Homosexuals trying to force their perverse lifestyle on Hetro majority.

[Grace]

Yep. Why else choose the faith you currently believe in? I'll answer that. Because it tickles your ear, that's why.

 

[RealityStrikes]

they purposely interpret the bible in such a way that it suits their lifestyle.

Um, isn't that what everyone does concerning whichever religion they embrace?

well, I really don't think the gay lifestyle and the bible are in correlation with one another. They tend to clash a bit, don't you think? It's always better to embrace a religion that isn't labeling you an abomination, isn't it?

 

[FactFinder]

Yep. Why else choose the faith you currently believe in? I'll answer that. Because it tickles your ear, that's why.

If there is a ring of truth, that has nothing to do and may in fact and probably be counter to your chosen life style.

If something speaks to your spirit it resides in another dimension than what you currently accept.

 

[Father Time]

How do you expect an answer to such a generalized statement? Prove what? Be specific please.

That the only reason heteros become attracted to the other sex is from observing their parents.

I said the reason is because they repetitively see men bonding with women in their adolescent years on a daily basis. Repetition eventually becomes the norm.

That's not proof that's just restating the theory.

 

[Father Time]

Homosexuals trying to force their perverse lifestyle on Hetro majority.

So does it matter? Everyone tries to justify their actions. They fight against those who are an affront to their actions whether those are an active affront or not. If God be real (and i believe He is) then my course is to follow His guidance. His guidance is to love the miserable.

May God bless the homosexual and reveal to him/her His truth.

Unfortunately, the truth was already revealed to them. But we all know, those in denial will resent the truth and label it false. Homosexuals are either atheists, or they purposely interpret the bible in such a way that it suits their lifestyle.

How's that different from most people?

Oh and we have a lesbian Buddhist on these boards (or we did, I'm not sure if Sky Dancer still posts here).

 

[idb]

Homosexuals trying to force their perverse lifestyle on Hetro majority.

So does it matter? Everyone tries to justify their actions. They fight against those who are an affront to their actions whether those are an active affront or not. If God be real (and i believe He is) then my course is to follow His guidance. His guidance is to love the miserable.

May God bless the homosexual and reveal to him/her His truth.

Unfortunately, the truth was already revealed to them. But we all know, those in denial will resent the truth and label it false. Homosexuals are either atheists, or they purposely interpret the bible in such a way that it suits their lifestyle.

There are many shades of Christians.
Different denominations worship differently and interpret the bible differently.
Is one denomination more correct than the others?

 

[sparky]

not really, it's just that they all have the same problem keeping their milkbone shorts on in dog eat dog secularism....

 

[Ropey]

they purposely interpret the bible in such a way that it suits their lifestyle.

Um, isn't that what everyone does concerning whichever religion they embrace?

This is called "Culture" and to my view, you are correct.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

There are many shades of Christians.
Different denominations worship differently and interpret the bible differently.
Is one denomination more correct than the others?

Yes. The ones that don't propagate bigotry.

It is they who show and tell me the hidden truth and agendas behind homosexuality.

Hello my dear hick. I will be your downfall for the remainder of this thread. But let's start by having you first share with the class what these hidden truths and agendas behind homosexuality really are. I'm eager to find out!

Let me see if I can break this down to you. You (along with so many others) seem to think that the initial force that draws us to something else, is the attraction. WRONG. It's the object that's on the other end of the force that really attracts us. And what brings us to that object is usually temptation. The force is actually 2 things: Random/ Chance and temptation. We are constantly put into places and situations randomly and by chance on a daily basis. Once we see what's on the other end of that force (which isn't strong enough to draw us in on it's own), we (choose) whether or not to be drawn in. And that's the act of attraction.

* note* Attraction is to temptation, as actions are to their repercussions. We all have the capacity to either ignore or yield to temptation. So therefore we do have a choice when it comes to attraction.

That's a horrible analogy, which doesn't actually work out. Repercussions come as a result of actions. Temptations do not come as a result of attractions.

In fact, when you open one of those things called dictionaries and look up the meaning of the words, you'll find they don't actually match the arbitrary fabrication that you just stated. In fact, temptation is a synonym of attraction.

Yeah, those things called facts can be quite harmful to your argument sometimes. Let's use the term attraction as it applies to magnets. A magnet is normally attracted in a specific way. Given a magnetic field, the magnet will inherently orient itself based on those forces. Now you could change the magnet from this natural ORIENTATION by applying outside forces to push it in another direction. Nonetheless, this creates a good amount of unrest, and the magnet will re-orient as soon as those forces are removed for even a moment. As bodeca pointed out: forcing people to act in a way that goes against their orientation has historically been massively damaging.

Truth be told, primal urges such as hunger and sleepiness are inherent to all animals, as sexuality is to humans. We can certainly work against these desires and structure them around civilization, but they are still there nonetheless.

Hahaha, I kinda agree with this in a less intense way. I'm not one to judge faiths, but any religion that goes against the grain of what God intends, is gonna face serious consequences. God said, be fruitful and multiply. In this case, the deprivation of sex based on some sick and jaded believe that priests can't have wives, is not pleasant to God at all. God never said priest's can't marry or have sex (with their wives) for that matter. They took it upon themselves to try to please God by attempting to strip lust from their confused souls. And they continue to fail miserably. Why they would do such a foolish thing and keep this unGodly tradition going after all these incidents? You gotta ask them. We both see the results in disgust. Massive molestations by sick priests certainly are not God's doing.

I'm so glad we have you to tell us what God wants. So nice of you to share your talent. I like your word choice. "deprivation of sex" "strip lust" "confused souls". Very colorful writing.

I particularly find it interesting that you disagree with how this corner of civilization imposes sexual restrictions on priests, denying them their own sexuality, yet find it perfectly acceptable to further your own sexual restrictions on homosexuals. Care to resolve this vastly hypocritical contradiction?

 

[Gadawg73]

The church I attend has an open door policy. Everyone is welcome and no one is judged as we believe God loves you as you are concerning sexual orientation.
Amazing the difference I have seen over the last 10 years from the previous church I attended. The homosexuals I have met that are high school and college age are so much more successful and industrious than the kids that we all knew were gay or lesbian at the other church and had to hide it. And the adults we have seen there are good people, mainly professionals. Many very good musicians and incredible singers (I can not carry a tune in a bucket singing).
I will say this, most Southern Baptists get a bad rap. The ones that I know very well are very good people. I do not believe in what they believe about gays but the majority here now state that they believe homosexuals are born with same sex attraction and it is a sin for them to practice that attraction into sex acts. And they do not view that sin as worse than any other sin.

 

[RealityStrikes]

There are many shades of Christians.
Different denominations worship differently and interpret the bible differently.
Is one denomination more correct than the others?

Yes. The ones that don't propagate bigotry.

It is they who show and tell me the hidden truth and agendas behind homosexuality.

