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.
You mean besides everywhere in nature?
Lol. Runs antithetical to continuation of the species doesnt it? Or is it just some freakish type mutation that occurs?
No, not really. If 100% of the species were gay, yes it would but a percentage of the population is not at all antithetical to the continuation of a species.
Why would a species select to not continue?
Why are you repeating the same stupid question that was already answered?
The existence of gay animals and humans is not antithetical to the continuation of a species, obviously.
Because I like arguing with you, SW! So what you're saying is that gay animals regardless of species are relegated to the fringe.
Well deanrd
The left believes in regulating "sugary drinks" but not marijuana and other drugs deemed less addictive than sugar! The left argues the choice of reparative therapy should be banned as more dangerous than the choice of abortion. That Christian prayer and expression is imposing on people in schools, but not LGBT policies that are also faith based and a personal choice.
The left passed laws banning and punishing the free choice of how to pay for health care, requiring insurance as the only choice, but refuses govt regulations on the choice of abortion.
As for porn, the cure for the addictions related to porn, to drugs, and for mental and criminal illness is found in spiritual healing.
which can be proven medically to effectively diagnose and cure the causes of both mental and physical ills.
So why isn't the left demanding research into cures for cancer, for criminal addictions, and other mental illness as provided by spiritual healing? This would make medical and mental care affordable and accessible to the public by reducing the cost of diseases and crime that taxpayers are wasting billions on through failed prisons and mental health systems that don't cure anyone.
If the left wants health care for all, the solution is to invest in free programs through medical R&D studies and outreach in spiritual healing.
That solution would also work for problems with guns, porn, sexual and drug abuse/addictions, and causes of all kinds of illness, crime and abusive disorders and conditions.
Sources: www.christianhealingmin.org
www.healingisyours.com
Books and studies on spiritual healing by
Dr. Francis MacNutt, Dr. Phillip Goldfedder, Dr. Scott Peck
Lol. Runs antithetical to continuation of the species doesnt it? Or is it just some freakish type mutation that occurs?
No, not really. If 100% of the species were gay, yes it would but a percentage of the population is not at all antithetical to the continuation of a species.
Why would a species select to not continue?
Why are you repeating the same stupid question that was already answered?
The existence of gay animals and humans is not antithetical to the continuation of a species, obviously.
Because I like arguing with you, SW! So what you're saying is that gay animals regardless of species are relegated to the fringe.
Repeating dumb questions that were already answered isn't arguing, it's dementia.
Wishing that gays were relegated to the fringe is a nice fantasy for you...how's the reality working out for ya?
Be glad the gays are there to adopt all the kids y'all straight folks don't want. Look at that, an evolutionary reason for gays...
No, not really. If 100% of the species were gay, yes it would but a percentage of the population is not at all antithetical to the continuation of a species.
Why would a species select to not continue?
Why are you repeating the same stupid question that was already answered?
The existence of gay animals and humans is not antithetical to the continuation of a species, obviously.
Because I like arguing with you, SW! So what you're saying is that gay animals regardless of species are relegated to the fringe.
Repeating dumb questions that were already answered isn't arguing, it's dementia.
Wishing that gays were relegated to the fringe is a nice fantasy for you...how's the reality working out for ya?
Be glad the gays are there to adopt all the kids y'all straight folks don't want. Look at that, an evolutionary reason for gays...
1 percent....yes, that's the fringe.
Why would a species select to not continue?
Why are you repeating the same stupid question that was already answered?
The existence of gay animals and humans is not antithetical to the continuation of a species, obviously.
Because I like arguing with you, SW! So what you're saying is that gay animals regardless of species are relegated to the fringe.
Repeating dumb questions that were already answered isn't arguing, it's dementia.
Wishing that gays were relegated to the fringe is a nice fantasy for you...how's the reality working out for ya?
Be glad the gays are there to adopt all the kids y'all straight folks don't want. Look at that, an evolutionary reason for gays...
1 percent....yes, that's the fringe.
