# same sex marriage



## froggy (Sep 1, 2009)

they're not really married cause, the preacher preforming the cerimony is apperently a fraud. how could you go against the book your preaching from. because the bible plainly says it wrong.


----------



## Bill O'Olberman (Sep 1, 2009)

In the United States same sex marriage doesnt have to do with religious institutions recognizing the marriage rather the state, which is a secular democracy, recognizing it. 

And, of course, marriage is not a concept that is unique to Christianity...  Also, if a certain group of Christians wants to recognize same sex marriage its their decision. No demoniation of christianity follows everything as stated in the bible. ALL and I do mean ALL christians pick and choose what they want to believe from the bible.


----------



## rdean (Sep 1, 2009)

American Christians crack me up.

Ask, "Do you know any gays"?  Answer, "And I don't want to either".

Ask, "Is gay a choice"? Answer, "Yes".

Ask, "Did you choose"? Answer, "No".

Ask, "Will a gay marriage destroy yours"?  Answer, "No, of course not".

Ask, "Why not let them get married"?  Answer, "Because it will destroy the institution of marriage".

Ask, "But not yours"?  Answer, "Not mine".

Ask, "Where do gays come from"? Answer, "I don't know".

Ask, "Did you know that gays are the children of Christians"?  Answer, "No way".

Ask, "What if your son was gay", Answer, "No way, I didn't raise him to be gay".

Ask, "But what if he were"?  Answer, "I would have to disown him and that would be his choice".

And the ignorance goes round and round.


----------



## froggy (Sep 1, 2009)

Bill O'Olberman said:


> In the United States same sex marriage doesnt have to do with religious institutions recognizing the marriage rather the state, which is a secular democracy, recognizing it.
> 
> And, of course, marriage is not a concept that is unique to Christianity...  Also, if a certain group of Christians wants to recognize same sex marriage its their decision. No demoniation of christianity follows everything as stated in the bible. ALL and I do mean ALL christians pick and choose what they want to believe from the bible.



where does it say in the bible "just use the parts that suits you and you'll be alright".


----------



## Jay Canuck (Sep 1, 2009)

*Ex-Miss California sues over gay marriage comment
*Reuters - 9-1-09&#8206;
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Former Miss California USA Carrie Prejean has sued beauty pageant organizers claiming she was wrongfully fired for saying marriage should be only between a man and a woman, her lawyer said on Monday.​


----------



## froggy (Sep 1, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> *Ex-Miss California sues over gay marriage comment
> *Reuters - 9-1-09&#8206;
> LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Former Miss California USA Carrie Prejean has sued beauty pageant organizers claiming she was wrongfully fired for saying marriage should be only between a man and a woman, her lawyer said on Monday.​



did she hurt someones feeling that was over the pageant?


----------



## amrchaos (Sep 1, 2009)

rdean said:


> American Christians crack me up.
> 
> Ask, "Do you know any gays"?  Answer, "And I don't want to either".
> 
> ...



OK--I am going to try and read the Christian Tea leaves for a second.

In practice, homosexuality is a sin.  Yet the church mission is to teach people to turn away from sin.  But how can the church accomplish this if it turn away gays.  The same goes with Christians--they are suppose to embrace homosexuals and teach them that same sex practice is immoral and detasteful in the eyes of their lord.  If the homosexual disagrees, then the homosexual is left with the choice of abandoning that belief system.

Bottomline, there is no such thing as same sex marriage in christianity, and all Homosexuals that seek marriage are therefor not christians.  This is true  regardless of what they think Christianity is or if they think they are christians. 

So if you are gay, and want to get married, then get ready to "burn forever in the lakes of Fire and brimstone and bathe in the agony of Satan's hatred towards you"  Or call christianity a false religion and move on with your life!!


----------



## Bill O'Olberman (Sep 1, 2009)

froggy said:


> Bill O'Olberman said:
> 
> 
> > In the United States same sex marriage doesnt have to do with religious institutions recognizing the marriage rather the state, which is a secular democracy, recognizing it.
> ...



I dont think it does. I am making a statement based on actual and real life religious practices, preferences, and beliefs of christians.


----------



## froggy (Sep 1, 2009)

Bill O'Olberman said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> > Bill O'Olberman said:
> ...



the bible says they'll be known by the fruit they bare.


----------



## Jay Canuck (Sep 1, 2009)

"did she hurt someones feeling that was over the pageant?"

She broke her contract and paid the price....now she wants a payday and some fame.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Sep 1, 2009)

froggy said:


> they're not really married cause, the preacher preforming the cerimony is apperently a fraud. how could you go against the book your preaching from. because the bible plainly says it wrong.



Speaking of frauds, how's tricks Fraudy?

Are you one of those foaming at the mouth rabid ultra right wing christians who thinks that the prohibition of gays comes from the book of Leviticus?

If so, you're wrong to do so, as Leviticus was a book of the Old Testament that was written specifically for JEWISH PRIESTS!

Would you do a Catholic mass in your church if you're not Catholic?  If not, then leave Leviticus to the Jewish priests.

And quit cherry picking out of the Bible to promote your own twisted hate.


----------



## Bill O'Olberman (Sep 1, 2009)

froggy said:


> Bill O'Olberman said:
> 
> 
> > froggy said:
> ...



Cool. Well then good for the bible...

Since I am not a christian whether or not churches allow for gay marriage is of little relevance to me. As I already stated in the United States same sex marriage doesnt have to do with religious institutions recognizing the marriage rather the state, which is a secular democracy, recognizing it. This will happen in the near future.


----------



## Jay Canuck (Sep 1, 2009)

What about *Tom Foley?* 
 What about *David Vitter?* 
 What about *Ted Haggard?* 




*[SIZE=-1]"Is it my fault I enjoy the [/SIZE]* 
*[SIZE=-1]  taste of meth on a man's penis?"[/SIZE]*


----------



## Truthmatters (Sep 1, 2009)

hmmm


----------



## rdean (Sep 1, 2009)

amrchaos said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > American Christians crack me up.
> ...



There are no "lakes of fire" or "Edens" or "land of Milk and Cookies".  None of that exists.  
Funny, a Christian says gays should stop being gay and marry a woman.  If you ask the same Christian, "Would you want your daughter or sister to marry a gay"?  They will always say no way.  They want their daughter or sister to marry someone who is going to love them.

The real sin is to expect an adult man or woman to go through their entire life without the loving, sexual touch of another adult.  How people can wish that one someone who doesn't "choose" that life style simply has to be a cold bastard.

And, to try to use the mystical beliefs of a primitive Middle Eastern desert people as the reason behind such mean behavior is just plain cruel.  I often wonder, are these the same people that pull one wing off a fly just so they can laugh at it going in circles?

I don't understand how people can turn normal sexual attraction into these "sins" and point to a non existent made up supernatural spirit being as the reason.  If "God" wants certain things, let him show up and make the demand.  It's never going to happen.  Even the credulous know that for a fact.


----------



## froggy (Sep 1, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> > they're not really married cause, the preacher preforming the cerimony is apperently a fraud. how could you go against the book your preaching from. because the bible plainly says it wrong.
> ...



i have no hate look first cor. 6;9


----------



## brownlou (Sep 1, 2009)

Froggy doesn't seem to know much about this country. Perhaps, he is not an American. 
1) in this country, you can be married in a court house by a Justice of the Peace or some other court clerk depending on your state/county laws.
2)in this country, not everyone is christian.


----------



## Sunni Man (Sep 1, 2009)

Gays are mentally ill and need psychological treatment.

Allowing them to marry is enabling their sickness.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Sep 1, 2009)

> Did you know?
> * Of 32,000 verses in the Bible, only five directly mention homosexuality.
> * The Qur'an only directly mentions homosexuality once.
> * Leviticus, the book of the Bible which stipulates death for homosexuality, requires the same punishment for adultery, pre-marital sex, disobedient children and blasphemy.
> ...



LGBT Texts

Might wanna check your Bible again Fraud-y


----------



## Bill O'Olberman (Sep 1, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> Gays are mentally ill and need psychological treatment.
> 
> Allowing them to marry is enabling their sickness.



fail.


----------



## Oscar Wao (Sep 1, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> Gays are mentally ill and need psychological treatment.
> 
> Allowing them to marry is enabling their sickness.


Yes, because individual liberty is enabling mental illness.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Sep 1, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> Gays are mentally ill and need psychological treatment.
> 
> Allowing them to marry is enabling their sickness.



Speaking of mentally ill people who should not marry OR breed.........

Sunnidiot, go get sterilized, we don't want any little Sunnidiots running around.


----------



## Oscar Wao (Sep 1, 2009)

> * The Biblical David and Jonathan had a formal same-sex union.


Uh...no they didn't.


----------



## KittenKoder (Sep 1, 2009)

froggy said:


> they're not really married cause, the preacher preforming the cerimony is apperently a fraud. how could you go against the book your preaching from. because the bible plainly says it wrong.



Okay ... then sever all legal ties to marriage, no more laws, and courts no longer get involved in it in any way.


----------



## Sunni Man (Sep 1, 2009)

Bill O'Olberman said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > Gays are mentally ill and need psychological treatment.
> ...


Fudge packer homos are nasty disease spreading perverts who should be locked up for the protection of society.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Sep 1, 2009)

Oscar Wao said:


> > * The Biblical David and Jonathan had a formal same-sex union.
> 
> 
> Uh...no they didn't.



Uh......yes they did.  Might wanna look into the history of Israel sometime.

You can't trust the Bible as currently written in KJV, as it has LOTS of wrong things.  Want proof?  Watch a show called "Hidden in the Hebrew with Uri Harel" on God's Learning Channel, Sundays at 730 est, or 630 cst.

You'll find out a lot of stuff you didn't know.


----------



## Oscar Wao (Sep 1, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> Bill O'Olberman said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...


You don't have to closet your relationship with your other closet buddy on this foro...

Don't worry, I'm polite enough to not mention names...


----------



## Sunni Man (Sep 1, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> Oscar Wao said:
> 
> 
> > > * The Biblical David and Jonathan had a formal same-sex union.
> ...


Please post Biblical chapter and verse that states David and Jonathon had a formal same sex union.

Thank You


----------



## eagleseven (Sep 1, 2009)




----------



## John Lemmon (Sep 1, 2009)

Arabs have the highest percentage of homos, that's why they cover them in sheets.


----------



## froggy (Sep 1, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> > Did you know?
> > * Of 32,000 verses in the Bible, only five directly mention homosexuality.
> > * The Qur'an only directly mentions homosexuality once.
> > * Leviticus, the book of the Bible which stipulates death for homosexuality, requires the same punishment for adultery, pre-marital sex, disobedient children and blasphemy.
> ...



god condemns homosexuality but you think he alright with them marring hmmm ( one born everyday


----------



## KittenKoder (Sep 1, 2009)

If your god condemns them, then why does he make them?


----------



## froggy (Sep 1, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> If your god condemns them, then why does he make them?



where did i say he condemns them it their sexual act kitten


----------



## KittenKoder (Sep 1, 2009)

froggy said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > If your god condemns them, then why does he make them?
> ...



Well, then why is it your god wants to force them to break it's other laws?


----------



## Sunni Man (Sep 1, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...


How is God *forcing* *them* to engage in perverted homo sex ?


----------



## KittenKoder (Sep 1, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > froggy said:
> ...



If gay marriage is not allowed, then they are forced to:

1. Have only premarital sex.

2. Not love their significant other (if they do get married with someone of the opposite sex).

So, it's forcing them to break a law, no matter how you spin it.


----------



## froggy (Sep 1, 2009)

brownlou said:


> Froggy doesn't seem to know much about this country. Perhaps, he is not an American.
> 1) in this country, you can be married in a court house by a Justice of the Peace or some other court clerk depending on your state/county laws.
> 2)in this country, not everyone is christian.



that a legal contract not a marriage.


----------



## logical4u (Sep 1, 2009)

rdean said:


> American Christians crack me up.
> 
> Ask, "Do you know any gays"?  Answer, "And I don't want to either".
> 
> ...



To condone gay marriage is to imply that it is not sinful.  It is sinful: it breaks commandments:
the fifth: honor thy mother and father (no one introduces their toddler and brags they hope they will be a homosexual when they grow up)
ninth: you shall not bear false witness (homosexuals are not open about who they are and 'many' use deceit to gain partners)
tenth: thou shall not covet...anything that is thy neighbor's (if you are taking a partner from another family, hurting that family)

The commandments were given to help people to live together in peace.  Homosexuality going against that many commandments, makes it hard not to have problems with others and society.

Acting on homosexuality is a sin.  All of us have temptations we resist, and with the Lord's grace, beat.  Homosexuality is a destructive behavior.  It hurts families and communities (in general).  Homosexuals should be treated the same way a gambler, alcoholic, drug addict, or anyone else that has a behavior they have trouble controlling.  You love them, you pray for them and you let them know the choices they make are why their life is the way it is.  If they accept the Lord's grace, their life can change (they may still be tempted, but it will not have the same power over them).
You do not pretend that everything is going to be okay, homosexuals are some of the lonliest people there are, once they are used.  You do not pretend it is easy to overcome temptation.  You do not pretend they are going to stay healthy in their later years.  You can continue to pray and hope for them even after they have given up all hope; it will help with the Lord.
When someone does overcome their temptations and move closer to the Lord, they should be celebrated, not condemned.


----------



## logical4u (Sep 1, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> > Did you know?
> > * Of 32,000 verses in the Bible, only five directly mention homosexuality.
> > * The Qur'an only directly mentions homosexuality once.
> > * Leviticus, the book of the Bible which stipulates death for homosexuality, requires the same punishment for adultery, pre-marital sex, disobedient children and blasphemy.
> ...



The Bible is a book of growth.  It gives examples of things that are wrong as well as things that are right.  In the NT, Yeshua teaches that a man shall take a wife and the "two" shall become one.  He was very wise.
The Bible did not condemn 'same sex' marriage, because it did not exist at that time.  It would have seemed, unrealistic and not practical to participate in such a marriage (there would be no offspring, heirs).
Redefining words makes our lives and language more confusing and is used to hide, deceive others.
Rape of the same sex is practiced in nature, but as soon as the raped is able to take out the rapist, he does.  Animals are not human and if you want to claim homosexuals are animals, that is your opinion, but do not use it as a reason to justify human behavior.


----------



## KittenKoder (Sep 1, 2009)

froggy said:


> brownlou said:
> 
> 
> > Froggy doesn't seem to know much about this country. Perhaps, he is not an American.
> ...



In which case, the law should not be made to dictate who enters the contract, just two consenting adults. Either take religion out of it completely, or take the contract out of it completely, thus no laws in any way shape or form.


----------



## John Lemmon (Sep 1, 2009)

logical4u said:


> To condone gay marriage is to imply that it is not sinful.  It is sinful: it breaks commandments:
> the fifth: honor thy mother and father (no one introduces their toddler and brags they hope they will be a homosexual when they grow up)
> ninth: you shall not bear false witness (homosexuals are not open about who they are and 'many' use deceit to gain partners)
> tenth: thou shall not covet...anything that is thy neighbor's (if you are taking a partner from another family, hurting that family)
> ...



 ALERT!


----------



## amrchaos (Sep 1, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> > they're not really married cause, the preacher preforming the cerimony is apperently a fraud. how could you go against the book your preaching from. because the bible plainly says it wrong.
> ...




KK--that is totally unfeasible!!  Think of the madness that will bring

Divorce Court will disappear  forever!!  Think about that important show before you carelessly talk about tossing out american lawyers meal tickets!!

Do you not care about the divorce lawyer?  He is a human too!!  He needs a job!! Something to call his own as well.  Plus up to 50% of the settlement depending on skill.


----------



## John Lemmon (Sep 1, 2009)

Marriage is for ugly people to secure a lifetime fuck.


----------



## KittenKoder (Sep 1, 2009)

amrchaos said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > froggy said:
> ...



Well ... they could just take on the paternity test suits from Maury.


----------



## amrchaos (Sep 1, 2009)

logical4u said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > American Christians crack me up.
> ...



Commandments are for Christians, not Homosexuals.  You are thinking about S&M, aren't you logical4u?


----------



## amrchaos (Sep 1, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



But the doctors have that job!!  Look--now you are talking about taking food from the mouth from our great medicine men.  With Obama taking over healthcare to boot!!

Madness, I say!!  Doctors and lawyers on the street begging for the next meal!!  That is not my conservative America!!


----------



## KittenKoder (Sep 1, 2009)

amrchaos said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > amrchaos said:
> ...



Well ... them I don't care about.


----------



## rdean (Sep 1, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> Bill O'Olberman said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...



Hate to break it to you Sparky, but straight people also pack fudge.  The ones that don't are usually called "virgins" or "unmarried".

If you think sexual adventurism is bad, you can bet your wife or girlfriend (which I suspect you have neither) are getting it somewhere else.  If they come home late with a "smirky smile" then you should definitely worry.


----------



## rdean (Sep 1, 2009)

logical4u said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > American Christians crack me up.
> ...



Acting on homosexuality is a sin.  All of us have temptations we resist,

So you're gay.  Well, I pity you that you should have all these feelings.  You should visit a professional counselor so they can help you to understand that you can get past the indoctrination and live a full and happy life.  You have my sympathy.

Suggestion, try to avoid religious nutbags.  They will only bring you down.  Filling your head with mystical crap that is simply not true.  Good Luck.  I hope this helped.


----------



## rdean (Sep 1, 2009)

logical4u said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > > Did you know?
> ...



The Bible is NOT a book of growth.  It's used by American Christians to shackle the brain.   Dear Jesus, protect this country from your followers.  Tell them to stop ruining the lives of people they don't know and have no contact with.  Tell them to stop visiting medical doctors and instead go to "faith healers".  Tell them there is not a reputable doctor in the US who doesn't believe in evoltuion and by going to these doctors, they are being hypocrites.  Jesus, please tell your followers to go to school and increase the number of Republican scientists from less than 6% to 8 or 9%.  Jesus please tell your followers to stop screwing up our public schools becuase they want mysticism taught over science.  Please Jesus, if you are real, do these things.

And whatever you ask in my name, I will do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son.  If you ask anything of me in my name, I will do it.  John 14:13-14 NAB

Sigh, guess he's not listening.


----------



## Sunni Man (Sep 1, 2009)

rdean said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > Bill O'Olberman said:
> ...


That's one of the stupidest posts I have read in a long, long time.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Sep 1, 2009)

froggy said:


> they're not really married cause, the preacher preforming the cerimony is apperently a fraud. how could you go against the book your preaching from. because the bible plainly says it wrong.



Who the frick cares if two people of the same gender want to get married? Certainly the government shouldn't care what is or what is not between the person's legs.

From a religious aspect, sure, their marriage may not be valid (depending on the flavor of the religion). But then the homosexuals don't have to subscribe to that religion.

It's no one's business but theirs and Gods. No one elses.


----------



## Luissa (Sep 1, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> What about *Tom Foley?*
> What about *David Vitter?*
> What about *Ted Haggard?*
> 
> ...



I think you are thinking of Mark Foley, Tom Foley is a democrat and not gay.


----------



## joeyc (Sep 1, 2009)

RadiomanATL said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> > they're not really married cause, the preacher preforming the cerimony is apperently a fraud. how could you go against the book your preaching from. because the bible plainly says it wrong.
> ...



Why is it that the only people who ask "who cares if two people of the same gender want to get married" are basically _in favor_ of gay marriage? 

Most people obviously don't care about gays wanting to marry, otherwise they would vote to legalize it. Indifference doesn't automatically mean permission. I don't care about gay marriage. I'm probably not going to ever vote in favor of it, either.



John Lemmon said:


> Marriage is for ugly people to secure a lifetime fuck.



Pretty much.


----------



## AllieBaba (Sep 1, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



Gasp!

All my relatives are drs & attorneys!


----------



## RadiomanATL (Sep 2, 2009)

joeyc said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > froggy said:
> ...



I guess the rest of my post saying that the government should stay out of it went ****zip**** right past ya?

I don't care if they want to get married. However, I DO care that the government has the power to decide who does. Thats a whole different ball of wax.


----------



## John Lemmon (Sep 2, 2009)

People who are against gay marriage are homophobic.

Like folks, jesus was probably gay and in every picture of him, he sure looks gay. Plus, catholic priests aren't allowed to marry (how gay is that?), they were once, but a gay pope ended that about 1000 years ago.
Plus, god told adam and eve not to eat the hetero apple so that adam could stay in paradise with him, but when adam and eve had sex, god kicked them both out of paradise, Like c'mon, how fucking gay is that?


----------



## froggy (Sep 2, 2009)

John Lemmon said:


> People who are against gay marriage are homophobic.
> 
> Like folks, jesus was probably gay and in every picture of him, he sure looks gay. Plus, catholic priests aren't allowed to marry (how gay is that?), they were once, but a gay pope ended that about 1000 years ago.
> Plus, god told adam and eve not to eat the hetero apple so that adam could stay in paradise with him, but when adam and eve had sex, god kicked them both out of paradise, Like c'mon, how fucking gay is that?



see what happens when those patients stop taking their meds.


----------



## rdean (Sep 2, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...



Like I said, if you think sexual adventurism is bad, you can bet your wife or girlfriend (which I suspect you have neither) are getting it somewhere else.  If they come home late with a "smirky smile" then you should definitely worry.

Straight people like sex too.  They eat at the Y.  They..., well, either you know what I'm talking about, or you don't.  Remember, keep on the lookout for that "smirky smile", the sudden "gaze off into the sunset with that sigh" and the quick "showers" after getting home from "work".


----------



## eagleseven (Sep 2, 2009)




----------



## logical4u (Sep 2, 2009)

rdean said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



I was responding to statements about Christians and the Bible.  When it was demonstrated that homosexuality is against the Lord, is sinful behavior, the name calling starts.  If you don't want to know about the Bible, don't make false claims and expect them to stand.  Don't claim that old ways (that have been improved: marriage) still stand.
You guys remind me of muslim extremists: 
Your side:this is the way it is.  
others: Excuse me, there are some flaws in your arguements, here, here and here.
Your side:You are just saying that because you are filled with hate, name, name, name.
others: this is not true, can we address this?
Your side: name, name, and more name calling.
Great arguements.


----------



## John Lemmon (Sep 2, 2009)

Jesus was a fudge packer. Him and the disciples did circle jerks too.


----------



## logical4u (Sep 2, 2009)

rdean said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



I pointed out flaws in the arguement.  If you have some evidence that what I said is wrong, please present it.
Macro evolution, species changing into other species, is a belief.  There is no scientifice evidence it has EVER happened.  There is evidence that selective breeding or 'micro evolution' can change characteristics of a species, but cannot change that species into something else.
If you are going to ask the Lord for something, it must be in your heart.  His ways are not our ways and sometimes the answer is: NO.
Mocking and hating the Lord was shown to be detrimental to the health of peoples in the OT book, Dueteronomy.  Careful how you speak about the Lord.


----------



## rdean (Sep 2, 2009)

logical4u said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



Ok, following that "logic", what is the "boundary" between "macro and micro" evolution?  No, don't answer.  There IS NO boundary.  The concept is as dumb and "irreducible complexity".

I'm not even a scientist and there is not one right winger I can't out argue about evolution.  It's the difference between "book learning" and "learning from only one book".


----------



## xotoxi (Sep 2, 2009)

froggy said:


> they're not really married cause, the preacher preforming the cerimony is apperently a fraud. how could you go against the book your preaching from. because the bible plainly says it wrong.


 
For your review...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFkeKKszXTw]YouTube - Betty Bowers Explains Traditional Marriage to Everyone Else[/ame]


----------



## ABikerSailor (Sep 2, 2009)

logical4u said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > American Christians crack me up.
> ...



Yo............fanatical zealot..........you're wrong.........

The 10 Commandments are not about homosexuality, it's only your delusional interpretation of them that makes it so.

It's actually much more simple than that...........

The first 3?  Remember who HaShem (God) is, and don't worship anyone else.  Why?  Simple.......you'll die without His help.

Next?  Thou shalt not MURDER.  The Christians got it wrong with thou shalt not kill.  You can kill someone defending yourself in a fair fight.  Taking the life of someone who did nothing to you?  That's murder.

Thou shalt not covet.  Why?  Simple........if you're jealous of someone, eventually you're gonna want to murder them.

Thou shalt not bear false witness.  Why?  Simple........if someone lies to you badly enough, you're gonna wanna murder them.

Honor thy father and mother.  Why?  They brought you into this world, and they can take you out.

Thou shalt not commit adultery.  Why?  Screw around with someone else's partner, and they're gonna wanna kill you.

Thou shalt not steal.  Why?  Steal something from someone, they may wish to murder you for it.

Honor the Sabbath and keep it Holy.  Why?  Simple......if you don't give yourself a break every now and again, you'll suffer extreme stress and end up killing yourself with a heart attack.

Nope........don't see anything in there about thou shalt not be gay.


----------



## rdean (Sep 2, 2009)

The reason love between two adults is NOT a sin is because you would to be brainwashed to believe such nonsense.  

Now, if they made promises to a husband or wife and then had sex, OK, they broke a vow.  That isn't right.  

But to not even let them get married because Casper the Holy Ghost said no is really kinda dumb.  Especially, when those people are right there and no one can even say what 'Casper' looks like.


----------



## logical4u (Sep 2, 2009)

rdean said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...


----------



## logical4u (Sep 2, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...


----------



## N4mddissent (Sep 2, 2009)

Who gives a damn about whether it is sin?  We're not under sharia law.  We don't even have a state church like England.  Outside of your proprietary and personal religious beliefs, why on earth should gay marriage be banned?  

Personally, if marriage is supposed "sacred" or an institution established by religious belief, I think the government should get the hell out of it completely.  Civil Unions for all: man-woman, man-man, man-woman.   Let churches "marry" whoever they want.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Sep 3, 2009)

logical4u said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...


----------



## logical4u (Sep 8, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...


----------



## rdean (Sep 8, 2009)

logical4u said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...


----------



## ABikerSailor (Sep 9, 2009)

logical4u said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...


----------



## Sunni Man (Sep 9, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> Are you saying that gays don't honor their parents?  Might wanna check again 'tard, as most gay men that I've met have a VERY strong place of honor for their *parents*.



Don't you mean *parent* ?

Most faggots are mommy's boys, and that's how they ended up as homos


----------



## KittenKoder (Sep 9, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Are you saying that gays don't honor their parents?  Might wanna check again 'tard, as most gay men that I've met have a VERY strong place of honor for their *parents*.
> ...



Wow .... you really are more naive than I gave you credit for.


----------



## logical4u (Sep 9, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...


----------



## ABikerSailor (Sep 9, 2009)

C'mon Sunnidiot........it's okay.........you can come out of the closet now.


----------



## Care4all (Sep 9, 2009)

amrchaos said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > American Christians crack me up.
> ...







well, let me try giving a shot at reading the Christian tea leaves for YOU....AS a Christian there is only ONE unforgivable sin, *and homosexuality isn't it!*



> Mark 3:22-30 states,
> 
> "And the scribes who came down from Jerusalem said, 'He has Beelzebub,' and, 'By the ruler of the demons He casts out demons.' &#8230;'*Assuredly, I [Jesus] say to you, all sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they may utter; but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness,* but is subject to eternal condemnation;' because they said, 'He has an unclean spirit'" (NKJV, emphasis added / Note: The Pharisees made the same charge in Mat 9:34.).
> 
> ...


http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/unpardonablesin.html


----------



## John Lemmon (Sep 10, 2009)

*Assuredly, I [Jesus] say to you, all sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they may utter; but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness*

3 comments:

1- So Adam and Eve were never pardoned?
2- I thought jesus died for our sins? Or was it not retro-active?
3- So everyone who's ever said "goddam" is fucked?


----------



## Care4all (Sep 10, 2009)

John Lemmon said:


> *Assuredly, I [Jesus] say to you, all sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they may utter; but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness*
> 
> 3 comments:
> 
> ...



No John....the sin against the holy spirit that took place by the Pharisees was that they attributed the acts of heeling and helping those in misery that Jesus did, which came from God, as the work of Satan.

This is the sin against the Holy Spirit that Jesus spoke of....as the Unforgivable sin.


ALL other sins are forgivable.... 

Care


----------



## John Lemmon (Sep 10, 2009)

Care4all said:


> ALL other sins are forgivable....
> 
> Care



Like homosexuality? Btw, why did god make homosexuality a part of almost all species?


----------



## BigSteve (Sep 10, 2009)

froggy said:


> they're not really married cause, the preacher preforming the cerimony is apperently a fraud. how could you go against the book your preaching from. because the bible plainly says it wrong.



When my wife and I got married 24 years ago, there was not a Bible involved.

This may come as a shock, but people can, and do, get married outside the confines of the church...


----------



## Care4all (Sep 10, 2009)

John Lemmon said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > ALL other sins are forgivable....
> ...


-Yes, homosexuality, adultery, fornication, etc are all forgivable sins...this is from the mouth of Jesus, Himself....not me, making it up on behalf of Him.

-It is not a part of almost 'ALL SPECIES', so I do not know what you are talking about...I know there are a few species that look like they do, but not a sizable amount, nor a majority, let alone almost ALL?

Leaving God out of it completely, imo...it would go against the Survival of the Fittest and the innate drive by all species to multiply themselves?  At least it seems like it would?  I am opened to discuss that aspect of it, if you would like?

care


----------



## John Lemmon (Sep 10, 2009)

Lots of species exhibit homosexuality, but even if it's just "some" then why did god do this, did he give free will to animals as well?
Fornication? LOL. So you never have sex unless it's for procreation?

If god, then why have survival of the fittest? Didn't god make every animal perfect from the start?


----------



## Care4all (Sep 10, 2009)

John Lemmon said:


> Lots of species exhibit homosexuality, but even if it's just "some" then why did god do this, did he give free will to animals as well?
> Fornication? LOL. So you never have sex unless it's for procreation?
> 
> If god, then why have survival of the fittest? Didn't god make every animal perfect from the start?



No, animals were not given free will, with knowledge and reasoning as human beings, is what the Bible says...

Fornication is sex outside of meaningful relationship...marriage, common law marriage, committed couples...

All of my sex with the hubby has been sex *without* procreation...my husband and I have never been blessed and/or able to have children with each other. 

Care


----------



## Care4all (Sep 10, 2009)

Oh, and the answer on WHY, I had seen on a National Geographic special that they THINK the homosexual behavior is to show dominance on a few of the cases where homosexuality or Bisexuality is shown.


----------



## logical4u (Sep 10, 2009)

John Lemmon said:


> Lots of species exhibit homosexuality, but even if it's just "some" then why did god do this, did he give free will to animals as well?
> Fornication? LOL. So you never have sex unless it's for procreation?
> 
> If god, then why have survival of the fittest? Didn't god make every animal perfect from the start?



Animals rape the same species to demonstrate their dominance.  When the one that was raped gets a chance, it destroys the rapist and takes its place.  I am not close with any homosexuals, are you saying you (the homosexuals) are like animals?

Fornication is sex without honoring the other person.  It applies to people that have "casual" sex.


----------



## eagleseven (Sep 10, 2009)

logical4u said:


> Fornication is sex without honoring the other person.  It applies to people that have "casual" sex.


What is dishonorable about two consenting adults mutually pleasuring eachother?


----------



## iagainsti (Sep 12, 2009)

froggy said:


> they're not really married cause, the preacher preforming the cerimony is apperently a fraud. how could you go against the book your preaching from. because the bible plainly says it wrong.



Let's just ignore the fact that marriage is a social and legal union that does not have to be about religion at all, and that the issue of the same sex marriage is legal and not religious...and instead focus on the point you're bringing up about the religious aspect of marriage.

Yes, the Bible plainly states that you shall not lie with a man as with a woman. So for two men to get married is, from a Biblical standpoint, "wrong," and any two men who do so are doing something that God does not approve of. As for whether the preacher performing the ceremony is a "fraud"...would the preacher also be a fraud if he went against the Bible in other ways? 

There are many ways to go against the Bible...for example, let's say the preacher does not keep kosher (as most Christians and even many modern-day Reform or Conservative Jews do not). You might argue that as a Christian, it's not important for the preacher to keep kosher because the kosher laws were written in the Old Testament, which is trumped (for Christians) by the New Testament. Well, the tenets against homosexuality were written as part of the Levitical laws...also part of the Old Testament.

If Christians are able to ignore such Old Testament proclamations as:

Deuteronomy 14:8 - "The pig is also unclean...you are not to eat their meat." 

Deuteronomy 22:11 - "Do not wear clothes of wool and linen woven together."

Deuteronomy 13:6-10 - "If your very own brother, or your son or daugher, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying "Let us go and worship other gods"...Show him no pity...You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people."

Leviticus 20:10 - "If a man commits adultery with another man's wife...both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death."

Leviticus 20:18 - "If a man lies with a woman during her monthly period and has sexual relations with her, he has exposed the source of her flow, and she has also uncovered it. Both of them must be cut off from their people."

...why is it that they are unable to similarly ignore this one?

Leviticus 20:13 - "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them has done what is detestable. They must be put to death."

I don't see anything outlining that Leviticus 20:13 is somehow more important than the other Levitical laws. Why do Christians cling to this one, and other specific Biblical tenets, while ignoring and throwing away the rest?

In answer to your question about the priest...he was probably already a "fraud" for going against the Bible a thousand times over before he performed a gay marriage ceremony.


----------



## John Lemmon (Sep 13, 2009)

*Yes, the Bible plainly states that you shall not lie with a man as with a woman.*

Ok, hypothetically, if you are having anal sex with a woman, wouldn't it then be ok to have anal sex with a man, because you are just lie-ing with a man as you do with a woman?


----------



## Sky Dancer (Sep 13, 2009)

I'm legally married to another woman in the State of California.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 13, 2009)

froggy said:


> they're not really married cause, the preacher preforming the cerimony is apperently a fraud. how could you go against the book your preaching from. because the bible plainly says it wrong.



Oh, dear GOD, you don't understand how this process works.

Try to stay with me here.  Marriage is not a matter of church policy.  The church the pastor is ordained in probably will not recognize the "marriage", and may very likely defrock him, but marriage in this sense is a matter of state law.  If the state's laws recognize same sex "marriages" and the pastor in question is authorized to perform state-recognized weddings at the time he does it, then they are, indeed, "really married" in the only fashion that actually mattered to them in the first place.  This is why weddings can also be performed by people other than ministers.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 13, 2009)

rdean said:


> American Christians crack me up.
> 
> Ask, "Do you know any gays"?  Answer, "And I don't want to either".
> 
> ...



American atheists crack me up.

Ask: "Did you talk to any Christians?"  Answer:  "No, I just made up what I 'knew' they would say for them."

Give it up, twit.  I don't trust you to coherently tell me what YOU think, let alone what other people think.