Hello my dear hick. I will be your downfall for the remainder of this thread. But let's start by having you first share with the class what these hidden truths and agendas behind homosexuality really are. I'm eager to find out!

Let me see if I can break this down to you. You (along with so many others) seem to think that the initial force that draws us to something else, is the attraction. WRONG. It's the object that's on the other end of the force that really attracts us. And what brings us to that object is usually temptation. The force is actually 2 things: Random/ Chance and temptation. We are constantly put into places and situations randomly and by chance on a daily basis. Once we see what's on the other end of that force (which isn't strong enough to draw us in on it's own), we (choose) whether or not to be drawn in. And that's the act of attraction.

* note* Attraction is to temptation, as actions are to their repercussions. We all have the capacity to either ignore or yield to temptation. So therefore we do have a choice when it comes to attraction.

That's a horrible analogy, which doesn't actually work out. Repercussions come as a result of actions. Temptations do not come as a result of attractions.

In fact, when you open one of those things called dictionaries and look up the meaning of the words, you'll find they don't actually match the arbitrary fabrication that you just stated. In fact, temptation is a synonym of attraction.

Yeah, those things called facts can be quite harmful to your argument sometimes. Let's use the term attraction as it applies to magnets. A magnet is normally attracted in a specific way. Given a magnetic field, the magnet will inherently orient itself based on those forces. Now you could change the magnet from this natural ORIENTATION by applying outside forces to push it in another direction. Nonetheless, this creates a good amount of unrest, and the magnet will re-orient as soon as those forces are removed for even a moment. As bodeca pointed out: forcing people to act in a way that goes against their orientation has historically been massively damaging.

Truth be told, primal urges such as hunger and sleepiness are inherent to all animals, as sexuality is to humans. We can certainly work against these desires and structure them around civilization, but they are still there nonetheless.

Hahaha, I kinda agree with this in a less intense way. I'm not one to judge faiths, but any religion that goes against the grain of what God intends, is gonna face serious consequences. God said, be fruitful and multiply. In this case, the deprivation of sex based on some sick and jaded believe that priests can't have wives, is not pleasant to God at all. God never said priest's can't marry or have sex (with their wives) for that matter. They took it upon themselves to try to please God by attempting to strip lust from their confused souls. And they continue to fail miserably. Why they would do such a foolish thing and keep this unGodly tradition going after all these incidents? You gotta ask them. We both see the results in disgust. Massive molestations by sick priests certainly are not God's doing.

I'm so glad we have you to tell us what God wants. So nice of you to share your talent. I like your word choice. "deprivation of sex" "strip lust" "confused souls". Very colorful writing.

I particularly find it interesting that you disagree with how this corner of civilization imposes sexual restrictions on priests, denying them their own sexuality, yet find it perfectly acceptable to further your own sexual restrictions on homosexuals. Care to resolve this vastly hypocritical contradiction?

Hick? Dude, you are psycho. Since when is a Black male (who happens to be a Bio Analytical Researcher from the Bay Area, California) considered a hick? Your blind assumptions are horrible. And you are extremely confused, which gives me the perception that you probably are gay. Why? Because based on your post, you are armed and ready for combat. Saying phrases like....." I'm gonna be your down fall", are words of someone looking for a fight. What the hell is that? No need to be confrontational just because you disagree.

Temptations don't occur as a result of being attracted to something? You got to be joking, right? So I'm supposed to sit here and let you tell every straight guy on this board that if they are attracted to a beautiful girl, that they CANNOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES become tempted to pursue her? We pursue people/places/ things/ Ideas that we are attracted to. What planet are you from?
Can you at least understand that much? You ever hear of two halves equating to one whole? Let me put it to you in mathematical terms.

Attraction = temptation
Since these words are synonymous to one another, they both equate to each other.
Now, this one many seem tricky but it's still simple to comprehend.
Action = Repercussion

Now I dare you to sit here and argue that repercussions aren't a type of action, even though they are the result of one as well. So how does this not work?

You must be one of those diggers who can't accept what I say, so you dig yourself into the hole of pity, with fragile arguments that don't make sense, just to be contrary. Too bad the truth does hurt.

I'm interested in knowing where you got your education in comprehension, because apparently it sucks. And to answer your question regarding "hidden truths" and "agendas,"

1. I have been a professional in the Bio tech industry for a decade now. During my entire career as a researcher, not once have I heard or read ANYTHING about a homosexual gene being present from birth. Because it does not exist.(so that rules out being born gay)

2. Being that most gays are highly educated and successful, many become business colleagues with lobbyists, in order to help manipulate votes and propositions.

3. Homosexuality was first manifested out of pleasure and lust, and not love (in ancient civilizations).


4. Gays are a walking contradiction, being that they still subconsciously imitate heterosexual couples. For example, One partner usually plays the role of the male figure, and the other, the female figure. Why can't you be yourself and be gay too? Do gays really hate themselves?

And last but not least...... Disagree with what? Civilization didn't put restrictions on anyone, you poor, confused soul. It was the decree of the Catholic Church that did it to the priests. And it was total contradiction. What they preached to the masses not to do, they did the total opposite behind the curtains. Catholic priests are sick, and so are the lifestyles of homosexuals. How is that a hypocritical/contradiction? There you go again being contrary and making absolutely no sense. By the way, I'm interested in knowing exactly how you are to be my demise. So please feel free to explain.

 

[Gadawg73]

There are many shades of Christians.
Different denominations worship differently and interpret the bible differently.
Is one denomination more correct than the others?

Yes. The ones that don't propagate bigotry.


Hello my dear hick. I will be your downfall for the remainder of this thread. But let's start by having you first share with the class what these hidden truths and agendas behind homosexuality really are. I'm eager to find out!


That's a horrible analogy, which doesn't actually work out. Repercussions come as a result of actions. Temptations do not come as a result of attractions.

In fact, when you open one of those things called dictionaries and look up the meaning of the words, you'll find they don't actually match the arbitrary fabrication that you just stated. In fact, temptation is a synonym of attraction.

Yeah, those things called facts can be quite harmful to your argument sometimes. Let's use the term attraction as it applies to magnets. A magnet is normally attracted in a specific way. Given a magnetic field, the magnet will inherently orient itself based on those forces. Now you could change the magnet from this natural ORIENTATION by applying outside forces to push it in another direction. Nonetheless, this creates a good amount of unrest, and the magnet will re-orient as soon as those forces are removed for even a moment. As bodeca pointed out: forcing people to act in a way that goes against their orientation has historically been massively damaging.

Truth be told, primal urges such as hunger and sleepiness are inherent to all animals, as sexuality is to humans. We can certainly work against these desires and structure them around civilization, but they are still there nonetheless.

