't be genetic because it would have to have been purged from the gene pool.  Why is it such a leap to think that homosexuality might be innate condition in the same way that blindness, deafness, retardation, etc are?


----------



## roomy

OCA said:


> And some of us use idiotic psychobabble to counter arguments on topics they don't know shit about.
> 
> Piss off stupid fucking limey.



And idiots like you are just fucking idiots.

Fuck off you thick bastard.


----------



## Mr. P

glockmail said:


> It matters for the reasons stated earlier, if you bothered to read them and prepared to discuss in an intellectual manner, instead of attacking someone based on your pre-conceived beliefs, then you would have known that.



I've read the same BULLSHIT a thousand times, thanks.

BTW...show me the attack.


----------



## glockmail

MissileMan said:


> You were the one who claimed that a trait affecting reproduction couldn't be genetic because it would have to have been purged from the gene pool.  Why is it such a leap to think that homosexuality might be innate condition in the same way that blindness, deafness, retardation, etc are?



1. Have genes for blindness, deafness, or retardation been found? 
2. None of these conditions is desireable, and society is doing whatever it can to prevent them from occuring. So why is homosexuality encouraged?


----------



## OCA

roomy said:


> And idiots like you are just fucking idiots.
> 
> Fuck off you thick bastard.



Lol, methinks you like a good schlong in your bunghole every now and then otherwise you wouldn't be coming with the stupid shit you post on this subject.

Seeing as your a Brit I know a good dentist you could go see for your fucked up teeth.

Lol your getting the piss today aren't you honey?


----------



## glockmail

Mr. P said:


> ....
> 
> BTW...show me the attack....



By attempting to make it personal in your question about my sexuality, then by calling the posts "stupid", as well as "anti-gay".


----------



## rtwngAvngr

Guys.  The science is in on this.  It has to do with levels of hormones in the mothers bloodstream during key periods of fetal development.  So while it's not necessarily genetic, it is biological, and possibly may have genetic factors, considering hormone levels are  a combination of many things, including genes.


----------



## OCA

rtwngAvngr said:


> Guys.  The science is in on this.  It has to do with levels of hormones in the mothers bloodstream during key periods of fetal development.  So while it's not necessarily genetic, it is biological, and possibly may have genetic factors, considering hormone levels are  a combination of many things, including genes.



Hogwash, haven't seen this reported anywhere except obscure sites on the web and from your filthy piehole which makes it highly suspicious.

Its a choice, make the breakthrough from the pc hell you live in, breathe the fresh air.


----------



## glockmail

rtwngAvngr said:


> Guys.  The science is in on this.  It has to do with levels of hormones in the mothers bloodstream during key periods of fetal development.  So while it's not necessarily genetic, it is biological, and possibly may have genetic factors, considering hormone levels are  a combination of many things, including genes.


  So like blindness, deafness, or retardation, medical science should work to prevent the problem: an anti-gay pill. Yet we have a lobby trying to promote it.


----------



## MissileMan

glockmail said:


> 1. Have genes for blindness, deafness, or retardation been found?


I imagine that that most of them are choosing to be blind, deaf, or retarded.   



glockmail said:


> 2. None of these conditions is desireable, and society is doing whatever it can to prevent them from occuring. So why is homosexuality encouraged?



Encouraged?  It's barely tolerated.  IMO, homosexuality isn't something into which a person can be persuaded or encouraged.


----------



## roomy

OCA said:


> Lol, methinks you like a good schlong in your bunghole every now and then otherwise you wouldn't be coming with the stupid shit you post on this subject.
> 
> Seeing as your a Brit I know a good dentist you could go see for your fucked up teeth.
> 
> Lol your getting the piss today aren't you honey?




I thought for a while that your stupidity and blind ignorance was an act.I am ashamed of myself, you are indeed a real retard.


----------



## Mr. P

glockmail said:


> By attempting to make it personal in your question about my sexuality, then by calling the posts "stupid", as well as "anti-gay".


----------



## glockmail

MissileMan said:


> I imagine that that most of them are choosing to be blind, deaf, or retarded.
> 
> 
> 
> Encouraged?  It's barely tolerated.  IMO, homosexuality isn't something into which a person can be persuaded or encouraged.



1. You didn't answer the question.

2. How do you explain the homosexual lobby, the pro-gay agenda of liberal groups, and a 'day of silence' for gays in schools?  I don't see any pro-groups for the other conditions mentioned.


----------



## OCA

roomy said:


> I thought for a while that your stupidity and blind ignorance was an act.I am ashamed of myself, you are indeed a real retard.




Need that dentist yet? Or are you like all your brethren? Laying in the gutter full of bitters and wishing you had some skank pikey to keep you company in your alcoholic fog.

Your nothing but an insignificant troll fuck, don't ever talk shit about the staff here ever again, as you can see you don't have what it takes creatively to tangle with me, stick to the c division boy.


----------



## roomy

OCA said:


> Need that dentist yet? Or are you like all your brethren? Laying in the gutter full of bitters and wishing you had some skank pikey to keep you company in your alcoholic fog.
> 
> Your nothing but an insignificant troll fuck, don't ever talk shit about the staff here ever again, as you can see you don't have what it takes creatively to tangle with me, stick to the c division boy.



I could bich slap the fuck out of you dimwit without breaking sweat.Why don't you run along and do what you do best, play that banjo boy, i'll go get my guitar, you inbred fucking hick.


----------



## roomy

I like this, I have found a new plaything:spank3:


----------



## OCA

roomy said:


> I like this, I have found a new plaything:spank3:



Pikey you are a Brit, a lowlife, you aren't good enough to wipe my ass. Now i'll do you a favor and leave you alone(or not) before I make you completely drown yourself in a bottle of beefeaters.

Lol your a pissant compared to me, a complete irrelevant joke with the respect of nobody.

Take this as a lesson, next time don't step to me unless your gun is fully loaded and well oiled or like this i'll fuck you up and not think twice about how you feel or what you think.

You are best off to leave this thread alone. Would you like to ask me to voluntarily ban you from this thread so you don't embarrass yourself further?


----------



## OCA

roomy said:


> I could bich slap the fuck out of you dimwit without breaking sweat.Why don't you run along and do what you do best, play that banjo boy, i'll go get my guitar, you inbred fucking hick.



You couldn't do shit what with being a limpwristed Brit pikey and all........

I'm Greek not a hick, remember to look up at me and ask to speak first mate.


----------



## glockmail

OCA said:


> ......I'm Greek not a hick, ......


  Only a European would think that D.C is hicksville.


----------



## OCA

glockmail said:


> Only a European would think that D.C is hicksville.



Its ok, can't expect a pikey to know too much geography.


----------



## Nuc

The intellectual depth and philosophical probity of this exchange is dazzling. Thanks guys!


----------



## 5stringJeff

Nuc said:


> Maybe you've hit the nail on the head. Everybody's bisexual. It's just a matter of percentage which way you lean.
> 
> Thanks for solving the boards most pressing and frequently debated issue.
> 
> I asked the moderators this before and I'll ask again. Since "Homosexuality" is probably the most popular topic on this forum (more than "sports" or "photography") why doesn't it have its own forum heading? Then the people who are obsessed with the issue will know where to go rather than having to jump between "Religion", "War on Terror" and all the other sections this debate rears its stupid head.



Use the Health/Lifestyle forum to discuss homosexuality:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=38917


----------



## rtwngAvngr

5stringJeff said:


> Use the Health/Lifestyle forum to discuss homosexuality:
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=38917



Wow.  What a powerful and necessary mod action.  You're really making a difference jeff!  :usa:


----------



## Nuc

rtwngAvngr said:


> Wow.  What a powerful and necessary mod action.  You're really making a difference jeff!  :usa:



RWA, there's noa where to run and noa where to hide from these noahides and their noahidian abuses of power, is there? Noa go watch some TV. :tears1:


----------



## mattskramer

dmp said:


> That's the best argument from your side I've heard.  If we discriminate against 'discrimination' based on ANOTHER choice, why not homosexuality?
> 
> I suppose it's a line-thing.  We have to draw lines.  People's sexual activity is on the side of the line we should NOT protect.



Im glad that you recognize that there are shades of gray.  The question is not all or nothing.  The issue comes down to where to draw the line.  So many people discount relativism but relativism exists practically everywhere.  We already do prohibit people from discriminating against those that make unpopular life choices. To what extent do we allow people to discriminate based on another persons personal choice is just another example.  The government is prohibited from discriminating against someone based on his religious choice. 

We allow people do engage in unhealthy behavior to an extent.  People are allowed to smoke cigarettes but not marijuana.  People are allowed to drink alcohol only after they reach a certain age.  People are allowed to hunt deer and cut open frogs for biology class but we are not allowed to perform cruel experiments on our own house pets.  The Bill of Right says that government will not prohibit the free exercise of religion.  What if, based on my interpretation of my Bible I am prohibited from authorizing a blood transfusion for my sick infant?  Is government authorized to intervene?

There is freedom of speech but do you think that the government should have no interest in my choice to march through down town Harlem at three oclock in the morning chanting racial slurs?  There is still the old bazooka question  one that OCA weasels out of answering because as far as I know, a bazooka has never been sold to a private citizen.   We have the second amendment.  Should private citizens be allowed to own fully operational bazookas?  The list of questions is practically endless.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

mattskramer said:


> Im glad that you recognize that there are shades of gray.  The question is not all or nothing.  The issue comes down to where to draw the line.  So many people discount relativism but relativism exists practically everywhere.  We already do prohibit people from discriminating against those that make unpopular life choices. To what extent do we allow people to discriminate based on another persons personal choice is just another example.  The government is prohibited from discriminating against someone based on his religious choice.
> 
> We allow people do engage in unhealthy behavior to an extent.  People are allowed to smoke cigarettes but not marijuana.  People are allowed to drink alcohol only after they reach a certain age.  People are allowed to hunt deer and cut open frogs for biology class but we are not allowed to perform cruel experiments on our own house pets.  The Bill of Right says that government will not prohibit the free exercise of religion.  What if, based on my interpretation of my Bible I am prohibited from authorizing a blood transfusion for my sick infant?  Is government authorized to intervene?
> 
> There is freedom of speech but do you think that the government should have no interest in my choice to march through down town Harlem at three oclock in the morning chanting racial slurs?  There is still the old bazooka question  one that OCA weasels out of answering because as far as I know, a bazooka has never been sold to a private citizen.   We have the second amendment.  Should private citizens be allowed to own fully operational bazookas?  The list of questions is practically endless.





Because there are shades of grey between black and white, doesn't mean black and white don't exist.


----------



## roomy

OCA said:


> Pikey you are a Brit, a lowlife, you aren't good enough to wipe my ass. Now i'll do you a favor and leave you alone(or not) before I make you completely drown yourself in a bottle of beefeaters.
> 
> Lol your a pissant compared to me, a complete irrelevant joke with the respect of nobody.
> 
> Take this as a lesson, next time don't step to me unless your gun is fully loaded and well oiled or like this i'll fuck you up and not think twice about how you feel or what you think.
> 
> You are best off to leave this thread alone. Would you like to ask me to voluntarily ban you from this thread so you don't embarrass yourself further?



Threatening to ban me already?
Maybe you should ban yourself for hijacking this thread just to troll and flame me you fucking buffoon.As you are a hairy cowardly greek, I expect little else.
Being as you are, a Greek man I imagine you also suffer from small man syndrome because all little fat greek men do, put lifts in your shoes shorty and try a body wax, leave the kebabs alone and maybe then you could attract the boys.Thick bastard.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

roomy said:


> Threatening to ban me already?
> Maybe you should ban yourself for hijacking this thread just to troll and flame me you fucking buffoon.As you are a hairy cowardly greek, I expect little else.
> Being as you are, a Greek man I imagine you also suffer from small man syndrome because all little fat greek men do, put lifts in your shoes shorty and try a body wax, leave the kebabs alone and maybe then you could attract the boys.Thick bastard.



No kidding.  OCA is the most ignorant tool on this board.


----------



## OCA

rtwngAvngr said:


> No kidding.  OCA is the most ignorant tool on this board.



LMFAO! Have fun reading the torah during your hiatus. Your so thick you make Nell Carter look like Nicole Richie.


----------



## Nuc

OCA said:


> LMFAO! Have fun reading the torah during your hiatus. Your so thick you make Nell Carter look like Nicole Richie.



RWA may have a thick skull, but you have thin skin. If you can't take it don't dish it out.


----------



## OCA

Nuc said:


> RWA may have a thick skull, but you have thin skin. If you can't take it don't dish it out.



Nuc, you really don't want to go there with me today. I take all sorts of shit, most of it is though weak in comparison to my brilliant musings.


----------



## Annie

Nuc said:


> RWA may have a thick skull, but you have thin skin. If you can't take it don't dish it out.



Let ME make it clear, OCA did NOT ban roomy or RWA, nor did I. The banning had nothing to do with him. We do support the decision, based on the banned members' posts.


----------



## Nuc

Kathianne said:


> Let ME make it clear, OCA did NOT ban roomy or RWA, nor did I. The banning had nothing to do with him. We do support the decision, based on the banned members' posts.



I get it. I saw them banned and assumed it was because of this. Then I saw the other thread they got it on in and that's why. OK. Messing with the moderators just isn't too smart. Or if you want to pick a fight with them keep it dignified. Although there are several moderators here who should be called immoderators because they lose it frequently.


----------



## Dr Grump

Nuc said:


> Although there are several moderators here who should be called immoderators because they lose it frequently.



You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Nuc again.


----------



## dilloduck

Nuc said:


> I get it. I saw them banned and assumed it was because of this. Then I saw the other thread they got it on in and that's why. OK. Messing with the moderators just isn't too smart. Or if you want to pick a fight with them keep it dignified. Although there are several moderators here who should be called immoderators because they lose it frequently.



Very tactfully put !


----------



## Joz

In order to understand what I'm going to say, you have to believe in the Bible.  There are ALOT of people who think that It & I'm full of crap, but I'm going to say it anyway.

Mm & I have batted this back & forth sooooo many times because so much can go wrong it the womb, but this is the conclusion Mm has helped me understand.

God does not condemn things that man cannot control.  
He does not condemn blindness, diabetes, siamese twins, Down's syndrome & a bevy of others.
But He does condemn, lying, stealing, gossip, murder, adultery & homosexuality.  

Man is sinful by nature, but committing sin is always a choice.  
If homosexuallity was something that man had no control over such as with any deformity or disease, God would not have said it was an abomination.


----------



## Kagom

Joz said:


> In order to understand what I'm going to say, you have to believe in the Bible.  There are ALOT of people who think that It & I'm full of crap, but I'm going to say it anyway.
> 
> Mm & I have batted this back & forth sooooo many times because so much can go wrong it the womb, but this is the conclusion Mm has helped me understand.
> 
> God does not condemn things that man cannot control.
> He does not condemn blindness, diabetes, siamese twins, Down's syndrome & a bevy of others.
> But He does condemn, lying, stealing, gossip, murder, adultery & homosexuality.
> 
> Man is sinful by nature, but committing sin is always a choice.
> If homosexuallity was something that man had no control over such as with any deformity or disease, God would not have said it was an abomination.


Sorry if I offend you, or anyone else for that matter, by saying this, but maybe God's a psychopath?


----------



## Joz

Kagom said:


> Sorry if I offend you, or anyone else for that matter, by saying this, but *maybe God's a psychopath?*


Explain.  
Trust me, God & I have had our rounds.


----------



## glockmail

Kagom said:


> Sorry if I offend you, or anyone else for that matter, by saying this, but maybe God's a psychopath?


 Why would anyone be offended at your dissing of the Creator of the universe? :thumbdown:


----------



## Joz

glockmail said:


> Why would anyone be offended at your dissing of the Creator of the universe? :thumbdown:


Ah, but listening reveals sooo much.


----------



## Kagom

Joz said:


> Explain.
> Trust me, God & I have had our rounds.


Much of the Old Testament explains that.

And regarding why anyone would be offended: because you believe in that god and sometimes people are offended for that reason.


----------



## Joz

Kagom said:


> Much of the Old Testament explains that.


I'm sorry, but I think this is a cop-out. 
I asked you to explain to me why you think what you do.


----------



## deaddude

Joz said:


> I'm sorry, but I think this is a cop-out.
> I asked you to explain to me why you think what you do.



Turning people into salt, the creation of hell, the Flood, Threatening to wipe out the jews that he had just finished exodusing, calling for people to kill doves, goats, other people. Killing all the first born sons. Rains of fire. Damning every single human being to hell (this is the old testament, before the harrowing).   

God the Father could indeed be seen as a bit on the psychopathic side.

Not saying I believe it, just that the stuff is there.


----------



## glockmail

deaddude said:


> Turning people into salt, the creation of hell, the Flood, Threatening to wipe out the jews that he had just finished exodusing, calling for people to kill doves, goats, other people. Killing all the first born sons. Rains of fire. Damning every single human being to hell (this is the old testament, before the harrowing).
> 
> God the Father could indeed be seen as a bit on the psychopathic side.
> 
> .....



Or perhaps a demanding parent with a lot of unruly kids.

Did He ever command man to kill all who did not believe in him?


----------



## The ClayTaurus

glockmail said:


> Or perhaps a demanding parent with a lot of unruly kids.
> 
> Did He ever command man to kill all who did not believe in him?


If a parent slaughtered his/her unruly kids you'd call them demanding?


----------



## glockmail

The ClayTaurus said:


> If a parent slaughtered his/her unruly kids you'd call them demanding?


  I think you need to understand the relative unimportance of men with respect to an omnipotent creator. It is only through His grace that we are allowed to exist. 

If you created a widget, and several turned out defective, would you not destroy them in order to protect the integrity of the design?


----------



## The ClayTaurus

glockmail said:


> I think you need to understand the relative unimportance of men with respect to an omnipotent creator. It is only through His grace that we are allowed to exist.
> 
> If you created a widget, and several turned out defective, would you not destroy them in order to protect the integrity of the design?


Hey, I was just following your parent comparison is all.

How would destroying defective widgets protect the integrity of the design? If anything, I would think the true integrity of the design would manage to shine despite the defectives. A good design thriving amongst failed designs would be much more convincing to me than just one design with nothing to compare to, but that's me

But I can understand the mentality of destroying everything else for simplicity's sake.


----------



## dilloduck

The ClayTaurus said:


> Hey, I was just following your parent comparison is all.
> 
> How would destroying defective widgets protect the integrity of the design? If anything, I would think the true integrity of the design would manage to shine despite the defectives. A good design thriving amongst failed designs would be much more convincing to me than just one design with nothing to compare to, but that's me
> 
> But I can understand the mentality of destroying everything else for simplicity's sake.



Destroying a defective widget protects the intergrity of the design by ensuring that no one gets a hold of one and assumes ALL widgets are just as bad as the one you got. There would always be the question----did I get the real thing or did I get a defect ?


----------



## The ClayTaurus

dilloduck said:


> Destroying a defective widget protects the intergrity of the design by ensuring that no one gets a hold of one and assumes ALL widgets are just as bad as the one you got. There would always be the question----did I get the real thing or did I get a defect ?


Not a very good assumption to make, IMO. But I understand your point.


----------



## dilloduck

The ClayTaurus said:


> Not a very good assumption to make, IMO. But I understand your point.



If you bought a defective widget, how likely would you be to go out to buy another ?


----------



## mattskramer

dilloduck said:


> If you bought a defective widget, how likely would you be to go out to buy another ?



Many gadgets in the Bible where not defective but they were destroyed or abandoned anyway, particularly in the Old Testament.


----------



## dilloduck

mattskramer said:


> Many gadgets in the Bible where not defective but they were destroyed or abandoned anyway, particularly in the Old Testament.



Thats exactly why there is a new covenant.


----------



## mattskramer

dilloduck said:


> Thats exactly why there is a new covenant.



Huh?  God destroys gadgets that were not defective.  Then he establishes a new covenant (basically changing his mind.  Now he does not destroy the non-defective gadgets.  It makes perfect sense to me.


----------



## Joz

dilloduck said:


> Thats exactly why there is a new covenant.



And it says............


----------



## dilloduck

Joz said:


> And it says............



Your keyboard sticking?


----------



## The ClayTaurus

dilloduck said:


> If you bought a defective widget, how likely would you be to go out to buy another ?


Depends on whether or not I needed the widget.

This comparison is getting off track.


----------



## glockmail

The ClayTaurus said:


> Hey, I was just following your parent comparison is all.
> 
> How would destroying defective widgets protect the integrity of the design? If anything, I would think the true integrity of the design would manage to shine despite the defectives. A good design thriving amongst failed designs would be much more convincing to me than just one design with nothing to compare to, but that's me
> 
> But I can understand the mentality of destroying everything else for simplicity's sake.



The design for the widget (man) is perfect, but God gave man free will, so the implementation is often less than perfect. Add the effect of true evil in the world and you have a recipe for some gawd-awful widgets. These should be destroyed so as not to sully the original design.


----------



## glockmail

The ClayTaurus said:


> Not a very good assumption to make, IMO. But I understand your point.


 He nailed it.


----------



## The ClayTaurus

glockmail said:


> The design for the widget (man) is perfect, but God gave man free will, so the implementation is often less than perfect. Add the effect of true evil in the world and you have a recipe for some gawd-awful widgets. These should be destroyed so as not to sully the original design.


If the design is perfect, how can it be sullied?


----------



## glockmail

The ClayTaurus said:


> If the design is perfect, how can it be sullied?


 As stated: the free will of man   and the existence of evil.


----------



## The ClayTaurus

glockmail said:


> As stated: the free will of man   and the existence of evil.


Seems like a design that can be ruined isn't a perfect design, to me at least.

And if we truly have/had free will, how is supernatural slaughter of the defective consistent with it?


----------



## Kagom

Joz said:


> I'm sorry, but I think this is a cop-out.
> I asked you to explain to me why you think what you do.


How is referencing the book that makes me think the way I do a cop-out?

God makes the Phaoroh intentionally not let the Jewish people go just so he can unlease the plagues?   If a child disobeys their parents, the child is to be killed?   Just minor examples.


----------



## Joz

Kagom said:


> How is referencing the book that makes me think the way I do a cop-out?


Because all you said was the "Old Testament".



> God makes the Phaoroh intentionally not let the Jewish people go just so he can unlease the plagues?


I'm curious how God made Pharaoh do anything.  Are you referring to the text about "hardening Pharaoh's heart"?


> If a child disobeys their parents, the child is to be killed?   Just minor examples.


You're going to have to explain this one further.


----------



## Kagom

Joz said:


> Because all you said was the "Old Testament".
> 
> I'm curious how God made Pharaoh do anything.  Are you referring to the text about "hardening Pharaoh's heart"?
> You're going to have to explain this one further.


God made the Pharaoh's (thanks for catching my spelling mistake by the way ) heart hard intentionally so that he wouldn't let the Israelites go free and so he could punish him.

I've read most of the Bible, so I am very sure that's in there.  And I did make a mistake, it's stoning, though that's pretty much death.  Deuteronomy 21:18-21.


----------



## Joz

Kagom said:


> God made the Pharaoh's (thanks for catching my spelling mistake by the way ) heart hard intentionally so that he wouldn't let the Israelites go free and so he could punish him.


No, that's not right.  God did not intentionally hardend Pharaoh's heart.  Pharaoh did it himself.  
Do you know anyone that you just chap their *ss?  I mean they just don't like & you no matter what you do, they won't give in, even if you prove yourself to be a pretty good guy?  They choose to not  like you for whatever their reasoning is; you harden their heart towards you.



> I've read most of the Bible, so I am very sure that's in there.  And I did make a mistake, it's stoning, though that's pretty much death.  Deuteronomy 21:18-21.


So, you don't believe in capital punishment?


----------



## Kagom

Joz said:


> No, that's not right.  God did not intentionally hardend Pharaoh's heart.  Pharaoh did it himself.
> Do you know anyone that you just chap their *ss?  I mean they just don't like & you no matter what you do, they won't give in, even if you prove yourself to be a pretty good guy?  They choose to not  like you for whatever their reasoning is; you harden their heart towards you.
> 
> So, you don't believe in capital punishment?


If I remember correctly, God said he would harden Pharaoh's heart.  Exodus 9:12, 10:20

Does that not mean God made his heart hard so he wouldn't listen?

No, I don't.  And before you ask, I'm opposed to abortion.


----------



## glockmail

The ClayTaurus said:


> Seems like a design that can be ruined isn't a perfect design, to me at least.
> 
> And if we truly have/had free will, how is supernatural slaughter of the defective consistent with it?



1. You may want to re-think your statement, as it is illogical and unreasonable, to me at least, probably to most.
2. You lost me on that. What?


----------



## Emmett

No!


----------



## Joz

Kagom said:


> If I remember correctly, God said he would harden Pharaoh's heart.  Exodus 9:12, 10:20
> 
> Does that not mean God made his heart hard so he wouldn't listen?


No that does not mean that. It was more of a what the result would be, not what God would physically do.

God sent Pharaoh a warning.  His response?  "Who is this Lord that I should obey his voice?"
Pharaoh saw the mighty works of God yet he refused to obey God's command.   Pharaoh was determined to have his own way & by refusing to acknowledge God, it blinded his mind & hardened his heart. Through his stubborness came plague after plague until he was forced to look upon his dead son.  
Every willful rejection of God's will hardens the heart to understanding, making it more difficult to distinguish right from wrong.  By this behavior, as we now see,  man will definately reap which he himself has sown.




> No, I don't.  And before you ask, I'm opposed to abortion.


 C-o-o-l.


----------



## Annie

Going way back to the thread. I think some are born gay, genetics. Not so many, maybe 1-5% of total pop. As evidenced on this board, there is a greater number in play, environmental/nurture if you will. It's become de rigour to be 'bi', assumed that we are both both.


----------



## Yurt

glockmail said:


> It is an obvious fact that Homosexuals cannot reproduce. Therefore someone cannot have a genetic homosexual parent. Since traits are passed on through generations, it is clear that the trait of homosexuality is not passed on through generations, but is in fact a learned response. Further, since I have known several who have been homosexuals in college and then entered into a heterosexual long term relationship, it is clear that they made a poor choice during a less mature period in their lives.
> 
> One argument against this is that a gay man can have sex with and impregnate a woman. However, he would have to become, at least temporarily, a heterosexual to become aroused by that woman, as well as choose the time and place for the relation. Would not that make him a bisexual, not a dedicated homosexual? Further, one would not assume that a heterosexual male would venture from his instincts and become, even temporarily, aroused by another male and choose a time and place for a relation. So why would one assume a homosexual would venture from his instinct for the purpose of insemination? Moreover, if this is how a variant of the species procreates, then where is the evidence to support this? Are there a large percentage of homosexuals, greater than the incidence of homosexuality as a whole, who can claim they have a genetic parent who is also homosexual?
> 
> A second argument against my theory is that homosexuals use artificial insemination to procreate. If that were true then homosexuality could never have existed before about 35 years ago.
> 
> A third argument against is that homosexuality is the result of some kind of mutation or gene interaction between male and female DNA. If this is so, would homosexuality be in fact a medical abnormality, such as a cleft palette or autism? If that is the case, then why do we have organized groups attempting to normalize and encourage homosexuality? Moreover, where is the scientific evidence to support this? Surely pro-gay groups would have found and exploited this evidence by now.



How is impotency passed on?  How is a non-birthing trait passed on?  

Seems to fit under the third, yet, we are dealing with human sexuality, something very sensative.  We have no problem calling people who sleep with nine year olds perverts/sexual diseased deviants, well, in the western world (though this might be telling on how things genetically passed on).  Those people are called predators and are usually treated when caught.  In CA they now have programs to treat these people.  In WA they spend millions of year to treat rapists and/or child molestors in order to "cure" them.  Ok, went off track, sorry, dealt with this at work today.  Anyhoooo....

I guess my question is this:

What would you call a man who has anal sex with his girlfriend/wife?


----------



## glockmail

Kathianne said:


> Going way back to the thread. I think some are born gay, genetics. Not so many, maybe 1-5% of total pop. As evidenced on this board, there is a greater number in play, environmental/nurture if you will. It's become de rigour to be 'bi', assumed that we are both both.



I've heard that the current estimate of homosexuals in the general population is somewhere around 1 %, or slihtly more, not the 10% that was stated as fact for years. So the real issues are:
1. What percentage of gays are born that way? And if so, 
2. by what mechanism? And if by defect, then 
3. why is the condition encouraged by many in today's society?
4. and finally, why do so many encourage "normal" people to "turn" gay?


----------



## glockmail

Yurt said:


> How is impotency passed on?  How is a non-birthing trait passed on?
> 
> ....
> 
> I guess my question is this:
> 
> What would you call a man who has anal sex with his girlfriend/wife?



1. Perhaps they are birth defects. Impotency is treated as a disease and not encouraged by many in society.
2. I would call him a pervert. (Actually I have other terms as well, but I'm too polite to mention them.)


----------



## Yurt

glockmail said:


> 1. Perhaps they are birth defects. Impotency is treated as a disease and not encouraged by many in society.
> 2. I would call him a pervert. (Actually I have other terms as well, but I'm too polite to mention them.)




1.  Most likely true, which is why I said it probably fits with your option 3.

2.  A pervert only?  What do you call a man who does that to a man?  It was very interesting your response, because it is the response I get from almost everyone I ask that question.  Never the word "homo," rather, "well, he's just weird, or something..."  The main thing about homosexuality is the ass banging.  Reproduction, sure, without it, a people will not continue.  It is the ass banging that is sick.  That is what spreads the diseases that come with homosexuality.  IMHO.  I don't think oral is the same, else.... well, we'd all be in trouble...........  It is the putting your God given reproductive tool inside an orafice that is for shit, excuse me, let me rephrase, it is for excreting garbage from the body.  It is not a vagina, it is not a mouth.  It is an anus.  Diseases are spread through this sensative and unique region.  Hence, at least biblically, homosexuality is wrong.  As to propagating species, as you said, I don't doubt for a second that people thousands of years ago swung both ways.  I mean come on, the romans, greeks, and the arab shieks and on down the line, it was not considered a "bad" thing back then.  Think back to soddom and gomorrah (sp?). 

IMHO


----------



## The ClayTaurus

glockmail said:


> 1. You may want to re-think your statement, as it is illogical and unreasonable, to me at least, probably to most.


How is it illogical or unreasonable to believe that a perfect design is one which is indestructable? You are the one with the illogical, unreasonable position, claiming that God's design is perfect yet is easily compromised through free will and evil. That doesn't sound perfect to me in the slightest.





glockmail said:


> 2. You lost me on that. What?


How is the slaughter of the defective consistent with our supposed free will? Would it not be a better excercise in free will to leave the defective so as to better discern the true believers?




Where is NT250? Does this count towards my arguing with the religious credits?


----------



## nt250

glockmail said:


> I'm always amazed, but never surprised, at how the politically correct, supposedly 'tolerant and open minded' crowd, always uses gay as an insult. And for merely presenting a valid argument.



It never surprises me.  Liberals have absolutely no problem accusing conservatives and Republicans of being gay if it furthers some argument they have about how evil they are.  They did it to Karl Rove during the reporter scandal.  Remember that?  There was some reporter, whose name I now forget, who also ran some kind of gay porn site.  He went by two different names.  He asked a question at a press conference and the next thing you knew it was all over the news.

He was gay.  Karl Rove was his gay lover and that's how this guy managed to get day passes to Whitehouse press briefings.  It was hysterical.  They actually used the safety of the president to go after conservatives that time.  Liberals have absolutely no shame at all.  People who would throw a party if Bush caught a bullet between the eyes had no problem trashing a man like Karl Rove because ANYTHING they can do to stop a "neocon" is perfectly OK with them.  So they claimed he is gay, and as we ALL know, gay people have no ethics what-so-ever.  It was pathetic.


----------



## nt250

Whether people are born homosexual or not isn't really an issue.  I don't care if people are born that way.  I think it's obvious that some are.  You can tell just by looking at them.  

But this argument about nature or nuture is a perfect example of the hoops the gay rights movement jumps through to promote their agenda.  When it suits their purposes, being gay is a born trait.  Then they can compare themselves to blacks, and women, and other minorities and use that comparison to call anybody who disagrees with them bigots and homophobes.

If, however, the argument that gays are born that way does NOT help their cause, then they shift gears and go with the "culture" argument.  It's very similiar to the "deaf community" who consider being deaf a "culture" unto itself and resent anyone who thinks being deaf is something that needs to be "fixed".  These activists protest the Cochlear Implant and don't think the hearing parents of deaf children should have the right to "force" their deaf children to conform to the hearing world.  The fact that they're nuts is beside the point.  Gays want to be considered a minority whose behavior should be accepted by others because they're born that way.  Until the idea that what's wrong with them can be "fixed".  Then it's not genetic.

The closest comparison to gay rights is religious freedom and that, too, is an invalid argument.  Gay rights is all about behavior and what gays believe the rest of the world should accept and celebrate about their behavior.  The concept of religious freedom is not about behavior at all, it's about ideas and the freedom to believe and follow those ideas without being persecuted for them.  While all religions have behaviors that are associated with the adherence of their rules, there is no religion that has ever demanded that those behaviors be accepted without question or the objection from society at large.

Only gays want that.  And they are getting just that.


----------



## Joz

nt250 said:


> Whether people are born homosexual or not isn't really an issue.


No ,it isn't _an_ issue, it is THE issue.


----------



## nt250

Joz said:


> No ,it isn't _an_ issue, it is THE issue.




It's the topic of this thread but it's not an issue for me because I don't give a shit if they're born that way or not.


----------



## Bullypulpit

glockmail said:


> It is an obvious fact that Homosexuals cannot reproduce. Therefore someone cannot have a genetic homosexual parent. Since traits are passed on through generations, it is clear that the trait of homosexuality is not passed on through generations, but is in fact a learned response. Further, since I have known several who have been homosexuals in college and then entered into a heterosexual long term relationship, it is clear that they made a poor choice during a less mature period in their lives.



Your assertion is so patently absurd that it is laughable. Many gay men lead double lives...As apparently straight men...until they come to terms with their sexual orientation. As a result, many marry and have families, i.e. procreate. I ahve know several gay men who have gone this route and they have all plainly stated that it would have been far easier and far less painful for everyone involved to embrace their sexuality before they married. AS for the homosexuals you "knew", they were more likely bisexuals.



glockmail said:


> One argument against this is that a gay man can have sex with and impregnate a woman. However, he would have to become, at least temporarily, a heterosexual to become aroused by that woman, as well as choose the time and place for the relation. Would not that make him a bisexual, not a dedicated homosexual? Further, one would not assume that a heterosexual male would venture from his instincts and become, even temporarily, aroused by another male and choose a time and place for a relation. So why would one assume a homosexual would venture from his instinct for the purpose of insemination? Moreover, if this is how a variant of the species procreates, then where is the evidence to support this? Are there a large percentage of homosexuals, greater than the incidence of homosexuality as a whole, who can claim they have a genetic parent who is also homosexual?



Men don't need to become "temporarily" anything to become sexually aroused. It's hard wired into us. 



glockmail said:


> A second argument against my theory is that homosexuals use artificial insemination to procreate. If that were true then homosexuality could never have existed before about 35 years ago.



:rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:



glockmail said:


> A third argument against is that homosexuality is the result of some kind of mutation or gene interaction between male and female DNA. If this is so, would homosexuality be in fact a medical abnormality, such as a cleft palette or autism? If that is the case, then why do we have organized groups attempting to normalize and encourage homosexuality? Moreover, where is the scientific evidence to support this? Surely pro-gay groups would have found and exploited this evidence by now.



 Gender preference is more than the sum of its parts, and genetic predisposition is but one of those parts. The complex synergy of all of the factrs that contribute to the development of a fetus, from conception to birth, all play a role in shaping gender preference.


----------



## nt250

Bullypulpit said:


> Gender preference is more than the sum of its parts, and genetic predisposition is but one of those parts. The complex synergy of all of the factrs that contribute to the development of a fetus, from conception to birth, all play a role in shaping gender preference.



Nobody cares about another person gender preference.  Gays shouldn't be harrassed, but they also shouldn't be advocating the celebration of their abnormal behaviors either.

Private sexual habits should remain just that, private.  That goes for gays, hetrosexuals into S&M as long as it's consenual.

The rest of us really don't want to hear about it.  I don't, anyway.  I sure as hell don't want my kid reading about it in the first grade.


----------



## manu1959

was i born gay?



sadly yes......i am a lesbian trapped in a man's body


----------



## glockmail

Yurt said:


> .....  I don't doubt for a second that people thousands of years ago swung both ways.  I mean come on, the romans, greeks, and the arab shieks and on down the line, it was not considered a "bad" thing back then. .....
> 
> IMHO



I think, here too, that history has been re-written by the pro-gay agenda crowd. Homosexuality undoubtedly existed, but its glorification with regards to "main stream", IMO, is greatly exaggerated.


----------



## glockmail

The ClayTaurus said:


> How is it illogical or unreasonable to believe that a perfect design is one which is indestructable? You are the one with the illogical, unreasonable position, claiming that God's design is perfect yet is easily compromised through free will and evil. That doesn't sound perfect to me in the slightest.How is the slaughter of the defective consistent with our supposed free will? Would it not be a better excercise in free will to leave the defective so as to better discern the true believers?
> .....


1. The very perfection of something can make it more delicate.
2. I give my children as much freedom as they can responsibly handle. If they go over the line I kick their their little asses. I belive God does the same, only with a much longer leash, and more dreadful consequences.


----------



## dilloduck

manu1959 said:


> was i born gay?
> 
> 
> 
> sadly yes......i am a lesbian trapped in a man's body



I hear ya---I even pretended to be hetero so I could marry a woman and have a child. I feel so dirty.


----------



## glockmail

nt250 said:


> It never surprises me.  Liberals have absolutely no problem accusing conservatives and Republicans of being gay if it furthers some argument they have about how evil they are.  They did it to Karl Rove during the reporter scandal.  Remember that?  There was some reporter, whose name I now forget, who also ran some kind of gay porn site.  He went by two different names.  He asked a question at a press conference and the next thing you knew it was all over the news.
> 
> He was gay.  Karl Rove was his gay lover and that's how this guy managed to get day passes to Whitehouse press briefings.  It was hysterical.  They actually used the safety of the president to go after conservatives that time.  Liberals have absolutely no shame at all.  People who would throw a party if Bush caught a bullet between the eyes had no problem trashing a man like Karl Rove because ANYTHING they can do to stop a "neocon" is perfectly OK with them.  So they claimed he is gay, and as we ALL know, gay people have no ethics what-so-ever.  It was pathetic.





> You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to nt250 again.



Thanks for reminding us of that.


----------



## The ClayTaurus

glockmail said:


> 1. The very perfection of something can make it more delicate.


Please explain.





glockmail said:


> 2. I give my children as much freedom as they can responsibly handle. If they go over the line I kick their their little asses. I belive God does the same, only with a much longer leash, and more dreadful consequences.


You give them as much responsibility that YOU think they can handle. Hopefully you're a good judge of that.

At what point does a child no longer need a leash, though? Our difference in opinion probably lies in your belief that, as a species, we are, spiritually, children for eternity. At some point, the leash comes off, we turn 18, and get kicked out the house, and we learn life's lessons the hard way.

And are we using the parent-child God-humanity comparison or not?


----------



## Bullypulpit

nt250 said:


> Nobody cares about another person gender preference.  Gays shouldn't be harrassed, but they also shouldn't be advocating the celebration of their abnormal behaviors either.
> 
> Private sexual habits should remain just that, private.  That goes for gays, hetrosexuals into S&M as long as it's consenual.
> 
> The rest of us really don't want to hear about it.  I don't, anyway.  I sure as hell don't want my kid reading about it in the first grade.



What proof can you supply showing homosexuality to be an "abnormal" behavior? The APA removed homoseuality from the DSMV back in the early 70's.


----------



## manu1959

dilloduck said:


> I hear ya---I even pretended to be hetero so I could marry a woman and have a child. I feel so dirty.



i know!.....it, it ,it is.....sooooooooo.......difficult.....i mean no one would choose to be like this


----------



## Joz

nt250 said:


> It's the topic of this thread but it's not an issue for me because I don't give a shit if they're born that way or not.


:teeth:


----------



## manu1959

Bullypulpit said:


> What proof can you supply showing homosexuality to be an "abnormal" behavior? The APA removed homoseuality from the DSMV back in the early 70's.



so it is normal for a man to wake up one day and say.....

"ya know i like takin it in the ass and i prefer balls on my chin rather than tits in my face"

sounds normal to me....i mean what else could mother nature have had in mind....


----------



## glockmail

The ClayTaurus said:


> [1]Please explain.
> 
> [2]....And are we using the parent-child God-humanity comparison or not?



1. Perhaps you explain to me why something should be unable to be destroyed simply because it was made perfect, or an example.

2. You've lost me once more.


----------



## glockmail

Bullypulpit said:


> What proof can you supply showing homosexuality to be an "abnormal" behavior? The APA removed homoseuality from the DSMV back in the early 70's.



Any behaivior practiced by 1 to 1.5% of the population is considered abnormal. It's simple statistics.   The real issue here is why the APA removed it from a disease list, allowing it to fester uncured.


----------



## Dr Grump

glockmail said:


> Any behaivior practiced by 1 to 1.5% of the population is considered abnormal. It's simple statistics.   The real issue here is why the APA removed it from a disease list, allowing it to fester uncured.



Because it doesn't even pass the giggle test as being a disease. Only in the eyes of bigots and homophobes.


----------



## jillian

glockmail said:


> Any behaivior practiced by 1 to 1.5% of the population is considered abnormal. It's simple statistics.   The real issue here is why the APA removed it from a disease list, allowing it to fester uncured.



What right-wing, Christian, homophobe site did you get that statistic from? It's also been estimated at approximately 10% (which might, or might not be on the high side) which is in line with the appearance of certain recessive traits in the general population.

But if you're still getting your info from the 700 club, I can understand why you'd be so off base.


----------



## The ClayTaurus

glockmail said:


> 1. Perhaps you explain to me why something should be unable to be destroyed simply because it was made perfect, or an example.


No. I asked you. Turning around and asking me the opposite is not a valid answer.





glockmail said:


> 2. You've lost me once more.


Don't know what to tell you here.


----------



## The ClayTaurus

glockmail said:


> Any behaivior practiced by 1 to 1.5% of the population is considered abnormal. It's simple statistics.   The real issue here is why the APA removed it from a disease list, allowing it to fester uncured.


Plenty of things are abnormal. Abnormal does not equate to bad.

Brain surgeons are abnormal.
Valedictorians are abnormal.
Male flute players are abnormal. 
70 year old marathon runners are abnormal.


----------



## glockmail

Dr Grump said:


> Because it doesn't even pass the giggle test as being a disease. Only in the eyes of bigots and homophobes.


 It does not surprise me that you would resort to name calling. Disapointed, yes.


----------



## Mr. P

Lets get some statistics here, how many people are reported per year that die from being gay?

Be careful this is a very loaded question.


----------



## 5stringJeff

Mr. P said:


> Lets get some statistics here, how many people are reported per year that die from being gay?
> 
> Be careful this is a very loaded question.



From being gay itself?  None.

From the effects of homosexual behavior, to include STDs (like AIDS) caught while participating in homosexual behavior?  Dunno, but probably thousands annually in the US.


----------



## glockmail

jillian said:


> What right-wing, Christian, homophobe site did you get that statistic from. It's also been estimated at approximately 10% (which might, or might not be on the high side) which is in line with the appearance of certain recessive traits in the general population.
> 
> But if you're still getting your info from the 700 club, I can understand why you'd be so off base.





> Eight major studies have been performed to determine the actual percentage of homosexuals in the general population. The average percentage of homosexuality among both genders would be about 0.7 percent.


http://www.prolife.org.ph/page/homosexuality1

Oops- it looks like I was was off, as the actual percentage is even lower. Are you going to call me a liar now?

You are referring to a non scientific report from the 1940's when you refer to 10%. Weren't you the one who stated that you prefer science to opinion, or something like that?

And like my comment to Grump, I am not surprised by your name-calling, but I am disapointed.


----------



## jillian

5stringJeff said:


> From being gay itself?  None.
> 
> From the effects of homosexual behavior, to include STDs (like AIDS) caught while participating in homosexual behavior?  Dunno, but probably thousands annually in the US.



No question that's a problem for the gay community. But right now, the greatest number of deaths from HIV/AIDS is from heterosexual behavior. Yet, despite that, no one would ever say these people died from "being heterosexual.

The truth is that unsafe sex is a bad idea regardless of whether one is gay or straight and it's important for kids to truly understand the implications of their behavior and learn how to protect against disease including, *though not limited to*, abstinence.


----------



## glockmail

The ClayTaurus said:


> No. I asked you. Turning around and asking me the opposite is not a valid answer......


  Actually it is, because you asked something rather obvious, and I explained it to you a second time. Now you are asking me to spoon-feed you. Instead you should think a little more about what you originally asked.


----------



## glockmail

The ClayTaurus said:


> Plenty of things are abnormal. Abnormal does not equate to bad......


  Perhaps you could point out where I said that it was.


----------



## glockmail

jillian said:


> No question that's a problem for the gay community. But right now, the greatest number of deaths from HIV/AIDS is from heterosexual behavior. .....


  Which was spread from the homosexual population, so now we have normal people being killed off as the result of homosexual behaivior.


----------



## Mr. P

5stringJeff said:


> From being gay itself?  None.
> 
> From the effects of homosexual behavior, to include STDs (like AIDS) caught while participating in homosexual behavior?  Dunno, but probably thousands annually in the US.



Maybe. And the rest of the population deaths some 2+ million die from what? Being hetrosexual?


----------



## jillian

glockmail said:


> http://www.prolife.org.ph/page/homosexuality1
> 
> Oops- it looks like I was was off, as the actual percentage is even lower. Are you going to call me a liar now?
> 
> You are referring to a non scientific report from the 1940's when you refer to 10%. Weren't you the one who stated that you prefer science to opinion, or something like that?
> 
> And like my comment to Grump, I am not surprised by your name-calling, but I am disapointed.



I'm not the one who calls people "liar". Remember? 

How on earth would you know what I'm referring to. I didn't post a link, but stated only that estimates go as high as 10%.

Once again, you use religious-based sites, which are always biased toward under-reporting and not based on scientific evidence, to make your point. Why don't you try reading something that doesn't have that type of bias?



