Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I didnt dodge it - in FACT, I elaborated on why the two were made analogous.......they're both dispositions outside of your conscious control. Race and sexual attraction.There....I dont really care to hear how you rationalize the discrimination against folks simply because of the sex they're attracted to, sorry. That's as bad to me as racism, because I know for a fact that I didn't consciously choose to be attracted to women - it happened as a natural occurrence. I couldnt get a boner for a man no matter how hard I fuckin tried, much in the same way I couldn't change the race I was born into.Another worthy note, here...
America has moved really far (but not 100%) away from the outward acceptance of Racism.
This "anti racism" example has had a much longer time to become ingrained into our society - but anti homophobia is relatively new and so many folks cannot see the wisdom in using your speech to invalidate irrational discrimination in society.
It would be easier to see the Wisdom in what this school has done, if you replace the policy against homosexuals with a policy against Black Students -
Would they be "snowflakes" for skipping the game, then?
That's rhetorical in light of how ridiculous it would be to consider that being a "snowflake."
race and sexuality are not the same, despite your side's attempts to equate them.
And Christianity has no real acceptance of racism, despite what some southerners thought and made up in the 1800's.
Homosexuality, on the other hand, or at least homosexual acts are taboo across almost all major religions, and the taboo is explicit.
Dodging the question. typical.
WAs...
No...
question.
But don't apologize. It's in the quote chain.
Dodging the statement then, you literalist fuck.
I dont care who you think I am - if you can't handle a reasoned discussion without resorting to this meta blahblah bullshit, it's a function of your ineptitude.Sin is not an empirically established concept - it has no gravity in a rational discussion with me. "Belief" and "empiricism" are two different playing fields..I don't discriminate against folks who believe in fairy tales. They're even allowed into my home, I don't ban them from entry into my Organization like these Christian "snowflakes."
That is because you do not understand the reality of sin or the gravity of sin. A good parent instructs their children, and disciplines their children, for their own good. They may not understand it but sometime later they will be grateful.
Christian schools do not allow homosexual teachers because it gives off a very wrong message. I seriously doubt they would allow anyone to teach there bragged of their adultery or love of porn. You see, you and yours all too often have this feigned appearance of caring for others. Promoting premarital sex, gay sex, choose your gender talk, is all bad for the soul. And reading 1st and 2nd graders a book called “Johnny has two Dads” is an abomination. I guess, until you come to the realization God, heaven and hell are all very real you will rely on your ego and wits to form your conscience instead.
Ps --- your using discrimination against blacks analogy is totally lame.
You are not the center of the fucking universe, something most progressives find unfathomable.
I didnt dodge it - in FACT, I elaborated on why the two were made analogous.......they're both dispositions outside of your conscious control.There....I dont really care to hear how you rationalize the discrimination against folks simply because of the sex they're attracted to, sorry. That's as bad to me as racism, because I know for a fact that I didn't consciously choose to be attracted to women - it happened as a natural occurrence. I couldnt get a boner for a man no matter how hard I fuckin tried, much in the same way I couldn't change the race I was born into.race and sexuality are not the same, despite your side's attempts to equate them.
And Christianity has no real acceptance of racism, despite what some southerners thought and made up in the 1800's.
Homosexuality, on the other hand, or at least homosexual acts are taboo across almost all major religions, and the taboo is explicit.
Dodging the question. typical.
WAs...
No...
question.
But don't apologize. It's in the quote chain.
Dodging the statement then, you literalist fuck.
Unless you're going to tell me that your brain can tell your dick to get a boner for a tree if you really really wanted it to.
I dont care who you think I am - if you can't handle a reasoned discussion without resorting to this meta blahblah bullshit, it's a function of your ineptitude.Sin is not an empirically established concept - it has no gravity in a rational discussion with me. "Belief" and "empiricism" are two different playing fields..I don't discriminate against folks who believe in fairy tales. They're even allowed into my home, I don't ban them from entry into my Organization like these Christian "snowflakes."