----------



## KittenKoder (Sep 13, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> > they're not really married cause, the preacher preforming the cerimony is apperently a fraud. how could you go against the book your preaching from. because the bible plainly says it wrong.
> ...



If it's a state issue, then people need to stop putting their religious ideals into it completely and it should be treated as any other legal contract, consenting adults only. Otherwise we can say that women are not allowed to sign gym contracts, or men can't enter a rental contract, or that straight people are no longer allowed to contract home decorators.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Sep 14, 2009)

froggy said:


> where does it say in the bible "just use the parts that suits you and you'll be alright".


somewhere after Jesus died, and someone had an LCD induced hallucination whereby all the old testament rules no longer applied.  Christians have just been using the parts that suit them since the dawn of the religion.  Jesus said you should give all of your possessions to the poor.  ALL of them.  Do you do that?  Didn't think so.

Fact is, most Christians haven't read all the bible, nor do they follow it all.  



Sunni Man said:


> Gays are mentally ill and need psychological treatment.
> 
> Allowing them to marry is enabling their sickness.


oh good! A hick that thinks he's a doctor!  Good thing *every* psychiatrist across the country disagrees with you!  But hey, I'm sure your lack of education, combined with your stellar common sense, qualifies you to make such a statement.  Good job.



Sunni Man said:


> Fudge packer homos are nasty disease spreading perverts who should be locked up for the protection of society.


because two people coming together in monogamous peaceful mutual affection for each other....  means SOCIETY IS VULNERABLE AND UNPROTECTED!  OH THE HORROR!  HIDE THE BABIES AND ORPHANS, LEST THEY BE INFECTED WITH THE GAY VIRUS!



logical4u said:


> Macro evolution, species changing into other species, is a belief.  There is no scientifice evidence it has EVER happened.


Oh good! An uneducated hick who thinks he's a geneticist!  Wonderful!  I'd ask where you got your degree from, but I can already guess it's a BS.  Good thing no PhD geneticist agrees with you.  No, I take that back.  There's one who does.  All the rest think he's a nutjob.  

Welcome to the technological era.  Unlike the 1920s, we've since figured out what a lil thing called DNA is.  We can track DNA within and between species.  We can see how DNA is preserved and altered along evolution's path.  As someone else mentioned, there is no such thing as "micro" or "macro" evolution.  They are terms that religious zealots made up, and no legitimate scientist actually acknowledges them.  There is only evolution. 

So no, genetics hick, there is an overwhelming amount of evidence which supports evolution.



logical4u said:


> I am not manipulating the ten Commandments.
> Tell me how being homosexual is honoring your parents?


Tell me how it's not?  Now if someone has parents that are not supportive of their sexuality, it's not honoring them, sure.  But if the parents are supportive of that, then they are honoring their parents just fine.

Just curious: if you want to go into a certain job field, and your parents aren't supportive of you, are you similarly just as dirty sinful as a homosexual with unsupportive parents?  Or, perhaps, you as an adult are free to make your own decisions about your job, regardless of your parents wishes.


----------



## logical4u (Sep 14, 2009)

SmarterThanHick said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> > where does it say in the bible "just use the parts that suits you and you'll be alright".
> ...



What proof do scientists have that one species transformed into another?
You site "overwhelming amount of evidence", please present it.
What fossils have been found that demonstrates genetical links between species?

DNA evidence is not fully understood.  They do not have ANY evidence that one species has "magically" transformed into another species.  It is a theory (without a book...maybe Darwin was on LSD).



logical4u said:


> I am not manipulating the ten Commandments.
> Tell me how being homosexual is honoring your parents?


Tell me how it's not?  Now if someone has parents that are not supportive of their sexuality, it's not honoring them, sure.  But if the parents are supportive of that, then they are honoring their parents just fine.

Just curious: if you want to go into a certain job field, and your parents aren't supportive of you, are you similarly just as dirty sinful as a homosexual with unsupportive parents?  Or, perhaps, you as an adult are free to make your own decisions about your job, regardless of your parents wishes.[/QUOTE]

If you are not honoring your parents, you are sinning.  It does not matter if you are working in a job that would bring dishonor, acting crimminally, being less than upright, morally, etc, etc, etc.  Homosexuals do not have the market cornered on sinning.  We all sin, it just seems that the homosexuals are the only ones, that are in complete denial of their sins.
BTW I sin too.  I do not go out and ask society to tell me that my sins are okay.  I try to do better and ask for the Lord's forgiveness and grace, so that I do not continue to make the same mistakes.
The only HOPE is G*d.


----------



## logical4u (Sep 14, 2009)

eagleseven said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Fornication is sex without honoring the other person.  It applies to people that have "casual" sex.
> ...



In this society, two consenting adults "pleasuring each other" is "tolerated", and even "accepted".  The dishonorable thing about it: you would not marry them to have a lifetime building into 'the two shall become one'.  Even you would have to agree, if you look at our society, many, many crimes are committed, due to one of those "mutually consenting adults" deciding the other must be punished for not 'continuing to please'.  

If you don't have enough respect for the person to make a serious committment, you should have enough respect for yourself, not to 'mutually pleasure each other'.

Casual sex does not help society (something the libs are always pushing); it can have the adverse effect, where people are afraid to committ, and miss building strong relationships and families.  Exposing children to that behavior can cause even worse problems.  Do your own study: as "sex" is declared a "necessity", note how the "value" of life has declined.  Instead of protecting individual rights, we protect the "right to abuse others".  We would do better if we tried to honor G*d (and indirectly, our parents).


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Sep 14, 2009)

logical4u said:


> If you are not honoring your parents, you are sinning.  It does not matter if you are working in a job that would bring dishonor, acting crimminally, being less than upright, morally, etc, etc, etc.  Homosexuals do not have the market cornered on sinning.  We all sin, it just seems that the homosexuals are the only ones, that are in complete denial of their sins.
> BTW I sin too.  I do not go out and ask society to tell me that my sins are okay.  I try to do better and ask for the Lord's forgiveness and grace, so that I do not continue to make the same mistakes.


So, if someone's parents are supportive of them being homosexual, it doesn't dishonor their parents, and thus doesn't break any commandment.  Great.  Glad we have now shown that.

But regardless: America separates church from state.  Everyone not Christian need not lawfully subject themselves to Christian "morals".  So when someone tries to pass a LAW regarding homosexuality, it's best you leave your bible at the door.  If you can't argue morality without it, you don't have much inherent morality anyway, eh?



logical4u said:


> Casual sex does not help society (something the libs are always pushing); it can have the adverse effect, where people are afraid to committ, and miss building strong relationships and families.


So it would seem to me that encouraging committed affectionate monogamous relationships would be beneficial overall, based on what you're saying.  Gay marriage would accomplish that goal, yet you are against it.  Perhaps you need to rethink that one.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Sep 14, 2009)

logical4u said:


> eagleseven said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



You're one of those straight laced, fanatical, rabid GOP Christians ain't ya No Logic For Anyone?

I bet you probably think that Sanford and his Bible quotes exonerates him from adultery in Argentina as well.


----------



## BigBarry (Sep 15, 2009)

Is it true that the question for Prop 8 was: are you a homophobe? yes___   no___


----------



## indianaboy (Sep 15, 2009)

SmarterThanHick said:


> But regardless: America separates church from state.  Everyone not Christian need not lawfully subject themselves to Christian "morals".  So when someone tries to pass a LAW regarding homosexuality, it's best you leave your bible at the door.  If you can't argue morality without it, you don't have much *inherent morality* anyway, eh?


No such thing.


----------



## logical4u (Sep 15, 2009)

SmarterThanHick said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > If you are not honoring your parents, you are sinning.  It does not matter if you are working in a job that would bring dishonor, acting crimminally, being less than upright, morally, etc, etc, etc.  Homosexuals do not have the market cornered on sinning.  We all sin, it just seems that the homosexuals are the only ones, that are in complete denial of their sins.
> ...



The parents being supportive of sinful behavior is not honoring the parents.  It is puting the sin of the child on the parent(s); Christians are obligated to notify someone when they are sinning and to encourage them to improve.  If they do not try to stop, the Christian is obligated to avoid them or stop them (crimminal behavior).



SmarterThanHick said:


> But regardless: America separates church from state.  Everyone not Christian need not lawfully subject themselves to Christian "morals".  So when someone tries to pass a LAW regarding homosexuality, it's best you leave your bible at the door.  If you can't argue morality without it, you don't have much inherent morality anyway, eh?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Gay marriage does not build families, naturally.  It is a poor imitation (and in some situtations, a mocked, twisted, nightmare).  It does not make for two people, so different (opposite sex) joining to become one.  

If you want to look at it from a purely social stand point, gay marriage can not grow society without 'stealing' from heterosexual relationships (gays cannot remain 'true to themselves' and reproduce, they must use a heterosexual union to get a child).  
If you look at heterosexual couples that do not have children, you will find many that worked to make their communities a better place.  I do not know of any such works done by homosexuals.


----------



## logical4u (Sep 15, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > eagleseven said:
> ...



I have tried to answer questions as my faith leads me.  I do have a sense of humor, but would not try to disrespect the Lord.  

The post here have implied there is nothing against the Lord when participating in homosexuality.  I have pointed out the flaws in their arguement.  I have shown where that behavior is sinful.  I have not said that they are not loved by the Lord, or that I am better in any way (I will have to answer for my own sins, also).

Sanford has sinned as well.  His behavior is unacceptable (same term used for homosexuality).  His voters will decide his political fate soon enough.  As for his spiritual fate, that will be up to the Lord (the same as it will be for homosexuals).  Many have already told him, that his behavior was wrong and have called on him to repent (and resign to demonstrate his guilt).  He, (like homosexuals) must now decide for HIMSELF if he will try to overcome sin or if he will fall into the trap of sin, and be limited in his spiritual growth.


----------



## BigBarry (Sep 15, 2009)

Just curious, is it a sin against God to have anal sex with your own wife?


----------



## iagainsti (Sep 15, 2009)

logical4u said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> > ...Oh good! An uneducated hick who thinks he's a geneticist!  Wonderful!  I'd ask where you got your degree from, but I can already guess it's a BS.  Good thing no PhD geneticist agrees with you.  No, I take that back.  There's one who does.  All the rest think he's a nutjob.
> ...



Jesus Christ, I'm sick of hearing people say this.

Scientists do not have PROOF that one species "transformed" (nice use of straw man) into another. They only have evidence that, so far, backs up the theory. A scientific theory can never be conclusively proven...if ever evidence is found that contradicts the theory of evolution, you can immediately consider it wrong. However, so far, none has.

No, DNA evidence is not fully understood. But from what we do understand, it firmly backs up the theory of evolution. Yes, it is a theory, NOT a fact.

Now here's the part that really bugs me...when people say they "believe" in microevolution but not macroevolution. The reason people who don't "believe" in evolution choose not to deny microevolution is that it's undeniable. It's happening right now with viruses, and is the reason the flu vaccine has to be changed every year. 

The part people have trouble accepting isn't even that these small mutations that happen in species (microevolution) can happen again and again over time, eventually changing the species (macroevolution). That, also, has been documented by the domestication of animals. Dogs, cats, horses, etc...we can easily see how, over time, people breeding only the animals with the qualities they were looking for brought about drastic changes in the species. The thing is that domestication happened because we as humans brought it about on purpose. 

The part people have trouble accepting is that macroevolution can happen naturally, without our intervention. And I don't see how, if you acknowledge that microevolution happens naturally all the time, it's such a big leap to acknowledge that if microevolution happens to the same species many times over a long period, that species can change ("magically," as you so intelligently put it).

And yes, there is evidence to back it up...DNA, fossils, the archaeological record, you name it. However, this evidence does not PROVE evolution, it simply fits in with the theory, as I said earlier. No one said that evolution is a fact, that it MUST HAVE happened. To call it a fact would be ridiculous...even the theory of gravity is not a fact.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Sep 15, 2009)

logical4u said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



So, lemmie get this straight............you think that homosexuality is against God?

Okay, let me ask you something else.............do you know anything about Judaism, you know, the religion that Christianity developed from (remember, Jesus was a Jew)?

In their belief, each person is a small piece of God Himself that He carved out from under His Throne of Glory with the blade of self will, and inserted into the embryo created by your parents, which powers your nervous system and is actually your Soul.  Also, according to their belief system, they understand that God is actually both male and female.

Which, incidentally, explains when Yeshua (Jesus) was asked what is the greatest Commandment, He stated "love God above all else (remember where you came from), and love one another like you would love God" (remember where everyone else came from, as they are also a small piece of God).  Buddhists believe along those lines as well.  

So, since YOU PERSONALLY believe that homosexuality is a sin, and that it should not be done, you then condemn those who participate in it, and then want to consign them to Hell.

Nice piece of work for someone who just stated they don't like blasphemy.


----------



## Sunni Man (Sep 15, 2009)

BigBarry said:


> Just curious, is it a sin against God to have anal sex with your own wife?


Yes


----------



## BigBarry (Sep 15, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> BigBarry said:
> 
> 
> > Just curious, is it a sin against God to have anal sex with your own wife?
> ...



Why, is that actually mentioned in the bible or koran...?


----------



## Sunni Man (Sep 15, 2009)

BigBarry said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > BigBarry said:
> ...


Islam prohibits anal sex as an unnatural practice.

Muhammad said, &#8220;One who does anal sex has disbelieved in Islam&#8221;.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Sep 15, 2009)

Sodomy = anal sex.

God said don't do it.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Sep 15, 2009)

logical4u said:


> The parents being supportive of sinful behavior is not honoring the parents.  It is puting the sin of the child on the parent(s); Christians are obligated to notify someone when they are sinning and to encourage them to improve.  If they do not try to stop, the Christian is obligated to avoid them or stop them (crimminal behavior).


But wait!  The bible says nothing about gay marriage.  Anywhere.  It's not a sin.  I've asked this thread several times to point out where the act of gay *marriage* is mentioned in the bible.  You can't.  It's not.  



			
				illogic said:
			
		

> Gay marriage does not build families, naturally.  It is a poor imitation (and in some situtations, a mocked, twisted, nightmare).  It does not make for two people, so different (opposite sex) joining to become one.


Why doesn't it build families?  What do you even consider a family?  By the way, I liked how you completely skirted the issue of how gay marriage is somehow hurting the sanctity of heterosexual marriage.  How?  OK let's say there's a husband and wife in Florida, and suddenly a gay couple marries in Massachusetts.  How is the Florida couple affected?

As for needing two "so different" people joining to become one: I can show you two homosexual people that are very different.  Meanwhile, ignorant white hicks who are all inbred from one another in a small town getting married as husband and wife cuz they think and act exactly the same doesn't really seem like "so different" people joining to me.  Why do people need to be different to be married?  You can't back a lick of the garbage you're spewing.



			
				illogic said:
			
		

> If you want to look at it from a purely social stand point, gay marriage can not grow society without 'stealing' from heterosexual relationships (gays cannot remain 'true to themselves' and reproduce, they must use a heterosexual union to get a child).
> If you look at heterosexual couples that do not have children, you will find many that worked to make their communities a better place.  I do not know of any such works done by homosexuals.


That's cuz you're a moron.  Have you tried actually looking?  Wait, let's take a step back: how many loving monogamous homosexual couples do you know?  Let's face it: you're a homophobic hick who would be too scared of a gay person to even ask what they do for their community.  You don't know of any such works because you don't want to look.
The LGBT Center of Greater Cleveland: LGBT Center of Greater Cleveland
The LOFT
The Center Orange County - Your LGBT Community Center
The list goes on and on of gay community service centers. Are you *really* that naive in thinking that only straight people give back to their communities?  really?  Does blindness run in your family or was that a result of blunt trauma to the head?



iagainsti said:


> No, DNA evidence is not fully understood. But from what we do understand, it firmly backs up the theory of evolution. Yes, it is a theory, NOT a fact.


Just to go off that and clarify a bit further: scientific theory is more or less the equivalent of fact.  Gravity is a scientific theory.  It holds the same weight of fact as evolution in the science community.

But, as iagainsti very clearly pointed out: all evidence supports evolution - none goes against it.  DNA, fossil records, you name it.


----------



## KittenKoder (Sep 15, 2009)

We could abolish marriage and go back to how families were raised in the past before such "knot tying" occurred, where every child was raised by all the women and men who were incapable of doing anything else, old people, pregnant people, disabled, and their parents were off working the fields, hunting, etc..


----------



## paperview (Sep 15, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> Sodomy = anal sex.
> 
> God said don't do it.


Actually sodomy is 'unnatural sex' which includes even oral between members of the same or opposite sex.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Sep 15, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> We could abolish marriage and go back to how families were raised in the past before such "knot tying" occurred, where every child was raised by all the women and men who were incapable of doing anything else, old people, pregnant people, disabled, and their parents were off working the fields, hunting, etc..



um... why?


----------



## KittenKoder (Sep 16, 2009)

SmarterThanHick said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > We could abolish marriage and go back to how families were raised in the past before such "knot tying" occurred, where every child was raised by all the women and men who were incapable of doing anything else, old people, pregnant people, disabled, and their parents were off working the fields, hunting, etc..
> ...



People keep saying they want traditional family, that's as traditional as you get.


----------



## strollingbones (Sep 16, 2009)

froggy said:


> Bill O'Olberman said:
> 
> 
> > In the United States same sex marriage doesnt have to do with religious institutions recognizing the marriage rather the state, which is a secular democracy, recognizing it.
> ...



o shut up froggy...i am late to this debate...but are you following the bible to the letter?  somehow i seriously doubt that....do you wear blended cloths?  do you dare plant two crops in one field?  are you taking slaves from canada or mexico?  the list just goes on and on...for example...how is the sun rotating around the earth working for ya?


----------



## KittenKoder (Sep 16, 2009)

paperview said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Sodomy = anal sex.
> ...



Or butt plugs, dildos, strap-ons, porn movies, masturbation, whips and chains, leather, etc., etc., etc..

Shit I know more about that subject than I really should.


----------



## JW Frogen (Sep 16, 2009)

BigBarry said:


> Just curious, is it a sin against God to have anal sex with your own wife?




No. But it is a sin to say her anus looks fat when your cock is in it.


----------



## KittenKoder (Sep 16, 2009)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4XnplSo8I4]YouTube - Miss Swan at a gay bar[/ame]


----------



## indianaboy (Sep 16, 2009)

strollingbones said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> > Bill O'Olberman said:
> ...



Bible never says the Sun rotates the Earth... and as Christians, we are not under the Law anymore.


----------



## BigBarry (Sep 16, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> Sodomy = anal sex.
> 
> *God said don't do it.*



 He actually had to mention it? Was there a big epidemic of fudge packing?


----------



## logical4u (Sep 16, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



Yes, I stated that homosexual behavior is sinful.  I DID NOT state that they would be consigned to hell.  I went out of my way to explain that we are all sinners and that only through the grace of G*d can we improve and be forgiven for our sins.

I have also pointed out that while I am a sinner, I do not ask others to "tolerate" or "accept" my sins as not sinful (something the homosexual community is trying to do by legal means).

I cannot judge you, only the Lord has that power.  I do have the responsibility of speaking to you (a sinner) to let you know that your behavior is sinful.  If you are aware, I have done my duty.
If you were not aware, you have been informed and make your own choice.

So far, the defense for homosexual behavior is to deny what is in the Bible.  
Why do you want to force those that believe the Bible to "share" your sin by silencing them or attacking them for stating their beliefs?
Why not just admit that you are committing sins?  At that point, you relieve Christians of being punished for your sins (as well as theirs).


----------



## paperview (Sep 16, 2009)

Ah, so you're looking for redemption by pointing out what you think are their sins.



And people wonder why some become agnostic...


----------



## logical4u (Sep 16, 2009)

SmarterThanHick said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > The parents being supportive of sinful behavior is not honoring the parents.  It is puting the sin of the child on the parent(s); Christians are obligated to notify someone when they are sinning and to encourage them to improve.  If they do not try to stop, the Christian is obligated to avoid them or stop them (crimminal behavior).
> ...



The Bible says nothing about marriage between an animal and a human either.  I am pretty sure that is viewed as sinful also.
Marriage protected women...men were not viewed as needing protection.
In Leviticus, it specifically states that a man should not lay with another man as a woman...since gay marriage would sanctify that "union"....it would theoretically be .... sin.
Also, Sodom and Gamorrah were proof that the Lord would punish lewd and perverted behavior.  It didn't mention anything about marriage in that story either.  It stated the behavior was wrong.



			
				illogic said:
			
		

> Gay marriage does not build families, naturally.  It is a poor imitation (and in some situtations, a mocked, twisted, nightmare).  It does not make for two people, so different (opposite sex) joining to become one.


Why doesn't it build families?  What do you even consider a family?  By the way, I liked how you completely skirted the issue of how gay marriage is somehow hurting the sanctity of heterosexual marriage.  How?  OK let's say there's a husband and wife in Florida, and suddenly a gay couple marries in Massachusetts.  How is the Florida couple affected?

As for needing two "so different" people joining to become one: I can show you two homosexual people that are very different.  Meanwhile, ignorant white hicks who are all inbred from one another in a small town getting married as husband and wife cuz they think and act exactly the same doesn't really seem like "so different" people joining to me.  Why do people need to be different to be married?  You can't back a lick of the garbage you're spewing..[/QUOTE]

That inbred thing is not a good choice either.  It should be discouraged.
People need to be different to produce children (your arguement...a few couples can't have children...my arguement....they didn't know when they got married), homosexuals cannot do that without being unfaithful to "their choice" or stealing from the heterosexual community's children.



			
				illogic said:
			
		

> If you want to look at it from a purely social stand point, gay marriage can not grow society without 'stealing' from heterosexual relationships (gays cannot remain 'true to themselves' and reproduce, they must use a heterosexual union to get a child).
> If you look at heterosexual couples that do not have children, you will find many that worked to make their communities a better place.  I do not know of any such works done by homosexuals.


That's cuz you're a moron.  Have you tried actually looking?  Wait, let's take a step back: how many loving monogamous homosexual couples do you know?  Let's face it: you're a homophobic hick who would be too scared of a gay person to even ask what they do for their community.  You don't know of any such works because you don't want to look.
The LGBT Center of Greater Cleveland: LGBT Center of Greater Cleveland
The LOFT
The Center Orange County - Your LGBT Community Center
The list goes on and on of gay community service centers. Are you *really* that naive in thinking that only straight people give back to their communities?  really?  Does blindness run in your family or was that a result of blunt trauma to the head?.[/QUOTE]

Okay, I will give you that one, but the things you have listed here looks like it only supports making more homosexuals, not helping mankind.



iagainsti said:


> No, DNA evidence is not fully understood. But from what we do understand, it firmly backs up the theory of evolution. Yes, it is a theory, NOT a fact.


Just to go off that and clarify a bit further: scientific theory is more or less the equivalent of fact.  Gravity is a scientific theory.  It holds the same weight of fact as evolution in the science community.

But, as iagainsti very clearly pointed out: all evidence supports evolution - none goes against it.  DNA, fossil records, you name it.[/QUOTE]

DNA evidence also supports the theory of Creation.  Does that mean we get to teach THAT theory as fact in schools now?


----------



## Sunni Man (Sep 16, 2009)

Most everyone knows that fudge packing homos are sick, nasty, disease carrying perverts.

They should all be locked up for the protection of society and safety of our children.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Sep 16, 2009)

indianaboy said:


> and as Christians, we are not under the Law anymore.


you mean, the rules don't apply as long as you don't want them to, but all the things you dislike that are mentioned in the old testament, such as homosexuality, still apply.  Gotcha.  So what law does apply?  Jesus himself told his followers to give all their possessions to the poor.  Doesn't appear many Christians are doing that either...

It's nice, isn't it?  To pick and choose the rules you think apply, and ignore all the ones you don't like....



logical4u said:


> I cannot judge you, only the Lord has that power.  I do have the responsibility of speaking to you (a sinner) to let you know that your behavior is sinful.


You kinda need to deem someone a sinner (also known as JUDGEMENT) to do that...  You may wanna reconsider that first sentence there.



logical4u said:


> The Bible says nothing about marriage between an animal and a human either.  I am pretty sure that is viewed as sinful also.
> Marriage protected women...men were not viewed as needing protection.


We're not talking about bestiality, which is immoral for its own reasons.  We're talking about gay marriage, which I believe you JUST admitted is not mentioned anywhere in the bible.  Glad we have that straightened out, so all the ignorant hicks can stop claiming the bible condemns gay marriage.



			
				logix said:
			
		

> In Leviticus, it specifically states that a man should not lay with another man as a woman...since gay marriage would sanctify that "union"....it would theoretically be .... sin.


 So even IF you claim that homosexual sex is sinful, the bible says nothing of marriage.  Nor does marriage NEED sex (as countless married men can attest  ).  The idea that a marriage must "sanctify that union" is a Christian belief.  Sex and marriage are two completely separate things.  One involves a ceremony where two consenting adults express their love for one another before public witnesses.  The other involves a private experience involving genitalia.  Again I repeat: sex does not equal marriage.  

So again to be clear: *the bible does not in any place forbid gay marriage*, and yet that is the act you are attempting to stop.  If you have grievances with other acts, perhaps you should ask your local politician to makes those illegal.




			
				illogics said:
			
		

> That inbred thing is not a good choice either.  It should be discouraged.
> People need to be different to produce children (your arguement...a few couples can't have children...my arguement....they didn't know when they got married), homosexuals cannot do that without being unfaithful to "their choice" or stealing from the heterosexual community's children.


Stealing children?  I'm sorry, I must have missed the last time the news reported savage homosexuals are breaking into married couple's houses at night and stealing their babies.  Can you cite a single instance of this on CNN?

Your bigotry is inherent in your wording.  Maybe I should start claiming that women are "stealing from the homosexual community's men".  That's ridiculous.  But please, show me the horrid robberies that have occurred. 



			
				illogic said:
			
		

> smarter said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Making more homosexuals?  Do you think they come from the homosexual factory?  Or maybe they are grown on the homotree?  What do you mean "make" more homosexuals?  These are community centers run by volunteers for people who have needed to face the hardships and ignorance of people like you.  Do you really think only straight people give back to their communities?  1 in 10 people is gay.  That means right now, gay people are in your neighborhood, in your church, in your public schools, and working in your local businesses.  Next time you're on the street, count 10 people.  Convince yourself that it's not true all you want, but the statistics stand, and they aren't changed just because you live in a bigoted community - it just means people got really good at hiding it.  Then again, when people like you are too afraid to even look, I can't imagine it would be very difficult.




			
				logicsal said:
			
		

> DNA evidence also supports the theory of Creation.  Does that mean we get to teach THAT theory as fact in schools now?


No, no it doesn't support the theory of Creation at all.  Every doctor you have ever seen in your life knows evolution is true.  The most highly educated of people realize Creationism has no scientific support whatsoever.  So why is it that you, my little hick, with no scientific background whatsoever, believe that DNA supports Creationism?  cuz someone else without a scientific background told you so?  The purpose of science is NOT to refute religion.  The purpose of science is to explore all possibilities and ascertain truth.  Truth which has brought you every medicine you have ever taken; truth which runs your truck and powers your trailer; truth which has extended the human lifespan and our reach into the universe.

If you want to go toe to toe with a highly educated scientist with your fabricated or otherwise coerced ideas, I would be happy to thoroughly shoot you down time and time again.

If, on the other hand, you would actually like to understand the theory of evolution, why the overwhelmingly large amount of the scientific community (which btw is mostly Christian) support it, and try to actually learn a different point of view, I would be happy to humbly teach.  Rest assured, I know both Creationist "reasoning" and evolution support inside and out - that's what discovering truth is all about - looking at all possibilities and drawing the most logical conclusion.  I'm guessing you don't follow that trend.


----------



## Sunni Man (Sep 16, 2009)

SmarterThanHick said:


> We're not talking about bestiality, which is immoral for its own reasons.  We're talking about gay marriage



Beastiality and homosexuality are basically the same thing.

Both are unnatural and animalistic perversions.


----------



## BigBarry (Sep 16, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> Most everyone knows that fudge packing homos are sick, nasty, disease carrying perverts.
> 
> They should all be locked up for the protection of society and safety of our children.



Sounds like you want to be locked in a closet with one.


----------



## 52ndStreet (Sep 16, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> > We're not talking about bestiality, which is immoral for its own reasons.  We're talking about gay marriage
> ...



This poster is correct. In certain countries beastiality , and Homosexuality are considered one in the same crime, or sin or offense.

Punishable by Mutilation and incineration, or a death penalty offense.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Sep 16, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> Beastiality and homosexuality are basically the same thing.
> 
> Both are unnatural and animalistic perversions.


One is between two consenting adults.  The other is between a person and an unconsenting animal.  Do you have trouble differentiating between a sentient person and an animal?  

Nevertheless, we're not talking about bestiality, nor are we even talking about homosexual intercourse.  We're talking about gay marriage - a topic which ignorant bigots such as yourself seem incapable of separating from sex with goats.



52ndStreet said:


> This poster is correct. In certain countries beastiality , and Homosexuality are considered one in the same crime, or sin or offense.
> 
> Punishable by Mutilation and incineration, or a death penalty offense.


which countries would those be?  Canada, Japan, Iceland?  Any country in the EU?  Any first world nation at all?  No, didn't think so...


----------



## Sunni Man (Sep 16, 2009)

SmarterThanHick said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > Beastiality and homosexuality are basically the same thing.
> ...


Homosexuals are basically subhumans and not much different than animals.


----------



## iagainsti (Sep 17, 2009)

logical4u said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> > iagainsti said:
> ...



If you wouldn't mind, please explain how DNA evidence supports the theory of creation, because as far as I'm aware it definitely doesn't. 

For starters, you need to clarify WHICH theory of creation DNA evidence supports. Does it support the theory of intelligent design, which is not scientific and says that living organisms are too complex to have come into existence by natural phenomena and must instead have been put here by an intelligent creator? (WHY is it not scientific, you ask? Because science involves testing hypothesis, and the hypothesis that something happened through supernatural phenomena is not testable and cannot be disproven.) Or does it support the literal Genesis creation account, in which God created the first man in his image from dust and the first woman from his rib? This is obviously not a scientific theory for the same reason. 

After you've specified what exactly you mean by the "theory of creation"...how does DNA evidence support it? Because, as far as I'm aware, DNA evidence so far suggests that all living organisms likely had a common ancestor, which does not line up with the Biblical creation account.

Oh, and by the way, the theory of evolution is NOT taught in schools as a fact. It is taught in schools as a scientific theory. The scientific method is also taught in schools, so students also learn that the highest level an idea can attain in science is that of a theory, and that the term "fact" is reserved for things that can be observed firsthand. Here's an easy example in case you missed that particular lesson: 

"The sky appears to be blue" is a fact that can be observed. 
"The earth's atmosphere scatters short-wavelength blue light more than other, longer-wavelength light" is a theory which explains this observable fact and falls in line with other facts we have observed, and has yet to be disproven.

So, to sum it up: students in science classes learn that the theory of evolution explains the possible origin of our species in light of the DNA, fossil, archaeological, and countless other evidence that has been found. They also learn that this theory, along with all other theories, is NOT a fact and could be disproven if contradicting evidence were found. They do not learn the theory of intelligent design in science classes because this theory is not scientific, since it involves a hypothesis that our species has a supernatural origin, which cannot be tested or disproven as a scientific theory must be able to be.


----------



## eagleseven (Sep 17, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...



Meaning homosexuals are a few levels above Jews, right? 

One day, I hope a homosexual Jews kicks your ass


----------



## AnCo (Sep 17, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...



How so?


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Sep 17, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> Homosexuals are basically subhumans and not much different than animals.



And what exactly makes the average homosexual any different than you, aside from higher education level and income (on average)?


----------



## BigBarry (Sep 17, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> Homosexuals are basically subhumans and not much different than animals.



More proof that islam is a religion of hate. Thanks for making our point.


----------



## logical4u (Sep 17, 2009)

iagainsti said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > SmarterThanHick said:
> ...



You say that creation is a theory because you can not prove it scientifically.
Show me the proof that life randomly started on this planet.
Show me the proof that DNA did not have the same creator, and therefore appears to have a similar ancestor.
Show me the proof where one animal species changed into another, totally different animal species.
Just because something sounds good, doesn't make it so.


----------



## froggy (Sep 17, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



did you ever consider thats why jesus (a jew) changed it because they were making religon into theirs instead of his.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Sep 17, 2009)

Okay.......let's talk about your favorite passage against gays.  The book of Leviticus.  You people DO realize that it's a manual for JEWISH PRIESTS?  Now, with that being said, would a Christian use a manual for Catholics in their service?



> Leviticus (Greek: &#923;&#949;&#965;&#953;&#964;&#953;&#954;&#972;&#962;, "relating to the Levites") or Vayikra (Hebrew: &#1493;&#1497;&#1511;&#1512;&#1488;, literally "and He called") is the third book of the Hebrew Bible/Christian Old Testament, and the third of five books of the Jewish Torah or Pentateuch.
> 
> Leviticus contains laws and priestly rituals, but in a wider sense is about the working out of God's covenant with Israel set out in Genesis and Exodus - what is seen in the Torah as the consequences of entering into a special relationship with God (specifically, Yahweh). These consequences are set out in terms of community relationships and behaviour.
> 
> ...


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Sep 17, 2009)

logical4u said:


> You say that creation is a theory because you can not prove it scientifically.
> Show me the proof that life randomly started on this planet.
> Show me the proof that DNA did not have the same creator, and therefore appears to have a similar ancestor.
> Show me the proof where one animal species changed into another, totally different animal species.
> Just because something sounds good, doesn't make it so.


Creationism is not a scientific theory.  It's a layperson theory.  The former is as solid as fact as you can get.  The latter is equivalent to a hunch or guess.

It's painfully clear to me that you don't even know what evolution is, yet you believe it's not true.  Ok, let's start by saying what evolution is NOT

Evolution is NOT proof, evidence, or support that life randomly started on this planet.
Evolution is NOT proof of how DNA came into existence.  If aliens, deities, or sasquatch came to earth and made DNA, the principles of evolution would not be changed.
Evolution is NOT about one animal species changing into another, totally different animal species.  This is perhaps the largest fallacy running through ignorant America.
Evolution is NOT about sounding good.
Evolution is NOT about contradicting religion.  
Evolution does NOT care who you pray to.

Now that I've pulled the proverbial rug from under your feet, you have two options yet again:
1) Ask questions to find out what evolution actually is, and learn something for a change.
2) Remain ignorant, and continue making things up about what you incorrectly believe evolution to be, and claiming them to be wrong.

Your choice.


----------



## iagainsti (Sep 17, 2009)

logical4u said:


> iagainsti said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



Well, you obviously have no answer for my questions because you ignored them, as well as most of what I wrote...

I don't have PROOF of anything, and neither do you. Seriously, read what I just wrote!