> Modern survey results
> Australia 2003: The largest and most thorough survey in Australia to date was conducted by telephone interview with 19,307 respondents between the ages of 16 and 59 in 2001/2002. The study found that 97.4% of men identified as heterosexual, 1.6% as gay and 0.9% as bisexual. For women 97.7% identified as heterosexual, 0.8% as gay and 1.4% as bisexual. Nevertheless, 8.6% of men and 15.1% of women reported either feelings of attraction to the same sex or some sexual experience with the same sex. Half the men and two thirds of the women who had same sex sexual experience regarded themselves as heterosexual rather than homosexual.[2]
> Canada 1988: A study of 5,514 college and university students under the age of 25 found 1% who were homosexual and 1% who were bisexual. [3]
> Canada 1998: A stratified random sample of 750 males aged 18 to 27 in Calgary, Canada included questions on sexual activity and orientation. 15.3% of men "reported being homosexual to some degree" on the basis of three (often overlapping) measures of homosexuality: (1) voluntary, same-gender sexual contact from age 12 to 27: 14.0%; (2) overlapping homosexual (5.9%) and/or bisexual (6.1%) self-identification: 11.1%; and (3) exclusive (4.3%) and non-exclusive (4.9%) same-gender sexual relationships in past 6 months: 9.2%.[4]
> Canada 2003: A survey of 135,000 Canadians found that 1.0% of the respondents identified themselves as homosexual and 0.7% identified themselves as bisexual. About 1.3% of men considered themselves homosexual, about twice the proportion of 0.7% among women. However, 0.9% of women reported being bisexual, slightly higher than the proportion of 0.6% among men. 2.0 % of those in the 18-35 age bracket considered themselves to be either homosexual or bisexual, but the number decreased to 1.9 among 35-44 year olds, and further still to 1.2% in the population aged 45-59. Quebec and British Columbia had higher percentages than the national average at 2.3% and 1.9%, respectively.[5]
> Denmark 1992: A random survey found that 2.7% of the 1,373 men who responded to their questionnaire had homosexual experience (intercourse).[6]
> France 1992: A study of 20,055 people found that 4.1% of the men and 2.6% of the women had at least one occurrence of intercourse with person of the same sex during their lifetime. [7]
> Norway 1988: In a random survey of 6,300 Norwegians, 3.5% of the men and 3% of the women reported that they had had a homosexual experience sometime in their life. [8]
> United Kingdom 1992: A study of 8,337 British men found that 6.1% had had "any homosexual experience" and 3.6% had "1+ homosexual partner ever." [9]
> United States 1990-1992: The American National Health Interview Survey does household interviews of the civilian non-institutionalized population. The results of three of these surveys, done in 1990-1991 and based on over 9,000 responses each time, found between 2-3% of the people responding said yes to a set of statements which included "You are a man who has had sex with another man at some time since 1977, even one time." [10]
> United States 1992: The National Health and Social Life Survey asked 3,432 respondents whether they had any homosexual experience. The findings were 1.3% for women within the past year, and 4.1% since 18 years; for men, 2.7% within the past year, and 4.9% since 18 years;[11]
> United States 1993: The Alan Guttmacher Institute found of sexually-active men aged 2039 found that 2.3% had experienced same-sex sexual activity in the last ten years, and 1.1% reported exclusive homosexual contact during that time.[12]
> United States 1998: A random survey of 1672 males (number used for analysis) aged 15 to 19. Subjects were asked a number of questions, including questions relating to same-sex activity. This was done using two methods  a pencil and paper method, and via computer, supplemented by a verbal rendition of the questionnaire heard through headphones  which obtained vastly different results. There was a 400% increase in males reporting homosexual activity when the computer-audio system was used: from a 1.5% to 5.5% positive response rate; the homosexual behavior with the greatest reporting difference (800%, adjusted) was to the question "Ever had receptive anal sex with another male (his penis in your rectum or butt)": 0.1% to 0.8%.[13]
> United States 2003: Smith's 2003 analysis of National Opinion Research Center data[14] states that 4.9% of sexually active American males had had a male sexual partner since age 18, but that "since age 18 less than 1% are [exclusively] gay and 4+% bisexual". In the top twelve urban areas however, the rates are double the national average. Smith adds that "It is generally believed that including adolescent behavior would further increase these rates."The NORC data has been criticised because the original design sampling techniques were not followed, and depended upon direct self report regarding masturbation and same sex behaviors. (For example, the original data in the early 1990s reported that approximately 40% of adult males had never masturbated--a finding inconsistent with some other studies.)
> In general, surveys quoted by anti-gay activists tend to show figures nearer 1%, while surveys quoted by gay activists tend to show figures nearer 10%, with a mean of 4-5% figure most often cited in mainstream media reports.
> 
> It is important to note, however, that these numbers are subject to many of the pitfalls inherent in researching sensitive social issues. It is possible that survey results may be biased by under-reporting, for instance. (See note 1.) The frequent use of non-random samples (white college students) in many studies could also serve to skew the data.
> 
> In general, most research agrees that the number of people who have had multiple same-gender sexual experiences is fewer than the number of people who have had a single such experience, and that the number of people who identify themselves as exclusively homosexual is fewer than the number of people who have had multiple homosexual experiences.
> 
> In addition, major historical shifts can occur in the prevalence of homosexuality. For example, the Hamburg Institute for Sexual Research conducted a survey over the sexual behavior of young people in 1970, and repeated it in 1990. Whereas in 1970 18% of the boys aged 16 and 17 reported to have made same-sex sexual experiences, the number had dropped to 2% by 1990. [2] "Ever since homosexuality became publicly argued to be an innate sexual orientation, boys' fear of being seen as gay has, if anything, increased," the director of the institute, Volkmar Sigusch, suggested in a 1998 article for a German medical journal. [3]
> 
> In 2005, as part of the statistical and financial measurements required to implement the UK's new Civil Partnerships Act, the British government's H.M. Treasury actuaries calculated that there are 3.6 million British people who may want to enter into a gay or lesbian civil partnership arrangement. This is equal to around 6 percent of the UK population.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_sexual_orientation


----------



## jillian

glockmail said:


> Which was spread from the homosexual population, so now we have normal people being killed off as the result of homosexual behaivior.



Where'd you get *that* information?!?!?!

Is it now your assertion that gays are running around having heterosexual sex?


----------



## Mr. P

jillian said:


> Where'd you get *that* information?!?!?!
> 
> *Is it now your assertion that gays are running around having heterosexual sex?*



Some do, maybe we should call them Bi. Regardless, it's true.


----------



## glockmail

jillian said:


> I'm not the one who calls people "liar". Remember?
> 
> How on earth would you know what I'm referring to. I didn't post a link, but stated only that estimates go as high as 10%.
> 
> Once again, you use religious-based sites, which are always biased toward under-reporting and not based on scientific evidence, to make your point. Why don't you try reading something that doesn't have that type of bias?
> ...



1. Neither am I, remember?
2. The Kinsey "report" has been referenced by the pro-gay agenda for years.
3. The stimates that you cite are in the range that I originally suggested, so by your own data I am correct. You stated earlier: 





> It's also been estimated at approximately 10% (which might, or might not be on the high side) which is in line with the appearance of certain recessive traits in the general population.


 And it appears that you were incorrect.
4. Just because a source has some connection with religion (and I don't know as that one did, as I did not use 'religion' in my search string to find it; I simply picked the first one listed) does not make it invalid, as I have proved to you once again.


----------



## glockmail

jillian said:


> Where'd you get *that* information?!?!?!
> 
> Is it now your assertion that gays are running around having heterosexual sex?



It is well documented that the AIDS epidemic started in the homosexual population. How else did it get to the normal population?


----------



## The ClayTaurus

glockmail said:


> Actually it is, because you asked something rather obvious, and I explained it to you a second time.


 Bullshit. You said perfection is sullied by free will and pure evil. If that's perfection, then what do you call something that is incapable of being sullied? What's better than perfection? Maybe I need you to explain to me what your idea of perfection is so that I can contrast it with mine.





glockmail said:


> Now you are asking me to spoon-feed you. Instead you should think a little more about what you originally asked.


The condescension is great; keep up the good work.


----------



## The ClayTaurus

glockmail said:


> Perhaps you could point out where I said that it was.


 Perhaps you could point out where I said that you said it was.


----------



## The ClayTaurus

glockmail said:


> And like my comment to Grump, I am not surprised by your name-calling, but I am disapointed.


What name calling?


----------



## glockmail

The ClayTaurus said:


> .....what do you call something that is incapable of being sullied? What's better than perfection? ...


  Omnipotent.


----------



## glockmail

The ClayTaurus said:


> What name calling?


 Posts 148 and 149.


----------



## Bullypulpit

manu1959 said:


> so it is normal for a man to wake up one day and say.....
> 
> "ya know i like takin it in the ass and i prefer balls on my chin rather than tits in my face"
> 
> sounds normal to me....i mean what else could mother nature have had in mind....



Another assinine assumption. Let me give you the facts. No one "wakes up" gay. They are aware, even in early childhood that they are somehow different. But that difference becomes clearer with adolescence and all that accompanies it. They find thay are not sexually attracted to females and are sexually attracted to males. Some try to bury these feelings with varying degrees of failure, others embrace it and accept it. It is they who have the fewest difficulties personally or psychologically. 

As for those who repress themselves, the more harsh the repression the greater the personal and psychological damage they endure. Some come to finally accept their sexual orietation and often recover their self-esteem and self-respect. Those that don't, well, they wind up as televangelists.


----------



## jillian

glockmail said:


> Posts 148 and 149.



No one called you names. The sites you referenced are bigoted and homophobic and were referred to as such. No one personalized it by calling you names.  You also knew in advance that those sites would hold no sway.


----------



## Bullypulpit

5stringJeff said:


> From being gay itself?  None.
> 
> From the effects of homosexual behavior, to include STDs (like AIDS) caught while participating in homosexual behavior?  Dunno, but probably thousands annually in the US.



Let's not forget straight folks who engage in promiscuous sexual behaviors...Let's get those stats too.


----------



## jillian

glockmail said:


> Omnipotent.




Omnipotence has nothing to do with perfection... only power.


----------



## manu1959

jillian said:


> Omnipotence has nothing to do with perfection... only power.



if i am an ompnipotent creator with  virtually unlimited authority, influence and power

can i not define perfection and hold all to my definition....why yes i can


----------



## manu1959

Bullypulpit said:


> Another assinine assumption. Let me give you the facts. No one "wakes up" gay. They are aware, even in early childhood that they are somehow different. But that difference becomes clearer with adolescence and all that accompanies it. They find thay are not sexually attracted to females and are sexually attracted to males. Some try to bury these feelings with varying degrees of failure, others embrace it and accept it. It is they who have the fewest difficulties personally or psychologically.
> 
> As for those who repress themselves, the more harsh the repression the greater the personal and psychological damage they endure. Some come to finally accept their sexual orietation and often recover their self-esteem and self-respect. Those that don't, well, they wind up as televangelists.



funny, i had this exact conversation with a gay friend of mine that was married and he told me he woke up one morning and the thought of tits in his face suddenly repulsed him an the idea of anal sex and balls on chin thrilled him to no end.....


----------



## Dr Grump

glockmail said:


> It does not surprise me that you would resort to name calling. Disapointed, yes.



No, not name calling. Look up the words bigot and homophobe. Name calling is things like "dickhead" and "motherfucker" stuff like that. I don't think you are those things. I think you are a bigot and homophobe - words used to describe certain behaviour.


----------



## Dr Grump

manu1959 said:


> funny, i had this exact conversation with a gay friend of mine that was married and he told me he woke up one morning and the thought of tits in his face suddenly repulsed him an the idea of anal sex and balls on chin thrilled him to no end.....



Well since you know *one *gay guy that it happened to it must be the norm and true for all..


----------



## Gunny

Dr Grump said:


> No, not name calling. Look up the words bigot and homophobe. Name calling is things like "dickhead" and "motherfucker" stuff like that. I don't think you are those things. I think you are a bigot and homophobe - words used to describe certain behaviour.



Yeah, right.  You mean handy labels for lefties to throw around when someone doesn't agree with their ideals.


----------



## nt250

Bullypulpit said:


> What proof can you supply showing homosexuality to be an "abnormal" behavior? The APA removed homoseuality from the DSMV back in the early 70's.



It's gross and disgusting and I don't like it.

Proof enough for me when it comes to judging the behavior of others.  What more do I need except my own opinion?


----------



## Dr Grump

GunnyL said:


> Yeah, right.  You mean handy labels for lefties to throw around when someone doesn't agree with their ideals.



Hey, don't shoot the messenger. I didn't invent the words or give them meanings. Using Glock's thin-skin, is "leftie" an insult?

*bigot*

_1 noun a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.  
2  a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own_

Sounds like Glock re homosexuality to me.

*homophobe*

_1 noun a person who fears or hates homosexuals and homosexuality.  
2 Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men. Behavior based on such a feeling. _

Ditto above. 

Tell me that she DOESN'T feel that way...


----------



## manu1959

Dr Grump said:


> Well since you know *one *gay guy that it happened to it must be the norm and true for all..



i guess that would make me wrong about everything and you right about everything....i would surmise that you are this rude in real life


----------



## nt250

Dr Grump said:


> No, not name calling. Look up the words bigot and homophobe. Name calling is things like "dickhead" and "motherfucker" stuff like that. I don't think you are those things. I think you are a bigot and homophobe - words used to describe certain behaviour.



Thanks for proving one of my favorite criticisms of liberals.  Since you consider it true, it can't be a lie, name calling, or "hate".  You can say anything to, or about anybody, and consider yourself above such poor tactics as name calling because you just happen to consider what you call people to be true.


----------



## jillian

nt250 said:


> It's gross and disgusting and I don't like it.
> 
> Proof enough for me when it comes to judging the behavior of others.  What more do I need except my own opinion?



You're certainly entitled to your opinion. What you have no right to do is impose that opinion on others or discriminate based upon it.


----------



## Dr Grump

nt250 said:


> Thanks for proving one of my favorite criticisms of liberals.  Since you consider it true, it can't be a lie, name calling, or "hate".  You can say anything to, or about anybody, and consider yourself above such poor tactics as name calling because you just happen to consider what you call people to be true.



If I thought Glock was an arsehole, I'd say so. That, to me, is an insult. I am bigotted against smokers. I admit it. I don't feel insulted if you call me a bigot for such behaviours. Generally, I am bigotted against the French (at a governmental level). Call me such, and I don't take it as an insult. Go figure...


----------



## Dr Grump

manu1959 said:


> i guess that would make me wrong about everything and you right about everything.



Nope, not even close...



manu1959 said:


> i would surmise that you are this rude in real life



If that were true, I would surmise a smiley face is considered rude behaviour in your world. If I ever meet you in real life, I'll be sure to wear a frown, just so you don't take a smile the wrong way..


----------



## nt250

jillian said:


> No one called you names. The sites you referenced are bigoted and homophobic and were referred to as such. No one personalized it by calling you names.  You also knew in advance that those sites would hold no sway.




Case number 2 of typical liberal tactics:

Jillian, you are one of the rudest people on this board.  You have no qualms about insulting anyone who leans to the right at the slightest provocation.  In another post you claim you don't call people liars when you do exactly that.  

You are the classic Liberal message board poster.  No source is ever good enough unless it agrees with what you already think, and you think so far to the left that NOTHING anyone ever says to you will ever be good enough.  No link, no opinion, nothing will ever sway you and your disgust at anything you disagree with because what you believe is paramount.  Which is fine, we all have our opinions that are basic to our values, but you are a typical Liberal message board poster because you take any disagreement as a personal insult, but can't understand why others who you insult do the same.  

You are rude, and condescending, and insulting to anyone who you think is even a little bit conservative.  And for no other reason that you don't like their politics.  And you see nothing wrong with it because to you it's true, so therefore it cannot be considered rude, condescending, or "hateful".  You liberals only see hate in others, never in yourselves, because to you if it's true, it can't be hate.

The truth is, Liberals spew more hate than anybody.  Like you and Grump, they just don't see it that way.


----------



## MissileMan

Dr Grump said:


> Hey, don't shoot the messenger. I didn't invent the words or give them meanings. Using Glock's thin-skin, is "leftie" an insult?
> 
> *bigot*
> 
> _1 noun a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.
> 2  a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own_
> 
> Sounds like Glock re homosexuality to me.
> 
> *homophobe*
> 
> _1 noun a person who fears or hates homosexuals and homosexuality.
> 2 Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men. Behavior based on such a feeling. _
> 
> Ditto above.
> 
> Tell me that she DOESN'T feel that way...



Grump, Grump, Grump...haven't you learned by now?  An all powerful invisible dude who resides in the sky is REAL and bigots and homophobes are IMAGINARY.


----------



## manu1959

Dr Grump said:


> Nope, not even close...
> 
> If that were true, I would surmise a smiley face is considered rude behavior in your world. If I ever meet you in real life, I'll be sure to wear a frown, just so you don't take a smile the wrong way..



your condensing arrogant post is yet further proof that you are in fact a rude person....


----------



## Dr Grump

manu1959 said:


> your condensing arrogant post is yet further proof that you are in fact a rude person....



I'm sorry you take it that way. I certainly don't mean it that way, and if you take it that way, so be it. You and I have never got on. Never will. Thing is, generally you're pretty condescending a lot of the time yourself. Just the way things are I guess..


----------



## nt250

MissileMan said:


> Grump, Grump, Grump...haven't you learned by now?  An all powerful invisible dude who resides in the sky is REAL and bigots and homophobes are IMAGINARY.




Really?  I don't believe in that imaginary dude.  I'm still against gay right, though.

Hmmm.  Could there maybe be another reason?

Like it's gross and I would rather people keep their disgusting personal habits to themselves and away from my kid?

Nah......


----------



## jillian

nt250 said:


> Case numner 2 of typical liberal tactics:
> 
> Jillian, you are one of the rudest people on this board.



only with rude-ass ignorant people.  I actually think one of the few things I can safely agree with the more right-leaning folk about is that you, in fact, are one of the rudest people on the board. you ever read your own posts? or you just spew without thinking about it? you're the one who tells people who are religious and have faith that they're stupid, tells gay people they're disgusting, liberals they're ignorant... 

let's see... I miss any of your rants?



> You have no qualms about insulting anyone who leans to the right at the slightest provocation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slightest provocation? You mean like having someone who's uninformed call ME stupid? LOL... too funny... and tough... you don't like it, stop running around the board insulting people. Most of us can give as good as we get.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the classic Liberal message board poster.  No source is ever good enough unless it agrees with what you already think
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As opposed to the right-wingers? again.. lol... stop giving crap biased links and there won't be any problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and you think so far to the left that NOTHING anyone ever says to you will ever be good enough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ummmmmm... if you took your head out your butt and actually read instead of having a knee jerk reaction to anyone who disagrees with you, you'd know that I'm not that far left.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No link, no opinion, nothing will ever sway you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No... nothing YOU say could probably sway me because you're ignorant and mean-spirited. Not very effective debating techniques.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and your disgust at anything you disagree with because what you believe is paramount.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you're just projecting, luv.
> 
> Now crawl back into your bottle, babe... because the rest of what you had to say isn't worth my time
> 
> I hope you feel like you impressed someone... because it sure isn't me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Dr Grump

nt250 said:


> Case number 2 of typical liberal tactics:
> 
> Jillian, you are one of the rudest people on this board.  You have no qualms about insulting anyone who leans to the right at the slightest provocation.  In another post you claim you don't call people liars when you do exactly that.
> 
> You are the classic Liberal message board poster.  No source is ever good enough unless it agrees with what you already think, and you think so far to the left that NOTHING anyone ever says to you will ever be good enough.  No link, no opinion, nothing will ever sway you and your disgust at anything you disagree with because what you believe is paramount.  Which is fine, we all have our opinions that are basic to our values, but you are a typical Liberal message board poster because you take any disagreement as a personal insult, but can't understand why others who you insult do the same.
> 
> You are rude, and condescending, and insulting to anyone who you think is even a little bit conservative.  And for no other reason that you don't like their politics.  And you see nothing wrong with it because to you it's true, so therefore it cannot be considered rude, condescending, or "hateful".  You liberals only see hate in others, never in yourselves, because to you if it's true, it can't be hate.
> 
> The truth is, Liberals spew more hate than anybody.  Like you and Grump, they just don't see it that way.



You would be one of the most rudest, in your face posters I have ever come across, period. You spew more hate than most, and openly admit it, so I dunno why you got you titties in a tangle re Jillian. 

Where have I spewed hate? I am the one tolerant of homos, not YOU. I am the one saying don't paint all Muslims with the same brush, NOT you. And yet, we hate. Classic neocon behaviour. Bitch, moan and hate, then tell liberals and centre folk theyr'e the ones doing such...RATFLMAO...


----------



## manu1959

Dr Grump said:


> I'm sorry you take it that way. I certainly don't mean it that way, and if you take it that way, so be it. You and I have never got on. Never will. Thing is, generally you're pretty condescending a lot of the time yourself. Just the way things are I guess..



i am extremely condescending, arrogant, conceited, rude and sarcastic....

i do not pretend otherwise.....


----------



## MissileMan

nt250 said:


> Really?  I don't believe in that imaginary dude.  I'm still against gay right, though.
> 
> Hmmm.  Could there maybe be another reason?
> 
> Like it's gross and I would rather people keep their disgusting personal habits to themselves and away from my kid?
> 
> Nah......



What do your opinions on homosexuals have to do with bigotry and homophobia?


----------



## Dr Grump

MissileMan said:


> Grump, Grump, Grump...haven't you learned by now?  An all powerful invisible dude who resides in the sky is REAL and bigots and homophobes are IMAGINARY.



I know, I spew hate. I remember once having a go at someone who hated "*******". He called me a bigot because I didn't like people who hated "*******". Under the definition, he could be right, but I happily wear that...


----------



## nt250

Dr Grump said:


> If I thought Glock was an arsehole, I'd say so. That, to me, is an insult. I am bigotted against smokers. I admit it. I don't feel insulted if you call me a bigot for such behaviours. Generally, I am bigotted against the French (at a governmental level). Call me such, and I don't take it as an insult. Go figure...




Again, thanks for proving my point.

Accusing someone of being a bigot and a homophobe is an insult.  It's the most common tactic of the gay rights movement and it's been used very successfully to shut down debate.

It's the same as calling someone a racist.

Nobody likes the French so you can get away with that one.


----------



## Dr Grump

manu1959 said:


> i am extremely condescending, arrogant, conceited, rude and sarcastic....
> 
> i do not pretend otherwise.....



Arrogant for sure, rude sometimes, sarcastic sometimes....but I've never seen you act conceited...:spank3:


----------



## nt250

MissileMan said:


> What do your opinions on homosexuals have to do with bigotry and homophobia?



I'm a bigot and a homophobe.  Didn't you know?


----------



## MissileMan

nt250 said:


> I'm a bigot and a homophobe.  Didn't you know?



Then why is someone calling you a bigot or homophobe an insult?


----------



## nt250

Dr Grump said:


> You would be one of the most rudest, in your face posters I have ever come across, period. You spew more hate than most, and openly admit it, so I dunno why you got you titties in a tangle re Jillian.
> 
> Where have I spewed hate? I am the one tolerant of homos, not YOU. I am the one saying don't paint all Muslims with the same brush, NOT you. And yet, we hate. Classic neocon behaviour. Bitch, moan and hate, then tell liberals and centre folk theyr'e the ones doing such...RATFLMAO...



I would really appreciate it if you liberals would make some effort, no matter how small, to find out what the hell a neocon is before you attempt to use it as an insult.  Really.


----------



## Dr Grump

nt250 said:


> Again, thanks for proving my point.
> 
> Accusing someone of being a bigot and a homophobe is an insult.  It's the most common tactic of the gay rights movement and it's been used very successfully to shut down debate.
> 
> It's the same as calling someone a racist.
> 
> Nobody likes the French so you can get away with that one.



So now using a word in its correct definition is an insult? I posted the meaning fo the word. Soembody who doesn't like homos is a homophobe. Take it up with the wordsmiths who invent words and give them their meaning. I certainly don't see it as any way to stiffle debate. I have never seen a debate stopped, or somebody scuttle off with their tail between their legs, due to being called a homophobe..


----------



## manu1959

Dr Grump said:


> Arrogant for sure, rude sometimes, sarcastic sometimes....but I've never seen you act conceited...:spank3:



not an act....comes across very uppercrust in person....my staff calls me House.....trust me i am an ass


----------



## nt250

MissileMan said:


> Then why is someone calling you a bigot or homophobe an insult?



Because it is because I say it is.

What?  Are liberals the only ones who get to make the rules?


----------



## MissileMan

nt250 said:


> I'm a bigot and a homophobe.  Didn't you know?



BTW, admitting you have the problem is the first step on the road to recovery!


----------



## jillian

nt250 said:


> Because it is because I say it is.



Now you know why no one takes you seriously. 



> What?  Are liberals the only ones who get to make the rules?



Now appropriate definitions are a liberal design... damn that webster!! RAFLMAO!!


----------



## manu1959

nt250 said:


> Again, thanks for proving my point.
> 
> Accusing someone of being a bigot and a homophobe is an insult.  It's the most common tactic of the gay rights movement and it's been used very successfully to shut down debate.
> 
> It's the same as calling someone a racist.
> 
> Nobody likes the French so you can get away with that one.



lets see being a homophobe would mean that one has an innate fear of the gay lifestyle.....a fear they are born with and can do nothing about....should not the accepting tolerant gay community tolerate and accept the poor homophobe for they are born that way? i mean no one would choose to be frightened of such a tolerant accepting well dressed group of people.


----------



## nt250

Dr Grump said:


> So now using a word in its correct definition is an insult? I posted the meaning fo the word. Soembody who doesn't like homos is a homophobe. Take it up with the wordsmiths who invent words and give them their meaning. I certainly don't see it as any way to stiffle debate. I have never seen a debate stopped, or somebody scuttle off with their tail between their legs, due to being called a homophobe..




Another classic liberal tactic.  "Take it up with..."

You can insult someone all you want and see nothing wrong with it, and then when called on it you claim the insultee is overreacting or simply doesn't understand. 

America haters do this kind of thing all the time.  They post articles and links to the worst kind of anti-American bullshit and when someone objects, or replies with a counter argument, they say "take it up with the author".

I never claimed I don't insult people.  If I think someone deserves it, I'll call them whatever I think they deserve to be called.

I have to say, though, that I don't understand why stupid people object to being called stupid, except that they're too stupid to realize how stupid they are.


----------



## MissileMan

manu1959 said:


> lets see being a homophobe would mean that one has an innate fear of the gay lifestyle.....a fear they are born with and can do nothing about....should not the accepting tolerant gay community tolerate and accept the poor homophobe for they are born that way? i mean no one would choose to be frightened of such a tolerant accepting well dressed group of people.



Nah...homophobes CHOOSE to fear gays.


----------



## nt250

MissileMan said:


> Nah...homophobes CHOOSE to fear gays.



Now THAT was funny.


----------



## 1549

> It is an obvious fact that Homosexuals cannot reproduce. Therefore someone cannot have a genetic homosexual parent. Since traits are passed on through generations, it is clear that the trait of homosexuality is not passed on through generations, but is in fact a learned response.



Sorry to interject 14 pages later, but that is a terrible argument.  The science is just completely off.

If traits were passed in such a black and white manner, full sized couples would not give birth to midgets, healthy couples would not give birth to impaired children, and so on.  It is all about dominant and recessive traits.  The actual condition may not have appeared on a family tree for many generations (not even necessarily to a direct descendant), but with the "right" pairing, that trait may manifest itself again.

The incorrect science you alluded to is why Hitler sterilized the disabled...in reality, such a plan for "cleansing" the world of disability would never work.  Every relative of a disabled person is going to pass down the trait as well.


----------



## manu1959

1549 said:


> Sorry to interject 14 pages later, but that is a terrible argument.  The science is just completely off.
> 
> If traits were passed in such a black and white manner, full sized couples would not give birth to midgets, healthy couples would not give birth to impaired children, and so on.  It is all about dominant and recessive traits.  The actual condition may not have appeared on a family tree for many generations (not even necessarily to a direct descendant), but with the "right" pairing, that trait may manifest itself again.
> 
> The incorrect science you alluded to is why Hitler sterilized the disabled...in reality, such a plan for "cleansing" the world of disability would never work.  Every relative of a disabled person is going to pass down the trait as well.



no worries....tell me .... how does a gay couple reproduce in the wild?


----------



## manu1959

MissileMan said:


> Nah...homophobes CHOOSE to fear gays.



ah come on.....no one would choose that lifestyle and all the persecution hatred and loathing that goes with it....the must be born that way.....


----------



## 1549

manu1959 said:


> no worries....tell me .... how does a gay couple reproduce in the wild?



As I just posted, gays do not have to reproduce (and never did have to reproduce) for the trait to get passed on.


----------



## Dr Grump

nt250 said:


> I would really appreciate it if you liberals would make some effort, no matter how small, to find out what the hell a neocon is before you attempt to use it as an insult.  Really.



I know what a neocon is. Is this the part where you take me to that site that explains that all this time liberals and normal folk have been using the term incorrectly? Been there, done that. Outsida that, I didn't know it was an insult. However, calling me a liberal is!


----------



## manu1959

1549 said:


> As I just posted, gays do not have to reproduce (and never did have to reproduce) for the trait to get passed on.



you have read the recent studies that claim it is tied to hormones in the womb and not genetic?


----------



## The ClayTaurus

glockmail said:


> Posts 148 and 149.


What name calling in 149?


----------



## manu1959

Dr Grump said:


> I know what a neocon is. Is this the part where you take me to that site that explains that all this time liberals and normal folk have been using the term incorrectly? Been there, done that. Outsida that, I didn't know it was an insult. However, calling me a liberal is!



this has always facinated me....why is being liberal (tollerant in your thinking) an insult and why is being a neocon (new conservative) an insult.....

seems to me if i was one of those and belived in what the words stood for i would say thank you.....


----------



## manu1959

The ClayTaurus said:


> What name calling in 149?



how was last call? 10 at 2 and 2 at 10 huh?


----------



## The ClayTaurus

glockmail said:


> Omnipotent.


So define perfection, please. Clearly it isn't "optimal in all aspects", as that is your definition of omnipotent.


----------



## The ClayTaurus

manu1959 said:


> how was last call? 10 at 2 and 2 at 10 huh?


Excuse me?


----------



## 1549

manu1959 said:


> you have read the recent studies that claim it is tied to hormones in the womb and not genetic?



No, in high school biology I learned how dominant and recessive traits work.

I am sure countless gay men in the distant past had sex with women.  They did it because everyone else was, perhaps they wanted a son, perhaps they just wanted to screw something...the reason is irrelevant. That event is all it takes for the gene to get passed on for all of eternity.  Most likely a recessive trait that manifests itself every so often.  Just like numerous other genetic conditions that exist today.


----------



## The ClayTaurus

manu1959 said:


> if i am an ompnipotent creator with  virtually unlimited authority, influence and power
> 
> can i not define perfection and hold all to my definition....why yes i can


Sure. But I doubt any of us would be clued into it, especially when we have our own non-omnipotent definition that doesn't seem to quite work.


----------



## manu1959

The ClayTaurus said:


> Excuse me?



bar.... last call...rollin in late? get it....nevermind


----------



## The ClayTaurus

manu1959 said:


> bar.... last call...rollin in late? get it....nevermind


It's only midnight here.

Tigers just beat the shit outta your boys. I was in front of the TV.


----------



## Dr Grump

nt250 said:


> You can insult someone all you want and see nothing wrong with it, and then when called on it you claim the insultee is overreacting or simply doesn't understand.
> 
> America haters do this kind of thing all the time.  They post articles and links to the worst kind of anti-American bullshit and when someone objects, or replies with a counter argument, they say "take it up with the author".
> 
> I never claimed I don't insult people.  If I think someone deserves it, I'll call them whatever I think they deserve to be called.
> 
> I have to say, though, that I don't understand why stupid people object to being called stupid, except that they're too stupid to realize how stupid they are.




Like you I happily insult people if it is warranted. I just don't see using a dictionary definition to accurately display someone's behaviour as an insult. 

I just love how neocons are the ones who call others Amerihaters. Weak argument...very weak. It's a sure sign they've lost the argument and know it...


----------



## Dr Grump

manu1959 said:


> this has always facinated me....why is being liberal (tollerant in your thinking) an insult and why is being a neocon (new conservative) an insult.....
> 
> seems to me if i was one of those and belived in what the words stood for i would say thank you.....



I agree.


----------



## nt250

Dr Grump said:


> I know what a neocon is. Is this the part where you take me to that site that explains that all this time liberals and normal folk have been using the term incorrectly? Been there, done that. Outsida that, I didn't know it was an insult. However, calling me a liberal is!



I'll assume you are half joking about being insulted by being called a liberal, but I do find it perplexing that many liberals are insulted by being called a liberal.  It's probably due to the intent of the person who calls them that.  If it's meant as an insult, it is only natural that you would take it as an insult.  It's a concept liberals never seem to understand when they use similiar labels to insult others.  

Most liberals have no idea what a "neocon" is.  They think all conservatives are neocons because they only read liberal view points.  I've never come across a liberal on a message board yet who understands what a real conservative is.

Do you ever read George Will?  Pat Buchanan? Armstrong Williams?  Phyllis Schafly?  Bill O'Reilly?  Michelle Malkin?  Ann Coulter? 

There are a lot of conservatives out there who do not hold to the PNAC view.  But most liberals on message boards don't seem to know that because they refuse to read anything written by anybody who they perceive to be a conservative.

They'll read any far-out, left wing, nutjob, Tin Foil Hat Brigade, blog but they won't read a single word Ann Coulter writes without a vomit bucket.

It's really pathetic.


----------



## Dr Grump

nt250 said:


> I'll assume you are half joking about being insulted by being called a liberal, but I do find it perplexing that many liberals are insulted by being called a liberal.  It's probably due to the intent of the person who calls them that.  If it's meant as an insult, it is only natural that you would take it as an insult.  It's a concept liberals never seem to understand when they use similiar labels to insult others.
> 
> Most liberals have no idea what a "neocon" is.  They think all conservatives are neocons because they only read liberal view points.  I've never come across a liberal on a message board yet who understands what a real conservative is.
> 
> Do you ever read George Will?  Pat Buchanan? Armstrong Williams?  Phyllis Schafly?  Bill O'Reilly?  Michelle Malkin?  Ann Coulter?
> 
> There are a lot of conservatives out there who do not hold to the PNAC view.  But most liberals on message boards don't seem to know that because they refuse to read anything written by anybody who they perceive to be a conservative.
> 
> They'll read any far-out, left wing, nutjob, Tin Foil Hat Brigade, blog but they won't read a single word Ann Coulter writes without a vomit bucket.
> 
> It's really pathetic.



I'm not insulted at all by being called a liberal, only that I am not one. It's hardly a bad thing. There are a lot worse things to be called.

Most conservatives on this board are conservatives. There are only a couple of neocons IMO...

I have read Coulter, Buchanan, Malkin and O'Reilly. Have not read Will (although I know who he is) and I have not heard of Schafly...


----------



## nt250

Dr Grump said:


> I'm not insulted at all by being called a liberal, only that I am not one. It's hardly a bad thing. There are a lot worse things to be called.
> 
> Most conservatives on this board are conservatives. There are only a couple of neocons IMO...
> 
> I have read Coulter, Buchanan, Malkin and O'Reilly. Have not read Will (although I know who he is) and I have not heard of Schafly...



George Will is probably the most intelligent and even handed conservative columnist there is.  But it's tough to get through any of his columns without a dictionary handy.  Let's just say he like words.  If you're a baseball fan, you'll love him.  When he doesn't write about politics he writes about his true love:  baseball.

Phyllis Schafly is a very accomplished woman.  She was one of the first female graduates of her law school.  She was a real pioneer in womens rights.  But she's an extreme conservative in the sense that doesn't believe in the concept of feminism.  Feminists hate her guts.  She's a traditional conservative like Will, and traditional conservatives have no use for Bush or the neocons.  But she's a really fascinating person.  I like reading her columns but they can be on the dry side.


----------



## manu1959

The ClayTaurus said:


> It's only midnight here.
> 
> Tigers just beat the shit outta your boys. I was in front of the TV.



hate baseball...stupid sport really.....cricket without the tea


----------



## manu1959

Dr Grump said:


> I agree.



now now now .... don't be all nice like this ... people will start talking


----------



## glockmail

Dr Grump said:


> No, not name calling. Look up the words bigot and homophobe. Name calling is things like "dickhead" and "motherf....er" stuff like that. I don't think you are those things. I think you are a bigot and homophobe - words used to describe certain behaviour.


  This is childish behavior, you calling me something that you have no proof of. What if I called you a poop pusher? You would be insulted, no?


----------



## glockmail

The ClayTaurus said:


> So define perfection, please. Clearly it isn't "optimal in all aspects", as that is your definition of omnipotent.


 Look the terms up. Perfect can be destroyed, omipotent cannot.:spank3:


----------



## The ClayTaurus

glockmail said:


> Look the terms up. Perfect can be destroyed, omipotent cannot.:spank3:



Perfect:
1. Lacking nothing essential to the whole; complete of its nature or kind. 2. Being without defect or blemish: a perfect specimen. 3. Thoroughly skilled or talented in a certain field or area; proficient. 4. Completely suited for a particular purpose or situation: She was the perfect actress for the part. 5a. Completely corresponding to a description, standard, or type: a perfect circle; a perfect gentleman. b. Accurately reproducing an original: a perfect copy of the painting. 6. Complete; thorough; utter: a perfect fool. 7. Pure; undiluted; unmixed: perfect red. 8. Excellent and delightful in all respects: a perfect day. 9. Botany Having both stamens and pistils in the same flower; monoclinous. 10. Grammar Of, relating to, or constituting a verb form expressing action completed prior to a fixed point of reference in time. 11. Music Designating the three basic intervals of the octave, fourth, and fifth. 

Omnipotent:
Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful. 

Actually, I don't see any mention of the word destruction anywhere. I guess you think something can be perfect even if it can be sullied by something less than perfect.

I disagree. "Lacking nothing essential to the whole" leads me to believe that continued existence is pretty essential to the whole, and therefore the ability to destroy something renders it imperfect.

Beyond that, there is no mention in the defintion of omnipotent of perfection. Omnipotent deals not with characteristics but merely power/authority/influence.


----------



## The ClayTaurus

glockmail said:


> This is childish behavior, you calling me something that you have no proof of. What if I called you a poop pusher? You would be insulted, no?


Probably depends on if he was a poop pusher or not.


----------



## Abbey Normal

The ClayTaurus said:


> Perfect:
> ...
> I disagree. "Lacking nothing essential to the whole" leads me to believe that continued existence is pretty essential to the whole, and therefore the ability to destroy something renders it imperfect.
> ...



Clay, Clay, you are much smarter than this. Perfection and indestructability are not in any way synonymous. Picture a butterfly, fully formed, perfect wings, etc. Now picture your foot coming down on it. Or a rose, with every petal formed into the ideal rose shape, not a blemish in sight. Crushed in your hand. 

In both cases: Perfection, destroyed.


----------



## The ClayTaurus

Abbey Normal said:


> Clay, Clay, you are much smarter than this. Perfection and indestructability are not in any way synonymous. Picture a butterfly, fully formed, perfect wings, etc. Now picture your foot coming down on it. Or a rose, with every petal formed into the ideal rose shape, not a blemish in sight. Crushed in your hand.
> 
> In both cases: Perfection, destroyed.


I guess it depends on semantics as to whether the working definition of perfect is true to the technical definition. Your examples do illustrate the working definition of something perfect quite well, and I will admit I was getting caught up in the technicalities.

I suppose I have difficulty comparing our existence with a butterfly underfoot or a rose in clenched fist. But perhaps that has to do with my innate belief that life evolves so as to not crush underfoot so easily the next time. Wouldn't a butterfly that was capable of dodging a life-threatening foot stomp be more perfect than the regular, dead, squished butterfly?


----------



## glockmail

The ClayTaurus said:


> ....
> 
> Actually, I don't see any mention of the word destruction anywhere. ......



 

You have gone so far outside the realm of reasonableness here.


----------



## The ClayTaurus

glockmail said:


> You have gone so far outside the realm of reasonableness here.


Probably. But we've moved on from that post. I understand it's easier to just take potshots rather than discuss.


----------



## glockmail

The ClayTaurus said:


> Probably. But we've moved on from that post. I understand it's easier to just take potshots rather than discuss.


  That 'splains a lot about your last few responses. I am interested in discussion; you are interested in defamation.:thumbdown:


----------



## The ClayTaurus

glockmail said:


> That 'splains a lot about your last few responses. I am interested in discussion; you are interested in defamation.:thumbdown:


Defamation? Where? What post #? I haven't defamed you in any way.

If you're interested in discussion, what's your response to post 238 then?


----------



## glockmail

The ClayTaurus said:


> [1]Defamation? Where? What post #? I haven't defamed you in any way.
> 
> [2]If you're interested in discussion, what's your response to post 238 then?



1. Your entire 3 or 4 day tangential insistence that perfection cannot be destroyed.:thumbdown: 

2. Now you expect me to respond to your post quoting someone else.


----------



## The ClayTaurus

glockmail said:


> 1. Your entire 3 or 4 day tangential insistence that perfection cannot be destroyed.:thumbdown:


 You call that defamation? Defamation of what? The word perfection? Certainly not of you, right? Defamation. That's rich.





glockmail said:


> 2. Now you expect me to respond to your post quoting someone else.


No. Hence why I asked you the question outright to respond, because I don't expect you to do much of anything. Which you haven't. 

Interested in discussion my ass.


----------



## glockmail

The ClayTaurus said:


> You call that defamation? Defamation of what? The word perfection? Certainly not of you, right? Defamation. That's rich.No. Hence why I asked you the question outright to respond, because I don't expect you to do much of anything. Which you haven't.
> 
> Interested in discussion my ass.



Gee. I'm shocked at your belligerence.


----------



## Abbey Normal

The ClayTaurus said:


> I guess it depends on semantics as to whether the working definition of perfect is true to the technical definition. Your examples do illustrate the working definition of something perfect quite well, and I will admit I was getting caught up in the technicalities.
> 
> I suppose I have difficulty comparing our existence with a butterfly underfoot or a rose in clenched fist. But perhaps that has to do with my innate belief that life evolves so as to not crush underfoot so easily the next time. Wouldn't a butterfly that was capable of dodging a life-threatening foot stomp be more perfect than the regular, dead, squished butterfly?



Essentially, I think the entire food chain is susceptible to any species that is higher up. Cats will always be excellent hunters of mice, for example.  I just don't see mice evolving to be grest at escaping the clutches of my cat. That doesn't mean that any particular mouse can't be "perfect" as a mouse.  

Anyway, Clay, you yourself are pretty close to perfect. We just need to "conservatize" you a bit.


----------



## The ClayTaurus

Abbey Normal said:


> Essentially, I think the entire food chain is susceptible to any species that is higher up. Cats will always be excellent hunters of mice, for example.  I just don't see mice evolving to be grest at escaping the clutches of my cat. That doesn't mean that any particular mouse can't be "perfect" as a mouse.


I guess it comes down to absolute vs. relative perfection. Either way, I appreciate your patience in talking about it.





Abbey Normal said:


> Anyway, Clay, you yourself are pretty close to perfect. We just need to "conservatize" you a bit.


Am I the butterfly or the rose?


----------



## The ClayTaurus

glockmail said:


> Gee. I'm shocked at your belligerence.


 Gee. I'm shocked at your avoidance.

Go ahead, tell me I'm defaming you again. :rotflmao:


----------



## glockmail

The ClayTaurus said:


> ....I'm shocked at your avoidance.....


----------



## Abbey Normal

The ClayTaurus said:


> I guess it comes down to absolute vs. relative perfection. Either way, I appreciate your patience in talking about it.Am I the butterfly or the rose?



I compare you to a kiss from a rose on the grey. 

Thanks to Elton, butterflies are too, well, gay.


----------



## The ClayTaurus

Abbey Normal said:


> I compare you to a kiss from a rose on the grey.
> 
> Thanks to Elton, butterflies are too, well, gay.


I'll be sure to watch for the clenching fist, then!

You can be the butterfly, I suppose, so long as that doesn't make you feel too gay


----------



## Abbey Normal

The ClayTaurus said:


> I'll be sure to watch for the clenching fist, then!
> 
> You can be the butterfly, I suppose, so long as that doesn't make you feel too gay



"Not that there's anything wrong with that!"

But no thanks. Perfect or not, they're still insects, with legs and antennae and all that icky stuff.


----------



## Gunny

Dr Grump said:


> Hey, don't shoot the messenger. I didn't invent the words or give them meanings. Using Glock's thin-skin, is "leftie" an insult?
> 
> *bigot*
> 
> _1 noun a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.
> 2  a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own_
> 
> Sounds like Glock re homosexuality to me.
> 
> *homophobe*
> 
> _1 noun a person who fears or hates homosexuals and homosexuality.
> 2 Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men. Behavior based on such a feeling. _
> 
> Ditto above.
> 
> Tell me that she DOESN'T feel that way...



I don't see that glockmail, nor anyone else who opposes homosexuality, or anything else necessarily fits those definitions.

By definition, we are ALL bigots.  However, the dictionary definition is a bit different than the label, but then, you KNOW that.  It carries with it a connotation of hatred, and is used to demean.

Believing homosexuality is wrong, abnormal behavior, and not deserving of special laws that cater specifically to a behavior does not make one a homophobe, by definition.


----------



## glockmail

Dr Grump said:


> .... Using Glock's thin-skin,......



That's smooth, sensual skin to you babe.:halo:


----------



## Joz

GunnyL said:


> I don't see that glockmail, nor anyone else who opposes homosexuality, or anything else necessarily fits those definitions.
> 
> By definition, we are ALL bigots.  However, the dictionary definition is a bit different than the label, but then, you KNOW that.  It carries with it a connotation of hatred, and is used to demean.
> 
> Believing homosexuality is wrong, abnormal behavior, and not deserving of special laws that cater specifically to a behavior does not make one a homophobe, by definition.


I was recently referred to, by a colleague, as a *"gender bigot"*, because I do not do same-sex unions.


----------



## 5stringJeff

Joz said:


> I was recently referred to, by a colleague, as a *"gender bigot"*, because I do not do same-sex unions.



Wow.  I had no idea the marriage business had that kind of people in it.


----------



## glockmail

Joz said:


> I was recently referred to, by a colleague, as a *"gender bigot"*, because I do not do same-sex unions.


 Perhaps you can ask him how he justifies his sins against God.


----------



## Joz

5stringJeff said:


> Wow.  I had no idea the marriage business had that kind of people in it.


You'd be surprised at what I've come across.
Women wanting to marry during the Equinox as all things male & female are equal.
People including their pets in the ceremony.  In fact, the lady who referred to me as a gender bigot performs pet funerals.
Ceremonies for
Wiccan
Pagan
Athiest
But mostly same-sex unions.

I don't seem to fit in too many places.


----------



## nt250

GunnyL said:


> Believing homosexuality is wrong, abnormal behavior, and not deserving of special laws that cater specifically to a behavior does not make one a homophobe, by definition.



Exactly.


----------



## nt250

Joz said:


> You'd be surprised at what I've come across.
> Women wanting to marry during the Equinox as all things male & female are equal.
> People including their pets in the ceremony.  In fact, the lady who referred to me as a gender bigot performs pet funerals.
> Ceremonies for
> Wiccan
> Pagan
> Athiest
> But mostly same-sex unions.
> 
> I don't seem to fit in too many places.



What's wrong with pet funerals?

I have my beloved Sam's ashes on my mantle right now.  He was that one great dog I think all of us dog lovers have in our lifetimes.  All dogs are great, but there is always one that is a great dog.

Sam died on August 16, 1999.  I still miss him.  He was my baby boy.

Sam Blaze
1987-August 16, 1999


----------



## Joz

glockmail said:


> Perhaps you can ask him how he justifies his sins against God.


But see, they don't view it as sin.  We are celebrating LOVE!  This is "living & let live".  By me refusing to do same-sex unions, I'm told I'm not tolerant; I'm _discriminating,_ because of gender.  

And I had girls/women from one bridal message board email me & tell me they donot agree with my principles; my way of thinking.  Gee, I don't remember asking them.  I don't go there anymore.


----------



## Joz

nt250 said:


> What's wrong with pet funerals?
> 
> I have my beloved Sam's ashes on my mantle right now.  He was that one great dog I think all of us dog lovers have in our lifetimes.  All dogs are great, but there is always one that is a great dog.
> 
> Sam died on August 16, 1999.  I still miss him.  He was my baby boy.
> 
> Sam Blaze
> 1987-August 16, 1999


You misunderstood.  That was not a criticism.  That was just info.  Pets are a vital part of a family.


----------



## nt250

Joz said:


> Gee, I don't remember asking them.



That's an excellent point.  It's very funny how some people expect their own opinions to just be excepted and validated, but never anybody elses.

I guess we're all guilty of doing that when we think we're right about something.


----------



## glockmail

Joz said:


> But see, they don't view it as sin.  We are celebrating LOVE!  This is "living & let live".  By me refusing to do same-sex unions, I'm told I'm not tolerant; I'm _discriminating,_ because of gender.
> 
> .....



Let me get this straight- are you a Christain minister?


----------



## Joz

glockmail said:


> Let me get this straight- are you a Christain minister?