That is because you do not understand the reality of sin or the gravity of sin. A good parent instructs their children, and disciplines their children, for their own good. They may not understand it but sometime later they will be grateful.
Christian schools do not allow homosexual teachers because it gives off a very wrong message. I seriously doubt they would allow anyone to teach there bragged of their adultery or love of porn. You see, you and yours all too often have this feigned appearance of caring for others. Promoting premarital sex, gay sex, choose your gender talk, is all bad for the soul. And reading 1st and 2nd graders a book called “Johnny has two Dads” is an abomination. I guess, until you come to the realization God, heaven and hell are all very real you will rely on your ego and wits to form your conscience instead.
Ps --- your using discrimination against blacks analogy is totally lame.
You are not the center of the fucking universe, something most progressives find unfathomable.
Rationality and the ability to reason is what matters in a discussion of ideas.Sin is not an empirically established concept - it has no gravity in a rational discussion with me. "Belief" and "empiricism" are two different playing fields..I don't discriminate against folks who believe in fairy tales. They're even allowed into my home, I don't ban them from entry into my Organization like these Christian "snowflakes."
That is because you do not understand the reality of sin or the gravity of sin. A good parent instructs their children, and disciplines their children, for their own good. They may not understand it but sometime later they will be grateful.
Christian schools do not allow homosexual teachers because it gives off a very wrong message. I seriously doubt they would allow anyone to teach there bragged of their adultery or love of porn. You see, you and yours all too often have this feigned appearance of caring for others. Promoting premarital sex, gay sex, choose your gender talk, is all bad for the soul. And reading 1st and 2nd graders a book called “Johnny has two Dads” is an abomination. I guess, until you come to the realization God, heaven and hell are all very real you will rely on your ego and wits to form your conscience instead.
Ps --- your using discrimination against blacks analogy is totally lame.
So let me get this straight , YOUR moral code should come into play in a discussion but the moral code of anyone who disagrees with you should not?
Yep, that is EXACTLY what you are saying.
If x, y, z person cannot rationally defend their discrimination, I fully agree with any school-system that will not dignify said discrimination with a Visit.
Um, race was used as an analogy.I didnt dodge it - in FACT, I elaborated on why the two were made analogous.......they're both dispositions outside of your conscious control.There....I dont really care to hear how you rationalize the discrimination against folks simply because of the sex they're attracted to, sorry. That's as bad to me as racism, because I know for a fact that I didn't consciously choose to be attracted to women - it happened as a natural occurrence. I couldnt get a boner for a man no matter how hard I fuckin tried, much in the same way I couldn't change the race I was born into.
Dodging the question. typical.
WAs...
No...
question.
But don't apologize. It's in the quote chain.
Dodging the statement then, you literalist fuck.
Unless you're going to tell me that your brain can tell your dick to get a boner for a tree if you really really wanted it to.
No, you ignore my point that while most religions have a taboo on homosexual acts, most also don't promote racism. That makes your appeal to the race card invalid when discussing this school in particular, and most religious schools.
I didnt dodge it - in FACT, I elaborated on why the two were made analogous.......they're both dispositions outside of your conscious control. Race and sexual attraction.There....I dont really care to hear how you rationalize the discrimination against folks simply because of the sex they're attracted to, sorry. That's as bad to me as racism, because I know for a fact that I didn't consciously choose to be attracted to women - it happened as a natural occurrence. I couldnt get a boner for a man no matter how hard I fuckin tried, much in the same way I couldn't change the race I was born into.race and sexuality are not the same, despite your side's attempts to equate them.
And Christianity has no real acceptance of racism, despite what some southerners thought and made up in the 1800's.
Homosexuality, on the other hand, or at least homosexual acts are taboo across almost all major religions, and the taboo is explicit.
Dodging the question. typical.
WAs...
No...
question.
But don't apologize. It's in the quote chain.
Dodging the statement then, you literalist fuck.