I said that creation is not a SCIENTIFIC theory and cannot be proven by scientific means, which is why I don't belive it should be taught in science class. I didn't say it wasn't a possibility. I'm not as narrow-minded as you.

I have no proof that life "randomly" started on this planet. (By the way, I'd appreciate it if you'd stop throwing out words like "randomly" and "magically"...it's not hard to recognize those as a feeble attempts at straw man arguments. You don't see me throwing out things like "invisible man in the sky," do you?) No one does, just as no one has proof that it started when God said "Let there be light." If you're not sure what I mean by "proof," go back and read what I JUST SAID about the difference between fact and theory.

I have no proof that DNA does not have a creator, but the fact that DNA evidence shows all species may have a common ancestor has nothing to do with the possibility of a creator. I think you might have misunderstood what I meant by that (big surprise)..."common ancestor" does not mean creator. It implies that there was a simple species which gave rise to all others. The possibility that there was an intelligent creator who created DNA in the first place has nothing to do with the possibility of a common ancestor. Is it possible that the common ancestor had a creator? Of course. But again, that's not a scientific theory.

Again, I have no "proof" that one animal species "changed" (again with the straw man...Jesus Christ) into another, but there is strong EVIDENCE that they EVOLVED provided by fossils, DNA, the archaeological record, all the things I already named and you already ignored.

The fact that you keep saying things like "species magically changing into one another" implies to me that you don't really know a whole lot about the theory of evolution, natural selection, genetic variation, or any of the science behind this at all (of course, correct me if I'm wrong here, and you in fact have a huge wealth of knowledge on the subject that has remained untapped throughout this conversation). If that's the case, you're trying pretty hard to disprove something you don't fully understand in the first place...not the best way to gain knowledge and seek the truth, but whatever works for you, right?

And when did I ever say it sounded good?

There, I answered every one of your questions, while you answered not one of mine.


----------



## Sunni Man (Sep 17, 2009)

BigBarry said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > Homosexuals are basically subhumans and not much different than animals.
> ...


How is stating the obvious about homos considered hate?


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Sep 17, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> How is stating the obvious about homos considered hate?


Ah and I just thought you were a hick at first.  Now I see you're actually a troll.  You had me till this post.


----------



## Sunni Man (Sep 17, 2009)

Calling me a troll doesn't make what I say about homos any less true.

Gays are a plauge and need to be culled from our society.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Sep 17, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> Calling me a troll doesn't make what I say about homos any less true.
> 
> Gays are a plauge and need to be culled from our society.



Tell ya what Sunnidiot, it's "plague" not "plauge" (is that sort of like what grows on your teeth?), and if you're gonna call for one group to be culled from our society, I've got a suggestion for you...............

How's about we kill all the IsLAME sand ******* first?  THEN we can take care of them gays.  I mean, IsLAME has been killing gays for years, maybe now it's time they had payback.

Know what I'd REALLY like to see?  Some gay person, flying over Jerusalem, calling on the radio that they're on a suicide mission and crash the plane into the Dome of the Rock.

Yep............I'd call that a really good day............


----------



## logical4u (Sep 17, 2009)

SmarterThanHick said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > You say that creation is a theory because you can not prove it scientifically.
> ...



It appears that evolution is a belief with circumstantial "proof" being fossils being used to say that species changed from one to another.  
Based on what you are saying, evolution is as much as a cult religion as the ones that believe a spaceship will be here soon.
Science shows a catalyst: we have lava because plates shifted and made such heat that it melted rocks.  We know about it because it was vented thru a volcano or a volcanic vent.  In this case the "heat" would be the catalyst for lava.  If we explain the rotation of the planets, we use gravity, as the catalyst.  Only evolutionists want to explain something leaving the catalyst completely out of the discussion, and that would be G*d.  

If you can't explain where life came from or where DNA came from, how can you go on to state that you know evolution is real.  Evolution (at some point) claimed that ALL life climbed out of a primordial soup and evolved into different life forms; yet there is no proof that this happened.  All of us have seen "micro" evolution (re-define to confuse, we used to call it selective breeding) and accept that it happens (a species changing due to  man or environment).  None of us have witnessed one species changing into another: a gorilla turning into a neanderthal.  So again I state: evolution as a "final" explaination is a belief, if you will, a religion.  It is not scientific.  There is no proof.


----------



## Sunni Man (Sep 17, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > Calling me a troll doesn't make what I say about homos any less true.
> ...


I didn't say anything about killing anyone.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Sep 17, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...



You didn't say anything about killing anyone?  Well.........let's look at the word you used, in this case "culled"



> cull    (k&#365;l)
> tr.v.   culled, cull·ing, culls
> 
> 1. To pick out from others; select.
> ...



Now..........what do you do with the rejected members of a herd (in this case, the rejected members are gays, and the herd is mankind) when you are a rancher?

That's right..........you cull them, kill them, and cut 'em up into dog food.

Try again you fucking idiot asshole............You think you're sneaky, and you think you're not gonna get caught being an idiot, but guess again................

You've been caught.


----------



## Sunni Man (Sep 17, 2009)

Again, I didn't say to kill them.

You can cull animals without killing them.

Even your dictionary definition you provided doesn't mention killing.

So much for being "caught"  


Homosexuals should be rounded up and locked in mental institutions where that could receive therapy for their illness.

But repeat homo offenders should be sent to prison for life

This would be the most humane thing to do for them, and would protect society and our children.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Sep 17, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> I didn't say anything about killing anyone.


Right....  cuz that would be wrong 

no calling you a troll just means I don't believe you actually believe a lick of what you're saying, and you went from highly ignorant and entertaining to just entertaining...



logical4u said:


> It appears that evolution is a belief with circumstantial "proof" being fossils being used to say that species changed from one to another.
> Based on what you are saying, evolution is as much as a cult religion as the ones that believe a spaceship will be here soon.
> Science shows a catalyst: we have lava because plates shifted and made such heat that it melted rocks.  We know about it because it was vented thru a volcano or a volcanic vent.  In this case the "heat" would be the catalyst for lava.  If we explain the rotation of the planets, we use gravity, as the catalyst.  Only evolutionists want to explain something leaving the catalyst completely out of the discussion, and that would be G*d.



::sigh::

I inform you that you are completely wrong in everything you said about evolution up to this point and give you the chance to redeem yourself by asking questions instead of continuing on with your blinded ignorance...  and you chose the latter again?  Really?  OK, I'm happy to keep shooting you down.

Evolution does not use fossils "to say that species changed from one to another" (as you said).  I thought I pointed that out in the last post, noting how it was the LARGEST bit of misinformation uneducated Americans have on the topic.  Follow along here.  Perhaps you should start asking questions now...

Then you say evolution has no catalyst.  I find your examples mildly amusing (tho not wrong).  What you don't understand is that evolution does have a catalyst known as natural selection.  I'm guessing you don't understand that concept either, but similarly have misguided pre-conceived notions of it....



			
				illogix said:
			
		

> If you can't explain where life came from or where DNA came from, how can you go on to state that you know evolution is real.  Evolution (at some point) claimed that ALL life climbed out of a primordial soup and evolved into different life forms; yet there is no proof that this happened.  All of us have seen "micro" evolution (re-define to confuse, we used to call it selective breeding) and accept that it happens (a species changing due to  man or environment).  None of us have witnessed one species changing into another: a gorilla turning into a neanderthal.  So again I state: evolution as a "final" explaination is a belief, if you will, a religion.  It is not scientific.  There is no proof.


No. no no no no.  You're making things up in your head of what you think evolution is, and then claiming it's wrong.  For the third time now, evolution is not about gorillas turning into neanderthals.  No evolutionist anywhere on the planet believes that EVER happened.  EVER.  Note the absolutism in that word.

But you ask how evolution can be real without explaining where life came from.  That's the purpose of religion: to make up ALL the answers about everything, start to finish.  The purpose of science is to find truth. But when it comes to science, things are independent, and we can understand one process without even needing to know what came before it. *We don't need to see evaporation to feel the rain.*  Similarly, we don't even need to look at how organic molecules were first created to understand evolution.  Keep in mind we can recreate those types of early organic molecules from scratch anyway, but that is something that is needed *before* evolution, and isn't part of evolution itself.  Similarly, the Big Bang and how the Earth was formed has nothing to do with evolution.  Heck, even if you believe your deity made Earth and planted a single ancestral bacteria upon it, evolution still holds true.  No evidence has ever contradicted it.

So you can again state evolution is a belief, but it's clear to me and any other educated person on this forum that you are completely clueless as to what evolution is, and are in no position to make judgements about it.  Let's role reverse.  What if I said all Christians believe Jesus made original sin and infected everyone for eternity with it, and therefore all Christians are bad for praying to him?


----------



## Sunni Man (Sep 17, 2009)

A person must have a tremendous amount of "faith" to to believe in the pseudo scientific "theory" of evolution.

Far more faith than any religion requires or demands.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Sep 17, 2009)

sorry dude.  you identified yourself as troll and blew it like 4 posts ago.


----------



## KittenKoder (Sep 17, 2009)

SmarterThanHick said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > Homosexuals are basically subhumans and not much different than animals.
> ...



I have to disagree with that point. I know many gay men and women (mostly women) in the shelters here, I would venture to say they are about even.


----------



## Sunni Man (Sep 17, 2009)

SmarterThanHick said:


> sorry dude.  you identified yourself as troll and blew it like 4 posts ago.


Then why are you stalking and trolling me?

My post wasn't directed to you or at you.


----------



## Sunni Man (Sep 17, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...


That doesn't surprise me at all.

The homosexual lifestyle leads to high rates of drug adiction, disease, mental illness, and suicide.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Sep 17, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> Then why are you stalking and trolling me?


cuz you're just so darn cute


----------



## ABikerSailor (Sep 17, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> A person must have a tremendous amount of "faith" to to believe in the pseudo scientific "theory" of evolution.
> 
> Far more faith than any religion requires or demands.



How much faith does it take for an IsLAMEIST to believe in some douchebag deity known as Allah (may his name forever be a curse.........ptooie...........)?

Tell ya the truth Sunnidiot, takes a lot more faith to believe the lies in the Quaran than it does to believe in science.

You really are fucking retarded, ain't ya?


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Sep 17, 2009)

Biker....  Urban Dictionary: troll
think about what kind of profile a super troll might have if he wanted maximum riling of people, and compare to what he is doing...


----------



## Sunni Man (Sep 17, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > A person must have a tremendous amount of "faith" to to believe in the pseudo scientific "theory" of evolution.
> ...


I never said that I don't believe in science.

I just said that I don't believe in the "theory" of evolution.

The so called evidence for evolution, is just a collection of thrown together specimens of fossils coupled with artifical timelines.

In other words, pseudo scientific nonsense being passed off as real science.


----------



## Oscar Wao (Sep 17, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...


 Funny...there's lots of Christians and Muslims who believe in evolution...and they aren't apostates in any way.


----------



## BigBarry (Sep 18, 2009)

Islam has the highest percentage of homos then any other faith.
You think that those are ALL women under those black sheets?


----------



## ABikerSailor (Sep 18, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...



You should really watch some educational programming once in a while.  Scientists have DOCUMENTED PROOF that there is a genetic "Adam" and "Eve".  It was on National Geographic on the show "The Human Family Tree".

Now......with that being said, you know why Asians and Eskimos have lighter skin, as well as their eye fold?  It was a GENETIC DEVELOPMENT OVER THE YEARS to help them deal with the bright light reflecting off the snow or the water.

We all came from Africa,  but as climates changed as we spread out, you now have many people who descended from the same bloodline (genetic Adam and Eve), but we all look different.

That's just one example of evolution dude.  

Next?


----------



## ABikerSailor (Sep 18, 2009)

BigBarry said:


> Islam has the highest percentage of homos then any other faith.
> You think that those are ALL women under those black sheets?



Hey BB, remember a few years back when those IsLAME terrorists being stopped at a checkpoint, dressed up like brides?

Hmmm..........speaking of which, maybe they were trying to hide their gayness, as it's hard to be a terrorist when you're thought of as a poofter.


----------



## Sunni Man (Sep 18, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...


No, that is not evolution.

What you are describing is adaptation.

Big difference


----------



## ABikerSailor (Sep 18, 2009)

Evolution IS adaptation, only over many years.

Might wanna check again on the evolution by the way, as we have to keep changing our flu vaccines every year.

Superbugs as in flesh eating bacteria that is a super strain of streptoccocus.

And, if there wasn't such a thing as evolution, then why are certain animals extinct?  That's right, they failed to adapt.

If your IsLAME ass would read something other than the koran, you might learn something Sunnidiot.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Sep 18, 2009)

Abiker - again....  he's not engaging you in debate.  He's purposely just saying whatever he thinks will annoy you the most, and you're falling for it, and he's gobbling up the lulz.    

If you can't ignore his trolling, go here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/profile.php?do=ignorelist


----------



## Sunni Man (Sep 18, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> Evolution IS adaptation, only over many years.
> 
> Might wanna check again on the evolution by the way, as we have to keep changing our flu vaccines every year.
> 
> ...


Again, you posted an example of adaptation.

Sure animals, and even people, can adapt to climate and environmental changes.

But evolution alledges that a fish can evolve to a mammal or even a bird.

Or an animal can evolve into a person.

Pure nonsense


----------



## BigBarry (Sep 18, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Evolution IS adaptation, only over many years.
> ...



So Sunni, you believe that allah just dropped everyone into place?


----------



## Sunni Man (Sep 18, 2009)

"Behold! thy Lord said To the angels: 'I am about To create man, from sounding clay From mud moulded into shape; 'When I have fashioned him (In due proportion) and breathed Into him of My spirit, Fall ye down in obeisance Unto him.'   (The Noble Quran, 15:28-29)"


----------



## iagainsti (Sep 18, 2009)

BigBarry said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...





Sunni Man said:


> "Behold! thy Lord said To the angels: 'I am about To create man, from sounding clay From mud moulded into shape; 'When I have fashioned him (In due proportion) and breathed Into him of My spirit, Fall ye down in obeisance Unto him.' (The Noble Quran, 15:28-29)"



Hold on, I have to get this straight. So you call evolution "pseudoscience" because evidence for it rests on things like fossils, which you don't consider to be sufficient evidence. You say that the idea of species evolving into other species is pure nonsense. Yet your evidence for Allah "just dropping everyone into place" comes from a book that claims itself to be holy. What makes the fossil record less reliable than a book? And what makes fossils unworthy of providing evidence for a scientific theory?


----------



## Sunni Man (Sep 18, 2009)

The religion of Evolution takes more "faith" to believe, than does almost any main stream religion.


----------



## KittenKoder (Sep 18, 2009)

Alright, since the topic is now evolution here's what it is:

The permanent genetic results of adaptation. The evolution of humanity is in question simply because of a missing link, not because evolution is a theory. The only theory part of evolution is what evolved into what.


----------



## BigBarry (Sep 19, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> "Behold! thy Lord said To the angels: 'I am about To create man, from sounding clay From mud moulded into shape; 'When I have fashioned him (In due proportion) and breathed Into him of My spirit, Fall ye down in obeisance Unto him.'   (The Noble Quran, 15:28-29)"



Wow! I didn't know muslims were THAT ignorant. Sunni, you are officially a retard now please go back to your mud hut and your camels, your wife #3 needs a good beating.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Sep 19, 2009)

Sunni, troll them on other topics - leave me evolution.



KittenKoder said:


> The permanent genetic results of adaptation. The evolution of humanity is in question simply because of a missing link, not because evolution is a theory. The only theory part of evolution is what evolved into what.






I dunno why people always talk about the "missing link".  Looks relatively filled in to me...


----------



## froggy (Sep 19, 2009)

SmarterThanHick said:


> Sunni, troll them on other topics - leave me evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



wheres from nothing to 0


----------



## froggy (Sep 19, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> Evolution IS adaptation, only over many years.
> 
> 
> And, if there wasn't such a thing as evolution, then why are certain animals extinct?  That's right, they failed to adapt.
> ...


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Sep 19, 2009)

froggy said:


> wheres from nothing to 0



because that's not what evolution is.  evolution has nothing to do with how life first began.  it's only focus is on how life changes over time.  If you want to believe that your deity, aliens, or humans from a parallel universe came to this earth millions of years ago, set down a single bacteria colony and left, evolution is not effected.  Evolution isn't changed based on how things started.  Ignorant americans still don't actually know what evolution is (as you just demonstrated), but they think it is wrong anyway.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Sep 19, 2009)

froggy said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Evolution IS adaptation, only over many years.
> ...


----------



## Sunni Man (Sep 19, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...


----------



## ABikerSailor (Sep 19, 2009)

We are discovering new species every day, some of which mutate quite rapidly.

New species evolving daily?  Yep.  Remember the superbugs and the flu? 

However...........for complex vertabrates, the process takes thousands of years as humans and animals don't reproduce as fast as bacteria, as we've got more parts than single cell animals.

However, it can be noticed in the fact that women today mature much faster physically than they did 100 years ago.


----------



## Sunni Man (Sep 19, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> However, it can be noticed in the fact that women today mature much faster physically than they did 100 years ago.


Evidence of this?


----------



## ABikerSailor (Sep 19, 2009)

Ask a doctor sometime.  

(and no, you are definitely not a doctor).


----------



## Sunni Man (Sep 19, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> We are discovering new species every day, some of which mutate quite rapidly.
> 
> New species evolving daily?  Yep.  Remember the *superbugs and the flu? *However...........for complex vertabrates, the process takes thousands of years as humans and animals don't reproduce as fast as *bacteria*, as we've got more parts than single cell animals.


Since when is a bacteria classified as a species???


----------



## Sunni Man (Sep 19, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> Ask a doctor sometime.


Ask him what exactly?


----------



## Sunni Man (Sep 19, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> However...........for complex vertabrates, the process takes thousands of years as humans and animals don't reproduce as fast as bacteria,



In other words, no scientist or person, has ever observed ANY animal evolve into another animal?


----------



## ABikerSailor (Sep 19, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > However...........for complex vertabrates, the process takes thousands of years as humans and animals don't reproduce as fast as bacteria,
> ...



Actually, yes they have, at the bacterial level, which is why new vaccines are being developed every day.  Matter of fact, it was the H5N1 virus that mutated into the H1N1 virus.

As far as bacteria not being considered a "species"?  Again, check a scientist, or better yet, do your own fucking research.

No wonder you're such a 'tard.


----------



## Sunni Man (Sep 19, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...


Bacteria are NOT a species.

All they do is adapt (mutate) to a changing envinorment and to defend themselves.

Even then they are NOT evolving. 

They start out as bacteria and remain bacteria.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Sep 19, 2009)

No wonder you became a MusLAME.  You're too fucking stupid and brain dead to do anything other than memorize the korn-ham.

Keep with your delusions Sunnidiot.


----------



## froggy (Sep 19, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> We are discovering new species every day, some of which mutate quite rapidly.
> 
> i guess this is one huh
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xh5Wq27CkYE]YouTube - Creature Found In Panama - Panama Monster[/ame]


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Sep 19, 2009)

froggy, you figure out what evolution is yet?  or are you still just saying it's not true without actually knowing anything whatsoever about it?


----------



## ABikerSailor (Sep 19, 2009)

Actually, according to scientists, we lose around 10 percent of the species that we HAD each year (failure to adapt) and end up discovering around 10 percent NEW species.  Most new species are found around the equatorial zone (Brazilian rainforest).


----------



## BigBarry (Sep 20, 2009)

Abike, you're arguing with a rock, this is how sunni thinks the species were made.



Sunni Man said:


> "Behold! thy Lord said To the angels: 'I am about To create man, from sounding clay From mud moulded into shape; 'When I have fashioned him (In due proportion) and breathed Into him of My spirit, Fall ye down in obeisance Unto him.'   (The Noble Quran, 15:28-29)"


----------



## froggy (Sep 20, 2009)

BigBarry said:


> Abike, you're arguing with a rock, this is how sunni thinks the species were made.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



if you notice, the human body consist of everything you mentioned there.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Sep 20, 2009)

Are you thinking of converting to IsLAME Soggy?


----------



## froggy (Sep 20, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> Are you thinking of converting to IsLAME Soggy?



not living up to your sjgnature eh!


----------



## Sunni Man (Sep 20, 2009)

BigBarry said:


> Abike, you're arguing with a rock, this is how sunni thinks the species were made.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Read the verse BigBarry

No where does it talk about species

It only addresses the subject of how man was formed..


----------



## BigBarry (Sep 20, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> BigBarry said:
> 
> 
> > Abike, you're arguing with a rock, this is how sunni thinks the species were made.
> ...



LOL, excuse me, only man was made with play-doh. 
What did he make the animals with? Legos?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 20, 2009)

BigBarry, you don't interpret for God, so why are your lips flapping here?


----------



## BigBarry (Sep 20, 2009)

Jake, I bet your brain is made out of play-doh.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Sep 20, 2009)

froggy said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Are you thinking of converting to IsLAME Soggy?
> ...



Meaning?

(by the way.....it helps to know how to spell)


----------



## SW2SILVER (Sep 20, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> BigBarry, you don't interpret for God, so why are your lips flapping here?



How's it hangin, boyo? Good, I hope. You are an intesting fellow, I go back to all those posts you have made, instead of getting a straight answer from ya, for shizzle my nizzle. I can do that. Illegal aliens and gay rights, what is the connection here? I used to be a liberal, untill I was mugged by reality. Gays have as many rights as the "Breeders", and Latinos have the same rights as all those "Nativists" Gobachos do. What do you say to that, Snarkey?


----------



## logical4u (Sep 21, 2009)

SmarterThanHick said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't say anything about killing anyone.
> ...



Let me think...are you teaching this as absolute fact?  Are you teaching in every school that the man Christians believe was G*d born as a man that was tortured, suffered, died and was buried for us was the originator of sin and therefore Christians are wrong for praying to the one that Christians believe is the only hope of salvation?  You are acknowledging that there is something out there that can influence sin and salvation?  Is that the question?
You are telling me that I don't understand evolution, but throw out everything that WAS taught in school (primordial soup, one-celled animals eventually becoming everything else, monkeys eventually evolving into men).  I understand selective breeding (choice, forced, environment), that is different than evolution.
If I am wrong and the meaning has been re-defined according to the latest 'scientific' opinion, please explain it?


----------



## logical4u (Sep 21, 2009)

SmarterThanHick said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> > wheres from nothing to 0
> ...



You want to call us ignorant; you explain evolution (make sure to use simple words for all us idiots).


----------



## logical4u (Sep 21, 2009)

froggy said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni, troll them on other topics - leave me evolution.
> ...



I believe the bone fragments pictured are all they have for some of these "links".  That is not conclusive evidence that it happened.  In many of these "links" there is NO COMPLETE SKELETON (that would be: fiction).


----------



## logical4u (Sep 21, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > However, it can be noticed in the fact that women today mature much faster physically than they did 100 years ago.
> ...



Some doctors believe this is directly related to the "hormones" that are given to animals that supply our food: chickens (eggs), cows (dairy), etc.  Some evidence of this is noticeable in cultures that do not have access to mass amounts of processed foods.  The doctors believe that if society had these "hyped" foods removed from the culture, maturity rates and sizes (taller) would return to earlier rates.


----------



## Sunni Man (Sep 21, 2009)

logical4u said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...


Some doctors believe????

Not much in the way of scientific evidence


----------



## bill777 (Sep 21, 2009)

Evidence?   Any open air mall in California or Arizona.  Just look at them. Join the dark side (yes, I appreciate good looking young girls, I guess that makes me a perv)


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Sep 21, 2009)

logical4u said:


> You want to call us ignorant; you explain evolution (make sure to use simple words for all us idiots).



would be happy to.  am about to start in this thread: http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...an-views-on-homosexuality-11.html#post1538404

Be sure to review what I posted Evolution is NOT, and ask questions about anything that you may not have realized previously.  Once I get Allie's  on board, I'll begin.

In the meantime, you may want to ponder why every doctor you've ever gone to knows evolution to be correct.


----------



## bill777 (Sep 21, 2009)

I am just holding my breath, making popcorn, and getting my couch ready for a treatise on Christian views on homosexuality. I love watching hypocrites dig their own graves. It's better than COPS.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Sep 21, 2009)

Remember Sunnidiot.........there were a lot of scientists who thought Copernicus and Galileo were wrong as well.

Just because your wife and your friends are doctors and idiots, doesn't mean that ALL doctors are idiots.

Get a fucking clue!


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Sep 21, 2009)

ugh, you are like, incapable of ignoring the troll, Biker - he gets you EVERY time.  Do you really think his wife is an MD and doesn't believe in evolution?  You can't even google around to find a doctor like that.


----------



## Sunni Man (Sep 21, 2009)

SmarterThanHick said:


> ugh, you are like, incapable of ignoring the troll, Biker - he gets you EVERY time.  Do you really think his wife is an MD and doesn't believe in evolution?  *You can't even google around to find a doctor like that*.



*The Case Against Evolution*

Many excellent books detail scientific findings and conclusions that compellingly demonstrate the impossibility of evolution as an explanation for the variety of life on earth. It's also helpful to remember that evolution cannot offer an explanation for the origin of our magnificent universe; evolution seeks to explain only how life proliferated in a universe that already existed.

If you would like to dig more deeply into the case against evolution, we recommend the following books, many written by people with science backgrounds:

&#8226;Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, *Michael Behe, Ph.D., *associate professor of biochemistry, Lehigh University, Pennsylvania, 1996. Demonstrates that the minute building blocks of life&#8212;cells and their myriad components&#8212;are far too complex for their codependent parts and processes to have evolved without an outside, intelligent design at work.

&#8226;Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life, Alister McGrath, professor of historical theology, Oxford University, 2005. *Professor McGrath*, a former atheist himself who *holds a Ph.D. in molecular biophysics*, takes on the assumptions of popular evolutionary proponent Richard Dawkins and the atheistic worldview he promotes.

&#8226;The Twilight of Atheism: The Rise and Fall of Disbelief in the Modern World, Alister McGrath, 2004. Professor McGrath traces the history and rise of modern atheism, fueled in large part by Darwin's theory of evolution, and how it has influenced the world. 

&#8226;What Darwin Didn't Know, *Geoffrey Simmons, M.D., *2004. Dr. Simmons dissects the theory of evolution from the perspective of a medical doctor, giving compelling reasons why evolution cannot explain many aspects of the human body. As he notes in the introduction, if Darwin's Origin of Species were submitted to a scientific publisher today, it would likely be rejected due to the author's woefully incomplete understanding of cellular biochemistry, physiology, genetics and other branches of science that deal with the human body. 

&#8226;Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing, edited by *William Dembski*, 2004. Dembski, *who holds Ph.D.s* in mathematics and philosophy, brings together essays from intellectuals of various fields who not only explain the scientific weaknesses of Darwinism, but contend that the best scientific evidence actually argues against Darwinian evolution.

&#8226;Mere Creation: Science, Faith & Intelligent Design, edited by William Dembski, 1998. A collection of academic writings from the fields of physics, astrophysics, biology, anthropology, mechanical engineering and mathematics that challenge Darwinism and offer evidence supporting intelligent design in the universe.

&#8226;Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, *Michael Denton, M.D., Ph.D., senior research fellow*, University of Otago, New Zealand, 1996. *A molecular biologist,* Denton examines features of the natural world that mutation and natural selection cannot explain and shows the impossibility of transitional forms required for Darwinian evolution to have taken place.

&#8226;Creation and Evolution: Rethinking the Evidence From Science and the Bible, *Alan Hayward, Ph.D*., 1985. Written by *a British physicist*, an insightful book on the pros and cons of the evolution-vs.-science controversy.

&#8226;The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong, Francis Hitching, 1982. Points out many of the problems in the traditional view of evolution.

&#8226;Darwin on Trial, Phillip Johnson, professor of law, University of California, Berkeley, 1993. Shows that the weight of scientific evidence argues convincingly against the theory of evolution.

&#8226;Reason in the Balance: The Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law & Education, Phillip Johnson, 1995. Discusses the cultural implications of belief in evolution&#8212;that is, that the philosophy behind Darwinian evolution has become in effect the dominant established religion in many societies.

&#8226;Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds, Phillip Johnson, 1997. Written specifically for older students and their parents and teachers to prepare them for the antireligion bias inherent in most advanced education.

&#8226;Objections Sustained: Subversive Essays on Evolution, Law & Culture, Phillip Johnson, 1998. Compilation of essays ranging from evolution and culture to law and religion.

&#8226;Bones of Contention: A Creationist Assessment of the Human Fossils, Marvin Lubenow, 1992. Documents the serious problems with the supposed links between man and apes. 

&#8226;Shattering the Myths of Darwinism, Richard Milton, 1997. A science journalist and noncreationist, Milton reveals the circular reasoning Darwinists must rely on for their arguments while discussing data widely acknowledged in scientific circles.

&#8226;Tornado in a Junkyard: The Relentless Myth of Darwinism, James Perloff, 1999. A self-professed former atheist offers an easy-to-read view of evidence contradicting Darwinism, including many quotations from evolutionists and creationists. (The title is taken from a British astronomer's assessment that the likelihood of higher life-forms emerging through random mutation is comparable to saying a tornado sweeping through a junkyard could build a Boeing 747 airliner.)

&#8226;Not by Chance: Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution, *Lee Spetner, Ph.D., Massachusetts Institute of Technology*, 1998. Demonstrates that a fundamental premise of neo-Darwinism&#8212;that random mutation created the kinds of variations that allowed macroevolution to take place&#8212;is fatally flawed and could never have happened as Darwinists claim.

&#8226;Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? *Jonathan Wells, Ph.D., *Yale University and University of California, Berkeley, 2000. A post-doctoral biologist documents that the most-used examples Darwinists call on to support evolution are fraudulent or misleading.

&#8226;The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design, Jonathan Wells, Ph.D., 2006. Dr. Wells shows that the best scientific evidence, far from supporting Darwinism, actually supports intelligent design.

www.ucgstp.org/lit/booklets/evolution/caseagns.h


----------



## Sunni Man (Sep 21, 2009)

Need me to google dozens of more sites of MD's and PhD's who don't believe in the quack theory of evolution for you NotSmarterThanShit ???


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Sep 21, 2009)

so I asked you for MDs that don't believe in evolution and in your efforts you produced.... 2.  in the world.  only one of which is from the US.  

yes, i encourage you to keep googling.  Maybe you can find 5 in the US by October


----------



## Sunni Man (Sep 22, 2009)

NotSmarterThanShit  your orgional  claim was that there were "no" MD's against evolution and none could be googled.

In about 30 seconds I googled a list that had several PhD's and a couple of MD's who are opposed to the quack theory of evolution.

Now you say that I should produce more MD's 

Hey I got an idea!!

Since you have a computer. Why don't you just google the subject yourself.

Cause there are pages of MD's and PhD's who refute evolution as a scientific fraud.


----------



## BigBarry (Sep 22, 2009)

Sunni, so evolution is crap, we all were made out of clay?

Btw, what's a good muslim doing in a thread about gay sex?


----------



## KittenKoder (Sep 22, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> NotSmarterThanShit  your orgional  claim was that there were "no" MD's against evolution and none could be googled.
> 
> In about 30 seconds I googled a list that had several PhD's and a couple of MD's who are opposed to the quack theory of evolution.
> 
> ...



You do realize that any doctor who doesn't believe in evolution is inept, viruses evolve, that's why we can catch colds and flus even after having them once. Without evolution you would only get sick once, that's it.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Sep 22, 2009)

Hey Sunnidiot.........your wife DOES go to medical conventions to get the newest information about diseases and such, right?

She's proving evolution exists by her attendance.  If she doesn't go, then her license will be revoked after a while, or, she'll end up being employed by some whack job like Michael Jackson.


----------



## Sunni Man (Sep 22, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > NotSmarterThanShit  your orgional  claim was that there were "no" MD's against evolution and none could be googled.
> ...


Please provide evidence where any virus has ever evolved into something besides a virus.

Thank you


----------



## KittenKoder (Sep 22, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...



Mold ...


----------



## Sunni Man (Sep 22, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> Hey Sunnidiot.........your wife DOES go to medical conventions to get the newest information about *diseases* and such, right?
> 
> She's proving evolution exists by her attendance.  If she doesn't go, then her license will be revoked after a while, or, she'll end up being employed by some whack job like Michael Jackson.


I have never heard of any disease evolving into anything.

Please provide evidence of this phenomena.

Thank you


----------



## Sunni Man (Sep 22, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...


I am willing to learn.

Please provide evidence that a virus will evolve into mold.

Thank you


----------



## ABikerSailor (Sep 22, 2009)

Sunnidiot, you ain't willing to learn shit other than something that will reinforce your weapons grade bullshit.

You are a fucking moron.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Sep 22, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> NotSmarterThanShit  your orgional  claim was that there were "no" MD's against evolution and none could be googled.
> 
> In about 30 seconds I googled a list that had several PhD's and a couple of MD's who are opposed to the quack theory of evolution.
> 
> ...


ah, so in your entire list, you found a single MD in the US that rejects evolution, and somehow you want us to believe you are married to...  who exactly?


----------



## 52ndStreet (Sep 25, 2009)

We must move to criminalize Homosexuals , and ban Homosexual marriage.


----------



## Ipsl (Sep 25, 2009)

If the word marriage is to be taken in its religious context than it has no place in any state or federal laws.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Sep 25, 2009)

52ndStreet said:


> We must move to criminalize Homosexuals , and ban Homosexual marriage.



Right after we lock up and execute all the bigoted assholes.

52nd St., you're up.  Nice knowing you.


----------



## hjmick (Sep 25, 2009)

You know, and I realize I'm hitting this thread rather late, I've just got to say that, personally, I don't give a flying rhinoceros shit about same sex marriage. There are truly much bigger things going on in this country to worry about than this.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Sep 25, 2009)

I really like what I heard Whoopie Goldberg say once when asked about gay marriage.........

"If you're against gay marriage, don't marry a gay!"

Kinda sums up the whole idea nicely.  By the way, didn't Jesus say "Live and let Live"?


----------



## Jay Canuck (Sep 25, 2009)

Who will defend the sancitity of marriage?


----------



## ABikerSailor (Sep 25, 2009)

Okay......lemmie get this straight.........

If you're hetero, and you go outside of your committed relationship, as long as it's hetero sex, that "defends the sanctity of marriage".

However..........if you remain in a committed relationship with a person of the same gender, but DON'T stray, you are somehow tearing apart the foundations of it?

You've gotta be fucking kidding me........


----------



## Ralph (Sep 25, 2009)

Bill O'Olberman said:


> In the United States same sex marriage doesnt have to do with religious institutions recognizing the marriage rather the state, which is a secular democracy, recognizing it.
> 
> And, of course, marriage is not a concept that is unique to Christianity...  Also, if a certain group of Christians wants to recognize same sex marriage its their decision. No demoniation of christianity follows everything as stated in the bible. ALL and I do mean ALL christians pick and choose what they want to believe from the bible.