I'm ordained by a Christian church & licensed by the State (a requirement here, not everywhere) as a nondenominational minister; tho' for many years I followed a particular religion and still do believe their message.  But I do not force that belief upon people.  But I do honor the Christian part.

Here is a link to my website:

http://www.weddingvowsandpromises.com

*Is this about the gun?*


----------



## Kagom

All this talk about pets is making me sad.  I miss my Guinevere doggy


----------



## glockmail

Joz said:


> I'm ordained by a Christian church & licensed by the State (a requirement here, not everywhere) as a nondenominational minister; tho' for many years I followed a particular religion and still do believe their message.  But I do not force that belief upon people.  But I do honor the Christian part.
> 
> Here is a link to my website:
> 
> http://www.weddingvowsandpromises.com
> 
> *Is this about the gun?*



Well if you are ordained by a Christian church then its a no-brainer. Homosexuality is a sin and a minister should not propagate that sin. This moral relativism practiced by some is pure baloney. No matter how you interpret homosexuality, it has always been and always will be a grave sin.

*What about what gun?*


----------



## glockmail

Kagom said:


> All this talk about pets is making me sad.  I miss my Guinevere doggy



Ain't it awful? Dogs pull on our hearts worse than most people.


----------



## Kagom

glockmail said:


> Ain't it awful? Dogs pull on our hearts worse than most people.


Especially when they have puppies


----------



## Joz

glockmail said:


> Well if you are ordained by a Christian church then its a no-brainer. Homosexuality is a sin and a minister should not propagate that sin. This moral relativism practiced by some is pure baloney. No matter how you interpret homosexuality, it has always been and always will be a grave sin.


You would think that, wouldn't you?  But that's not the way things are going.  More & more Christians are accepting this practice.  It's as though, God's origional plan isn't "up-to-date", that this Meany is trying to keep us from being happy.  God needs a more "with-it" attitude.

This Wiccan priestess claims to be a _Christian._
http://www.geocities.com/falonmoon/bio.html

One woman that was corresponding with me refuses to answer my email because she read that I don't perform same-sex unions.  I never said she couldn't do them.  I just stated I wouldn't.  





> *What about what gun?*


The Glock picture


----------



## glockmail

Joz said:


> You would think that, wouldn't you?  But that's not the way things are going.  More & more Christians are accepting this practice.  It's as though, God's origional plan isn't "up-to-date", that this Meany is trying to keep us from being happy.  God needs a more "with-it" attitude.
> 
> This Wiccan priestess claims to be a _Christian._
> http://www.geocities.com/falonmoon/bio.html
> 
> One woman that was corresponding with me refuses to answer my email because she read that I don't perform same-sex unions.  I never said she couldn't do them.  I just stated I wouldn't.
> 
> 
> 
> The Glock picture



The "New Age Christians" are going to be in one Hell of a surprise! :dev1: 

You mean the one with the silencer? Nice.


----------



## jillian

Joz said:


> You would think that, wouldn't you?  But that's not the way things are going.  More & more Christians are accepting this practice.  It's as though, God's origional plan isn't "up-to-date", that this Meany is trying to keep us from being happy.  God needs a more "with-it" attitude.
> 
> This Wiccan priestess claims to be a _Christian._
> http://www.geocities.com/falonmoon/bio.html
> 
> One woman that was corresponding with me refuses to answer my email because she read that I don't perform same-sex unions.  I never said she couldn't do them.  I just stated I wouldn't.



Hope you don't mind my jumping in here, Joz. But I wanted to add my .02. I don't think anyone, of any religious denomination should be forced to perform a wedding service for a gay couple. If a particular group wishes to perform such services, that's certainly up to them, but that should be a matter of personal choice and conscience.

My only position on the gay marriage issue is that they should have the same civil rights as any other couple. For example, they can't collect each other's social security benefits, etc.

On a religious front, it's the province of the particular denomination. So if that's a service that you would choose not to perform, I respect that as an outgrowth of your beliefs.

Anyway....


----------



## nt250

jillian said:


> My only position on the gay marriage issue is that they should have the same civil rights as any other couple. For example, they can't collect each other's social security benefits, etc.
> 
> On a religious front, it's the province of the particular denomination. So if that's a service that you would choose not to perform, I respect that as an outgrowth of your beliefs.
> 
> Anyway....



I agree with that.  I have nothing but disdain for all religions, but I think it's ridiculous for gays to expect a religion to change it's rules and beliefs just for them.  I feel the same way about gays and the Boy Scouts and about atheists and the Boy Scouts.

What's dumber than an atheist wanting the Boy Scouts to change their pledge just so they can join and not have their wittle feelings hurt?  Sheesh.  Talk about stupid.


----------



## jillian

nt250 said:


> I agree with that.  I have nothing but disdain for all religions, but I think it's ridiculous for gays to expect a religion to change it's rules and beliefs just for them.  I feel the same way about gays and the Boy Scouts and about atheists and the Boy Scouts.
> 
> What's dumber than an atheist wanting the Boy Scouts to change their pledge just so they can join and not have their wittle feelings hurt?  Sheesh.  Talk about stupid.



I respect religion. I don't understand why people find certain things credible (like the whole 72 virgins thing) but if someone walks the walk, then kudos to them. It's fake religious people who make me crazy.... the hucksters and hypocrites and the people who use religion to shed blood. That said, I don't think any religion should have to change for anyone. If someone doesn't find what they're looking for in one faith, I'm pretty sure they can find it in another if that's what they want, or in another denomination of their own faith.


----------



## nt250

jillian said:


> I respect religion. I don't understand why people find certain things credible (like the whole 72 virgins thing) but if someone walks the walk, then kudos to them. It's fake religious people who make me crazy.... the hucksters and hypocrites and the people who use religion to shed blood. That said, I don't think any religion should have to change for anyone. If someone doesn't find what they're looking for in one faith, I'm pretty sure they can find it in another if that's what they want, or in another denomination of their own faith.




The 72 virgin thing is a myth, I think.  Or maybe I just never read the right source with that translation.  I have no clue.  But I spent almost two years reading lots of different versions of the Koran and Hadiths online, and while I did not read all of it, I never read anything about any 72 virgins.  I searched for it, too, and I couldn't find anything about it except from obviously Christian anti-Islam sites.

The rewards of paradise for those who die in defense of Islam?  Oh, yeah, there was a lot of that.  But no 72 Virgins.  I have no idea who came up with that or why.

As far as people wanting "their" religion to change to make their ideas acceptable, like Jews For Jesus, or Catholics who want priests to be able to marry, I look at those people the same way I look at politically active atheists.  They just need a cause.  They're self centered egotists who just don't get the fact that world does not revolve around them.


----------



## Yurt

What is "gay?" 

What is the definition?

1.  An anal lover?

2.  A same sex lover? 

3.  A person who acts on one or both of those?


If you say one or two, then if you have ever looked at another and thought certain thoughts, then from a christain perspective, you have sinned.  He/she who lusts after by looks...  

Three, is what I consider to be what the Bible is against.  If you want to say that just simply being someone who likes the same sex is a homo and therefore condemned, show me the verse.  My understanding is putting your God given reproductive organ in a a**dumpster.

If you are religious, and you believe that homosexuals" are not natural, then how did they get that way.  As the thread starter said, an aberration?


----------



## Gunny

Yurt said:


> What is "gay?"
> 
> What is the definition?
> 
> 1.  An anal lover?
> 
> 2.  A same sex lover?
> 
> 3.  A person who acts on one or both of those?
> 
> 
> If you say one or two, then if you have ever looked at another and thought certain thoughts, then from a christain perspective, you have sinned.  He/she who lusts after by looks...
> 
> Three, is what I consider to be what the Bible is against.  If you want to say that just simply being someone who likes the same sex is a homo and therefore condemned, show me the verse.  My understanding is putting your God given reproductive organ in a a**dumpster.
> 
> If you are religious, and you believe that homosexuals" are not natural, then how did they get that way.  As the thread starter said, an aberration?



Aberration works.


----------



## glockmail

Yurt said:


> ......
> Three, is what I consider to be what the Bible is against.  If you want to say that just simply being someone who likes the same sex is a homo and therefore condemned, show me the verse.  ....



This is the best explanation that I have seen:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=485709&postcount=1


----------



## Joz

jillian said:


> My only position on the gay marriage issue is that they should have the same civil rights as any other couple. For example, they can't collect each other's social security benefits, etc....


My intent is not to argue; but don't they already?  I mean they have the same rights as you or I.  

If you're speaking as a married couple, they can't have the same rights because we as a people have deemd that a "marriage" is one man & one woman.  Therefore they cannot have the same rights because they aren't legally married.
Same goes for any couple that lives together.  Most states do not recognize common law marriage anymore.  A couple can be together all their lives but they can't share in the same rights as a_ legally married couple._


----------



## Joz

nt250 said:


> .... I have nothing but disdain for all religions, ....


Wow, that makes me feel all warm & fuzzy.

Care to explain, why?


----------



## jillian

Joz said:


> My intent is not to argue; but don't they already?  I mean they have the same rights as you or I.
> 
> If you're speaking as a married couple, they can't have the same rights because we as a people have deemd that a "marriage" is one man & one woman.  Therefore they cannot have the same rights because they aren't legally married.
> Same goes for any couple that lives together.  Most states do not recognize common law marriage anymore.  A couple can be together all their lives but they can't share in the same rights as a_ legally married couple._



Oh... I don't want to argue with you, either, and I hope I didn't appear argumentative with you. But I'm happy to discuss the subject with you if you wish.

The difference between your example of a couple that chooses to live together instead of getting married and a gay couple is one of choice. The heterosexual couple living together can choose to get married. The gay couple who have lived together for years and formed a family unit, don't have tht option. The moment you marry, you have certain rights... rights to their pensions, rights to their social security benefits, etc. Those rights don't apply and can't be contracted in the context of a homosexual relationship, even if they've treated their relationship as "til death do we part". 

I guess I don't think that's fair on a civil level, though different religions should certainly not be forced to participate in those ceremonies should they choose not to.


----------



## nt250

Joz said:


> Wow, that makes me feel all warm & fuzzy.
> 
> Care to explain, why?




Because religion is stupid.

Anything else I can help clear up for you?


----------



## Joz

jillian said:


> Oh... I don't want to argue with you, either, and I hope I didn't appear argumentative with you. But I'm happy to discuss the subject with you if you wish.


Works for me.



> The difference between your example of a couple that chooses to live together instead of getting married and a gay couple is one of choice. The heterosexual couple living together can choose to get married. The gay couple who have lived together for years and formed a family unit, don't have tht option. The moment you marry, you have certain rights... rights to their pensions, rights to their social security benefits, etc. Those rights don't apply and can't be contracted in the context of a homosexual relationship, even if they've treated their relationship as "til death do we part".
> 
> I guess I don't think that's fair on a civil level, though different religions should certainly not be forced to participate in those ceremonies should they choose not to.


If I understand you right, you don't like the idea of gays not having the _choice _to be married?  

There are many "family units" where the two reigning adults are not married.  They accept the fact that they do not get the same benefits as they would being 'legal'.  And too, even a heterosexual couple must be together for enough years in order for the wife to get any of the husband's social security.  It used to be 20 years but it's been lowered to only 10 years, now, I believe.  And too, if any couple wants to make that 'til-death-us-do-part commitment, and many do before a officiant/celebrant but not actually contractual,  they can go to a lawyer and have a will or other papers drawn up that allows their life-partner to inherit their earthly belongings.

This still goes back to what the majority wants.  They don't want gays to be _"married"_; this is how the people want their cities/states/country to be.


----------



## Joz

nt250 said:


> Because religion is stupid.
> 
> Anything else I can help clear up for you?


No, thank you; that about does it.


----------



## nt250

Joz said:


> Works for me.
> 
> If I understand you right, you don't like the idea of gays not having the _choice _to be married?
> 
> There are many "family units" where the two reigning adults are not married.  They accept the fact that they do not get the same benefits as they would being 'legal'.  And too, even a heterosexual couple must be together for enough years in order for the wife to get any of the husband's social security.  It used to be 20 years but it's been lowered to only 10 years, now, I believe.  And too, if any couple wants to make that 'til-death-us-do-part commitment, and many do before a officiant/celebrant but not actually contractual,  they can go to a lawyer and have a will or other papers drawn up that allows their life-partner to inherit their earthly belongings.
> 
> This still goes back to what the majority wants.  They don't want gays to be _"married"_; this is how the people want their cities/states/country to be.



We don't have majority rule in this country.


----------



## Joz

nt250 said:


> We don't have majority rule in this country.


Apparently we do.  Gay "marriage" is not legal.


----------



## nt250

Joz said:


> Apparently we do.  Gay "marriage" is not legal.



What does gay marriage have to do with the concept of majority rule?  Every place that has legalized it did so through court decisions.


----------



## Joz

nt250 said:


> What does gay marriage have to do with the concept of majority rule?  Every place that has legalized it did so through court decisions.


Which isn't the way it's suppose to be.


----------



## nt250

Joz said:


> Which isn't the way it's suppose to be.



Sure it is.  It's called separation of powers and we have it for a reason.  The legislature, or the people through ballot initiatives, can't just pass any law they want to.

The fact that judges sometimes make the wrong decisions doesn't make the process wrong.  It just means we need better judges.

And there is the rub.  The only time people complain about "activist" judges is when they decide against them.  When they decide in their favor, they're brilliant legal minds at work.


----------



## Dr Grump

nt250 said:


> Every place that has legalized it did so through court decisions.



Really? what countries?


----------



## nt250

Dr Grump said:


> Really? what countries?



I don't know about countries, but Massachusetts allowed same sex marriage because of a court decision.  There was some city where the mayor used that to decide to allow same sex marriage there.  San Fransico maybe?  

I'm not sure what the current status is today, but in Gerry Studds obituary his partner was referred to as his "husband" so I assume it's either still legal here, or those marriages that took place are still considered legal.

The Vermont civil union law was a direct result of a court decision that declared the prohibition on same sex marriage to be unconstitutional.  I can't remember the grounds though.  Might have been equal protection.  I forget.

And wasn't there some town in New York that was allowing it for awhile?

Oh, and I do know that Canada allows same sex marriage.  I was a big fan of the TV show Queer As Folk.  I'm not sure if that law was the result of a court decision though or not.


----------



## jillian

Joz said:


> Which isn't the way it's suppose to be.




Why? Sometimes people need the Court to lead. Same as what happened vis a vis segregation.


----------



## mattskramer

jillian said:


> Why? Sometimes people need the Court to lead. Same as what happened vis a vis segregation.



The title of this thread is Are you born gay?  The latest few posts on this thread have to do with what degree the courts, citizens, or legislature should set the rules for society.  It is interesting that threads can practically mutate and branch off in many different directions.  

Anyway, Ill put my comment in as it relates to the latest direction of this thread.  First of all, the courts should avoid legislating from the bench as much as possible.  The courts are to interpret the constitution with respect to certain cases.  It is the legislatures duty to legislate.  Secondly, something is not right merely because the majority of the public thinks that something is right.  Likewise something is not wrong (such as gay marriage) just because most people think that it is wrong.  That having been said, I like and respect our representative system of government where, at least indirectly and to a strong degree, majority rules. Just keep in mind that the majority can be wrong.


----------



## mattskramer

glockmail said:


> It is well documented that the AIDS epidemic started in the homosexual population. How else did it get to the normal population?



Who had the first case of AIDS and how did he get it?  What does it matter?  What about other venereal diseases?  Did Heterosexuals pass them to homosexuals?  Again, what does it matter?


----------



## Gunny

nt250 said:


> Sure it is.  It's called separation of powers and we have it for a reason.  The legislature, or the people through ballot initiatives, can't just pass any law they want to.
> 
> The fact that judges sometimes make the wrong decisions doesn't make the process wrong.  It just means we need better judges.
> 
> And there is the rub.  The only time people complain about "activist" judges is when they decide against them.  When they decide in their favor, they're brilliant legal minds at work.



I have to strongly disagree with this.

Yes, the people through their government representatives DO make the laws.

It is NOT a justice's job to legislate from the bench.  It is to enfore the law as written; regardless, that justice's personal feelings on the matter.

An activist judge is an activist judge.  Doesn't matter who they are "for" or "against."  It matters that they interpret and carry out the law as it is written.


----------



## Gunny

mattskramer said:


> Who had the first case of AIDS and how did he get it?  What does it matter?  What about other venereal diseases?  Did Heterosexuals pass them to homosexuals?  Again, what does it matter?



It matters because it is FACT that homosexuals have a higher risk of carrying and passing on STDs because of their unclean sexual behavior.  Of course, by your attitude it's pretty clear you choose to ingore it, or even worse, have another of your irrelevant, relativist analogies to go with it.


----------



## nt250

GunnyL said:


> I have to strongly disagree with this.
> 
> Yes, the people through their government representatives DO make the laws.
> 
> It is NOT a justice's job to legislate from the bench.  It is to enfore the law as written; regardless, that justice's personal feelings on the matter.
> 
> An activist judge is an activist judge.  Doesn't matter who they are "for" or "against."  It matters that they interpret and carry out the law as it is written.



So if I manage to get a law passed that outlaws all public displays of religion, you think no judge has the right to interpret that law as unconstitutional?

Thanks.  I'll get started right now.

Of course I'm being facetious.  But how about this one:

When I first moved to New Hampshire in 1983 they had what is commonly referred to as a "pole tax".  Anybody who wanted to register to vote had to pay $10.  I'm originally from Rhode Island, and for most of Rhode Islands early history, only land owners could vote.  From what I remember from high school history, many Southern states required that people pass a literacy test before they could vote.  

All those laws were struck down by the courts on constititional grounds.  And rightly so, don't you think?


----------



## Gunny

nt250 said:


> So if I manage to get a law passed that outlaws all public displays of religion, you think no judge has the right to interpret that law as unconstitutional?
> 
> Thanks.  I'll get started right now.
> 
> Of course I'm being facetious.  But how about this one:
> 
> When I first moved to New Hampshire in 1983 they had what is commonly referred to as a "pole tax".  Anybody who wanted to register to vote had to pay $10.  I'm originally from Rhode Island, and for most of Rhode Islands early history, only land owners could vote.  From what I remember from high school history, many Southern states required that people pass a literacy test before they could vote.
> 
> All those laws were struck down by the courts on constititional grounds.  And rightly so, don't you think?



We're talking two different things.  Ruling against a law that is unconstitutional is within the court's bounds, if it truly does violate the Constitution.  A justice upholding the tenets of the US Constitution is not legislating from the bench, he/she is upholding the law.

That isn't the same thing as purposefully misinterpreting law based on political ideology and making a clearly biased decision.  That is the judiciary circumventing the legislature.

It is the job of the legislature to make law based on the desires of their constituents, WITHOUT violating Constitutional law.


----------



## nt250

GunnyL said:


> We're talking two different things.  Ruling against a law that is unconstitutional is within the court's bounds, if it truly does violate the Constitution.  A justice upholding the tenets of the US Constitution is not legislating from the bench, he/she is upholding the law.
> 
> That isn't the same thing as purposefully misinterpreting law based on political ideology and making a clearly biased decision.  That is the judiciary circumventing the legislature.
> 
> It is the job of the legislature to make law based on the desires of their constituents, WITHOUT violating Constitutional law.




So we're back to the right to privacy which is the basis of the Roe v Wade decision.

Name one other private medical procedure anywhere in this country that has a law that even mentions it.


----------



## Gunny

nt250 said:


> So we're back to the right to privacy which is the basis of the Roe v Wade decision.
> 
> Name one other private medical procedure anywhere in this country that has a law that even mentions it.



The Roe v Wade decision is BS.  The right to privacy does not supercede the taking of human life.  That is unless you define an unborn human being as all manner of things EXCEPT what it is ... an unborn human being.


----------



## nt250

GunnyL said:


> The Roe v Wade decision is BS.  The right to privacy does not supercede the taking of human life.  That is unless you define an unborn human being as all manner of things EXCEPT what it is ... an unborn human being.



Unborn being the key word here.

Tumors are alive.  Should tumors have the same rights as it's host?  Oh, I forgot.  Men get tumors, too.  Sorry.  What was I thinking?


----------



## Gunny

nt250 said:


> Unborn being the key word here.
> 
> Tumors are alive.  Should tumors have the same rights as it's host?  Oh, I forgot.  Men get tumors, too.  Sorry.  What was I thinking?



Irrelevant comparison.  Unborn is not a "key word," it's a state of existence which a human being no less a human being.


----------



## MissileMan

GunnyL said:


> The Roe v Wade decision is BS.  The right to privacy does not supercede the taking of human life.  That is unless you define an unborn human being as all manner of things EXCEPT what it is ... an unborn human being.



I guess maybe we need to relabel all the flour on the supermarket shelves as "unbaked bread".  Recipes might get a bit confusing.  We'll have to abandon the use of the term egg of course.  You'll soon be able to go to your favorite diner and get a Hard-boiled-chicken sandwich.  For breakfast, you can get Chicken Cordon-Bleu and it'll look just like a Ham and Cheese Omelette.

We can also get rid of the biological terms like zygote and fetus and rewrite the biology texts so that at the moment of conception, Voila!  A human being!


----------



## Gunny

MissileMan said:


> I guess maybe we need to relabel all the flour on the supermarket shelves as "unbaked bread".  Recipes might get a bit confusing.  We'll have to abandon the use of the term egg of course.  You'll soon be able to go to your favorite diner and get a Hard-boiled-chicken sandwich.  For breakfast, you can get Chicken Cordon-Bleu and it'll look just like a Ham and Cheese Omelette.
> 
> We can also get rid of the biological terms like zygote and fetus and rewrite the biology texts so that at the moment of conception, Voila!  A human being!



You can be as smartass as you want, and call it whatever cute little name you and/or science has come up with for it, but the fact remains, it is an unborn human being. 

Not to be confused with domestic livestock bred and raised specifically for consumption.

But then, THAT is your whole argument in a nutshell, isn't it?  Do your damnedest distance the fetus from the fact that it is a human being -- in essence dehumanize it -- so you can justify to yourself and society morally that it is okay to kill it.


----------



## MissileMan

GunnyL said:


> You can be as smartass as you want, and call it whatever cute little name you and/or science has come up with for it, but the fact remains, it is an unborn human being.
> 
> Not to be confused with domestic livestock bred and raised specifically for consumption.
> 
> But then, THAT is your whole argument in a nutshell, isn't it?  Do your damnedest distance the fetus from the fact that it is a human being -- in essence dehumanize it -- so you can justify to yourself and society morally that it is okay to kill it.



And you can keep it up with the emotional arguments, but until sufficient development has occurred, a fetus is a mass of tissue with the *potential* to *become* a human being, not, repeat not a human being.


----------



## nt250

MissileMan said:


> And you can keep it up with the emotional arguments, but until sufficient development has occurred, a fetus is a mass of tissue with the *potential* to *become* a human being, not, repeat not a human being.




It's the whole soul thing.  They get all defensive when it's pointed out that it's simply their religion that drives their beliefs so they really don't have a leg to stand on.

Gets them kind of pissy.


----------



## Gunny

MissileMan said:


> And you can keep it up with the emotional arguments, but until sufficient development has occurred, a fetus is a mass of tissue with the *potential* to *become* a human being, not, repeat not a human being.



There's no emotional argument.  Just a factual one.  The fetus isn't going to become anything BUT a human being.  

Your development argument is just more smokescreen to try and call something everything but what it is.


----------



## Gunny

nt250 said:


> It's the whole soul thing.  They get all defensive when it's pointed out that it's simply their religion that drives their beliefs so they really don't have a leg to stand on.
> 
> Gets them kind of pissy.



You're full of shit, making mass generalizations, as usual.  You feel free to show me EXACTLY WHERE I attempted to use religion in ANY argument concerning abortion.  

The argument is so damned simple religion isn't even required.  I'm quite aware that something like religious morals are wasted on people willing to call something what it isn't in order to justify murdering it.


----------



## MissileMan

GunnyL said:


> There's no emotional argument.  Just a factual one.  The fetus isn't going to become anything BUT a human being.



At least 15% of fetuses are miscarried and become nothing at all.


----------



## MissileMan

GunnyL said:


> I'm quite aware that something like scientific fact is wasted on people willing to call something what it isn't in order to justify outlawing it.



Fixed that for ya.


----------



## Gunny

MissileMan said:


> Fixed that for ya.



That's the best you got?  F-ing with my post?  

I'm impressed. 

Too bad you can't fix your own blindness.


----------



## MissileMan

GunnyL said:


> That's the best you got?  F-ing with my post?
> 
> I'm impressed.
> 
> Too bad you can't fix your own blindness.



Careful bud...your emotional is showing.  Miss #309?


----------



## nt250

GunnyL said:


> You're full of shit, making mass generalizations, as usual.  You feel free to show me EXACTLY WHERE I attempted to use religion in ANY argument concerning abortion.
> 
> The argument is so damned simple religion isn't even required.  I'm quite aware that something like religious morals are wasted on people willing to call something what it isn't in order to justify murdering it.




Oh, no, you're not emotional at all.

Here's one generalization you are just going to love:

You're a man.  Shut up.  As a man, you have no right to even have an opinion on the subject.

Like that one?


----------



## Gunny

MissileMan said:


> Careful bud...your emotional is showing.  Miss #309?



Keep dreaming.

I didn't miss the post.  It's irrelevant to the discussion.  We are discussing what something "is," not what something never becomes.


----------



## Gunny

nt250 said:


> Oh, no, you're not emotional at all.
> 
> Here's one generalization you are just going to love:
> 
> You're a man.  Shut up.  As a man, you have no right to even have an opinion on the subject.
> 
> Like that one?



I've got an even better one for you:

I pay taxes, vote and am a member of this society.  My vote makes my opinion as good as yours.  Your lack of education on the topic and resorting to insults and deflections in an attempt to cover it up would be what makes my opinion on the topic superior to yours.

So maybe YOU need to shut up until you educate yourself on what you are rattling your tongue against the roof of your mouth about.


----------



## jillian

MissileMan said:


> And you can keep it up with the emotional arguments, but until sufficient development has occurred, a fetus is a mass of tissue with the *potential* to *become* a human being, not, repeat not a human being.



Ah...but if you notice, the responses also contain a lot of, "well, she shouldn't have gotten pregnant if she didn't want a child" kind of thing. It's about retribution and control. You know, they're supposed to pay for their sins and women are supposed to be subservient and not make decisions on their own -- just like children.

And, in the final analysis, it's this puritan concept of retribution and control that drives this debate. Then they'll say they don't raise religion in their arguments. They don't have to. The determination as to when a fetus becomes a life, being a religious one, has no other basis.


----------



## MissileMan

GunnyL said:


> Keep dreaming.
> 
> I didn't miss the post.  It's irrelevant to the discussion.  We are discussing what something "is," not what something never becomes.



The FACT that a significant percentage of what you've deemed human beings don't actually become human beings is irrelevant?   

I guess maybe we're using different definitions for the term.  What exactly is your definition of human being?


----------



## Gunny

jillian said:


> Ah...but if you notice, the responses also contain a lot of, "well, she shouldn't have gotten pregnant if she didn't want a child" kind of thing. It's about retribution and control. You know, they're supposed to pay for their sins and women are supposed to be subservient and not make decisions on their own -- just like children.
> 
> And, in the final analysis, it's this puritan concept of retribution and control that drives this debate. Then they'll say they don't raise religion in their arguments. They don't have to. The determination as to when a fetus becomes a life, being a religious one, has no other basis.



It isn't about retribution and control.  That's lame, and just bullshit.  It's about people being accountable for their actions.  You lefties are only big on holding conservatives/Republicans accountable for their actions, even if they didn't do it.  

The determination of when a fetus has life is not religious.  That also is bullshit.  It has life at conception.  No-brainer.

I already stated what the REAL final analysis is:  you call something what it is not to justify killing it for personal convenience.  

Heaven forbid one be responsible for his/her actions. How you get retribution and control out of that must take some REAL liberalthink.


----------



## Kagom

How's a thread about homosexuality turn to one about abortion?


----------



## Gunny

MissileMan said:


> The FACT that a significant percentage of what you've deemed human beings don't actually become human beings is irrelevant?
> 
> I guess maybe we're using different definitions for the term.  What exactly is your definition of human being?



They're human beings that don't make it, for whatever reason.  What IS the point?  Some human beings don't make it all the way across the street either.  So what?

We are human beings.  Homo sapiens.  Our offspring are human beings.  They aren't tadpoles until they become frogs.  It's human life from conception to death.  A physical fact.


----------



## jillian

GunnyL said:


> It isn't about retribution and control.  That's lame, and just bullshit.  It's about people being accountable for their actions.  You lefties are only big on holding conservatives/Republicans accountable for their actions, even if they didn't do it.



But that's not going off on a tangent? 



> The determination of when a fetus has life is not religious.  That also is bullshit.  It has life at conception.  No-brainer.



I've already posted that in my religion, it is acceptable and life is not considered to begin at conception. So your religious beliefs should take precedence over mine? Where's it written? 



> I already stated what the REAL final analysis is:  you call something what it is not to justify killing it for personal convenience.
> 
> Heaven forbid one be responsible for his/her actions. How you get retribution and control out of that must take some REAL liberalthink.



I just love it when people parse words. retribution ... responsibility... either way you want to impose your beliefs, and they are nothing more than your religious beliefs, on everyone else.

Near as I can tell... that's a no no.


----------



## MissileMan

GunnyL said:


> They're human beings that don't make it, for whatever reason.  What IS the point?  Some human beings don't make it all the way across the street either.  So what?
> 
> We are human beings.  Homo sapiens.  Our offspring are human beings.  They aren't tadpoles until they become frogs.  It's human life from conception to death.  A physical fact.



Are we going to argue human life or human being?  There is a difference between the two.  Again, define human being please.


----------



## Gunny

jillian said:


> But that's not going off on a tangent?
> 
> I don't recall being the one that brought it up.  YOU are.
> 
> 
> I've already posted that in my religion, it is acceptable and life is not considered to begin at conception. So your religious beliefs should take precedence over mine? Where's it written?
> 
> Because what you seem to be unable to grasp is that my argument has nothing to do with my religion.  You're so busy thinking you know all the answers you don't hear what's being said.  You jumped into the other thread ass first.
> 
> Why is THAT?
> 
> 
> I just love it when people parse words. retribution ... responsibility... either way you want to impose your beliefs, and they are nothing more than your religious beliefs, on everyone else.
> 
> Near as I can tell... that's a no no.



Get off the religion soapbox.  It's bullshit.  Physical fact:  a fertilized egg is a living thing.  A fertilized human egg is a living human being.  When you kill it, you kill a human being.

And you can also shut up about trying to force beliefs on others because you're all about THAT.  You're trying to do the same thing, you just choose to use a different definition that suits what YOU want based on YOUR political and religious beliefs.  Near as I can tell ... that's a no no.


----------



## Gunny

MissileMan said:


> Are we going to argue human life or human being?  There is a difference between the two.  Again, define human being please.



What's the matter?  Did I fuck up some game of literalism you want to play?  I did define it.  Human being human life .... same shit to me.  It is to anyone who uses common sense and logic instead of some dehumanizing literalist BS.


----------



## MissileMan

GunnyL said:


> What's the matter?  Did I fuck up some game of literalism you want to play?  I did define it.  Human being human life .... same shit to me.  It is to anyone who uses common sense and logic instead of some dehumanizing literalist BS.



The little toe on my right foot is human life.  If I were to amputate it and provide it with a blood supply, it wouldn't be a human being.  Certain things need to be present to distinguish human life from a human being, not the least of which is a functional brain and nervous system.  This should be painfully obvious to someone who touts common sense.


----------



## Gunny

MissileMan said:


> The little toe on my right foot is human life.  If I were to amputate it and provide it with a blood supply, it wouldn't be a human being.  Certain things need to be present to distinguish human life from a human being, not the least of which is a functional brain and nervous system.  This should be painfully obvious to someone who touts common sense.



See?  I KNEW you had some literalist BS to post!  

I'm out.  Tomorrow comes early.  You can explain to me tomorrow what-all's wrong with me and why I don't know anything.


----------



## mattskramer

GunnyL said:


> It matters because it is FACT that homosexuals have a higher risk of carrying and passing on STDs because of their unclean sexual behavior.  Of course, by your attitude it's pretty clear you choose to ingore it, or even worse, have another of your irrelevant, relativist analogies to go with it.



Some heterosexual couples preferred to engage in unclean sexual behavior.  I had a girlfriend who liked anal and oral sex more than she liked vaginal sex.  Anyway, for the sake of argument, Ill agree that the promiscuity and unclean sexual behavior of gays results in the chance of getting a disease from a homosexual greater than the chance of getting a disease from a heterosexual.   Again, what is the relevancy? The only thing that this prejudicial and discriminatory conclusion tells me, assuming that I agree with it) is that if I were to engage in risky sexual promiscuity, I may need to me more careful if I have sex with a homosexual than if I have sex with a heterosexual.

Well, thanks for the warning but since I became married I have remained monogamous and intend to continue to remain monogamous.


----------



## glockmail

mattskramer said:


> Who had the first case of AIDS and how did he get it?  What does it matter?  What about other venereal diseases?  Did Heterosexuals pass them to homosexuals?  Again, what does it matter?



It matters because AIDS is responsible for killing millions- much more than a simple VD that is managed relatively easily with contemproray medicine. Homosexuality has inflicted great harm to the world.


----------



## glockmail

mattskramer said:


> Some heterosexual couples preferred to engage in unclean sexual behavior.  I had a girlfriend who liked anal and oral sex more than she liked vaginal sex.  Anyway, for the sake of argument, Ill agree that the promiscuity and unclean sexual behavior of gays results in the chance of getting a disease from a homosexual greater than the chance of getting a disease from a heterosexual.   Again, what is the relevancy? The only thing that this prejudicial and discriminatory conclusion tells me, assuming that I agree with it) is that if I were to engage in risky sexual promiscuity, I may need to me more careful if I have sex with a homosexual than if I have sex with a heterosexual.
> 
> Well, thanks for the warning but since I became married I have remained monogamous and intend to continue to remain monogamous.



Any woman that wants it up the ass, or any man that would give it to her, is a pervert. And homosexuality is all about perversions, basically. They are all in the same dirty, sick tent.


----------



## The ClayTaurus

glockmail said:


> Any woman that wants it up the ass, or any man that would give it to her, is a pervert. And homosexuality is all about perversions, basically. They are all in the same dirty, sick tent.


And in the mouth?


----------



## manu1959

MissileMan said:


> ..... at the moment of conception, Voila!  A human being!



correct! what the hell else at the moment of conception was being created? 

a dog?


----------



## glockmail

The ClayTaurus said:


> And in the mouth?


 Don't try putting words in mine.


----------



## Huckleburry

Do you all live in a bunker trapped in the 1950's?

Question 1: What continent has the biggest problem with AIDS? 

Question 2: What is the primary reason for AIDS being spread on that continent? 


Hint: It is not the US and it is not Homosexual intercourse. 

Well I have to run, Susy and I are going to the soda fountain for some malts and if I am really lucky we are going to go out to the bluff for some heavy petting. 

Huck


----------



## Huckleburry

PS. 

There is solid genetic evidence that a person is born gay.


----------



## MissileMan

manu1959 said:


> correct! what the hell else at the moment of conception was being created?



Something with the potential to become a human being.


----------



## The ClayTaurus

glockmail said:


> Don't try putting words in mine.


You evade like a liberal. Is oral perverted?


----------



## glockmail

Huckleburry said:


> PS.
> 
> There is solid genetic evidence that a person is born gay.


  Where is it?


----------



## glockmail

The ClayTaurus said:


> You evade like a liberal. Is oral perverted?


Did I say that it was? Is there a biblical argument against it?


----------



## The ClayTaurus

glockmail said:


> Did I say that it was?


No. Hence why I ask. Over and over. And over. With the hope that eventually you'll understand questions are asked for clarity, and require a concrete answer to accomplish that goal. 





glockmail said:


> Is there a biblical argument against it?


Beats me. I'm no biblical scholar. What about other kinky things? If there's no biblical argument against them, does that make them ok?


----------



## glockmail

The ClayTaurus said:


> No. Hence why I ask. Over and over. And over. With the hope that eventually you'll understand questions are asked for clarity, and require a concrete answer to accomplish that goal. Beats me. I'm no biblical scholar. What about other kinky things? If there's no biblical argument against them, does that make them ok?



I look for the bible for answers:



> Sex is God's idea and its purpose is not only for procreation, but also for recreation and the development of a deep relationship between man and woman. Nothing is wrong or dirty about sex when it is engaged in the bonds of marriage as the Lord commanded in the Bible. However, when perversions are committed inside the marriage relationship, this can be sinful also. God made man and woman and brought them together "face to face." Oral sex is of homosexual origin that replaces the normal "face to face" relationship God intended in a marriage. The Bible describes the sex act in Song of Solomon Chapter 4. In this chapter it speaks of this "face to face" relationship by describing looking into his lover's eyes and kissing his lover's lips and fondling his lover's breasts. Oral sex is not normal or natural as it is an unclean act. http://www.bible.com/bibleanswers_result.php?id=220


----------



## glockmail

Huckleburry said:


> Do you all live in a bunker trapped in the 1950's?
> 
> Question 1: What continent has the biggest problem with AIDS?
> 
> Question 2: What is the primary reason for AIDS being spread on that continent?
> 
> 
> Hint: It is not the US and it is not Homosexual intercourse.
> 
> Well I have to run, Susy and I are going to the soda fountain for some malts and if I am really lucky we are going to go out to the bluff for some heavy petting.
> 
> Huck



After you beat around the bush for a while then maybe you can remind us how it all started. No-one is arguing that homosexuality is no longer the only method that it is being spread.


----------



## The ClayTaurus

glockmail said:


> I look for the bible for answers:


So I guess I'll try asking one more time for a concrete yes or no answer from you: Is oral sex perverted?

Your bible site makes me think you believe so, but I don't wanna put words (or anything else  ) in your mouth.


----------



## glockmail

The ClayTaurus said:


> So I guess I'll try asking one more time for a concrete yes or no answer from you: Is oral sex perverted?
> 
> ....





> .....when perversions are committed inside the marriage relationship, this can be sinful also. ..... Oral sex is of homosexual origin that replaces the normal "face to face" relationship God intended in a marriage. ...... Oral sex is not normal or natural as it is an unclean act.



The obvious answer is yes.


----------



## The ClayTaurus

glockmail said:


> The obvious answer is yes.


THANK YOU.

Now, is it fair to assume  you lump practicers of oral sex in this group: 





			
				glockmail said:
			
		

> Any woman that wants it up the ass, or any man that would give it to her, is a pervert. And homosexuality is all about perversions, basically. They are all in the same dirty, sick tent.?



Do you also believe that sexual positions that aren't face to face are also perverted? Or am I misinterpreting your interpretation of the Bible?


----------



## manu1959

The ClayTaurus said:


> So I guess I'll try asking one more time for a concrete yes or no answer from you: Is oral sex perverted?
> 
> Your bible site makes me think you believe so, but I don't wanna put words (or anything else  ) in your mouth.



soooooooooo ..... the pope decides to dress in disguise and go out and wander among the streets of Rome to get in touch with his flock....as he is wandering down an alley not far from the Vatican a young women calls out to ....blow job sir?..... he does not answer and continues walking.....upon returning to the Vatican hours later....and after the evening supper he begins to recount his day to the mother superior....he then asks her " what is a blow job ? " .... she looks him in the eye and says............ "Same as on the outside $50."


----------



## 5stringJeff

glockmail said:


> The obvious answer is yes.



I absolutely disagree.  Nowhere does the Bible condemn such action, and within the covenant of marriage, no such restrictions exist.


----------



## manu1959

MissileMan said:


> Something with the potential to become a human being.



you only hold that definition so that you feel better when you perfom an abortion ..... abortion is the termination of a human life ...... it is acceptable if it is a choice made by the mother and if performed within the first 3 months .... it is un-acceptable if performed against her will or after that period of time .... or now late term abortions have been rationalized ....

all are termination of a human life ..... some can rationalize taking this life .... some can not ..... you seem to be one that can


----------



## glockmail

The ClayTaurus said:


> THANK YOU.
> 
> Now, is it fair to assume  you lump practicers of oral sex in this group:
> 
> Do you also believe that sexual positions that aren't face to face are also perverted? Or am I misinterpreting your interpretation of the Bible?



You seem to like getting off on these tangents in these little step-wise arguments. Why dont you just cut to the chase? 

The biblical reference is very clear to me. Sex is meant to be between a married man and his wife in an intimate physical-mental conversation, and there are unlimited positions and techniques that can be explored.  Sex acts borrowed from the homosexual how-to manual just dont cut it.


----------



## manu1959

glockmail said:


> You seem to like getting off on these tangents in these little step-wise arguments. Why dont you just cut to the chase?
> 
> The biblical reference is very clear to me. Sex is meant to be between a married man and his wife in an intimate physical-mental conversation, and there are unlimited positions and techniques that can be explored.  Sex acts borrowed from the homosexual how-to manual just dont cut it.



ok....so are you say the gay male folks invented blow jobs and anal sex?


----------



## glockmail

manu1959 said:


> ok....so are you say the gay male folks invented blow jobs and anal sex?


  Is that what I said? Does it matter? Answers: no and no.

We appear to be getting further off topic.


----------



## glockmail

5stringJeff said:


> I absolutely disagree.  Nowhere does the Bible condemn such action, and within the covenant of marriage, no such restrictions exist.


  It is a common misconception that because the Bible does not address each and every specific act, that we may assume that the unmentioned are therefore acceptable, and that is clearly not the case.


----------



## The ClayTaurus

glockmail said:


> You seem to like getting off on these tangents in these little step-wise arguments. Why dont you just cut to the chase?


You want ME to cut to the chase? It took you 4 posts just to answer whether or not blowjobs were perverted or not! :talk2: I'm not cutting to the chase because I don't want you to have some "oh look at the assumptions you're making about me" excuse so you can evade. You do it pretty well without anyways.





glockmail said:


> The biblical reference is very clear to me. Sex is meant to be between a married man and his wife in an intimate physical-mental conversation, and there are unlimited positions and techniques that can be explored.  Sex acts borrowed from the homosexual how-to manual just dont cut it.


Well I'm glad it's clear to you.

What about the hand job. Was that a homo or a hetero sexual invention? I'm curious, because I'm not up on my who thought up what sexual interactions.


----------



## The ClayTaurus

glockmail said:


> Is that what I said? Does it matter? Answers: no and no.
> 
> We appear to be getting further off topic.


So wait, they didn't invent it but it's not ok because ... why... again?


----------



## MissileMan

manu1959 said:


> you only hold that definition so that you feel better when you perfom an abortion ..... abortion is the termination of a human life ...... it is acceptable if it is a choice made by the mother and if performed within the first 3 months .... it is un-acceptable if performed against her will or after that period of time .... or now late term abortions have been rationalized ....
> 
> all are termination of a human life ..... some can rationalize taking this life .... some can not ..... you seem to be one that can



I've never performed or had an abortion, and neither are likely in my immediate future.  With those possibilities excluded, perhaps you have another "only" reason to offer.


----------



## manu1959

glockmail said:


> Is that what I said? Does it matter? Answers: no and no.
> 
> We appear to be getting further off topic.



you said: _"The biblical reference is very clear to me. Sex is meant to be between a married man and his wife in an intimate physical-mental conversation, and there are unlimited positions and techniques that can be explored. *Sex acts borrowed from the homosexual how-to manual *just dont cut it."_

off topic? i am responding to what you said.....

heteros borrowing from gays play book would imply gays invented it....glad to hear you say hetros are responsible for inventing oral and anl sex.........

so after a moment the pope responds to her and asks........"how many kinds of blow jobs are there?"....again she looks him in the eye and says......"two......good ones....and great ones."


----------



## glockmail

The ClayTaurus said:


> ....
> Was that a homo or a hetero sexual invention? ......


  What difference does it make?


----------



## manu1959

MissileMan said:


> I've never performed or had an abortion, and neither are likely in my immediate future.  With those possibilities excluded, perhaps you have another "only" reason to offer.



nope that's it ..... denial of the fact that it is the termination of a human life does not make it so ..... 

define "born" for me


----------



## manu1959

The ClayTaurus said:


> ......What about the hand job. Was that a homo or a hetero sexual invention? ......




with or without rubber gloves?


----------



## glockmail

manu1959 said:


> ........
> 
> heteros borrowing from gays play book would imply gays invented it....glad to hear you say hetros are responsible for inventing oral and anl sex.........
> .....



Chevrolet didn't invent the wheel but they use an awful lot of them......

Where did I say heteros invented oral and anal sex? And why would that make you glad?


----------



## The ClayTaurus

manu1959 said:


> with or without rubber gloves?


The kind with the hamster...


----------



## The ClayTaurus

glockmail said:


> What difference does it make?


Allow me to rephrase in hopes of maybe getting something resembling an answer from you:

Are handjobs a "gay handbook" thing or a "straigt handbook" thing?


Let's define what kind of sexual behaivor is ok and what's for the twisted. Enough chase cutting for ya?


----------



## The ClayTaurus

glockmail said:


> Chevrolet didn't invent the wheel but they use an awful lot of them......
> 
> Where did I say heteros invented oral and anal sex? And why would that make you glad?


So because gay people do something it condemns straight people from doing it? Even if the straights were doing it beforehand?


----------



## manu1959

glockmail said:


> Chevrolet didn't invent the wheel but they use an awful lot of them......
> 
> Where did I say heteros invented oral and anal sex? And why would that make you glad?



you said that gays did not invent anal and oral sex so that would only leave the other group....

i don't care who invented anal and oral sex but you sure seem to care.


----------



## jillian

manu1959 said:


> with or without rubber gloves?




That reminds me about that scene from Animal House... lol...


----------



## MissileMan

manu1959 said:


> nope that's it ..... denial of the fact that it is the termination of a human life does not make it so .....
> 
> define "born" for me



And denial of the fact that a certain amount of development is required to create a human being from human life doesn't make it untrue either.

My definition of "born" would be delivered, but it also means carried...why?


----------



## manu1959

MissileMan said:


> And denial of the fact that a certain amount of development is required to create a human being from human life doesn't make it untrue either.
> 
> My definition of "born" would be delivered, but it also means carried...why?



so you agree that at conception it is a human life.....thus an abortion would be the killing of a human life but not a human being because your distinction is that it is not a human being until it is delivered thus killing the human life  anytime before that moment would be acceptable.


----------



## glockmail

The ClayTaurus said:


> Allow me to rephrase in hopes of maybe getting something resembling an answer from you:
> 
> Are handjobs a "gay handbook" thing or a "straigt handbook" thing?
> 
> 
> Let's define what kind of sexual behaivor is ok and what's for the twisted. Enough chase cutting for ya?



Homosexual and anal sex is perverted. Everything else you decide for yourself.


----------



## glockmail

The ClayTaurus said:


> So because gay people do something it condemns straight people from doing it? Even if the straights were doing it beforehand?


 Perhaps you can point out where I have said that.


----------



## The ClayTaurus

glockmail said:


> Homosexual and anal sex is perverted. Everything else you decide for yourself.


So are you backing off oral sex now? Oral sex is ok now? I'm just looking for some Biblical consistency here.


----------



## glockmail

manu1959 said:


> you said that gays did not invent anal and oral sex so that would only leave the other group....
> 
> i don't care who invented anal and oral sex but you sure seem to care.



1. Perhaps you could point out where I said that.
2. It was not me that brought up the subject, so you appear once more to be incorrect.


----------



## manu1959

glockmail said:


> Homosexual and anal sex is perverted. Everything else you decide for yourself.




so oral sex and hand jobs and doggy style are cool?


----------



## MissileMan

manu1959 said:


> so you agree that at conception it is a human life.....thus an abortion would be the killing of a human life but not a human being because your distinction is that it is not a human being until it is delivered thus killing the human life  anytime before that moment would be acceptable.



Not "a" human life, but human life.  I also never said that it's not a human being until it's born.