Unless you're going to tell me that your brain can tell your dick to get a boner for a tree if you really really wanted it to.
It depends on the setting - but the Laws of Logic and the scientific method are the strongest benchmarks we've got. Not sure what else anyone would appeal to in an argument.Rationality and the ability to reason is what matters in a discussion of ideas.Sin is not an empirically established concept - it has no gravity in a rational discussion with me. "Belief" and "empiricism" are two different playing fields..I don't discriminate against folks who believe in fairy tales. They're even allowed into my home, I don't ban them from entry into my Organization like these Christian "snowflakes."
That is because you do not understand the reality of sin or the gravity of sin. A good parent instructs their children, and disciplines their children, for their own good. They may not understand it but sometime later they will be grateful.
Christian schools do not allow homosexual teachers because it gives off a very wrong message. I seriously doubt they would allow anyone to teach there bragged of their adultery or love of porn. You see, you and yours all too often have this feigned appearance of caring for others. Promoting premarital sex, gay sex, choose your gender talk, is all bad for the soul. And reading 1st and 2nd graders a book called “Johnny has two Dads” is an abomination. I guess, until you come to the realization God, heaven and hell are all very real you will rely on your ego and wits to form your conscience instead.
Ps --- your using discrimination against blacks analogy is totally lame.
So let me get this straight , YOUR moral code should come into play in a discussion but the moral code of anyone who disagrees with you should not?
Yep, that is EXACTLY what you are saying.
If x, y, z person cannot rationally defend their discrimination, I fully agree with any school-system that will not dignify said discrimination with a Visit.
Oh , I see. So tell me who decides what is rational discrimination and what is not?
Yes, I'm telling you that there's likely a malfunction in their brain or hormones and that their "boner" for Cows is not voluntary -I didnt dodge it - in FACT, I elaborated on why the two were made analogous.......they're both dispositions outside of your conscious control. Race and sexual attraction.There....I dont really care to hear how you rationalize the discrimination against folks simply because of the sex they're attracted to, sorry. That's as bad to me as racism, because I know for a fact that I didn't consciously choose to be attracted to women - it happened as a natural occurrence. I couldnt get a boner for a man no matter how hard I fuckin tried, much in the same way I couldn't change the race I was born into.
Dodging the question. typical.
WAs...
No...
question.
But don't apologize. It's in the quote chain.
Dodging the statement then, you literalist fuck.
Unless you're going to tell me that your brain can tell your dick to get a boner for a tree if you really really wanted it to.
Sir, there are people who have sex with livestock. Are you telling me that they are born that way and there was no conscious effort on their part to get the required erection to have sex with a farm animal?
It depends on the setting - but the Laws of Logic and the scientific method are the strongest benchmarks we've got. Not sure what else anyone would appeal to in an argument.Rationality and the ability to reason is what matters in a discussion of ideas.Sin is not an empirically established concept - it has no gravity in a rational discussion with me. "Belief" and "empiricism" are two different playing fields..
That is because you do not understand the reality of sin or the gravity of sin. A good parent instructs their children, and disciplines their children, for their own good. They may not understand it but sometime later they will be grateful.
Christian schools do not allow homosexual teachers because it gives off a very wrong message. I seriously doubt they would allow anyone to teach there bragged of their adultery or love of porn. You see, you and yours all too often have this feigned appearance of caring for others. Promoting premarital sex, gay sex, choose your gender talk, is all bad for the soul. And reading 1st and 2nd graders a book called “Johnny has two Dads” is an abomination. I guess, until you come to the realization God, heaven and hell are all very real you will rely on your ego and wits to form your conscience instead.
Ps --- your using discrimination against blacks analogy is totally lame.
So let me get this straight , YOUR moral code should come into play in a discussion but the moral code of anyone who disagrees with you should not?
Yep, that is EXACTLY what you are saying.
If x, y, z person cannot rationally defend their discrimination, I fully agree with any school-system that will not dignify said discrimination with a Visit.