Does that also help your personal fantasy to lie to yourself about how many gays there are? What ever gets you through the day, cupcake.
Even if gays did only compromise 1% of the population (and that's ludicrous), that is also the percentage of people who volunteer to serve in the military. Guess they are "fringe" too?
Why are you repeating the same stupid question that was already answered?
The existence of gay animals and humans is not antithetical to the continuation of a species, obviously.
Because I like arguing with you, SW! So what you're saying is that gay animals regardless of species are relegated to the fringe.
Repeating dumb questions that were already answered isn't arguing, it's dementia.
Wishing that gays were relegated to the fringe is a nice fantasy for you...how's the reality working out for ya?
Be glad the gays are there to adopt all the kids y'all straight folks don't want. Look at that, an evolutionary reason for gays...
1 percent....yes, that's the fringe.
Does that also help your personal fantasy to lie to yourself about how many gays there are? What ever gets you through the day, cupcake.
Even if gays did only compromise 1% of the population (and that's ludicrous), that is also the percentage of people who volunteer to serve in the military. Guess they are "fringe" too?
Sorry, SW. Its nothing emotional or fantasy. LGBTQ is less than 4 percent total of the population. That's fringe. Suppose this number moved to 60 percent. How would the species continue to propagate besides surrogates? We know that it takes a male and a female to produce an offspring.
Neither guns nor porn are dangerous
Because I like arguing with you, SW! So what you're saying is that gay animals regardless of species are relegated to the fringe.
Repeating dumb questions that were already answered isn't arguing, it's dementia.
Wishing that gays were relegated to the fringe is a nice fantasy for you...how's the reality working out for ya?
Be glad the gays are there to adopt all the kids y'all straight folks don't want. Look at that, an evolutionary reason for gays...
1 percent....yes, that's the fringe.
Does that also help your personal fantasy to lie to yourself about how many gays there are? What ever gets you through the day, cupcake.
Even if gays did only compromise 1% of the population (and that's ludicrous), that is also the percentage of people who volunteer to serve in the military. Guess they are "fringe" too?
Sorry, SW. Its nothing emotional or fantasy. LGBTQ is less than 4 percent total of the population. That's fringe. Suppose this number moved to 60 percent. How would the species continue to propagate besides surrogates? We know that it takes a male and a female to produce an offspring.
So you've counted them? Such talents you have there, Rainman
The actual estimates are 4-10%. There has always been a percentage of the population that is gay and we are not having any low population crisis anywhere.
Suppose aliens flew down and shot us all with S&M rays but didn't tell us the safe word? Your supposition is no less ridiculous.
I saw this on CNN.com. It was as ridiculous there as it is in GQ.
First, there is no connection between the two things. A legislature can vote on one bill unconnected to another bill.
Second, the "assault weapon" debate sounds as if it was going to be about banning all semi-automatic weapons.
Third, disagreeing with a weapons ban does not mean one considers gun violence unimportant. It means one does not consider a gun ban to be a good idea.
Fourth, the strange comparison between the actions of the Florida legislature and the federal government makes no sense. Did Florida prevent the CDC from doing research on gun violence? What is the connection between Florida wanting to do research on the public health impact of porn and a federal agency not being allowed to research gun violence?
This is trying to score points rather than make a substantive argument.
Florida Republicans Believe Porn Is More Dangerous Than Guns
The state's House of Representatives approved the resolution by a voice vote on Tuesday. The resolution states a need for education, research and policy changes to protect Floridians, especially teenagers, from pornography.
Republican Rep. Ross Spano says there is research that finds a connection between pornography use and mental and physical illnesses, forming and maintaining intimate relationships and deviant sexual behavior. Spano is also a candidate for attorney general.
The most twisted part of this is the demands by Florida Republicans to research the public health impact of porn, while the CDC is implicitly banned from doing research on gun violence. The 1996 Dickey Amendment specifically blocks the CDC from using its budget to "advocate or promote gun control," and since objective, peer-reviewed, scientific studies consistently show effective gun control would reduce gun violence, there's no research the CDC can do that won't sacrifice its funding.