----------



## The ClayTaurus

glockmail said:


> Perhaps you can point out where I have said that.


It's inferred all over your posts. Do you see why I take baby steps with you now? You can't handle cutting the chase. I need to approach things piece by piece so that you don't lose focus and bail out with some sort of "where did I say that" or "this is getting off topic" or "I'm not sure why this matters" statement.


----------



## glockmail

The ClayTaurus said:


> So are you backing off oral sex now? Oral sex is ok now? I'm just looking for some Biblical consistency here.



I'm not backing off anything. I told you my interpretation of your off topic subject, and I don't feel the need to entertain the it further.


----------



## The ClayTaurus

manu1959 said:


> so oral sex and hand jobs and doggy style are cool?


Perhaps you could point out where Glockmail said that.


----------



## glockmail

manu1959 said:


> so oral sex and hand jobs and doggy style are cool?


 What ever makes your boat float. Its all about you in your world, after all.....


----------



## manu1959

glockmail said:


> 1. Perhaps you could point out where I said that.
> 2. It was not me that brought up the subject, so you appear once more to be incorrect.



a. i have several times including:
_The biblical reference is very clear to me. Sex is meant to be between a married man and his wife in an intimate physical-mental conversation, and there are unlimited positions and techniques that can be explored. Sex acts *borrowed from the homosexual how-to manual* just dont cut it._ which you siad in reference to oral and anal sex

and

b. that may well be true that you did not bring it up but you do love to talk about it


----------



## glockmail

The ClayTaurus said:


> It's inferred all over your posts. ....


  You are the one who appears to be inferring.  If you want to talk about perverted sex acts, why don't you start a new thread?


----------



## manu1959

glockmail said:


> What ever makes your boat float. Its all about you in your world, after all.....



well if that is true then why are blowjobs and anal sex off limits?


----------



## The ClayTaurus

glockmail said:


> I'm not backing off anything. I told you my interpretation of your off topic subject, and I don't feel the need to entertain the it further.


Dude you lumped anyone who had non-biblical approved sex with homosexuals. We just wanted clarification on what was and wasn't biblical approved sex. 

And you sit there and dodge and weave like Howard Dean. "Off topic" this. 'That's not what I said" that.  If you don't wanna talk about it, just say "I made a statement that I don't feel like defending so leave me alone!"

We'll gladly oblige!


----------



## The ClayTaurus

glockmail said:


> You are the one who appears to be inferring.  If you want to talk about perverted sex acts, why don't you start a new thread?


Cute! You're trying to passive agressively turn this around into me being obsessed with perverted sexual acts! I bet you think you're so clever too! It's like the reversal of "you're a homophobe!"

Are you a DU hack?


----------



## glockmail

manu1959 said:


> ..... which you siad in reference to oral and anal sex
> .....



No, I said in reference to perverted gay sex.

You two need to start a new thread and talk about this amongst yourselves. I can understand exploring a new avenue in a discussion but this has obviously gotten out of hand.


----------



## manu1959

The ClayTaurus said:


> Dude you lumped anyone who had non-biblical approved sex with homosexuals. We just wanted clarification on what was and wasn't biblical approved sex.
> 
> And you sit there and dodge and weave like Howard Dean. "Off topic" this. 'That's not what I said" that.  If you don't wanna talk about it, just say "I made a statement that I don't feel like defending so leave me alone!"
> 
> We'll gladly oblige!


----------



## The ClayTaurus

glockmail said:


> No, I said in reference to perverted gay sex.
> 
> You two need to start a new thread and talk about this amongst yourselves. I can understand exploring a new avenue in a discussion but this has obviously gotten out of hand.


Gotten out of hand in that you've just seen the two walls of the corner you've painted yourself into.

But whatever, ta ta. Enjoy your night.


----------



## manu1959

glockmail said:


> No, I said in reference to *perverted gay sex.*
> You two need to start a new thread and talk about this amongst yourselves. I can understand exploring a new avenue in a discussion but this has obviously gotten out of hand.



is there non-perverted gay sex?


----------



## The ClayTaurus

manu1959 said:


> is there non-perverted gay sex?


I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. Perhaps you could point out where glockmail said there is? Regardless, this is getting too off topic.


----------



## glockmail

The ClayTaurus said:


> Dude you lumped anyone who had non-biblical approved sex with homosexuals. We just wanted clarification on what was and wasn't biblical approved sex.
> ...


  As I said before, I use the Bible as a guide for what is right and wrong, and in my opinion it is quite clear that oral and anal sex are to be considered perverted and therefore sinful. I have attempted to describe tactfully what face to face means to me, and you two simply refuse to let it go at that, instead wanting to be cute and turn this thread into a discussion about specific sex acts.

Perverted heterosexual sex and homosexual sex and both sins. However sins are relative, and homosexuality is among the worst of the sins out there. Far worse than something you might do with your lover in the privacy of your own bedroom. The reason is that the beginning of homosexuality is documented in Genesis 9:20-25, and it has caused a rift in mankind ever since. In contemporary history, it has manifested itself into the AIDS epidemic, causing misery, death and pain among literally hundreds of millions of people.


----------



## manu1959

glockmail said:


> As I said before, I use the Bible as a guide for what is right and wrong, and in my opinion *it is quite clear that oral and anal sex *are to be considered perverted and therefore sinful. I have attempted to describe tactfully what face to face means to me, and you two simply refuse to let it go at that, instead wanting to be cute and* turn this thread into a discussion about specific sex acts.*
> 
> Perverted heterosexual sex and homosexual sex and both sins. However sins are relative, and homosexuality is among the worst of the sins out there. Far worse than something you might do with your lover in the privacy of your own bedroom. The reason is that the beginning of homosexuality is documented in Genesis 9:20-25, and it has caused a rift in mankind ever since. *In contemporary history, it has manifested itself into the AIDS epidemic, causing misery, death and pain among literally hundreds of millions of people*.



yes please don't turn this into a discussion about specific sex acts...shame on me.

by the by .... patient zero has been traced to African field workers slaughtering monkeys and coming in contact with infected blood then having straight sex in the brothels  and those women spreading it ....

so back to the topic.... were you born gay or straight?


----------



## 5stringJeff

glockmail said:


> It is a common misconception that because the Bible does not address each and every specific act, that we may assume that the unmentioned are therefore acceptable, and that is clearly not the case.



If it's so clear, then I'm sure you can show me, Biblically speaking, why oral sex between a husband and wife is immoral behavior.


----------



## glockmail

manu1959 said:


> yes please don't turn this into a discussion about specific sex acts...shame on me.
> 
> by the by .... patient zero has been traced to African field workers slaughtering monkeys and coming in contact with infected blood then having straight sex in the brothels  and those women spreading it ....
> 
> so back to the topic.... were you born gay or straight?



Imagine that. A disease spread by first by prostitution, then by homosexuality, both described as sins in the Bible.

I was born straight, just like you.


----------



## 5stringJeff

glockmail said:


> As I said before, I use the Bible as a guide for what is right and wrong, and in my opinion it is quite clear that oral and anal sex are to be considered perverted and therefore sinful. I have attempted to describe tactfully what face to face means to me, and you two simply refuse to let it go at that, instead wanting to be cute and turn this thread into a discussion about specific sex acts.



Using the phrase "face-to-face" from Song of Solomon to call all non-face-to-face sex sinful is thinner than Castila Flockhart after a weeklong fast.  I hope you have better Biblical evidence than that.



> Perverted heterosexual sex and homosexual sex and both sins. However sins are relative, and homosexuality is among the worst of the sins out there. Far worse than something you might do with your lover in the privacy of your own bedroom. The reason is that the beginning of homosexuality is documented in Genesis 9:20-25, and it has caused a rift in mankind ever since. In contemporary history, it has manifested itself into the AIDS epidemic, causing misery, death and pain among literally hundreds of millions of people.



While I agree that homosexuality is harmful and destructive, *all *sin is wrong in God's eyes, and to say that homosexuals are somehow 'bigger sinners' than others is incorrect.


----------



## manu1959

glockmail said:


> Imagine that. A disease spread by first by prostitution, then by homosexuality, both described as sins in the Bible.
> 
> I was born straight, just like you.



yes imagine that....btw aids is still spread by straight people

if you can be born straight why can't you be born gay?


----------



## glockmail

5stringJeff said:


> .....
> 
> 
> 
> While I agree that homosexuality is harmful and destructive, *all *sin is wrong in God's eyes, and to say that homosexuals are somehow 'bigger sinners' than others is incorrect.



Lets not let this thread get sidetracked as before. I think it has gotten rather childish. I have been tossed off other boards for beating up too badly on that type of behavior.

Here is the reasoning behind why homosexuality is such a grave sin.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=485709&postcount=1


----------



## glockmail

manu1959 said:


> .....
> 
> if you can be born straight why can't you be born gay?



Umm-----    Post 1?


----------



## 5stringJeff

glockmail said:


> Lets not let this thread get sidetracked as before. I think it has gotten rather childish. I have been tossed off other boards for beating up too badly on that type of behavior.



I'll take that to mean that you can't Biblically justify condemning oral sex between a married couple.



> Here is the reasoning behind why homosexuality is such a grave sin.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=485709&postcount=1



I'm not saying it's not a grave sin.  But many other sins are also tolerated in the church, as the author says homosexuality is, like greed and gluttony.  Are these sins somehow worse because they are tolerated?  Or is the toleration of those sins the real issue?


----------



## Said1

manu1959 said:


> well if that is true then why are blowjobs and anal sex off limits?



But do you have a boat? :alco:


----------



## Said1

jillian said:


> That reminds me about that scene from Animal House... lol...



Bbbwaaaaaaahahahahhahahaha.


And. To all participants in this thread, thank you. Thank you very much. I haven't laughed my ass off this hard in ages.


----------



## manu1959

Said1 said:


> But do you have a boat? :alco:



yep....and water to float it in.....


----------



## manu1959

glockmail said:


> Umm-----    Post 1?



so you are using a gay guy as your source?


----------



## Said1

manu1959 said:


> yep....and water to float it in.....



Pervert. :talk2:


----------



## manu1959

Said1 said:


> Pervert. :talk2:



universal sign for hand job --------------->:talk2:


----------



## Said1

manu1959 said:


> universal sign for hand job --------------->:talk2:



That's right. I saw him on the cover of "Hand Jobs and Oral Sex for Dummies'. Or was it 'The begginers guide to the art of 69'. Maybe both.  Those are my friends books, btw, she's a real nympho.


----------



## The ClayTaurus

glockmail said:


> Lets not let this thread get sidetracked as before. I think it has gotten rather childish. I have been tossed off other boards for beating up too badly on that type of behavior.


:rotflmao:

Oh you're so scary. Mr. banned from other message boards. :talk2:


----------



## The ClayTaurus

glockmail said:


> As I said before, I use the Bible as a guide for what is right and wrong, and in my opinion it is quite clear that oral and anal sex are to be considered perverted and therefore sinful. I have attempted to describe tactfully what face to face means to me, and you two simply refuse to let it go at that, instead wanting to be cute and turn this thread into a discussion about specific sex acts.
> 
> Perverted heterosexual sex and homosexual sex and both sins. However sins are relative, and homosexuality is among the worst of the sins out there. Far worse than something you might do with your lover in the privacy of your own bedroom. The reason is that the beginning of homosexuality is documented in Genesis 9:20-25, and it has caused a rift in mankind ever since. In contemporary history, it has manifested itself into the AIDS epidemic, causing misery, death and pain among literally hundreds of millions of people.


So when you said 





> They are all in the same dirty, sick tent.


 you meant like a big tent, with dividing walls. A multi-level tent.


----------



## glockmail

5stringJeff said:


> I'll take that to mean that you can't Biblically justify condemning oral sex between a married couple.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not saying it's not a grave sin.  But many other sins are also tolerated in the church, as the author says homosexuality is, like greed and gluttony.  Are these sins somehow worse because they are tolerated?  Or is the toleration of those sins the real issue?



You can take it that way if you wish, and you will be wrong.

Perhaps homosexuality is lees tolerated becasue it is so grave: pick your fights.


----------



## glockmail

manu1959 said:


> so you are using a gay guy as your source?



That didn't take long for you to resort to the "he's gay" insult.


----------



## glockmail

The ClayTaurus said:


> So when you said  you meant like a big tent, with dividing walls. A multi-level tent.


  Whatever. Not my kind of tent.


----------



## manu1959

glockmail said:


> That didn't take long for you to resort to the "he's gay" insult.



no it actually took quite a while.....plus i thought kagom started the thread and he is gay.....btw are you telling me you are not a gay dude trapped in womans body? (ps the avatar is a touch fem)

but since you started the thread....humans are born without the abilty to reproduce all the time yet they continue to be born....why is that?


----------



## Gunny

manu1959 said:


> no it actually took quite a while.....plus i thought kagom started the thread and he is gay.....btw are you telling me you are not a gay dude trapped in womans body? (ps the avatar is a touch fem)
> 
> but since you started the thread....humans are born without the abilty to reproduce all the time yet they continue to be born....why is that?



Are we actually back on topic? 

Sterility is almost ALWAYS due to physical malfunction.  It hasn't been proven to be genetic anymore than homosexuality has.  It is manifested only by physical homosexual behavior, just as sterility is manifested only by the physical inability to reproduce.


----------



## manu1959

GunnyL said:


> Are we actually back on topic?
> 
> Sterility is almost ALWAYS due to physical malfunction.  It hasn't been proven to be genetic anymore than homosexuality has.  It is manifested only by physical homosexual behavior, just as sterility is manifested only by the physical inability to reproduce.



my doctor would tell you that you are wrong.


----------



## Gunny

manu1959 said:


> my doctor would tell you that you are wrong.



Would he/she?  Lots of gays try to tell me I'm wrong about homosexuality but I have yet to see REAL evidence that says otherwise.

I really don't see where you're going with an irrelevant comparison anyway.  Sterility is not considered abnormal behavior by society, since it is a physcial condition not recognizable  by John Q.  Sterile people don't have "Sterile Pride Parades" and demand special laws that cater to them.  Matter of fact, unless a sterile person happens to bring it up, no one knows.


----------



## manu1959

GunnyL said:


> Would he/she?  Lots of gays try to tell me I'm wrong about homosexuality but I have yet to see REAL evidence that says otherwise.
> 
> I really don't see where you're going with an irrelevant comparison anyway.  Sterility is not considered abnormal behavior by society, since it is a physcial condition not recognizable  by John Q.  Sterile people don't have "Sterile Pride Parades" and demand special laws that cater to them.  Matter of fact, unless a sterile person happens to bring it up, no one knows.



the opening premise of this debate was this and i quote from post 1
It is an obvious fact that Homosexuals cannot reproduce. Therefore someone cannot have a genetic homosexual parent. Since traits are passed on through generations, it is clear that the trait of homosexuality is not passed on through generations, but is in fact a learned response.

so....if born sterile which is a result of a chromosome or genetic flaw (and according to my doctor it is).....you are not able to reproduce....yet people continue to be born with that genetic flaw...it is pretty common.

thus my point is....the intial premis of this thread is flawed.

now i am not saying being gay is genetic or not...it is what it is.

personally i believe....some people choose to be gay, some may in fact be genetic and some may be a result of hormone baths during the last trimester of pregnancy....at the end of the day....don't care which it is really .... but no special parades ..... if you are one of us, as you claim, behave like it


----------



## glockmail

manu1959 said:


> no it actually took quite a while.....plus i thought kagom started the thread and he is gay.....btw are you telling me you are not a gay dude trapped in womans body? (ps the avatar is a touch fem)
> 
> but since you started the thread....humans are born without the abilty to reproduce all the time yet they continue to be born....why is that?



I don't think it is right to use "gay" as an insult, be it to kagom, the reference to post 1, or me.

That's a silly question, don't you think? Aren't most humans born with the ability to reproduce?


----------



## jillian

glockmail said:


> I don't think it is right to use "gay" as an insult, be it to kagom, the reference to post 1, or me.
> 
> That's a silly question, don't you think? Aren't most humans born with the ability to reproduce?



Yes.... same as most humans are born heterosexual. Then there's the percentage of humans that are born infertile and the percentage born homosexual. Funny how that works.


----------



## glockmail

jillian said:


> Yes.... same as most humans are born heterosexual. Then there's the percentage of humans that are born infertile and the percentage born homosexual. Funny how that works.


 Funny how there's not a lobby group promoting everyone to accept infertility as natural, normal, and a benefit to society.


----------



## jillian

glockmail said:


> Funny how there's not a lobby group promoting everyone to accept infertility as natural, normal, and a benefit to society.




Maybe because there aren't nutters like you lobbying against them, eh?


----------



## glockmail

jillian said:


> Maybe because there aren't nutters like you lobbying against them, eh?



You call me a "nutter" because I merely speak the truth. Does that qualify me as a lobbyist, well financed, well connected, with a huge prescence in Hollywood and Washington?


----------



## jillian

glockmail said:


> You call me a "nutter" because I merely speak the truth. Does that qualify me as a lobbyist, well financed, well connected, with a huge prescence in Hollywood and Washington?




No. I call you a nutter because your posts bear no rational relationship to reality... you know, like your above response -- which has nothing to do with what I said.  After all, you're the one so concerned with staying on topic... but I guess that's unless it goes to your schizophrenic associations.


----------



## The ClayTaurus

glockmail said:


> You call me a "nutter" because I merely speak the truth. Does that qualify me as a lobbyist, well financed, well connected, with a huge prescence in Hollywood and Washington?


She didn't say you were a lobbyist. She said people LIKE you are lobbyists.

www.RIF.org


----------



## glockmail

jillian said:


> No. I call you a nutter because your posts bear no rational relationship to reality... you know, like your above response -- which has nothing to do with what I said.  After all, you're the one so concerned with staying on topic... but I guess that's unless it goes to your schizophrenic associations.



ROTFLMAO. 
First you call me a "nutter", now you call me a "schizophrenic". :blah2: Do you have anything to say about the topic, or are you content with name calling and insults?


----------



## manu1959

glockmail said:


> I don't think it is right to use "gay" as an insult, be it to kagom, the reference to post 1, or me.
> 
> That's a silly question, don't you think? Aren't most humans born with the ability to reproduce?



gay is not an insult it is how thay gay community refers to themselves....ass bandit or fudgepacker would be an insult.

most humans are not born gay either what is your point oh ya, your opening premise that gay people can't reproduce so they can not be born gay and thus it can not be genetic. ya that isn't silly.

why do you care if they are gay or not? why do you care if they choose to be gay or are born gay?


----------



## The ClayTaurus

manu1959 said:


> gay is not an insult it is how thay gay community refers to themselves....ass bandit or fudgepacker would be an insult.


Don't forget grape smuggler.


----------



## glockmail

manu1959 said:


> gay is not an insult it is how thay gay community refers to themselves....ass bandit or fudgepacker would be an insult.
> 
> most humans are not born gay either what is your point oh ya, your opening premise that gay people can't reproduce so they can not be born gay and thus it can not be genetic. ya that isn't silly.
> 
> why do you care if they are gay or not? why do you care if they choose to be gay or are born gay?



Look, you obviously inferred an insult by calling kagnom gay, and why would I refer to his post (because you thought he posts #1). Can;t yo be man enouh to admit the truth? Stand up for yourself!

Why do I care? Re-read post 21.


----------



## manu1959

glockmail said:


> Look, you obviously inferred an insult by calling kagnom gay, and why would I refer to his post (because you thought he posts #1). Can;t yo be man enouh to admit the truth? Stand up for yourself!
> 
> Why do I care? Re-read post 21.



no ... you infered the insult .... i implied irony that you were citing a post by a gay guy as the basis for your argument that, gays can not not be born gay ....

you know....it has become clear to me now that you find oral and anal sex personally frightening, bad experience? and have projected that fear onto the gay community and blame them for that fear and until you seek counseling and admit your fear and stop hiding behinde iterpreations of the bible that Jeff has pointed out are not there you will never be able to understand the  plight of your fellow man ....

off to read post 21


----------



## manu1959

glockmail said:


> I disagree, as it goes to the crux of the issue, can they being treated differently under US laws? The Declaration of Independence states that all men are created equal, therefore if someone is born with a trait, then that trait should have no bearing on their rights. *But if someone chooses to have a trait, then that person can legally be treated differently.*
> Example of chosen traits are a criminal (may be incarcerated) or a medical doctor (may be able to prescribe narcotics).



back on topic.....

this is why you care if they a born gay?

because if they are not, and they have chosen the trait they can be legally discriminated against?

well then ...... if that is what you want ..... but listen up .... you chose to be a christian, you were not born that way, and there is no genetic proof to back you up .... so when society legaly discrimates against you .... no complaining


----------



## glockmail

manu1959 said:


> no ... you infered the insult .... i implied irony that you were citing a post by a gay guy as the basis for your argument that, gays can not not be born gay ....
> 
> you know....it has become clear to me now that you find oral and anal sex personally frightening, bad experience? and have projected that fear onto the gay community and blame them for that fear and until you seek counseling and admit your fear and stop hiding behinde iterpreations of the bible that Jeff has pointed out are not there you will never be able to understand the  plight of your fellow man ....
> 
> off to read post 21




This post is nearly incomprehensible. And now you think you are a pshrink as well. Or are these merely your attempt at more insults, because you disagree with me?


----------



## manu1959

glockmail said:


> This post is nearly incomprehensible. And now you think you are a pshrink as well. Or are these merely your attempt at more insults, because you disagree with me?



no i read post 21 as you instructed ... i understand who you are now.


----------



## glockmail

manu1959 said:


> no i read post 21 as you instructed ... i understand who you are now.


Great, then now you know why it is important to understand if gays are born that way or not.


----------



## jillian

manu1959 said:


> back on topic.....
> 
> this is why you care if they a born gay?
> 
> because if they are not, and they have chosen the trait they can be legally discriminated against?
> 
> well then ...... if that is what you want ..... but listen up .... you chose to be a christian, you were not born that way, and there is no genetic proof to back you up .... so when society legaly discrimates against you .... no complaining



You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to manu1959 again.


----------



## The ClayTaurus

glockmail said:


> Great, then now you know why it is important to understand if gays are born that way or not.


So, if they're born gay, they can't be legally discriminated against, but if they choose to be gay, then discriminate away?


----------



## Mr. P

glockmail said:


> I disagree, as it goes to the crux of the issue, can they being treated differently under US laws? The Declaration of Independence states that all men are created equal, therefore if someone is born with a trait, then that trait should have no bearing on their rights. *But if someone chooses to have a trait, then that person can legally be treated differently.*
> 
> ....



WOW, ya learn something new everyday! I never knew The Declaration of Independence was law. 

I thought "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. 

Was I ever wrong! I am going to start my "that person can legally be treated differently" list together right away.

Thanks Glockmail, I'm on the right track now! I'm free to discriminate against anyone that is not just like me, by law too. Right? That includes thinking like me and believing like me right, that is a trait, ya know?:gross2:

*This post is intentionally just as stupid as post #21*


----------



## glockmail

The ClayTaurus said:


> So, if they're born gay, they can't be legally discriminated against, but if they choose to be gay, then discriminate away?


 Does that jive with the examples that I gave?


----------



## glockmail

Mr. P said:


> WOW, ya learn something new everyday! I never knew The Declaration of Independence was law. ....


  Well now you know what the basis of our laws is!!


----------



## jillian

glockmail said:


> Well now you know what the basis of our laws is!!



Er... no. The Declaration of Independence is not enforceable law. Do try again.


----------



## glockmail

jillian said:


> Er... no. The Declaration of Independence is not enforceable law. Do try again.


 Perhaps you could point out where I said it was.


----------



## jillian

glockmail said:


> Perhaps you could point out where I said it was.



It isn't the "basis" of our laws either. 

Just curious... why do you keep doing that? You spout ridiculous stuff, get called on it and try to pretend you didn't say what you said.

I also think you'll find that Mr. P doesn't need lessons in law from you, so you might want to rethink that one, too.


----------



## glockmail

jillian said:


> It isn't the "basis" of our laws either.
> 
> Just curious... why do you keep doing that? You spout ridiculous stuff, get called on it and try to pretend you didn't say what you said.
> 
> I also think you'll find that Mr. P doesn't need lessons in law from you, so you might want to rethink that one, too.



1. Of course it is the basis for US laws. The DOI represents the ideals that the Constitution attempted to codify.
2. Perhaps you could point out where I was "called on it", and then again where I tried 'to pretend I didn't say it'.
3. I asked you several times to point out where I have made statements that you claim that I have made, and instead you consistently sidestep. Just curious... why do you keep doing that?


----------



## The ClayTaurus

glockmail said:


> 1. Of course it is the basis for US laws. The DOI represents the ideals that the Constitution attempted to codify.
> 2. Perhaps you could point out where I was "called on it", and then again where I tried 'to pretend I didn't say it'.
> 3. I asked you several times to point out where I have made statements that you claim that I have made, and instead you consistently sidestep. Just curious... why do you keep doing that?



Your signature should be "perhaps you could point out where I said that"


----------



## The ClayTaurus

glockmail said:


> Does that jive with the examples that I gave?


Yes it does. Prove me wrong.


----------



## 5stringJeff

glockmail said:


> You can take it that way if you wish, and you will be wrong.



You have yet to prove me wrong on this issue.  So, to keep it from getting lost, I've started a new thread devoted to the question:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=40102


----------



## jillian

glockmail said:


> 1. Of course it is the basis for US laws. The DOI represents the ideals that the Constitution attempted to codify.
> 2. Perhaps you could point out where I was "called on it", and then again where I tried 'to pretend I didn't say it'.
> 3. I asked you several times to point out where I have made statements that you claim that I have made, and instead you consistently sidestep. Just curious... why do you keep doing that?




There were many documents which set forth our ideals. The Constitution wasn't the first set of laws establishing our government. And the Declaration of Independence was a statement to Britain announcing our intention to end our colonial ties. As an historical document, it's interesting but has no binding effect.

As for sidestepping... no. You just lack comprehension.


----------



## MissileMan

jillian said:


> You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to manu1959 again.



I got it!


----------



## glockmail

The ClayTaurus said:


> Your signature should be "perhaps you could point out where I said that"


 With all the false assumptions made by you and your ilk, that's not a bad idea.


----------



## glockmail

The ClayTaurus said:


> Yes it does. Prove me wrong.


 I believe it is your responsibility to prove yourself right first.


----------



## glockmail

5stringJeff said:


> You have yet to prove me wrong on this issue.  So, to keep it from getting lost, I've started a new thread devoted to the question:
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=40102




Thanks for giving me a trash can to divert the perverted questions.


----------



## glockmail

jillian said:


> There were many documents which set forth our ideals. The Constitution wasn't the first set of laws establishing our government. And the Declaration of Independence was a statement to Britain announcing our intention to end our colonial ties. As an historical document, it's interesting but has no binding effect.
> 
> As for sidestepping... no. You just lack comprehension.



You side stepped again.


----------



## jillian

MissileMan said:


> I got it!




Thanks, dude!


----------



## Said1

jillian said:


> Thanks, dude!   <------------------




My, my. You do do a beautiful side step. 



Ha! I kill me.


----------



## jillian

Said1 said:


> My, my. You do do a beautiful side step.
> 
> 
> 
> Ha! I kill me.



You should see me pogo! lol...


----------



## Said1

jillian said:


> You should see me pogo! lol...



Pervert.


----------



## jillian

Said1 said:


> Pervert.



By some standards!


----------



## dilloduck

jillian said:


> By some standards!



Oh man---the Christians are after you again, aren't they ? Before ya know it they will be celebrating Christmas and stuff !


----------



## Mr. P

dilloduck said:


> Oh man---the Christians are after you again, aren't they ? Before ya know it they will be celebrating Christmas and stuff !



Sheeeeuuuuucccchhhhhhhh! She's gonna show us her POGO!


----------



## The ClayTaurus

glockmail said:


> With all the false assumptions made by you and your ilk, that's not a bad idea.


Perhaps you could point out where I said it was a bad idea?


----------



## The ClayTaurus

glockmail said:


> I believe it is your responsibility to prove yourself right first.


Naw, I'm perfectly content with my opinion of you. No need to prove anything else.


----------



## Gunny

jillian said:


> Yes.... same as most humans are born heterosexual. Then there's the percentage of humans that are born infertile and the percentage born homosexual. Funny how that works.



This argument would not exist if you could produce evidence to back up your opinion that a percetnage of people are born homosexual.  But you cannot, so it does.


----------



## Gunny

jillian said:


> Maybe because there aren't nutters like you lobbying against them, eh?



There sure ARE "nutters" like you lobbying for homosexuals though.


----------



## Gunny

The ClayTaurus said:


> So, if they're born gay, they can't be legally discriminated against, but if they choose to be gay, then discriminate away?



As long as their behavior is considered outside the conforms of society, and society continues to reject said behavior, they will be discriminated against.  

The whole "born gay" argument is an attempt to convey people who behave abnormally as helpless victims.  

Are homicidal sociopaths born with a screw loose?  Or is it a learned behavior?  Or doe sit really not matter because our laws reflect our intolerance to such, be they victims of genetics or a bad childhood.


----------



## Gunny

Mr. P said:


> WOW, ya learn something new everyday! I never knew The Declaration of Independence was law.
> 
> I thought "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
> 
> Was I ever wrong! I am going to start my "that person can legally be treated differently" list together right away.
> 
> Thanks Glockmail, I'm on the right track now! I'm free to discriminate against anyone that is not just like me, by law too. Right? That includes thinking like me and believing like me right, that is a trait, ya know?:gross2:
> 
> *This post is intentionally just as stupid as post #21*



C'mon P, you know every time a person makes a decision, discrimination is involved.  If you choose a red shirt, you have discrminated against all other colors of shirts.  

People have a right to dislike whoever they want to for whatever reason.  It isn't only the PC relativists in this Nation that are allowed to decide who can and cannot be discriminated against.

I don't use religion as an argument against homosexuality for the very reason that has been on display HERE .... the moral relativists come out with their high-n-mighty, relativist BULLSHIT, attacking the beliefs of the poster.  

What's wrong with THAT picture?  It's normal to be Christian in this nation.  It is not normal to be homosexual.  But lately it seems, anything considered normal is under attack while abnormality is celebrated and defended.

Something VERY wrong in that.


----------



## dilloduck

GunnyL said:


> C'mon P, you know every time a person makes a decision, discrimination is involved.  If you choose a red shirt, you have discrminated against all other colors of shirts.
> 
> People have a right to dislike whoever they want to for whatever reason.  It isn't only the PC relativists in this Nation that are allowed to decide who can and cannot be discriminated against.
> 
> I don't use religion as an argument against homosexuality for the very reason that has been on display HERE .... the moral relativists come out with their high-n-mighty, relativist BULLSHIT, attacking the beliefs of the poster.
> 
> What's wrong with THAT picture?  It's normal to be Christian in this nation.  It is not normal to be homosexual.  But lately it seems, anything considered normal is under attack while abnormality is celebrated and defended.
> 
> Something VERY wrong in that.



Bingo----pick any minority position, support it beyond reason and you too can become a fashionable liberal kook. Fight against normalcy and standards ! Fight for your right to do any damn thing you feel like doing. Project your victimhood onto every little pitiful cause in the world and find the bully to blame it on. Be against everything !!!!!


----------



## Gunny

dilloduck said:


> Bingo----pick any minority position, support it beyond reason and you too can become a fashionable liberal kook. Fight against normalcy and standards ! Fight for your right to do any damn thing you feel like doing. Project your victimhood onto every little pitiful cause in the world and find the bully to blame it on. Be against everything !!!!!



Yeah, I don't get it.  I can analyze it for what it is quick enough, but the backwards-assed alleged logic and alleged reasoning used in these arguments just baffles me.

I wonder if people are just "born that way?"


----------



## The ClayTaurus

GunnyL said:


> As long as their behavior is considered outside the conforms of society, and society continues to reject said behavior, they will be discriminated against.
> 
> The whole "born gay" argument is an attempt to convey people who behave abnormally as helpless victims.
> 
> Are homicidal sociopaths born with a screw loose?  Or is it a learned behavior?  Or doe sit really not matter because our laws reflect our intolerance to such, be they victims of genetics or a bad childhood.


Homocidal sociopaths infringe on the rights of others by definition.


----------



## Gunny

The ClayTaurus said:


> Homocidal sociopaths infringe on the rights of others by definition.



Of course.  And you don't think teaching my children that something wrong is okay is not infringing on MY rights and the rights of my children?

You keep wanting to make it a relative argument .... well, just because it isn't taking my life doesn't mean it isn't infringing on my rights.  When I am daily faced with people pushing abnormal as normal, and there really isn't anywhere I can turn and get away from it (in case you want to try the "turn off the TV" argument, unless I sit in the corner in the dark.

Well BULLSHIT to THAT.  We just stand for whatever is jacked-up and cries "foul" because their abnormality isn't recognized as normal and special laws aren't put in place to cater to it.

There no longer is a "We, the People ..."  Now it's "we the (insert minority special interest group here) demand to be catered to."


----------



## Dr Grump

GunnyL said:


> .. well, just because it isn't taking my life doesn't mean it isn't infringing on my rights.



But you're more than happy to infringe no their's.


----------



## manu1959

Dr Grump said:


> But you're more than happy to infringe no their's.



exactly what rights don't gays have again?


----------



## Dr Grump

manu1959 said:


> exactly what rights don't gays have again?



Can't marry....


----------



## manu1959

Dr Grump said:


> Can't marry....




not true they can go to the Episcopal church in san francisco and get married tomorrow


----------



## Dr Grump

manu1959 said:


> not true they can go to the Episcopal church in san francisco and get married tomorrow



What next, can they drink out of the same fountains as straights too? By Jove! Progress...


----------



## Gunny

Dr Grump said:


> But you're more than happy to infringe no their's.



I'm not infringing on their rights.  That I am is just a typical, backwards-assed argument of the left.


----------



## Gunny

Dr Grump said:


> Can't marry....



They have the same right to marry that I do.


----------



## Gunny

Dr Grump said:


> What next, can they drink out of the same fountains as straights too? By Jove! Progress...



Yeah, as long as you aren't worried about communicable diseases.


----------



## Annie

Dr Grump said:


> Can't marry....



Whatever. On the other hand, though I'm making NO comparisons, seems that the slaves did just fine rearing families-even when the slave system tore them apart-with 'jumping the broom.' As I said, there is no justification for what was done in slavery, yet they in these truly impossible situations, managed to raise children and keep the family together 'souly' if not 'bodily', in a way many of us would envy today.

There is no comparison in how gays are treated today, yet they cannot figure out how to 'get along.'


----------



## Dr Grump

GunnyL said:


> I'm not infringing on their rights.  That I am is just a typical, backwards-assed argument of the left.



Nothing ass backward about it all. You can marry any adult person where there is mutual attraction. They cannot...


----------



## Gunny

Dr Grump said:


> Nothing ass backward about it all. You can marry any adult person where there is mutual attraction. They cannot...



The law does not state I can marry any adult person of mutual attraction.


----------



## Dr Grump

GunnyL said:


> They have the same right to marry that I do.



That has got to be one of the lamest arguments out there. Because I just know there are tonnes of homos out there dying to marry women...


----------



## Dr Grump

GunnyL said:


> The law does not state I can marry any adult person of mutual attraction.



Doesn't say you can't either.


----------



## Gunny

Dr Grump said:


> That has got to be one of the lamest arguments out there. Because I just know there are tonnes of homos out there dying to marry women...



Not lame at all.  There wouldn't be a problem if they didn't want to live an abnormal lifestyle.  The law does not and should not cater to every dorkwad with screwball behavior that comes along.


----------



## Gunny

Dr Grump said:


> Doesn't say you can't either.



It doesn't say they can't either.  The law says any man can amrry any woman.  Mutual attraction, love, lust or whatever not being requirements.


----------



## Gunny

Kathianne said:


> Whatever. On the other hand, though I'm making NO comparisons, seems that the slaves did just fine rearing families-even when the slave system tore them apart-with 'jumping the broom.' As I said, there is no justification for what was done in slavery, yet they in these truly impossible situations, managed to raise children and keep the family together 'souly' if not 'bodily', in a way many of us would envy today.
> 
> There is no comparison in how gays are treated today, yet they cannot figure out how to 'get along.'



Sure they can.  Just give them special rights that cater to their aberrant lifestyle and they'll be fine.


----------



## Dr Grump

Kathianne said:


> Whatever. On the other hand, though I'm making NO comparisons, seems that the slaves did just fine rearing families-even when the slave system tore them apart-with 'jumping the broom.' As I said, there is no justification for what was done in slavery, yet they in these truly impossible situations, managed to raise children and keep the family together 'souly' if not 'bodily', in a way many of us would envy today.
> 
> There is no comparison in how gays are treated today, yet they cannot figure out how to 'get along.'



That's a whole different argument. Look at the divorce rate amongst hetros. Not exactly great is it?


----------



## Dr Grump

GunnyL said:


> The law does not and should not cater to every dorkwad with screwball behavior that comes along.



As they are consenting adults, absolutely they should. Who cares? The idea of two homos banging away disgusts me. However, unlike most conservatives who talk the talk, I walk the walk when it comes to personal freedoms. Yet some say I'm the liberal..go figure...


----------



## manu1959

Dr Grump said:


> Nothing ass backward about it all. You can marry any adult person where there is mutual attraction. They cannot...



not true they can go to the Episcopal church in san francisco and get married tomorrow


----------



## Gunny

Dr Grump said:


> As they are consenting adults, absolutely they should. Who cares? The idea of two homos banging away disgusts me. However, unlike most conservatives who talk the talk, I walk the walk when it comes to personal freedoms. Yet some say I'm the liberal..go figure...



Well, unlike most liberals who can't differentiate between laws affording special rights based on aberrant beahvior and my giving a damn what said abnormal people do in the privacy of their own home, please spare attempting to take the hight ground.

What you want is to cater to an aberrant minority.  I don't.  THAT would be the difference.


----------



## Dr Grump

manu1959 said:


> not true they can go to the Episcopal church in san francisco and get married tomorrow



Legally?


----------



## Dr Grump

GunnyL said:


> Well, unlike most liberals who can't differentiate between laws affording special rights based on aberrant beahvior and my giving a damn what said abnormal people do in the privacy of their own home, please spare attempting to take the hight ground.
> 
> What you want is to cater to an aberrant minority.  I don't.  THAT would be the difference.



They don't want special rights, and you calling it so is disingenuous. Of course I have the high ground. I'm giving them the opportunity to live life in persuit of happiness etc. Listen, if they were doing something that would affect me in a personal way, you and I would be on the same page. They don't. It's only other people's intolerence that is the problem.


----------



## dilloduck

Dr Grump said:


> As they are consenting adults, absolutely they should. Who cares? The idea of two homos banging away disgusts me. However, unlike most conservatives who talk the talk, I walk the walk when it comes to personal freedoms. Yet some say I'm the liberal..go figure...



And just how will married homosexuals make a damn bit of difference to your precious personal life style? Married or unmarried, your life won't change a bit. You only argue for thier rights as a way of defending you right to do anything you want, totally free from all restrictions.

The reality is that we all can't do that without creating a chaos that only the strongest,most powerful and richest would survive.


----------



## manu1959

Dr Grump said:


> Legally?



oh .... you don't want the religious piece of paper 

.... you want the civil union marriage licences the govt. gives you .... so you can get health care, social security benifits, visit them in the hospital and inherit their fortune when they die....those are the rights you want?

an attorney and a san francisco address can get you all that


----------



## Dr Grump

dilloduck said:


> And just how will married homosexuals make a damn bit of difference to your precious personal life style? Married or unmarried, your life won't change a bit. You only argue for thier rights as a way of defending you right to do anything you want, totally free from all restrictions.
> 
> The reality is that we all can't do that without creating a chaos that only the strongest,most powerful and richest would survive.



Oh brother.....


----------



## Dr Grump

manu1959 said:


> oh .... you don't want the religious piece of paper
> 
> .... you want the civil union marriage licences the govt. gives you .... so you can get health care, social security benifits, visit them in the hospital and inherit their fortune when they die....those are the rights you want?
> 
> an attorney and a san francisco address can get you all that



Nope, I want them to have the religious piece of paper...and the other rights, too...may as well go the distance!


----------



## Annie

Dr Grump said:


> Nope, I want them to have the religious piece of paper...and the other rights, too...may as well go the distance!



So you want to force churches to accept your morality? In my previous example, I was stating what those in 'love' and 'committed' did, under barbarous conditions did, and still managed to serve the next generation. Neither you nor those you 'champion' are about the future, just about 'me.'


----------



## Gunny

Dr Grump said:


> They don't want special rights, and you calling it so is disingenuous. Of course I have the high ground. I'm giving them the opportunity to live life in persuit of happiness etc. Listen, if they were doing something that would affect me in a personal way, you and I would be on the same page. They don't. It's only other people's intolerence that is the problem.



Nothing disingenuous about my argument.  Disingenuous is trying to say they don't want special rights when that is EXACTLY what they want.  They want their aberrant sexual behavior to define them legally, and they want the law to grant them a right that caters solely to their aberrant behavior.  Don't know what else you can call that.

There's a big difference between intolerance and catering to aberrance that you obviously keep missing.


----------



## Annie

GunnyL said:


> Nothing disingenuous about my argument.  Disingenuous is trying to say they don't want special rights when that is EXACTLY what they want.  They want their aberrant sexual behavior to define them legally, and they want the law to grant them a right that caters solely to their aberrant behavior.  Don't know what else you can call that.
> 
> There's a big difference between intolerance and catering to aberrance that you obviously keep missing.



Yup. Well said.


----------



## Gunny

Dr Grump said:


> Nope, I want them to have the religious piece of paper...and the other rights, too...may as well go the distance!



See what I mean?  You scream like a banshee when the church even looks at a government building; yet, you're more than happy to force your government on my church.

Typical liberal hypocrisy.


----------



## Dr Grump

Kathianne said:


> So you want to force churches to accept your morality?



Lotsa homos are god fearing too...



Kathianne said:


> Neither you nor those you 'champion' are about the future, just about 'me.'



In your opinion.


----------



## dilloduck

Dr Grump said:


> Oh brother.....



Grump----you could give a rats' ass about whether homosexuals are married or not. Fess up to your true agenda here.


----------



## Annie

grump said:
			
		

> In your opinion.


Nope, in your postings.


----------



## Dr Grump

GunnyL said:


> See what I mean?  You scream like a banshee when the church even looks at a government building; yet, you're more than happy to force your government on my church.
> 
> Typical liberal hypocrisy.



Nothing hypocritical about it. If anything, the church is acting hypocritical. Why should they be allowed to discriminate?


----------



## Dr Grump

dilloduck said:


> Grump----you could give a rats' ass about whether homosexuals are married or not. Fess up to your true agenda here.



Which is?


----------



## Dr Grump

Kathianne said:


> Nope, in your postings.



Wanting people to have rights is now about "It's all about me"? Interesting take. You are wrong of course, but intersting take nonetheless..


----------



## manu1959

Dr Grump said:


> Nothing hypocritical about it. If anything, the church is acting hypocritical. Why should they be allowed to discriminate?



look....i can't get married in mecca unless i convert...nor in st peter's nor in a synagogue in israel.....get over it.....the gays have their own churches as well as do blacks.....

why should churches have to accept govt rules.....sep of church and state after all


----------



## Annie

Dr Grump said:


> Wanting people to have rights is now about "It's all about me"? Interesting take. You are wrong of course, but intersting take nonetheless..



No sweetie, you are wrong.


----------



## 1549

Dr Grump said:


> Nothing hypocritical about it. If anything, the church is acting hypocritical. Why should they be allowed to discriminate?



Normally we agree Grump, but I have a different take on this one.  I think a private religious organization like the church can have its own definition of marriage.  It is the government that most certainly should not be allowed to discriminate--that much I am positive we agree on.


----------



## Dr Grump

manu1959 said:


> look....i can't get married in mecca unless i convert...nor in st peter's nor in a synagogue in israel.....get over it.....the gays have their own churches as well as do blacks.....
> 
> why should churches have to accept govt rules.....sep of church and state after all



Nor should you be able to get married in Mecca, you're not a Muslim. If gays have their own churches, then you're right, no problemo.

As for your second question ,For the same reason Alabama had to get rid of the Jim Crow laws.


----------



## Dr Grump

Kathianne said:


> No sweetie, you are wrong.



No, you are wrong...


----------



## manu1959

Dr Grump said:


> Nor should you be able to get married in Mecca, you're not a Muslim. If gays have their own churches, then you're right, no problemo.
> 
> As for your second question ,For the same reason Alabama had to get rid of the Jim Crow laws.



there are plenty of gay churches in san francisco.....try waking into a lesbo church as a straight dude in the castro or as a white dude in west oakland or the bay view.....


----------



## Dr Grump

1549 said:


> Normally we agree Grump, but I have a different take on this one.  I think a private religious organization like the church can have its own definition of marriage.  It is the government that most certainly should not be allowed to discriminate--that much I am positive we agree on.



You could be right on that re the church - to a degree. Some churches are already split on the issue


----------



## jillian

Dr Grump said:


> You could be right on that re the church - to a degree. Some churches are already split on the issue



I'm gonna have to chime in on this one, too, Grump. I think separation of church and state has to go both ways, so I figure Churches get to do things there own way. If a person doesn't find what they need from a particular denomination, they can look elsewhere. The main issue is the government treating everyone equally... and if they can derive the same benefits as married heterosexuals, then I think that satisfies the discrimination issue.

Just sayin'.


----------



## Dr Grump

manu1959 said:


> there are plenty of gay churches in san francisco.....try waking into a lesbo church as a straight dude in the castro or as a white dude in west oakland or the bay view.....



LOL..you tried it?? Fair point, but I still believe trying to discriminate against somebody due to their sexuality is morally wrong, which basically is my argument...


----------



## Dr Grump

jillian said:


> I'm gonna have to chime in on this one, too, Grump. I think separation of church and state has to go both ways, so I figure Churches get to do things there own way. If a person doesn't find what they need from a particular denomination, they can look elsewhere. The main issue is the government treating everyone equally... and if they can derive the same benefits as married heterosexuals, then I think that satisfies the discrimination issue.
> 
> Just sayin'.



As I said to 1549, maybe a fair call, but it jsut reeks of hypocrisy, not just discriminating against them, but the whole "inclusive" aspects of Christianity


----------



## jillian

Dr Grump said:


> As I said to 1549, maybe a fair call, but it jsut reeks of hypocrisy, not just discriminating against them, but the whole "inclusive" aspects of Christianity



I understand your point. But every religion sets its own rules and many of them aren't evenhanded. Islam doesn't allow women into the mosque, I think. Orthodox Judaism separates men and women and women can't do services or participate in Torah readings. In Catholicism, women can't be priests... at least not in any way sanctioned by Rome. 

Many Churches have split on this issue, the Episcopal Church coming first and foremost to mind. But there are places where a gay couple can comfortably be married in a "committment ceremony". 

Mostly, I think it would be dangerous ground for government to tell religious groups what to do, same as it is for religion to dictate to government.


----------



## dilloduck

Dr Grump said:


> As I said to 1549, maybe a fair call, but it jsut reeks of hypocrisy, not just discriminating against them, but the whole "inclusive" aspects of Christianity



You won't be the only one here that's pissed at Christians because they don't understand them.


----------



## Dr Grump

jillian said:


> I understand your point. But every religion sets its own rules and many of them aren't evenhanded. Islam doesn't allow women into the mosque, I think. Orthodox Judaism separates men and women and women can't do services or participate in Torah readings. In Catholicism, women can't be priests... at least not in any way sanctioned by Rome.
> 
> Many Churches have split on this issue, the Episcopal Church coming first and foremost to mind. But there are places where a gay couple can comfortably be married in a "committment ceremony".
> 
> Mostly, I think it would be dangerous ground for government to tell religious groups what to do, same as it is for religion to dictate to government.



What about Satanists who believe in human sacrifice. Ridiculous arguement I know, but would fit right in with some arguments on this board. Put it up there with "gays can marry hetros too" argument...