Oh , I see. So tell me who decides what is rational discrimination and what is not?
A fairy tale?
(lol!)
I dont care what you consider it - being an asshole or otherwise. I'll always be court-side routing for the team that's against being an irrational bigot. Homophobia is irrational bigotry - it cannot win any logical arguments as defensible.It depends on the setting - but the Laws of Logic and the scientific method are the strongest benchmarks we've got. Not sure what else anyone would appeal to in an argument.Rationality and the ability to reason is what matters in a discussion of ideas.Sin is not an empirically established concept - it has no gravity in a rational discussion with me. "Belief" and "empiricism" are two different playing fields.
So let me get this straight , YOUR moral code should come into play in a discussion but the moral code of anyone who disagrees with you should not?
Yep, that is EXACTLY what you are saying.
If x, y, z person cannot rationally defend their discrimination, I fully agree with any school-system that will not dignify said discrimination with a Visit.
Oh , I see. So tell me who decides what is rational discrimination and what is not?
A fairy tale?
(lol!)
OR, and I'm just spit balling here, you could stop being an asshole who is trying to claim that some discrimination is okay and some is not, and oh just coincidentally all the good discrimination just happens to be that you agree with and all the bad that which you don't agree with?????????
Yes, I'm telling you that there's likely a malfunction in their brain or hormones and that their "boner" for Cows is not voluntary -I didnt dodge it - in FACT, I elaborated on why the two were made analogous.......they're both dispositions outside of your conscious control. Race and sexual attraction.There....Dodging the question. typical.
WAs...
No...
question.
But don't apologize. It's in the quote chain.
Dodging the statement then, you literalist fuck.
Unless you're going to tell me that your brain can tell your dick to get a boner for a tree if you really really wanted it to.
Sir, there are people who have sex with livestock. Are you telling me that they are born that way and there was no conscious effort on their part to get the required erection to have sex with a farm animal?
Can you voluntarily get turned on by a cow?
THATS FUGGIN WEIRD!
Sin is not an empirically established concept - it has no gravity in a rational discussion with me. "Belief" and "empiricism" are two different playing fields..I don't discriminate against folks who believe in fairy tales. They're even allowed into my home, I don't ban them from entry into my Organization like these Christian "snowflakes."
That is because you do not understand the reality of sin or the gravity of sin. A good parent instructs their children, and disciplines their children, for their own good. They may not understand it but sometime later they will be grateful.
Christian schools do not allow homosexual teachers because it gives off a very wrong message. I seriously doubt they would allow anyone to teach there bragged of their adultery or love of porn. You see, you and yours all too often have this feigned appearance of caring for others. Promoting premarital sex, gay sex, choose your gender talk, is all bad for the soul. And reading 1st and 2nd graders a book called “Johnny has two Dads” is an abomination. I guess, until you come to the realization God, heaven and hell are all very real you will rely on your ego and wits to form your conscience instead.
Ps --- your using discrimination against blacks analogy is totally lame.
Correct - I think something is biologically incorrect about a pro-creational being that is attracted to a sex it cannot procreate with. That's not a moral argument, it's a biological predisposition.Yes, I'm telling you that there's likely a malfunction in their brain or hormones and that their "boner" for Cows is not voluntary -I didnt dodge it - in FACT, I elaborated on why the two were made analogous.......they're both dispositions outside of your conscious control. Race and sexual attraction.There....
WAs...
No...
question.
But don't apologize. It's in the quote chain.
Dodging the statement then, you literalist fuck.
Unless you're going to tell me that your brain can tell your dick to get a boner for a tree if you really really wanted it to.
Sir, there are people who have sex with livestock. Are you telling me that they are born that way and there was no conscious effort on their part to get the required erection to have sex with a farm animal?
Can you voluntarily get turned on by a cow?
THATS FUGGIN WEIRD!