The STRANGE THING?   In "ALL" the states where same sex marriage has been allowed, such has never been the free will choice of WE THE PEOPLE.....such authorization always comes from COURT OPINION circumventing any form of true democracy, the court simply overrides the will of the people with the simple sound of a "GAVEL".   Do you call that democracy in action?   I call such....judicial despotism.


----------



## BigBarry (Sep 25, 2009)

Homosexuals should be allowed to be as unhappy as married heteros.
Anyways, half the people don't abide by "till death do you part" so it's a joke in the first place.
And the other half fuck their wives in the ass.
So what's the big deal?


----------



## Sunni Man (Sep 25, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> I really like what I heard Whoopie Goldberg say once when asked about gay marriage.........
> 
> "If you're against gay marriage, don't marry a gay!"



So your down to quoting Whoopie Goldberg as your intellectual last resort?  

You are really scraping the bottom of the barrel ABS


----------



## ABikerSailor (Sep 25, 2009)

No Sunnidiot......it's another way of saying "live and let live".


----------



## BigBarry (Sep 27, 2009)

I'd bet every last fucking dollar I have that Whoopi Goldberg has a significantly higher IQ than sunnidiot.


----------



## Jesus Christ (Oct 2, 2009)

Gay marriage and homosexuality are not sins. Remember what I said: a good Christian doesn't judge love, that's my job.


----------



## Jay Canuck (Oct 2, 2009)

do the "math"


----------



## ABikerSailor (Oct 2, 2009)

Well.........I've heard that if you go to Trinidad, Colorado and get an operation, you will then be allowed the same priveledges as those with tab and slot connections.

However......your tab must be changed to a slot to allow that, otherwise, it's gay and therefore an abomination against God and this country (according to some).

But.......this brings up a question.........if gay sex is a sin, but you get your gender changed, and then have anal sex, is it still a sin, even though it's done in a hetero way?


----------



## SW2SILVER (Oct 2, 2009)

Let's ask  a devout Muslim  what HE thinks about gays, or homosexual marriage. You dipsticks think Christians are intolerant?  You folks don&#8217;t know intolerance if it kicked you in the balls. Don&#8217;t push this agenda, either. Homosexuality  isn&#8217;t a right guaranteed  in the Constitution, and that is a fact. We all have the same rights,  no more, no less.  Homosexuality is narcissism, it&#8217;s a sexual perversion. Please. Let&#8217;s call a spade a spade. They  neither need nor deserve  marriage, anymore than another sexual deviants.  What they do in their own bedroom is none of  my business, until they try to sway public opinion or re-write laws. Then , there is were the issue ends. Don&#8217;t tell me what I need to accept, or how to bloody think, either.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Oct 2, 2009)

SW2SILVER said:


> Let's ask  a devout Muslim  what HE thinks about gays, or homosexual marriage. You dipsticks think Christians are intolerant?  You folks dont know intolerance if it kicked you in the balls. Dont push this agenda, either. Homosexuality  isnt a right guaranteed  in the Constitution, and that is a fact. We all have the same rights,  no more, no less.  Homosexuality is narcissism, its a sexual perversion. Please. Lets call a spade a spade. They  neither need nor deserve  marriage, anymore than another sexual deviants.  What they do in their own bedroom is none of  my business, until they try to sway public opinion or re-write laws. Then , there is were the issue ends. Dont tell me what I need to accept, or how to bloody think, either.



Hmmm...........methinks the closeted one doth protest too much.

Listen dude, come outta the closet and fess up about yourself, you'll feel much better.  

It's obvious by the way, your macho avatar and the manly way that you stand up in defense against the evil gays.

Personally?  I think it's all a cover up to hide the fact that you're actually a pillow biter.


----------



## SW2SILVER (Oct 2, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> SW2SILVER said:
> 
> 
> > Let's ask  a devout Muslim  what HE thinks about gays, or homosexual marriage. You dipsticks think Christians are intolerant?  You folks dont know intolerance if it kicked you in the balls. Dont push this agenda, either. Homosexuality  isnt a right guaranteed  in the Constitution, and that is a fact. We all have the same rights,  no more, no less.  Homosexuality is narcissism, its a sexual perversion. Please. Lets call a spade a spade. They  neither need nor deserve  marriage, anymore than another sexual deviants.  What they do in their own bedroom is none of  my business, until they try to sway public opinion or re-write laws. Then , there is were the issue ends. Dont tell me what I need to accept, or how to bloody think, either.
> ...



Dude, I think you read to much into things, and besides, that really is a trite response, don't you think? You like my avatar? Its a rather sarcastic thing related to the immigration board. Sorry if it turns you on., How about my post, boy-o? Would you actually like to remark on that besides being a self  righteous contradictory   twit?


----------



## ABikerSailor (Oct 2, 2009)

How the fuck are you supposed to respond to a redneck conservative Christian retard who is deathly afraid of gays?

No logic works on assholes like you.


----------



## SW2SILVER (Oct 2, 2009)

Wow, cat got yer tongue?  A navy carrier. In the Navy, like a macho- macho man. Jesus fucking H. Christ. I don&#8217;t give a shit about gays, this is a side issue to me, really. Gays never did anything to me, and  that is a fact. I&#8217;m here on a lark. But I can make it a focus though, if you want. You want that? MY Bro was in the navy, on during the Vietnam war on the USS Ticonderoga putting bombs on planes . Asshole. You don&#8217;t get it, do ya?


----------



## ABikerSailor (Oct 3, 2009)

Hey......not my fault that you are so insecure about your own sexuality that you feel the need to talk bad about others.


----------



## eagleseven (Oct 3, 2009)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InBXu-iY7cw]YouTube - In the Navy[/ame]


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 3, 2009)

SW2SILVER , here is the best, final advice you will receive on this issue.

You don't like homosexual marriage?  Then don't marry one.  Let's move on.


----------



## Yukon (Oct 3, 2009)

froggy said:


> they're not really married cause, the preacher preforming the cerimony is apperently a fraud. how could you go against the book your preaching from. because the bible plainly says it wrong.




*Support your outrageous statement, Please quote the passage from the King James version of the Holy Bible that states same sex marriage is wrong or that it is a sin.*


----------



## ABikerSailor (Oct 3, 2009)

Yeah Froggy.  You can't.

At least, not without quoting that book specifically for Jewish priests......you know, Leviticus.


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Oct 3, 2009)

why is it, if you dont support gay marriage you must be gay, right wing, stupid, a hick, redneck, did i forget any other juvenile name calling?


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Oct 3, 2009)

tried to rep you but have to spread it around

awesome song





eagleseven said:


> YouTube - In the Navy


----------



## ABikerSailor (Oct 3, 2009)

actsnoblemartin said:


> why is it, if you dont support gay marriage you must be gay, right wing, stupid, a hick, redneck, did i forget any other juvenile name calling?



Gay - not applicable in this instance.

Right Wing - usually speaks out against gays, as they believe God tells them to exclude those people, which is why they are usually called out whenever someone protests gay activity, as they are usually there.

Stupid - anyone who is not willing to look at things and has a closed mind.  Racists are also stupid.

Hick - Slang term for a person who has low education and is rural.  People from this environment generally are afraid of something that is outside their experience base.

Redneck -Another slang term for a rural dweller with low education due to economic circumstance.  As fearful of outside influences as Hicks.

Either way........excluding someone for different behavior that HAS NO DIRECT EFFECT ON YOU is really less than intelligent. 

Almost moronic.


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Oct 3, 2009)

while I have the same opinion on gays as you do at this time.

I dont think we should be calling people names is my only point

for simply being against homosexuality is not stupid, moronic, or mean

people have a right to their religious and moral beliefs without being attacked, unless were stupid to them for our beliefs



ABikerSailor said:


> actsnoblemartin said:
> 
> 
> > why is it, if you dont support gay marriage you must be gay, right wing, stupid, a hick, redneck, did i forget any other juvenile name calling?
> ...


----------



## Joe_Penalty (Oct 3, 2009)

SmarterThanHick said:


> Just to go off that and clarify a bit further: scientific theory is more or less the equivalent of fact.  Gravity is a scientific theory.  It holds the same weight of fact as evolution in the science community...



Gravity is a scientific law.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Oct 3, 2009)

actsnoblemartin said:


> while I have the same opinion on gays as you do at this time.
> 
> I dont think we should be calling people names is my only point
> 
> ...



No, stupid moronic and mean is when they try to make laws prohibiting the lifestyle of people who are GENETICALLY PREDISPOSED to being gay.  Scientists have proven that a gay persons brain is actually different than a hetero persons.  Additionally, they haven't found just one gene, but rather several, that when present in a certain number, will result in the person being gay.

Ignorance is when you never had the chance to learn.  Stupidity is when you had the chance, but didn't bother.  It's quite okay to be ignorant, just don't be stupid.

Ignoring the evidence presented by geneticists and scientists when presented makes it stupid.  Stupidity breeds moronic behavior, which results in the person becoming mean.

Nope........I kinda think it fits.

And yes.........you DO have the right to your own religious beliefs, but, when your beliefs infringe upon the rights and beliefs of others (i.e. gays), just because you believe that God gave you a mandate to "save their soul", well.........that's when you go off the tracks.

Fuck off Ain't Noble Martin, you're just another one of those bigoted assholes.  Personally?  I hope that whatever bad karma you wish on someone else comes back to you times 10.


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Oct 3, 2009)

you were making a lot of sense until you decided to start name calling again.



ABikerSailor said:


> actsnoblemartin said:
> 
> 
> > while I have the same opinion on gays as you do at this time.
> ...


----------



## Sunni Man (Oct 3, 2009)

There is NO gay gene or genetic predisposition that makes a person a sodomite.

It is a choice. A sick choice, but a still a choice


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Oct 3, 2009)

actsnoblemartin said:


> people have a right to their religious and moral beliefs without being attacked, unless were stupid to them for our beliefs


Well, yes - they have a right to their religious and moral beliefs.  So why are those religious and moral beliefs affecting national law?  No one is suggesting all Christians/Muslims/other religious groups accept homosexuality (tho it would be nice).  The FOCUS is on a secular government that separates church from state permitting equality among all people with respect to marriage.

If you even add in all the religious garbage, the fear/sin/whathaveyou is NOT against marriage, but against the things people might do in marriage.  That fact that that group does those things anyway because they *can't* get married is a point that seems to be ignored completely.



			
				Sunni Man said:
			
		

> There is NO gay gene or genetic predisposition that makes a person a sodomite.
> 
> It is a choice. A sick choice, but a still a choice


Oh?  So when did you choose?


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Oct 3, 2009)

i accidently inferred i was against gay marriage, at this time. I am in support of it.

second, people elect people to make laws that supposedly benefit our society.

Including gays, will change the definition of marriage and potentially what kids are taught about marriage

I simply think right or wrong we should be honest about what would/would not happen if it passes.

people see to get angry though, and i can agree/disagree with anyone without being upset most the time. Key word most 



SmarterThanHick said:


> actsnoblemartin said:
> 
> 
> > people have a right to their religious and moral beliefs without being attacked, unless were stupid to them for our beliefs
> ...


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Oct 3, 2009)

actsnoblemartin said:


> i accidently inferred i was against gay marriage, at this time. I am in support of it.
> 
> second, people elect people to make laws that supposedly benefit our society.
> 
> Including gays, will change the definition of marriage and potentially what kids are taught about marriage


What are kids taught about marriage now?   and by whom?  Was there an elementary school class I missed along the way?



> people see to get angry though, and i can agree/disagree with anyone without being upset most the time. Key word most


If someone told you you were not allowed to love who you want in the same manner as everyone else, that you had no rights with regards to your loved one, and that you are generally a "sick" (as Sunni Man just said) sub-human person, I'd like to see how calm you can remain.


----------



## Oscar Wao (Oct 3, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> There is NO gay gene or genetic predisposition that makes a person a sodomite.
> 
> It is a choice. A sick choice, but a still a choice


In contrary to science, eh?

No wonder Islam's still in the 7th century.


----------



## Toro (Oct 3, 2009)

"Gays should have the right to be married.  They should have the right to be miserable just like the rest of us."

Peter Griffin.


----------



## Joe_Penalty (Oct 4, 2009)

Oscar Wao said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > There is NO gay gene or genetic predisposition that makes a person a sodomite.
> ...



So you are saying there is a gene?


----------



## Kalam (Oct 4, 2009)

Oscar Wao said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > There is NO gay gene or genetic predisposition that makes a person a sodomite.
> ...



This thread isn't about Islam. Let's keep it that way.


----------



## Kalam (Oct 4, 2009)

Joe_Penalty said:


> Oscar Wao said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...



I don't see how the existence of a gene would make homosexuality any more or less acceptable. It is what it is regardless of its causes.


----------



## Setarcos (Oct 4, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> There is NO gay gene or genetic predisposition that makes a person a sodomite.
> 
> It is a choice.


Really?

Why Gays Don't Go Extinct | LiveScience Evidence for maternally inherited factors favouring male homosexuality and promoting female fecundity  Proceedings B Gay Men in Twin Study - The New York Times Male sexuality may be decided in the womb - life - 26 June 2006 - New Scientist A linkage between DNA markers on the X chromosome and male sexual orientation -- Hamer et al. 261 (5119): 321 -- Science The Real Story on Gay Genes | Sex & Gender | DISCOVER Magazine 

See also:

Homosexual Activity Among Animals Stirs Debate Homosexual behavior in animals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Homosexuality: Against Nature? Homosexuality in Nature Homosexuality: Nature or Nurture in AllPsych Journal Homosexuality: Nature, Nurture and Compassion Nature versus Nurture: Homosexuality's Link to Biology and Society | Serendip's Exchange Nature's Homosexuality - Homosexuality, as natural as heterosexual sex - Softpedia Origin of Homosexuality? Britons, Canadians Say Nature The Natural "Crime Against Nature": Homosexual Behaviors In Animals Understanding Homosexuality: "Nature Vs. Nurture" Revisited - Associated Content List of animals displaying homosexual behavior - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Evolution myths: Natural selection cannot explain homosexuality - life - 16 April 2008 - New Scientist


----------



## KittenKoder (Oct 4, 2009)

actsnoblemartin said:


> i accidently inferred i was against gay marriage, at this time. I am in support of it.
> 
> second, people elect people to make laws that supposedly benefit our society.
> 
> ...



A legal definition is rarely the same as a true definition. Marriage won't change in definition, and kids are not really taught about marriage in school anyway.


----------



## Joe_Penalty (Oct 4, 2009)

Setarcos said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > There is NO gay gene or genetic predisposition that makes a person a sodomite.
> ...



What do you ultimately conclude about these documents?


----------



## Setarcos (Oct 4, 2009)

Joe_Penalty said:


> What do you ultimately conclude about these documents?


That there is evidence supporting genetic and/or prenatal factors in the determination of sexual preference.

It's already known that prenatal conditions can determine sex. XY females are an example of this. It follows, and the evidence also suggests, that more than simply physical sex may be determined or influenced by environmental factors in the womb, as well.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 4, 2009)

actsnoblemartin said:


> why is it, if you dont support gay marriage you must be gay, right wing, stupid, a hick, redneck, did i forget any other juvenile name calling?



Because if they can't marginalize, demonize, and dismiss their opponents, it would force them to actually discuss the issues and objections, and they can't do that.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 4, 2009)

SmarterThanHick said:


> actsnoblemartin said:
> 
> 
> > people have a right to their religious and moral beliefs without being attacked, unless were stupid to them for our beliefs
> ...



Why are YOUR beliefs affecting national law?  Why are anyone's?  Are you seriously suggesting that laws should only be passed if they run contrary to the beliefs of everyone in the country?  Or are you suggesting that only non-religious beliefs are valid for people to express in their political lives?  (I think we both know that's EXACTLY what you're suggesting.)

Seems to me the FOCUS is on marginalizing people who don't agree with you and creating a society where any belief that you don't share becomes something shameful that should be hidden away from view.



SmarterThanHick said:


> If you even add in all the religious garbage, the fear/sin/whathaveyou is NOT against marriage, but against the things people might do in marriage.  That fact that that group does those things anyway because they *can't* get married is a point that seems to be ignored completely.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This is going to shock you, but people can object to making something public policy without it having anything to do with "fear" or "sin".  When you can get over this juvenile need to demonize and dismiss, you might come to understand this issue on a level more mature than "You don't agree with me, so you're a stupid poophead."

I won't hold my breath, though.


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 4, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Because if they can't marginalize, demonize, and dismiss their opponents, it would force them to actually discuss the issues and objections, and they can't do that.



I'll discuss the issues and objections. Go for it....if you can...


----------



## ABikerSailor (Oct 4, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> actsnoblemartin said:
> 
> 
> > why is it, if you dont support gay marriage you must be gay, right wing, stupid, a hick, redneck, did i forget any other juvenile name calling?
> ...



Interestingly enough, the anti-gay crowd likes to demonize (gays are pedophiles), marginalize (gays don't need rights, it's a choice), and dismiss (gays don't count) them. 

Most of the Christian conservatives are incapable of actually discussing the issues and objections as well as the science.


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 4, 2009)

Chirp....


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Oct 4, 2009)

my beliefs are well documented as this time.

Perhaps an argument is stupid, but it doesnt make our political opponents stupid

I believe that those like my best friend, for religions reasons, ethical and moral reasons who believe homosexuality to be a sin are not bad or stupid people

They are trying to preserve traditional marriage, as they believe that is the right thing to do.

Whats right can be very subjective.

as for me, im not opposed to same sex marriage or homosexuals/homosexuality at this time.



Cecilie1200 said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> > actsnoblemartin said:
> ...


----------



## dilloduck (Oct 4, 2009)

Glad to hear it, Marty !


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Oct 4, 2009)

actsnoblemartin said:


> Perhaps an argument is stupid, but it doesnt make our political opponents stupid
> 
> I believe that those like my best friend, for religions reasons, ethical and moral reasons who believe homosexuality to be a sin are not bad or stupid people


see that last sentence is what really makes them stupid (using your word choice).  if you (your friends) want to practice their own ignorant religious beliefs, be my guest.  Just don't claim those religious teachings are a national and political right.


----------



## Sunni Man (Oct 4, 2009)

actsnoblemartin said:


> as for me, im not opposed to same sex marriage or homosexuals/homosexuality at this time.



You seem to a good person and I respect you frankness Actsnoblemartin.

Just as long as you don't join their team.  

Because their long term health plan isn't very good.

(In fact, it's more like a short term death plan. Given the AIDS and other diseases they infect each other with)


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Oct 4, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> (In fact, it's more like a short term death plan. Given the AIDS and other diseases they infect each other with)


actually, we're able to treat aids like a chronic infection now - the available drugs are quite good.  you might wanna update your info, seeing as it's 2 decades old.


----------



## Sunni Man (Oct 4, 2009)

SmarterThanHick said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > (In fact, it's more like a short term death plan. Given the AIDS and other diseases they infect each other with)
> ...



You make AIDS sound like the common cold.  

"Just get plenty of rest and drink alot of fluids" 

I looked it up. The last stats were 14,561 deaths in 2007 from AIDS  

That doesn't count all of the people who were in a hospice close to death that year.

Or, all of the people who can't work and are on disibility because of the disease.

Maybe 14,561 deaths doesn't sound like much to you SmarterThanHick

But, I bet it's far worse than any chronic infection to the people dying of it.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Oct 4, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> You make AIDS sound like the common cold.
> 
> I looked it up. The last stats were 14,561 deaths in 2007 from AIDS



cold?  no.  flu?  probably, seeing as about double the number of Americans die from the flu every year than AIDS.

The point still remains: the antiretroviral regimens we have today for hiv are drastically better than previous decades.  While I don't mean to infer that makes infection a good thing by any regard, it does mean you shouldn't wildly take things out of perspective.

All people, regardless of sexual or gender identity should exercise safe practices.  Heterosexuality does not make you immune to hiv.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Oct 4, 2009)

I wouldn't say that it's like living with the common cold Sunnidiot.

I'd say it's more like living with herpes, as you would have to take medication constantly, and pay close attention to your health.

Interestingly enough, we hear about the Christian right wanting to segregate and lock up gays because of the infection rates of AIDS, yet we hear nothing about locking up the heteros with herpes.

Double standard perhaps?


----------



## rdean (Oct 4, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...



You can't just look at AIDS, you have to look at all STDs.  Why?  Because the rate is growing in the heterosexual community.  The statistics you see now in other states, is where you will see the most AIDS in just a few more years.  It's going to happen.  It's unavoidable.  Then, no one can say it's a "gay" disease.

Texas Citizens for Science


----------



## Sunni Man (Oct 4, 2009)

AIDS will always be known as the gay disease.

Homos were the first to spread it. So it will always be associated with them.

Plus, stats show that homo AIDS is still far greater, than AIDS among normal people.


----------



## Sunni Man (Oct 4, 2009)

SmarterThanHick said:


> seeing as about double the number of Americans die from the flu every year than AIDS.


Very dishonost and misleading statement. 

But heck, what should I expect comming from you.

The flu can affect all Americans. From babies to the elerdy, A huge pool of potential victims.

Whereas, AIDS is mainly spread among certain demographics and age/gender groups. (With some exceptions, ie. prenatal, transfusions, etc.)


----------



## Setarcos (Oct 4, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> This is going to shock you, but people can object to making something public policy without it having anything to do with "fear" or "sin". .




Not really.All things made illegal are pretty much made illegal for fear that someone might act against the members of the population.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Oct 4, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> AIDS will always be known as the gay disease.
> 
> Homos were the first to spread it. So it will always be associated with them.
> 
> ...



Yeah......but the largest population of AIDS cases is that of African American males.http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/us.htm

Should we quarantine and lock them up as well?


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Oct 4, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> Very dishonost and misleading statement.
> 
> But heck, what should I expect comming from you.


If you think the numbers are wrong, by all means point out where.  I got my numbers from the US Center of Disease Control.  Claiming I'm wrong and then making underhanded remarks about it only points to your immaturity, not that I was incorrect.



> The flu can affect all Americans. From babies to the elerdy, A huge pool of potential victims.
> 
> Whereas, AIDS is mainly spread among certain demographics and age/gender groups. (With some exceptions, ie. prenatal, transfusions, etc.)


Oh so, EXCEPT for when it affects all those other people, it only affects certain people.  Gotcha.  So what's your point?  HIV is being spread among all people now, regardless of sexual preference.  The thing that's in common with all transmission cases is NOT homosexuality, it's lack of barrier safe sex practices.  

Your original claim that is is homosexual only is invalid.
Your secondary claim that it kills masses is outdated and invalid.
Your attempt at refutation is ignorant and invalid.

Let me know if you'd like to make a point that has actual supporting evidence.


----------



## Sunni Man (Oct 4, 2009)

California Homosexual Organization Admits HIV/AIDS is "Gay Disease"

By Gudrun Schultz

LOS ANGELES, California, October 4, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) &#8211; The Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center has abandoned a long-held homosexual activist contention by declaring on billboards posted throughout Southern California that HIV/AIDS is a &#8220;gay disease.&#8221; 

According to a report by the Los Angeles Times, the Center is trying to address rapidly increasing HIV infection rates among the homosexual population by rallying the gay community to increasing vigilance against exposure to the disease. Activists for the homosexual lifestyle have, until this current development, strongly, and sometimes vehemently refused to admit that the disease is predominantly generated among homosexual men.

The ad campaign, which is also running in magazines, is in part a response to the findings of public health officials, who have noted that three out of four cases of HIV infections are found in men who engage in homosexual activity, the United Press International reported.

In 2005 US health officials reported an alarming eight percent increase in HIV infection rates in one year alone among homosexual and bisexual men. The Center for Disease Control also warned that a survey of 15-29 year old men who engaged in homosexual activity &#8220;reported that the proportion of unrecognized HIV infection was as high as 77 %.&#8221;

A report by the Public Health Agency of Canada, released in August 2006, revealed a sharp increase in HIV/AIDS infections, with 51 percent of infections found in men engaging in homosexual activity.

California Homosexual Organization Admits HIV/AIDS is "Gay Disease"


----------



## froggy (Oct 4, 2009)

face it we're living in ungodly times the begining of the end is drawing near but good news god loves you and wants you to be saved just believe that his son jesus christ died for you and confess your sin and he will now you've been told the rest is in your hands.


----------



## KittenKoder (Oct 4, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> AIDS will always be known as the gay disease.
> 
> Homos were the first to spread it. So it will always be associated with them.
> 
> Plus, stats show that homo AIDS is still far greater, than AIDS among normal people.



You really are uneducated, the straight people in Africa were and are actually the majority infected with AIDS.


----------



## KittenKoder (Oct 4, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> > seeing as about double the number of Americans die from the flu every year than AIDS.
> ...



No. AIDS can spread to anyone, and more easily than you seem to understand. Learn a bit more about it before you wind up killing people with your ignorance.


----------



## Setarcos (Oct 4, 2009)

AIDS Surveillance - General Epidemiology | Slide Sets | Statistics and Surveillance | Topics | CDC HIV/AIDS


----------



## Sunni Man (Oct 4, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > AIDS will always be known as the gay disease.
> ...


I havn't been to Africa

All of my posts were about America.

But if I ever do go to Africa, I'll tell them what you said KK


----------



## Sunni Man (Oct 4, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> No. AIDS can spread to anyone, and more easily than you seem to understand. Learn a bit more about it before you wind up killing people with your ignorance.



How am I going to kill people???


----------



## KittenKoder (Oct 4, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > No. AIDS can spread to anyone, and more easily than you seem to understand. Learn a bit more about it before you wind up killing people with your ignorance.
> ...



1. You will likely never get tested thinking you are unlikely to get it, in spite of the fact that it spreads through vaginal intercourse or anal intercourse (which can be straight as well) just as easily as with someone of the same sex. Even oral sex can spread it.

2. You will likely misinform any young person who is unlucky enough to ask you about it.

3. It would not surprise me if you do not already have it.

Parents can spread it to their offspring as well. You can get it from any needle, even at a doctor's office if the doc is a complete moron (many are). Many straight people sleep around ... a *lot* ... and unless they use protection every time there is a very high chance they can get the disease.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Oct 4, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > No. AIDS can spread to anyone, and more easily than you seem to understand. Learn a bit more about it before you wind up killing people with your ignorance.
> ...



IF as you are fond of telling everyone, someone really IS a doctor in your family, then I'd suggest that you talk about how easily it is spread, and then ask about the ignorant things people who know nothing about AIDS, spread as gospel.

That is what she means by killing people with your ignorance.

Sunnidiot, you really are a fucking 'tard.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Oct 5, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> California Homosexual Organization Admits HIV/AIDS is "Gay Disease"
> 
> California Homosexual Organization Admits HIV/AIDS is "Gay Disease"


Oh good, you're citing a website known for religious fanaticism and fabricating stories as your basis, because one gay person in the world may or may not have said hiv was a "gay disease".

right.  no, that's perfectly valid.  yeah.... 




Sunni Man said:


> I havn't been to Africa
> 
> All of my posts were about America.


Oh I see, so by "gay disease" you meant "gay American disease" as you're clearly not looking at any other part of the world.  Right.


----------



## Setarcos (Oct 5, 2009)

Sunni Man reminds me of the last few episodes of Sinfest


----------



## Sunni Man (Oct 5, 2009)

Oh, I see.

When all of your positions have been defeated.

Just fall back, and post cartoons.

I guess it's your version of a white flag.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Oct 5, 2009)

You know Sunnidiot........that cartoon makes more sense than 98 percent of your posts on this message board.

Just come out of the closet already dude........you'll feel better about yourself.


----------



## Sunni Man (Oct 5, 2009)

For some reason you think I am bigoted and intolerant of homosexuals.

Although I am opposed to gay marriage,

I completely support homos having all of the random unprotected sex with as many multiple partners as they want.


----------



## AnCo (Oct 5, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> For some reason you think I am bigoted and intolerant of homosexuals.
> 
> Although I am opposed to gay marriage,
> 
> I completely support homos having all of the random unprotected sex with as many multiple partners as they want.




You're a fucking idiot.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Oct 5, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> For some reason you think I am bigoted and intolerant of homosexuals.
> 
> Although I am opposed to gay marriage,
> 
> I completely support homos having all of the random unprotected sex with as many multiple partners as they want.



Okay..........lemmie ask you a question........

Would you have a gay couple over to your house for dinner and a visit?


----------



## logical4u (Oct 5, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > For some reason you think I am bigoted and intolerant of homosexuals.
> ...



Not in this conversation, but your question reminded me of one I recieved when I was in Florida.  I was asked, aren't you being judgemental about not wanting to hang with cheaters (people that cheat on their spouse)?

I considered for a minute and responded, I prefer no games, I don't want to be put in a position where I am asked to lie (either thru implication or directly) to protect someone's secrets.  I would rather spend my time with people that don't cause my family additional stress by trying to remember what we can and can't say, how we can and can't act.  It is a matter of preference.  I would be very uncomfortable having someone come to my house that I disagree with their personal life choices (and that includes my sister, that is not homosexual, she just isn't right).


----------



## ABikerSailor (Oct 5, 2009)

Cheaters have a choice.  Gay people don't, as it's genetic.


----------



## Sunni Man (Oct 5, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> Cheaters have a choice.  Gay people don't, as it's genetic.


There is NO gay gene

Homosexuality is a choice.


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Oct 5, 2009)

is anyone gonna post proof their is or is not a gay gene?

put of shut up, both of y'all


----------



## Sunni Man (Oct 5, 2009)

Kind of hard to prove a negative.

So the ball is in their court


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Oct 5, 2009)

tell me exactly why you cant post an article saying no gay gene?



Sunni Man said:


> Kind of hard to prove a negative.
> 
> So the ball is in their court


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Oct 5, 2009)

every society fights about what is right, meaning what makes good political policy. Its very subjective, but to call those who disagree with you stupid. Im sorry I see that as a slippery slope which is why I try to respect liberals and others.



SmarterThanHick said:


> actsnoblemartin said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps an argument is stupid, but it doesnt make our political opponents stupid
> ...


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Oct 5, 2009)

I respect your honesty as well. I dont think its important whether I agree with you, or frankly anyone else on this board. I think its more important to be civil, and remember were all americans first, political people second



Sunni Man said:


> actsnoblemartin said:
> 
> 
> > as for me, im not opposed to same sex marriage or homosexuals/homosexuality at this time.
> ...


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Oct 5, 2009)

May I have a link please?

Thank You



SmarterThanHick said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > You make AIDS sound like the common cold.
> ...


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Oct 5, 2009)

link please

and herpes is very different from other diseases.

aids can get other diseases because of your weak immune system

and can i a link, cause i dont believe the religious right since the early to late eighties has suggested segregating anybody



ABikerSailor said:


> I wouldn't say that it's like living with the common cold Sunnidiot.
> 
> I'd say it's more like living with herpes, as you would have to take medication constantly, and pay close attention to your health.
> 
> ...


----------



## Sunni Man (Oct 5, 2009)

Listen, if the scientists ever come out and said that they have positively and unequivocally isolated a gay gene.

It would be front page news in every news paper in the world.

The TV news would be talking about it 24/7

The Gay Pride people would have huge marches with signs saying, "We told you so"!!!!

And I would post an apology to all the fudge packers on every board I have posted.


But, scientists have NOT, I repeat NOT, found a gay gene. 

So that leaves homosexuality as a choice, a sick choice, but still a choice.


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Oct 5, 2009)

two different arguments.

Argument A: You cant impose your religious beliefs on gays

Argument B:  you cant impose your secular beliefs on religious people

Bottom Line: Your both fighting for what you think is right, and i not gonna name call or demonize either side.

Second: Gay people deserving basic protections such as seeing their loved one when sick, getting housing without discrimination, and being able to leave inheritance are far different or not the same as creating a new right, one never enjoyed by gay people, to be married, which will change the definition/institution of marriage, which was arguably given to us by god.

But then again, I could be wrong 

so what do you think?


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Oct 5, 2009)

my dilemma is that I truly believe God: Hashem, Jesus, And Allah are against homosexuality.

I believe in some ways Im going against god, by condoning homosexuality/gay marriage.

on the other hand, I like gay people. They are a very accepting community. I volunteered for 5 months off and on with my local pride, and I want them to have the same basic rights

So do I tell god he is wrong, and accept gays or do I accept god's word without question

im honestly jealous of everyone on the board, cause this question seems easier for everyone else


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Oct 5, 2009)

my own personal Un-Biased research

Here is the link I started at

Google

the most up to date link I could find was May 14th 2009

APA revises 'gay gene' theory (OneNewsNow.com)

APA revises 'gay gene' theory

Charlie Butts - OneNewsNow - 5/14/2009 6:30:00 AM

The attempt to prove that homosexuality is determined biologically has been dealt a knockout punch. An American Psychological Association publication includes an admission that there's no homosexual "gene" -- meaning it's not likely that homosexuals are born that way.

 For decades, the APA has not considered homosexuality a psychological disorder, while other professionals in the field consider it to be a "gender-identity" problem. But the new statement, which appears in a brochure called "Answers to Your Questions for a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality," states the following:

"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles...."



Sunni Man said:


> Listen, if the scientists ever come out and say that they have positively isolated a gay gene.
> 
> It would be front page news in every news paper in the world.
> 
> ...


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Oct 5, 2009)

Sunni Man

For the Evidence Says NO Gay Gene


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Oct 5, 2009)

I believe god gave us free will to be good or bad, in anything.

See that knife, why would god give you a choice to use it to stab someone when he could give the choice to use it save someone's life as a doctor

I dont know whether gays or born that way, or choose that way.

What I do know is, I feel sympathy for them because they have a harder life then I do as a heterosexual.



Peanut said:


> If God gave humans free choice and some "chose" to be gay (let's just say for this argument that you're not born gay), then why would god be against something he gave you free will to choose?


----------



## Sunni Man (Oct 5, 2009)

Peanut said:


> If God gave humans free choice and some "chose" to be gay (let's just say for this argument that you're not born gay), then why would god be against something he gave you free will to choose?



People choose to sin.

It is a choice.

Rapists choose to rape.

Child molesters choose to molest children.

Gays choose to defile themselves and go against God.

Just as a person can choose to be a thief and rob people or be an honest person.

Everyone get's to make choices in life.

Some chose right and God's way.

Others choose to sin and go against God.

It's really very simple


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Oct 5, 2009)

do you have a point, or you just like to laugh 



Peanut said:


> actsnoblemartin said:
> 
> 
> > I believe god gave us free will to be good or bad, in anything.
> ...


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Oct 5, 2009)

I disagree, everything we do has an effect on others.