----------



## Dr Grump

dilloduck said:


> You won't be the only one here that's pissed at Christians because they don't understand them.



I understand Christians perfectly. And I'm not pissed at them. Can't think of one time when I've ever been pissed at the religion, only those that would try and make laws based on Christianity...


----------



## Kagom

Dr Grump said:


> What about Satanists who believe in human sacrifice. Ridiculous arguement I know, but would fit right in with some arguments on this board. Put it up there with "gays can marry hetros too" argument...


Satanists don't believe in human sacrifice.  That was a bunch of bullshit created by the religious people of the 60's and 70's.  And Hollywood.


----------



## jillian

Dr Grump said:


> What about Satanists who believe in human sacrifice. Ridiculous arguement I know, but would fit right in with some arguments on this board. Put it up there with "gays can marry hetros too" argument...



lol... well, we already intervene when someone's going to be injured, particularly a child. When I would go do family court cases, we used to see a lot of the neglect cases brought regarding Santaria, and the carving of symbol's in a sick child's body, or in denial of medical treatment to a child by a parent who might be a Christian Scientist.

Different situation, though. I don't think there's ever been a case brought trying to force an adult Christian Scientist to get medical treatment or the like. It mostly has to do with the inability of a child to consent.


----------



## manu1959

Dr Grump said:


> LOL..you tried it?? Fair point, but I still believe trying to discriminate against somebody due to their sexuality is morally wrong, which basically is my argument...



i used to go to gay bars to get free drinks.....i like to challenge the status quo and spin the tables


----------



## The ClayTaurus

GunnyL said:


> Of course.  And you don't think teaching my children that something wrong is okay is not infringing on MY rights and the rights of my children?


It's a tough call. I'd be inclined to agree that it's infringement of your rights, but children are susceptible to many teachings of things that are wrong being ok. I was always told the job of the parent was to monitor and correct these misteachings. I will admit it would be easier to raise my future children if the country were just a crackerjack version of my personal morality, but alas I don't see that happening.

Beyond any of that, however, is the simple difference that a homocidal sociopath, by definition, infringes on rights. A homosexual, by definition, doesn't.


----------



## glockmail

GunnyL said:


> Yeah, I don't get it.  I can analyze it for what it is quick enough, but the backwards-assed alleged logic and alleged reasoning used in these arguments just baffles me.
> 
> I wonder if people are just "born that way?"



LOL!! Maybe I'll start a new thread: "Are you born Liberal?".


----------



## glockmail

Dr Grump said:


> That's a whole different argument. Look at the divorce rate amongst hetros. Not exactly great is it?


 Do you suppose the liberal-homosexual-feminist agenda has anything to do with that?


----------



## glockmail

Dr Grump said:


> Legally?


  Why should they care if they go against the laws of a nation, when they have already broken the laws of God and nature?


----------



## MissileMan

glockmail said:


> Do you suppose the liberal-homosexual-feminist agenda has anything to do with that?



Why is the concept of individual responsibility thrown out the window when someone such as yourself wants to attack a group you don't like?


----------



## Kagom

MissileMan said:


> Why is the concept of individual responsibility thrown out the window when someone such as yourself wants to attack a group you don't like?


Her counterpoint regarding the divorce rate was a cop-out and full of shit.


----------



## glockmail

MissileMan said:


> Why is the concept of individual responsibility thrown out the window when someone such as yourself wants to attack a group you don't like?




Give me a clue- what do you mean by "individual responsibility thrown out the window"?

Perhaps you could point out where I have attacked anyone. All I've done is expose the truth.


----------



## glockmail

Kagom said:


> Her counterpoint regarding the divorce rate was a cop-out and full of shit.


 Could you be more specific?


----------



## MissileMan

glockmail said:


> Give me a clue- what do you mean by "individual responsibility thrown out the window"?
> 
> Perhaps you could point out where I have attacked anyone. All I've done is expose the truth.



Don't start your "what did I say?" bullshit with me!  You specifically stated that hetero-divorce might be the result of the liberal-homosexual-feminist agenda.  Your allegation attempts to shift responsibility from the married individuals who decide they no longer want to live as a couple to groups who have no impact on that couple's relationship.


----------



## manu1959

glockmail said:


> Give me a clue- what do you mean by "individual responsibility thrown out the window"?
> 
> Perhaps you could point out where I have attacked anyone. All I've done is expose the truth.



perhaps you could indictae where you have behaved responsibly and ponit out where you haven't attacked people and provide links to your opinions you claim are the truth....


----------



## glockmail

MissileMan said:


> Don't start your "what did I say?" bulls[--] with me!  .....


  You'll have to calm down and act more civilly if you wish me to respond.:talk2:


----------



## MissileMan

glockmail said:


> You'll have to calm down and act more civilly if you wish me to respond.:talk2:



Just for you!

You specifically stated that hetero-divorce might be the result of the liberal-homosexual-feminist agenda. Your allegation attempts to shift responsibility from the married individuals who decide they no longer want to live as a couple to groups who have no impact on that couple's relationship.


----------



## glockmail

manu1959 said:


> perhaps you could indictae where you have behaved responsibly and ponit out where you haven't attacked people and provide links to your opinions you claim are the truth....



Wow! Do you want to re-try? 

Am I the only one here who sees the logistical incongruities in this post?
:huh:


----------



## glockmail

MissileMan said:


> Just for you!
> 
> You specifically stated that hetero-divorce might be the result of the liberal-homosexual-feminist agenda. Your allegation attempts to shift responsibility from the married individuals who decide they no longer want to live as a couple to groups who have no impact on that couple's relationship.



Much better!  Isnt it nice to be nice?

The liberal agenda puts zero value on personal responsibility. The homosexual agenda encourages perverted sexuality with numerous partners and no intellectual commitments. The feminist manifesto tells women that their relationships with men are unimportant. All three have had an effect on a significant portion of society.


----------



## jillian

glockmail said:


> Am I the only one here who sees the logistical incongruities in this post?:huh:



Yes.


----------



## MissileMan

glockmail said:


> The liberal agenda puts zero value on personal responsibility.


As do you apparently.  How would this effect the divorce rate of conservatives?  Why isn't the couple responsible for the demise of THEIR relationship?



glockmail said:


> The homosexual agenda encourages perverted sexuality with numerous partners and no intellectual commitments.


Well, this might very well have an effect on the homosexual divorce rate, but you're stuck with a small problem...I'll bet you can guess what that is.



glockmail said:


> The feminist manifesto tells women that their relationships with men are unimportant. All three have had an effect on a significant portion of society.



Again, this might have some effect on the divorce rate of feminists, but you have failed to demonstrate to even a microscopic degree how any of the three should be an acceptable excuse as to why your average, run-of-the-mill couple are getting a divorce.

Is it your contention that the percentage of liberals and feminists that are getting divorced is hugely out of proportion to the percentages of other groups?  I'd like to see the links that support that.


----------



## Gunny

Dr Grump said:


> Nothing hypocritical about it. If anything, the church is acting hypocritical. Why should they be allowed to discriminate?



Bullshit.  You SPs demand all vestiges of religion be removed from anything that has anything to do with the government; yet, you think it just fine to interject the government into the church?  Yet, you call the church hypocritical?  Get a clue.

Why shouldn't they be allowed to discriminate?  Only government organizations and nutcases feel the need to be PC.  Everyone else with a modicum of common sense realizes EVERYONE discriminates EVERY day.  Get over it.

At least you're honest about it though.  You have no problem with being a hypocrite and forcing your loony-left viewpoints even on the church.


----------



## glockmail

jillian said:


> Yes.


 Is that the result of a scientific poll or just your usual knee-jerk opinion?


----------



## jillian

MissileMan said:


> As do you apparently.  How would this effect the divorce rate of conservatives?  Why isn't the couple responsible for the demise of THEIR relationship?
> 
> 
> Well, this might very well have an effect on the homosexual divorce rate, but you're stuck with a small problem...I'll bet you can guess what that is.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, this might have some effect on the divorce rate of feminists, but you have failed to demonstrate to even a microscopic degree how any of the three should be an acceptable excuse as to why your average, run-of-the-mill couple are getting a divorce.
> 
> Is it your contention that the percentage of liberals and feminists that are getting divorced is hugely out of proportion to the percentages of other groups?  I'd like to see the links that support that.



There have already been some fairly sizeable research projects on the subject.... this being one of the most well-known and, apparently using some fairly significant data samplings.

http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=95


----------



## Gunny

Dr Grump said:


> As I said to 1549, maybe a fair call, but it jsut reeks of hypocrisy, not just discriminating against them, but the whole "inclusive" aspects of Christianity



The hypocrisy in this case is all on you.  And your verision of Christianity is incorrect.  It is not "all-inclusive."  It is inclusive for Christians and those that want to be Christians.  Christians have beliefs and rules, and if you don't go for both, then you don't belong.

You can't have it both ways.  If you choose your misinterpretation of the Constitution saying nothing religious can be anywhere near anything government, the same applies in reverse.


----------



## glockmail

MissileMan said:


> As do you apparently.  .......



You are really over the top with this post.:tdown2:


----------



## glockmail

jillian said:


> There have already been some fairly sizeable research projects on the subject.... this being one of the most well-known and, apparently using some fairly significant data samplings.
> 
> http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=95



You are so good at finding articles that have nothing to do with the issue raised!


----------



## Gunny

Dr Grump said:


> I understand Christians perfectly. And I'm not pissed at them. Can't think of one time when I've ever been pissed at the religion, only those that would try and make laws based on Christianity...



Our laws are based on Judeo-Christian ethic.  Deny it all you want, but that's just the way it is.

A bigger problem is if common sense happens to agree with Christianity, we lose the benefit of that law due to the likes of you who can't see the common sense, only the Christianity.


----------



## Gunny

The ClayTaurus said:


> It's a tough call. I'd be inclined to agree that it's infringement of your rights, but children are susceptible to many teachings of things that are wrong being ok. I was always told the job of the parent was to monitor and correct these misteachings. I will admit it would be easier to raise my future children if the country were just a crackerjack version of my personal morality, but alas I don't see that happening.
> 
> That they are susceptible to being taught things that are wrong are okay doesn't justify teaching them more.
> 
> And that parent thing is a cop-out.  Parents do the best they can, but cannot hope to compete with society and peer pressure.
> 
> Beyond any of that, however, is the simple difference that a homocidal sociopath, by definition, infringes on rights. A homosexual, by definition, doesn't.



In YOUR opinion.  In my opinion, both infringe on the rights of others.


----------



## Gunny

Kagom said:


> Her counterpoint regarding the divorce rate was a cop-out and full of shit.



The whole point of bringing up the divorce rate of hetero's is a deflection, and irrelevant relativist bullshit argument.


----------



## Gunny

MissileMan said:


> As do you apparently.  How would this effect the divorce rate of conservatives?  Why isn't the couple responsible for the demise of THEIR relationship?
> 
> 
> Well, this might very well have an effect on the homosexual divorce rate, but you're stuck with a small problem...I'll bet you can guess what that is.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, this might have some effect on the divorce rate of feminists, but you have failed to demonstrate to even a microscopic degree how any of the three should be an acceptable excuse as to why your average, run-of-the-mill couple are getting a divorce.
> 
> Is it your contention that the percentage of liberals and feminists that are getting divorced is hugely out of proportion to the percentages of other groups?  I'd like to see the links that support that.



Perhaps you can explain then just HOW heterosexual divorce rates have a DMAMNED THING to do with gay marriage?  You of course are stuck with a small problem ....I'll bet you can guess what it is.


----------



## MissileMan

glockmail said:


> You are really over the top with this post.:tdown2:



No sweetie...as you like to say, I was exposing the truth.  You are of course welcome to present an opposing viewpoint.  In all fairness, I may have mis-spoken and you may place more than zero-value on personal responsibility.  If that's the case, I apologize.  What is your standard...5%?  10%?  It can't be too high since you want to blame the state of personal relationships on people who aren't even involved in it.


----------



## Gunny

MissileMan said:


> No sweetie...as you like to say, I was exposing the truth.  You are of course welcome to present an opposing viewpoint.  In all fairness, I may have mis-spoken and you may place more than zero-value on personal responsibility.  If that's the case, I apologize.  What is your standard...5%?  10%?  It can't be too high since you want to blame the state of personal relationships on people who aren't even involved in it.



Are you practicing to be a lib, or what?  Again, the deflection to heterosexual divorce and defending it is irrelevant to the topic.


----------



## MissileMan

GunnyL said:


> Perhaps you can explain then just HOW heterosexual divorce rates have a DMAMNED THING to do with gay marriage?  You of course are stuck with a small problem ....I'll bet you can guess what it is.



Yo! Gunny!  It wasn't my contention.  Glockmail is the one who wants to blame divorce on liberals, homos, and feminists.  I'm not having any luck getting her to explain how though.


----------



## Gunny

MissileMan said:


> Yo! Gunny!  It wasn't my contention.  Glockmail is the one who wants to blame divorce on liberals, homos, and feminists.  I'm not having any luck getting her to explain how though.



My point is, the divorce rate of hetero's was interjected as an irrelevant deflection.  I don't care why people get divorced.  I got divorced because I despise my ex.  Seemed like th ething to do under those circumstances, but is STILL completely irrelevant to gay marriage.


----------



## The ClayTaurus

GunnyL said:


> My point is, the divorce rate of hetero's was interjected as an irrelevant deflection.  I don't care why people get divorced.  I got divorced because I despise my ex.  Seemed like th ething to do under those circumstances, but is STILL completely irrelevant to gay marriage.


Seriously Gunny. Read the thread. You're defending a total hack, regardless of whether or not she supports your opinions.


----------



## MissileMan

GunnyL said:


> My point is, the divorce rate of hetero's was interjected as an irrelevant deflection.  I don't care why people get divorced.  I got divorced because I despise my ex.  Seemed like th ething to do under those circumstances, but is STILL completely irrelevant to gay marriage.



According to Glockmail, there's a good chance that liberals, homos, and feminists are responsible for your divorce and your despising of the ex had nothing to do with it.  I called her on her bullshit claim and asked her why she didn't believe that divorce was a matter of personal responsibilty.  I KNOW that gay marriage has nothing to do with hetero-divorces.  You sir, are preaching to the choir.  You have your artillery aligned on the wrong target.


----------



## The ClayTaurus

GunnyL said:


> That they are susceptible to being taught things that are wrong are okay doesn't justify teaching them more.
> 
> *The point is not that we should teach them more, but rather to point out the futility of your quest. Poor role models are a part of life. That's what a parent is for. To use them as life lessons. It's tough, I know, but it can be done.*
> 
> And that parent thing is a cop-out. Parents do the best they can, but cannot hope to compete with society and peer pressure.
> 
> *Bullshit. Parents have continually slipped more and more off the hook. What a crock of shit. Throw the little fucker in front of the TV for 4 hours so mommy and daddy can have a break. *
> 
> In YOUR opinion.  In my opinion, both infringe on the rights of others.


Do tell, how does a homosexual infringe on your rights? In the same way a smoker infringes on mine? Or is that different?


----------



## glockmail

MissileMan said:


> No sweetie...as you like to say, I was exposing the truth.  You are of course welcome to present an opposing viewpoint.  In all fairness, I may have mis-spoken and you may place more than zero-value on personal responsibility.  If that's the case, I apologize.  What is your standard...5%?  10%?  It can't be too high since you want to blame the state of personal relationships on people who aren't even involved in it.



You gracious apology is accepted.


----------



## The ClayTaurus

glockmail said:


> You gracious apology is accepted.


So you have no response to his questions then?


----------



## glockmail

MissileMan said:


> Yo! Gunny!  It wasn't my contention.  Glockmail is the one who wants to blame divorce on liberals, homos, and feminists.  I'm not having any luck getting her to explain how though.



Please see post 530 for a logical argument, and please try to stay calm this time.


----------



## glockmail

The ClayTaurus said:


> So you have no response to his questions then?


 No I don't, as there are several false assumptions made, and this is merely a deflection to not address the logical argument that I made earlier.


----------



## MissileMan

glockmail said:


> Please see post 530 for a logical argument, and please try to stay calm this time.



I responded to #530 in #532.  You haven't answered or countered anything in #532 yet.


----------



## The ClayTaurus

MissileMan said:


> I responded to #530 in #532.  You haven't answered or countered anything in #532 yet.


Your response didn't meet her standards for response.

So sorry.

Please try again.


----------



## Gunny

Originally Posted by GunnyL  
That they are susceptible to being taught things that are wrong are okay doesn't justify teaching them more.

The point is not that we should teach them more, but rather to point out the futility of your quest. Poor role models are a part of life. That's what a parent is for. To use them as life lessons. It's tough, I know, but it can be done.

I somehow think you don't have children or you wouldn't make that statement.  It's easier said than done.

And that parent thing is a cop-out. Parents do the best they can, but cannot hope to compete with society and peer pressure.

Bullshit. Parents have continually slipped more and more off the hook. What a crock of shit. Throw the little fucker in front of the TV for 4 hours so mommy and daddy can have a break.

I was referring to myself as a parent, not whatever your generalization of parents is.  I can assure you THAT never happened in my house.  Not even during the 4 years I spent as a single parent. 

In YOUR opinion. In my opinion, both infringe on the rights of others. 

Do tell, how does a homosexual infringe on your rights? In the same way a smoker infringes on mine? Or is that different?

I already did, and it went around in a circle.


----------



## Mr. P

In life Ive heard of Homophobes but never met one. On this board however, GEEEEEZZZZZ!


----------



## glockmail

MissileMan said:


> I responded to #530 in #532.  You haven't answered or countered anything in #532 yet.



I thought you might like another chance, as your response was completely devoid of logic, and as I said earlier: "over the top". 

But to help you out, you completely ignored a key phase: "All three have had an effect on a significant portion of society."


----------



## glockmail

The ClayTaurus said:


> Your response didn't meet her standards for response.
> 
> So sorry.
> 
> Please try again.



Excellent!


----------



## MissileMan

The ClayTaurus said:


> Your response didn't meet her standards for response.
> 
> So sorry.
> 
> Please try again.



Will you stop already...she's already proven herself an expert at dodging the question, she doesn't need your help!:spank3:


----------



## glockmail

Mr. P said:


> In life Ive heard of Homophobes but never met one. On this board however, GEEEEEZZZZZ!



Ahh- the wonderful "shotgun" approach. I just LOVE that!


----------



## MissileMan

glockmail said:


> I thought you might like another chance, as your response was completely devoid of logic, and as I said earlier: "over the top".
> 
> But to help you out, you completely ignored a key phase: "*All three have had an effect on a significant portion of society*."



And while I appreciate this opinion, it in no way explains the relationship that you claim exists between those things and heterosexual divorce.


----------



## Gunny

Mr. P said:


> In life Ive heard of Homophobes but never met one. On this board however, GEEEEEZZZZZ!



Define "homophobe."

And remember when you do, it requires neither hatred nor fear to refuse to accept something abnormal as normal and put it on a pedestal via laws that give special rights to only persons of that behavior.


----------



## Mr. P

glockmail said:


> Ahh- the wonderful "shotgun" approach. I just LOVE that!



Need specific names? Yer in there.


----------



## MissileMan

glockmail said:


> Ahh- the wonderful "shotgun" approach. I just LOVE that!



An old man said something the other day that covers this.  He said, "If you throw a rock into the middle of a pack of dogs, the one that yelps is the one that it hit." :arabia:


----------



## Mr. P

GunnyL said:


> Define "homophobe."
> 
> And remember when you do, it requires neither hatred nor fear to refuse to accept something abnormal as normal and put it on a pedestal via laws that give special rights to only persons of that behavior.



No need for me to define it, those who are know it.


----------



## The ClayTaurus

MissileMan said:


> Will you stop already...she's already proven herself an expert at dodging the question, she doesn't need your help!:spank3:


Hey she positive repped me for it! Maybe you'll get lucky too!


----------



## Gunny

Mr. P said:


> Need specific names? Yer in there.



Sorry, but I do not meet the criteria of a homophobe.  You'll need a new label.


----------



## MissileMan

The ClayTaurus said:


> Hey she positive repped me for it! Maybe you'll get lucky too!



It may be time to ask for a rep refusal option to be added to the forum...


----------



## Gunny

Mr. P said:


> No need for me to define it, those who are know it.



Howso?  The dictionary definition defines certain attributes which constitute homophobia.  However, the term is used to insult anyone who disagrees with the homosexual agenda.

Was just wondering which definition you were going by.


----------



## manu1959

The ClayTaurus said:


> Hey she positive repped me for it! Maybe you'll get lucky too!



think you will get anal or oral out of it?


----------



## manu1959

MissileMan said:


> An old man said something the other day that covers this.  He said, "If you throw a rock into the middle of a pack of dogs, the one that yelps is the one that it hit." :arabia:



i love this one....

i will go to the meeting with a big stick....the one that runs is guilty


----------



## glockmail

MissileMan said:


> And while I appreciate this opinion, it in no way explains the relationship that you claim exists between those things and heterosexual divorce.


 It is an opinion shared by many on the correct side of the isle, but not many have the courage to express it.


----------



## glockmail

Mr. P said:


> Need specific names? Yer in there.


 Then why not be specific? I appreciate a more up-front approach to conflict, rather than "throwing a rock at a pack of dogs", to quote our friend MissleMan.


----------



## glockmail

MissileMan said:


> An old man said something the other day that covers this.  He said, "If you throw a rock into the middle of a pack of dogs, the one that yelps is the one that it hit." :arabia:


 The old man was wise, yet cruel.


----------



## glockmail

The ClayTaurus said:


> Hey she positive repped me for it! Maybe you'll get lucky too!


 Love thy enemies.....


----------



## glockmail

manu1959 said:


> think you will get anal or oral out of it?


 Rude, childish, pitiful.


----------



## The ClayTaurus

I guess that's a "no"...

but hey, at least it wasn't perverted!


----------



## MissileMan

glockmail said:


> It is an opinion shared by many on the correct side of the isle, but not many have the courage to express it.



Which island would that be?


----------



## manu1959

glockmail said:


> Rude, childish, pitiful.



damn ... i was going for .... puerile, impertinent and infantile


----------



## glockmail

MissileMan said:


> Which island would that be?


  This big red one here:


----------



## glockmail

manu1959 said:


> damn ... i was going for .... puerile, impertinent and infantile


 I had to look the first one up. Mo betta!


----------



## Annie

I don't think I ever answered the original query. IMHO I think a certain percentage of the human population are 'born' gay, with a genetic prediliction. I think the numbers are way up, due to the 'anything sexual goes' message around for the past 15 years or so. Then there are the environmental factors, of which I am NOT saying 'gays' raising adopted kids. More likely over macho fathers or castrating mothers. 

Surely I exaggerate on the last, but probably not so to their kids.


----------



## Gunny

Kathianne said:


> I don't think I ever answered the original query. IMHO I think a certain percentage of the human population are 'born' gay, with a genetic prediliction. I think the numbers are way up, due to the 'anything sexual goes' message around for the past 15 years or so. Then there are the environmental factors, of which I am NOT saying 'gays' raising adopted kids. More likely over macho fathers or castrating mothers.
> 
> Surely I exaggerate on the last, but probably not so to their kids.



To answer the original question:  No, I was not born gay, nor have I been gay from that day to this.


----------



## glockmail

The consensus here seems to be:
1. Some may be born gay due to a hormonal imbalance in the womb. There does not appear to be a "gay gene", whereas a person would be gay at conception.
2. Some choose to be gay at some point in their lives. The percenatge of people who make this choice has risen recently due to cultural acceptance of homosexuality as "normal and natural" (whether or not it actually is).

Anyone care to disagree?:whip3:


----------



## Mr. P

glockmail said:


> The consensus here seems to be:
> 1. Some may be born gay due to a hormonal imbalance in the womb. There does not appear to be a "gay gene", whereas a person would be gay at conception.
> 2. Some choose to be gay at some point in their lives. The percenatge of people who make this choice has risen recently due to cultural acceptance of homosexuality as "normal and natural" (whether or not it actually is).
> 
> Anyone care to disagree?:whip3:



I Pretty much do, but an argument with a brick wall is pointless.


----------



## glockmail

Mr. P said:


> I Pretty much do, but an argument with a brick wall is pointless.


 Solid, sturdy, stable, traditional. Thank you.

So what specifically do you disagree with?


----------



## Mr. P

glockmail said:


> Solid, sturdy, stable, traditional. Thank you.
> 
> So what specifically do you disagree with?



Which part of "pointless" don't you understand?


----------



## glockmail

Mr. P said:


> Which part of "pointless" don't you understand?


 So you disagree, but your position is not strong enough to withstand scrutiny.


----------



## The ClayTaurus

glockmail said:


> So you disagree, but your position is not strong enough to withstand scrutiny.


Like you know anything about withstanding scrutiny.


----------



## glockmail

The ClayTaurus said:


> Like you know anything about withstanding scrutiny.


Unless you have anything that requires a legitimate response I will keep you on "observe but ignore".


----------



## Mr. P

glockmail said:


> So you disagree, but your position is not strong enough to withstand scrutiny.



You are so closed minded youre not capable of scrutiny.
Pickin up the pointless part yet?


----------



## glockmail

Mr. P said:


> You are so closed minded youre not capable of scrutiny.
> Pickin up the pointless part yet?


 Nice dodge.:thumbdown:


----------



## Mr. P

glockmail said:


> Nice dodge.:thumbdown:



No dodge. I told ya it's pointless. You keep on trying though it's fun to watch.


----------



## MissileMan

glockmail said:


> The consensus here seems to be:
> 1. Some may be born gay due to a hormonal imbalance in the womb. There does not appear to be a "gay gene", whereas a person would be gay at conception.
> 2. Some choose to be gay at some point in their lives. The percenatge of people who make this choice has risen recently due to cultural acceptance of homosexuality as "normal and natural" (whether or not it actually is).
> 
> Anyone care to disagree?:whip3:



Do you have any data to support the claim that the percentage of those who choose homosexuality is on the rise?  What's the current ratio of those born homosexual to those who choose to be?  What was the ratio in the past?


----------



## glockmail

MissileMan said:


> Do you have any data to support the claim that the percentage of those who choose homosexuality is on the rise?  What's the current ratio of those born homosexual to those who choose to be?  What was the ratio in the past?



I am discussing what appears to be the consensus, and to my recollection that particular issue was raised several times and does not appear to be disputed.

If you would like that type of specific data than I suggest you start with google, as that is not the purpose of my statement.


----------



## MissileMan

glockmail said:


> I am discussing what appears to be the consensus, and to my recollection that particular issue was raised several times and does not appear to be disputed.
> 
> If you would like that type of specific data than I suggest you start with google, as that is not the purpose of my statement.



I've seen no consensus that there's a rise in the numbers of those who choose to be homosexual, so I concluded that it must be something that you ascribe to.  As usual, your post is all fluff, and when pressed for substance, you decline.  It would be refreshing for you to formulate an opinioin or argument out of more than a wisp of bias or innuendo and present something concrete.  Care to give it a go?


----------



## Mr. P

MissileMan said:


> I've seen no consensus that there's a rise in the numbers of those who choose to be homosexual, so I concluded that it must be something that you ascribe to.  As usual, your post is all fluff, and when pressed for substance, you decline.  It would be refreshing for you to formulate an opinioin or argument out of more than a wisp of bias or innuendo and present something concrete.  Care to give it a go?



Stark reality seen by all, except glock.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to MissileMan again.


----------



## glockmail

MissileMan said:


> I've seen no consensus that there's a rise in the numbers of those who choose to be homosexual, so I concluded that it must be something that you ascribe to.  As usual, your post is all fluff, and when pressed for substance, you decline.  It would be refreshing for you to formulate an opinioin or argument out of more than a wisp of bias or innuendo and present something concrete.  Care to give it a go?



My point is that there is nothing concrete, as evidenced by the summary presented in post 161. There does, however, appear to be a belief among many that societal norms have degraded, causing a corresponding increase in those who choose homosexuality (see post 583). There is a small amount of data that suggest that adolescence and college students may be particularly susceptible to this (see post 161).

As there is no concrete evidence than we must rely on consensus, a review of the reasonableness of the hypothesis, and anecdotal evidence. Or you can simply disagree.


----------



## The ClayTaurus

glockmail said:


> Unless you have anything that requires a legitimate response I will keep you on "observe but ignore".


I had no idea ignoring involved responding. How... unique!


----------



## glockmail

The ClayTaurus said:


> I had no idea ignoring involved responding. How... unique!


 Mos' wud have figgid it out. Ba fa yu, let me deminstrate:


----------



## The ClayTaurus

glockmail said:


> Mos' wud have figgid it out. Ba fa yu, let me deminstrate:


Sorry. Try english and get back to me. Maybe Sitarro understands what you're saying, if he isn't dodging wigger bullets, that is.


----------



## glockmail

bump


----------



## Luissa

glockmail said:


> It is an obvious fact that Homosexuals cannot reproduce. Therefore someone cannot have a genetic homosexual parent. Since traits are passed on through generations, it is clear that the trait of homosexuality is not passed on through generations, but is in fact a learned response. Further, since I have known several who have been homosexuals in college and then entered into a heterosexual long term relationship, it is clear that they made a poor choice during a less mature period in their lives.
> 
> One argument against this is that a gay man can have sex with and impregnate a woman. However, he would have to become, at least temporarily, a heterosexual to become aroused by that woman, as well as choose the time and place for the relation. Would not that make him a bisexual, not a dedicated homosexual? Further, one would not assume that a heterosexual male would venture from his instincts and become, even temporarily, aroused by another male and choose a time and place for a relation. So why would one assume a homosexual would venture from his instinct for the purpose of insemination? Moreover, if this is how a variant of the species procreates, then where is the evidence to support this? Are there a large percentage of homosexuals, greater than the incidence of homosexuality as a whole, who can claim they have a genetic parent who is also homosexual?
> 
> A second argument against my theory is that homosexuals use artificial insemination to procreate. If that were true then homosexuality could never have existed before about 35 years ago.
> 
> A third argument against is that homosexuality is the result of some kind of mutation or gene interaction between male and female DNA. If this is so, would homosexuality be in fact a medical abnormality, such as a cleft palette or autism? If that is the case, then why do we have organized groups attempting to normalize and encourage homosexuality? Moreover, where is the scientific evidence to support this? Surely pro-gay groups would have found and exploited this evidence by now.


Every single one of my gay friends said they knew at a young age, my friend  said he knew by five that he was different and that he never wanted to do boy thing.Also I have heard some men or women can have either one to many y choromosones or x choromosones. Also there has been homosexuality since at least Roman times.
Also it really doesn't matter if it is a choice or they are born that way, it is their lifestyle and they have every right to live the way they choose.


----------



## Ravi

Who the hell cares?

Oh, maybe Ninja, but I can't imagine anyone else does.


----------



## dilloduck

Ravi said:


> Who the hell cares?
> 
> Oh, maybe Ninja, but I can't imagine anyone else does.



If you were born gay, I wanna know about it !


----------



## glockmail

Luissa27 said:


> Every single one of my gay friends said they knew at a young age, my friend  said he knew by five that he was different and that he never wanted to do boy thing.Also I have heard some men or women can have either one to many y choromosones or x choromosones. Also there has been homosexuality since at least Roman times.
> Also it really doesn't matter if it is a choice or they are born that way, it is their lifestyle and they have every right to live the way they choose.


1. So what's you're theory on how your friends got that way? Obviously their parents weren't gay.
2. Is your theory that this is a genetic defect?
3. There's a lot of things that have been around since Roman times, like corporations, for example. They can't reproduce by themselves either.


----------



## Luissa

dilloduck said:


> If you were born gay, I wanna know about it !


Why because you might be gay then. And as for the conservatives who have an issue with gay people look at your own party. I live in a town where we had a secretly gay republican mayor who had also been married when he was in the state senate before becoming mayor. He solicited sex on his work computer which later got him recalled. And then there is Larry Craig!
If they were able to live openly gay maybe they would have not done these things to get recalled or have to go to an airport for some action.


----------



## dilloduck

Luissa27 said:


> Why because you might be gay then. And as for the conservatives who have an issue with gay people look at your own party. I live in a town where we had a secretly gay republican mayor who had also been married when he was in the state senate before becoming mayor. He solicited sex on his work computer which later got him recalled. And then there is Larry Craig!
> If they were able to live openly gay maybe they would have not done these things to get recalled or have to go to an airport for some action.



I was talking to Ravi.


----------



## Luissa

glockmail said:


> 1. So what's you're theory on how your friends got that way? Obviously their parents weren't gay.
> 2. Is your theory that this is a genetic defect?
> 3. There's a lot of things that have been around since Roman times, like corporations, for example. They can't reproduce by themselves either.


I have no theory beside the fact I believe they were born that way, for one sorry I am not a scientist of genetics.
Who really cares if they are gay or not it is there choice, who cares if they can't reproduce, it is their choice if they want to adopt along with the adoption agency that gives them that child. And if their friend wants to carry a baby for them that is their choice.
And as you say corporations have been around since the Roman times I guess we should get rid of them too.
WHO CARES LET THEM LIVE THEIR LIFE


----------



## dilloduck

Luissa27 said:


> I have no theory beside the fact I believe they were born that way, for one sorry I am not a scientist of genetics.
> Who really cares if they are gay or not it is there choice, who cares if they can't reproduce, it is their choice if they want to adopt along with the adoption agency that gives them that child. And if their friend wants to carry a baby for them that is their choice.
> And as you say corporations have been around since the Roman times I guess we should get rid of them too.
> WHO CARES LET THEM LIVE THEIR LIFE



Maybe they outta quit desecrating church services. Sort of a gesture of good will ,ya know ?


----------



## Silence

glockmail said:


> It is an obvious fact that Homosexuals cannot reproduce. Therefore someone cannot have a genetic homosexual parent.



yes, because homosexuals never have biological children.... srike 1



> Since traits are passed on through generations, it is clear that the &#8220;trait&#8221; of homosexuality is not passed on through generations, but is in fact a learned response.



Learned from who exactly since as you put it no one who is gay ever had gay parents!   strike 2



> Further, since I have known several who have been homosexuals in college and then entered into a heterosexual long term relationship, it is clear that they made a poor choice during a less mature period in their lives.



experimentation in college isn't the same as being gay hate to break that to you glock......strike 3



> One argument against this is that a gay man can have sex with and impregnate a woman. However, he would have to become, at least temporarily, a heterosexual to become aroused by that woman, as well as choose the time and place for the relation. Would not that make him a bisexual, not a dedicated homosexual? Further, one would not assume that a heterosexual male would venture from his instincts and become, even temporarily, aroused by another male and choose a time and place for a relation. So why would one assume a homosexual would venture from his instinct for the purpose of insemination? Moreover, if this is how a variant of the species procreates, then where is the evidence to support this? Are there a large percentage of homosexuals, greater than the incidence of homosexuality as a whole, who can claim they have a genetic parent who is also homosexual?



rambling nonsensical part of your post.  

men have been hiding their homosexuality for centuries glock.  getting them aroused isn't the difficult......they are men, rub their dick it gets hard... duh... Men, to hide their shame and to keep family from knowing they are gay get married, have children and live their lives as a heterosexuals...so do women... no big mystery there.... 



> A second argument against my theory is that homosexuals use artificial insemination to procreate. If that were true then homosexuality could never have existed before about 35 years ago.



what the fuck are you even talking about glock?  



> A third argument against is that homosexuality is the result of some kind of mutation or gene interaction between male and female DNA. If this is so, would homosexuality be in fact a medical abnormality, such as a cleft palette or autism? If that is the case, then why do we have organized groups attempting to normalize and encourage homosexuality? Moreover, where is the scientific evidence to support this? Surely pro-gay groups would have found and exploited this evidence by now.



explain to me, if you don't believe that people are born gay the little boy who loves to dress in his mother's clothes and who is more like a girl than a boy...explain the girl who never developes a crush on boys but only on her girlfriends or who never feels quite right in the "girls" group of her peers... explain to me those people who state emphatically that they knew they were different from 4 years old... 

Do I think SOME people choose to live a gay lifestyle?  yes I do whether that be due to abuse from the other gender or because they are in fact attracted to both men and women.... right now I think it's in vogue for young teens to say they are bi-sexual because it's very accepted in the youth culture of today to be gay or bi.... so they stake their claim but eventually they will adhere to whatever they were born to be... homosexual or heterosexual... 

But to say that the majority of people would CHOOSE to live a life that brings much more strife and heartache to them is utterly ridiculous.  Why would that many people choose to be outcast by society?  They wouldn't, it's not human nature to want to be shunned glock.  

Now you're entitled to believe what you like, no one can stop you from that but your arguments are full of holes and easily disproved just by looking at society and how it has changed over the years.


----------



## Luissa

dilloduck said:


> Maybe they outta quit desecrating church services. Sort of a gesture of good will ,ya know ?


Give me a fucking break, have you seen them desecratin services personally. And as for not having a gay parent, one of my gay friends as a gay father. His father married a women young and then decided to not live a lie.
And you probably wish we still had segregation! This is the same sort of thing!


----------



## dilloduck

Luissa27 said:


> Give me a fucking break, have you seen them desecratin services personally. And as for not having a gay parent, one of my gay friends as a gay father. His father married a women young and then decided to not live a lie.
> And you probably wish we still had segregation! This is the same sort of thing!



Gay protest at St. Joan of Arc (Latest Video)&#8230; Here&#8217;s to you Dan Callender&#8230;  fratres


----------



## Luissa

dilloduck said:


> Gay protest at St. Joan of Arc (Latest Video) Heres to you Dan Callender  fratres


How is a peaceful protest for the right to be gay and catholic descrating churches. They are protesting the right to be a christian. And if god does exsist don;t you think he would love all of children. Some Christians need to learn to be excepting isn't that suppose to be what being a Christian is all about. Give me a break!


----------



## Silence

why does everything devolve into a pissing contest with you dillo?

either you believe people are born gay or they aren't...it's pretty simple really...

as for protestors...well when a church turns you away from the house of GOD because of their own prejudice I'd say that's worth protesting wouldn't you?  

Does God not love ALL men who are willing to accept Jesus as their Savior?  who are mere men to dispute that?


----------



## plt42

Glock:

You've talked of your disdain for gay men.  Do I assume you feel the same regarding lesbians?

Why do you assume homosexuality is all about sex?  Is your love for your wife founded solely on that basis?

Why are your thoughts so over-run and seemingly obsessed with something you find disgusting?

To paraphrase Shakespeare:  Me thinks thou doth protest too much!  Maybe?


----------



## CA95380

glockmail said:


> It is an obvious fact that Homosexuals cannot reproduce.



I did not even get past the first sentence in this post.  Where in the hell did you come up with  *it is "obvious" that they can not reproduce*?  Of coarse they can - unless they are sterile  

So I am not even going to read the rest of your post.


----------



## Luissa

plt42 said:


> Glock:
> 
> You've talked of your disdain for gay men.  Do I assume you feel the same regarding lesbians?
> 
> Why do you assume homosexuality is all about sex?  Is your love for your wife founded solely on that basis?
> 
> Why are your thoughts so over-run and seemingly obsessed with something you find disgusting?
> 
> To paraphrase Shakespeare:  Me thinks thou doth protest too much!  Maybe?


Exactly the gay mayor in my town was all about fighting gay rights and then what happens it comes out he is gay.


----------



## dilloduck

Silence said:


> why does everything devolve into a pissing contest with you dillo?
> 
> either you believe people are born gay or they aren't...it's pretty simple really...
> 
> as for protestors...well when a church turns you away from the house of GOD because of their own prejudice I'd say that's worth protesting wouldn't you?
> 
> Does God not love ALL men who are willing to accept Jesus as their Savior?  who are mere men to dispute that?




this is a debate forum in case you hadn't noticed----its a fancy name or "Pissing contest". 

I don't give a shit what gays do but going to a mass in drag is a bit over the top don't to think ?

There are hundreds of Christian sects that were formed because they had their own and different belief systems. The gays need to get with the program and leave the rest to believe as they wish.


----------



## Ravi

CA95380 said:


> Where in the hell did you come up with  *it is "obvious" that they can not reproduce*?


He's tried. Repeatedly, from what I understand, without luck.


----------



## jla1178

If a person can be born gay but isn't, can they accept Jesus and be born again gay?


----------



## CA95380

dilloduck said:


> this is a debate forum in case you hadn't noticed----its a fancy name or "Pissing contest".
> 
> *I don't give a shit what gays do but going to a mass in drag is a bit over the top don't to think ?*
> 
> There are hundreds of Christian sects that were formed because they had their own and different belief systems. The gays need to get with the program and leave the rest to believe as they wish.



Yes, Silly!    That is over the top!   lol


----------



## Luissa

dilloduck said:


> this is a debate forum in case you hadn't noticed----its a fancy name or "Pissing contest".
> 
> I don't give a shit what gays do but going to a mass in drag is a bit over the top don't to think ?
> 
> There are hundreds of Christian sects that were formed because they had their own and different belief systems. The gays need to get with the program and leave the rest to believe as they wish.


If they are a drag queen they have the right to go where they want dressed in whatever they want, for that matter anyone has this right. That was a very un Christian statement!


----------



## glockmail

Luissa27 said:


> I have no theory beside the fact I believe they were born that way, for one sorry I am not a scientist of genetics.....


 So basically you have a belief with no basis, except that's what you want to believe. Right?


----------



## glockmail

plt42 said:


> Glock:
> 
> You've talked of your disdain for gay men....


Where?


----------



## glockmail

CA95380 said:


> I did not even get past the first sentence in this post.  Where in the hell did you come up with  *it is "obvious" that they can not reproduce*?  .....


 For that answer, you'll have to be more open minded and read a few more sentences.


----------



## jillian

glockmail said:


> So basically you have a belief with no basis, except that's what you want to believe. Right?



as opposed to you, of course.


----------



## glockmail

jillian said:


> as opposed to you, of course.


 I've stated the basis of my beliefs in the OP.


----------



## jillian

glockmail said:


> I've stated the basis of my beliefs in the OP.



yah... a bunch of nothing but your own musings... 

science has, so far, found homosexuality to be a combination of nature and nurture.... but certainly not choice.


----------



## glockmail

jillian said:


> yah... a bunch of nothing but your own musings...
> 
> science has, so far, found homosexuality to be a combination of nature and nurture.... but certainly not choice.


Science has done no such thing. In fact, since the Homo lobby _politically _forced the APA to de-list is as a sickness, we are left to wonder just what the real science says about this.


----------



## Luissa

jillian said:


> yah... a bunch of nothing but your own musings...
> 
> science has, so far, found homosexuality to be a combination of nature and nurture.... but certainly not choice.


I would give you another rep for this but I am not allowed!


----------



## jillian

Luissa27 said:


> I would give you another rep for this but I am not allowed!



thank you. i hate when they post drivel..


----------



## Silence

I repped her for you Luissa because she rocks!  

glock are you a closet self hating homosexual?  I only ask because no one has that much venom in their heart for other people unless they recognize it in themselves and they hate that part of themself....

come out of the closet.... it'll be okay... really it will...


----------



## jillian

Silence said:


> I repped her for you Luissa because she rocks!
> 
> glock are you a closet self hating homosexual?  I only ask because no one has that much venom in their heart for other people unless they recognize it in themselves and they hate that part of themself....
> 
> come out of the closet.... it'll be okay... really it will...



 thanks again.

I think poor glock doth protest too much.

I always wonder about people who are so afraid of gays. Are they afraid that they'll be so turned on that they won't be able to control themselves?

Would explain a lot, anyway.


----------



## Luissa

Silence said:


> I repped her for you Luissa because she rocks!
> 
> glock are you a closet self hating homosexual?  I only ask because no one has that much venom in their heart for other people unless they recognize it in themselves and they hate that part of themself....
> 
> come out of the closet.... it'll be okay... really it will...


Thanks! I had just rep's her for another comment!


----------



## glockmail

Silence said:


> I repped her for you Luissa because she rocks!
> 
> glock are you a closet self hating homosexual?  I only ask because no one has that much venom in their heart for other people unless they recognize it in themselves and they hate that part of themself....
> 
> come out of the closet.... it'll be okay... really it will...



Are you calling me gay?


----------



## plt42

glockmail said:


> Where?



Throughout the thread,is where.  The was no subtly in the widget analogy.

But, in your typical fashion, you ask questions of others yet, questions to you go unanswered.  Be that as it may.  However, if you believe that some are born gay or lesbian... state your belief.  If not, please state that as well.  Without the courage to do either, your rhetoric and attempts to speak in parables is meaningless.

I will answer your original question. ... Yes, I think people are born with their attraction toward either the opposite sex or same sex and but must repeat that homosexuality isn't just about sex.  I think it matters not that two of the same sex find in eachother companionship, comfort, love, and the desire to make their lives together.  Is that not why your married your wife?  It affects not their intellect, their ability to be contirbuting members of society, their ability to show kindess to their fellow citizens.  There will be those in what you consider "normal society" and those of the homosexual community who perpetrate atrocities against society.  Consider the heterosexual rapist.  Is he to be give credit simply for not being gay? 

Those lucky enough to find ture love, be it heterosexual or homosexual, and build a life together have my blessing.  Is it so difficult to accept that, Glock?  

So... where do you stand on the gay subject, ... born to it or chose it?

An answer please... not more babble!


----------



## glockmail

plt42 said:


> ....
> 
> So... where do you stand on the gay subject, ... born to it or chose it?
> 
> .....


Post 1, sentence 1. 

So answer my question, _without conjecture_.


----------



## Sunni Man

Becomming a Homo is a choice. A perverted choice, but a choice none the less.

No one is born a homo. 

There is No gay gene.


----------



## glockmail

Sunni Man said:


> Becomming a Homo is a choice. A perverted choice, but a choice none the less.
> 
> No one is born a homo.
> 
> There is No gay gene.


 Once more we agree, brother. You said some dumb stuff a while back, but I forget what it was, and I've noticed that you, a Muslim, agree with me, a Catholic, more often than not.


----------



## jla1178

Sunni Man said:


> There is No gay gene.



And no straight gene.


----------



## Sunni Man

glockmail said:


> Once more we agree, brother. You said some dumb stuff a while back, but I forget what it was, and I've noticed that you, a Muslim, agree with me, a Catholic, more often than not.


Both the Bible and the Quran state that Homosexuality is an abomination and a vile sin. And the people who practice this perverse lifestle are going straigh to Hell


----------



## glockmail

jla1178 said:


> And no straight gene.


Just normal and abnormal genes.


----------



## glockmail

Sunni Man said:


> Both the Bible and the Quran state that Homosexuality is an abomination and a vile sin. And the people who practice this perverse lifestle are going straigh to Hell


 Amen.


----------



## Sunni Man

jla1178 said:


> And no straight gene.


That's true.

So you agree that homosexuality is a choice.


----------



## jla1178

Sunni Man said:


> That's true.
> 
> So you agree that homosexuality is a choice.



Nope. No more or less a choice than being straight.


----------



## Sunni Man

jla1178 said:


> Nope. No more or less a choice than being straight.


People are born straight (normal).

But some people "choose" to take on a perverted mind set, and become rapists, homosexuals, child molesters, and other sexual perverts.


----------



## Luissa

Sunni Man said:


> People are born straight (normal).
> 
> But some people "choose" to take on a perverted mind set, and become rapists, homosexuals, child molesters, and other sexual perverts.


What a bigot remark and being straight doesn't always mean you are normal as in your case.
WHy don't you read this! Homosexuality: Nature or Nurture in AllPsych Journal


----------



## Anguille

Some people just chose to be bigots.

Like old Sunny Boy.


----------



## Care4all

Sunni Man said:


> Both the Bible and the Quran state that Homosexuality is an abomination and a vile sin. And the people who practice this perverse lifestle are going straigh to Hell



verse please, which states unequivocably that homosexuals are going to hell in the Bible or rather in the New testament of the Bible that Christians practice....