That's pretty judgemental of you, and if we take that to its logical conclusion we must conclude that YOU believe that there is something wrong with the brain of a homosexual and that's why they feel the need to fuck a person of the same gender even though we a humans are naturally predisposed to procreation which requires sex with the opposite gender.
You are really really really bad at this.
I dont care what you consider it - being an asshole or otherwise. I'll always be court-side routing for the team that's against being an irrational bigot. Homophobia is irrational bigotry - it cannot win any logical arguments as defensible.It depends on the setting - but the Laws of Logic and the scientific method are the strongest benchmarks we've got. Not sure what else anyone would appeal to in an argument.Rationality and the ability to reason is what matters in a discussion of ideas.So let me get this straight , YOUR moral code should come into play in a discussion but the moral code of anyone who disagrees with you should not?
Yep, that is EXACTLY what you are saying.
If x, y, z person cannot rationally defend their discrimination, I fully agree with any school-system that will not dignify said discrimination with a Visit.
Oh , I see. So tell me who decides what is rational discrimination and what is not?
A fairy tale?
(lol!)
OR, and I'm just spit balling here, you could stop being an asshole who is trying to claim that some discrimination is okay and some is not, and oh just coincidentally all the good discrimination just happens to be that you agree with and all the bad that which you don't agree with?????????
Correct - I think something is biologically incorrect about a pro-creational being that is attracted to a sex it cannot procreate with. That's not a moral argument, it's a biological predisposition.Yes, I'm telling you that there's likely a malfunction in their brain or hormones and that their "boner" for Cows is not voluntary -I didnt dodge it - in FACT, I elaborated on why the two were made analogous.......they're both dispositions outside of your conscious control. Race and sexual attraction.Dodging the statement then, you literalist fuck.
Unless you're going to tell me that your brain can tell your dick to get a boner for a tree if you really really wanted it to.
Sir, there are people who have sex with livestock. Are you telling me that they are born that way and there was no conscious effort on their part to get the required erection to have sex with a farm animal?
Can you voluntarily get turned on by a cow?
THATS FUGGIN WEIRD!
That's pretty judgemental of you, and if we take that to its logical conclusion we must conclude that YOU believe that there is something wrong with the brain of a homosexual and that's why they feel the need to fuck a person of the same gender even though we a humans are naturally predisposed to procreation which requires sex with the opposite gender.
You are really really really bad at this.
What does that mean, in practice? It means nothing, there are no Victims as long as we don't discriminate against their biological predisposition based on irrational fairy tales.
What does a person who fucks animals mean, in practice? It means the animals are Victims, as they are unable to rationally Consent to sex.
False - you extrapolated what wasnt there from my post and so it's your mind that needed correction. I do so for you already in my previous post.I dont care what you consider it - being an asshole or otherwise. I'll always be court-side routing for the team that's against being an irrational bigot. Homophobia is irrational bigotry - it cannot win any logical arguments as defensible.It depends on the setting - but the Laws of Logic and the scientific method are the strongest benchmarks we've got. Not sure what else anyone would appeal to in an argument.Rationality and the ability to reason is what matters in a discussion of ideas.
If x, y, z person cannot rationally defend their discrimination, I fully agree with any school-system that will not dignify said discrimination with a Visit.
Oh , I see. So tell me who decides what is rational discrimination and what is not?
A fairy tale?
(lol!)
OR, and I'm just spit balling here, you could stop being an asshole who is trying to claim that some discrimination is okay and some is not, and oh just coincidentally all the good discrimination just happens to be that you agree with and all the bad that which you don't agree with?????????
You need to make up your mind, In one post you state that anyone who wants weird sex is likely mentally ill, in the next you say it's not logical to be bigoted against the people you believe are mentally ill..
However, to your point. It is entirely illogical to discriminate against people who have different religious beliefs than you, and Ive no doubt that you would argue that point in a thread about Muslims. Meaning you are being irrational when you defend discriminating against Christian.