Hahaha, I kinda agree with this in a less intense way. I'm not one to judge faiths, but any religion that goes against the grain of what God intends, is gonna face serious consequences. God said, be fruitful and multiply. In this case, the deprivation of sex based on some sick and jaded believe that priests can't have wives, is not pleasant to God at all. God never said priest's can't marry or have sex (with their wives) for that matter. They took it upon themselves to try to please God by attempting to strip lust from their confused souls. And they continue to fail miserably. Why they would do such a foolish thing and keep this unGodly tradition going after all these incidents? You gotta ask them. We both see the results in disgust. Massive molestations by sick priests certainly are not God's doing.

I'm so glad we have you to tell us what God wants. So nice of you to share your talent. I like your word choice. "deprivation of sex" "strip lust" "confused souls". Very colorful writing.

I particularly find it interesting that you disagree with how this corner of civilization imposes sexual restrictions on priests, denying them their own sexuality, yet find it perfectly acceptable to further your own sexual restrictions on homosexuals. Care to resolve this vastly hypocritical contradiction?

Hick? Dude, you are psycho. Since when is a Black male (who happens to be a Bio Analytical Researcher from the Bay Area, California) considered a hick? Your blind assumptions are horrible. And you are extremely confused, which gives me the perception that you probably are gay. Why? Because based on your post, you are armed and ready for combat. Saying phrases like....." I'm gonna be your down fall", are words of someone looking for a fight. What the hell is that? No need to be confrontational just because you disagree.

Temptations don't occur as a result of being attracted to something? You got to be joking, right? So I'm supposed to sit here and let you tell every straight guy on this board that if they are attracted to a beautiful girl, that they CANNOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES become tempted to pursue her? We pursue people/places/ things/ Ideas that we are attracted to. What planet are you from?
Can you at least understand that much? You ever hear of two halves equating to one whole? Let me put it to you in mathematical terms.

Attraction = temptation
Since these words are synonymous to one another, they both equate to each other.
Now, this one many seem tricky but it's still simple to comprehend.
Action = Repercussion

Now I dare you to sit here and argue that repercussions aren't a type of action, even though they are the result of one as well. So how does this not work?

You must be one of those diggers who can't accept what I say, so you dig yourself into the hole of pity, with fragile arguments that don't make sense, just to be contrary. Too bad the truth does hurt.

I'm interested in knowing where you got your education in comprehension, because apparently it sucks. And to answer your question regarding "hidden truths" and "agendas,"

1. I have been a professional in the Bio tech industry for a decade now. During my entire career as a researcher, not once have I heard or read ANYTHING about a homosexual gene being present from birth. Because it does not exist.(so that rules out being born gay)

2. Being that most gays are highly educated and successful, many become business colleagues with lobbyists, in order to help manipulate votes and propositions.

3. Homosexuality was first manifested out of pleasure and lust, and not love (in ancient civilizations).


4. Gays are a walking contradiction, being that they still subconsciously imitate heterosexual couples. For example, One partner usually plays the role of the male figure, and the other, the female figure. Why can't you be yourself and be gay too? Do gays really hate themselves?

And last but not least...... Disagree with what? Civilization didn't put restrictions on anyone, you poor, confused soul. It was the decree of the Catholic Church that did it to the priests. And it was total contradiction. What they preached to the masses not to do, they did the total opposite behind the curtains. Catholic priests are sick, and so are the lifestyles of homosexuals. How is that a hypocritical/contradiction? There you go again being contrary and making absolutely no sense. By the way, I'm interested in knowing exactly how you are to be my demise. So please feel free to explain.

DNA was discovered in early 1950s.
Under your theory it didn't exist before that.
Not all Catholic priests are gay.
Your posts make you look extremely foolish.

 

[RealityStrikes]

Yes. The ones that don't propagate bigotry.


Hello my dear hick. I will be your downfall for the remainder of this thread. But let's start by having you first share with the class what these hidden truths and agendas behind homosexuality really are. I'm eager to find out!


That's a horrible analogy, which doesn't actually work out. Repercussions come as a result of actions. Temptations do not come as a result of attractions.

In fact, when you open one of those things called dictionaries and look up the meaning of the words, you'll find they don't actually match the arbitrary fabrication that you just stated. In fact, temptation is a synonym of attraction.

Yeah, those things called facts can be quite harmful to your argument sometimes. Let's use the term attraction as it applies to magnets. A magnet is normally attracted in a specific way. Given a magnetic field, the magnet will inherently orient itself based on those forces. Now you could change the magnet from this natural ORIENTATION by applying outside forces to push it in another direction. Nonetheless, this creates a good amount of unrest, and the magnet will re-orient as soon as those forces are removed for even a moment. As bodeca pointed out: forcing people to act in a way that goes against their orientation has historically been massively damaging.

Truth be told, primal urges such as hunger and sleepiness are inherent to all animals, as sexuality is to humans. We can certainly work against these desires and structure them around civilization, but they are still there nonetheless.


I'm so glad we have you to tell us what God wants. So nice of you to share your talent. I like your word choice. "deprivation of sex" "strip lust" "confused souls". Very colorful writing.

I particularly find it interesting that you disagree with how this corner of civilization imposes sexual restrictions on priests, denying them their own sexuality, yet find it perfectly acceptable to further your own sexual restrictions on homosexuals. Care to resolve this vastly hypocritical contradiction?

Hick? Dude, you are psycho. Since when is a Black male (who happens to be a Bio Analytical Researcher from the Bay Area, California) considered a hick? Your blind assumptions are horrible. And you are extremely confused, which gives me the perception that you probably are gay. Why? Because based on your post, you are armed and ready for combat. Saying phrases like....." I'm gonna be your down fall", are words of someone looking for a fight. What the hell is that? No need to be confrontational just because you disagree.

Temptations don't occur as a result of being attracted to something? You got to be joking, right? So I'm supposed to sit here and let you tell every straight guy on this board that if they are attracted to a beautiful girl, that they CANNOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES become tempted to pursue her? We pursue people/places/ things/ Ideas that we are attracted to. What planet are you from?
Can you at least understand that much? You ever hear of two halves equating to one whole? Let me put it to you in mathematical terms.

Attraction = temptation
Since these words are synonymous to one another, they both equate to each other.
Now, this one many seem tricky but it's still simple to comprehend.
Action = Repercussion

Now I dare you to sit here and argue that repercussions aren't a type of action, even though they are the result of one as well. So how does this not work?

You must be one of those diggers who can't accept what I say, so you dig yourself into the hole of pity, with fragile arguments that don't make sense, just to be contrary. Too bad the truth does hurt.

I'm interested in knowing where you got your education in comprehension, because apparently it sucks. And to answer your question regarding "hidden truths" and "agendas,"

1. I have been a professional in the Bio tech industry for a decade now. During my entire career as a researcher, not once have I heard or read ANYTHING about a homosexual gene being present from birth. Because it does not exist.(so that rules out being born gay)

2. Being that most gays are highly educated and successful, many become business colleagues with lobbyists, in order to help manipulate votes and propositions.