Christ DIED for ALL OF OUR SINS, including homosexuality, adultery, murder, theft, not honoring parents, gluttony, prostitution, fornication, covetting thy neighbor's goods etc...

He died for ALL SINS did he not?


----------



## jillian

Sunni Man said:


> That's true.
> 
> So you agree that homosexuality is a choice.



you mean you have to wake up every morning and DECIDE you're going to bonk a woman instead of a man? Gee, it must really suck to be closeted.


----------



## Sunni Man

Luissa27 said:


> What a bigot remark and being straight doesn't always mean you are normal as in your case.
> WHy don't you read this! Homosexuality: Nature or Nurture in AllPsych Journal


I read it.

It basically says that there are several theorys, but NO concrete evidence for a biological cause of homosexuality.


----------



## Sunni Man

Care4all said:


> verse please, which states unequivocably that homosexuals are going to hell in the Bible or rather in the New testament of the Bible that Christians practice....
> 
> Christ DIED for ALL OF OUR SINS, including homosexuality, adultery, murder, theft, not honoring parents, gluttony, prostitution, fornication, covetting thy neighbor's goods etc...
> 
> He died for ALL SINS did he not?


Homosexuality is a Sin accourding to the Bible.

And Sinners go to Hell. 

So, Homos are going to the Fire of Hell.


----------



## Sunni Man

jillian said:


> you mean you have to wake up every morning and DECIDE you're going to bonk a woman instead of a man? Gee, it must really suck to be closeted.


 What are you talking about?


----------



## jillian

Sunni Man said:


> What are you talking about?



If you're so sure it's a CHOICE and not what someone is born, then you must have to struggle to choose women over men every day.


----------



## CA95380

Sunni Man said:


> People are born straight (normal).
> 
> But some people "choose" to take on a perverted mind set, and become rapists, homosexuals, child molesters, and other sexual perverts.



Do  nuts  like you chose to be nuts?  Or were you born  nuts ?


----------



## Sunni Man

jillian said:


> If you're so sure it's a CHOICE and not what someone is born, then you must have to struggle to choose women over men every day.


Jillian, why are you turning this into a personal attack on me?

I haven't attacked or slandered anyone.

I am just debating a topic.


----------



## Care4all

Sunni Man said:


> Homosexuality is a Sin accourding to the Bible.
> 
> And Sinners go to Hell.
> 
> So, Homos are going to the Fire of Hell.



NO, ABSOLUTELY WRONG....

Christ died for the sins of sinners, if you are Christian this is what you believe and that not one sin is greater than another, sin is sin and all sins thru the blood of Christ, are forgiven...because the debt of those sins were washed, through the sacrafice of Christ, our Sacraficial Lamb.

We ALL FALL SHORT, of the Glory of God.....we are all sinners.


----------



## Sunni Man

Care4all said:


> NO, ABSOLUTELY WRONG....
> 
> Christ died for the sins of sinners, if you are Christian this is what you believe and that not one sin is greater than another, sin is sin and all sins thru the blood of Christ, are forgiven...because the debt of those sins were washed, through the sacrafice of Christ, our Sacraficial Lamb.
> 
> We ALL FALL SHORT, of the Glory of God.....we are all sinners.


If a person is involved in sin and hasn't repented upon their death. 

They are going to Hell. 

Correct?

(that's basic Christian theology)


----------



## Care4all

Sunni Man said:


> If a person is involved in sin and hasn't repented upon their death.
> 
> They are going to Hell.
> 
> Correct?
> 
> (that's basic Christian theology)



NO, that is not basic Christian theology, though some may believe such.

If you repented, then you essencially saved yourself and there would be no need for Christ.

we can't "save" ourselves as a Christian....Thru Faith in Christ and His sacrafice for us, we are saved.

Yes, we repent of our sins if we have the strength to do such, this is out of our love for Christ and what he did for us thru His sacrafice....Thru Faith, (belief), and grace and mercy we are saved....not thru actual actions of our own....


----------



## Sunni Man

Care4all said:


> NO, that is not basic Christian theology, though some may believe such.
> 
> If you repented, then you essencially saved yourself and there would be no need for Christ.
> 
> we can't "save" ourselves as a Christian....Thru Faith in Christ and His sacrafice for us, we are saved.
> 
> Yes, we repent of our sins if we have the strength to do such, this is out of our love for Christ and what he did for us thru His sacrafice....Thru Faith, (belief), and grace and mercy we are saved....not thru actual actions of our own....


So a bank robber, mass murder, homosexual, will go to Heaven?


----------



## Care4all

Sunni Man said:


> So a bank robber, mass murder, homosexual, will go to Heaven?



they could, just like an adulteress,a fornicater, a prostitute, a liar, a thief, or someone who wants to keep up with the Jones's (covetting) if they truely accept that Christ is Lord and Savior....

ONLY Christ/God can know what is in their heart and what they believe...i could never know this, that's why we have Christ being the judge of such on judgement day....and for me to say that i know these sinners are going to Hell would be blasphemy....would be me saying that I was God.


----------



## Sunni Man

Care4all said:


> ...and for me to say that i know these sinners are going to Hell would be blasphemy....would be me saying that I was God.


No, it would mean that you believe in the Bible and what it says.

Unrepentant sinners are going to Hell. That's what it says. Period!


----------



## Care4all

Sunni Man said:


> No, it would mean that you believe in the Bible and what it says.
> 
> Unrepentant sinners are going to Hell. That's what it says. Period!



So are you implying that when all of us die, we must be sin free, perfect, in order to be saved?

Where in the Christian New testament does it say such, please provide a verse that states such, and we can debate it?


----------



## Sunni Man

Care4all said:


> So are you implying that when all of us die, we must be sin free, perfect, in order to be saved?
> 
> Where in the Christian New testament does it say such, please provide a verse that states such, and we can debate it?


I am not saying that at all.

But if a person was in "willful" sin upon death. Then they are going to Hell.

An example would be: A christian man has a heart attack and dies while in bed with a woman who is not his wife.


----------



## Luissa

Sunni Man said:


> So a bank robber, mass murder, homosexual, will go to Heaven?


If the homosexual is not a mass murderer or a bank robber or has commited in any such sin. I bet you listen to Michael Savage too. How do you feel about autism?


----------



## Sunni Man

Luissa27 said:


> If the homosexual is not a mass murderer or a bank robber or has commited in any such sin. I bet you listen to Michael Savage too. How do you feel about autism?


You would lose your bet. 

Michael Savage is a complete Bozo


----------



## Care4all

Sunni Man said:


> I am not saying that at all.
> 
> But if a person was in "willful" sin upon death. Then they are going to Hell.
> 
> An example would be: A christian man has a heart attack and dies while in bed with a woman who is not his wife.


  i don't know that he would be in hell, by anything in the new testament....

also....this same man, could have taken his money and given it all to the needy, visited the people in prison, fed the hungry, welcomed the stranger, and took care of the sick... but had weakness when it came to his peepee!!!

Christianity is the ONLY monotheist* religion where it is thru Faith in Christ, we are saved.

in the Our Father, the prayer Christ gave us....it tells us to forgive the sins of those that have sinned against us, so that our OWN sins may also be forgiven....

no mention of repentence....


----------



## Sunni Man

Care4all said:


> i don't know that he would be in hell, by anything in the new testament....
> 
> also....this same man, could have taken his money and given it all to the needy, visited the people in prison, fed the hungry, welcomed the stranger, and took care of the sick... but had weakness when it came to his peepee!!!
> 
> Christianity is the ONLY monolithic religion where it is thru Faith in Christ, we are saved.
> 
> in the Our Father, the prayer Christ gave us....it tells us to forgive the sins of those that have sinned against us, so that our OWN sins may also be forgiven....
> 
> no mention of repentence....


So according to you. Hell will be  basically empty. And Heaven will be full.


----------



## Care4all

Sunni Man said:


> So according to you. Hell will be  basically empty. And Heaven will be full.


no, i never said such....and the Bible doesn't say such...

what i am saying is that it is blasphemy for me to determine and JUDGE by saying for CERTAIN that someone is going to hell, only God can know what is in the person's mind and heart and soul and only God/Jesus will judge such....

just look at the parable of the sheep and the goats....those that were sent to hell were the people that thought they were the righteous ones and those that were sent to heaven were the humble ones who were shocked that they were being rewarded by Christ....


----------



## editec

I don't know about the rest of you boys, but I started getting turgid from at least the time I looked at pretty woman when I was about five years old.

If any of you really think I could have chosen to find men sexually attractive, and simply didn't do it because I was a Christian, I think you must be closet gays living in total denial of your own homosexual urges or something.

I will admit that one can choose NOT to practice gay sex, of course, but that doesn't mean you're straight.

You are gay if you are attracted to members of the same gender.

You are straight if you are attracted to members of the opposite sex.

There really is no denying the truth of those simple facts.


----------



## plt42

glockmail said:


> Post 1, sentence 1.
> 
> So answer my question, _without conjecture_.



*Finally... your definitie answer.* 

Post 1 Sentence 1 ...did not answer my question to you however your total agreement with Sunni did.

Thank you.  Sheesh... it's like pulling hens teeth to get a straight (pardon the pun) answer out of you.

My answer to your question... without conjecture:  It's my opinion that people are born either heterosexual or homosexual.  It's is not a choice they make.


----------



## editec

Just stop and THINK what some of the boys on this board are confessing to when they tell us that having homosexual proclivities is a _choice._

They are admitting that while they may be practicing heterosexual sex, they are doing so while denying their urge to have sex with other men.

Hetersosexuals don't have to _choose_ not to have sex with people of the same gender

Homosexuals don't have to choose to find members of the same gender sexually interesting, either.

Only people who are gay themselves think that homosexuals have to CHOOSE not to have gay sex.

Real men and women, men and women who are really heterosexuals, I mean, had their gender preference choice made for them _by their very natures._

So, when somebody tells you that homosexuality is a sinful choice, what they are really confessing is that they are gays who choose not to succum to their homosexual urges.

I admire them for their honesty, and their restraint, too.

I feel a tad sorry for them, since they're denying themselves their sexual natures, but hey, it's their lives to do with as they choose.

Of course I feel sorry for their spouses and partners, too if they're married or involved with somebody, but that choice they're making to lie to their mates is really none of my business.

If they want to live in the closet and deny their homosexuality, and if they choose to lie to their sexual partners about who they really are and who they really want to have sex with, it's really no skin of my nose.


----------



## jla1178

If a gay person dies and goes to Hell, does he get 72 virgins?


----------



## glockmail

plt42 said:


> *Finally... your definitie answer.*
> 
> Post 1 Sentence 1 ...did not answer my question to you however your total agreement with Sunni did.
> 
> Thank you.  Sheesh... it's like pulling hens teeth to get a straight (pardon the pun) answer out of you.
> 
> My answer to your question... without conjecture:  It's my opinion that people are born either heterosexual or homosexual.  It's is not a choice they make.


My first sentence of the OP written months before you asked a question that it answered, is "finally answered". 

Wait- it gets better. Your opinion without any stated basis is also "without conjecture". 

Wow you libs are dense.


----------



## glockmail

jla1178 said:


> If a gay person dies and goes to Hell, does he get 72 virgins?


 No, he gets to be a virgin 72 times to his cell mate, "Mr. Tiny".


----------



## Anguille

I never thought of it that way, editec. That makes a lot of sense. Anyone choosing to be straight, or gay, for that matter, is by the mere act of revealing that they feel they have a choice, also revealing that they have urges they could act on but do not.

To me , gay versus straight seems too black and white to accurately describe human sexuality. I think most people could place them selves on a spectrum somewhere between totally gay and totally straight. Not necessarily in terms of their actions but in terms of what attracts them.


----------



## plt42

glockmail said:


> My first sentence of the OP written months before you asked a question that it answered, is "finally answered".
> 
> Wait- it gets better. Your opinion without any stated basis is also "without conjecture".
> 
> Wow you libs are dense.



Glock... dear boy... you'd argue with a fence post.

You've stated your opinion; I've stated mine.

I think we're done here.


----------



## glockmail

plt42 said:


> Glock... dear boy... you'd argue with a fence post.
> 
> You've stated your opinion; I've stated mine.
> 
> I think we're done here.


 Perhaps, dear Fence Post. But my opinion is backed up with a logical basis. So far you have not been able to offer the logical basis of yours, or dispute my logic.


----------



## Ravi

editec said:


> So, when somebody tells you that homosexuality is a sinful choice, what they are really confessing is that they are gays who choose not to succum to their homosexual urges.



There's a lot of truth in that statement. Who else would care, really, about the question asked to start this thread, besides those that struggle to deny their nature.


----------



## plt42

glockmail said:


> Perhaps, dear Fence Post. But my opinion is backed up with a logical basis. So far you have not been able to offer the logical basis of yours, or dispute my logic.



*conjecture: a conclusion deduced by surmise or guesswork*

The "logical basis" of your opinion is no more definitive than my opinion, at least not at this point in medical or psychiatric science.

For instance, in my opinion, you argure for only for the sake of arguing ... but, it's only conjecture.


----------



## Care4all

I don't believe we are "born gay", this is not to say that many have not had homosexual desires that are both straight or gay at this point in their lives.

I guess, i am thinking more on the lines of survival of our species, all species seem to innately want to survive, and because of this, i think that it would be considered normal for us to be born straight, for us to procreate....which takes male and female.

I am not denying what Gays think and feel is normal to them...because i am certain those feelings and attractions to the same sex are real....i just don't see it as something in "nature" that continues the survival of our species....thus, i am NOT CONVINCED that they are naturally born with these desires....i don't see any innate scientific reason for it?

I will say that I am not dead set against it being something that one is born with and am open to any truely scientific reasons that prove such...

Care


----------



## Sunni Man

Rapists, child molesters, homosexuals, and other sexual deviants. All have a mental problem that they have let assume control of their mind.

They think what they are doing is normal, and can't understand why other people don't see it their way.

Saddly, society has bought into normalizing this mental disorder. Now instead of receiving treatment. Homos are being enabled by society to continue their perverse lifestyle.


----------



## Luissa

Sunni Man said:


> Rapists, child molesters, homosexuals, and other sexual deviants. All have a mental problem that they have let assume control of their mind.
> 
> They think what they are doing is normal, and can't understand why other people don't see it their way.
> 
> Saddly, society has bought into normalizing this mental disorder. Now instead of receiving treatment. Homos are being enabled by society to continue their perverse lifestyle.


And we also let someone like you not recieve help for you mental problems.
And the reason why other people don't see it this way is because we don't feel the need to think someone who is different from us is not normal or perverse.
You also need to stop lumping homosexuals into the same group as child molesters and rapists. I also might add most serial killers are white males, maybe we should lump all white males into the catagory of serial killers.


----------



## Sunni Man

Homosexuals need to be rounded up and locked up into mental institutions so that they can receive treatment for their vile condition.

They are a threat to our society and culture, and the overall health if our nation.

Most homos carry around and spread various diseases and infections.

They should Not be allowed around normal people.


----------



## Luissa

Sunni Man said:


> Homosexuals need to be rounded up and locked up into mental institutions so that they can receive treatment for their vile condition.
> 
> They are a threat to our society and culture, and the overall health if our nation.
> 
> Most homos carry around and spread various diseases and infections.
> 
> They should Not be allowed around normal people.


More heterosexaul males carry the HIV/AIDS virus in this country then any other group. And you are the threat to our society. For one you make america look bad. 
ANd if you don't want them around normal people don't elect them to congress!


----------



## random3434

Sunni Man said:


> Homosexuals need to be rounded up and locked up into mental institutions so that they can receive treatment for their vile condition.
> 
> They are a threat to our society and culture, and the overall health if our nation.
> 
> Most homos carry around and spread various diseases and infections.
> 
> They should Not be allowed around normal people.



You must be hiding something there in that closet of yours sunnyboy.


----------



## Sunni Man

Luissa27 said:


> For one you make america look bad.


How is telling the Truth making America look bad?


----------



## Luissa

Sunni Man said:


> How is telling the Truth making America look bad?


YOu make the rest of the world think we are a bunch of bigots!
And I hope you get blessed with a gay son/daughter or grandson/daughter! Then maybe you will wake up and realize how wrong you are! Now I am done talking to you. YOu are not worth it!


----------



## Anguille

Sunni Man said:


> Homosexuals need to be rounded up and locked up into mental institutions so that they can receive treatment for their vile condition.
> 
> They are a threat to our society and culture, and the overall health if our nation.
> 
> Most homos carry around and spread various diseases and infections.
> 
> They should Not be allowed around normal people.



I think Gunny was on track when he suggested you might be posting from prison except maybe instead of prison, I think it's more likely you're posting from a padded room.


----------



## Sunni Man

Luissa27 said:


> YOu make the rest of the world think we are a bunch of bigots!
> And I hope you get blessed with a gay son/daughter or grandson/daughter! Then maybe you will wake up and realize how wrong you are! Now I am done talking to you. YOu are not worth it!


Sorry that you can't handle the TRUTH

Yes, you should run away and hide!!


----------



## Anguille

Care4all said:


> I don't believe we are "born gay", this is not to say that many have not had homosexual desires that are both straight or gay at this point in their lives.
> 
> I guess, i am thinking more on the lines of survival of our species, all species seem to innately want to survive, and because of this, i think that it would be considered normal for us to be born straight, for us to procreate....which takes male and female.
> 
> I am not denying what Gays think and feel is normal to them...because i am certain those feelings and attractions to the same sex are real....i just don't see it as something in "nature" that continues the survival of our species....thus, i am NOT CONVINCED that they are naturally born with these desires....i don't see any innate scientific reason for it?
> 
> I will say that I am not dead set against it being something that one is born with and am open to any truely scientific reasons that prove such...
> 
> Care



I'm no biologist but I do think that there are reasons why homosexuality might be considered normal behavior. 
First, it has been observed on many different animal species and certainly has existed among humans since as far back as the historical record goes. So evolution has not caused it to go extinct.
Second, perhaps it is a response to overpopulation, a way of protecting a species that has overcrowded it's habitat.


----------



## Sunni Man

Anguille said:


> I'm no biologist but I do think that there are reasons why homosexuality might be considered normal behavior.
> First, it has been observed on many different animal species and certainly has existed among humans since as far back as the historical record goes.


Murder, rape, and pedophilia go back to the beginning of historical records.

Does that make them normal behavior also??


----------



## Anguille

Sunni Man said:


> Murder, rape, and pedophilia go back to the beginning of historical records.
> 
> Does that make them normal behavior also??



Sonny Boy, it seems like you really need to get laid. Why don't you just explore your attraction to men rather than try to repress it. Try it. You might like it.


----------



## Sunni Man

Anguille said:


> Sonny Boy, it seems like you really need to get laid. Why don't you just explore your attraction to men rather than try to repress it. Try it. You might like it.


So basically, you are saying that you are unable to debate this subject and have been defeated by my logic.. 

And now all you have left is to make personal attacks against me.


----------



## Anguille

Sunni Man said:


> So basically, you are saying that you are unable to debate this subject and have been defeated by my logic..
> 
> And now all you have left is to make personal attacks against me.


Aren't you making personal attacks against homosexuals? 
Your logic hasn't proved a thing other than that you are a hateful bigot posing as a Muslim.


----------



## Care4all

Anguille said:


> I'm no biologist but I do think that there are reasons why homosexuality might be considered normal behavior.
> First, it has been observed on many different animal species and certainly has existed among humans since as far back as the historical record goes. So evolution has not caused it to go extinct.
> 
> *Yes, it has been observed with other species, this has been documented and thought of as a dominance behavior of these animals, but note, these animals are not only gay persay, they also have sexual relationships with females.
> 
> And yes, homosexual sex has also occurred among humans and was even accepted in societies such as in the Roman Empire, where it was OK for Roman men to have homosexual sex with another man, if the man was also his slave and if it was the Roman man screwing the slave, but NOT the other way around....this too was a sign of dominance, and accepted.
> 
> I am not denying homosexual desires have existed among humans forever, i'm just not a believer that one is born with them for any scientific or survival  reason.*
> 
> Second, perhaps it is a response to overpopulation, a way of protecting a species that has overcrowded it's habitat.



*You have a good point on your second one, I hadn't thought about such, prior to you mentioning it, and will consider this a possibility.*

care


----------



## Sunni Man

Anguille said:


> Aren't you making personal attacks against homosexuals?
> Your logic hasn't proved a thing other than that you are a hateful bigot posing as a Muslim.


I only address and state my opinions about various subjects.

I don't attack or slander members of the forum.


----------



## Sunni Man

Anguille said:


> Second, perhaps it is a response to overpopulation, a way of protecting a species that has overcrowded it's habitat.


What a laugh!!

So you are saying that two guys packing each others fudge. Is some how part of the evolutionary process for human population control !!!!


----------



## Anguille

Care4all said:


> *You have a good point on your second one, I hadn't thought about such, prior to you mentioning it, and will consider this a possibility.*
> 
> care



I remember reading somewhere about a pair of male penguins that were observed in a monogamous relationship for several mating seasons. They built a nest together and behaved exactly as a male/female couple would have, except no eggs,of course.

The Eastern Woodland tribes of North America were very accepting of homosexuals and transvestites. 

Also, in ancient Sparta, homosexual relationships between soldiers was the norm. Marriage with women was mainly for procreation. 

Thus the old joke about the poor Greek guy who was homesick and sorry he'd left his little brothers behind.


----------



## random3434

Sunni Man said:


> I only address and state my opinions about various subjects.
> 
> I don't attack or slander members of the forum.



Unless they are gay, right?


----------



## Anguille

Sunni Man said:


> What a laugh!!
> 
> So you are saying that two guys packing each others fudge. Is some how part of the evolutionary process for human population control !!!!



You just can't seem to stop bringing up vivid images of gay sexual behavior. What's with that?


----------



## Sunni Man

Echo Zulu said:


> Unless they are gay, right?


I have no idea if there are any homos on the board.

I haven't personally attacked anyone.


----------



## Sunni Man

Anguille said:


> The Eastern Woodland tribes of North America were very accepting of homosexuals and transvestites.
> 
> Also, in ancient Sparta, homosexual relationships between soldiers was the norm.


And where are these societies now?

Any society that normalizes homo behavior is crumbling and will soon cease to exist.


----------



## Sunni Man

Anguille said:


> I remember reading somewhere about a pair of male penguins that were observed in a monogamous relationship for several mating seasons. They built a nest together and behaved exactly as a male/female couple would have, except no eggs,of course.


Some times animals get confused and engage in odd behavior.

Ever had a dog hump your leg? He was just confused, not gay!!


----------



## Anguille

I get it, Sunshine. You are denying your homosexual desires for the greater good of America. 

Ok, whatever works for you. I'm sure the gay community would just as well you stay closeted too.


----------



## random3434

Anguille said:


> I get it, Sunshine. You are denying your homosexual desires for the greater good of America.
> 
> Ok, whatever works for you. I'm sure the gay community would just as well you stay closeted too.




They all thank you:


2008 Gay Pride Parade Dates


----------



## Sunni Man

Anguille said:


> I get it, Sunshine. You are denying your homosexual desires for the greater good of America.


Why the continued personal attcks?

Are you unable to debate the issue?


----------



## Anguille

Sunni Man said:


> Why the continued personal attcks?
> 
> Are you unable to debate the issue?


 

Not interested. You bigots can be such repetitive bores.


----------



## random3434

sunni Man said:


> sorry That You Can't Handle The Truth
> 
> Yes, You Should Run Away And Hide!!


----------



## jla1178

I don't remember any law given in the Bible for which a motive was given. The law was given and that was the end of the story. There is room to believe that certain laws were given as a response to the harsh climate in which the Israelites lived. Including any regarding marriage. Most scholars believe the law against eating pork was in response to the threat of contracting trichinosis. The obvious question then is, how relevant are they today?


----------



## CA95380

Is this not a duplicate of a thread started by "TheBass"?  It sure reads like it. 

Seriously Sunni ......  Read a quote you said a few days ago.



Sunni Man said:


> I never thought about it being a conspiracy?
> I am a white man who is married to a black woman.  Should I have consulted some secret group or organization before I got married?



Did she chose her color?  Did she have a choice in what color she could be?  Or did she take the color that God gave her, just like the rest of us have done. 

*Do not bring our parents into this.*  What I am talking about is our very own personal body, mind, soul - the person that we are.  I do not care if she or we are white, black, brown, yellow, tan, green, or pink.

We are what God made us.  And if you believe in God the way you say you do you should understand this more than most of us.

None of us chose to be what we are - but we do chose how we treat other's in our life, as we live it.  Gay people did not chose to be gay any more than a white or black person had a say in what color they would be!

Peroid!


----------



## Sunni Man

CA95380 said:


> Gay people did not chose to be gay any more than a white or black person had a say in what color they would be


A person has no control over what color their skin is when they are born. That is normal and natural.

But to be a rapist, murder, child molester, homosexual, or other sexual devient is a "Choice"

God had nothing to do with these people perverse behavior.


----------



## Ravi

Sunni Man said:


> A person has no control over what color their skin is when they are born. That is normal and natural.
> 
> But to be a rapist, murder, child molester, homosexual, or other sexual devient is a "Choice"
> 
> God had nothing to do with these people perverse behavior.


Didn't mohammed sleep with underage girls? I guess God was good with that.

Why don't you quit being an asshole?


----------



## CA95380

Sunni Man said:


> A person has no control over what color their skin is when they are born. That is normal and natural.
> 
> But to be a rapist, murder, child molester, homosexual, or other sexual devient is a "Choice"
> 
> God had nothing to do with these people perverse behavior.



When someone as thick headed as yourself is - do not ask why people are making this a *personal attack * on you!  With stupid comments, as you have made in the quote above & all of your other lame excuses, you bring it on yourself.  *You crave attention, that could be the only reason you do it. *

Crawl back in your cave and take your Bible, because you are going to need it.


----------



## Bootneck

No comments required. Just read and form your own opinions.



> In 2000, Zaki Badawi - an elderly but far-sighted scholar who was *head of the Muslim College* in London - took the unprecedented step of giving an interview to Gay Times.
> 
> "In Britain," he said, "we Muslims are in a minority, and it should not be our task to encourage intolerance towards other minorities."
> 
> Dr Badawi, who died earlier this year, told the magazine: "Homosexuality has always existed and continues to exist in all Islamic countries ... *Many high-ranking leaders in the Islamic world are gay."*
> 
> It is true, of course, that most Muslims today regard homosexuality as bad and do try to "sweep gays and lesbians under the carpet", but this is a product of society rather than their religion. The vast majority of Christians and Jews held a similar view half a century ago but since then significant bodies of opinion in Judaism and Christianity have begun to question it.





> In orthodox Muslim teaching, the question of sin arises only when people act upon their sexual impulses, *but same-sex acts are not among the small number of crimes for which a penalty is specified in the Qur'an*.





> In comparison with Christianity today, the progressive forces in Islam are extremely weak, though they do exist. The reasons for their weakness are mainly historical or social and have nothing to do with the nature of Islam itself. The result, unfortunately, is that all sorts of dogmatic rubbish invoking the "fixed principles of Islam" is allowed to pass unchallenged. You can even find prominent scholars who seek to eradicate left-handedness in much the same way that they try to "cure" homosexuality



What's wrong with being gay and Muslim? | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

Homosexuality is Nature's way of culling the herd of defects by discouraging reproduction.  AIDS is the means by which it expedites the process for the more egregious duds.


----------



## Luissa

PubliusInfinitu said:


> Homosexuality is Nature's way of culling the herd of defects by discouraging reproduction.  AIDS is the means by which it expedites the process for the more egregious duds.



So people from Africa are a dud to you?


----------



## Care4all

Well, i am not a bigot, i do not begin to judge the salvation of all gays or any individual gay person....

BUT

Until there is scientific proof that the human genome or DNA is different in someone who is gay and someone that is not, I simply can not say that homosexuals are born this way...and personally, I don't believe that anyone on this board can say such either, other than in a speculative presumption.

If there is a scientific difference, I'm certain our Scientists will find it, soon.  Mainly because they are finding out more and more each day with their genome/dna research.

care


----------



## editec

CA95380 said:


> Is this not a duplicate of a thread started by "TheBass"? It sure reads like it.


 
The closet brigade strikes again, CA.

It would not at all surprise me if Bass and Sunni are the same self loathing  repressed homo to be frank.


----------



## jla1178

Care4all said:


> Until there is scientific proof that the human genome or DNA is different in someone who is gay and someone that is not, I simply can not say that homosexuals are born this way.



Wouldn't have to be genetic. For the first few weeks of life, all fetuses are female. Either certain organs drop and become testes or they stay and become ovaries.


----------



## Care4all

jla1178 said:


> Wouldn't have to be genetic. For the first few weeks of life, all fetuses are female. Either certain organs drop and become testes or they stay and become ovaries.



please explain?

how does this relate to being ''born'' gay jla?

and even if all fetuses  appear to be female in the early weeks, the DNA of the fetus is already marked as being male or female...if XX it is a female, if XY a male?  this IS genetic....the sex determination takes place upon fertilization by the sperm, even if it does not show up in the fetus until later?


----------



## Anguille

Sunni Man said:


> A person has no control over what color their skin is when they are born. That is normal and natural.
> 
> But to be a rapist, murder, child molester, homosexual, or other sexual devient is a "Choice"
> 
> God had nothing to do with these people perverse behavior.



This is where your logic falls apart. You lump homosexuals in with murderers/rapists/ child molesters while ignoring the glaring difference between the two groups. Homosexuality is about consensual sex, the other things you mention are about violence and exerting control over another human being.

Sunni moron, you should be ashamed of yourself expressing this kind of hatred and bigotry at this time. You know it is especially offensive to Allah to do these kinds of things during Ramadam.


----------



## editec

Anguille said:


> This is where your logic falls apart. You lump homosexuals in with murderers/rapists/ child molesters while ignoring the glaring difference between the two groups. Homosexuality is about consensual sex, the other things you mention are about violence and exerting control over another human being.
> 
> Sunni moron, you should be ashamed of yourself expressing this kind of hatred and bigotry at this time. You know it is especially offensive to Allah to do these kinds of things during Ramadam.


 
Logic?

Sunni has made no appeal to logic.


----------



## jla1178

Care4all said:


> please explain?
> 
> how does this relate to being ''born'' gay jla?
> 
> and even if all fetuses  appear to be female in the early weeks, the DNA of the fetus is already marked as being male or female...if XX it is a female, if XY a male?  this IS genetic....the sex determination takes place upon fertilization by the sperm, even if it does not show up in the fetus until later?



Just seems to me that there may be room for something not going according to plan between the physical gender selection and the mental. Where they are physically one but think more like the other. Just musing. Not a doctor and don't play one on TV.


----------



## Luissa

Care4all said:


> Well, i am not a bigot, i do not begin to judge the salvation of all gays or any individual gay person....
> 
> BUT
> 
> Until there is scientific proof that the human genome or DNA is different in someone who is gay and someone that is not, I simply can not say that homosexuals are born this way...and personally, I don't believe that anyone on this board can say such either, other than in a speculative presumption.
> 
> If there is a scientific difference, I'm certain our Scientists will find it, soon.  Mainly because they are finding out more and more each day with their genome/dna research.
> 
> care


As American they say we are free so why can't someone be free to make the choice to be gay. I am not saying they are not born that way, I am just saying who cares! You have the freedom to pick whoever you want to marry why can't it be the same for everyone in this country? They are not hurting your lifestyle in anyway so don't hurt their lifestyle.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

Luissa27 said:


> So people from Africa are a dud to you?



Queers are duds wherever they live sis...  Nature doesn't care where you call home when you can't muster the self discipline to avoid devient behavior; she'll inevitably strip you of the means to further sully the gene pool.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

Luissa27 said:


> As American they say we are free so why can't someone be free to make the choice to be gay. I am not saying they are not born that way, I am just saying who cares! You have the freedom to pick whoever you want to marry why can't it be the same for everyone in this country? They are not hurting your lifestyle in anyway so don't hurt their lifestyle.




Because Queer behavior leads to the contraction of lethal viruses...  You are _free_ based upon the principle that liberty is founded upon the responsibility that you do not usurp the rights of others... infecting someone through your devient behavior; whether you infect them through the use of needles, through donating blood or through your inability to resist the desire for deviant sex, you do _*not*_ have a right to infect another with a lethal virus, thus you do *NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO ENGAGE IN BEHAVIOR WHICH PROMOTES THE TRANSMISSION OF THAT VIRUS* ...


----------



## Luissa

PubliusInfinitu said:


> Queers are duds wherever they live sis...  Nature doesn't care where you call home when you can't muster the self discipline to avoid devient behavior; she'll inevitably strip you of the means to further sully the gene pool.


You didn't answer my question?


----------



## Care4all

Luissa27 said:


> As American they say we are free so why can't someone be free to make the choice to be gay. I am not saying they are not born that way, I am just saying who cares! You have the freedom to pick whoever you want to marry why can't it be the same for everyone in this country? They are not hurting your lifestyle in anyway so don't hurt their lifestyle.



They are free to make a choice, (individual free will) I have never said that they weren't free to do such? 

The question of this thread was whether or not gays were (genectically) "born" gay, and this is what I was answering, as honestly and logically as I could!  

Care


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

jla1178 said:


> Wouldn't have to be genetic. For the first few weeks of life, all fetuses are female. Either certain organs drop and become testes or they stay and become ovaries.




Very GOOD Scooter... Now when the testes drop we call those males and they are designed to mate with the females... queers are those freaks which simply can't muster the self discipline to avoid playing with their buddies junk...  They're freaks of nature and healthy cultures do not raise their freaks to 'preferred' status.  Queers are to be shunned and ridiculed, belittled and berated... When a culture accepts and celebrates their freaks, it can be certain of realizing an increase in freakage.  Cultures which normalize freakage must inevitably fall to those which reject the duds and celebrate those that maintain exponentially higher standards.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

Luissa27 said:


> You didn't answer my question?



I most certainly did answer your question.  That you're intellectually incapable of recognizing that is not my problem.  

Now if you need to complain about it, I suggest yu begin with your parents... they're the ones that laid the faulty genetic work, along with their failure to educate you with sufficient readng comprehension suitable for reasoned discourse.


----------



## Care4all

jla1178 said:


> Just seems to me that there may be room for something not going according to plan between the physical gender selection and the mental. Where they are physically one but think more like the other. Just musing. Not a doctor and don't play one on TV.




hahahahahahahaha!  Nor do i play one!  But i have had an interest in the human genome/genetics/DNA/fertility and all the discoveries they have been making lately so i have been spending some free time reading up on it...


----------



## Luissa

PubliusInfinitu said:


> I most certainly did answer your question.  That you're intellectually incapable of recognizing that is not my problem.
> 
> Now if you need to complain about it, I suggest yu begin with your parents... they're the ones that laid the faulty genetic work, along with their failure to educate you with sufficient readng comprehension suitable for reasoned discourse.


I asked you if African's are duds where there is the most cases of AID's. All you gave me was your bigot response. Answer my question. Because in your answer they asked for it. Do alittle research and you will see the white man is one of the reasons AIDS is in Africa. I will give you a hint, it has to do with the polio vaccine.


----------



## Anguille

PubliusInfinitu said:


> ...thus you do *NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO ENGAGE IN BEHAVIOR WHICH PROMOTES THE TRANSMISSION OF THAT VIRUS* ...



No sex at all then, for anyone, of any sexual persuasion.

No sneezing either, I guess. Wouldn't want to promote the cold virus.


----------



## jla1178

PubliusInfinitu said:


> queers are those freaks which simply can't muster the self discipline to avoid playing with their buddies junk.



As you obviously have mustered.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

editec said:


> The closet brigade strikes again, CA.
> 
> It would not at all surprise me if Bass and Sunni are the same self loathing  repressed homo to be frank.



The Bass is *NOT* Sunni and as for this thread which asks a stupid quetion, no, no one is born gay.


----------



## Luissa

Anguille said:


> No sex at all then, for anyone, of any sexual persuasion.
> 
> No sneezing either, I guess. Wouldn't want to promote the cold virus.


Don't tell him that, he is going to start thinking people who sneeze are the down fall of society. And I love how he thinks that if I don't have a problem with gay people my parents raised me wrong. When really my parents raised me to excepting of everyone and their beliefs. My father is a white male who was never around gay people but he kept an open mind.


----------



## Anguille

Charlie Bass said:


> The Bass is *NOT* Sunni



Perhaps.

You and Sunshine would sure make a cute couple though.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Luissa27 said:


> As American they say we are free so why can't someone be free to make the choice to be gay. I am not saying they are not born that way, I am just saying who cares! You have the freedom to pick whoever you want to marry why can't it be the same for everyone in this country? They are not hurting your lifestyle in anyway so don't hurt their lifestyle.




Freedom as an American to be gay? LMAO! Whats next, freedom to be a pedophile, freedom to practice having sex with animals, freedom to have sex with family members. The "if it isn't hurting your lifestyle argument" is a slippery slope.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Anguille said:


> Perhaps.
> 
> You and Sunshine would sure make a cute couple though.



More homoerotic fantasies from the peanut gallery.


----------



## Anguille

Charlie Bass said:


> More homoerotic fantasies from the peanut gallery.



Sorry Charlie, you'll have to keep inventing your own.


----------



## jla1178

Charlie Bass said:


> ...homoerotic fantasies...peanut gallery.



You're getting me hot.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Anguille said:


> Sorry Charlie, you'll have to keep inventing your own.




You are one incorrigible troll with a gay axe to grind.


----------



## Anguille

So says The Bass.


----------



## Shattered

Beware the wrath of a pissed off Bass..

(What does an angry fish do anyway?)


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Shattered said:


> Beware the wrath of a pissed off Bass..
> 
> (What does an angry fish do anyway?)



Some of you people are stupid beyond stupid and will never move beyond borderline retardation when it comes to intellectual capacity. You can troll the Bass all you like, but you can't refute his arguments.


----------



## Shattered

Charlie Bass said:


> Some of you people are stupid beyond stupid and will never move beyond borderline retardation when it comes to intellectual capacity. You can troll the Bass all you like, but you can't refute his arguments.



One can't refute what doesn't exist.  You haven't GOT any arguments.  Just a bunch of closet homosexual tendencies you're trying your hardest to deny.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Shattered said:


> One can't refute what doesn't exist.  You haven't GOT any arguments.  Just a bunch of closet homosexual tendencies you're trying your hardest to deny.



Yep, great argument, anyone who preaches against the idea of two men shagging each other is a closet gay, more retardology from an idiot who thinks she can neutralize the Bass' argument. People who are against terrorists are closet terrorists using your dumb logic also, right?


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

Luissa27 said:


> I asked you if African's are duds where there is the most cases of AID's. All you gave me was your bigot response. Answer my question. Because in your answer they asked for it. Do alittle research and you will see the white man is one of the reasons AIDS is in Africa. I will give you a hint, it has to do with the polio vaccine.



As usual you prove yourself a liar...



			
				Luissa27 said:
			
		

> So people from Africa are a dud to you?



Now that was your question...  I answered it: Nature doesn't care in what country a deviant lives and that most definitely includes Africans. The reason that Africans transmit AIDs from one to another is that they are prone to engaging in deviant sexual practices and IV Drug use...  The same reason AIDS is found wherever its found.  

The simple fact is that even in Africa, if you do not participate in sexual activity with homosexuals or if one avoids sex with those who have engaged in sex with Homosexuals, or if one avoids sex with those enaging in IV drug use, or accepting a blood transfusion from someone who has engaged in sex with a homosexual or someone that has enegaged in sex with a homosexual or IV Drug user, one has no chance of contracting AIDS.

Now this is without regard to the pro-queer propaganda which desperately wants to operate under the facade of science.

FACT: Take Deviant behavior out of the equation and AIDS is history.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

Charlie Bass said:


> Yep, great argument, anyone who preaches against the idea of two men shagging each other is a closet gay, more retardology from an idiot who thinks she can neutralize the Bass' argument. People who are against terrorists are closet terrorists using your dumb logic also, right?



They're what will soon come to be known as the 'Idiocracy.'  They full scope of their intellect is comprised of a library of bumper stickers and exists enjoying the depth of a shadow.


----------



## editec

Charlie Bass said:


> The Bass is *NOT* Sunni and as for this thread which asks a stupid quetion, no, no one is born gay.


 


So every time you see an attractive man, you choose not to have sex with him?

The Bass is confusing the editec.

The editec doesn't have to choose not to be sexually attracted to men.

He was born heterosexual.

The Bass was not born a heterosexual?

The editec is surprised you are so candid about your repressed sexual longings.

The editec is _impressed!_


----------



## Bass v 2.0

editec said:


> So every time you see an attractive man, you choose not to have sex with him?



The bass doesn't look at men, maybe you do. 



> he Bass is confusing the editec.



Your brain just doesn't work, don't bark up the wrong tree saying the Bass is confusing you.





> The editec is surprised you are so candid about your repressed sexual longings.
> 
> The editec is _impressed!_




Again, anyone who is against homosexuality is a repressed gay person? if that is true, are people who are against terrorism repressed terrorists?


----------



## Bass v 2.0

You guys discuss homosexuality too much in this forum, thats very telling.


----------



## WhiteLion

Gay Homosexuality is not a human trait at all, in any sense of the word and cannot without the aid of the opposite sex procreate, not now not ever. A "GAY GENE??" lol keep searching you might want to goto Mars lol, their so desperate that they may even makeup a fallacy like their EVOLUTION that to this day hasnt proved anything but, proven lies stacked one on top of the other. Animals that dont have near the brain capacity of humans, do not display such behavior intentionally? No Homosexuals are abused rejects of societies that turn to deviant behaviors because of the fact, and use this behavior as a tool to get even or a form of Passive Aggressiveness...Now the government puts these rejects above the law, you either except their deviance and diseases or be imprisoned with them???


----------



## eots

YouTube - Dr Money And The Boy With No Penis (3/5)  17 Jul 2008 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ff18YhEHG_M&feature=related]YouTube - Dr Money And The Boy With No Penis (3/5)[/ame] - 119k


----------



## glockmail

plt42 said:


> *conjecture: a conclusion deduced by surmise or guesswork*
> 
> The "logical basis" of your opinion is no more definitive than my opinion, at least not at this point in medical or psychiatric science.
> ....



Sure it is. Sex between two men, or two women, does not result in reproduction, therefore any "gay gene", if one existed, could not be passed onto the next generation. It's simple scientific logic and the basis for my opinion. You offer no basis at all for your opinion.


----------



## WhiteLion

This's in response to eots post. eots thousands of people are born with un-natural birth defects every year(weather its no limbs, defeaf, blind, genital missing, ears missing, etc, etc) its sad that this boy had this defect, but still doenst relegate the fact that, the DNA of the fetus is already marked as being male or female...if XX it is a female, if XY a male? this IS genetic....the sex determination takes place upon fertilization by the sperm, even if it does not show up in the fetus until later or ends in a tragic physical genetic defect? some of the worlds top physicians even make uncalculated mistakes, this's human. However this doesnt constitute a homosexual DNA gene or the beginning of such an animal, in any sense, in which i guess you were trying to relate???


----------



## AllieBaba

glockmail said:


> Sure it is. Sex between two men, or two women, does not result in reproduction, therefore any "gay gene", if one existed, could not be passed onto the next generation. It's simple scientific logic and the basis for my opinion. You offer no basis at all for your opinion.



Lol!
Snap!
Except I think they got around that by saying it was being passed down on the mother's side....
And it's all hogwash. The pro-homo lobby tried and spent millions of dollars on studies attempting to prove that gayness was genetic. It didn't work. They ended up at square one. While certain traits might be genetic, ultimately, sexuality is a choice, affected by many things, but ultimately still an individual choice.


----------



## Luissa

PubliusInfinitu said:


> As usual you prove yourself a liar...
> 
> 
> 
> Now that was your question...  I answered it: Nature doesn't care in what country a deviant lives and that most definitely includes Africans. The reason that Africans transmit AIDs from one to another is that they are prone to engaging in deviant sexual practices and IV Drug use...  The same reason AIDS is found wherever its found.
> 
> The simple fact is that even in Africa, if you do not participate in sexual activity with homosexuals or if one avoids sex with those who have engaged in sex with Homosexuals, or if one avoids sex with those enaging in IV drug use, or accepting a blood transfusion from someone who has engaged in sex with a homosexual or someone that has enegaged in sex with a homosexual or IV Drug user, one has no chance of contracting AIDS.
> 
> Now this is without regard to the pro-queer propaganda which desperately wants to operate under the facade of science.
> 
> FACT: Take Deviant behavior out of the equation and AIDS is history.


How em I liar, like I said do alittle research and not believe everything that is told to you. And by your statement Ryan White deserved to contract AIDS because he should of known not to take a blood from someone who has had homosexaul sex. What a stupid statement and it proves my point that you are stupid.
I hope you get AIDS and die, your sorry excuse for a human being. Your kind should be extermanted.


----------



## AllieBaba

Lol. More of that freedom for all, everyone has the right to be heard and participate in political discussion coming from the left.

How many people has Luissa wished dead or hurt so far?


----------



## AllieBaba

Luissa27 said:


> How em I liar, like I said do alittle research and not believe everything that is told to you. And by your statement Ryan White deserved to contract AIDS because he should of known not to take a blood from someone who has had homosexaul sex. What a stupid statement and it proves my point that you are stupid.
> I hope you get AIDS and die, your sorry excuse for a human being. *Your kind should be extermanted*.



Sorry, had to point that out again.

What kind? You mean the kind different than you, Luissa? See, that's the definintion of bigotry. The belief that others should be killed if they don't agree with you, because they aren't "worthy" of life.


----------



## Shattered

Luissa27 said:


> How em I liar, like I said do alittle research and not believe everything that is told to you. And by your statement Ryan White deserved to contract AIDS because he should of known not to take a blood from someone who has had homosexaul sex. What a stupid statement and it proves my point that you are stupid.
> *I hope you get AIDS and die, your sorry excuse for a human being. Your kind should be extermanted.*



Kindly refrain from making such comments like this again.  Thanks.


----------



## Sunni Man

Luissa27 said:


> I hope you get AIDS and die, your sorry excuse for a human being. Your kind should be extermanted.


Isn't your responce a little too harsh. 

I mean really, he just brought up some basically true and valid points.


----------



## Luissa

AllieBaba said:


> Sorry, had to point that out again.
> 
> What kind? You mean the kind different than you, Luissa? See, that's the definintion of bigotry. The belief that others should be killed if they don't agree with you, because they aren't "worthy" of life.


I think someone who believes people with AIDS asked for it, or for that matter people who had blood tranfusions asked for it. The fact that you would defend such a human being reminds be why I am liberal. Why don't you guys try to not be so hateful toward people who are not like you. You hate people you have abortion not knowing their situation, you hate people who are gay because you don't understand them and don't try to understand them.
Of couse I think someone like him should not exsist because he makes the human race look bad. 
And by him saying AIDS is way to weed out the homosexuals is way of saying he wants them extermnated and not worthy of life so therefore I don't think he is worthy of life. His kind makes all conservatives look bad. And I know all of you do not think this way and maybe some of you should tell him this.


----------



## AllieBaba

Those of us who truly do believe in human rights believe in rights for all. Not just those handpicked by ourselves.

I would defend a Muslim, a Hindu, a satan worshipper and even you. I don't believe in killing the competition.

And the fact that you think it's okay to destroy people who don't agree with you, but it's NOT okay for other people to claim there is judgment for certain lifestyles...well, I find it amazing that (even you) can't see how those two things are different. You're saying you hope somebody dies because he doesn't believe the way you do. He's saying certain populations are dying because they have become involved in an unhealthy lifestyle.

Big difference, and you come out looking like a fascist.