How we interact with family, friends, and even strangers, has an effect on us and them

second: relationships (both hetero and homo) have a  good or bad impact on our families and friends, unless on the small chance, the girlfriend or boyfriend of the same or different sex partner never meets the family or friends, which is quite hard to believe would never happen.

third: sexuality is a very spiritual thing, its not just sex, although some want to pretend it is, and the risk of potential or actual diseases doesnt stay in a bubble, (again this is for hetero or homo relations/relationships)

Nothing we ever do is truly ever in a bubble



Peanut said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > Peanut said:
> ...


----------



## Sunni Man (Oct 5, 2009)

A nice post and so very true Actsnoblemartin


----------



## eagleseven (Oct 5, 2009)

actsnoblemartin said:


> What I do know is, I feel sympathy for them because they have a harder life then I do as a heterosexual.


Largely thanks to people like Sunni Man here...


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Oct 5, 2009)

you dont know the first thing about me. 

Second: the real hate is coming from you. This venamous, mean-spirited, un-civil. Not even an attempt at political discourse, but character assasination

I saw a lot of this, when I volunteered for my local pride off and on for 5 months.

I find it sad that the people who tell me im hateful, are the ones spewing the hate.

Its the same people  calling me a racist, for not supporting obama's policies.

Sad. 

Different Issue

Same Tactic



Peanut said:


> With a doofus looking avatar and hate in your heart like you have martin, I sure hope you're not having reproductive sex.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 5, 2009)

rdean said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > SmarterThanHick said:
> ...



Speaking of something that's twenty years out-of-date . . . haven't we been hearing that "soon most of the AIDS cases will be heterosexual, so you can't say it's a 'gay' disease" line almost since AIDS was first known, and it still hasn't happened.  The left had to invent an epidemic of heterosexual AIDS in Africa to cover up the fact that it didn't happen.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 5, 2009)

logical4u said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...



In other words, you're being judgemental about not wanting to hang with people who cheat on their spouses.  And what the hell's wrong with that?  I'm judgemental about all sorts of bad behavior that makes people unpleasant to be around, and I'm damned proud of my discernment and strength of character in so doing.

"Judgemental" is only pejorative to those who want to make a virtue of being indecisive and spineless.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 5, 2009)

actsnoblemartin said:


> link please
> 
> and herpes is very different from other diseases.
> 
> ...



Personally, if I had full-blown AIDS, I would want to be segregated in one of those little hermetically-sealed bubble things they use for kids born without immune systems.  Wandering around picking up germs my body can't fight off seems crazy to me.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Oct 5, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Speaking of something that's twenty years out-of-date . . . haven't we been hearing that "soon most of the AIDS cases will be heterosexual, so you can't say it's a 'gay' disease" line almost since AIDS was first known


no? you've been hearing about it since it's been picking up in heterosexuals.



			
				Cecilie said:
			
		

> The left had to invent an epidemic of heterosexual AIDS in Africa to cover up the fact that it didn't happen.


oh good, another wacked conspiracy theorist.  yes, all those people in Africa are just some government ploy.  Or perhaps you believe that the US government went to Africa and spread the AIDS via crop duster just to ensure the story was straight? about one in four men with hiv is straight, and about 3 in 4 women are straight.


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Oct 5, 2009)

It seems women are getting aids predominently from heterosexual activities, and men are getting it more from homosexual activity.

I dont think aids is a gay or straight disease, and its misguided to blame gays for aids.

we need a cure, even if 99 our of 100 gays were getting the disease, because we should value human life, period


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Oct 5, 2009)

correction: it's 15% male transmission from heterosexual acts, and another 14% from IV drug use.  in females, it's 74% from heterosexual acts
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/slides/epidemiology/slides/EPI-AIDS_10.pdf


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Oct 5, 2009)

Thank You. I was having trouble finding the most up to date facts on aids.

Yes, you are correct, its predominently in females, from heterosexual activies.

I wonder why its still so high from homosexual activity in men



SmarterThanHick said:


> correction: it's 15% male transmission from heterosexual acts, and another 14% from IV drug use.  in females, it's 74% from heterosexual acts
> http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/slides/epidemiology/slides/EPI-AIDS_10.pdf


----------



## Sunni Man (Oct 5, 2009)

Females mainly contract the disease from bi-homo males


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Oct 5, 2009)

because of all the transfer methods of sexual practices, it's actually hardest for men to pick it up with vaginal intercourse (not that it's difficult, but just relative compared to the others)


----------



## eagleseven (Oct 5, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> The left had to invent an epidemic of heterosexual AIDS in Africa to cover up the fact that it didn't happen.


And how did they _invent _the epidemic in Africa, as that is where HIV originated?






As you can see, the vast majority of AIDS victims are in Africa, where over 20% of the population in certain countries are infected. People in southern Africa were dying from HIV for decades before western science identified the virus.

Not one of your brighter statements, Cecillie...


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Oct 5, 2009)

you are correct, I always wondered why that was, but i have heard the same so you are correct.



SmarterThanHick said:


> because of all the transfer methods of sexual practices, it's actually hardest for men to pick it up with vaginal intercourse (not that it's difficult, but just relative compared to the others)


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Oct 5, 2009)

Their is an interesting fundamental question

are gays men made that way, do you have a choice to whom your attracted to.

I'd like to hear some thoughts on this. 

And ill give my opinion later


----------



## maineman (Oct 5, 2009)

actsnoblemartin said:


> Their is an interesting fundamental question
> 
> are gays men made that way, do you have a choice to whom your attracted to.
> 
> ...



why in the world would anyone CHOOSE to endure the social ostracism that befalls homosexuals in America?


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Oct 5, 2009)

I dont know, what are peoples motivations to do anything?

for example, gay men that are effeminate, do they choose that way, or is that in their dna

what makes some gay men more masculine and some more effiminite

I wonder



maineman said:


> actsnoblemartin said:
> 
> 
> > Their is an interesting fundamental question
> ...


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 5, 2009)

actsnoblemartin said:


> two different arguments.
> 
> Argument A: You cant impose your religious beliefs on gays
> 
> ...



What I think is that you're waving a red herring around.  "Seeing their loved ones when they're sick"?  What hospital are you going to, with a maitre'd, bouncer, and velvet ropes?  Hospital I always go to when I'm sick, you can pretty much wander in and visit complete strangers if you're of a mind to.  Nobody pays any attention to you as long as you behave yourself.

"Getting housing without discrimination"?  Homosexuals are being refused housing and forced to live in ghettos, are they?  Last time I checked, it was already illegal to discriminate in housing.

"Being able to leave inheritance"?  It's called a will.  Little old ladies leave their fortunes to their cats all the time.  I see nothing stopping homosexuals from having wills specifying any inheritance breakdown they like.  Indeed, having a will is recommended even for married heterosexuals, unless one likes lengthening and complicating the probate process for one's family and friends.  Only a damned fool sails along blithely expecting "we're married" to handle everything in the event of death.


----------



## Sunni Man (Oct 5, 2009)

It is a learned behavior to act like an effiminate homo.

Just as there is no gay gene, There is no homo DNA


----------



## Modbert (Oct 5, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Speaking of something that's twenty years out-of-date . . . haven't we been hearing that "soon most of the AIDS cases will be heterosexual, so you can't say it's a 'gay' disease" line almost since AIDS was first known, and it still hasn't happened. * The left had to invent an epidemic of heterosexual AIDS in Africa to cover up the fact that it didn't happen*.



That just may top RGS's "people who commit suicide aren't looking for help" comment earlier in the week for stupidest comment all year.

Congratulations on being batshit insane.


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 5, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> It is a learned behavior to act like an effiminate homo.
> 
> Just as there is no gay gene, There is no homo DNA



Oh, so all those buff, good-looking gay guys are attracted to women, but like banging guys? Sure...


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 5, 2009)

actsnoblemartin said:


> my dilemma is that I truly believe God: Hashem, Jesus, And Allah are against homosexuality.
> 
> I believe in some ways Im going against god, by condoning homosexuality/gay marriage.
> 
> ...



I'm curious.  Do you always think that liking someone means you have to agree with everything they do, say, and think, and that you have to support them when they're doing something you think is wrong?

I have many friends who are homosexual or bisexual, as well as transsexual and transgendered.  I like them very much.  I don't consider that the point here.


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Oct 5, 2009)

perhaps I am mistaken. When I volunteered with the local gay pride office, they said gays were not able to see their partners when they got sick.

Ill take your word, on the housing. Because it is illegal to discriminate, and i thought you couldnt leave money in a will, but i guess im wrong

my bad



Cecilie1200 said:


> actsnoblemartin said:
> 
> 
> > two different arguments.
> ...


----------



## dilloduck (Oct 5, 2009)

actsnoblemartin said:


> perhaps I am mistaken. When I volunteered with the local gay pride office, they said gays were not able to see their partners when they got sick.
> 
> Ill take your word, on the housing. Because it is illegal to discriminate, and i thought you couldnt leave money in a will, but i guess im wrong
> 
> ...



Make that wrong AGAIN, Marty.


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Oct 5, 2009)

do they know how you feel about their homosexuality?

does it cause any friction?

curious



Cecilie1200 said:


> actsnoblemartin said:
> 
> 
> > my dilemma is that I truly believe God: Hashem, Jesus, And Allah are against homosexuality.
> ...


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Oct 5, 2009)

about what?

point it out, and if your right ill apologize.

I make mistakes, im human.

I try not to make mistakes, but i have good days and bad days.



dilloduck said:


> actsnoblemartin said:
> 
> 
> > perhaps I am mistaken. When I volunteered with the local gay pride office, they said gays were not able to see their partners when they got sick.
> ...


----------



## hjmick (Oct 5, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...



Seriously? You want to go with that? A lot of people are going to read that, maybe you want to edit it or something...


----------



## Modbert (Oct 5, 2009)

hjmick said:


> Seriously? You want to go with that? A lot of people are going to read that, maybe you want to edit it or something...



Too late for that:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-f...ie-right-on-this-statement-poll-enclosed.html


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 5, 2009)

Peanut said:


> If God gave humans free choice and some "chose" to be gay (let's just say for this argument that you're not born gay), then why would god be against something he gave you free will to choose?



So your position is that since God didn't make us into mindless puppets and gave us the ability to make bad choices, that means that He must approve of any and every action we can take?  You figure God is a big proponent of things like murder, rape, and child abuse, do you?

Have you always been a peabrained dumbfuck, or did you have a special operation just for this occasion?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 5, 2009)

Peanut said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > Peanut said:
> ...



I must have missed the "have a good heart and do whatever floats your boat" gospel.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 5, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> So your position is that since God didn't make us into mindless puppets and gave us the ability to *make bad choices*, that means that He must approve of any and every action we can take?  You figure God is a big proponent of things like murder, rape, and child abuse, do you?
> 
> Have you always been a peabrained dumbfuck, or did you have a special operation just for this occasion?



Going for the gold tonight? Saying that Homosexuality is a bad choice. Comparing Homosexuality to Murder, Rape, and Child Abuse?


----------



## eagleseven (Oct 5, 2009)

maineman said:


> why in the world would anyone CHOOSE to endure the social ostracism that befalls homosexuals in America?



Like any other underground subculture, because it's _fun_.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Oct 5, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> Homosexuality is a choice.


I've asked before and I don't think I got a response:  did you choose to be heterosexual?  You had a choice?



Sunni Man said:


> scientists have NOT, I repeat NOT, found a gay gene.
> 
> So that leaves homosexuality as a choice


Your logic seems impaired (again).  Why is it that if it's not genetic, it is a matter of simple choice?  What about environmental factors?  What about a mix between nature, nurture, and conscious decision making?  Why is it that if it's not one thing, it must be the thing you hate the most?




actsnoblemartin said:


> Second: Gay people deserving basic protections such as seeing their loved one when sick, getting housing without discrimination, and being able to leave inheritance are far different or not the same as creating a new right, one never enjoyed by gay people, to be married, which will change the definition/institution of marriage, which was arguably given to us by god.


these are excellent points.  OK sunni - even with your bigotry, would you deny someone from seeing their gay lover if they were in the hospital?  Would you remove such rights?  Do you feel there should be housing discrimination for the gay community?  Are you so blind with hatred that your response to despising their actions results in negative actions of your own?


----------



## eagleseven (Oct 5, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > So your position is that since God didn't make us into mindless puppets and gave us the ability to *make bad choices*, that means that He must approve of any and every action we can take?  You figure God is a big proponent of things like murder, rape, and child abuse, do you?
> ...


What's the harm?

She already lost my respect with the _"liberals invented the AIDS epidemic in Africa"_ line.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 5, 2009)

eagleseven said:


> What's the harm?
> 
> She already lost my respect with the _"liberals invented the AIDS epidemic in Africa"_ line.



Well not only did she dig her own grave, now she's throwing the dirt on top herself.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 5, 2009)

SmarterThanHick said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Speaking of something that's twenty years out-of-date . . . haven't we been hearing that "soon most of the AIDS cases will be heterosexual, so you can't say it's a 'gay' disease" line almost since AIDS was first known
> ...



Nice try, but no.  Leftists have been telling us scare stories about heterosexual AIDS epidemics since Reagan was President, and it still stubbornly insists on clinging to high risk-behavior groups, of which homosexual males are one.

And there's no "conspiracy theory" involved, dumbass.  Just common sense and logic.  The only "wacked conspiracy theorist" here is you, leaping to "government ploy" when I said exactly two things about the government:  jack and shit.  I said "leftist", not government, fool, so try to at least PRETEND to read the posts before spouting off, okay?

What I believe, and the evidence bears me out, is that most of the so-called "AIDS cases" in Africa are, in fact, people suffering from other diseases entirely and being misdiagnosed as having AIDS to serve a political agenda.  All it takes is the willingness to pull your head out of your ass - which I assume is where the entire exercise lost you - and read the relevant documents.

http://www.who.int/hiv/strategic/en/bangui1985report.pdf

WHO Weekly Epidemiological Record, No. 10, March 7, 1986


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 5, 2009)

actsnoblemartin said:


> It seems women are getting aids predominently from heterosexual activities, and men are getting it more from homosexual activity.
> 
> I dont think aids is a gay or straight disease, and its misguided to blame gays for aids.
> 
> we need a cure, even if 99 our of 100 gays were getting the disease, because we should value human life, period



Yup.  This is because women are very likely to get AIDS from a husband or boyfriend who is secretly engaging in high-risk behavior.

It's not a matter of "blame", dear.  It's matter of knowing what you're dealing with and being honest about it, precisely because one does not find treatments and cures by lying to oneself about the disease in question.  Trying to pretend that homosexual activity doesn't put you at a high risk for HIV so that you don't "blame" homosexuals is like pretending smoking doesn't put you at high risk for lung cancer so that you don't "blame" smokers.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 5, 2009)

actsnoblemartin said:


> Thank You. I was having trouble finding the most up to date facts on aids.
> 
> Yes, you are correct, its predominently in females, from heterosexual activies.
> 
> ...



Because the membranes in the anus are highly conductive.  That's one reason that anal suppositories are very popular methods for introducing medication into the body.  Also, homosexual sex often tears the membranes, making open wounds for germs to then enter.  I'm not sure, but I think IV drug users are also more often male than female.  And, of course, lesbian sex generally does not include flesh-to-flesh penetration or the introduction of one person's bodily fluids into the body of the other person.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 5, 2009)

SmarterThanHick said:


> because of all the transfer methods of sexual practices, it's actually hardest for men to pick it up with vaginal intercourse (not that it's difficult, but just relative compared to the others)



I think that's because men with open wounds on their genitals are unlikely to feel like having sex, which in turn makes it difficult for germs present in the woman's body to enter the man's.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 5, 2009)

eagleseven said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > The left had to invent an epidemic of heterosexual AIDS in Africa to cover up the fact that it didn't happen.
> ...



Actually, there's still a lot of argument about where it originated, at least among medical professionals.  The general public, of course, hears a story repeated a few times and blithely accepts it as truth and goes on with it.

And yes, showing me a map repeating the story that there are lots of AIDS cases in Africa certainly proves the story that there are lots of AIDS cases in Africa . . . oh, wait.  It doesn't, any more than YOU repeating it proves it.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Oct 5, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Nice try, but no.  Leftists have been telling us scare stories about heterosexual AIDS epidemics since Reagan was President, and it still stubbornly insists on clinging to high risk-behavior groups, of which homosexual males are one.


And, if it wasn't the government, who are these mysterious "leftists" you mention?  Source?  Anything?



			
				Cecilia said:
			
		

> I said "leftist", not government, fool, so try to at least PRETEND to read the posts before spouting off, okay?


Oh I see, it wasn't bit bad government plotting the conspiracy, it was the evil leftists!  They all got together 20 years ago and tried to figure out how best to screw with Zuul.



			
				Ceclia said:
			
		

> What I believe, and the evidence bears me out, is that most of the so-called "AIDS cases" in Africa are, in fact, people suffering from other diseases entirely and being misdiagnosed as having AIDS to serve a political agenda.
> 
> WHO Weekly Epidemiological Record, No. 10, March 7, 1986


The evidence.... where?  You mean that article from over two decades ago when our knowledge of hiv was miniscule?  Or you mean the rapid blood tests we can do today that very quickly and accurately identify hiv markers?  Please, put forth this "evidence".


----------



## eagleseven (Oct 5, 2009)

For an alternative perspective, or _"Why would anyone ever choose to be homosexual?"_:

1. There is a serious danger element, and danger is exciting. For many gay and bisexual men, they have family and/or friends who would likely be shocked at their orientation, and for some, it might even be career-ending (Larry Craig). For these men, choosing homosexuality is much like skydiving -- a massive thrill.

2. The underground homosexual community provides the same sense of belonging and intrigue as secret societies and organizations like the Free Masons. Even with today's gay-friendly media, a large portion of the subculture remains out of the public spotlight.

3. For whatever reason, said bisexual man finds it easier to bond and relate with men than women. Backstab a closeted bisexual enough, and he may just switch teams.

4. Said person is genuinely anti-conformist, and few behaviors still carry a stigma like male-male homosexual relationships. It's the one rebellious activity you won't find people doing on the MTV music awards.

5. Said person unintentionally falls in love with a same-sex friend, and finds his feelings overwhelm his rationality at an inopportune moment (likely when drunk).


Things to think about...


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 5, 2009)

actsnoblemartin said:


> you are correct, I always wondered why that was, but i have heard the same so you are correct.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



HIV/AIDS is what is known as a "bloodborne pathogen", which means it is conveyed by contact of infected blood or other bodily fluids with an open wound.  If, for example, a doctor gave a shot to a patient with HIV/AIDS and then accidentally stuck his finger with the used needle, he would be at risk for contracting HIV/AIDS himself.  This is why intravenous drug users, like heroin addicts for example, are a high risk group.

Homosexual men are a high risk group because homosexual sex is invasive by definition, and because it frequently results in tearing of the anal membranes.  Also, as I mentioned in an earlier post, the anal membranes are very conductive, absorbing things very easily, which is why anal suppositories are a very popular method of introducing medicine into the body.

On the other hand, a man contracting germs from a woman's body would pretty require that he have an open wound on his genitals for the germs to pass through.  A man with an open wound on his genitals probably doesn't feel much like having sex, and the woman probably isn't going to be all that turned on by it, either.


----------



## eagleseven (Oct 5, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> eagleseven said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


Is the World Health Organization part of this _grand liberal conspiracy_? 

WHO | Global Health Observatory | Map Gallery


----------



## Modbert (Oct 5, 2009)

eagleseven said:


> Is the World Health Organization part of this _grand liberal conspiracy_?
> 
> WHO | Global Health Observatory | Map Gallery



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBXyB7niEc0]YouTube - gooble gobble[/ame]


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 5, 2009)

maineman said:


> actsnoblemartin said:
> 
> 
> > Their is an interesting fundamental question
> ...



Yeah, because people never choose to be victims.  Women never choose abusive husbands, minorities don't choose to waste their lives in poverty, bitching about how "the man" is keeping them down, deaf people don't choose to forego operations to restore their hearing . . . human beings NEVER choose things that are bad for them and make them miserable.


----------



## eagleseven (Oct 5, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> On the other hand, a man contracting germs from a woman's body would pretty require that he have an open wound on his genitals for the germs to pass through.  A man with an open wound on his genitals probably doesn't feel much like having sex, and the woman probably isn't going to be all that turned on by it, either.



Shaving your pubic hair creates plenty of micro-cuts that are large enough to allow the transmission of HIV. If both partners regularly shave, they are putting themselves at a greater risk for all viral STIs.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 5, 2009)

actsnoblemartin said:


> I dont know, what are peoples motivations to do anything?
> 
> for example, gay men that are effeminate, do they choose that way, or is that in their dna
> 
> ...



I frankly don't think it matters.  Even if homosexuality WAS genetic, lots of undesirable traits are, and it doesn't stop us from considering them undesirable or looking for ways to change them.  Does anyone, for example, consider Down's Syndrome to be "just an alternative lifestyle"?  Hell, most babies diagnosed in the womb with Down's Syndrome are aborted!  Shows you how normal and acceptable THAT genetic condition is.

We know that certain things like alcoholism and mental illnesses like schizophrenia have genetic components and are hereditary.  Does that stop us from disapproving of alcoholism and having therapy to help people deny their alcoholic behavior?  Does it stop us from having medications to keep people from exhibiting schizophrenic behavior and make them act like other, non-schizophrenic people?  Of course not.

So "genetic" clearly does not equal "normal" in other instances.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 5, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Speaking of something that's twenty years out-of-date . . . haven't we been hearing that "soon most of the AIDS cases will be heterosexual, so you can't say it's a 'gay' disease" line almost since AIDS was first known, and it still hasn't happened. * The left had to invent an epidemic of heterosexual AIDS in Africa to cover up the fact that it didn't happen*.
> ...



Coming from you, that means . . . absolutely nothing.  Next time, register your disapproval with someone 'batshit insane" enough to thinik your opinion matters.


----------



## eagleseven (Oct 5, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Coming from you, that means . . . absolutely nothing.  Next time, register your disapproval with someone 'batshit insane" enough to thinik your opinion matters.


Don't worry, he has...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-flame-zone/90440-so-is-cecilie-right-on-this-statement-poll-enclosed-2.html#post1585233


----------



## Modbert (Oct 5, 2009)

eagleseven said:


> Don't worry, he has...
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-flame-zone/90440-so-is-cecilie-right-on-this-statement-poll-enclosed-2.html#post1585233


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 5, 2009)

actsnoblemartin said:


> perhaps I am mistaken. When I volunteered with the local gay pride office, they said gays were not able to see their partners when they got sick.
> 
> Ill take your word, on the housing. Because it is illegal to discriminate, and i thought you couldnt leave money in a will, but i guess im wrong
> 
> ...


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 5, 2009)

actsnoblemartin said:


> do they know how you feel about their homosexuality?
> 
> does it cause any friction?
> 
> ...



How I feel about their homosexuality?  I don't feel anything about their homosexuality.  It's none of my business who they choose to have sex with, live with, whatever with.  You mistake a belief that legalized homosexual "marriage" is bad public policy with an opinion about homosexuality itself.  But yes, my alternative friends are well aware that I am politically conservative and do not support legalized homosexual "marriage", just as I am aware that they DO support it.  It does not change their feelings about me any more than their support changes my feelings about them.  It doesn't cause friction because we are all mature, well-mannered adults, and therefore avoid conversations about politics, religion, and social issues, particularly those which can only cause hard feelings.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 5, 2009)

hjmick said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



I'm supposed to avoid stating the truth simply because a lot of people are going to see it?  Sounds to me like MORE reason to tell the truth.


----------



## eagleseven (Oct 5, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> hjmick said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Someone get this woman a straightjacket...


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 5, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> hjmick said:
> 
> 
> > Seriously? You want to go with that? A lot of people are going to read that, maybe you want to edit it or something...
> ...



Only a dumbshit leftist thinks right and wrong are decided by a poll.  Intelligent people know that the truth can't be voted out of being true.


----------



## eagleseven (Oct 5, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Dogbert said:
> 
> 
> > hjmick said:
> ...



I'm a _dumbshit leftist?_


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 5, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > So your position is that since God didn't make us into mindless puppets and gave us the ability to *make bad choices*, that means that He must approve of any and every action we can take?  You figure God is a big proponent of things like murder, rape, and child abuse, do you?
> ...



I didn't compare homosexuality to murder, rape, and child abuse, shitforbrains.  I took his "God gave you the ability to choose, so He must like any choice that you make" statement to its logical conclusion.

As for considering homosexuality a bad choice, leftists who support the homosexual agenda apparently agree with me.  After all, aren't they always saying "why would anyone choose to be gay"?  "Homosexuality must be inborn, because no one would choose it"?  this ringing any bells?  Let's see a little consistency here, folks.  Either being homosexual is a bad thing and no one would ever choose to be one, or it's great, and therefore people WOULD choose to be gay if it were a choice.  One or the other.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 5, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Only a dumbshit leftist thinks right and wrong are decided by a poll.  Intelligent people know that the truth can't be voted out of being true.



The truth shall set you free! Though it seems:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXoNE14U_zM]YouTube - Classic Movie Line #15[/ame]


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 5, 2009)

eagleseven said:


> maineman said:
> 
> 
> > why in the world would anyone CHOOSE to endure the social ostracism that befalls homosexuals in America?
> ...



Gotta agree with you there.  People choose to identify with things the majority of society disapproves of all the time, so there's no reason homosexuality would be different in that regard.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 5, 2009)

eagleseven said:


> Dogbert said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Oh, noes!  The horror!  I don't have the respect of someone . . . who means nothing whatsoever to me!  Woe is me!

Like homosexuals, I didn't ask for your approval, and think you should keep your opinion until you're asked for it.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 5, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> eagleseven said:
> 
> 
> > What's the harm?
> ...



Yeah, offending people I wouldn't piss on if they were on fire is really "digging my grave".  Contemplate getting over yourself, okay?


----------



## Modbert (Oct 5, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Oh, noes!  The horror!  I don't have the respect of someone . . . who means nothing whatsoever to me!  Woe is me!
> 
> Like homosexuals, I didn't ask for your approval, and think you should keep your opinion until you're asked for it.



He's entitled to his opinion, just like you're entitled yours.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 5, 2009)

SmarterThanHick said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Nice try, but no.  Leftists have been telling us scare stories about heterosexual AIDS epidemics since Reagan was President, and it still stubbornly insists on clinging to high risk-behavior groups, of which homosexual males are one.
> ...



Okay, first of all, Mensa Boy, my name is Cecilie, not Cecilia.  Learn to read and spell.  English is your friend.

Second of all, it would be the same leftists it always is, aka everyone on the political left lying to each other and then believing it.  It started with the UN, and then was supported and spread by the media, and then picked up by leftist politicians and activists, on down to the dimwit rank and file who parrot what "everyone knows" to each other on the Internet.  Unfortunately, what "everyone knows" is often on the level of "George Washington had wooden teeth" and "drinking Coke while eating Pop Rocks will kill you".

Third, thank you for your lame-ass attempts at being condescending and sarcastic, because rather than making what I said appear absurd, they just demonstrated that you didn't bother to pull your head out of your ass and find out what you were talking about.  If you had, you would know I didn't reference an "article".  I referenced a policy decision which is still in force to this day.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 5, 2009)

eagleseven said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > eagleseven said:
> ...



The WHO is the originator of it, as a matter of fact.  What, you're surprised to hear that WHO is not viewed as the ultimate arbiter of all unbiased, objective wisdom?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 5, 2009)

eagleseven said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > On the other hand, a man contracting germs from a woman's body would pretty require that he have an open wound on his genitals for the germs to pass through.  A man with an open wound on his genitals probably doesn't feel much like having sex, and the woman probably isn't going to be all that turned on by it, either.
> ...



Quite true, but very, VERY few men shave their pubic hair.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 5, 2009)

eagleseven said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Coming from you, that means . . . absolutely nothing.  Next time, register your disapproval with someone 'batshit insane" enough to thinik your opinion matters.
> ...



Amazing how I'm still not giving a rat's ass.  Even more amazing is how you're all still waiting for me to want you to like me.  The truth is, if a shitforbrains like Dogbert ever DID approve of me, THAT might actually upset me.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 5, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> eagleseven said:
> 
> 
> > Don't worry, he has...
> ...



This just in:  you're still insignificant.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 5, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> This just in:  you're still insignificant.



And yet here you are finding me significant enough to respond to my every post.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 5, 2009)

eagleseven said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Dogbert said:
> ...



Dunno about leftist, but you're certainly a dumbshit to think that a response directed at someone else is a statement about you.

Unless, of course, you are identifying yourself with the characterization by saying that you think the truth is decided by a poll.  In that case, who am I to argue with your self-identification?


----------



## eagleseven (Oct 5, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> The WHO is the originator of it, as a matter of fact.  What, you're surprised to hear that WHO is not viewed as the ultimate arbiter of all unbiased, objective wisdom?


Source?

Oh I see, the UN is controlled by the gays! Are they Jewish gays, by any chance? 


What shred of credibility you still had just flew out the window...


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 5, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Only a dumbshit leftist thinks right and wrong are decided by a poll.  Intelligent people know that the truth can't be voted out of being true.
> ...



I note with interest that you continue to think "Well, you're just stupid, you're crazy, I have lots of funny YouTube clips I can use to say you're stupid and crazy" is a valid refutation of anything.

I realize this probably works in the junior high circles you normally frequent.  With me, it just confirms for me that you are unable to discuss the topic on any sort of facts, and therefore need to run, hide, ridicule, and attempt to silence to hide your lack of debating skill.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 5, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, noes!  The horror!  I don't have the respect of someone . . . who means nothing whatsoever to me!  Woe is me!
> ...



I didn't say don't have it.  I said don't flatter yourself that I care.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 5, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> I note with interest that you continue to think "Well, you're just stupid, you're crazy, I have lots of funny YouTube clips I can use to say you're stupid and crazy" is a valid refutation of anything.
> 
> I realize this probably works in the junior high circles you normally frequent.  With me, it just confirms for me that you are unable to discuss the topic on any sort of facts, and therefore need to run, hide, ridicule, and attempt to silence to hide your lack of debating skill.



There is nothing to debate, you're insane. To actually say we would be debating to be saying your points have merit. Your points have the same merit to me as the Holocaust Deniers do.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 5, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > This just in:  you're still insignificant.
> ...



It would make me feel very sad to know that you are so pathetic that you have to derive a sense of significance and meaning from people responding on a message board . . . if I cared enough about your existence on the planet to feel sad.

But good for you that my boredom has managed to provide you with some self-esteem.  Consider that my charity work for the week.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 5, 2009)

eagleseven said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > The WHO is the originator of it, as a matter of fact.  What, you're surprised to hear that WHO is not viewed as the ultimate arbiter of all unbiased, objective wisdom?
> ...



Where did I say the UN was controlled by gays, Brain Trust?  I said it's controlled by leftists.

I'd say what shred of credibility YOU had just flew out the window, but you didn't have any.  Aren't going to, either, until you learn to read.


----------



## eagleseven (Oct 5, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> The WHO is the originator of it, as a matter of fact.  What, you're surprised to hear that WHO is not viewed as the ultimate arbiter of all unbiased, objective wisdom?


Source?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 5, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > I note with interest that you continue to think "Well, you're just stupid, you're crazy, I have lots of funny YouTube clips I can use to say you're stupid and crazy" is a valid refutation of anything.
> ...



Uh huh.  "Everyone knows it", so there's no point in ever questioning what "everyone knows".  Disagreeing is just insane, because "everyone knows" it's true.  Therefore, it's never necessary to question what "everyone knows", because "everyone knows" it.

The difference, of course, is that Holocaust deniers are flying in the face of evidence.  I, on the other hand, am presenting the evidence, and YOU are the one ignoring it to proclaim what you "know" to be true.  And I'd bet good money that you "know" it without ever having reviewed a single piece of evidence supporting what you "know".  You just "know".


----------



## Modbert (Oct 5, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> It would make me feel very sad to know that you are so pathetic that you have to derive a sense of significance and meaning from people responding on a message board . . . if I cared enough about your existence on the planet to feel sad.
> 
> But good for you that *my boredom* has managed to provide you with some self-esteem.  Consider that my charity work for the week.



Do you always act like you're ready to jab a pen into someone's throat when you're bored? Or are you always such a spiteful angry person?


----------



## eagleseven (Oct 5, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Uh huh.  "Everyone knows it", so there's no point in ever questioning what "everyone knows".  Disagreeing is just insane, because "everyone knows" it's true.  Therefore, it's never necessary to question what "everyone knows", because "everyone knows" it.
> 
> The difference, of course, is that Holocaust deniers are flying in the face of evidence.  I, on the other hand, am presenting the evidence, and YOU are the one ignoring it to proclaim what you "know" to be true.  And I'd bet good money that you "know" it without ever having reviewed a single piece of evidence supporting what you "know".  You just "know".


*People to Avoid Questioning*

1. The IRS
2. The kindly officer who says you were pushing 60 in a school zone.
3. The epidemiologists and microbiologists protecting your ass from lethal pathogens.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Oct 6, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> On the other hand, a man contracting germs from a woman's body would pretty require that he have an open wound on his genitals for the germs to pass through.  A man with an open wound on his genitals probably doesn't feel much like having sex, and the woman probably isn't going to be all that turned on by it, either.



you forgot about that thing called the urethra.  

you don't need an open cut to transmit hiv.  it is just one of several mechanisms.  

here's one, for example:
Langerhans cell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Setarcos (Oct 6, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Cheaters have a choice.  Gay people don't, as it's genetic.
> ...




When you you choose to be a sausage swallower?


----------



## Setarcos (Oct 6, 2009)

actsnoblemartin said:


> is anyone gonna post proof their is or is not a gay gene?
> 
> put of shut up, both of y'all





Joe_Penalty said:


> Setarcos said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...





Setarcos said:


> Joe_Penalty said:
> 
> 
> > What do you ultimately conclude about these documents?
> ...


.


----------



## Setarcos (Oct 6, 2009)

actsnoblemartin said:


> I disagree, everything we do has an effect on others.
> 
> How we interact with family, friends, and even strangers, has an effect on us and them




How does Sunni Man receiving a sexual favor from another man effect your life?


----------



## Setarcos (Oct 6, 2009)

actsnoblemartin said:


> It seems women are getting aids predominently from heterosexual activities, and men are getting it more from homosexual activity.
> 
> I dont think aids is a gay or straight disease, and its misguided to blame gays for aids.
> 
> we need a cure, even if 99 our of 100 gays were getting the disease, because we should value human life, period




They're working on it

Researchers identify compound that could prevent HIV transmission - Academic Health Center, University of Minnesota Researchers Induce HIV-neutralizing Antibodies That Recognize HIV-1 Envelop Study finds potential way to make an AIDS vaccine | Reuters For the First Time Ever, HIV Vaccines Show Promise in Preventing Infections | 80beats | Discover Magazine


----------



## Setarcos (Oct 6, 2009)

actsnoblemartin said:


> do they know how you feel about their homosexuality?
> 
> does it cause any friction?
> 
> curious




I bet you're curious. It sure would explain this thread.