See this is what happens when you don't actually have any principles. Myself, I believe ALL discrimination should be okay. It's MY life if I don't want to associate with someone else, what business is that of yours? Etc etc.
MDK and I are friends you bumbling fucking retard.Correct - I think something is biologically incorrect about a pro-creational being that is attracted to a sex it cannot procreate with. That's not a moral argument, it's a biological predisposition.Yes, I'm telling you that there's likely a malfunction in their brain or hormones and that their "boner" for Cows is not voluntary -I didnt dodge it - in FACT, I elaborated on why the two were made analogous.......they're both dispositions outside of your conscious control. Race and sexual attraction.
Unless you're going to tell me that your brain can tell your dick to get a boner for a tree if you really really wanted it to.
Sir, there are people who have sex with livestock. Are you telling me that they are born that way and there was no conscious effort on their part to get the required erection to have sex with a farm animal?
Can you voluntarily get turned on by a cow?
THATS FUGGIN WEIRD!
That's pretty judgemental of you, and if we take that to its logical conclusion we must conclude that YOU believe that there is something wrong with the brain of a homosexual and that's why they feel the need to fuck a person of the same gender even though we a humans are naturally predisposed to procreation which requires sex with the opposite gender.
You are really really really bad at this.
What does that mean, in practice? It means nothing, there are no Victims as long as we don't discriminate against their biological predisposition based on irrational fairy tales.
What does a person who fucks animals mean, in practice? It means the animals are Victims, as they are unable to rationally Consent to sex.
You see this mdk , this guy thinks you're mentally ill.
Correct - I think something is biologically incorrect about a pro-creational being that is attracted to a sex it cannot procreate with. That's not a moral argument, it's a biological predisposition.Yes, I'm telling you that there's likely a malfunction in their brain or hormones and that their "boner" for Cows is not voluntary -I didnt dodge it - in FACT, I elaborated on why the two were made analogous.......they're both dispositions outside of your conscious control. Race and sexual attraction.Dodging the statement then, you literalist fuck.
Unless you're going to tell me that your brain can tell your dick to get a boner for a tree if you really really wanted it to.
Sir, there are people who have sex with livestock. Are you telling me that they are born that way and there was no conscious effort on their part to get the required erection to have sex with a farm animal?
Can you voluntarily get turned on by a cow?
THATS FUGGIN WEIRD!
That's pretty judgemental of you, and if we take that to its logical conclusion we must conclude that YOU believe that there is something wrong with the brain of a homosexual and that's why they feel the need to fuck a person of the same gender even though we a humans are naturally predisposed to procreation which requires sex with the opposite gender.
You are really really really bad at this.
What does that mean, in practice? It means nothing, there are no Victims as long as we don't discriminate against their biological predisposition based on irrational fairy tales.
What does a person who fucks animals mean, in practice? It means the animals are Victims, as they are unable to rationally Consent to sex.
MDK and I are friends you bumbling fucking retard.Correct - I think something is biologically incorrect about a pro-creational being that is attracted to a sex it cannot procreate with. That's not a moral argument, it's a biological predisposition.Yes, I'm telling you that there's likely a malfunction in their brain or hormones and that their "boner" for Cows is not voluntary -Sir, there are people who have sex with livestock. Are you telling me that they are born that way and there was no conscious effort on their part to get the required erection to have sex with a farm animal?
Can you voluntarily get turned on by a cow?
THATS FUGGIN WEIRD!
That's pretty judgemental of you, and if we take that to its logical conclusion we must conclude that YOU believe that there is something wrong with the brain of a homosexual and that's why they feel the need to fuck a person of the same gender even though we a humans are naturally predisposed to procreation which requires sex with the opposite gender.
You are really really really bad at this.
What does that mean, in practice? It means nothing, there are no Victims as long as we don't discriminate against their biological predisposition based on irrational fairy tales.
What does a person who fucks animals mean, in practice? It means the animals are Victims, as they are unable to rationally Consent to sex.
You see this mdk , this guy thinks you're mentally ill.