3. Homosexuality was first manifested out of pleasure and lust, and not love (in ancient civilizations).


4. Gays are a walking contradiction, being that they still subconsciously imitate heterosexual couples. For example, One partner usually plays the role of the male figure, and the other, the female figure. Why can't you be yourself and be gay too? Do gays really hate themselves?

And last but not least...... Disagree with what? Civilization didn't put restrictions on anyone, you poor, confused soul. It was the decree of the Catholic Church that did it to the priests. And it was total contradiction. What they preached to the masses not to do, they did the total opposite behind the curtains. Catholic priests are sick, and so are the lifestyles of homosexuals. How is that a hypocritical/contradiction? There you go again being contrary and making absolutely no sense. By the way, I'm interested in knowing exactly how you are to be my demise. So please feel free to explain.

DNA was discovered in early 1950s.
Under your theory it didn't exist before that.
Not all Catholic priests are gay.
Your posts make you look extremely foolish.

No you look foolish. I'm speaking of a homosexual gene, not the discovery of DNA.
Not once did I EVER say ALL catholic priests are gay.
You are blind and contrary as well.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Hick? Dude, you are psycho. Since when is a Black male (who happens to be a Bio Analytical Researcher from the Bay Area, California) considered a hick? Your blind assumptions are horrible. And you are extremely confused, which gives me the perception that you probably are gay. Why? Because based on your post, you are armed and ready for combat. Saying phrases like....." I'm gonna be your down fall", are words of someone looking for a fight. What the hell is that? No need to be confrontational just because you disagree.

Oh I'm confrontational because it amuses me. You believe I am making assumption when using my blanket term of endearment to ignorant people, yet you have no problem making assumptions about my sexuality. That's twice now you have shown yourself to be a hypocrite in this thread.

Temptations don't occur as a result of being attracted to something? You got to be joking, right? So I'm supposed to sit here and let you tell every straight guy on this board that if they are attracted to a beautiful girl, that they CANNOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES become tempted to pursue her? We pursue people/places/ things/ Ideas that we are attracted to. What planet are you from?
Can you at least understand that much? You ever hear of two halves equating to one whole? Let me put it to you in mathematical terms.

Attraction = temptation
Since these words are synonymous to one another, they both equate to each other.
Now, this one many seem tricky but it's still simple to comprehend.
Action = Repercussion

It's almost like you understand what an analogy is. Almost. You see you're incorrect when insinuating that temptations occur as a result of attractions, because as you later stated, they are perfectly equal. That's like saying half dozen of something leads to 6. Then you go on to claim action = repercussion, when the two are NOT synonymous. Perhaps it's that you don't understand what synonyms are. Let me know and I'll be happy to educate.

You must be one of those diggers who can't accept what I say, so you dig yourself into the hole of pity, with fragile arguments that don't make sense, just to be contrary. Too bad the truth does hurt.

Oh yes. Those things like evidence-supported facts and dictionaries can be fragile fragile references. If only I had your mastery of poor analogies, unsupported assumptions, hypocrisy, and projection of insecurities. Perhaps instead of making a point in this thread, I should just debase my responses to the poorly formed ad hominem attacks you have been attempting?

And to answer your question regarding "hidden truths" and "agendas,"

1. I have been a professional in the Bio tech industry for a decade now. During my entire career as a researcher, not once have I heard or read ANYTHING about a homosexual gene being present from birth. Because it does not exist.(so that rules out being born gay)

Your experience in the biotech industry means little. You could be a lab rat, doing entry level work, if that. Needless to say your credentials do not impress. Sorry.

If you were trained in any accredited biology program in this country, you would be well aware that organisms are influenced by both nature and nature, allowing for predispositions and possibilities, not absolutes. Nonetheless, even if every single gay person on the planet was part of a secret conspiracy and really chose to be gay: why does it even matter?

2. Being that most gays are highly educated and successful, many become business colleagues with lobbyists, in order to help manipulate votes and propositions.

Sounds like someone is a little jealous. So by virtue of the fact that they make more money than you do on average, they are paying lobbyists to manipulate "votes and propositions." Which ones, exactly? Name a few, since you seem to be so "knowledgeable" in the matter. That's a very interesting but completely unsupported accusation. I'd ask if you had any evidence to back the claim, but seeing as you have yet to provide any in this thread so far, I doubt you'd start now.

3. Homosexuality was first manifested out of pleasure and lust, and not love (in ancient civilizations).

Heterosexuality was first manifested out of pleasure and lust, and not love (ancient evolutionary ancestors and initial humans). While we're on the topic of making wildly inaccurate comparisons: Women and slaves were beaten as the patron of the house pleased (in ancient civilizations). Religious zealots worshiped the sun and believed it revolved around the Earth (in not so ancient civilizations).

Let me know if you'd like to make a point that has anything to do with how the modern world works.

4. Gays are a walking contradiction, being that they still subconsciously imitate heterosexual couples. For example, One partner usually plays the role of the male figure, and the other, the female figure. Why can't you be yourself and be gay too? Do gays really hate themselves?

How does one play the role of a female figure? For that matter, what is the "role of a female figure?" How does a lesbian play the role of the male figure? I'm guessing you're about to give me a rather dumb response. It's becoming clear to me that you don't actually understand homosexuality at all. Furthermore, why is this a "hidden agenda" of homosexuals, and once again, why does it even matter?

Civilization didn't put restrictions on anyone, you poor, confused soul. It was the decree of the Catholic Church that did it to the priests. And it was total contradiction. What they preached to the masses not to do, they did the total opposite behind the curtains. Catholic priests are sick, and so are the lifestyles of homosexuals. How is that a hypocritical/contradiction? There you go again being contrary and making absolutely no sense. By the way, I'm interested in knowing exactly how you are to be my demise. So please feel free to explain.

I really need to spell things out for you I guess. You disagreed with the idea of imposing sexuality restrictions onto a group of people. It's easy to claim that the Catholic Church WAS civilization historically. Perhaps you should brush up on your European history, and how the church was a large part of all life, including but not limited to politics and policy, from peons, to kings. It's how things like the inquisition were religion imposed onto all facets of life.

So the reason you are hypocritical yet again is because you detest that one group can impose restrictions onto the sexuality of another, and yet you have spent most of this thread implying that you detest the lack of restrictions on the sexuality of homosexuals.

 

[Gadawg73]

Hick? Dude, you are psycho. Since when is a Black male (who happens to be a Bio Analytical Researcher from the Bay Area, California) considered a hick? Your blind assumptions are horrible. And you are extremely confused, which gives me the perception that you probably are gay. Why? Because based on your post, you are armed and ready for combat. Saying phrases like....." I'm gonna be your down fall", are words of someone looking for a fight. What the hell is that? No need to be confrontational just because you disagree.