----------



## Luissa

AllieBaba said:


> Those of us who truly do believe in human rights believe in rights for all. Not just those handpicked by ourselves.
> 
> I would defend a Muslim, a Hindu, a satan worshipper and even you. I don't believe in killing the competition.
> 
> And the fact that you think it's okay to destroy people who don't agree with you, but it's NOT okay for other people to claim there is judgment for certain lifestyles...well, I find it amazing that (even you) can't see how those two things are different. You're saying you hope somebody dies because he doesn't believe the way you do. He's saying certain populations are dying because they have become involved in an unhealthy lifestyle.
> 
> Big difference, and you come out looking like a fascist.


you maybe right but I have gay friends and I have a gay friend who was  left for dead because some bigot asshole tried to beat him to death so any time someone talks about how they deserve to get AIDS and die it hits a sore spot. Like you I would defend anyone but I will not defend anyone who does not have an open mind. His type spred hatred and people like my friend have to pay. Maybe you should read what he really wrote.


----------



## Sunni Man

Luissa27 said:


> you maybe right but I have gay friends and I have a gay friend who left for dead because some bigot asshole tried to beat him to death so any time someone talks about how they deserve to get AIDS and dies it hits a sore spot. Like you I would defend anyone but I will defend anyone who does not have an open mind. His type spred hatred and people like my friend have to pay. Maybe you should read what he really wrote.


Homos make a choice when they engage in their perverted lifestyle.

If they catch AIDS and die. 

It is their Freedom of Choice.

I personally support that freedom of choice for them.


----------



## random3434

Sunni Man said:


> Homos make a choice when they engage in their perverted lifestyle.
> 
> If they catch AIDS and die.
> 
> It is their Freedom of Choice.
> 
> I personally support that freedom of choice for them.




Do you support freedom of choice for hetrosexuals to get gential herpes, VD and gential warts? 

How about the Hetrosexuals who have AIDS, be it by sex or blood transfusions, do you support them too?

I'm SURE all of your wives were virgins when you married them, right? How many do you have again?


----------



## Sunni Man

Echo Zulu said:


> How about the Hetrosexuals who have AIDS, be it by sex or blood transfusions, do you support them too?


I feel sorry for them, as they are victims.


----------



## random3434

Sunni Man said:


> I feel sorry for them, as they are victims.



So, answer my other questions too.


----------



## Sunni Man

Echo Zulu said:


> So, answer my other questions too.


They were too silly for a reply


----------



## AllieBaba

Luissa27 said:


> you maybe right but I have gay friends and I have a gay friend who left for dead because some bigot asshole tried to beat him to death so any time someone talks about how they deserve to get AIDS and dies it hits a sore spot. Like you I would defend anyone but I will defend anyone who does not have an open mind. His type spred hatred and people like my friend have to pay. Maybe you should read what he really wrote.



When you say you want people to catch AIDS and die, you're the one spreading hatred, honey.


----------



## AllieBaba

Echo Zulu said:


> I'm SURE all of your wives were virgins when you married them, right? How many do you have again?



Not if they were American, at least not according to Sunni, who thinks all American women are whores....


----------



## Bass v 2.0

The pro-sodomite arguments are turning into emotive rants, its painfully obvious what homosexuality is and these people still insist that they're right.One man wanting to stick his penis i another man's anus and spray fecal matter and semen on his buttocks is not natural. Sodomoexuals do what thy do because they like and take pleasure in shagging a person of the same sex, its a perverted fetish.


----------



## random3434

Charlie Bass said:


> The pro-sodomite arguments are turning into emotive rants, its painfully obvious what homosexuality is and these people still insist that they're right.One man wanting to stick his penis i another man's anus and spray fecal matter and semen on his buttocks is not natural.



Wow, did you learn to talk like that in Church today Bassman?


----------



## AllieBaba

Yuck!


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Echo Zulu said:


> Wow, did you learn to talk like that in Church today Bassman?




Better question, why do you defend such nasty and disgusting sexual behaviour by sodomites?


----------



## AllieBaba

Or justify it being taught in school...


----------



## random3434

Charlie Bass said:


> Better question, why do you defend such nasty and disgusting sexual behaviour by sodomites?



Hmmm, first sunni, now you not answering my questions.

Wonder why?


----------



## Luissa

AllieBaba said:


> When you say you want people to catch AIDS and die, you're the one spreading hatred, honey.


YOu are right! And I shouldn't of said that but the guy pushed my botton and I just don't understand why people still think the way he does.


----------



## Shattered

Charlie Bass said:


> The pro-sodomite arguments are turning into emotive rants, its painfully obvious what homosexuality is and these people still insist that they're right.One man wanting to stick his penis i another man's anus and spray fecal matter and semen on his buttocks is not natural. Sodomoexuals do what thy do because they like and take pleasure in shagging a person of the same sex, its a perverted fetish.



You're pretty graphic for someone supposedly "revolted" by the whole thing.. 

People that are exceptionally disgusted by something usually have no want to discuss it.. and CERTAINLY not in extensive and complete detail.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Echo Zulu said:


> Hmmm, first sunni, now you not answering my questions.
> 
> Wonder why?



Your question was irrelevant to the topic, but why do you defend such nasty disgusting behaviour? You pro-homo supporters like to support these sausage jockeys so much so they Bass gave a graphic description of what they do, which you already knew.


----------



## random3434

Charlie Bass said:


> Your question was irrelevant to the topic, but why do you defend such nasty disgusting behaviour? You pro-homo supporters like to support these sausage jockeys so much so they Bass gave a graphic description of what they do, which you already knew.




You still didn't answer me if you learned that kind of talk in church. Doesn't seem too Christian like to me Bassman.


----------



## random3434

Shattered said:


> You're pretty graphic for someone supposedly "revolted" by the whole thing..
> 
> People that are exceptionally disgusted by something usually have no want to discuss it.. and CERTAINLY not in extensive and complete detail.



Exactly!

I wonder how he knows all the details of what men on men action is anyway?


----------



## Sunni Man

I support and encourage all gays to engage in random unprotected sex!!


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Shattered said:


> You're pretty graphic for someone supposedly "revolted" by the whole thing..
> 
> People that are exceptionally disgusted by something usually have no want to discuss it.. and CERTAINLY not in extensive and complete detail.



You'e the queen of ad-hominem argumentation, lolz. The graphic description sounded nasty but this is the type of behaviour and sex that you support, so get to know what you support.


----------



## AllieBaba

Echo Zulu said:


> Exactly!
> 
> I wonder how he knows all the details of what men on men action is anyway?



Kindergarten sex ed.


----------



## Shattered

Charlie Bass said:


> You'e the queen of ad-hominem argumentation, lolz. The graphic description sounded nasty but this is the type of behaviour and sex that you support, so get to know what you support.



That's funny.. *I* didn't even know what gay behavior in the bedroom entailed until you treated me to a first-rate description.

Anyone that can be that detailed obviously knows from personal experience.


----------



## random3434

AllieBaba said:


> Kindergarten sex ed.



Allie, get off it.

This has NOTHING to do with the other thing, and you know it. Are you defending the Bassman and his hateful behavior? It's not too Christian like, is it? If you want to debate good touch/bad touch for young kids and sex ed for teens, do it in the proper thread.

This thead is about hateful behavior/slander by so called religious people-the ~sunniboy and Bassman.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Echo Zulu said:


> You still didn't answer me if you learned that kind of talk in church. Doesn't seem too Christian like to me Bassman.



This is a red herring, the graphic post the Bass made spells out exactly what these sausage jockeys do and now you want to turn the whole thing around and put it on the Bass? If you accept homosexuality and want people to tolerate it, at least accept and tolerate the graphic description of what they do.

@ Shattered, the Bass is *NOT* is biker hat, butt shagging leather daddy, so please quit asking the Bass to come out of the closet. Condemning sausage jockey sex doesn't make one a sausage jockey, unless you believe that people who condemn terrorism are closeted terrorists.


----------



## Shattered

Charlie Bass said:


> This is a red herring, the graphic post the Bass made spells out exactly what these sausage jockeys do and now you want to turn the whole thing around and put it on the Bass? If you accept homosexuality and want people to tolerate it, at least accept and tolerate the graphic description of what they do.
> 
> @ Shattered, *the Bass is *NOT* is biker hat, butt shagging leather daddy*, so please quit asking the Bass to come out of the closet. Condemning sausage jockey sex doesn't make one a sausage jockey, unless you believe that people who condemn terrorism are closeted terrorists.



Baloney.

In fact, you're getting so flustered, your typing has gone to hell in a hand basket.   You just didn't think you'd get found out this soon.


----------



## Anguille

glockmail said:


> Sure it is. Sex between two men, or two women, does not result in reproduction, therefore any "gay gene", if one existed, could not be passed onto the next generation. It's simple scientific logic and the basis for my opinion. You offer no basis at all for your opinion.



So my gay friend's father, who was himself gay, could not have passed on a gay gene? 
Whether or not a gay gerne exists, it is naive on your part to think gay people don't have sex with straight people.


----------



## AllieBaba

Luissa27 said:


> YOu are right! And I shouldn't of said that but the guy pushed my botton and I just don't understand why people still think the way he does.



The truth is, he isn't wishing death on anyone and you are. So you can stop feeling superior, you're inferior in every way.


----------



## AllieBaba

Echo Zulu said:


> Allie, get off it.
> 
> This has NOTHING to do with the other thing, and you know it. Are you defending the Bassman and his hateful behavior? It's not too Christian like, is it? If you want to debate good touch/bad touch for young kids and sex ed for teens, do it in the proper thread.
> 
> This thead is about hateful behavior/slander by so called religious people-the ~sunniboy and Bassman.



I haven't seen Bassman tell anyone he wants them dead, which puts the lie to the hypocratic posturing of the left that they are somehow "above" this sort of stuff.


----------



## random3434

AllieBaba said:


> I haven't seen Bassman tell anyone he wants them dead, *which puts the lie to the hypocratic posturing of the left that they are somehow "above" this sort of stuff*.



So because one person said that in a heated moment, all the left are about that sort of stuff?

You need to stop lumping all people who don't agree with you in one catergory.

Come on, you're smarter than that Allie.


----------



## Sunni Man

Anguille said:


> it is naive on your part to think gay people don't have sex with straight people.


If they are having sex with a gay person. How can you call them straight??


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Shattered said:


> Baloney.
> 
> In fact, you're getting so flustered, your typing has gone to hell in a hand basket.   You just didn't think you'd get found out this soon.




Constantly trolling the Bass isn't going to make him gay, no matter how many times you keep repeating it. Tautology doesn't win debates and or make somebody something you wish them to be.


----------



## AllieBaba

I thought gay people couldn't help it..in which case wouldn't they NOT be able to have straight sex?

Kaboom, there goes the argument. Again.


----------



## random3434

Sunni Man said:


> If they are having sex with a gay person. How can you call them straight??



I have many gay friends. They tell me stories of having affairs with married men. There is a certain bar in this city where married men like to go to meet the men of their true calling. (the love that dare not speak it's name so to say)


A lot of these men have children with their wives, hmmm, so it's straight in public, gay in private I guess.

Wonder if the so called "gay bashers" on here have anything like that to hide?


----------



## Anguille

Sunni Man said:


> If they are having sex with a gay person. How can you call them straight??



Now I understand you, Sunni man. Because you are married to a woman, your sexual encounters with men don't make you gay or bi in your eyes.

My friend's father told his wife before they were married that he was sexually attracted to men. She mistakenly believed all he needed was the love of a good woman. After the birth of their last child he went back to having sex with men and eventually they divorced at which point he became openly gay.His son, being born in a later time, was less confused about his sexuality.

Crockmale is also ignorant of the fact that many homosexuals procreate via artificial insemination.


----------



## Luissa

Echo Zulu said:


> I have many gay friends. They tell me stories of having affairs with married men. There is a certain bar in this city where married men like to go to meet the men of their true calling. (the love that dare not speak it's name so to say)
> 
> 
> A lot of these men have children with their wives, hmmm, so it's straight in public, gay in private I guess.
> 
> Wonder if the so called "gay bashers" on here have anything like that to hide?


I come from a town where we had a gay republican mayor who was married before and vetoed a bill where the partners of gay workers could not recieve benefits. 
He was actually not that bad of a guy once you got to know him but he had to hide who he was for such a long time he had to keep up the illusion.


----------



## AllieBaba

Echo Zulu said:


> I have many gay friends. They tell me stories of having affairs with married men. There is a certain bar in this city where married men like to go to meet the men of their true calling. (the love that dare not speak it's name so to say)
> 
> 
> A lot of these men have children with their wives, hmmm, so it's straight in public, gay in private I guess.
> 
> Wonder if the so called "gay bashers" on here have anything like that to hide?



I guess what you're trying to say is that it's a choice.

I agree.


----------



## Anguille

AllieBaba said:


> I thought gay people couldn't help it..in which case wouldn't they NOT be able to have straight sex?
> 
> Kaboom, there goes the argument. Again.



What a sheltered life you've led.


----------



## AllieBaba

Can't have it both ways, baby. Either they can't help it and they're born that way...or give up the argument and admit it's a choice.

If gays are having hetero sex, then it means they CHOOSE to have hetero sex, even though they're gay...which puts the kabosh to the whole "we don't have a choice" scenario. They're proving they have a choice when they choose to have hetero sex.


----------



## dilloduck

AllieBaba said:


> Can't have it both ways, baby. Either they can't help it and they're born that way...or give up the argument and admit it's a choice.
> 
> If gays are having hetero sex, then it means they CHOOSE to have hetero sex, even though they're gay...which puts the kabosh to the whole "we don't have a choice" scenario. They're proving they have a choice when they choose to have hetero sex.



They can fake it.


----------



## AllieBaba

Lol.


----------



## Anguille

AllieBaba said:


> Can't have it both ways, baby. Either they can't help it and they're born that way...or give up the argument and admit it's a choice.
> 
> If gays are having hetero sex, then it means they CHOOSE to have hetero sex, even though they're gay...which puts the kabosh to the whole "we don't have a choice" scenario. They're proving they have a choice when they choose to have hetero sex.



I would say that indicates bisexuality. 

It also could indicate the desire to be a parent despite one one's sexual orientation.

Get it _now_, "baby"?


----------



## glockmail

Anguille said:


> So my gay friend's father, who was himself gay, could not have passed on a gay gene?
> Whether or not a gay gerne exists, it is naive on your part to think gay people don't have sex with straight people.


 That would make them bisexual, wouldn't it? Again, a choice.


----------



## dilloduck

Anguille said:


> I would say that indicates bisexuality.
> 
> It also could indicate the desire to be a parent despite one one's sexual orientation.
> 
> Get it _now_, "baby"?



Are people born bi-sexual ?


----------



## glockmail

Anguille said:


> I would say that indicates bisexuality.
> 
> It also could indicate the desire to be a parent despite one one's sexual orientation.
> 
> Get it _now_, "baby"?


 Circular reasoning on your part.


----------



## AllieBaba

If it indicates desire to be a parent despite one's sexual orientation, how does that affect the "can't help it" argument? Because obviously, they CAN help it, and obviously, one can choose who one can be sexually intimate with.

I mean, I know it's a ridiculous argument, anyway, but I just like to hear those who claim it try to back it up...after essentially blowing their own argument out the window like the morons they are.


----------



## Anguille

dilloduck said:


> Are people born bi-sexual ?



Sure, why not? 

I do not know if people's sexuality is determined genetically but there is more and more evidence to support the idea that personality traits are linked to genes so it makes sense that sexuality is also. The thing is, is the old nature versus nurture argument still applies.

I think it is possible to become gay or straight when not born that way due to situational factors such as being raised in a strict anti gay society or a long term jail term or joining a convent or monastery.

Most gays I had discussed it with have told me that they knew they were gay at a very young age, before they even heard the word gay. As I know I was attracted to boys very early on, i think I know what they are talking about. 

But as I said earlier I think most people fall somewhere on a spectrum between absolute homo versus heterosexuality and that very few people actually are completely one or the other. Not that people act on all their urges or even recognize it when they've experienced a momentary attraction to someone of the opposite sexuality to which they normally identify. But most people are bi sexual to some degree. Most people have at the very least had a childhood crush of some sorts on another child of the same sex. It's a normal thing.


----------



## dilloduck

Anguille said:


> Sure, why not?
> 
> I do not know if people's sexuality is determined genetically but there is more and more evidence to support the idea that personality traits are linked to genes so it makes sense that sexuality is also. The thing is, is the old nature versus nurture argument still applies.
> 
> I think it is possible to become gay or straight when not born that way due to situational factors such as being raised in a strict anti gay society or a long term jail term or joining a convent or monastery.
> 
> Most gays I had discussed it with have told me that they knew they were gay at a very young age, before they even heard the word gay. As I know I was attracted to boys very early on, i think I know what they are talking about.
> 
> But as I said earlier I think most people fall somewhere on a spectrum between absolute homo versus heterosexuality and that very few people actually are completely one or the other. Not that people act on all their urges or even recognize it when they've experienced a momentary attraction to someone of the opposite sexuality to which they normally identify. But most people are bi sexual to some degree. Most people have at the very least had a childhood crush of some sorts on another child of the same sex. It's a normal thing.



whew------glad we settled that-


----------



## AllieBaba

Yes, it's a choice.


----------



## Anguille

AllieBaba said:


> If it indicates desire to be a parent despite one's sexual orientation, how does that affect the "can't help it" argument? Because obviously, they CAN help it, and obviously, one can choose who one can be sexually intimate with.
> 
> I mean, I know it's a ridiculous argument, anyway, but I just like to hear those who claim it try to back it up...after essentially blowing their own argument out the window like the morons they are.



There are gay men who are able to get it up for women, such as my friends father. And others who are incapable. It takes imagination and an ability to suppress aversion.

Some gays are revolted by the thought of sex with a member of the opposite sex and some are not. Some enjoy both and they are bisexual.


----------



## Anguille

dilloduck said:


> whew------glad we settled that-



It's pointless, I know, to try and educate narrrow minded provincials like Baba, but one should make an attempt.


----------



## dilloduck

Anguille said:


> There are gay men who are able to get it up for women, such as my friends father. And others who are incapable. It takes imagination and an ability to suppress aversion.
> 
> Some gays are revolted by the thought of sex with a member of the opposite sex and some are not. Some enjoy both and they are bisexual.



and bestiality ?


----------



## Anguille

dilloduck said:


> and bestiality ?



LOL!  

Allie would probably know more about that.


----------



## dilloduck

Anguille said:


> LOL!
> 
> Allie would probably know more about that.



Cmon------you were on a roll ! (I'm writing all this down.)


----------



## AllieBaba

Anguille said:


> It's pointless, I know, to try and educate narrrow minded provincials like Baba, but one should make an attempt.



Spoken like a true bigot.

Do I really have to trot out my homo credentials...AGAIN?


----------



## dilloduck

Anguille said:


> It's pointless, I know, to try and educate narrrow minded provincials like Baba, but one should make an attempt.



ya but was she BORN a provincial  ?


----------



## Anguille

Yeah yeah, we all know about your glory days as the fag hag of Hillbilly Holler


----------



## AllieBaba

Nice.


----------



## Anguille

dilloduck said:


> ya but was she BORN a provincial  ?


haha!

I'd say in her case, genes and choice both play a factor.


----------



## dilloduck

Anguille said:


> Yeah yeah, we all know about your glory days as the fag hag of Hillbilly Holler



damn--we're getting close to hogs with lipstick again.. quick--take a hard left !


----------



## AllieBaba

Thank you, I'm provincial by choice.


----------



## Anguille

AllieBaba said:


> Nice.



Oh no!  Here comes the neg rep!


----------



## dilloduck

AllieBaba said:


> Thank you, I'm provincial by choice.



I'm Swedish and German.


----------



## Anguille

AllieBaba said:


> Thank you, I'm provincial by choice.



There is a cure for that, you know.


----------



## AllieBaba

I could choose to be a narrow minded homosexual elitist in the city, I know. Fighting the good fight for the sexualization of kindergartners and the right of 12 year olds in abortion clinics to protect those who get them pregnant...

But I choose to walk a path that is a little less crowded, where the air and the schools are relatively safe and I don't have to explain "Gay Pride" parades to my young children who don't even know sex exists....and don't get the men who want to dress up like ugly women and strut down the street essentially naked.


----------



## glockmail

Anguille said:


> Yeah yeah, we all know about your glory days as the fag hag of Hillbilly Holler


 Why do liberals choose to use gay as an insult?


----------



## dilloduck

glockmail said:


> Why do liberals choose to use gay as an insult?



The ydon't really mean it !


----------



## glockmail

dilloduck said:


> The ydon't really mean it !


 Every one of these threads about gays there is always some pissed-off liberal losing an argument and claiming his opponent is gay. It would be funny if not so hypocritical and sad.


----------



## dilloduck

glockmail said:


> Every one of these threads about gays there is always some pissed-off liberal losing an argument and claiming his opponent is gay. It would be funny if not so hypocritical and sad.



Take the sex ed class--maybe it can fix your brain to where you will "get it" !


----------



## Anguille

glockmail said:


> Why do liberals choose to use gay as an insult?



Do you perceive being called gay as insulting? I don't use it as an insult nor would I be insulted to be called gay. You'll have to ask someone else that question.


----------



## Anguille

glockmail said:


> Every one of these threads about gays there is always some pissed-off liberal losing an argument and claiming his opponent is gay. It would be funny if not so hypocritical and sad.



You have gay on the brain. I wonder why?  LOL!


----------



## Anguille

AllieBaba said:


> I could choose to be a narrow minded homosexual elitist in the city, I know. Fighting the good fight for the sexualization of kindergartners and the right of 12 year olds in abortion clinics to protect those who get them pregnant...
> 
> But I choose to walk a path that is a little less crowded, where the air and the schools are relatively safe and I don't have to explain "Gay Pride" parades to my young children who don't even know sex exists....and don't get the men who want to dress up like ugly women and strut down the street essentially naked.



Provincialism is a state of mind, not a state in the Union.
Your type can be found everywhere.


----------



## dilloduck

Anguille said:


> You have gay on the brain. I wonder why?  LOL!



See---Hard Wired thread !

I'm advertising !


----------



## random3434

dilloduck said:


> See---Hard Wired thread !
> 
> I'm advertising !



Advertising what, your gay porn site again?


----------



## dilloduck

Echo Zulu said:


> Advertising what, your gay porn site again?



no you dork !!!  everyone knows that already-----I'm pushing for comments to my thread entitled  " Hard Wired "  --(I know--it's like begging for rep)


----------



## random3434

dilloduck said:


> no you dork !!!  everyone knows that already-----I'm pushing for comments to my thread entitled  " Hard Wired "  --(I know--it's like begging for rep)



I'm afraid what you mean by *"Hard* Wired" knowing you and all....


----------



## dilloduck

Echo Zulu said:


> I'm afraid what you mean by *"Hard* Wired" knowing you and all....



oh god---who have you been talking to THIS time ?
No worries--I think even you can handle it.


----------



## Care4all

from document of Dave's



> Community Involvement: The community must be involved in the development and
> implementation of sexuality education programs. School-based programs must be carefully
> developed to respect the diversity of values and beliefs represented in the community.
> Parents, family members, teachers, administrators, community and religious leaders, and
> students should all be involved.



enough said!


----------



## Bass v 2.0

The pro-homosexual crowd is still coming up short in the proof department that homosexuality is natural and or people are born that way. Personally attacking the opposition isn't proof.


----------



## Shattered

Charlie Bass said:


> The pro-homosexual crowd is still coming up short in the proof department that homosexuality is natural and or people are born that way. Personally attacking the opposition isn't proof.


----------



## dilloduck

Care4all said:


> from document of Dave's
> 
> 
> 
> enough said!



So how well is this comprehensive sex ed class going to go over in a strongly Catholic community ?


----------



## Care4all

dilloduck said:


> So how well is this comprehensive sex ed class going to go over in a strongly Catholic community ?


first of all, this comprehensive sex ed program GUIDELINES has been in place for decades and this is the 13th revision of such....and it is NOT senators or congressmen or Obama or McCain that revises this recommendation....it is the Doctors etc, that have put it together, the politicians only decide to pass the revise or not....is the way i interpreted from what i have read....

Each and every local school district determines their own sex ed program for their own school and what is appropriate for their own school and their own community...and their own schooled children and it will vary.  Parents do have a choice and are involved....those that actually TAKE THE TIME to be involved have a VOICE in the matter.  

The STATE does not FORCE any school to cover masturbation in kindergartners....this is solely up to the parents, school etc in their own school district....are you for or against EACH COMMUNITY DECIDING THEMSELVES what is prim and proper or NOT?  

Do you want to tell other parents in another state what is appropriate for them and control them?  If not, WHAT IN THE HECK is this bitching all about?  Political posturing I would suppose.....

Care


----------



## dilloduck

Care4all said:


> first of all, this comprehensive sex ed program GUIDELINES has been in place for decades and this is the 13th revision of such....and it is NOT senators or congressmen or Obama or McCain that revises this recommendation....it is the Doctors etc, that have put it together, the politicians only decide to pass the revise or not....is the way i interpreted from what i have read....
> 
> Each and every local school district determines their own sex ed program for their own school and what is appropriate for their own school and their own community...and their own schooled children and it will vary.  Parents do have a choice and are involved....those that actually TAKE THE TIME to be involved have a VOICE in the matter.
> 
> The STATE does not FORCE any school to cover masturbation in kindergartners....this is solely up to the parents, school etc in their own school district....are you for or against EACH COMMUNITY DECIDING THEMSELVES what is prim and proper or NOT?
> 
> Do you want to tell other parents in another state what is appropriate for them and control them?  If not, WHAT IN THE HECK is this bitching all about?  Political posturing I would suppose.....
> 
> Care



in other words at the local level this is meaningless because it is up to them to decide what wil and what wil lnto be taught ?


----------



## Care4all

dilloduck said:


> in other words at the local level this is meaningless because it is up to them to decide what wil and what wil lnto be taught ?



yes, it is ONLY a GUIDELINE is what it CLEARLY says, if it is read through....and it is up to each and every school district how they decide to approach sex ed....as it should be imho.


----------



## dilloduck

Care4all said:


> yes, it is ONLY a GUIDELINE is what it CLEARLY says, if it is read through....and it is up to each and every school district how they decide to approach sex ed....as it should be imho.



Hey no problem then---toss it out there as a sex ed reference manual and let the local communites add, subtract, and change anything they would like.


----------



## glockmail

Anguille said:


> Do you perceive being called gay as insulting? I don't use it as an insult nor would I be insulted to be called gay. You'll have to ask someone else that question.


Actually what you called me was the "fag hag of Hillbilly Holler".


----------



## editec

Okay, which among us is* choosing* to find either the opposite gender or the same gender sexually appealing?

Fess up if that describes your sexual nature.

Because if we cannopt find even a single person willing to admit that they CHOOSE not to find the members of the same gender attractive, then really what proof has anyone brought up to support the theory that homosexuals choose to be that way?

You have to be kinda stupid  not to understand this argument...well that or brainwashed.


----------



## glockmail

editec said:


> Okay, which among us is* choosing* to find either the opposite gender or the same gender sexually appealing?
> 
> Fess up if that describes your sexual nature.
> 
> Because if we cannopt find even a single person willing to admit that they CHOOSE not to find the members of the same gender attractive, then really what proof has anyone brought up to support the theory that homosexuals choose to be that way?
> 
> You have to be kinda stupid  not to understand this argument...well that or brainwashed.



Well actually I've known several friends in college that claimed to be gay back then but have now decided that they had been denying their natural inclinations and are now happily married in heterosexual relationships.


----------



## Anguille

glockmail said:


> Actually what you called me was the "fag hag of Hillbilly Holler".



Is your name Allie Baba? 

LOL!  The fact that you misinterpreted that comment as being directed at you brings up a whole bunch of questions I don't even want to know about.


----------



## editec

glockmail said:


> Well actually I've known several friends in college that claimed to be gay back then but have now decided that they had been denying their natural inclinations and are now happily married in heterosexual relationships.


 
Interesting. And do you know any homosexuals who were happily married who also decided they were denying their natural inclinations, and who are now happily homosexuals?

More to the point, and in answer to Bass's idiotic belief that people choose to be inclined toward homosexuality....

... are YOU choosing to be a heterosexual, Glock? Yes? No? 

Did you _choose_ to be hetero, and then your homosexual urges just vanished, or what?

How does that work? This lifelong heterosexual who never felt that way about men or boys really wants to know.

Or did you, like most of us, discover when you were approaching puberty (or even much earlier than that) that you *liked the look of the opposite gender?*

Now, I do not doubt there are some people who find both genders sexually appealing.

But those people are, I think, somewhat rare.

And oh, by the way?

 I don't think they_ choose_ to be that way, either.


----------



## Anguille

editec said:


> Okay, which among us is* choosing* to find either the opposite gender or the same gender sexually appealing?
> 
> Fess up if that describes your sexual nature.
> 
> Because if we cannopt find even a single person willing to admit that they CHOOSE not to find the members of the same gender attractive, then really what proof has anyone brought up to support the theory that homosexuals choose to be that way?
> 
> You have to be kinda stupid  not to understand this argument...well that or brainwashed.



There have been times when relationships with men have not seemed worth the exasperation they sometimes involve and I wished I could be a lesbian. But as my lesbian friends point out to me, being a woman who loves women brings about it's own set of problems and the grass is rarely greener on the other side.
I think people who are totally bisexual have it best as they have the greatest pool of possible lovers from which to choose. However bisexuals seem to be the least respected of all genders. I have heard spiteful things said about them from both gays and straights, as if the fact that bisexuals exist threatens both straight and gay identity. Probably because our society is so entrenched in the idea that monogamy is the only acceptable form of relationship, bisexuality cannot gain acceptance and will remain on the fringe.


----------



## glockmail

Anguille said:


> Is your name Allie Baba?
> 
> LOL!  The fact that you misinterpreted that comment as being directed at you brings up a whole bunch of questions I don't even want to know about.


You didn't direct it at Allie specifically either. But now you're insinuating that I'm gay, proving my point yet again, that liberals always use gay as an insult.


----------



## dilloduck

Anguille said:


> There have been times when relationships with men have not seemed worth the exasperation they sometimes involve and I wished I could be a lesbian. But as my lesbian friends point out to me, being a woman who loves women brings about it's own set of problems and the grass is rarely greener on the other side.
> I think people who are totally bisexual have it best as they have the greatest pool of possible lovers from which to choose. However bisexuals seem to be the least respected of all genders. I have heard spiteful things said about them from both gays and straights, as if the fact that bisexuals exist threatens both straight and gay identity. Probably because our society is so entrenched in the idea that monogamy is the only acceptable form of relationship, bisexuality cannot gain acceptance and will remain on the fringe.



A bi-sexual is a gender now ?


----------



## glockmail

editec said:


> Interesting. And *do you know any homosexuals who were happily married who also decided they were denying their natural inclinations, and who are now happily homosexuals*?
> 
> More to the point, and in answer to Bass's idiotic belief that people choose to be inclined toward homosexuality....
> 
> ... are YOU choosing to be a heterosexual, Glock? Yes? No?
> 
> Did you _choose_ to be hetero, and then your homosexual urges just vanished, or what?
> 
> How does that work? This lifelong heterosexual who never felt that way about men or boys really wants to know.
> 
> Or did you, like most of us, discover when you were approaching puberty (or even much earlier than that) that you *liked the look of the opposite gender?*
> 
> Now, I do not doubt there are some people who find both genders sexually appealing.
> 
> But those people are, I think, somewhat rare.
> 
> And oh, by the way?
> 
> I don't think they_ choose_ to be that way, either.


 Wow you begin with an absence of logic then go further with it.


----------



## AllieBaba

editec said:


> Interesting. And do you know any homosexuals who were happily married who also decided they were denying their natural inclinations, and who are now happily homosexuals?
> 
> More to the point, and in answer to Bass's idiotic belief that people choose to be inclined toward homosexuality....
> 
> ... are YOU choosing to be a heterosexual, Glock? Yes? No?
> 
> Did you _choose_ to be hetero, and then your homosexual urges just vanished, or what?
> 
> How does that work? This lifelong heterosexual who never felt that way about men or boys really wants to know.
> 
> Or did you, like most of us, discover when you were approaching puberty (or even much earlier than that) that you *liked the look of the opposite gender?*
> 
> Now, I do not doubt there are some people who find both genders sexually appealing.
> 
> But those people are, I think, somewhat rare.
> 
> And oh, by the way?
> 
> I don't think they_ choose_ to be that way, either.



However, you'd be wrong. The idea that people are hardwired with regards to their sexual orientation has been proved a fallacy. People aren't hardwired to have sex with the opposite sex, nor are they hardwired to be homo. It's a choice.


----------



## Anguille

glockmail said:


> You didn't direct it at Allie specifically either. But now you're insinuating that I'm gay, proving my point yet again, that liberals always use gay as an insult.



No, I'm insulting you for hating gays, when by your own logic, you might be one yourself.


----------



## Anguille

AllieBaba said:


> However, you'd be wrong. The idea that people are hardwired with regards to their sexual orientation has been proved a fallacy. People aren't hardwired to have sex with the opposite sex, nor are they hardwired to be homo. It's a choice.



Go back and read editec's posts very very slowly. It might sink in what he's saying. 

I suppose you support arranged marriages too, seeing as, from what you imply,  a person can make themselves love another person.


----------



## AllieBaba

Libs also use racial slurs while attacking others for being racist.

It's part of their schtick.


----------



## AllieBaba

Anguille said:


> Go back and read editec's posts very very slowly. It might sink in what he's saying.
> 
> I suppose you support arranged marriages too, seeing as, from what you imply,  a person can make themselves love another person.



Great, yet another fascist who thinks they can read the minds of others. Just what we need.

You guys can't find what you want in what is actually said by the opposition, so you just make stuff up.


----------



## glockmail

Anguille said:


> No, I'm insulting you for hating gays, when by your own logic, you might be one yourself.


Again an insinuation of "gay" as an insult, along with the added "hater". Both unfounded.


----------



## Ravi

glockmail said:


> Again an insinuation of "gay" as an insult, along with the added "hater". Both unfounded.


It's pretty clear to most of us here that you made a choice not to be gay. That is your right, of course. Was it difficult for you? I imagine it's kind of like quitting smoking...you probably have more infrequent cravings but they pop up at the most unexpected times.


----------



## Anguille

glockmail said:


> Again an insinuation of "gay" as an insult, along with the added "hater". Both unfounded.



Wow!  Say the word "gay' around you and you immediately get defensive. What's up with that? And why would being called "gay' offend you so much?


----------



## AllieBaba

Use the word "gay" as an insult, and people will get defensive.


----------



## Anguille

AllieBaba said:


> Use the word "gay" as an insult, and people will get defensive.



You can call me gay, it won't bother me. I wouldn't be ashamed to be gay.


----------



## Care4all

editec said:


> Interesting. And do you know any homosexuals who were happily married who also decided they were denying their natural inclinations, and who are now happily homosexuals?
> 
> More to the point, and in answer to Bass's idiotic belief that people choose to be inclined toward homosexuality....
> 
> ... are YOU choosing to be a heterosexual, Glock? Yes? No?
> 
> Did you _choose_ to be hetero, and then your homosexual urges just vanished, or what?
> 
> How does that work? This lifelong heterosexual who never felt that way about men or boys really wants to know.
> 
> Or did you, like most of us, discover when you were approaching puberty (or even much earlier than that) that you *liked the look of the opposite gender?*
> 
> Now, I do not doubt there are some people who find both genders sexually appealing.
> 
> But those people are, I think, somewhat rare.
> 
> And oh, by the way?
> 
> I don't think they_ choose_ to be that way, either.



There is nothing editec that supports your theory of being BORN gay, nothing as of yet, at least.

you have totally disregarded the "environment the child is brought up in" which could have a part in it...as example, there are many single, overbearing mothers rearing boys with no DAD in sight which COULD be a factor, there are hormones in formula and milk by products and beef that our cattle are receiving that could also be a factor...after all, we now have cases of 5 year old girls beginning Menstruation.....these are just 2 examples of a child's environment that COULD affect ones sexual preference that would not show up in the human genome, but are factors none the less....

Bottom line, we just don't know enough yet on this topic....imo.

Care


----------



## Inferno

I was I can't swear that anyone else is but I sure was. A long time ago.


----------



## Anguille

Care4all said:


> There is nothing editec that supports your theory of being BORN gay, nothing as of yet, at least.
> 
> you have totally disregarded the "environment the child is brought up in" which could have a part in it...as example, there are many single, overbearing mothers rearing boys with no DAD in sight which COULD be a factor
> 
> Care



That old blame it on the mother theory went out of style in the fifties. It's still a prevailing stereotype however. 
I'd be more inclined to think a distant and unloving father would be a factor in causing an emotionally immature man or woman also, to tend to get involved a certain type of controlling man and seek his approval.


----------



## AllieBaba

Anguille said:


> You can call me gay, it won't bother me. I wouldn't be ashamed to be gay.



Hmmm...you wouldn't mind being labeled as gay, yet to insult people, you call them gay. Then laugh at them when they take it as the insult it was intended as.

Nothing schizo about that.


----------



## Luissa

Anguille said:


> That old blame it on the mother theory went out of style in the fifties. It's still a prevailing stereotype however.
> I'd be more inclined to think a distant and unloving father would be a factor in causing an emotionally immature man or woman also, to tend to get involved a certain type of controlling man and seek his approval.


I think is also have to get to the point where you stop blaming your parents for your problems. My friend is always blaming her mom and I just want to tell her"You need to get over it and move on with your life."
I do get where you are coming from though, I have a friend who can only pick assholes because her dad is an asshole.


----------



## Care4all

Anguille said:


> That old blame it on the mother theory went out of style in the fifties. It's still a prevailing stereotype however.
> I'd be more inclined to think a distant and unloving father would be a factor in causing an emotionally immature man or woman also, to tend to get involved a certain type of controlling man and seek his approval.



you know, i had originally written it without the word overbearing, then added it and then took it out and then readded it......!!!!!  lol  (Damnit, shoulda left it out!)

i don't necessarily disagree with you....even the pressense of the Father is very important for girls in their adolesence i have read....girls without the father's attention during this period makes them less confident and with less self esteem when it comes to their own sexuality, and studies have shown, more probable to get involved in sex at a much, much earlier age than what has been considered the norm...

Care


----------



## Anguille

AllieBaba said:


> Hmmm...you wouldn't mind being labeled as gay, yet to insult people, you call them gay. Then laugh at them when they take it as the insult it was intended as.
> 
> Nothing schizo about that.



I laugh because they take it as an insult, now answer my question about the Pledge, you fruit fly.


----------



## AllieBaba

Ok, I don't see a Pledge question?


----------



## AllieBaba

I'm still confused why you would use a word AS an insult, then jeer at people because they take it the way it's meant.


----------



## dilloduck

AllieBaba said:


> I'm still confused why you would use a word AS an insult, then jeer at people because they take it the way it's meant.



It's like "******"--only certain people can say it without offending people.


----------



## glockmail

Ravi said:


> It's pretty clear to most of us here that you made a choice not to be gay. That is your right, of course. Was it difficult for you? I imagine it's kind of like quitting smoking...you probably have more infrequent cravings but they pop up at the most unexpected times.





Anguille said:


> Wow!  Say the word "gay' around you and you immediately get defensive. What's up with that? And why would being called "gay' offend you so much?



Here you go- two more examples of libs using "gay", or the insinuation, an an insult. They just can't help themselves.


----------



## Ravi

glockmail said:


> Here you go- two more examples of libs using "gay", or the insinuation, an an insult. They just can't help themselves.


You see an insult where there is none.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Shattered said:


>



The Bass is still waiting on proof that people are born homosexual. You're still losing.


----------



## dilloduck

Charlie Bass said:


> The Bass is still waiting on proof that people are born homosexual. You're still losing.



You gotta have faith, Mr. Bass--you know--the stuff they think is bullshit ?


----------



## jillian

dilloduck said:


> You gotta have faith, Mr. Bass--you know--the stuff they think is bullshit ?



let's see if i have this straight... we're supposed to take it on faith that G-d has spaketh and gays are abberant... but YOU don't require any proof that people CHOOSE to be gay?

Okie dokie... that's pretty sad but whatever.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

jillian said:


> let's see if i have this straight... we're supposed to take it on faith that G-d has spaketh and gays are abberant... but YOU don't require any proof that people CHOOSE to be gay?
> 
> Okie dokie... that's pretty sad but whatever.



It is gays and their neo-liberal supporters who say they are born that way so the burden of proof is on both gays and their supporters to prove they're born this way, its not on the opposition to disprove anything.


----------



## dilloduck

jillian said:


> let's see if i have this straight... we're supposed to take it on faith that G-d has spaketh and gays are abberant... but YOU don't require any proof that people CHOOSE to be gay?
> 
> Okie dokie... that's pretty sad but whatever.



wrong---take it on faith that God exists. That apparently is a mental illness but when we are to take someones ( ?)  word that people are born gay, with no proof thats NOT mental illness ?


----------



## Ravi

Charlie Bass said:


> It is gays and their neo-liberal supporters who say they are born that way so the burden of proof is on both gays and their supporters to prove they're born this way, its not on the opposition to disprove anything.


In reality, no one seems to care about the answer to the question besides you and glock, and of course that makes us want to know why you care...which neither of you have answered.

Why do you care?


----------



## Shattered

glockmail said:


> You didn't direct it at Allie specifically either. But now you're insinuating that I'm gay, proving my point yet again, that liberals always use gay as an insult.



Actually, it's pretty obvious it was directed to Allie...


----------



## glockmail

Ravi said:


> You see an insult where there is none.


 I'll be the judge if I was offended.


----------



## AllieBaba

dilloduck said:


> wrong---take it on faith that God exists. That apparently is a mental illness but when we are to take someones ( ?)  word that people are born gay, with no proof thats NOT mental illness ?



Ooh! You deserve more rep for that, but sadly, I can't give it to you.

Nor can I complain about it in our rep complaint thread, because Gunny the all powerful has shut that thread down.

Anyway, the left whines about our faith in God, but they have every bit as much faith as we have invested in Christ invested in their progressive secular mantra.

Gays are born, not made.
Children are sexual beings and should be taught as such.
Christians and Republicans aren't worthy of human rights, and nobody will be hurt if they are taken from them.

Did I miss anything?


----------



## dilloduck

AllieBaba said:


> Ooh! You deserve more rep for that, but sadly, I can't give it to you.
> 
> Nor can I complain about it in our rep complaint thread, because Gunny the all powerful has shut that thread down.
> 
> Anyway, the left whines about our faith in God, but they have every bit as much faith as we have invested in Christ invested in their progressive secular mantra.
> 
> Gays are born, not made.
> Children are sexual beings and should be taught as such.
> Christians and Republicans aren't worthy of human rights, and nobody will be hurt if they are taken from them.
> 
> Did I miss anything?



Just the mean and hateful part.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

Luissa27 said:


> How em I liar...



You're a liar because you advanced a statement you knew to be false as truth...  

Look it up...


----------



## Gunny

Luissa27 said:


> How em I liar, like I said do alittle research and not believe everything that is told to you. And by your statement Ryan White deserved to contract AIDS because he should of known not to take a blood from someone who has had homosexaul sex. What a stupid statement and it proves my point that you are stupid.
> I hope you get AIDS and die, your sorry excuse for a human being. Your kind should be extermanted.



Actually, you are logically incorrect.  Accepting blood from someone known to be homosexual is INDEED increasing the risk of contracting HIV/AIDS.

The fact that it has been spread around in the heterosexual community does not negate nor dilute the fact that it originated in the homosexual community, and/or that homosexuals are at a much higher risk of contracting the disease.

If you conscously accepted blood from an intravenous drug user, it would be the same.  The risk of contracting HIV/AIDS would be higher.

It's dangerous to let political dogma and political correctness take the place of the facts.


----------



## Luissa

Gunny said:


> Actually, you are logically incorrect.  Accepting blood from someone known to be homosexual is INDEED increasing the risk of contracting HIV/AIDS.
> 
> The fact that it has been spread around in the heterosexual community does not negate nor dilute the fact that it originated in the homosexual community, and/or that homosexuals are at a much higher risk of contracting the disease.
> 
> If you conscously accepted blood from an intravenous drug user, it would be the same.  The risk of contracting HIV/AIDS would be higher.
> 
> It's dangerous to let political dogma and political correctness take the place of the facts.


Most people who recieve blood tranfusions do not know who there donors are that was my point. And HIV/AIDS did not orginate in the homosexual community. For one, one of the first people to get in the US was a women.
And even it is more common in their group it is no excuse to be unexcepting of them and saying it is gods way of weeding them out. Also who would take a blood transfusion from someone they know has AIDS unless they have a death wish. But hey keep sticking up for the guy.


----------



## Care4all

fyi

1. homosexuals can not donate blood because they are at high risk nor can drug users, or (people that had travel to europe during the mad cow scare.)

and in case they lie when at the blood bank donating, all units of blood are tested for HIV now.


luissa
i'd like to see a link where it shows that a woman was the first person with aids in the usa....i worked in a blood bank when AIDS was first being identified in the early 80's and this is not what was being told to us, in the blood banking, medical, and scientific fields?


----------



## Shattered

Care4all said:


> fyi
> 
> 1. homosexuals can not donate blood because they are at high risk nor can drug users, or (people that had travel to europe during the mad cow scare.)
> 
> and in case they lie when at the blood bank donating, all units of blood are tested for HIV now.
> 
> 
> luissa
> i'd like to see a link where it shows that a woman was the first person with aids in the usa....i worked in a blood bank when AIDS was first being identified in the early 80's and this is not what was being told to us, in the blood banking, medical, and scientific fields?




Maybe David, and Robert sound like female names to her.. (Those are the two earliest I come up with)


----------



## Care4all

Echo Zulu said:


> I have many gay friends. They tell me stories of having affairs with married men. There is a certain bar in this city where *married men like to go to meet the men *of their true calling. (the love that dare not speak it's name so to say)
> 
> 
> A lot of these men have children with their wives, hmmm, so it's straight in public, gay in private I guess.
> 
> Wonder if the so called "gay bashers" on here have anything like that to hide?


those men are low lifes with no back bone as far as i am concerned...certainly nothing to look up to.....

surprised your gay friends even want to have anything to do with them honestly


----------



## dilloduck

Care4all said:


> those men are low lifes with no back bone as far as i am concerned...certainly nothing to look up to.....
> 
> surprised your gay friends even want to have anything to do with them honestly



ya Zulu.  You're hanging out with adulterers !!!


----------



## random3434

Care4all said:


> those men are low lifes with no back bone as far as i am concerned...certainly nothing to look up to.....
> 
> surprised your gay friends even want to have anything to do with them honestly



I agree, anyone who has affairs on their spouses are low lifes, no matter who you are doing it with. My point was some men get married even though they are gay. My roommate in college is married to a gay man, and has been for 14 years. He married her because of his dad, not sure if he's come out of the closet yet to his family, they live in Texas now and I haven't seen them for a long time.


Now, for my friends,they weren't into the married men thing, they just know about it.  They mostly  want to have someone to love them, and the ones that I still run into are in committed relationships. 2 girls I know have twins together now, and are very happy. Others are like old married couples ~they have been together for so long now.


----------



## Anguille

Gunny said:


> The fact that it has been spread around in the heterosexual community does not negate nor dilute the fact that it originated in the homosexual community, and/or that homosexuals are at a much higher risk of contracting the disease.



HIV did not originate in the homosexual community. It came from chimpanzees in Cameron.


----------



## Care4all

Anguille said:


> HIV did not originate in the homosexual community. It came from chimpanzees in Cameron.




in the united states, it did.


----------



## Luissa

Anguille said:


> HIV did not originate in the homosexual community. It came from chimpanzees in Cameron.


Most scienctist also believe testing for the polio vaccine and development were the reason why it got from the chimpanzees into humans. They get new evidence supporting this almost everyday.


----------



## Anguille

Luissa27 said:


> Most scienctist also believe testing for the polio vaccine and development were the reason why it got from the chimpanzees into humans. They get new evidence supporting this almost everyday.



There are lots of theories. One is that hunters ate meat from infected chimpanzees and the virus passed over to humans.