----------



## Setarcos (Oct 6, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > So your position is that since God didn't make us into mindless puppets and gave us the ability to *make bad choices*, that means that He must approve of any and every action we can take?  You figure God is a big proponent of things like murder, rape, and child abuse, do you?
> ...


On a related note

Facts About Homosexuality and Child Molestation


----------



## Setarcos (Oct 6, 2009)

SmarterThanHick said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > Homosexuality is a choice.
> ...




I don't believe he did


----------



## Setarcos (Oct 6, 2009)

eagleseven said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > On the other hand, a man contracting germs from a woman's body would pretty require that he have an open wound on his genitals for the germs to pass through.  A man with an open wound on his genitals probably doesn't feel much like having sex, and the woman probably isn't going to be all that turned on by it, either.
> ...


If one is a carrier, and they kiss shortly after that persons brushed his/her teeth, the small amounts of blood present (of which they might not even be aware) can allow transfer. Also, if one is a secretor. This is far less likely, but also possible.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 6, 2009)

eagleseven said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Uh huh.  "Everyone knows it", so there's no point in ever questioning what "everyone knows".  Disagreeing is just insane, because "everyone knows" it's true.  Therefore, it's never necessary to question what "everyone knows", because "everyone knows" it.
> ...



Fortunately, I haven't questioned any of those people.  I haven't even questioned epidemiologists and microbiologists protecting OTHER people's asses from lethal pathogens.  I have questioned, and will continue to question, politicians with an agenda to push.

I'm curious how long it's going to take for one of you ostriches to get curious and actually read the document I provided a link to.  I'm betting never, because there are none so ignorant as those who assume they already know everything.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 6, 2009)

SmarterThanHick said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > On the other hand, a man contracting germs from a woman's body would pretty require that he have an open wound on his genitals for the germs to pass through.  A man with an open wound on his genitals probably doesn't feel much like having sex, and the woman probably isn't going to be all that turned on by it, either.
> ...



I'm familiar with the urethra, thank you.  I also know it doesn't transmit bodily fluids from the woman's body into the man's particularly easily.  Or did you think when you had sex, you were getting a ton of female lubricant in there?


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Oct 6, 2009)

can you please add something coherent to this discussion other then angry rants. I understand this is an emotional issue for some, but lets try to remain civil ok?



Setarcos said:


> actsnoblemartin said:
> 
> 
> > I disagree, everything we do has an effect on others.
> ...


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Oct 6, 2009)

i know that, its just frustrating is all.



Setarcos said:


> actsnoblemartin said:
> 
> 
> > It seems women are getting aids predominently from heterosexual activities, and men are getting it more from homosexual activity.
> ...


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Oct 6, 2009)

what kind of curious do you refer to .

curious how to relate to gays if you dont support them or bi  curious?



Setarcos said:


> actsnoblemartin said:
> 
> 
> > do they know how you feel about their homosexuality?
> ...


----------



## Setarcos (Oct 6, 2009)

So, Martin, you're saying you can't demonstrate how Sunni's gay exploits effect your life?

Do you recant your earlier statement, then?


----------



## L.K.Eder (Oct 6, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> eagleseven said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 6, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Quite true, but very, VERY few men shave their pubic hair.





Link...


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Oct 6, 2009)

what in the world are you talking about?



Setarcos said:


> So, Martin, you're saying you can't demonstrate how Sunni's gay exploits effect your life?
> 
> Do you recant your earlier statement, then?


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Oct 6, 2009)

you are a disgusting individual.

I have nothing more to say to trash like you



Peanut said:


> actsnoblemartin said:
> 
> 
> > do you have a point, or you just like to laugh
> ...


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Oct 6, 2009)

your being dishonest and a smear merchant.

#1 sunni is not gay

#2 I was talking in general, we all affect each other, 

#3 I was talking about homosexual and HETEROSEXUAL, apparently you werent listening, or too stupid to read.

#4 Im not recanting my statement for a hate filled idiot such as yourself



Setarcos said:


> So, Martin, you're saying you can't demonstrate how Sunni's gay exploits effect your life?
> 
> Do you recant your earlier statement, then?


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Oct 6, 2009)

i love how the pro gay crowd, can be so accepting and loving of others who disagree with them, yet demand love and acceptance.

Seems a bit hypocritical... Not saying all, but a significant percentage of this board who are pro gay, are very mean, hateful people


----------



## Sunni Man (Oct 6, 2009)

Actsnoblemartin just put Peanut and Setarcos on ignore.

All they do is troll and add nothing to the thread


----------



## eagleseven (Oct 6, 2009)

actsnoblemartin said:


> i love how the pro gay crowd, can be so accepting and loving of others who disagree with them, yet demand love and acceptance.
> 
> Seems a bit hypocritical... Not saying all, but a significant percentage of this board who are pro gay, are very mean, hateful people



A significant percentage of this board are very mean, hateful people.


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Oct 6, 2009)

peanut is on ignore, setretard is about to go there as well.

Its funny, they call you hateful, then act ten times worse then you ever could



Sunni Man said:


> Actsnoblemartin just put Peanut and Setarcos on ignore.
> 
> All they do is troll and add nothing to the thread


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Oct 6, 2009)

you are low class trash as well, have fun on ignore bitch



Setarcos said:


> So, Martin, you're saying you can't demonstrate how Sunni's gay exploits effect your life?
> 
> Do you recant your earlier statement, then?


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Oct 6, 2009)

exactly right



Sunni Man said:


> Actsnoblemartin just put Peanut and Setarcos on ignore.
> 
> All they do is troll and add nothing to the thread


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Oct 6, 2009)

hahaha probably true

i wouldnt put it past human nature





eagleseven said:


> actsnoblemartin said:
> 
> 
> > i love how the pro gay crowd, can be so accepting and loving of others who disagree with them, yet demand love and acceptance.
> ...


----------



## KittenKoder (Oct 6, 2009)

Okay ... so if everyone effects everyone's life ... how come we don't know 99% of the people on the planet?


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Oct 6, 2009)

because we choose not, we ignore them. we fear them, and we just dont care.

but i was talking about, people in general in small ways affecting each other


good question though, i liked it 



KittenKoder said:


> Okay ... so if everyone effects everyone's life ... how come we don't know 99% of the people on the planet?


----------



## KittenKoder (Oct 6, 2009)

actsnoblemartin said:


> because we choose not, we ignore them. we fear them, and we just dont care.
> 
> but i was talking about, people in general in small ways affecting each other
> 
> ...



Then isn't it possible to just ignore gay marriage the same way?


----------



## eagleseven (Oct 6, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> actsnoblemartin said:
> 
> 
> > because we choose not, we ignore them. we fear them, and we just dont care.
> ...



It is, but for the control freaks in Congress...


----------



## ABikerSailor (Oct 6, 2009)

L.K.Eder said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > eagleseven said:
> ...



However......you can avoid razor burn, as well as cuts, if you use an electric shaver.  Norelco or Braun.

Or.........so I've heard..........


----------



## KittenKoder (Oct 6, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Or you can try it the way we do ...


... waxing.  A *real* man can wax their whole body.


----------



## Sunni Man (Oct 6, 2009)

actsnoblemartin said:


> peanut is on ignore, setretard is about to go there as well.
> 
> Its funny, they call you hateful, then act ten times worse then you ever could
> 
> ...


They call me hateful just because I don't support gay marriage or the homo lifestyle.

I guess I should call them hateful because they do support gay marriage and the homo lifestyle.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Oct 6, 2009)

No Sunnidiot........people call you hateful based on the mindless drivel that you post on these boards.

Your hatred of gays is well known.


----------



## Sunni Man (Oct 6, 2009)

I have never said that I hate gays.

But I do believe gays hate normal people


----------



## ABikerSailor (Oct 6, 2009)

No, you just want to "cure" them, lock 'em up, put 'em in concentration camps.........

Yeah......keep telling yourself that.


----------



## Sunni Man (Oct 6, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> No, you just want to "cure" them, lock 'em up, put 'em in concentration camps.........



Wanting to help homos by enrolling them into treatment centers.

So that they can receive therapy and drugs to cure them of their perversion.

That is far from hate.


----------



## Setarcos (Oct 6, 2009)

actsnoblemartin said:


> what in the world are you talking about?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Do you recant or should the record reflect your dishonesty?


----------



## Setarcos (Oct 6, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> actsnoblemartin said:
> 
> 
> > because we choose not, we ignore them. we fear them, and we just dont care.
> ...


_qft_


----------



## Sky Dancer (Oct 7, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > No, you just want to "cure" them, lock 'em up, put 'em in concentration camps.........
> ...



Sure it is hate.  Your goal is killing homosexuality.  You'd rather we all were dead then be alive and loving our mates freely.  Marriage equality makes a difference.  Since I am now legally married it sure helped a recent health crisis in my family in terms of my access to the medical team for my mate.

You sound like you'd like the Final Solution for gays and lesbians.    Not surprising since you're a fan of Adolph Hitler.


----------



## Setarcos (Oct 7, 2009)

Sunni strikes me as a closet case and/or a 12-year-old.


----------



## Sunni Man (Oct 7, 2009)

My goal would be to eradicate all perversions from society. ie, rapists, child molesters, homosexuals, and other sexual deviants.

Helping people cure their mental sickness through therapy isn't hate.

It is caring enough to help them with their illness.


----------



## Setarcos (Oct 7, 2009)

Too bad ya can't cure yourself...


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Oct 7, 2009)

with all due respect you should clarify what you mean.

Do you mean forced or voluntary treatment

do you want to kill gays?

some think your answers are forced and yes

you should clarify in my humble opinion



Sunni Man said:


> My goal would be to eradicate all perversions from society. ie, rapists, child molesters, homosexuals, and other sexual deviants.
> 
> Helping people cure their mental sickness through therapy isn't hate.
> 
> It is caring enough to help them with their illness.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Oct 7, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> My goal would be to eradicate all perversions from society. ie, rapists, child molesters, homosexuals, and other sexual deviants.
> 
> Helping people cure their mental sickness through therapy isn't hate.
> 
> It is caring enough to help them with their illness.



You want to eradicate all perversions from society?

Start with that fucked up belief system called IsLAME.  You know.......the one that allows lying, killing and child molestation as per Mohammed (may his name forever be a curse......ptooie).

As soon as you eradicate that perversion, then the others won't appear so bad.

Oh yeah.........IsLAME also speaks out publicly against gays, but secretly, there is more gay bullshit going on over in the ME than in any other of the 26 countries that I've been.

All the ME dudes are closeted.  Why else do you think they treat women like shit?


----------



## Sunni Man (Oct 7, 2009)

actsnoblemartin said:


> with all due respect you should clarify what you mean.
> 
> Do you mean forced or voluntary treatment
> 
> ...


I belive homosexuality is a mental illness that requires treatment.

Other sexual deviants, such as child molesters and rapists are ordered by the court to attend therapy sessions. So should homosexuals.

Providing treatment isn't killing them, it is helping them.


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Oct 7, 2009)

so you would or would not force homosexuals to seek treatment?



Sunni Man said:


> actsnoblemartin said:
> 
> 
> > with all due respect you should clarify what you mean.
> ...


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Oct 7, 2009)

I had to really sit and think about this.

I think your throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

To ban or throw out an entire relgion based on 5-10% of its verses, if that is not right.

I think you have some valid points here, about the treatment of gays, and women. Neither should mistreated.

I would throw out some of the verses of the koran, im sure you know which type im talking about.

Second, you cant punish sunni man or other muslims in 2009 for what mohammed did 1400 years ago, thats not fair.

thats all i have to say on this thread, and i await your hopefully civil response



ABikerSailor said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > My goal would be to eradicate all perversions from society. ie, rapists, child molesters, homosexuals, and other sexual deviants.
> ...


----------



## Sunni Man (Oct 7, 2009)

You keep using the word force.

Mental patients have certain rights under the law.

So of course they would have to have a hearing in a court as to needing treatment.

It would be up to a judge to decide if treatment is warrented and order the therapy


----------



## ABikerSailor (Oct 7, 2009)

Listen dude.....I've actually been over there and spent time around those people.  Most of their theology is a fucked up bastardization of Egyptian and Jewish theology.  And......it's not the 5-10 percent of the verses that need to be gotten rid of........first you're going to have to get rid of the radicals that got their start in the mid 70's.

Also, there are certain things in their theology (some of which is bedrock belief) that states it's okay to do something that all the other major religions (multi and monotheistic), tell you not to, like lying and murder.

Not for nothing dude.......but I've spent around 3 years in the ME.


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Oct 7, 2009)

First of all, its impossible to eradicate perversion, we cant even win the war on drugs.

Second, you cant force people, who im not convinced more then 20%, give or take would want the treatment.



Sunni Man said:


> You keep using the word force.
> 
> Mental patients have certain rights under the law.
> 
> ...


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Oct 7, 2009)

you are very intelligent, and correct about getting rid of the radicals

second, what percentage of scripture would you get rid of or do you believe islam is hopeless

I await your response



ABikerSailor said:


> Listen dude.....I've actually been over there and spent time around those people.  Most of their theology is a fucked up bastardization of Egyptian and Jewish theology.  And......it's not the 5-10 percent of the verses that need to be gotten rid of........first you're going to have to get rid of the radicals that got their start in the mid 70's.
> 
> Also, there are certain things in their theology (some of which is bedrock belief) that states it's okay to do something that all the other major religions (multi and monotheistic), tell you not to, like lying and murder.
> 
> Not for nothing dude.......but I've spent around 3 years in the ME.


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Oct 7, 2009)

I dont believe treatment would work for sex offenders, and rapists, im not sure

homosexuals, I dont see any proof that treatment would work



Sunni Man said:


> You keep using the word force.
> 
> Mental patients have certain rights under the law.
> 
> ...


----------



## Sunni Man (Oct 7, 2009)

actsnoblemartin said:


> I dont believe treatment would work for sex offenders, and rapists, im not sure
> 
> homosexuals, I dont see any proof that treatment would work
> 
> ...


We need to try to help them. 

Homosexuals lead sad and disease filled lives, which many times ends in suicide.

Giving them treatment is the humane thing to do.


----------



## Setarcos (Oct 7, 2009)

The only sad character I see in this thread is Sunni Man


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Oct 7, 2009)

Do you have any links to prove your claims?

second, dont we have a bigger problem with teenage stds/pregnancy?



Sunni Man said:


> actsnoblemartin said:
> 
> 
> > I dont believe treatment would work for sex offenders, and rapists, im not sure
> ...


----------



## Sunni Man (Oct 7, 2009)

As you can see actsnoblemartin.

I only want to help people who have medical issues.

I don't attack or call names, and try to conduct a civil dialogue with other posters.

I only wish they would extend the same courtesy to me.


----------



## KittenKoder (Oct 7, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> actsnoblemartin said:
> 
> 
> > I dont believe treatment would work for sex offenders, and rapists, im not sure
> ...



Yet the bi and gay people built our civilizations ...


----------



## Sunni Man (Oct 7, 2009)

Gays and suicide

Suicide and the GLBT Community 

Homosexuality and Mental Health Problems


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Oct 7, 2009)

thats absolute non sense

but nice try 



KittenKoder said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > actsnoblemartin said:
> ...


----------



## Sunni Man (Oct 7, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Yet the bi and gay people built our civilizations ...



Evidence?


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Oct 7, 2009)

I think the personal attacks on you, are quite unwarranted, unfair, and mean-spirited



Sunni Man said:


> As you can see actsnoblemartin.
> 
> I only want to help people who have medical issues.
> 
> ...


----------



## KittenKoder (Oct 7, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> Gays and suicide
> 
> Suicide and the GLBT Community
> 
> Homosexuality and Mental Health Problems



Yet you never seem to see the connection to people who spout off hatred like you?

If you get to the root of the problem, you are the actual disease since you are pushing these people to commit suicide.


----------



## KittenKoder (Oct 7, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Yet the bi and gay people built our civilizations ...
> ...



Greece, Rome, China, India, Japan, etc..


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Oct 7, 2009)

gays , according to former gay organization (i dont remember their name) of the speakers a gay teacher in san diego, said gays make up 7% of the population. But nice try at your propaganda



Sunni Man said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Yet the bi and gay people built our civilizations ...
> ...


----------



## KittenKoder (Oct 7, 2009)

actsnoblemartin said:


> gays , according to former gay organization (i dont remember their name) of the speakers a gay teacher in san diego, said gays make up 7% of the population. But nice try at your propaganda
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So ... the world started yesterday?


----------



## Sunni Man (Oct 7, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



Real evidence

Not, just because I say so evidence


----------



## KittenKoder (Oct 7, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...



Go back to school, learn about ancient history and civilizations. They not only tolerated homosexual behavior but many embraced it. The greatest armies of the past practiced it quite often. Again, learn your ancient history, but try to learn with open eyes this time.


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Oct 7, 2009)

im sorry but are you stupid?

at best, the world gay population is 10% at best. That means the majority of the workers were NOT gay.

You need a better argument 



KittenKoder said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...


----------



## KittenKoder (Oct 7, 2009)

actsnoblemartin said:


> im sorry but are you stupid?
> 
> at best, the world gay population is 10% at best. That means the majority of the workers were NOT gay.
> 
> ...



So the whole world was created yesterday?


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Oct 7, 2009)

what?



KittenKoder said:


> actsnoblemartin said:
> 
> 
> > gays , according to former gay organization (i dont remember their name) of the speakers a gay teacher in san diego, said gays make up 7% of the population. But nice try at your propaganda
> ...


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Oct 7, 2009)

but you know sunni man, if 7-10% At best of the world population is gay, then having 90% of the workers be NON gay, that means gays built the world 



Sunni Man said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...


----------



## Sunni Man (Oct 7, 2009)

Homos and their gay loving backers are always making these idiotic claims.

Homo couples don't reproduce.

So a society composed of mainly homos would eventually die out


----------



## KittenKoder (Oct 7, 2009)

actsnoblemartin said:


> but you know sunni man, if 7-10% At best of the world population is gay, then having 90% of the workers be NON gay, that means gays built the world
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Using modern "reported" statistics from some extremely biased source does not prove me wrong. Our civilizations did not appear yesterday.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Oct 7, 2009)

actsnoblemartin said:


> you are very intelligent, and correct about getting rid of the radicals
> 
> second, what percentage of scripture would you get rid of or do you believe islam is hopeless
> 
> ...



You know......when I was over in the ME, I thought it would be nice to learn about some of the stuff over there.  What I'd found is that their religion is very dogmatic, very disciplined and strict (you have to pray 5 times/day, as well as other things, and running around the ME during Ramadan is really interesting), as well as exceedingly fractured.

When I'd seen this, I started to look into Islamic theology, and found out several other things.......

They don't believe in science or education.  All the education that they consider themselves to need comes from the Koran, and that book is memorized to the point that they can quote verses out of it at the drop of a hat.  As far as math, literature and science?  They consider those things to be of the evil one.

They also subjugate their women in the worst possible fashion.

What parts of Islam do I think need to go?  All of it, because since the rise of the radicals in the mid-70's, their theology has become twisted and corrupt.  Need an example?  Prior to the Taliban taking over, they had education, women were working on equality and their country was starting to prosper.

With the brutal way that the Taliban has enforced Sharia law?  They've gone back to the dark ages.

Another one of the problems is that the Imams can't agree on what certain interpretations mean, so therefore there is always a power struggle in that religion.


----------



## Sunni Man (Oct 7, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Using modern "reported" statistics from some extremely biased source does not prove me wrong. Our civilizations did not appear yesterday.



??????????????????

Anybody got any idea what she is saying 

This gal is just plain wacked out


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Oct 7, 2009)

Homosexuality may have been tolerated, but that doesnt mean the vast majority were gay.

There is a difference



KittenKoder said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...


----------



## ABikerSailor (Oct 7, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Using modern "reported" statistics from some extremely biased source does not prove me wrong. Our civilizations did not appear yesterday.
> ...



Proof that your stupidity is contagious to those that haven't been innoculated.


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Oct 7, 2009)

its non sense is what it is.

The vast majority of workers were heterosexual.

It wasnt a gay community, otherwise we wouldnt be here now

such propaganda



Sunni Man said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Using modern "reported" statistics from some extremely biased source does not prove me wrong. Our civilizations did not appear yesterday.
> ...


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Oct 7, 2009)

now your being an asshole

Your better then that



ABikerSailor said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...


----------



## KittenKoder (Oct 7, 2009)

actsnoblemartin said:


> Homosexuality may have been tolerated, but that doesnt mean the vast majority were gay.
> 
> There is a difference
> 
> ...



It was practiced by the greatest militaries in ancient civilization, the ones that defined our modern civilizations and kept the ancient ones strong enough to survive.


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Oct 7, 2009)

you dont agree with me, your an idiot is not an argument its just tripe



ABikerSailor said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Oct 7, 2009)

buloney. Some were homosexuals. Most were not



KittenKoder said:


> actsnoblemartin said:
> 
> 
> > Homosexuality may have been tolerated, but that doesnt mean the vast majority were gay.
> ...


----------



## Setarcos (Oct 7, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...


In that case, you'll need this







We don't need two strains going around


----------



## KittenKoder (Oct 7, 2009)

actsnoblemartin said:


> buloney. Some were homosexuals. Most were not
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Just because someone practices homosexuality does not make them gay, so you got me there. 

But it was a wide practice.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Oct 7, 2009)

actsnoblemartin said:


> now your being an asshole
> 
> Your better then that
> 
> ...



Suck my cock, kiss my ass and eat shit and die.  Who the fuck made you the arbiter of things.

Doesn't Act Noble Martin, fuck off ya goddamn pedant, go please purists.  You obviously haven't seen the kind of shit Sunnidiot is capable of.

Or.....you're just as much of a homophobic, douchebag racist as he is.  Your choice.


----------



## Setarcos (Oct 7, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> actsnoblemartin said:
> 
> 
> > now your being an asshole
> ...


Are you always so thoughtful and eloquent?


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Oct 7, 2009)

so people who engage in homosexual acts are heterosexual

sure



KittenKoder said:


> actsnoblemartin said:
> 
> 
> > buloney. Some were homosexuals. Most were not
> ...


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Oct 7, 2009)

I thought you were better then this. Apparently I was wrong.

Ive been challenging sunni's statement, apparently your just blind.

Who made me the arbitor?

I believe in being civil, and try to do so as much as possible

apparently your just a rude prick.

Keep it up, and your stupid ass will be on ignore too. I dont tolerate insults from assholes like you.

and finally, being against homosexuality is not racist. 

I am struggling with this issue, as i stated many times.

God is clearly against and i believe in god, but I think homosexuals are not deviants or perverts

keep up with the insults, it just shows your true character



ABikerSailor said:


> actsnoblemartin said:
> 
> 
> > now your being an asshole
> ...


----------



## KittenKoder (Oct 7, 2009)

actsnoblemartin said:


> so people who engage in homosexual acts are heterosexual
> 
> sure
> 
> ...



Technically they are bisexual, however, since your mind is so closed you probably do not realize that even today many "straight" people participate in homosexual behavior. You are mixing straight/gay with homosexual/heterosexual, one has to do with love the other sex. Many gay people will have sexual relations with those of the opposite sex for "fun", and many straight people do so with the same sex again for "fun". Your close mind you seem to think that gay is about sex but straight isn't, and that's one huge flaw, you will never learn more about sexuality and relationships, much less accept yourself, if you cannot get past that,


----------



## Setarcos (Oct 7, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> actsnoblemartin said:
> 
> 
> > so people who engage in homosexual acts are heterosexual
> ...



Not necessarily 

*pansexual         definition             * 
 pan·sex·ual (pan sek*&#8242;*s&#824;ho&#773;&#821;o&#773; &#601;l)
adjective
 displaying or encompassing a broad range of human sexual behavior


*Related Forms:*


pansexuality pan&#8242;·sexu·al&#8242;·ity noun

Webster's New World College Dictionary Copyright © 2005 by Wiley Publishing, Inc., Cleveland, Ohio. 
Used by arrangement with John Wiley & Sons, Inc.




> however, since your mind is so closed you probably do not realize that even today many "straight" people participate in homosexual behavior.



Some time ago, I saw a report from the APA which said that studies indicate that almost none is truly "straight" Human sexuality is rarely so clear-cut


----------



## Sunni Man (Oct 7, 2009)

Bi-sexual is a made up word that means nothing.

There is NO such thing as being Bi

If a guy lets another guy pack his fudge. He is a homo. Period


----------



## KittenKoder (Oct 7, 2009)

Setarcos said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > actsnoblemartin said:
> ...



Aaah ... pansexual, learn something new everyday with an open mind.


----------



## KittenKoder (Oct 7, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> Bi-sexual is a made up word that means nothing.
> 
> There is NO such thing as being Bi
> 
> If a guy lets another guy pack his fudge. He is a homo. Period



Ignoring you repetitive and extremely stupid part, if you are correct then that means I am bisexual.


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Oct 7, 2009)

I get it, i dont agree therefore im closed minded.

Ive noticed with many on the pro-homosexual militant movement. And being around these people for 5 months, I can tell you the majority of people gay and straight in the pro homosexual movement are very militant and intolerant of religion and god, because he and the three major faiths dont condone you

Many straight people do not engage in homosexual behavior. that is an outright lie, in 2009, most straight men dont suck cock, and then claim to be straight, unless their lying to themselves.

sex is not all there is but their are two kinds, sex in a relationship or sex for fun.

I dont think anyone that has sex for fun, gay or straight, is a moral person.

Sex should be saved for marriage, but if thats not going to happen atleast a loving committed relationship

but im guess im so close minded, lol



KittenKoder said:


> actsnoblemartin said:
> 
> 
> > so people who engage in homosexual acts are heterosexual
> ...


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Oct 7, 2009)

thats not true, their are men and women who are bisexual, ive seen it.



Sunni Man said:


> Bi-sexual is a made up word that means nothing.
> 
> There is NO such thing as being Bi
> 
> If a guy lets another guy pack his fudge. He is a homo. Period


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Oct 7, 2009)

You educated me, i never heard of pan sexual

but i knew of a sexual does that count 



KittenKoder said:


> Setarcos said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...


----------



## Setarcos (Oct 7, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Setarcos said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...


sure

mind

just what I was thinking


----------



## Setarcos (Oct 7, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > Bi-sexual is a made up word that means nothing.
> ...


The bathroom wall said you were a non-sexual prude


----------



## Sunni Man (Oct 7, 2009)

actsnoblemartin said:


> thats not true, their are men and women who are bisexual, ive seen it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What I was saying, is that anyone who has sex with both male and female is a homosexual.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Oct 7, 2009)

actsnoblemartin said:


> I get it, i dont agree therefore im closed minded.
> 
> Ive noticed with many on the pro-homosexual militant movement. And being around these people for 5 months, I can tell you the majority of people gay and straight in the pro homosexual movement are very militant and intolerant of religion and god, because he and the three major faiths dont condone you
> 
> ...



So, you noticed that by being around a group of gays (you didn't specify where) for 5 months, you know all there is to know about gays? 

You're fucking stupid.

I've been stationed with gay people all 20 years that I was in the Navy, and I was straight.    Almost every duty station that I was at had at least one or two around.  How did I know about them?  I was in a job that made it my business to know everything about everyone onboard the command.

With that being said, I can tell you that you're wrong Ain't Noble Martin.  Most of the gays that I've known have had a healthy respect for theology, with about 50 percent of 'em going to church (Norfolk Va.).  Are they "militant" in wanting to be able to live as freely as the rest?  Only if you take the attitude that the white person took towards blacks in the 1700 and 1800's.  They could only be allowed to be "free" if they acted white.  You want to  do the same thing to the gays, they can only marry if it's in a heterosexual relationship.

As far as your definition of sex?  Well.......there is sex for fun, sex in a relationship, sex for comfort (trust me.......when death and serious injuries happen, people tend to get sexually aroused as sex is life affirming), or sex for any other number of reasons.

By the way...........maybe for YOU it's not "moral" to have sex for fun, but, over in Europe and places like that, it's kind of approved of.  Does this mean that those people who are having sex in something other than a committed relationship are "immoral"?  Who the fuck appointed your sorry fat ass as God?  

Keep your fucked up bigoted "morals" to yourself, and I won't have to tell you what an asshole you are.

And.........just because you want to save sex for marriage (probably too fucking ugly to get laid), doesn't mean that everyone else should wait as well.

Or.......to put it another way, because I'm proud of being patriotic, anyone (such as yourself), who doesn't serve at least 1 term in the military is a communist pinko who wants America to fail.

Doesn't feel so good on the other foot, eh douchebag?


----------



## Setarcos (Oct 7, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> actsnoblemartin said:
> 
> 
> > thats not true, their are men and women who are bisexual, ive seen it.
> ...


Dictionary

you need one


----------



## ABikerSailor (Oct 7, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> actsnoblemartin said:
> 
> 
> > thats not true, their are men and women who are bisexual, ive seen it.
> ...





> ho·mo·sex·u·al    (h&#333;'m&#601;-s&#283;k'sh&#333;&#333;-&#601;l, -m&#333;-)
> adj.  Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.
> n.   Usage Problem
> A homosexual person; a gay man or a lesbian.



Ummm.........Sunnidiot.........I nominate this post for the months DUMBEST.

Shit.......you state that if you have sex with a man and a woman you're homosexual?

Might wanna try reading the definition above.  No problem in getting it for you, as you're obviously too intellectually challenged to do it yourself.


----------



## Sunni Man (Oct 7, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> Most of the gays that I've known have had a healthy respect for theology, with about 50 percent of 'em going to church



It always amazes me how any homo could even go to church, except to repent to god for being a sick pervert.


----------



## Setarcos (Oct 7, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Most of the gays that I've known have had a healthy respect for theology, with about 50 percent of 'em going to church
> ...


Troll (Internet) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Joe_Penalty (Oct 7, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Most of the gays that I've known have had a healthy respect for theology, with about 50 percent of 'em going to church
> ...



How do you condemn someone for trying to correct their sins?

What sin have you committed?


----------



## Sunni Man (Oct 7, 2009)

A man who has sex with another man is a homosexual.

Even if that same man has sex sometimes with a woman.

He is still a homo. 

Just a homo who sometimes has sex with women.


----------



## eagleseven (Oct 7, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> A man who has sex with another man is a homosexual.
> 
> Even if that same man has sex sometimes with a woman.
> 
> ...



You're the gift who keeps on giving...


----------



## froggy (Oct 7, 2009)

Joe_Penalty said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Oct 7, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Fortunately, I haven't questioned any of those people.  I haven't even questioned epidemiologists and microbiologists protecting OTHER people's asses from lethal pathogens.  I have questioned, and will continue to question, politicians with an agenda to push.
> 
> I'm curious how long it's going to take for one of you ostriches to get curious and actually read the document I provided a link to.  I'm betting never, because there are none so ignorant as those who assume they already know everything.


provide link again?

also, it's not the politicians recommending these vaccinations - it's the epidemiologists, microbiologists, and physicians you apparently don't question.



Sunni Man said:


> I belive homosexuality is a mental illness that requires treatment.


It's a good thing no doctor in the country agrees with that.  Wait let me guess, you claim your wife does?

I find it funny, even knowing you're a troll, that you go for this argument.  I was really hoping you'd answer the "did you choose to be straight?" question, but I suppose even a troll can see traps.





KittenKoder said:


> Go back to school, learn about ancient history and civilizations. They not only tolerated homosexual behavior but many embraced it. The greatest armies of the past practiced it quite often. Again, learn your ancient history, but try to learn with open eyes this time.


As much as I find KittenKoder to be irrationally paranoid, this is actually a valid point.  Ancient Greeks used to have a mentor relationship between an older man and a younger adolescent boy.  The boy would get knowledge, the man would get...  the boy.

This was commonly practiced within the society, even with married men.



Sunni Man said:


> Homos and their gay loving backers are always making these idiotic claims.
> 
> Homo couples don't reproduce.
> 
> So a society composed of mainly homos would eventually die out


I think the problem is that your trolling takes on such a black and white stance.  There's no gray for you, which makes you a less effective troll.  Take this quote for example.  Clearly no one is suggesting everyone become gay.  Yet you go there.  It makes you less credible.  Case in point:



Sunni Man said:


> There is NO such thing as being Bi


False!


----------



## ABikerSailor (Oct 7, 2009)

froggy said:


> Joe_Penalty said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Oct 7, 2009)

i volunteered for my local pride office, and other gay events.

did i say i was an expert. Alright i gotta clarify again, rolls eyes.

I have experience being around gay people, and political events, so i think i know something about gays



ABikerSailor said:


> actsnoblemartin said:
> 
> 
> > I get it, i dont agree therefore im closed minded.
> ...


----------



## KittenKoder (Oct 7, 2009)

Those who enjoy the government dictating their religious beliefs need to go to the Middle East and let us lift the bans on such things as gay marriage. Seriously, that's all it is, a ban on one form of marriage is just that, the government dictating what your religious beliefs should be.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Oct 7, 2009)

> i volunteered for my local pride office, and other gay events.
> 
> did i say i was an expert. Alright i gotta clarify again, rolls eyes.
> 
> I have experience being around gay people, and political events, so i think i know something about gays



I'll make it simple, as you're obviously mentally challenged..........

In the biker culture we have a quote......"18 grand and 18 miles don't make you a Biker".

In your case?  "5 months and 5 gay acquaintances doesn't make you an expert on homosexuality".

I actually LIVED with 2 lesbians for 2 years while stationed in Norfolk Va. from '98 to '99.  So yeah....I kinda think I know a thing or two about 'em.

Or...........another way of putting it..............just because you petted some animal at the zoo, doesn't mean that you know enough about the animal to pet it in the wild.

Try again.  I'll wait.


----------



## froggy (Oct 7, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> > Joe_Penalty said:
> ...


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Oct 7, 2009)

the uncivil hostility is really not neccesary

I do retract one statement. most gays are not against god or religion. 

you obviously didnt understand what i meant, or your not listening. Sex outside marriage is a sin, married couples and even people in committed loving relationships both straight or gay have sex for fun, but having sex for fun means, fucking some stranger or fuck buddy.



ABikerSailor said:


> actsnoblemartin said:
> 
> 
> > I get it, i dont agree therefore im closed minded.
> ...


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Oct 7, 2009)

I didnt know you were a doctor, second I didnt know you had seen me in your office doctor.

you are going on ignore as you are a crude, vile, punk



ABikerSailor said:


> > i volunteered for my local pride office, and other gay events.
> >
> > did i say i was an expert. Alright i gotta clarify again, rolls eyes.
> >
> ...