Temptations don't occur as a result of being attracted to something? You got to be joking, right? So I'm supposed to sit here and let you tell every straight guy on this board that if they are attracted to a beautiful girl, that they CANNOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES become tempted to pursue her? We pursue people/places/ things/ Ideas that we are attracted to. What planet are you from?
Can you at least understand that much? You ever hear of two halves equating to one whole? Let me put it to you in mathematical terms.

Attraction = temptation
Since these words are synonymous to one another, they both equate to each other.
Now, this one many seem tricky but it's still simple to comprehend.
Action = Repercussion

Now I dare you to sit here and argue that repercussions aren't a type of action, even though they are the result of one as well. So how does this not work?

You must be one of those diggers who can't accept what I say, so you dig yourself into the hole of pity, with fragile arguments that don't make sense, just to be contrary. Too bad the truth does hurt.

I'm interested in knowing where you got your education in comprehension, because apparently it sucks. And to answer your question regarding "hidden truths" and "agendas,"

1. I have been a professional in the Bio tech industry for a decade now. During my entire career as a researcher, not once have I heard or read ANYTHING about a homosexual gene being present from birth. Because it does not exist.(so that rules out being born gay)

2. Being that most gays are highly educated and successful, many become business colleagues with lobbyists, in order to help manipulate votes and propositions.

3. Homosexuality was first manifested out of pleasure and lust, and not love (in ancient civilizations).


4. Gays are a walking contradiction, being that they still subconsciously imitate heterosexual couples. For example, One partner usually plays the role of the male figure, and the other, the female figure. Why can't you be yourself and be gay too? Do gays really hate themselves?

And last but not least...... Disagree with what? Civilization didn't put restrictions on anyone, you poor, confused soul. It was the decree of the Catholic Church that did it to the priests. And it was total contradiction. What they preached to the masses not to do, they did the total opposite behind the curtains. Catholic priests are sick, and so are the lifestyles of homosexuals. How is that a hypocritical/contradiction? There you go again being contrary and making absolutely no sense. By the way, I'm interested in knowing exactly how you are to be my demise. So please feel free to explain.

DNA was discovered in early 1950s.
Under your theory it didn't exist before that.
Not all Catholic priests are gay.
Your posts make you look extremely foolish.

No you look foolish. I'm speaking of a homosexual gene, not the discovery of DNA.
Not once did I EVER say ALL catholic priests are gay.
You are blind and contrary as well.

"Catholic priests are sick"
You said it Moe.
Now you are running from it like monkey on fire.
I live in the real world. How is someone that is happy, productive, hard working, pays their taxes and does not committ any crimes "sick"?
Your posts make you look very foolish.

 

[RealityStrikes]

Hick? Dude, you are psycho. Since when is a Black male (who happens to be a Bio Analytical Researcher from the Bay Area, California) considered a hick? Your blind assumptions are horrible. And you are extremely confused, which gives me the perception that you probably are gay. Why? Because based on your post, you are armed and ready for combat. Saying phrases like....." I'm gonna be your down fall", are words of someone looking for a fight. What the hell is that? No need to be confrontational just because you disagree.

Oh I'm confrontational because it amuses me. You believe I am making assumption when using my blanket term of endearment to ignorant people, yet you have no problem making assumptions about my sexuality. That's twice now you have shown yourself to be a hypocrite in this thread.

Temptations don't occur as a result of being attracted to something? You got to be joking, right? So I'm supposed to sit here and let you tell every straight guy on this board that if they are attracted to a beautiful girl, that they CANNOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES become tempted to pursue her? We pursue people/places/ things/ Ideas that we are attracted to. What planet are you from?
Can you at least understand that much? You ever hear of two halves equating to one whole? Let me put it to you in mathematical terms.

Attraction = temptation
Since these words are synonymous to one another, they both equate to each other.
Now, this one many seem tricky but it's still simple to comprehend.
Action = Repercussion

It's almost like you understand what an analogy is. Almost. You see you're incorrect when insinuating that temptations occur as a result of attractions, because as you later stated, they are perfectly equal. That's like saying half dozen of something leads to 6. Then you go on to claim action = repercussion, when the two are NOT synonymous. Perhaps it's that you don't understand what synonyms are. Let me know and I'll be happy to educate.


Oh yes. Those things like evidence-supported facts and dictionaries can be fragile fragile references. If only I had your mastery of poor analogies, unsupported assumptions, hypocrisy, and projection of insecurities. Perhaps instead of making a point in this thread, I should just debase my responses to the poorly formed ad hominem attacks you have been attempting?


Your experience in the biotech industry means little. You could be a lab rat, doing entry level work, if that. Needless to say your credentials do not impress. Sorry.

If you were trained in any accredited biology program in this country, you would be well aware that organisms are influenced by both nature and nature, allowing for predispositions and possibilities, not absolutes. Nonetheless, even if every single gay person on the planet was part of a secret conspiracy and really chose to be gay: why does it even matter?


Sounds like someone is a little jealous. So by virtue of the fact that they make more money than you do on average, they are paying lobbyists to manipulate "votes and propositions." Which ones, exactly? Name a few, since you seem to be so "knowledgeable" in the matter. That's a very interesting but completely unsupported accusation. I'd ask if you had any evidence to back the claim, but seeing as you have yet to provide any in this thread so far, I doubt you'd start now.


Heterosexuality was first manifested out of pleasure and lust, and not love (ancient evolutionary ancestors and initial humans). While we're on the topic of making wildly inaccurate comparisons: Women and slaves were beaten as the patron of the house pleased (in ancient civilizations). Religious zealots worshiped the sun and believed it revolved around the Earth (in not so ancient civilizations).

Let me know if you'd like to make a point that has anything to do with how the modern world works.

4. Gays are a walking contradiction, being that they still subconsciously imitate heterosexual couples. For example, One partner usually plays the role of the male figure, and the other, the female figure. Why can't you be yourself and be gay too? Do gays really hate themselves?

How does one play the role of a female figure? For that matter, what is the "role of a female figure?" How does a lesbian play the role of the male figure? I'm guessing you're about to give me a rather dumb response. It's becoming clear to me that you don't actually understand homosexuality at all. Furthermore, why is this a "hidden agenda" of homosexuals, and once again, why does it even matter?

Civilization didn't put restrictions on anyone, you poor, confused soul. It was the decree of the Catholic Church that did it to the priests. And it was total contradiction. What they preached to the masses not to do, they did the total opposite behind the curtains. Catholic priests are sick, and so are the lifestyles of homosexuals. How is that a hypocritical/contradiction? There you go again being contrary and making absolutely no sense. By the way, I'm interested in knowing exactly how you are to be my demise. So please feel free to explain.

I really need to spell things out for you I guess. You disagreed with the idea of imposing sexuality restrictions onto a group of people. It's easy to claim that the Catholic Church WAS civilization historically. Perhaps you should brush up on your European history, and how the church was a large part of all life, including but not limited to politics and policy, from peons, to kings. It's how things like the inquisition were religion imposed onto all facets of life.