----------



## Care4all

Anguille said:


> HIV did not originate in the homosexual community. It came from chimpanzees in Cameron.



oh, and it was the african green monkey, so they thought....not a chimpanzee


----------



## Anguille

Care4all said:


> oh, and it was the african green monkey, so they thought....not a chimpanzee



The web page I just checked that on said chimpanzees also.

The Origin of HIV and the First Cases of AIDS

"So did HIV come from an SIV?
 It is now generally accepted that HIV is a descendant of a Simian Immunodeficiency Virus because certain strains of SIVs bear a very close resemblance to HIV-1 and HIV-2, the two types of HIV. 

HIV-2 for example corresponds to SIVsm, a strain of the Simian Immunodeficiency Virus found in the sooty mangabey (also known as the White-collared monkey), which is indigenous to western Africa. 

The more virulent, pandemic strain of HIV, namely HIV-1, was until recently more difficult to place. Until 1999, the closest counterpart that had been identified was SIVcpz, the SIV found in chimpanzees. However, this virus still had certain significant differences from HIV."

  .....


"The most commonly accepted theory is that of the 'hunter'. In this scenario, SIVcpz was transferred to humans as a result of chimps being killed and eaten or their blood getting into cuts or wounds on the hunter. Normally the hunter's body would have fought off SIV, but on a few occasions it adapted itself within its new human host and become HIV-1. The fact that there were several different early strains of HIV, each with a slightly different genetic make-up (the most common of which was HIV-1 group M), would support this theory: every time it passed from a chimpanzee to a man, it would have developed in a slightly different way within his body, and thus produced a slightly different strain. 

An article published in The Lancet in 20043, also shows how retroviral transfer from primates to hunters is still occurring even today. In a sample of 1099 individuals in Cameroon , they discovered ten (1%) were infected with SFV (Simian Foamy Virus), an illness which, like SIV, was previously thought only to infect primates. All these infections were believed to have been acquired through the butchering and consumption of monkey and ape meat. Discoveries such as this have led to calls for an outright ban on bushmeat hunting to prevent simian viruses being passed to humans."



....


----------



## Shattered

This was post chimp..first human cases in the US.. Neither of which are female.

Timeline of early AIDS cases - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## dilloduck

anyway--don't eat monkeys !


----------



## Anguille

or people!


----------



## Luissa

Shattered said:


> This was post chimp..first human cases in the US.. Neither of which are female.
> 
> Timeline of early AIDS cases - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Not long afterwards, Pinching saw his first case of heterosexual Aids, an English woman whose husband had been having sexual contact in Africa. 'That told us that there was going to be a heterosexual epidemic,' he says, although it took time convincing government health officials. One said, 'Where's the epidemiology?' Pinching replied, 'Well, I'm telling you the anecdote, and today's anecdote is tomorrow's epidemiology. Your move.'http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/jun/03/aids.simongarfield

I said one of their first cases and here is the link.
Also they say these people had it for a few years before they knew they had it so you really don't know who had it first do you.


----------



## dilloduck

Anguille said:


> or people!



HEY  I wouldnt go that far !


----------



## Gunny

Luissa27 said:


> Most people who recieve blood tranfusions do not know who there donors are that was my point. And HIV/AIDS did not orginate in the homosexual community. For one, one of the first people to get in the US was a women.
> And even it is more common in their group it is no excuse to be unexcepting of them and saying it is gods way of weeding them out. Also who would take a blood transfusion from someone they know has AIDS unless they have a death wish. But hey keep sticking up for the guy.



Incorrect.  It first manifested itself in the US in the homosexual community.  

Where you get the rest of that from is beyond me.  It isn't responding to anything I said.  Address what I say.  If I choose to agree with a portion of a comment and address it, that does not mean I agree with everything that person posts.

People can be unaccepting of homosexuals if they want to.  That is their right.  But hey, keep tromping on the majority's rights to shove the minority's behavior down their throats.

I'm not taking up for anyone.  I responded to something you said and disagreed with it because you are incorrect.  Simple as that.


----------



## Care4all

Anguille said:


> The web page I just checked that on said chimpanzees also.
> 
> The Origin of HIV and the First Cases of AIDS
> 
> "So did HIV come from an SIV?
> It is now generally accepted that HIV is a descendant of a Simian Immunodeficiency Virus because certain strains of SIVs bear a very close resemblance to HIV-1 and HIV-2, the two types of HIV.
> 
> HIV-2 for example corresponds to SIVsm, a strain of the Simian Immunodeficiency Virus found in the sooty mangabey (also known as the White-collared monkey), which is indigenous to western Africa.
> 
> The more virulent, pandemic strain of HIV, namely HIV-1, was until recently more difficult to place. Until 1999, the closest counterpart that had been identified was SIVcpz, the SIV found in chimpanzees. However, this virus still had certain significant differences from HIV."
> 
> .....
> 
> 
> "The most commonly accepted theory is that of the 'hunter'. In this scenario, SIVcpz was transferred to humans as a result of chimps being killed and eaten or their blood getting into cuts or wounds on the hunter. Normally the hunter's body would have fought off SIV, but on a few occasions it adapted itself within its new human host and become HIV-1. The fact that there were several different early strains of HIV, each with a slightly different genetic make-up (the most common of which was HIV-1 group M), would support this theory: every time it passed from a chimpanzee to a man, it would have developed in a slightly different way within his body, and thus produced a slightly different strain.
> 
> An article published in The Lancet in 20043, also shows how retroviral transfer from primates to hunters is still occurring even today. In a sample of 1099 individuals in Cameroon , they discovered ten (1%) were infected with SFV (Simian Foamy Virus), an illness which, like SIV, was previously thought only to infect primates. All these infections were believed to have been acquired through the butchering and consumption of monkey and ape meat. Discoveries such as this have led to calls for an outright ban on bushmeat hunting to prevent simian viruses being passed to humans."
> 
> 
> 
> ....



yeah, just did a google on it...

when i was in the blood banking field, before i went in to the shoe industry, in the 80's the green monkey was what they had thought....then they dismissed it, and now it is being rekindled....so i'm reading, calling it chimpanzees....maybe the green monkey is a chimpanzee???  i had always thought they were genetically different?  

well, my bad for not keeping up with it, after i left the field!!!


----------



## Anguille

I hope not.

I could never understand how people could eat chimps, either. Too close to humans.


----------



## Anguille

Gunny said:


> Incorrect.  It first manifested itself in the US in the homosexual community.
> 
> Where you get the rest of that from is beyond me.  It isn't responding to anything I said.  Address what I say.  If I choose to agree with a portion of a comment and address it, that does not mean I agree with everything that person posts.
> 
> People can be unaccepting of homosexuals if they want to.  That is their right.  But hey, keep tromping on the majority's rights to shove the minority's behavior down their throats.
> 
> I'm not taking up for anyone.  I responded to something you said and disagreed with it because you are incorrect.  Simple as that.



The point is, is that it did not originate from homosexuals so those people who claim AIDS was God's way of punishing gays are FOS.


----------



## Anguille

Care4all said:


> yeah, just did a google on it...
> 
> when i was in the blood banking field, before i went in to the shoe industry, in the 80's the green monkey was what they had thought....then they dismissed it, and now it is being rekindled....so i'm reading, calling it chimpanzees....maybe the green monkey is a chimpanzee???  i had always thought they were genetically different?
> 
> well, my bad for not keeping up with it, after i left the field!!!



I remember the green monkey story too, which is not far off as the virus seems to affect monkeys too.

Apes are not monkeys though.


----------



## Luissa

Gunny said:


> Incorrect.  It first manifested itself in the US in the homosexual community.
> 
> Where you get the rest of that from is beyond me.  It isn't responding to anything I said.  Address what I say.  If I choose to agree with a portion of a comment and address it, that does not mean I agree with everything that person posts.
> 
> People can be unaccepting of homosexuals if they want to.  That is their right.  But hey, keep tromping on the majority's rights to shove the minority's behavior down their throats.
> 
> I'm not taking up for anyone.  I responded to something you said and disagreed with it because you are incorrect.  Simple as that.


Didn't they say the same thing about black people when they wanted desegregation.


----------



## Luissa

Gunny said:


> Incorrect.  It first manifested itself in the US in the homosexual community.
> 
> Where you get the rest of that from is beyond me.  It isn't responding to anything I said.  Address what I say.  If I choose to agree with a portion of a comment and address it, that does not mean I agree with everything that person posts.
> 
> People can be unaccepting of homosexuals if they want to.  That is their right.  But hey, keep tromping on the majority's rights to shove the minority's behavior down their throats.
> 
> I'm not taking up for anyone.  I responded to something you said and disagreed with it because you are incorrect.  Simple as that.


Polio vaccines and the origin of AIDS
Also read this!


----------



## Gunny

Luissa27 said:


> Polio vaccines and the origin of AIDS
> Also read this!



Which proves what?  Nothing.  The homosexual community was STILL the first country in this nation to be ravaged by the disease.  It doesn't matter WHAT or WHO they can trace the origin back to.  That doesn't address what I posted.


----------



## Luissa

Gunny said:


> Incorrect.  It first manifested itself in the US in the homosexual community.
> 
> Where you get the rest of that from is beyond me.  It isn't responding to anything I said.  Address what I say.  If I choose to agree with a portion of a comment and address it, that does not mean I agree with everything that person posts.
> 
> People can be unaccepting of homosexuals if they want to.  That is their right.  But hey, keep tromping on the majority's rights to shove the minority's behavior down their throats.
> 
> I'm not taking up for anyone.  I responded to something you said and disagreed with it because you are incorrect.  Simple as that.


They also say another reason for the spread of AIDS is the drug use during the 70's and I don't think only gay people used drugs.


----------



## Luissa

Gunny said:


> Which proves what?  Nothing.  The homosexual community was STILL the first country in this nation to be ravaged by the disease.  It doesn't matter WHAT or WHO they can trace the origin back to.  That doesn't address what I posted.


And that probably has to do with the fact they had to hide their lifestyle so they had to go to such places as bath houses where they could live they live the life they wanted. Homosexuals had to hide their true self throughout time and when you have to hide it one tends to not be careful.


----------



## Luissa

And another point no one deserves to get AIDS even if the choices they make. I know I said I hope that guy get AIDS and dies but I don't think he even deserves to have this disease. People make mistakes no one is perfect and no one deserves to get AIDS even if they make the choice to live a lifestyle that makes them at a higher risk they still did not ask for it. To say they did I believe is wrong.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Luissa27 said:


> Didn't they say the same thing about black people when they wanted desegregation.




Do *NOT* compare my people to homosexuals, being born black and engaging in deviant sexual behavior are incomparable.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Anguille said:


> I hope not.
> 
> I could never understand how people could eat chimps, either. Too close to humans.




The slash hunter theory has been rejected, if that was the case Africans would have been ravaged by AIDS a long time ago.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Luissa27 said:


> They also say another reason for the spread of AIDS is the drug use during the 70's and I don't think only gay people used drugs.




Regardless of where it originated, AIDS/HIV was most and first dominant in homosexuals in the US and to this day they have higher HIV/AIDS rates because of their high risk, promiscous lifestyle. For example, their excessive anal sex puts them at high risk for STDs and anal injuries, not to mention their penchant for fisting, urine drinking and anal rimming.


http://www.corporateresourcecouncil.org/white_papers/Health_Risks.pdf


----------



## Luissa

Charlie Bass said:


> Regardless of where it originated, AIDS/HIV was most and first dominant in homosexuals in the US and to this day they have higher HIV/AIDS rates because of their high risk, promiscous lifestyle. For example, their excessive anal sex puts them at high risk for STDs and anal injuries, not to mention their penchant for fisting, urine drinking and anal rimming.
> 
> 
> http://www.corporateresourcecouncil.org/white_papers/Health_Risks.pdf


Who the 'f' cares if they have it more, really get off of it. And I wasn't saying black people and homosexuals are the same, I said the the majority said the same thing about black people when they wanted to be desegregated. They wanted the same rights as everyone else just like homosexauls do now.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Luissa27 said:


> Who the 'f' cares if they have it more, really get off of it. And I wasn't saying black people and homosexuals are the same, I said the the majority said the same thing about black people when they wanted to be desegregated. They wanted the same rights as everyone else just like homosexauls do now.



Sodomite so called rights and the black civil rights movement are like apples and oranges, one is looking for acceptance of their eviant sexual lifestyle via forcing it in people's faces, the other were fighting for basic rights after a legacy of slavery and separate but "unequal" legislation. All the rights that blacks fought for gays already have, they just want to shove their lifestyle down people's throat to force acceptance, so *DON'T* make any comparisons between blacks and people who want acceptance of their sexual behavior.


----------



## Luissa

Charlie Bass said:


> Sodomite so called rights and the black civil rights movement are like apples and oranges, one is looking for acceptance of their eviant sexual lifestyle via forcing it in people's faces, the other were fighting for basic rights after a legacy of slavery and separate but "unequal" legislation. All the rights that blacks fought for gays already have, they just want to shove their lifestyle down people's throat to force acceptance, so *DON'T* make any comparisons between blacks and people who want acceptance of their sexual behavior.


How are they forcing you? Do they have sex in front of you? You are forcing your lifestyle on them! They shouldn't have to change who they are!


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Luissa27 said:


> How are they forcing you? Do they have sex in front of you? You are forcing your lifestyle on them! They shouldn't have to change who they are!



This is called forcing a sexual lifestyle on people:

San Francisco fest features public sex with no arrests


----------



## Ravi

glockmail said:


> I'll be the judge if I was offended.


I didn't say you couldn't be offended. I said there was no insult.


----------



## glockmail

Anguille said:


> The point is, is that it did not originate from homosexuals so those people who claim AIDS was God's way of punishing gays are FOS.


 God works in strange ways, Why do you think its called Anal Intercourse Disease Syndrome?


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

Echo Zulu said:


> I have many gay friends. They tell me stories of having affairs with married men. There is a certain bar in this city where married men like to go to meet the men of their true calling. (the love that dare not speak it's name so to say)
> 
> 
> A lot of these men have children with their wives, hmmm, so it's straight in public, gay in private I guess.
> 
> Wonder if the so called "gay bashers" on here have anything like that to hide?



This is certainly one way that AIDS is being transfered to the Straight community. 

Of course the queers will tell you that 'it's not a queer disease...  when in fact AIDS is nothing, if not a queer disease.

Again... Take the deviant (queer / IV drug user) out of the equation and presto... AIDS has no where to go.


----------



## editec

PubliusInfinitu said:


> This is certainly one way that AIDS is being transfered to the Straight community.
> 
> Of course the queers will tell you that 'it's not a queer disease... when in fact AIDS is nothing, if not a queer disease.
> 
> Again... Take the deviant (queer / IV drug user) out of the equation and presto... AIDS has no where to go.


 
In Africa, where it first developed, it's mostly affecting heterosexuals.

Here in the USA is IS mostly a disease found predominantly in the homosexual community.

Except for those thousands of people who got it from blood transfusions, and from intervenous drug injecting, of course.


----------



## Anguille

Charlie Bass said:


> Do *NOT* compare my people to homosexuals, being born black and engaging in deviant sexual behavior are incomparable.



"my people"?  I know quite a few black homosexuals and black heterosexuals as well who would cringe to think anyone would associate them with a bigot like you just because of a similar shade of skin color.


----------



## Anguille

Charlie Bass said:


> The slash hunter theory has been rejected, if that was the case Africans would have been ravaged by AIDS a long time ago.



Lets have some proof of that.

Maybe you are not aware that viruses are constantly mutating and that the simian virus had to mutate before it transformed into a virus which could attack human cells.


----------



## Anguille

Charlie Bass said:


> Regardless of where it originated, AIDS/HIV was most and first dominant in homosexuals in the US and to this day they have higher HIV/AIDS rates because of their high risk, promiscous lifestyle. For example, their excessive anal sex puts them at high risk for STDs and anal injuries, not to mention their penchant for fisting, urine drinking and anal rimming.
> 
> 
> http://www.corporateresourcecouncil.org/white_papers/Health_Risks.pdf



Do you, Sunni man and glock _ever_ stop obsessing over human sexual behavior? You're starting to sound like a perv.


----------



## Anguille

Charlie Bass said:


> Sodomite so called rights and the black civil rights movement are like apples and oranges, one is looking for acceptance of their eviant sexual lifestyle via forcing it in people's faces, the other were fighting for basic rights after a legacy of slavery and separate but "unequal" legislation. All the rights that blacks fought for gays already have, they just want to shove their lifestyle down people's throat to force acceptance, so *DON'T* make any comparisons between blacks and people who want acceptance of their sexual behavior.



I've noticed a pattern in your posts concerning some fantasy of yours about gays forcing something in your face, down your throat ...


----------



## Anguille

PubliusInfinitu said:


> This is certainly one way that AIDS is being transfered to the Straight community.
> 
> Of course the queers will tell you that 'it's not a queer disease...  when in fact AIDS is nothing, if not a queer disease.
> 
> Again... Take the deviant (queer / IV drug user) out of the equation and presto... AIDS has no where to go.



Interesting that no scientific or medical organization is backing up your claims.

You have to resort to lies in order to justify your hatred of homosexuals. That makes you a bigot. You should get some help for that. Hatred will eat you alive.


----------



## Anguille

editec said:


> In Africa, where it first developed, it's mostly affecting heterosexuals.
> 
> Here in the USA is IS mostly a disease found predominantly in the homosexual community.
> 
> Except for those thousands of people who got it from blood transfusions, and from intervenous drug injecting, of course.



And children born to infected mothers. Everyone who is sexually active is at risk.


----------



## Luissa

Anguille said:


> And children born to infected mothers. Everyone who is sexually active is at risk.


And even if you are happily married!
ANd I think you are right, these guys are obessed with the homosexual activities.


----------



## dilloduck

Luissa27 said:


> And even if you are happily married!
> ANd I think you are right, these guys are obessed with the homosexual activities.



It's a male thing--women can't get it.


----------



## Luissa

dilloduck said:


> It's a male thing--women can't get it.


What are you talking about? WOmen can't get it? Really, never heard that one!


----------



## dilloduck

Luissa27 said:


> What are you talking about? WOmen can't get it? Really, never heard that one!



how many women do you know that are homophobic ?


----------



## Luissa

dilloduck said:


> how many women do you know that are homophobic ?


A few and I was talking about AIDS you moron!


----------



## roomy

I think some of you homos were born that way and the rest of you chose it.


----------



## Anguille

dilloduck said:


> how many women do you know that are homophobic ?



I've known a few, but you make a good point. I hear far more anti gay, anti lesbian comments from men than from women.


----------



## roomy

Anguille said:


> I've known a few, but you make a good point. I hear far more anti gay, anti lesbian comments from men than from women.




I like lesbian porn, it's much better than watching a guys willie at work


----------



## dilloduck

roomy said:


> I like lesbian porn, it's much better than watching a guys willie at work



Men are "built" to enoy lesbian porn---read up on the psycho sexual develoment of males.


----------



## roomy

dilloduck said:


> Men are "built" to enoy lesbian porn---read up on the psycho sexual develoment of males.




So are the so called straight pornos for homos to look at penis's?


----------



## dilloduck

roomy said:


> So are the so called straight pornos for homos to look at penis's?



and straight men too-

The Psychology of Men ... - Google Book Search


----------



## editec

Charlie Bass said:


> The slash hunter theory has been rejected, if that was the case Africans would have been ravaged by AIDS a long time ago.


 

Ah, Bass...they were ravaged by AIDS a long time ago.

location...............................% of population ..total number... died 2005
Sub-Saharan Africa....................... 6.1%.......... 24.5m..............2.0m

The first recognizable case of AIDS happened to a Bantu man in the Belgian congo in 1959.

The disease didn't even have a name, then, but it was what we now call AIDS.

It's not a_ gay_ disease,  it's a disease.


----------



## Luissa

roomy said:


> So are the so called straight pornos for homos to look at penis's?


No they have gay porn!


----------



## Anguille

editec said:


> Ah, Bass...they were ravaged by AIDS a long time ago.
> 
> location...............................% of population ..total number... died 2005
> Sub-Saharan Africa....................... 6.1%.......... 24.5m..............2.0m
> 
> The first recognizable case of AIDS happened to a Bantu man in the Belgian congo in 1959.
> 
> The disease didn't even have a name, then, but it was what we now call AIDS.
> 
> It's not a_ gay_ disease,  it's a disease.



It did not spread beyond Central Africa till intercontinental travel started to become more commonplace. 

The Bass will not understand this, though. He suffers from a disease which causes huge blinders to grow on the side of his face. It is not necessarily a bigot disease, however, though bigots seem to be the most at risk for contracting it.


----------



## roomy

Luissa27 said:


> No they have gay porn!




Full circle...I like lesbian porn.


----------



## Luissa

Anguille said:


> It did not spread beyond Central Africa till intercontinental travel started to become more commonplace.
> 
> The Bass will not understand this, though. He suffers from a disease which causes huge blinders to grow on the side of his face. It is not necessarily a bigot disease, however, though bigots seem to be the most at risk for contracting it.


But I thought it just popped up one day in a gay man! Wow! I guess everyone in Africa is homosexual!


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

editec said:


> In Africa, where it first developed, it's mostly affecting heterosexuals.
> 
> Here in the USA is IS mostly a disease found predominantly in the homosexual community.
> 
> Except for those thousands of people who got it from blood transfusions, and from intervenous drug injecting, of course.



False...

This is a myth which the queer culture is desperate to propogate...

African hetero's were not the most widely infected segment of the African population.  African queers were the most widely infected segment of the African population to be infected.  

Of course what one needs to understand is that in Africa a hetero is a bit less distinct from an African Homosexual than their western counterpart; in that the African hetero is BIG into promiscuous anal sex; which is compounded quite a bit when one considers the African cultural proclivity towards rape.  Beyond that African's also are prone to bi-sexuality; where African men may think little of engaging in anal sex with an effiminate male...  again they often prefer anal sex to vaginal sex in the first place and do not consider anal sex with an effiminate male to be any different; they also do not consider themselves to be 'homosexual' if they are not effiminate...  so the translation is not linear.  Heterosexual African's that did or do not enage in intercourse with those who have practiced homosexual intercourse or shared IV needles with those that do... have no need to fear contracting AIDS... the problem in Africa is that the population is so rife with the disease now that it is difficult is not impossible to find someone that can reasonably be believed to not have had sexual contact with an infected individual.  

But hey... that's what accepting bi-sexuality will do for ya.  Perhaps when Nature has rid the planet of these substandard genes, those who are left behind will not be so quick to accept asinine rationalizations.


----------



## glockmail

Anguille said:


> Do you, Sunni man and glock _ever_ stop obsessing over human sexual behavior? You're starting to sound like a perv.





Anguille said:


> I've noticed a pattern in your posts concerning some fantasy of yours about gays forcing something in your face, down your throat ...



Wow talk about the pot calling the kettle black. A-fucking-amazing


----------



## Anguille

Luissa27 said:


> But I thought it just popped up one day in a gay man! Wow! I guess everyone in Africa is homosexual!



The bigots will just revise their propaganda to put the blame of AIDS on blacks. They'll say it shows God considers blacks to be of an inferior race, or some such idiocy.


----------



## Anguille

PubliusInfinitu said:


> False...
> 
> This is a myth which the queer culture is desperate to propogate...
> 
> African hetero's were not the most widely infected segment of the African population.  African queers were the most widely infected segment of the African population to be infected.
> 
> Of course what one needs to understand is that in Africa a hetero is a bit less distinct from an African Homosexual than their western counterpart; in that the African hetero is BIG into promiscuous anal sex; which is compounded quite a bit when one considers the African cultural proclivity towards rape.  Beyond that African's also are prone to bi-sexuality; where African men may think little of engaging in anal sex with an effiminate male...  again they often prefer anal sex to vaginal sex in the first place and do not consider anal sex with an effiminate male to be any different; they also do not consider themselves to be 'homosexual' if they are not effiminate...  so the translation is not linear.  Heterosexual African's that did or do not enage in intercourse with those who have practiced homosexual intercourse or shared IV needles with those that do... have no need to fear contracting AIDS... the problem in Africa is that the population is so rife with the disease now that it is difficult is not impossible to find someone that can reasonably be believed to not have had sexual contact with an infected individual.
> 
> But hey... that's what accepting bi-sexuality will do for ya.  Perhaps when Nature has rid the planet of these substandard genes, those who are left behind will not be so quick to accept asinine rationalizations.



No sooner said than poof!! One of you whackos proves my theory.


----------



## glockmail

Anguille said:


> *The bigots* will just revise their propaganda to put the blame of AIDS on blacks. *They'll say* it shows God considers blacks to be of an inferior race, or some such idiocy.


ASS U ME


----------



## Luissa

PubliusInfinitu said:


> False...
> 
> This is a myth which the queer culture is desperate to propogate...
> 
> African hetero's were not the most widely infected segment of the African population.  African queers were the most widely infected segment of the African population to be infected.
> 
> Of course what one needs to understand is that in Africa a hetero is a bit less distinct from an African Homosexual than their western counterpart; in that the African hetero is BIG into promiscuous anal sex; which is compounded quite a bit when one considers the African cultural proclivity towards rape.  Beyond that African's also are prone to bi-sexuality; where African men may think little of engaging in anal sex with an effiminate male...  again they often prefer anal sex to vaginal sex in the first place and do not consider anal sex with an effiminate male to be any different; they also do not consider themselves to be 'homosexual' if they are not effiminate...  so the translation is not linear.  Heterosexual African's that did or do not enage in intercourse with those who have practiced homosexual intercourse or shared IV needles with those that do... have no need to fear contracting AIDS... the problem in Africa is that the population is so rife with the disease now that it is difficult is not impossible to find someone that can reasonably be believed to not have had sexual contact with an infected individual.
> 
> But hey... that's what accepting bi-sexuality will do for ya.  Perhaps when Nature has rid the planet of these substandard genes, those who are left behind will not be so quick to accept asinine rationalizations.


and you were saying!http://www.mfc.org/SOS/AIDS Epidemic/The African heterosexual AIDS myth.pdf


----------



## Anguille

glockmail said:


> Wow talk about the pot calling the kettle black. A-fucking-amazing



Glock, you make an art out of twisting people's words and creating diversions from the topic at hand. Too bad you don't put that effort into trying to prove your arguments. I guess maybe you tried but realized they were worthless. And now, too petty and bitter to admit you've been wrong, you resort to trying to wear people down with your whiney,  adolescent antics. 

Anything for attention, eh?


----------



## Ravi

Anguille said:


> Glock, you make an art out of twisting people's words and creating diversions from the topic at hand. Too bad you don't put that effort into trying to prove your arguments. I guess maybe you tried but realized they were worthless. And now, too petty and bitter to admit you've been wrong, you resort to trying to wear people down with your whiney,  adolescent antics.
> 
> Anything for attention, eh?


You realize you are enabling his public discussion of his obsession with gay men, right?

I hope he and the Bass are never in the same room together. No way they'd be able to stick to their choice of being straight.


----------



## roomy

I bet he has a red checked lumberjack shirt on right now.


----------



## Anguille

roomy said:


> i Bet He Has A Red Checked Lumberjack Shirt On Right Now.:d



Lol!!!!


----------



## glockmail

Anguille said:


> Glock, you make an art out of twisting people's words and creating diversions from the topic at hand. Too bad you don't put that effort into trying to prove your arguments. I guess maybe you tried but realized they were worthless. And now, too petty and bitter to admit you've been wrong, you resort to trying to wear people down with your whiney,  adolescent antics.
> 
> Anything for attention, eh?



Wow I have to say honestly that I haven't dealt with such an hypocritical idiot as you in quite a while. You and a few others here have cut the board IQ in half.


----------



## glockmail

Ravi said:


> You realize you are enabling his public discussion of his obsession with gay men, right?
> 
> I hope he and the Bass are never in the same room together. No way they'd be able to stick to their choice of being straight.



Why do liberals always use gay as an insult?


----------



## Anguille

Ravi said:


> You realize you are enabling his public discussion of his obsession with gay men, right?
> 
> I hope he and the Bass are never in the same room together. No way they'd be able to stick to their choice of being straight.



That choice is something they must struggle with every day.


----------



## Anguille

glockmail said:


> You and a few others here have cut the board IQ in half.



Thank you. _bowing deeply_


----------



## Ravi

glockmail said:


> Why do liberals always use gay as an insult?


Again, there is no insult. I don't care that you are gay. I just find it funny that you struggle so with your choice.


----------



## Anguille

glockmail said:


> Why do liberals always use gay as an insult?



How is it an insult if you're not offended, as you claim?


----------



## roomy

glockmail said:


> Wow I have to say honestly that I haven't dealt with such an hypocritical idiot as you in quite a while. You and a few others here have cut the board IQ in half.



Our work here is done


----------



## glockmail

Ravi said:


> Again, there is no insult. *I don't care that you are gay.* I just find it funny that you struggle so with your choice.


 oops- I thought you claimed gay was not a choice? As you struggle to contain your hate the truth comes out.


----------



## Ravi

glockmail said:


> oops- I thought you claimed gay was not a choice? As you struggle to contain your hate the truth comes out.


I made no claim.

I see on another thread you are claiming to be a conservative. This thread proves you wrong.

You are just an asshole. And a pretty stupid one at that.


----------



## glockmail

Anguille said:


> How is it an insult if you're not offended, as you claim?


 I am offended for the gays that you claim to support, yet constantly deride your opponents as having this affliction.


----------



## glockmail

Ravi said:


> I made no claim.....



Your words speak for themselves. Too late to retract them: 



Ravi said:


> .... I don't care that you are gay. I just find it funny that you struggle so with *your choice*.


----------



## Ravi

glockmail said:


> Your words speak for themselves. Too late to retract them:


It's obvious by this thread that _you_ are choosing not to act on your gay fantasies.


----------



## Anguille

glockmail said:


> I am offended for the gays that you claim to support, yet constantly deride your opponents as having this affliction.



What affliction?  You are getting tangled in your own gobbledygook. Are you referring to the affliction of thinking homosexuality is an affliction?


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

editec said:
			
		

> In Africa, where it first developed, it's mostly affecting heterosexuals.
> 
> Here in the USA is IS mostly a disease found predominantly in the homosexual community.
> 
> Except for those thousands of people who got it from blood transfusions, and from intervenous drug injecting, of course.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> False...
> 
> This is a myth which the queer culture is desperate to propogate...
> 
> African hetero's were not the most widely infected segment of the African population. African queers were the most widely infected segment of the African population to be infected.
> 
> Of course what one needs to understand is that in Africa a hetero is a bit less distinct from an African Homosexual than their western counterpart; in that the African hetero is BIG into promiscuous anal sex; which is compounded quite a bit when one considers the African cultural proclivity towards rape. Beyond that African's also are prone to bi-sexuality; where African men may think little of engaging in anal sex with an effiminate male... again they often prefer anal sex to vaginal sex in the first place and do not consider anal sex with an effiminate male to be any different; they also do not consider themselves to be 'homosexual' if they are not effiminate... so the translation is not linear. Heterosexual African's that did or do not enage in intercourse with those who have practiced homosexual intercourse or shared IV needles with those that do... have no need to fear contracting AIDS... the problem in Africa is that the population is so rife with the disease now that it is difficult is not impossible to find someone that can reasonably be believed to not have had sexual contact with an infected individual.
> 
> But hey... that's what accepting bi-sexuality will do for ya. Perhaps when Nature has rid the planet of these substandard genes, those who are left behind will not be so quick to accept asinine rationalizations.
> 
> 
> 
> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bigots will just revise their propaganda to put the blame of AIDS on blacks. They'll say it shows God considers blacks to be of an inferior race, or some such idiocy.
> 
> 
> 
> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> No sooner said than poof!! One of you whackos proves my theory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Of course no one has proven your theory...  Your 'theory' was that your opposition would lay the blame on Blacks...  I merely stated the incontestable facts relevant to the sexual practices and mores of the African culture.  

Now that Africans happen to be black as a general, but not exclusive rule is irrelevant.  The fact is that their sexual practices tend towards a rationalization accepting of homosexual sex and that has realized their fate with regards to AIDS.

And where a culture accepts homosexual sex, it sets itself up to be highly subject to the contraction of AIDs and that sis, is a simple fact of nature.  When you add to that, that Nature tends to kill off those cultures that accept homosexuality, well it's readily observable that in so doing those cultures engage in what can only be considered cultural suicide.  

It's what idiots do...


----------



## glockmail

Ravi said:


> It's obvious by this thread that _you_ are choosing not to act on your gay fantasies.



Again, your words, exposing the truth:



Ravi said:


> ..... I don't care that *you are gay*. .....


----------



## jla1178

PubliusInfinitu said:


> This is certainly one way that AIDS is being transfered to the Straight community.
> 
> Of course the queers will tell you that 'it's not a queer disease...  when in fact AIDS is nothing, if not a queer disease.
> 
> Again... Take the deviant (queer / IV drug user) out of the equation and presto... AIDS has no where to go.



How do you define "queer disease"? If it's that only gays contract it then you contradict yourself admitting that it's being given in any way to straights.


----------



## Anguille

PubliusInfinitu said:


> Of course no one has proven your theory...  Your 'theory' was that your opposition would lay the blame on Blacks...  I merely stated the incontestable facts relevant to the sexual practices and mores of the African culture.
> 
> Now that Africans happen to be black as a general, but not exclusive rule is irrelevant.  The fact is that their sexual practices tend towards a rationalization accepting of homosexual sex and that has realized their fate with regards to AIDS.
> 
> And where a culture accepts homosexual sex, it sets itself up to be highly subject to the contraction of AIDs and that sis, is a simple fact of nature.  When you add to that, that Nature tends to kill off those cultures that accept homosexuality, well it's readily observable that in so doing those cultures engage in what can only be considered cultural suicide.
> 
> It's what idiots do...



Still waiting for some facts to support your statements.


----------



## Ravi

glockmail said:


> Again, your words, exposing the truth:


I don't care that you are gay. I've told you before, I'm interested in knowing how much of a struggle it is for you to pretend that you aren't gay. How did you come to decide to do it? How long ago did you decide? If you are married, does your spouse know of your un-gayness?

People that deny their identities are fascinating to me.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

jla1178 said:


> How do you define "queer disease"? If it's that only gays contract it then you contradict yourself admitting that it's being given in any way to straights.



I define a queer disease as a disease which is contracted solely through the sexual practices or other behavior where blood or sexual fluids are exchanged with queers.

Now that hardly means that non-queers are not subject to the disease.  This being yet another tidbit of evidence that there is nothing biologically distinct between a queer and a non-queer.  

It is _queer behavior _that sets them apart; purely and simply.  The fact is that if one does not engage in sex with a queer, or with someone that HAS engaged in sex with a queer, or otherwise exchange blood or sexual fluids with a queer... there is no chance that they will contract AIDS.

Take the queers out of the equation and AIDS has no where to go.


----------



## glockmail

Ravi said:


> I don't care that you are gay. I've told you before, I'm interested in knowing how much of a struggle it is for you to pretend that you aren't gay. How did you come to decide to do it? How long ago did you decide? If you are married, does your spouse know of your un-gayness?
> 
> People that deny their identities are fascinating to me.


 Trying to justify what you said with tortured explanations is only making it worse for you.


----------



## Ravi

glockmail said:


> Trying to justify what you said with tortured explanations is only making it worse for you.


I've said nothing that needs justifying.


----------



## glockmail

PubliusInfinitu said:


> ....
> Now that hardly means that non-queers are not subject to the disease.  This being yet another tidbit of evidence that there is nothing biologically distinct between a queer and a non-queer.  .....


 Priceless.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

Anguille said:


> Still waiting for some facts to support your statements.



FACT: Queer behavior is the means by which AIDS is communicated.  

FACT: No Queers: NO AIDS


----------



## Anguille

glockmail said:


> Trying to justify what you said with tortured explanations is only making it worse for you.



Ravi brings up an important point. Hopefully, your spouse, if she is a she, is aware of your decision not to be gay and is sympathetic to the pain this must cause you.


----------



## Anguille

PubliusInfinitu said:


> FACT: Queer behavior is the means by which AIDS is communicated.
> 
> FACT: No Queers: NO AIDS



And the scientific studies supporting your "facts" are where?

Never mind, you're just a troll looking for attention.


----------



## glockmail

Anguille said:


> Ravi brings up an important point. Hopefully, your spouse, if she is a she, is aware of *your decision not to be gay* and is sympathetic to the pain this must cause you.


 

Wow.


----------



## Ravi

Anguille said:


> Ravi brings up an important point. Hopefully, your spouse, if she is a she, is aware of your decision not to be gay and is sympathetic to the pain this must cause you.


At another board I used to belong to, there was a guy who claimed his wife used to be a lesbian and he was always bragging how he, with his church's help, kept her straight. I don't know why, but it used to crack me up pretty good. I once asked him if it bothered him that he had to be jealous of both other men and other women.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

Anguille said:


> Ravi brings up an important point. Hopefully, your spouse, if she is a she, is aware of your decision not to be gay and is sympathetic to the pain this must cause you.



So I take it that this species of reasoning is that mos tlame of all Socialist rationalizations that those who contest homosexuality are only doing so because they themselves are homosexuals and merely ashamed to admit it?

I swear ladies, does it not occur to you at ALL that homosexuality is a human weakness which is to be shunned, belittled and those unable to simply resist the urge to screw their bestest good buddy are lessor people because of their weakness?  

The fact that we're all imperfect, hardly means that we should set the least among us up as role models to be admired for that failure...  Of course that queers are prone to sugesting that the culture should rest on the notion that the lowest common denominator should be held up as the highest goal to which each member should strive, is all the evidence anyone really needs to recognize that you should be shoved ad far back into the closet as possible and where someone refuses, they should be destroyed.

In essence what your stated thesis demands is that America should look more like Africa; where everyone is subject to contracting AIDS.  This based upon your rejection of any notion which suggests that people should avoid homosexual sex, which is the primary means by which AIDS is tranferred from one person to the next...  

Of course you'll quickly point out that IV drug use is also highly efficient in tranferring AIDS, but you'll deny that for this to be possible you need a QUEER IV DRUG USER to enter the equation; NEXT you'll point out that hetero-sexuals can also pass AIDS along; BUT AGAIN... FOR THAT TO HAPPEN YOU NEED A QUEER TO ENGAGE IN SEX WITH A HETERO... 

No Queers... No AIDS.


----------



## jillian

PubliusInfinitu said:


> So I take it that this species of reasoning is that mos tlame of all Socialist rationalizations



So sorry if you don't know the difference between social, political and economic constructs. You should really get a handle on that.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

Anguille said:


> And the scientific studies supporting your "facts" are where?
> 
> Never mind, you're just a troll looking for attention.



The Scientific Studies which show that AIDS is sread through Homosexual Sex...  Now if you want to project that Homosexual Sex does not spread AIDS, then fine... but you do so against the tide of incontestable scientific fact.

Now sure, hetero sexuals that engage in IV drug use can contract AIDS... but the fact is that a QUEER WAS SOMEWHERE DOWN RANGE OF THAT EXCHANGE.  

FACT: If one does NOT engage in homosexual sex or the exchange of blood with someone that HAS ENGAGED IN HOMOSEXUAL SEX, there is absolutely NO CHANCE of contracting AIDS.

PERIOD!


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

jillian said:


> So sorry if you don't know the difference between social, political and economic constructs. You should really get a handle on that.



ROFLMNAO... Oh GOD!  Now that is precious...  

I guess what tickles me the most about this sort of drivel is how quickly they are to project a failure in reasoning, but are so incapable of pointing to, or discussing the failure in term of specifics.

Clearly they want to, but they are prevented from doing so by their abject ignorance...


----------



## roomy

PubliusInfinitu said:


> ROFLMNAO... Oh GOD!  Now that is precious...
> 
> I guess what tickles me the most about this sort of drivel is how quickly they are to project a failure in reasoning, but are so incapable of pointing to, or discussing the failure in term of specifics.
> 
> Clearly they want to, but they are prevented from doing so by their abject ignorance...



Belt up you ponce.


----------



## jillian

PubliusInfinitu said:


> The Scientific Studies which show that AIDS is sread through Homosexual Sex...  Now if you want to project that Homosexual Sex does not spread AIDS, then fine... but you do so against the tide of incontestable scientific fact.
> 
> Now sure, hetero sexuals that engage in IV drug use can contract AIDS... but the fact is that a QUEER WAS SOMEWHERE DOWN RANGE OF THAT EXCHANGE.
> 
> FACT: If one does NOT engage in homosexual sex or the exchange of blood with someone that HAS ENGAGED IN HOMOSEXUAL SEX, there is absolutely NO CHANCE of contracting AIDS.
> 
> PERIOD!





> HIV/AIDS prevalence rates in the South Bronx are among the highest in the USA. Transmission in this area during the 1980s was primarily due to injected drug use (IDU). To assess the role of heterosexual transmission among persons with newly diagnosed HIV infection, we surveyed patients (pts) at a large S. Bronx hospital where 9% of 18-44-yr-old pts with admission diagnoses unrelated to HIV infection were HIV+ when blindly tested in 1991. From 7/92-4/94, we conducted a non-blinded survey of 677 pts aged 18-44 yrs who defined being HIV+ and had no HIV-related diagnoses. Many (43%) were born in countries where heterosexual HIV transmission predominates (foreign born = FB). 24% reported high-risk heterosexual sex, including having sex with sex workers (14%), IDUs (12%), and HIV+ persons (5%) or practicing sex work (6%). 38% had sex with FB persons. Few reported IDU (6%) or male homosexual sex (MSM) (4%). Of 448 (67%) who were HIV tested, 24 (5.4%) were HIV+ (7% of men, 4% of women, M:F ratio [of HIV+ pts]=1.4:1). 17 (71%) HIV+ pts reported possible HIV infection sources during interview or posttest counseling. 12 (50%) HIV+ pts reported high-risk heterosexual sex, with or without other risk factors. The CDC hierarchical risk classification identified heterosexual sex as the most common transmission mode. Of those who denied MSM, IDU, or transfusions, 9 (38%) reported high-risk heterosexual sex, namely sex with high-risk persons and/or sex work (n=5) or sex with FB persons (n=4). Fewer persons reported MSM (n=4), IDU (n=2), or transfusion (n=2). In this Bronx hospital population, high-risk heterosexual activity is common and now may be the leading source of new HIV infections.



Heterosexual transmission: The leading cause of new HIV infections in the South Bronx, New York?


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

roomy said:


> Belt up you ponce.



When you get a chance, translate that into a discernable point; It's nice to have your own langauge I'm sure, but it tends to slow the discussion down.


----------



## jillian

PubliusInfinitu said:


> ROFLMNAO... Oh GOD!  Now that is precious...
> 
> I guess what tickles me the most about this sort of drivel is how quickly they are to project a failure in reasoning, but are so incapable of pointing to, or discussing the failure in term of specifics.
> 
> Clearly they want to, but they are prevented from doing so by their abject ignorance...



Interesting psychosis... demonizing people who disagree with you and then referring to them in the third person instead of directly.

You must not be very certain of your debating skills. Or did you come here just to flame?

never mind... rhetorical question.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

jillian said:


> Heterosexual transmission: The leading cause of new HIV infections in the South Bronx, New York?





			
				Unspecified Sourced information said:
			
		

> HIV/AIDS prevalence rates in the South Bronx are among the highest in the USA. *Transmission in this area during the 1980s was primarily due to injected drug use (IDU). *



Now what are the odds that the Bronx IV Drug scene is LOADED WITH QUEERS?  I'm guessin' that the unspecified source here is rooted in some queer advocacy...  As the assesment is that it was the deviant drug use that spread AIDS and NOT the IV Drug using queers.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

jillian said:


> Interesting psychosis... demonizing people who disagree with you and then referring to them in the third person instead of directly.
> 
> You must not be very certain of your debating skills. Or did you come here just to flame?
> 
> never mind... rhetorical question.



Is there anyone in the class that whould like to explain 'irony' to this imbecile?


----------



## jillian

PubliusInfinitu said:


> Now what are the odds that the Bronx IV Drug scene is LOADED WITH QUEERS?  I'm guessin' that the unspecified source here is rooted in some queer advocacy...  As the assesment is that it was the deviant drug use that spread AIDS and NOT the IV Drug using queers.



Because, of course, the CDC wouldn't know how to put together a sample population for a study, right?


----------



## Luissa

PubliusInfinitu said:


> Now what are the odds that the Bronx IV Drug scene is LOADED WITH QUEERS?  I'm guessin' that the unspecified source here is rooted in some queer advocacy...  As the assesment is that it was the deviant drug use that spread AIDS and NOT the IV Drug using queers.


Then how do women get it, they are not exgaging in homosexuals sex. Magic Johnson did not have homosexual sex. And if you are reading that the only way you can get it is from homosexual sex, well I just don't know what to say. Maybe just that you are delusional!


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

It should be noted that no one, to the best of my knowledge has ever declared that hetero-sexuals were immune from AIDS...

The disease is spread through BEHAVIOR that deviates from that of hetero-sexuals and from those that do not inject illicit drugs into their bodies; behavior which is TYPICAL of HOMOSEXUALS.

Now, again, Homosexuals and their advocates would have you believe that they have no CHOICE in their behavior, that they ARE BORN that way; that they are in point of some unstated fact, a third, 'middle' gender. 

_They are not_; just as IV drug users are not born 'that way', homosexuals CHOOSE to engage in behavior which makes them subject to the contraction of this lethal virus and it is _this choice_ which makes them dangerous to the culture in which they live, on several levels.  Normalizing homosexuality is an insane notion, but no more insane than the normalization of IV Drug use.


----------



## jillian

another one who says that people "choose" to be gay?

*yawn*


----------



## jla1178

PubliusInfinitu said:


> I define a queer disease as a disease which is contracted solely through the sexual practices or other behavior where blood or sexual fluids are exchanged with queers.



Does that include Syphillis, Gonorrhea, etc.? They can be passed that way.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

jillian said:


> Because, of course, the CDC wouldn't know how to put together a sample population for a study, right?



So the CDC put together a IV drug use study free of any trace of homosexuals and watched them transmit AIDS to one another?  


ROFLMNAO...  You really are a pathetic fool.


----------



## Luissa

PubliusInfinitu said:


> So I take it that this species of reasoning is that mos tlame of all Socialist rationalizations that those who contest homosexuality are only doing so because they themselves are homosexuals and merely ashamed to admit it?
> 
> I swear ladies, does it not occur to you at ALL that homosexuality is a human weakness which is to be shunned, belittled and those unable to simply resist the urge to screw their bestest good buddy are lessor people because of their weakness?
> 
> The fact that we're all imperfect, hardly means that we should set the least among us up as role models to be admired for that failure...  Of course that queers are prone to sugesting that the culture should rest on the notion that the lowest common denominator should be held up as the highest goal to which each member should strive, is all the evidence anyone really needs to recognize that you should be shoved ad far back into the closet as possible and where someone refuses, they should be destroyed.
> 
> In essence what your stated thesis demands is that America should look more like Africa; where everyone is subject to contracting AIDS.  This based upon your rejection of any notion which suggests that people should avoid homosexual sex, which is the primary means by which AIDS is tranferred from one person to the next...
> 
> Of course you'll quickly point out that IV drug use is also highly efficient in tranferring AIDS, but you'll deny that for this to be possible you need a QUEER IV DRUG USER to enter the equation; NEXT you'll point out that hetero-sexuals can also pass AIDS along; BUT AGAIN... FOR THAT TO HAPPEN YOU NEED A QUEER TO ENGAGE IN SEX WITH A HETERO...
> 
> No Queers... No AIDS.


AIDS Myths And Urban Legends Hiv Sex Aids Oral Myth Gay Risk

Why don't you read this!


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

jla1178 said:


> Does that include Syphillis, Gonorrhea, etc.? They can be passed that way.



Yep... It's just another list of things that shows us all just how being queer is something truly ... "special."


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

Luissa27 said:


> AIDS Myths And Urban Legends Hiv Sex Aids Oral Myth Gay Risk
> 
> Why don't you read this!



I've read it...


----------