----------



## ABikerSailor (Oct 7, 2009)

> the uncivil hostility is really not neccesary
> 
> I do retract one statement. most gays are not against god or religion.
> 
> you obviously didnt understand what i meant, or your not listening. Sex outside marriage is a sin, married couples and even people in committed loving relationships both straight or gay have sex for fun, but having sex for fun means, fucking some stranger or fuck buddy.



Okay, but my question is.......what makes YOUR belief system any more correct than any other one on the planet?

Did you realize, that after Yeshua (Jesus) left Israel, He went to India and wrote "The Tibetan Book of the Dead" for them?  It's in their belief system.

Now.......with that being said.......there are MANY forms of Hinduism.  Some of which require their believers to have sex with someone they are not involved with.

What makes YOUR brand of religion right?  Remember........for many years people believed the Catholic Church was right.......then came Martin Luther who spoke out about indulgences.

Oh yeah........as far as it being a "sin" to have sex with someone that you're not married to, or in a committed relationship with?  Did you know that prior to the 13th century, Catholic priests (who had nobody they were in a relationship with), were allowed to visit brothels?  At least......until the man who would become pope came down with syphilis, and the first thing he did when he became pope was to make it illegal for priests to visit whore houses.

True story.......here..........



> A protestant friend of mine recently approached me regarding his interest in the Catholic church. His most recent question regarded prostitution (see below) I have good basic understanding of Catholic teaching but this was a curve ball Prior to this statement (see below) I was telling him about the authority needed to understand scripture and the historical teaching of faith/morals of the Church are without error for 2000 years. Thank you for any response you can provide.
> 
> (email I received from protestant friend)
> I, briefly, surfed the internet to find out about medieval prostitution  heres what I found. I didnt have time to completely verify that this information is NOT coming from a cuckoo source. I just typed in a few things and it pulled up a lot of information. Here are a few of the things I found:
> ...



Catholic Church encouraged prostitution? - Catholic Answers Forums

And that is from a Catholic messageboard.  Yeah.......I know.......it's from a messageboard, but the information is verifiable.

Try again with your "no sex outside of marriage" deal.  I kinda enjoy spanking your ass with facts.


----------



## Sunni Man (Oct 7, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> Did you realize, that after Yeshua (Jesus) left Israel, He went to India and wrote "The Tibetan Book of the Dead" for them?



Then after that; he went to the North Pole and built Igloos for the Eskimos


----------



## ABikerSailor (Oct 7, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Did you realize, that after Yeshua (Jesus) left Israel, He went to India and wrote "The Tibetan Book of the Dead" for them?
> ...



Actually, that is part of the lore concerning that book.  Too bad you don't know anything Sunnidiot........you keep claiming to be educated and a doctor.....


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Oct 7, 2009)

every society has the right to determine for itself its own laws

and im sorry you feel that way, but people have the right to save traditional marriage from being changed to suit a minority.



KittenKoder said:


> Those who enjoy the government dictating their religious beliefs need to go to the Middle East and let us lift the bans on such things as gay marriage. Seriously, that's all it is, a ban on one form of marriage is just that, the government dictating what your religious beliefs should be.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Oct 7, 2009)

Hey, choad smoker known as Ain't Noble Martin.........

Where the fuck did your delusional fat ass come up with the idea that I was a doctor?

The term was B-I-K-E-R fuckstick.


----------



## Setarcos (Oct 7, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> A man who has sex with another man is a homosexual.
> 
> Even if that same man has sex sometimes with a woman.
> 
> ...


I've determined that you are willfully ignorant and your intent is purely to irritate.


----------



## Setarcos (Oct 7, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> > Joe_Penalty said:
> ...


Could you guys please sort those quotes out? Whom were you responding to?


----------



## Setarcos (Oct 7, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> Hey, choad smoker known as Ain't Noble Martin.........
> 
> Where the fuck did your delusional fat ass come up with the idea that I was a doctor?
> 
> The term was B-I-K-E-R fuckstick.


Didn't I see you at last year's Folsom Street Fair?


----------



## Sunni Man (Oct 7, 2009)

Setarcos said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > A man who has sex with another man is a homosexual.
> ...



If hearing the truth irritates you. How is it my fault?


----------



## ABikerSailor (Oct 7, 2009)

Setarcos said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > froggy said:
> ...


----------



## Setarcos (Oct 7, 2009)

Why'd you attribute it to Joe_Penalty?


----------



## Sunni Man (Oct 7, 2009)

I hear the same thing about men who molest young boys.

These guys are homosexuals.

But the homo lovers say not true, they are pedophiles.

Yes they are pedophiles. Homosexual pedophiles..


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Oct 7, 2009)

what if a man has sex with men and women equally?

what does that make him then 



Sunni Man said:


> Setarcos said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...


----------



## Valerie (Oct 7, 2009)

actsnoblemartin said:


> what if a man has sex with men and women equally?
> 
> what does that make him then







Bisexual


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Oct 7, 2009)

I was asking sunniman

cause i would say thats bi sexual too



Valerie said:


> actsnoblemartin said:
> 
> 
> > what if a man has sex with men and women equally?
> ...


----------



## Sunni Man (Oct 7, 2009)

actsnoblemartin said:


> I was asking sunniman
> 
> cause i would say thats bi sexual too
> 
> ...


A guy who has sex with other men is a homosexual.

Even if he has sex with 100 women for every one guy he has sex with.

He is still a homosexual.


----------



## Setarcos (Oct 7, 2009)

_Nonexclusive homosexuality_ is synonymous with bisexuality

Simply saying "homosexual" implies exclusive homosexuality


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 7, 2009)

actsnoblemartin said:


> because we choose not, we ignore them. we fear them, and we just dont care.
> 
> but i was talking about, people in general in small ways affecting each other
> 
> ...



As though it's necessary to know someone in order to affect his life.  Do I have to be personally acquainted with someone to, for instance, run him down with my car in the crosswalk?  No, of course not.  For something less extreme, do I have to know someone to cough into my hand, transfer the germs to a doorknob in a public place, and thus infect him with my cold?  Obviously not.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Oct 7, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> My goal would be to eradicate all perversions from society. ie, rapists, child molesters, homosexuals, and other sexual deviants.
> 
> Helping people cure their mental sickness through therapy isn't hate.
> 
> It is caring enough to help them with their illness.



Homosexuality is not a mental disorder.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 7, 2009)

eagleseven said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > actsnoblemartin said:
> ...



It's possible to ignore homosexual relationships in a general sort of way, such as ignoring the couple that lives down the street.  But we're not talking about ignoring what strangers do in their daily lives.  We're talking about ignoring public policy and legislation, and not only is it not possible to "simply ignore" those things, no one has any right to even ask us to do so.

Bottom line:  if you want to keep something private and personal and no one else's business, don't drag it out into the public realm of politics and laws.  If you do drag it out there, accept that you have given people the right to have, voice, and legally enact an opinion on it.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Oct 7, 2009)

Setarcos said:


> Why'd you attribute it to Joe_Penalty?



Actually, I didn't.  It's the person that quoted me (and changed my post) that did it.  That's against the rules by the way.  Sorry about the confusion, but some idiots on here do that.

Back to the gays...............

Anyone heard that Washington DC is going to legalize gay marriage?  I also think that "don't ask, don't tell" needs to be repealed.  Matter of fact, most of our allies allow gays to serve openly in their military (Britain, Canada, Israel, etc).

Nobody has been able to give me a satisfactory answer by the way........why is it that gay marriage and partnerships threaten straight people?  Is it because they are insecure with their own sexuality?  Is it because they think they have the right to something, and because of their own confused ideas about it (sex and marriage, see the latest DC scandals for that), they think that they have to protect it from people that will fuck it up, or........worse yet..........show the straight bigots how wrong they've been?

Legalize gay marriage, repeal don't ask don't tell.

And this is coming from a straight man who served 20 years in the military!


----------



## Setarcos (Oct 7, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Bottom line:  if you want to keep something private and personal and no one else's business, don't drag it out into the public realm of politics and laws.  If you do drag it out there, accept that you have given people the right to have, voice, and legally enact an opinion on it.


Like your marriage and dislike for gays?


----------



## Joe_Penalty (Oct 8, 2009)

Sky Dancer said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > My goal would be to eradicate all perversions from society. ie, rapists, child molesters, homosexuals, and other sexual deviants.
> ...



I always wondered about that.

What is homosexuality classified as actually?


----------



## Sunni Man (Oct 8, 2009)

Boosterman said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > My goal would be *to eradicate all perversions from society*. ie, rapists, child molesters, homosexuals, and other sexual deviants.
> ...



Evidence???

Link???


----------



## Sunni Man (Oct 8, 2009)

Boosterman said:


> I can't post a link I'm a newbie, but if you want to do a quick search, it was reported in the Montreal Gazette because it was in the Canadian compound, lol. The Canadians said that they didn't tell them to stop because they didn't want to upset them, LOL. Morons.



Sure it was


----------



## Sunni Man (Oct 8, 2009)

Boosterman said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > Boosterman said:
> ...



Sure you could!!  I got faith in Ya!!!


----------



## ABikerSailor (Oct 8, 2009)

You know Sunnidiot, I'd trust Boosterman with telling me the truth more than I'd trust you.

Hey Boosterman, as soon as you post over 15 posts, you can put in links.  Doesn't even have to be a word, just a couple of commas or periods and post.  When you hit over 15, you're good to go.

It's there to keep the spammers out.


----------



## logical4u (Oct 8, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> Setarcos said:
> 
> 
> > Why'd you attribute it to Joe_Penalty?
> ...



1.
Gay marriage, once accepted would give homosexuals (more) access to the NEA and possibly the new healthcare requirements (to be mandated by the gov, shortly).  It will be used by "radicals/extremists" to push the homosexual lifestyle onto children (their future "victims" of seduction) as perfectly "acceptable".  (please notice that I did not include all homosexuals in that statement)  Doing this would reduce the gene pool/available breeding stock (if it is true that homosexuals are only attracted to their sex, and would not be able to contribute to making children "naturally".  (I know, your arguement, some couples go to great lengths to have children)  If this did happen and homosexual couples chose to have children using artificial and medical assistance, healthcare costs would increase exponetially.
This is a direct threat to the well being of families.  People that are blessed with children want those children to grow and become productive in society as well as having families of their own.  If those same children are "indoctrinated" into believing homosexuality is a good thing, it could end families permanently (no more children from that line, naturally).
It will be harder for families to protect their children from influences they feel would not help their children develop to become "productive".
2.
"Typically", homosexual communities are not family oriented.  The public "celebrations" are events most "family" oriented people avoid like the plague.  If homosexual partnerships became "socially legal/acceptable", there would be more "homosexual" communities where immorality, lewdness, and perversity would be on public display non-stop.  "Those communities" would become magnets for crimes and violence that the taxpayers (especially the taxpayers trying to earn a living to raise their families in peace) would be forced to pay, due to the new-found legitimacy of the neighborhoods, the police would not be able to do their jobs without "sensitivity" training, and when they finally got to the community, harrassment from people that want to behave in a lawless manner, since they pushed "their" way of life onto society.  It would corrupt society at an accelerated rate and reduce the standard of living for every citizen (resources would have to be used on peacekeeping, increased medical costs and increase utility costs for communities).
3.
Children with homosexual parents would be more numerous.  Given the immoral nature of homosexuals, it will be extremely hard to raise children in a "secure" environment.  How can children trust a parent that pretends they are something they are not (the opposite sex)?  How can a child feel confident in who they are, if they grow up around people that still haven't figured it out and send mixed signals about integrity?  The mental health costs for these children could become astronomical.


----------



## Joe_Penalty (Oct 8, 2009)

froggy said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > froggy said:
> ...


----------



## ABikerSailor (Oct 8, 2009)

logical4u said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Setarcos said:
> ...



You're like the Soup Nazi of logic............."No Logic 4 U!".

First, gays aren't really interested in "turning" kids.  Matter of fact, most of them are pretty basic type people who live pretty much alongside everyone else.  Generally speaking, if you do live next to gays, you'd think they were just like you until they told you.  Reducing the gene pool, reducing breeding stock?  Who the fuck are you anyway, one of Hitler's cronies reincarnated?  That's the same kind of language that a nazi would use.

And your fear mongering on the healthcare system just because YOU are scared of your own sexuality (otherwise you wouldn't fear it in others) doesn't mean others are.

As far as a gay community not being family oriented?  Ever been to Provincetown MA?  If not, I recommend going.  You'd see how much "perversion and lewdness" is going on........

Not much, because they keep it out of the public sight (generally).  But, one person's perversion is another person's turn on.  Trust me.........because if you went to some of the places in Europe (which incidentally, are considered family friendly), you would see stuff that would make most Christian conservatives from here start yelling about sin.

No Logic 4 U, please.........pull your head outta the fire and brimstone and quit judging the sprituality of others.


----------



## Sunni Man (Oct 8, 2009)

Boosterman said:


> Boosterman said:
> 
> 
> > Here sunny, shove this in your camel's ass crack and smoke it.
> ...


Boosterman, you seem to be way too interested in pedophilia

Are you a member of NAMBLA ???


----------



## Sunni Man (Oct 8, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> Generally speaking, if you do live next to gays, you'd think they were just like you until they told you.



I think the beard or mustache while wearing a dress kind of gives them away


----------



## ABikerSailor (Oct 8, 2009)

Hey.......Sunnidiot........do you actually KNOW any gays?

It's obvious that you don't.


----------



## Sunni Man (Oct 8, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> Hey.......Sunnidiot........do you actually KNOW any gays?


Just you...............


----------



## Sunni Man (Oct 8, 2009)

Boosterman said:


> Sunni, I own you, you have nothing to reply to me.


Yea, right


----------



## ABikerSailor (Oct 8, 2009)

Well.........apparently Sunnidiot, you don't know any gays, nor are you aware of who is and who isn't.

How are you going to round them up to heal them if you don't know who they are?


----------



## Sunni Man (Oct 8, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> Well.........apparently Sunnidiot, you don't know any gays, nor are you aware of who is and who isn't.
> 
> How are you going to round them up to heal them if you don't know who they are?


They are easy to spot.

Limp wrist, low cut dress with hairy chest, size 12 heels, hands stained brown and reek of fecal material, purse full of AIDS medicine, hanging around childrens play grounds, etc.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Oct 8, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Well.........apparently Sunnidiot, you don't know any gays, nor are you aware of who is and who isn't.
> ...



Really?  Then what about the political types like Barney Frank?  Elton John?  

Your cartoon description of a gay is poor at best.


----------



## Sunni Man (Oct 8, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...


Thanks for reminding me with your two examples of Barney Frank and Elton John.  

I forgot to include obvious lisp and effeminate sounding speech in my list.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Oct 8, 2009)

You really are a joke Sunnidiot.


----------



## Setarcos (Oct 8, 2009)

Joe_Penalty said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...



A sexual attraction, just like hetero or bisexuality


ABikerSailor said:


> why is it that gay marriage and partnerships threaten straight people?  Is it because they are insecure with their own sexuality?



That sounds pretty accurate



logical4u said:


> 1.
> Gay marriage, once accepted would give homosexuals (more) access to the NEA and possibly the new healthcare requirements (to be mandated by the gov, shortly).



And homosexuals having acess to helthcare is bady why?


> It will be used by "radicals/extremists" to push the homosexual lifestyle onto children (their future "victims" of seduction) as perfectly "acceptable".



That exact statement can be applied to the churches.



> Doing this would reduce the gene pool/available breeding stock (if it is true that homosexuals are only attracted to their sex, and would not be able to contribute to making children "naturally".



1)Demonstrate
2)Why is it so horrible if our population doesn't continue to explode?


> (I know, your arguement, some couples go to great lengths to have children)  If this did happen and homosexual couples chose to have children using artificial and medical assistance, healthcare costs would increase exponetially.



Evidence?


> This is a direct threat to the well being of families



Demonstrate how someone else having a family threatens your family.


> .  People that are blessed with children want those children to grow and become productive in society as well as having families of their own.



And? Should we require all people to have children to make their parents happy?



> If those same children are "indoctrinated" into believing homosexuality is a good thing, it could end families permanently (no more children from that line, naturally).


Demonstrate

and demonstrate why this is such a horrible thing


> 2.
> "Typically", homosexual communities are not family oriented



evidence?


> .  The public "celebrations" are events most "family" oriented people avoid like the plague



Flamers and parade-goers are a minority, in my own experience. Also, such displays are a direct reaction to people like you and, I suspect, would be far less common inf America were less reressive.


> .  If homosexual partnerships became "socially legal/acceptable", there would be more "homosexual" communities where immorality, lewdness, and perversity would be on public display non-stop.



Evidence?


> "Those communities" would become magnets for crimes and violence that the taxpayers (especially the taxpayers trying to earn a living to raise their families in peace) would be forced to pay, due to the new-found legitimacy of the neighborhoods, the police would not be able to do their jobs without "sensitivity" training, and when they finally got to the community, harrassment from people that want to behave in a lawless manner, since they pushed "their" way of life onto society.



Demonstrate. 

You're reminding me of the "if you give a mouse a cookie" skit on Robot Chicken


> It would corrupt society at an accelerated rate and reduce the standard of living for every citizen (resources would have to be used on peacekeeping, increased medical costs and increase utility costs for communities).



Do you have any evidence whatsoever to back these outlandish claims?


> 3.
> Children with homosexual parents would be more numerous.  Given the immoral nature of homosexuals, it will be extremely hard to raise children in a "secure" environment.



Demonstrate.


> How can children trust a parent that pretends they are something they are not (the opposite sex)?



As opposed to trusting... the priest at the local Catholic church? 


> How can a child feel confident in who they are, if they grow up around people that still haven't figured it out and send mixed signals about integrity?



Demonstrate any such signals



> The mental health costs for these children could become astronomical.



Demonstrate. The APA disagrees with you.




ABikerSailor said:


> Hey.......Sunnidiot........do you actually KNOW any gays?
> 
> It's obvious that you don't.




He's been working on getting to know himself better through some books on tape.



Sunni Man said:


> They are easy to spot.
> 
> Limp wrist, low cut dress with hairy chest, size 12 heels, hands stained brown and reek of fecal material, purse full of AIDS medicine, hanging around childrens play grounds, etc.



Sounds more like the modern Republicans


----------



## eagleseven (Oct 8, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Well.........apparently Sunnidiot, you don't know any gays, nor are you aware of who is and who isn't.
> ...


So.....they look like this?


----------



## Sunni Man (Oct 8, 2009)

eagleseven said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...


LOL!!!!  Maybe


----------



## Sunni Man (Oct 8, 2009)

It always makes me laugh when ignorant people post pictures of what they think is Muhammad.

Just as there are no pictures of Jesus. There are no pictures of Muhammad either.


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Oct 8, 2009)

this is ridiculous. Sunni man doesnt agree with you so attack his religion?


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Oct 8, 2009)

while im not buying that homosexuals and pedophillia have anything to do with each other.

your just personally attacking a man's religion, which is wrong



Boosterman said:


> C'mon sunni, did you read the article? I'm not interested in pedophilia, but there sure seems to be a lot of it in islam. It's even legal in arabiastan, just ask mohammed.


----------



## Oscar Wao (Oct 8, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> It always makes me laugh when ignorant people post pictures of what they think is Muhammad.
> 
> Just as there are no pictures of Jesus. There are no pictures of Muhammad either.


And the most effete man can be straighter than an arrow. The most butch, masculine, macho man's man can be as queer as a football bat.

You can't TRULY tell if someone is gay or not.


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Oct 8, 2009)

exactly right



Oscar Wao said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > It always makes me laugh when ignorant people post pictures of what they think is Muhammad.
> ...


----------



## eagleseven (Oct 8, 2009)

actsnoblemartin said:


> this is ridiculous. Sunni man doesnt agree with you so attack his religion?



No, just fuckin with the troll.


----------



## Setarcos (Oct 8, 2009)

eagleseven said:


> actsnoblemartin said:
> 
> 
> > this is ridiculous. Sunni man doesnt agree with you so attack his religion?
> ...





> *Troll* and *trolling* are slang terms used almost exclusively amongst gay men to characterize gay, bisexual and questioning or bi-curious men who cruise or wander about looking[1] for sex or potential sex partners or experiences in a notably wanton manner and with lessened standards of what one will accept in a partner.[2] The term can be used positively or negatively depending on the speaker, usage and intent and can describe the person or the activity. Although often referring to an unattractive older gay man[3] the phrases can be used for anyone who is trolling regardless of age or perceived beauty and troll as a slur is primarily a visual, not a behavioral judgment.[4]



Troll (gay slang) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



The Down-Low: Please keep it on it




What happened to your standards, man?


----------



## froggy (Oct 9, 2009)

Boosterman said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



sound like gays and muslims are alot alike, huh.


----------



## JD_2B (Oct 9, 2009)

I agree that the bible seems to be against homosexuality, but the bible in question was also under the charge of King James, who apparently had some homosexual relationships himself, or at least what was thought to be homosexual relationships..

But that aside- if a person is legally allowed to change their gender from a "plumbing" standpoint, and have a heterosexual marriage- that transgender person is still the same sex that they were before..

If a man turned into a woman, to be able to marry another man- it wont matter that he has a vagina all of a sudden- he still has a Y chromosome and is marrying a man who also has a Y chromosome..

So whats the diff?


----------



## froggy (Oct 9, 2009)

JD_2B said:


> I agree that the bible seems to be against homosexuality, but the bible in question was also under the charge of King James, who apparently had some homosexual relationships himself, or at least what was thought to be homosexual relationships..
> 
> But that aside- if a person is legally allowed to change their gender from a "plumbing" standpoint, and have a heterosexual marriage- that transgender person is still the same sex that they were before..
> 
> ...



but from a distance would you be able to tell. the bible now is being critised by lies so the same lies were used in king james time also.


----------



## JW Frogen (Oct 9, 2009)

I agree with same sex marriage. It is always a good sign for a marriage when the spouses have sex at the same time. Preferably with each other.

I don&#8217;t always practice it however.


----------



## JD_2B (Oct 9, 2009)

froggy said:


> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > I agree that the bible seems to be against homosexuality, but the bible in question was also under the charge of King James, who apparently had some homosexual relationships himself, or at least what was thought to be homosexual relationships..
> ...



There is only one way to tell is a SHE is really a HE.. The pointer finger.  In a real female, the pointer finger will be a tiny bit longer than the ring finger. In a man, the pointer finger stops short of being equal to the length of the ring finger. And if the person gets this surgically enhanced, also- then the only one way to tell is by testing their blood. 

The point is that blood tests are not required by states to consider a marriage to be valid, so it does not seem to matter if a "former male" marries a current male. Also, if their blood is a match for gender, then technically, they are in a gay marriage, being that they are genetically the same sex. Sociologically and physiologically, the former male is, by all reasonable accounts, a woman, of course- its just that if people want to get so specific about how the constitution's or the bible's wording is, then all of these transgenders are also in violation.. 

What is REALLY the difference between this and regular gay marriage, without the facade of surgically changing your genitalia and taking hormone therapy just to be accepted?


----------



## Setarcos (Oct 9, 2009)

JD_2B said:


> But that aside- if a person is legally allowed to change their gender from a "plumbing" standpoint, and have a heterosexual marriage- that transgender person is still the same sex that they were before..




How do you determine sex, if not by anatomy?



> If a man turned into a woman, to be able to marry another man- it wont matter that he has a vagina all of a sudden- he still has a Y chromosome and is marrying a man who also has a Y chromosome..




What about women who have a Y chromosome and don't know it?


----------



## froggy (Oct 9, 2009)

JD_2B said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> > JD_2B said:
> ...



what about the adams apple.


----------



## froggy (Oct 9, 2009)

JD_2B said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> > JD_2B said:
> ...


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 9, 2009)

Setarcos said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Bottom line:  if you want to keep something private and personal and no one else's business, don't drag it out into the public realm of politics and laws.  If you do drag it out there, accept that you have given people the right to have, voice, and legally enact an opinion on it.
> ...



I don't dislike homosexuals, dumbass.  Please stop conflating your ignorant personal opinions with a universal objective standard of correctness.  Just FYI, I'd bet good money I have more gay and bisexual friends than you do.  That does not, however, require me to hold the same opinions about politics and public policy that they do.


----------



## Setarcos (Oct 9, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Just FYI, I'd bet good money I have more gay and bisexual friends than you do


You're not a bigot because you can tell us exactly how many gays you know?

Do you not see the absurdity of your statement?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 9, 2009)

JD_2B said:


> I agree that the bible seems to be against homosexuality, but the bible in question was also under the charge of King James, who apparently had some homosexual relationships himself, or at least what was thought to be homosexual relationships..
> 
> But that aside- if a person is legally allowed to change their gender from a "plumbing" standpoint, and have a heterosexual marriage- that transgender person is still the same sex that they were before..
> 
> ...



Uh, yeah.  The Bible was written by English scribes under the pay of King James.  Didn't exist before that.  No other older versions available, or anything like that.  

Doesn't really matter if you have an operation mutilating yourself.  Sex is not determined by anatomy.  It is determined by genetics, and genetically, you're still the sex you were born.  Anatomy is just the most obvious visual clue other people have to reading your genetics.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 9, 2009)

Setarcos said:


> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > But that aside- if a person is legally allowed to change their gender from a "plumbing" standpoint, and have a heterosexual marriage- that transgender person is still the same sex that they were before..
> ...



Women who have a Y chromosome?  Okay, SOMEONE was asleep in biology class.


----------



## Setarcos (Oct 9, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Setarcos said:
> 
> 
> > JD_2B said:
> ...





Yes, it appears you were

Let me google that for you


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 9, 2009)

Setarcos said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Just FYI, I'd bet good money I have more gay and bisexual friends than you do
> ...



No, dumbfuck, I'm not a bigot because I don't just sit around on the Internet, playing at caring about people I don't actually know and wouldn't personally associate with, like you.  You can disagree with my opinions all you like, but if you try to dismiss them as "nothing but homophobia", you just make yourself sound like even more of an ignorant elitist _poseur_.


----------



## Setarcos (Oct 9, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Setarcos said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



You have any evidence supporting your allegations?


----------



## ABikerSailor (Oct 9, 2009)

JD_2B said:


> I agree that the bible seems to be against homosexuality, but the bible in question was also under the charge of King James, who apparently had some homosexual relationships himself, or at least what was thought to be homosexual relationships..
> 
> But that aside- if a person is legally allowed to change their gender from a "plumbing" standpoint, and have a heterosexual marriage- that transgender person is still the same sex that they were before..
> 
> ...



You know........that's not a bad question.  What if 2 gay men wanted to get married, one was the fem and decided to go through a sex change (kinda like that councilman in Florida).

Now....are you telling me that according to conservatives, as long as you have the current plumbing, it doesn't matter what sex you were prior to?  You can get married if you have surgery, but otherwise no?

Which leads into the next question........what if someone is born with both male and female genatalia?  Does this mean that you can marry either or none?

Sucking Idiot......as the resident gay hater, please feel free to answer these questions.


----------



## froggy (Oct 9, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> that means they can marry thierself, then if they die they wont have to worry about leaving the other something. haven't they heard of making a will thats what it all started from anyway their partner got left holding  an empty bag.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Oct 9, 2009)

Non-heterosexual people scare you, don't they Froggy?


----------



## Sunni Man (Oct 9, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> *Non-heterosexual *people scare you, don't they Froggy?



"Non-heterosexual"  LOL!!! just another name for homosexual perverts


----------



## froggy (Oct 9, 2009)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YSHXJNV0D8]YouTube - Scientologist says it's "fine" killing all homosexuals[/ame] you must have me confused with this bunch, the frog fear none.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Oct 9, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > *Non-heterosexual *people scare you, don't they Froggy?
> ...



Just another name for homosexual perverts?  For someone that claims to be a shrink, with a spouse for a doctor, you sure as fuck don't know much.........

Ever hear of a hermaphrodite?  Those are people with both male and female sex organs.  Now, I've seen your bullshit on here a lot Sucking Idiot, and you're probably gonna tell people that those people are also "homosexual perverts" because they could choose an operation to be just one sex, right?

Might want to talk to a REAL doctor sometime Sucking Idiot.


----------



## Sunni Man (Oct 9, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> Ever hear of a *hermaphrodite*?



I looked up the word in the dictionary.

It said: 

def: a poster on the internet known as ABikerSailor


----------



## KittenKoder (Oct 9, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > *Non-heterosexual *people scare you, don't they Froggy?
> ...



I'm non-sexual, does that mean I'm homosexual? I am certainly not heterosexual.


----------



## KittenKoder (Oct 9, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Ever hear of a *hermaphrodite*?
> ...



That would make him appealing to everyone then, also it would mean it's impossible for him to be homosexual. Hermaphrodites simply cannot be homosexual.


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Oct 9, 2009)

wouldnt that make you a-sexual, and hermaphrites half sexual?



KittenKoder said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...


----------



## KittenKoder (Oct 9, 2009)

actsnoblemartin said:


> wouldnt that make you a-sexual, and hermaphrites half sexual?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



A-sexual is what I called it, but someone pointed out that that's not right since it means the ability to procreate without sex, but meh.

Hermaphrodite isn't a sexual preference, it's a physical state of gender, common in some species, very uncommon in ours, and a few species it's the norm. It's the presence of both genders in the person, both sex organs, though they are usually incapable of self procreation, they still need another partner though the gender of that partner is unimportant.

As said before, there are more things to sexuality and gender than people who are somehow anti-gay realize, more education is needed for those people. The world is a rainbow, nothing, absolutely *nothing* is simply "black and white".


----------



## Setarcos (Oct 9, 2009)

The more the haters post, the more they reveal their ignorance.

It all goes to show that they fear what they do not understand.


----------



## froggy (Oct 9, 2009)

Setarcos said:


> The more the haters post, the more they reveal their ignorance.
> 
> It all goes to show that they fear what they do not understand.



it not hard to understand, its just discussing when you invision it, ugh!


----------



## Setarcos (Oct 9, 2009)

froggy said:


> Setarcos said:
> 
> 
> > The more the haters post, the more they reveal their ignorance.
> ...


Then why were you thinking about it?


----------



## Kalam (Oct 9, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



They would be if they only had sex with other hermaphrodites, I guess.


----------



## Setarcos (Oct 9, 2009)

A bit literal there, Kalam 

It'd have to be the same 'form' of hermaphroditism


----------



## froggy (Oct 9, 2009)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JW1Bx2yV3dc]YouTube - No Sugar Tonight/New Mother Nature By The Guess Who[/ame]                                                                              is this the new poster song for gays must be a new mother nature.


----------



## eagleseven (Oct 9, 2009)

froggy said:


> YouTube - No Sugar Tonight/New Mother Nature By The Guess Who
> is this the new poster song for gays must be a new mother nature.



Welcome to the new Millennium. Try...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6oHolpXxqA&feature=player_embedded"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6oHolpXxqA&feature=player_embedded[/ame]

...and she's a hermaphrodite.


----------



## froggy (Oct 9, 2009)

eagleseven said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> > YouTube - No Sugar Tonight/New Mother Nature By The Guess Who
> ...



ou mean heshe's a hermaphrodite.


----------



## eagleseven (Oct 9, 2009)

froggy said:


> eagleseven said:
> 
> 
> > froggy said:
> ...



As she prefers the female gender role, she's a She.


----------



## JD_2B (Oct 9, 2009)

Hermaphrodites tend to be one gender or another, as far as DNA goes, but they also tend to have their parents choose for them, depending on which sex organ is the most prominently developed.. 

It is impossible for a person to be two genders, even if they have two types of sex organs, lol


----------



## JD_2B (Oct 9, 2009)

Setarcos said:


> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > But that aside- if a person is legally allowed to change their gender from a "plumbing" standpoint, and have a heterosexual marriage- that transgender person is still the same sex that they were before..
> ...



I saw that House episode, too- where the girl was immune to testosterone, and was found to be genetically a male, with undecended testicles. I am not an MD, and looking that condition up on the internet brought nothing up besides that House episode and some discussion board messages, so I can only say this: If someone had such a thing, then they are still technically a male, lol.. 

I am only speaking about genetics here- the birth certificate is what most registrars use to approve marriage licenses. The birth certificates of people who are hermaphrodites are often wrong, and even females that have an unusually large clitoris (as a result of a birth defect, or genetic disposition, etc) because the male organs have not descended yet, or the penis is too small to be "obvious". 
In the past, blood testing was not always even available for gender.. and may not have been widely utilized.. 

Oh and for the person who asked about the adam's apple- there is a surgery that transsexuals can get to make their adam's apples smaller, or hidden, although I do not know what is this surgery entails. (Google "adam's apple" "plastic surgery" if you don't believe me) They offer this so that people who have large adam's apples can look more feminine.. The female neck is a very sensual and attractive part of a woman's body, to men, primarily because it does not have that adam's apple.. 

My whole point to all this is that since someone can get a gender change, and change their gender legally, then it should really be noted by the homophobes that anyone willing to go that far to marry someone they love can LEGALLY do it. 

I just dont agree that a person should have to be subjected to undergoing gender alteration surgery, as well as all the damned testosterone or estrogen treatments, just to friggin marry someone they love! I think that is just AWFUL that some people have to either live in misery or do that, to be able to have a wedding and a contract.


----------



## froggy (Oct 9, 2009)

JD_2B said:


> Setarcos said:
> 
> 
> > JD_2B said:
> ...



that house he can call em, can't he.


----------



## JD_2B (Oct 9, 2009)

LOL...  Like I said, I found nothing on the internet about that condition, but that does not mean it does not exist..  and anyways it is entirely beside the point.


----------



## Setarcos (Oct 10, 2009)

JD_2B said:


> It is impossible for a person to be two genders, even if they have two types of sex organs, lol



What definition of gender are you using?


----------



## Setarcos (Oct 10, 2009)

JD_2B said:


> LOL...  Like I said, I found nothing on the internet about that condition, but that does not mean it does not exist..  and anyways it is entirely beside the point.




You seem to suffer from a severe case of LoG



​


----------



## Sunni Man (Oct 10, 2009)

IamtheWalrus said:


> If a man has a sex change, is it still a same sex marriage or will it be considered a normal wedding?



There wouldn't be anything normal about it


----------



## ABikerSailor (Oct 10, 2009)

Know what I'd like to see happen to you Sucking Idiot?

Simple........next time you go out to a bar, I hope some post op comes up to you, gets you all hot and bothered, takes you to bed, and after she bones your brains out, she tells you that she used to be a he.

I'd laugh all week if that happened!

By the way, for another example of a person being both sexes?  Remember that African runner chick who may lose her gold medal as she's actually a dude?  At first the governing body of runners had thought she'd been taking testosterone, as hers was 3 times higher than all the other women.

They later found out that genetically, she is both male and female.  Matter of fact, if you look at her, she's got more angles than curves, and her shoulders are wider than her hips.

In women, hips are wider than the shoulders.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 10, 2009)

Setarcos said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Setarcos said:
> ...