So the reason you are hypocritical yet again is because you detest that one group can impose restrictions onto the sexuality of another, and yet you have spent most of this thread implying that you detest the lack of restrictions on the sexuality of homosexuals.

Being confrontational amuses you? What are you, some kind of "wanna be" thug who gets your jollies off by trying to pick a fight? Dude, you will lose. You can NEVER bring me down, no matter how hard your pitiful, confused soul tries. By calling me a "hick", you might as well call me a "******". Same meaning, right? And actions speak louder than words. I didn't have to assume anything. You have already shown me your sexuality based on you going into your pathetic defense mode.

I can tell you are not a mature or intelligent person. Anyone with half of a brain and common sense would just ignore me if they didn't agree with what I had to say, rather than trying to declare war (which you will lose every time). Your rubbish argument shows no evidence of me being hypocritical. And your concept of the English language, mathematics and science is far too low to even begin to comprehend what I'm explaining.

repercussion
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: consequence
Synonyms: backlash, chain reaction, echo, effect, fallout, feedback, flak, follow-through, follow-up, impact, imprint, influence, kickback, mark, re-echo, reaction, rebound, recoil, result, reverberation, side effect, spinoff, waves

... in every interaction, there is a pair of forces acting on the two interacting objects. The size of the force on the first object equals the size of the force on the second object. The direction of the force on the first object is opposite to the direction of the force on the second object. Forces always come in pairs - equal and opposite action-reaction force pairs. The Law of action-reaction

So if an action equates to a reaction, that also makes a reaction a type of action.
Therefore: action=reaction
reaction=repercussion
action=repercussion

This is why you need to just shut up before you end up digging yourself all the way to China (If you aren't already there). (According to you), An action is not synonymous to a repercussion? Please go back to school. You are nothing but a Pseudo"wanna be" intellectual trying to battle with someone way above your level. So stop fooling yourself please.

If you were trained in any accredited biology program in this country, you would be well aware that organisms are influenced by both nature and nature, allowing for predispositions and possibilities, not absolutes.

This makes absolutely no sense. Who the hell are you trying to fool? Yourself? Is it working? Both nature and nature? Interesting. Organisms are influenced by internal and external reactions of our bodies and the environment. Not nature and nature. What the heck kind of answer is that?If you were scientifically inclined and attempted to school me, you would have at least used environment as an example.

And as far as it mattering whether or not they choose to be gay, It does. It's better to be honest with yourself rather than walking the path of denial.

And who am I jealous of? I make a six figure salary and can care less what the "next" person makes. I'm in a state of contentment. It's the manipulation of votes that interests me.

And since when does a gay woman who acts like a man feel good about herself? It would be better to see two gay women with dresses, high heels, and make up, walking down the street holding hands. But when you have one partner wearing corn roles/ braids or a male buzz cut, with super baggy jeans, or a gay woman in a male suit and tie,with an ultra tight sports bra to hide their bulging breasts, while holding hands with the gay woman in a dress, that's the walking contradiction. And the same applies to gay men. If you truly love your lifestyle, then be 100% true to yourself and still love it.

Here's your proof regarding political influence of gays to lobbyists:

Steve Endean established the Human Rights Campaign Fund in 1980 to raise money for gay-supportive congressional candidates. Within three months, the organization was registered with the Federal Election Commission as an independent political action committee (PAC). In 1983, Vic Basile, at the time one of the leading LGBT rights activists in Washington, D.C., was elected as the first executive director. In October 1986, the HRC Foundation (HRCF) was formed as a non-political, tax-exempt organization. Through research, educational efforts and outreach, the HRC Foundation continues to encourage LGBT people to live openly and to support their ability to do so.

In January 1989, Basile announced his departure, and HRC reorganized from serving mainly as a political action committee (PAC) to becoming a lobbying and political organization. HRC decided on a new Statement of Purpose:
“ For the promotion of the social welfare of the gay and lesbian community by drafting, supporting and influencing legislation and policy at the federal, state and local level. ”

Tim McFeeley, a Harvard Law School graduate, founder of the Boston Lesbian and Gay Political Alliance, and a co-chair of the New England HRC Committee, was elected the new executive director. Total membership was then approximately 25,000 members.[citation needed]

In 1990, following lobbying by HRCF and other groups, Congress passed the Americans with Disabilities Act, which, among its other provisions, protects people with HIV and AIDS from discrimination.

In 1992, HRC endorsed a presidential candidate for the first time — Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton. In March 1993, HRC began a new project, National Coming Out Day. From January 1995 until January 2004, Elizabeth Birch served as the executive director of the HRC. Under her leadership, the institution more than quadrupled its membership to 500,000 members and purchased an office building for its Washington, D.C. headquarters.[citation needed] In August 2000, Birch became the first leader of an LGBT organization to address the convention of a major political party[citation needed] when she spoke before the Democratic National Convention.

In 1995, the organization dropped the word “Fund” from its name, thus becoming the Human Rights Campaign. That same year, it underwent a complete reorganization. The HRC Foundation added new programs, such as the Workplace Project and the Family Project, while HRC itself broadly expanded its research, communications, and marketing/public relations functions. The organization also unveiled a new logo, a yellow equal sign inside of a blue square, which has become one of the most recognizable symbols[citation needed] of the LGBT community.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Campaign

And I'm aware that sexuality "as a whole" was manifested from lust. But some gays want to believe that it's love that originally brought them together.

Why do you continue to be contrary? Can't you come at me with history that is accurate? The Catholic Church was NOT civilization. Please turn from your moronic nonsense. China, Japan, and just about all of Asia was civilized during the reign of Constantine (founder of Catholicism) and through out the Middle Ages. And way before Europeans even grasped the concept. IT HAD ABSOLUTELY NO INFLUENCE ON ASIAN CIVILIZATIONS!!!!!

Yes, I disagree that priests should be molesting little boys. It wasn't meant for all priests to practice abstinence in the name of God. This is why they have these repercussions now. They aren't the chosen whom they claim to be. Homosexuals should own up to the fact that it's the sick molestations that's the issue. I can give a damn about their sexuality otherwise. And the rest of the homosexuals need to stop kidding themselves by making false justifications about why they are the way they are. These are my arguments. And there's nothing hypocritical about them.

What's your name? Smarter than hick? More like smarter than "sh1t" if you ask me.

 

[Douger]

Fitty two street no B likin' dat freedom an shit. Werd Up ?
I could care less if some guy wants to choke down a load of nut butter as long as he doesn't do it while I'm ordering my meal or sitting on the beach. That would get him a bullet in the head.
Other than that. Slurp on folks.

 

[RealityStrikes]

DNA was discovered in early 1950s.
Under your theory it didn't exist before that.
Not all Catholic priests are gay.
Your posts make you look extremely foolish.

No you look foolish. I'm speaking of a homosexual gene, not the discovery of DNA.
Not once did I EVER say ALL catholic priests are gay.
You are blind and contrary as well.

"Catholic priests are sick"
You said it Moe.
Now you are running from it like monkey on fire.
I live in the real world. How is someone that is happy, productive, hard working, pays their taxes and does not committ any crimes "sick"?
Your posts make you look very foolish.

Do you know what the word "generalization" means? Apparently not. Catholic priests who molest boys are sick. I NEVER said Catholic priests are gay. They already told the world when they got caught molesting them. And I never stated ALL Catholic priests are sick. Just the ones who molest.

Do yourself a favor and clean your cloudy bi focal glasses to correct your blindness, and sanitize your germ infested dentures to further prevent the frying and mutilation of whatever brain cells you have left. You seem like you have a mental handicap of some kind.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Being confrontational amuses you? What are you, some kind of "wanna be" thug who gets your jollies off by trying to pick a fight? Dude, you will lose. You can NEVER bring me down, no matter how hard your pitiful, confused soul tries.

Oh no you misunderstand. It's not generalized confrontation. I just like bigot bashing. Highly amusing. The goal here isn't to "bring you down," so much as publicly ridicule your inane responses so that you bring yourself down. Here's a great example:

By calling me a "hick", you might as well call me a "******". Same meaning, right?

Based on the above, and the fact that you could not identify how temptation::attraction are synonyms, and action::repercussion are not, I'm starting to suspect English is not your first language. Perhaps you need that dictionary thing again to help you out here.
Hick | Define Hick at Dictionary.com

And actions speak louder than words. I didn't have to assume anything. You have already shown me your sexuality based on you going into your pathetic defense mode.

So actions are louder than words, and yet you're using my words and believing them to be action. It's like you plan out how you're going to say something dumb.

So you believe anyone defending equal rights for all people, free from bigotry like yours, is automatically homosexual? If I defend woman's suffrage does that make me a woman? How about if I speak out against animal cruelty? Clearly by your reasoning I am a gay female farm animal. Fantastic logic.

I can tell you are not a mature or intelligent person. Anyone with half of a brain and common sense would just ignore me if they didn't agree with what I had to say, rather than trying to declare war (which you will lose every time). Your rubbish argument shows no evidence of me being hypocritical.

You misunderstand my intentions. I'm not here to convince you to change your bigoted puny mind. I'm here to make an example of you. To show everyone else reading this that such ridiculous and unprovoked prejudice is not simply tolerated, and will be met with someone like me pointing out every idiotic attempt at reasoning that comprises their intellectual bankruptcy and moral deficits.

repercussion
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: consequence
Synonyms: backlash, chain reaction, echo, effect, fallout, feedback, flak, follow-through, follow-up, impact, imprint, influence, kickback, mark, re-echo, reaction, rebound, recoil, result, reverberation, side effect, spinoff, waves

... in every interaction, there is a pair of forces acting on the two interacting objects. The size of the force on the first object equals the size of the force on the second object. The direction of the force on the first object is opposite to the direction of the force on the second object. Forces always come in pairs - equal and opposite action-reaction force pairs. The Law of action-reaction

So if an action equates to a reaction, that also makes a reaction a type of action.
Therefore: action=reaction
reaction=repercussion
action=repercussion

Your poor logic is incredibly amusing. It seems like you're trying to stretch the principles of physical object interactions onto human interactions, as if performing any particular act somehow creates an "equal but opposite" repercussion. Luckily for the world, the same is not true. If you throw a rock through a window, the FORCES balance out. That does not automatically result in a repercussion for that action. Not only does this make sense from the above practical example, but from the very dictionary definition you just posted: notice how NO PART of your definition nor any synonyms or "repercussion" is "action."

Let's apply this to your original use: "Attraction is to temptation, as actions are to their repercussions. We all have the capacity to either ignore or yield to temptation." So again we find the first two nouns are synonymous, and the latter two are resultant and not equal.

Oh by the way, if you do decide to use physics again, you may want to make sure you get it right. The term is equal but opposite, with the "equal" part referring to magnitude only, and the "opposite" part referring to direction. Thus, equal but opposite forces are not the same, because they are opposite, and certainly not synonymous.

If you were trained in any accredited biology program in this country, you would be well aware that organisms are influenced by both nature and nature, allowing for predispositions and possibilities, not absolutes.

This makes absolutely no sense.

Which goes to show that I was right in that you were not trained in any accredited biology program in this country. It makes no sense to you because it's above your level of understanding. Everything from easy google searches to newspapers to scientific journals have clearly documented this. Let's use those pesky fact things again to settle this one:
Nature versus nurture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Nature and nurture in neuropsychiatric genetics: w... [Dialogues Clin Neurosci. 2010] - PubMed result
Dopamine and serotonin systems modify environmenta... [Scand J Psychol. 2009] - PubMed result
Making the grade: Nature and nurture can both help or hurt
Let me know if this basic biology concept still doesn't make sense to you. I'm happy to educate.

And as far as it mattering whether or not they choose to be gay or not, It does. It's better to be honest with yourself than, walking the path of denial.

So again I ask: why does it matter which it is? If you woke up a grumpy bigot in the morning, did you CHOOSE that or did it happen? We're talking about emotion here. Why does it matter what path someone took to get to an emotion? All you need to do is acknowledge the emotion, and there's no denial. If you're worried about DENIAL, then you probably shouldn't be arguing that the homosexual population should "ignore attraction." That makes hypocrisy #3 for you in this thread. Bravo!

And who am I jealous of? I make a six figure salary and can care less what the "next" person makes. I'm in a state of contentment. It's the manipulation of votes that interests me.

Really? Because you sound rather insecure and jealous to me. You see someone who is secure doesn't need to make claims of their job or salary to strangers online to console themselves. They just make solid points. As for this "manipulation of votes," you have yet to show any evidence whatsoever THAT votes are manipulated, HOW votes or manipulated, or WHICH POLICIES are affected. You know how I keep tearing down your pathetic arguments with those things called facts? You should try using facts to support something you say.

And since when does a gay woman who acts like a man feel good about herself? It would be better to see two gay women with dresses, high heels, and make up, walking down the street holding hands. But when you have one partner wearing corn roles/ braids or a male buzz cut, with super baggy jeans, or a gay woman in a male suit and tie,with an ultra tight sports bra to hide their bulging breasts, while holding hands with the gay woman in a dress, that's the walking contradiction. And the same applies to gay men. If you truly love your lifestyle, then be 100% true to yourself and still love it.

I don't think you actually know what a such a "lifestyle" is, otherwise you wouldn't be so confused by the actions. You also have just shown yourself to be incompetent in distinguishing between gender identity and sexuality. The two are not the same. Perhaps you should do your own google search and do some reading before I need to use facts against you again.

And I'm aware that sexuality "as a whole" was manifested from lust. But some gays want to believe that it's love that originally brought them together.