You're referencing people with a genetic birth defect that makes them biologically male as "females with Y chromosomes"?  I take it back.  You weren't asleep in biology class.  You were asleep in READING class.

The next time you condescendingly Google something to prove your case, dipshit, try getting someone to read it to YOU first.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 10, 2009)

JD_2B said:


> Setarcos said:
> 
> 
> > JD_2B said:
> ...



If you want to look it up, it's called XY intersex, and it used to be called male pseudohermaphroditism.  And why doesn't it surprise me to find out that Setarcos the dumbass is getting his "biological knowledge" from a television show?


----------



## Setarcos (Oct 10, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Setarcos said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


So now you're upset because I proved females can have a y chromosome?

Wait... there's more...

xxy males - Google Search

That's right,. men with two x chromosomes

wait.. and even a girl with two x chromosomes- and a y

SpringerLink - Journal Article


> Abstract  A 47,XXY karyotype was found in a 6-year-old girl. The patient had female external genitalia, clitoromegaly, remnants of the ductus mesonephricus, uterus, and gonads in the labia majora which were determined to be testes by histology. Cytogenetic and DNA analyses suggest that the Y chromosome had a normal structure and that both X chromosomes were of maternal origin. The unusual clinical findings in the patient are discussed.



So far as I know, the only impossibility would be having no x chromosome (since it contains information not present on the y)


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 10, 2009)

Setarcos said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Setarcos said:
> ...



No, I'm laughing at your ignorant ass because you don't know the difference between a woman and a hermaphrodite, and you don't know enough to READ your own fucking Googles before you proudly proclaim that they prove you right, when they in fact prove you full of shit.

It doesn't matter whether someone LOOKS like a female or not.  Sex is determined by genetics, and if you are genetically an XY, then you are genetically a man.  If you appear to have external female genitalia, then you are a hermaphrodite, not a woman.

". . . were determined to be testes by histology".  Oh, look!  Male sex organs!  Gee, wonder what THAT means!

Dumbass.


----------



## Setarcos (Oct 10, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> I'm laughing at your ignorant ass because you don't know the difference between a woman and a hermaphrodite



one having both male and female sexual characteristics and organs; at birth an unambiguous assignment of male or female cannot be made 
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn 


We weren't discussing hermaphrodites; we were discussing males and females with karyotypes that you might not expect


> and you don't know enough to READ your own fucking Googles before you proudly proclaim that they prove you right, when they in fact prove you full of shit.
> 
> It doesn't matter whether someone LOOKS like a female or not.  Sex is determined by genetics, and if you are genetically an XY, then you are genetically a man.  If you appear to have external female genitalia, then you are a hermaphrodite, not a woman.



Actually, male-female designation has historical and is still primarily determined by physical sexual characteristics. If it were just DNA, there'd be no 'hermaphrodites', only men and women with congenital defects.


> ". . . were determined to be testes by histology".  Oh, look!  Male sex organs!  Gee, wonder what THAT means!



Did you read the rest of the linked information?


----------



## Setarcos (Oct 10, 2009)

Why are you so uncomfortable when faced with the reality that human sexuality isn't as black and white as you thought, cecile?


----------



## JD_2B (Oct 10, 2009)

Setarcos said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Setarcos said:
> ...



Setarcos- YOU are the one who is not reading their own articles here..  Both articles say that the gender is MALE, for both of them, genetically. They are only *called* 47 XXY males and 47 xxy females as a means of letting the reader know their already established visual gender, which is not their actual gender. THIS is why the study is posted, to show that it is not their actual biological gender..

Only FEMALES can be born with only X chromosome, and if they have an extra one, its called Trisomy X, and they are still female, and have 3 x's. XXX. 
KS&A  |  Trisomy X
MALES are the only ones who can have a Y chromosome, though.. even if they have an extra X, they are still male, biologically..
KS&A  |  47,XXY


> Does everyone born with an extra X chromosome have Klinefelter syndrome? This answer is No. Females born with an extra X chromosome are Trisomy X; and while all males who are born with an extra X chromosome are at risk of developing Klinefelter syndrome, for currently unexplained reasons, there is broad phenotypic variability and many of these 47,XXY inviduals may not develop one or more of the distinguishing signs and symptoms of the condition.



Sooooooooo anyhoo.. how any of this applies to gay marriage is beyond me, probably just some peoples way of throwing the rest of us off track so that they can avoid the actual issues here..


----------



## eagleseven (Oct 11, 2009)

What's a gay thread without any gays????


----------



## Setarcos (Oct 11, 2009)

JD_2B said:


> MALES are the only ones who can have a Y chromosome, though.. even if they have an extra X, they are still male, biologically..



Until recently, the only descriptions you'd see for sex involved two karyotypes: XX and XY. This was found to be insufficient to describe all of the potential human karyotypes. Genetic and physical sex can be different, ans a 'genetically male' XY karyotype or even xxy can develop like any other female- only superior to a 'normal' female in that they'll general be hyperfeminine.

Why are you people so scared to accept that the matter's not so black and white as you wish it were?


----------



## JD_2B (Oct 11, 2009)

It doesn't matter that they had physical defects in their sex organs being overdeveloped or underdeveloped.. That doesnt make them any more a certain sex.

*You* don't see female babies dressed as boys, and argue like this with their mothers, do you?

*You* don't claim that people born with a tail are somehow primates.. do you?

*You* don't decide that because a woman has a big belly, that she must be pregnant, do you? 

*You* don't proport to believe the dice are stacked this way, knowing full well that this is an optical illusion, either:






This is because YOU are a logical person, who would not be tricked so easily...

And YET, you choose to use a study of GENETICS in which the person has an extra chromosome (much the same as downs syndrome works, but this is a different chromosome (the X) which does not even usually tend to cause the sexual genitalia to deform in such a way, and still, STILL, you choose to claim that this is not a black and white issue???

YOU brought up genetics. YOU had the burden to prove that this genetic dysfunction somehow makes someone both a male and a female. It does not- it only makes someone have reproductive dysfunction in most cases, and distorted growth of genitalia, which just happens to easily confuse doctors at first glance. It most certainly does not change the person's biological gender, in any way shape or form, no matter how far you try to reach..


----------



## eagleseven (Oct 11, 2009)

I prefer to give a person the benefit of the doubt, and address them by whatever gender they prefer to be called. I don't go around demanding genetic analysis of the people I meet.


----------



## Setarcos (Oct 11, 2009)

JD_2B said:


> *You* don't claim that people born with a tail are somehow primates.. do you?



as well as those born without


> And YET, you choose to use a study of GENETICS in which the person has an extra chromosome (much the same as downs syndrome works, but this is a different chromosome (the X) which does not even usually tend to cause the sexual genitalia to deform in such a way, and still, STILL, you choose to claim that this is not a black and white issue???



Do you still not get it? The very definitions of 'male' and 'female' have been changed repeatedly because it's not as black and white as was once thought.





> YOU brought up genetics. YOU had the burden to prove that this genetic dysfunction somehow makes someone both a male and a female.



No, I don't, because I never claimed that. This makes twice  I've caught you lying, the first being your gross misrepresentation of Virginia law (which you later backpedaled).


----------



## Setarcos (Oct 11, 2009)

Scientific classification      Domain: Eukarya
  Kingdom: Animalia
  Phylum: Chordata
  Superclass: Tetrapoda
  Class: Mammalia
  Infraclass: Eutheria
  Order: Primates
  Suborder: Haplorrhini
  Infraorder: Simiiformes
  Parvorder: Catarrhini
  Superfamily: Hominoidea
  Family: Hominidae
  Subfamily: Homininae
  Tribe: Hominini
  Genus: Homo
  Species: H. sapiens
  Subspecies: H. s. sapiens

Yes, the child is a primate.


----------



## Setarcos (Oct 11, 2009)

eagleseven said:


> I prefer to give a person the benefit of the doubt, and address them by whatever gender they prefer to be called. I don't go around demanding genetic analysis of the people I meet.


I asked someone some time ago to state what definition of 'gender' they were using. They never did so.


Please, Eagle, what definition of 'gender' are you using?


----------



## betchamad (Oct 11, 2009)

Leviticus, chapter 20:13 "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Those homosexual shall be dead penalty,such evil shall be cleaned from our land.


----------



## eagleseven (Oct 11, 2009)

Setarcos said:


> eagleseven said:
> 
> 
> > I prefer to give a person the benefit of the doubt, and address them by whatever gender they prefer to be called. I don't go around demanding genetic analysis of the people I meet.
> ...



Gender = Whatever social role the person chooses to embrace. IE the use of "he" and "she" pronouns.

I only consider genetic sex (ie XX or XY) when contemplating reproduction.


----------



## paperview (Oct 11, 2009)

betchamad said:


> Leviticus, chapter 20:13 "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Those homosexual shall be dead penalty,such evil shall be cleaned from our land.


I see we have a new Taliban member.


----------



## betchamad (Oct 11, 2009)

God says homosexual is sin.Good christian shall not do such evil things.


----------



## Sunni Man (Oct 11, 2009)

paperview said:


> betchamad said:
> 
> 
> > Leviticus, chapter 20:13 "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Those homosexual shall be dead penalty,such evil shall be cleaned from our land.
> ...



Never heard of a Taliban who quotes the Bible


----------



## dilloduck (Oct 11, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > betchamad said:
> ...



It's an Old Testament Taliban.


----------



## Sunni Man (Oct 11, 2009)

dilloduck said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



I stand corrected


----------



## ABikerSailor (Oct 11, 2009)

Just out of curiosity, what would you classify the 3rd sexual identity in India as?

Not only is it recognized by the government, but by society as well.


----------



## Sunni Man (Oct 11, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> Just out of curiosity, what would you classify the 3rd sexual identity in India as?
> 
> Not only is it recognized by the government, but by society as well.



They would be classified as "perverts"


----------



## froggy (Oct 11, 2009)

we're juet gonna have to give sunni man and abikersailor a moment ------------- i think they need to hug.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Oct 11, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Just out of curiosity, what would you classify the 3rd sexual identity in India as?
> ...



Riiiiiiiiiiight.  But the whole deal is, they are legally and socially recognized as HAVING A RIGHT TO EXIST!

You are correct Froggy, I do want to hug Sucking Idiot.............around the neck............with a piece of wire.........tight...........


----------



## Sunni Man (Oct 11, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> Riiiiiiiiiiight.  But the whole deal is, they are legally and socially recognized as HAVING A RIGHT TO EXIST!



I am not against the homos right to exist.

Amoebas, parasites, and other non human and sub human life forms are allowed to exist.

Why not homos?

Again, I support the right of homos to exist.

But they should serve their existence locked up in mental institutions and other facilities for treatment of their sickness.


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Oct 11, 2009)

another stupid comment by paperview



paperview said:


> betchamad said:
> 
> 
> > Leviticus, chapter 20:13 "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Those homosexual shall be dead penalty,such evil shall be cleaned from our land.
> ...


----------



## paperview (Oct 11, 2009)

actsnoblemartin said:


> another stupid comment by paperview
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Another flippant comment from someone who thinks gays & lesbians should be killed.


----------



## mudwhistle (Oct 11, 2009)

paperview said:


> actsnoblemartin said:
> 
> 
> > another stupid comment by paperview
> ...



One thing I agree with you on.

Being gay is not a sickness.

As much as choosing to smoke is not a sickness.

I think there are some cases where people who were born with hormonal irregularities who really don't know what sex they are. Looking like a woman but having male sex organs for example. Thus they have a problem dealing with their own place in life.


----------



## paperview (Oct 11, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > actsnoblemartin said:
> ...


Do not confuse homosexuality with gender identity.


----------



## mudwhistle (Oct 11, 2009)

paperview said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



I know it's a complex subject but in many instances it is exactly the same.

I tried to agree with you on something and like the total prick that you are you blew it.


----------



## paperview (Oct 11, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...


Man, you really are an asshole, aren't you?

All I said was to not confuse the two, as they are different.  And in _most_ instances, they are not.

You whooped it up into something it wasn't.  I made no other commentary. 

Do you practice this hard to be a jerk, or does it just come naturally?


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Oct 11, 2009)

that is the tactic of the left, especially the pro homosexual crowd

you dont support us, youre a faggot,

you dont support us, youre a member of the taliban

way to be anti islamic asshole (paperview)



Sunni Man said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > betchamad said:
> ...


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Oct 11, 2009)

killed, when did i say that?





paperview said:


> actsnoblemartin said:
> 
> 
> > another stupid comment by paperview
> ...


----------



## paperview (Oct 11, 2009)

actsnoblemartin said:


> that is the tactic of the left, especially the pro homosexual crowd
> 
> you dont support us, youre a faggot,
> 
> ...


This coming from the man who just thanked another poster who said gays and lesbians should be put to death.


----------



## paperview (Oct 11, 2009)

Don't ever fucking PM me again Marty to ask _advice._


----------



## paperview (Oct 11, 2009)

actsnoblemartin said:


> killed, when did i say that?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


http://www.usmessageboard.com/1602680-post630.html


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Oct 11, 2009)

keep dreaming. If i wanted gays dead, i would say so, not thank a poster for saying what i thought

youre outta your mind





paperview said:


> actsnoblemartin said:
> 
> 
> > that is the tactic of the left, especially the pro homosexual crowd
> ...


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Oct 11, 2009)

I dont want homo's dead, i removed my thanks. Apparently I hadnt read the whole scriputual quote very carefully.

thanks for pointing that out to me


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 11, 2009)

eagleseven said:


> I prefer to give a person the benefit of the doubt, and address them by whatever gender they prefer to be called. I don't go around demanding genetic analysis of the people I meet.



In terms of regular interpersonal relationships, I call people by whatever they identify as, as well, since I assume that if they haven't asked me my opinion, it isn't welcome.  In terms of legal issues, however, it isn't as simple as a personal wish or preference, nor should it be.

In all fairness, though, I doubt that marriage laws work quite this way in relation to hermaphrodites, who are something of a category all their own, and quite rare to boot.  I don't think any of us could cite the law in our states as it pertains to them off the top of our heads.  I know I couldn't.


----------



## JD_2B (Oct 11, 2009)

Setarcos said:


> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > *You* don't claim that people born with a tail are somehow primates.. do you?
> ...



Its not gray.. Ask your doctor...



> > YOU brought up genetics. YOU had the burden to prove that this genetic dysfunction somehow makes someone both a male and a female.
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't, because I never claimed that. This makes twice  I've caught you lying, the first being your gross misrepresentation of Virginia law (which you later backpedaled).



My point to all this is that a person can go through a surgery changing their physical attributes, and give them a more aesthetically pleasing set of genitalia which will allow them (still a male, for instance, with the XY chromosomes) to appear to be "woman" enough to marry another male. 

This is still a same gender marriage, regardless of the appearance of the genitalia... I have no prolem at all with same sex marriage, Just wish that Virginia and other states would also see that there is a grey area when it comes to what consitutes "gender"..

I am pleased that you can see that sociologically speaking, not scientifically speaking, there is a gray area, at least as far as aesthetics are concerned. =)


----------



## KittenKoder (Oct 11, 2009)

actsnoblemartin said:


> that is the tactic of the left, especially the pro homosexual crowd
> 
> you dont support us, youre a faggot,
> 
> ...



His hatred is no different than yours.


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Oct 12, 2009)

I made a mistake, as explained in later posts, and took action

Way to be a true prick



paperview said:


> Don't ever fucking PM me again Marty to ask _advice._


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Oct 12, 2009)

who are you talking to?

and what is your point?



KittenKoder said:


> actsnoblemartin said:
> 
> 
> > that is the tactic of the left, especially the pro homosexual crowd
> ...


----------



## betchamad (Oct 12, 2009)

Death just a pain for a while,but hell is the eternal suffer.For save those degenerate souls of homosexual,the law of fear shall be created.Remember Christ's teaching Mark, chapter 9
 "And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. " I think lost a penis is much better falling souls to those homosexual.


----------



## froggy (Oct 12, 2009)

if we didn't have such a whimppy gov. they could just say no to gay marriage and put it to rest.the gay dog is about as beat as the rascist mutt.


----------



## KittenKoder (Oct 12, 2009)

froggy said:


> if we didn't have such a whimppy gov. they could just say no to gay marriage and put it to rest.the gay dog is about as beat as the rascist mutt.



Then get all marriage laws out of the government completely, otherwise you are breaking the law with the ban, period.


----------



## froggy (Oct 12, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> > if we didn't have such a whimppy gov. they could just say no to gay marriage and put it to rest.the gay dog is about as beat as the rascist mutt.
> ...



why do you think gays want to marry anyway?


----------



## KittenKoder (Oct 12, 2009)

froggy said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > froggy said:
> ...



Honestly, I don't care.  Marriage is to become all inclusive of religious beliefs, or there are to be no legal connections with it, anything else is wrong. No, I would not stop at gay marriage, I would even vote for allowing polygamy, simply because I do not like the government telling me that my religious beliefs and rites are "unlawful".


----------



## froggy (Oct 12, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...


----------



## Setarcos (Oct 12, 2009)

betchamad said:


> Death just a pain for a while,but hell is the eternal suffer.For save those degenerate souls of homosexual,the law of fear shall be created.Remember Christ's teaching Mark, chapter 9
> "And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. " I think lost a penis is much better falling souls to those homosexual.


You were just referenced, and here you are to make another rare appearance...


----------



## froggy (Oct 12, 2009)

Setarcos said:


> betchamad said:
> 
> 
> > Death just a pain for a while,but hell is the eternal suffer.For save those degenerate souls of homosexual,the law of fear shall be created.Remember Christ's teaching Mark, chapter 9
> ...



oooh the dreaded 666 replie #


----------



## Setarcos (Oct 12, 2009)

Does this prove Betcha is the devil?

Think about it... someone spoke his name, and he appears and the 666th post...


----------



## Setarcos (Oct 12, 2009)

well, he was #666

someone's deleting things somewhere


----------



## froggy (Oct 12, 2009)

Setarcos said:


> well, he was #666
> 
> someone's deleting things somewhere



no setarcos you were post#666 better check and see if 666 is tatooed on your person.


----------



## Setarcos (Oct 12, 2009)

I was post 667

I checked 

Of course, if you look now...








0.0


----------



## froggy (Oct 12, 2009)

Setarcos said:


> I was post 667
> 
> I checked
> 
> ...



funny ha ha


----------



## ABikerSailor (Oct 12, 2009)

froggy said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > froggy said:
> ...



Why does anyone want to marry?  Some do it for companionship, some for romance, some for assistance, some to have kids.

Gays want to do all that as well, and they can.

Know where most of the really bad child abuse happens?  In heterosexual families.

There is also the fact that there are women EVERY DAY that abandon their kids because they can't afford to shelter them any longer.  Don't you think that a loving gay family is better than being abandoned at a gas station?


----------



## froggy (Oct 12, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...


i think the child abuse would be the children seeing two men or two women having sex in their home.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Oct 12, 2009)

froggy said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > froggy said:
> ...



Lemmie ask ya something fuckstick...........

How many heterosexual couples LET THEIR KIDS WATCH 'EM HAVE SEX?

Generally, none, as that is considered child abuse ANYWHERE.

Epic fail.  Try again.


----------



## froggy (Oct 12, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



how my accidently walk in?


----------



## Sunni Man (Oct 12, 2009)

froggy said:


> i think the child abuse would be the children seeing two men or two women having sex in their home.



Just another example of why homos adopting children is a terrible form of child abuse.


----------



## froggy (Oct 12, 2009)

you know what they say: "being a sailor is a gay way to serve".


----------



## ABikerSailor (Oct 12, 2009)

froggy said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > froggy said:
> ...



You know........I've had 3 stepfathers, been in 4 foster families, and the ONLY TIME that I accidentally caught someone having sex was my foster sister and the number of boyfriends that she had.

Never caught the parents, as most of the people I lived with had some sense of discretion.


----------



## eagleseven (Oct 12, 2009)

_Someone_ here is into exhibitionism...


----------



## froggy (Oct 12, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...


and i guess in the middle of hot lovemaking your discrete.


----------



## JD_2B (Oct 12, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> > i think the child abuse would be the children seeing two men or two women having sex in their home.
> ...



Good grief, you two-  HOW on EARTH is seeing two men or two women having sex going to somehow be MORE abusive to the child than seeing a man and a woman doing it???

That is like comparing walking in on your old and baggy assed grandparents humping, as opposed to your older brother and his gf going to town. What is the fucking diff?


----------



## froggy (Oct 12, 2009)

JD_2B said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > froggy said:
> ...



in their eyes a man and woman would be normal. and think about what ridicule other kids would put them through in school when they found out what their parents were. i hope judges have enough sense to think of the child before placing them in that sitiuation.


----------



## eagleseven (Oct 12, 2009)

You just _naturally_ knew about the birds and the bees? Because it was quite a shock to me...

Everybody doesn't have a peepee? Girls have a _what_?!?!


----------



## froggy (Oct 12, 2009)

eagleseven said:


> You just _naturally_ knew about the birds and the bees? Because it was quite a shock to me...
> 
> Everybody doesn't have a peepee? Girls have a _what_?!?!



were you considered the slow child?


----------



## eagleseven (Oct 12, 2009)

froggy said:


> eagleseven said:
> 
> 
> > You just _naturally_ knew about the birds and the bees? Because it was quite a shock to me...
> ...



I wasn't fantasizing about sex at the old old age of 6, no...


----------



## froggy (Oct 12, 2009)

eagleseven said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> > eagleseven said:
> ...



did you ride the short bus?


----------



## ABikerSailor (Oct 12, 2009)

froggy said:


> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...



Don't you mean what kind of ridicule they are going to receive from people who think like YOU Froggy?  

You know, I lived through sexual, mental, and physical abuse from age 8 until 12.  During that time, I knew gay people (both men as well as women), and the only ones that abused me were good Christian and Catholic heterosexuals.

Matter of fact, the worst beatings I've ever gone through, as well as having to endure some of the other forms of abuse, came at the hands of a devout Catholic.


----------



## froggy (Oct 12, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> > JD_2B said:
> ...



well you said the magic word catholic look how many children they abused. but you honestly think their peers wouldn't give them a hard time, wake up.


----------



## Setarcos (Oct 12, 2009)

froggy said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > froggy said:
> ...




IDK. How _did_ you walk in? I thought your mother and I locked the door.


----------



## froggy (Oct 12, 2009)

Setarcos said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



oh no you've broke the golden rule.


----------



## JD_2B (Oct 12, 2009)

froggy said:


> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...



Foster kids DONT get ridiculed and treated like shit by their peers, as it is??  


If I was a foster kid, I would take the ridicule and "abnormal" life of having two loving same sex parents, who want me, and take care of me, over no family at all, any day of the week.. and I doubt that there is much speculation there.


----------



## froggy (Oct 12, 2009)

JD_2B said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> > JD_2B said:
> ...



thats where foster parent should be checked, checked, and checked every month and the social workers held accountable as well as the foster parents most of them are in it for the money anyway.


----------



## Setarcos (Oct 12, 2009)

froggy said:


> the foster parents most of them are in it for the money anyway.



Source?


----------



## JD_2B (Oct 13, 2009)

froggy said:


> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > froggy said:
> ...



Oh SUUUURE they are...  You are just saying that because, in spite of foster parents having to pass background checks and have their ducks in a neat little row, and really be found competent to care for a child, somehow or other the dinky 800 dollars a month they get, is somehow going to have them raking in the riches???

Riiiiiight.. 

And I have no problem with gay adoptions. I wasn't even referring to homosexual foster parents- I was saying (I did not make myself clear enough, sorry) that gay adoptive parents would be better than being stuck in a foster care system, because *you have a point*: So many kids get treated like crap, molested and abused in foster care.. 

Sylvia Marie Likens.. murdered by a caregiver (not a foster mom, but a caregiver that the family picked out- its a little different, but the mom was in it for the money)

And at least 102 children have died of abuse or neglect AFTER child welfare agencies were involved, between 1993 and 2002- So an average of 10+ kids die per year, at least..  so apparently kids in foster care are already at a higher risk of abuse than children in the general populace as it is- This is NOT because the current foster parents are GAY, either, lol- these are heterosexual parents who molest, injure,and kill kids. 



> Governor's policies put state's kids at risk
> 
> Laura Knaperek
> My Turn
> ...



Deaths in Foster Care


----------



## froggy (Oct 13, 2009)

JD_2B said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> > JD_2B said:
> ...



and there's people who say(even some on this board) that we don't need to change in the system that america is just fine the way it is. yeah right.


----------



## betchamad (Oct 13, 2009)

Marriage is better a man and a woman,not a man and a man,or a woman and a woman.Marriage have too goals,one is having bady and creat a family tree,two is the couple united into one. Genesis 2"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. " Genesis 9"And you, be ye fruitful, and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein." This tells us,one,the marriage is the result of the love between a man and a woman,and this love will be blessed and turn two people into one will.The second,the marriage is not just a rights for happiness,but also a duty,it demonds the couple having their childs and make the mankind growth,and this request two opposite sex person to complete.The point is same marriage isn't blessed by God,it is not just unnature.


----------



## logical4u (Oct 13, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



Look, you asked, I gave you reasons and you "selectively" disqualified the reasons.  California schools expose children to homosexual lifestyle as "acceptable" not tolerated; that is "turning" children. (Teaching them a behavior is acceptable when a large portion of society sees it as "tolerable" is indotrinating children into the homosexual lifestyle is respectable).  
Homosexuals, typically do not cruise the nursing homes for prospective "partners".  They often use deceptive means to "trick" a "target"; many of these "targets" are between the ages of 18 & 35, the prime ages for producing children.  You are offended by the term breeding stock, but, it is the truth, if people are removed at the prime productive years, not only are they less likely to produce healthy children, but they are less likely to become involved parents (I am aware there are always exceptions, I am speaking generally), making children from a homosexual relationship to receive less "moral" care than children from a married relationship (exceptions, of course).  It seems you don not have an arguement here, only disagree with the terminology I used.

Your example of places in Europe that would offend Christians, IS, my point about the homosexual communities here (there are exceptions) that flaunt their lifestyle in the public eye.  You can demonstrate exceptions, not the norms (is Provincetown a mostly homosexual community?).  San Fran parks became so notorious of a sexual activity place, that it made prime time TV as a place not to take small children if you did not want them to witness homosexual sex in public places.  Parades, demonstrations, public events with large portions of homosexuals are typically lewd and perverted.

"Scaremongering" about healthcare costs maybe a better way than pretending unhealthy lifestyles will not have any affect on health care costs at all.  Can you demonstrate how homosexuals stay healthier than those that are not?  Many (again there are exceptions) homosexuals in that prime breeding age do not purchase insurance on their own.  Many do not work in positions where the company pays health care insurance.  To have these people, making the same lifestyle choices (similar to people that have multiple sexual partners making bad decisions), would logically, drive up healthcare costs for everyone.

As far as my language being like a "nazi", I feel that is your way of ignoring the arguement and insulting me.  How about presenting a hard look at what homosexual marriage being made legal would do to this, currently disintegrating, nation?


----------



## ABikerSailor (Oct 13, 2009)

Bet You're Sad........might wanna read your Bible again.........

Lesbianism isn't prohibited there.


----------



## paperview (Oct 13, 2009)

logical4u said:


> Look, you asked, I gave you reasons and you "selectively" disqualified the reasons.  California schools expose children to homosexual lifestyle as "acceptable" not tolerated; that is "turning" children. (Teaching them a behavior is acceptable when a large portion of society sees it as "tolerable" is indotrinating children into the homosexual lifestyle is respectable).
> 
> *Homosexuals, typically do not cruise the nursing homes for prospective "partners".  They often use deceptive means to "trick" a "target"; many of these "targets" are between the ages of 18 & 35, the prime ages for producing children.  You are offended by the term breeding stock, but, it is the truth, if people are removed at the prime productive years, not only are they less likely to produce healthy children, but they are less likely to become involved parents (I am aware there are always exceptions, I am speaking generally), making children from a homosexual relationship to receive less "moral" care than children from a married relationship (exceptions, of course).  It seems you don not have an arguement here, only disagree with the terminology I used.*
> 
> ...


That has to be one of the biggest piles of horseshit I had read in a while.

Congratulations.


----------



## logical4u (Oct 13, 2009)

Setarcos said:


> Joe_Penalty said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



Homosexual caretakers in a boys home in Texas invited homosexuals into the home to rape the boys in their care.  
Two homosexual women abusing the daughter of one of them for years and now, both have been charged.
These stories make the news, but are often played down, because of the objections the media owners would get over the content.  If you google the subject, I am sure you will find more than enough stories.
If homosexual "couples" can only have children using alternative methods: invirtro..., adoption, non-committed fetus/baby carrier, etc and stay true to their "condition", it is not hard to figure out, their medical costs for children are going to be a lot higher than the "typical" heterosexual methods to produce children.
Homosexuals have access to healthcare now.  They are free to purchase healthcare insurance on their own or find work where insurance is offered as a benefit, many choose not to do this.  They opt for the emergency room "free" care (where the rest of the patients that pay their own medical costs have to pay for the emergency room deadbeats also).  This gov plan would give them, the emergency room deadbeats (many not homosexual), healthcare insurance that would be abused for "lifestyle choices", instead of using it for basic care.
As far as priests abusing boys: they did not form a group (MANBLA) to legalize their sin.  They are not "accepted" or "tolerated" in the Catholic community (there are exceptions).


----------



## logical4u (Oct 13, 2009)

betchamad said:


> Death just a pain for a while,but hell is the eternal suffer.For save those degenerate souls of homosexual,the law of fear shall be created.Remember Christ's teaching Mark, chapter 9
> "And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. " I think lost a penis is much better falling souls to those homosexual.



For those that do not want to understand: IMHO this means that you don't stay with people that temp you, even if it means, removing them from your life permanently.  They might be dearer to you than your body parts, but you must be strong enough (or pray for the strength from the Lord to do it) to seperate yourself and stay away from them.  This is the same with Leviticus: when that was written, a man's sins were passed to his family, they would be punished for what he did.  In the New Covenant, when Yeshua came that was stopped.  At that point, you are responsible for your own sin, not your father's (family's).  "Blood" was used interchangeably with "soul", meaning the soul was destroyed for this act.  Yeshua came for the sinners and asked them to stop, promising if they did stop sinning (or seriously tried to stop sinning) and followed Him, they would receive eternal rewards.  
Stop sinning and reach for that eternal reward.


----------



## froggy (Oct 13, 2009)

don't try an paint the gays as golden saints there no better than any other scum that solicit young runaway boy off the street. so quit try to say the gays are all about good roll models compare to strait people.


----------



## Sunni Man (Oct 13, 2009)

To be gay is already holding up your hand and saying "I am mentally defective".

Why would anyone put children at risk by allowing them to be around homos


----------



## JD_2B (Oct 13, 2009)

logical4u said:


> Look, you asked, I gave you reasons and you "selectively" disqualified the reasons.  California schools expose children to homosexual lifestyle as "acceptable" not tolerated; that is "turning" children. (Teaching them a behavior is acceptable when a large portion of society sees it as "tolerable" is indotrinating children into the homosexual lifestyle is respectable).



There is actually a timeline to which many sociological change happens.. "tolerable" tends to come before "acceptable", and "acceptable" tends to come before "respectable".. Women in the workforce was something that had to go through this process, also.. It is really something that people have to adjust to- and it is not without its respectability.



> Homosexuals, typically do not cruise the nursing homes for prospective "partners".  They often use deceptive means to "trick" a "target"; many of these "targets" are between the ages of 18 & 35, the prime ages for producing children.  You are offended by the term breeding stock, but, it is the truth, if people are removed at the prime productive years, not only are they less likely to produce healthy children, but they are less likely to become involved parents (I am aware there are always exceptions, I am speaking generally), making children from a homosexual relationship to receive less "moral" care than children from a married relationship (exceptions, of course).  It seems you don not have an arguement here, only disagree with the terminology I used.



That is quite a leap you are making- Heterosexuals don't go cruising the nursing homes, either. The current trend is that youth equals beauty and sex appeal.. This is perfectly natural- not a matter of anyone choosing "targets" to transform, lol..  



> Your example of places in Europe that would offend Christians, IS, my point about the homosexual communities here (there are exceptions) that flaunt their lifestyle in the public eye.  You can demonstrate exceptions, not the norms (is Provincetown a mostly homosexual community?).  San Fran parks became so notorious of a sexual activity place, that it made prime time TV as a place not to take small children if you did not want them to witness homosexual sex in public places.  Parades, demonstrations, public events with large portions of homosexuals are typically lewd and perverted.



And you would not bring your kids to any other sexually oriented demonstrations or parades- like having them see women who protest topless, or anything else of that nature.. It makes absolutely no difference in the sexual preference of such demonstrations and parades- it is all about the nature OF the demonstration that is considered sexually charged that people would not subject their children to viewing.  I mean, you wouldnt take your kid to some nudist art gallery, right? 



> "Scaremongering" about healthcare costs maybe a better way than pretending unhealthy lifestyles will not have any affect on health care costs at all.  Can you demonstrate how homosexuals stay healthier than those that are not?  Many (again there are exceptions) homosexuals in that prime breeding age do not purchase insurance on their own.  Many do not work in positions where the company pays health care insurance.  To have these people, making the same lifestyle choices (similar to people that have multiple sexual partners making bad decisions), would logically, drive up healthcare costs for everyone.



That is the first logical thing you have said in this post.. And I mean no offense at all when I say that. Many heterosexuals do not purchase health insurance, either- I believe that a part of you understands this, even though you did not specifically say so in this paragraph.

[quote[As far as my language being like a "nazi", I feel that is your way of ignoring the arguement and insulting me.  How about presenting a hard look at what homosexual marriage being made legal would do to this, currently disintegrating, nation?[/QUOTE]

You have to consider what YOU think "this disintegrating nation" actually means to you..  Because some of us see this country as getting better and better all the time- overall. I think that gay marriage would promote unity and goodness in our country, because even though you cant control with whom a person falls in love, you most certainly can allow them to make it legitimate.. 

I am surprised at your post, by the way- You seem to believe that the same gays that actually want to make a long term marital committment to another human being, are the most slutty, too..


----------



## mudwhistle (Oct 14, 2009)

paperview said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Look, you asked, I gave you reasons and you "selectively" disqualified the reasons.  California schools expose children to homosexual lifestyle as "acceptable" not tolerated; that is "turning" children. (Teaching them a behavior is acceptable when a large portion of society sees it as "tolerable" is indotrinating children into the homosexual lifestyle is respectable).
> ...



I wouldn't call it horseshit, just an interesting take on the subject.

This is what many people fear about the gay lifestyle. 

I think instead of throwing out insults it's better to educate people. 

Gays can throw out extreme examples of how straight couples are bad parents and I'm sure straight couples can do vice-verse.


----------