Love and lust are common to humanity, regardless of sexuality. You think all heterosexuals come together out of love? That's delusional. Lust and love are not associated with any one group of people, but seen in all cultures, all groups, worldwide, throughout all of recorded human history. Because at the end of the day, you're talking about EMOTIONS, and EMOTION has no gender. So once again, your point is inane.

Why do you continue to be contrary? Can't you come at me with history that is accurate? The Catholic Church was NOT civilization. Please turn from your moronic nonsense. China, Japan, and just about all of Asia was civilized during the reign of Constantine (founder of Catholicism) and though out the Middle Ages. And way before Europeans even grasped the concept. IT HAD ABSOLUTELY NO INFLUENCE ON ASIAN CIVILIZATIONS!!!!!

Civilization does not mandate influence on other civilizations. Let's use those fact things again to settle this one as well:
How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization, Thomas E. Woods, Jr. Thomas E., (9780895260383) Hardcover - Barnes & Noble
Role of the Catholic Church in Western civilization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The church determined the culture of civilization in the past. Nonetheless, you seem caught up on things that still have nothing to do with anything.

Yes, I disagree that priests should be molesting little boys. It wasn't meant for all priests to practice abstinence in the name of God. This is why they have these repercussions now. They aren't the chosen whom they claim to be. Homosexuals should own up to the fact that it's the sick molestations that's the issue. I can give a damn about their sexuality otherwise.

To which "sick molestations" are you referring? Let's get at the heart of your bigotry.

What's your name? Smarter than hick? More like smarter than "sh1t" if you ask me.

And then you wonder why I find you to be unintelligent and insecure.

 

[RealityStrikes]

Being confrontational amuses you? What are you, some kind of "wanna be" thug who gets your jollies off by trying to pick a fight? Dude, you will lose. You can NEVER bring me down, no matter how hard your pitiful, confused soul tries.

Oh no you misunderstand. It's not generalized confrontation. I just like bigot bashing. Highly amusing. The goal here isn't to "bring you down," so much as publicly ridicule your inane responses so that you bring yourself down. Here's a great example:

By calling me a "hick", you might as well call me a "******". Same meaning, right?

Based on the above, and the fact that you could not identify how temptation::attraction are synonyms, and action::repercussion are not, I'm starting to suspect English is not your first language. Perhaps you need that dictionary thing again to help you out here.
Hick | Define Hick at Dictionary.com


So actions are louder than words, and yet you're using my words and believing them to be action. It's like you plan out how you're going to say something dumb.

So you believe anyone defending equal rights for all people, free from bigotry like yours, is automatically homosexual? If I defend woman's suffrage does that make me a woman? How about if I speak out against animal cruelty? Clearly by your reasoning I am a gay female farm animal. Fantastic logic.


You misunderstand my intentions. I'm not here to convince you to change your bigoted puny mind. I'm here to make an example of you. To show everyone else reading this that such ridiculous and unprovoked prejudice is not simply tolerated, and will be met with someone like me pointing out every idiotic attempt at reasoning that comprises their intellectual bankruptcy and moral deficits.


Your poor logic is incredibly amusing. It seems like you're trying to stretch the principles of physical object interactions onto human interactions, as if performing any particular act somehow creates an "equal but opposite" repercussion. Luckily for the world, the same is not true. If you throw a rock through a window, the FORCES balance out. That does not automatically result in a repercussion for that action. Not only does this make sense from the above practical example, but from the very dictionary definition you just posted: notice how NO PART of your definition nor any synonyms or "repercussion" is "action."

Let's apply this to your original use: "Attraction is to temptation, as actions are to their repercussions. We all have the capacity to either ignore or yield to temptation." So again we find the first two nouns are synonymous, and the latter two are resultant and not equal.

Oh by the way, if you do decide to use physics again, you may want to make sure you get it right. The term is equal but opposite, with the "equal" part referring to magnitude only, and the "opposite" part referring to direction. Thus, equal but opposite forces are not the same, because they are opposite, and certainly not synonymous.


Which goes to show that I was right in that you were not trained in any accredited biology program in this country. It makes no sense to you because it's above your level of understanding. Everything from easy google searches to newspapers to scientific journals have clearly documented this. Let's use those pesky fact things again to settle this one:
Nature versus nurture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Nature and nurture in neuropsychiatric genetics: w... [Dialogues Clin Neurosci. 2010] - PubMed result
Dopamine and serotonin systems modify environmenta... [Scand J Psychol. 2009] - PubMed result
Making the grade: Nature and nurture can both help or hurt
Let me know if this basic biology concept still doesn't make sense to you. I'm happy to educate.


So again I ask: why does it matter which it is? If you woke up a grumpy bigot in the morning, did you CHOOSE that or did it happen? We're talking about emotion here. Why does it matter what path someone took to get to an emotion? All you need to do is acknowledge the emotion, and there's no denial. If you're worried about DENIAL, then you probably shouldn't be arguing that the homosexual population should "ignore attraction." That makes hypocrisy #3 for you in this thread. Bravo!


Really? Because you sound rather insecure and jealous to me. You see someone who is secure doesn't need to make claims of their job or salary to strangers online to console themselves. They just make solid points. As for this "manipulation of votes," you have yet to show any evidence whatsoever THAT votes are manipulated, HOW votes or manipulated, or WHICH POLICIES are affected. You know how I keep tearing down your pathetic arguments with those things called facts? You should try using facts to support something you say.


I don't think you actually know what a such a "lifestyle" is, otherwise you wouldn't be so confused by the actions. You also have just shown yourself to be incompetent in distinguishing between gender identity and sexuality. The two are not the same. Perhaps you should do your own google search and do some reading before I need to use facts against you again.


Love and lust are common to humanity, regardless of sexuality. You think all heterosexuals come together out of love? That's delusional. Lust and love are not associated with any one group of people, but seen in all cultures, all groups, worldwide, throughout all of recorded human history. Because at the end of the day, you're talking about EMOTIONS, and EMOTION has no gender. So once again, your point is inane.


Civilization does not mandate influence on other civilizations. Let's use those fact things again to settle this one as well:
How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization, Thomas E. Woods, Jr. Thomas E., (9780895260383) Hardcover - Barnes & Noble
Role of the Catholic Church in Western civilization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The church determined the culture of civilization in the past. Nonetheless, you seem caught up on things that still have nothing to do with anything.

Yes, I disagree that priests should be molesting little boys. It wasn't meant for all priests to practice abstinence in the name of God. This is why they have these repercussions now. They aren't the chosen whom they claim to be. Homosexuals should own up to the fact that it's the sick molestations that's the issue. I can give a damn about their sexuality otherwise.

To which "sick molestations" are you referring? Let's get at the heart of your bigotry.

What's your name? Smarter than hick? More like smarter than "sh1t" if you ask me.

And then you wonder why I find you to be unintelligent and insecure.

Dude, stop while you have the chance.