-------------------------------------------------------
Yea, that's right. Republicans want to study the damage caused by porn but not the damage caused by guns.
And yet, they follow a guy who not only dates porn stars, they want him to be a role model for their children.
What is with these people?
That's probably true. In 99.999% of cases guns are harmless, in fact beneficial in preventing crime. In something like 20% cases porn causes addiction.
It's much safer to fap to your guns indeed.
I saw this on CNN.com. It was as ridiculous there as it is in GQ.
First, there is no connection between the two things. A legislature can vote on one bill unconnected to another bill.
Second, the "assault weapon" debate sounds as if it was going to be about banning all semi-automatic weapons.
Third, disagreeing with a weapons ban does not mean one considers gun violence unimportant. It means one does not consider a gun ban to be a good idea.
Fourth, the strange comparison between the actions of the Florida legislature and the federal government makes no sense. Did Florida prevent the CDC from doing research on gun violence? What is the connection between Florida wanting to do research on the public health impact of porn and a federal agency not being allowed to research gun violence?
This is trying to score points rather than make a substantive argument.
5th and more importantly, Republican Pols are out of touch with We the People, they fear any vote to control guns will jeopardize the donations (aka bribes) they receive from the NRA. They count on the social conservative vote.
My question is, do most social conservatives fear porn or guns are the greatest danger to their children and grandchildren?
I saw this on CNN.com. It was as ridiculous there as it is in GQ.
First, there is no connection between the two things. A legislature can vote on one bill unconnected to another bill.
Second, the "assault weapon" debate sounds as if it was going to be about banning all semi-automatic weapons.
Third, disagreeing with a weapons ban does not mean one considers gun violence unimportant. It means one does not consider a gun ban to be a good idea.
Fourth, the strange comparison between the actions of the Florida legislature and the federal government makes no sense. Did Florida prevent the CDC from doing research on gun violence? What is the connection between Florida wanting to do research on the public health impact of porn and a federal agency not being allowed to research gun violence?
This is trying to score points rather than make a substantive argument.
5th and more importantly, Republican Pols are out of touch with We the People, they fear any vote to control guns will jeopardize the donations (aka bribes) they receive from the NRA. They count on the social conservative vote.
My question is, do most social conservatives fear porn or guns are the greatest danger to their children and grandchildren?
I saw this on CNN.com. It was as ridiculous there as it is in GQ.
First, there is no connection between the two things. A legislature can vote on one bill unconnected to another bill.
Second, the "assault weapon" debate sounds as if it was going to be about banning all semi-automatic weapons.
Third, disagreeing with a weapons ban does not mean one considers gun violence unimportant. It means one does not consider a gun ban to be a good idea.
Fourth, the strange comparison between the actions of the Florida legislature and the federal government makes no sense. Did Florida prevent the CDC from doing research on gun violence? What is the connection between Florida wanting to do research on the public health impact of porn and a federal agency not being allowed to research gun violence?
This is trying to score points rather than make a substantive argument.
5th and more importantly, Republican Pols are out of touch with We the People, they fear any vote to control guns will jeopardize the donations (aka bribes) they receive from the NRA. They count on the social conservative vote.
My question is, do most social conservatives fear porn or guns are the greatest danger to their children and grandchildren?
I don't consider any national politicians particularly in touch with the people, regardless of party.
I saw this on CNN.com. It was as ridiculous there as it is in GQ.
First, there is no connection between the two things. A legislature can vote on one bill unconnected to another bill.
Second, the "assault weapon" debate sounds as if it was going to be about banning all semi-automatic weapons.
Third, disagreeing with a weapons ban does not mean one considers gun violence unimportant. It means one does not consider a gun ban to be a good idea.
Fourth, the strange comparison between the actions of the Florida legislature and the federal government makes no sense. Did Florida prevent the CDC from doing research on gun violence? What is the connection between Florida wanting to do research on the public health impact of porn and a federal agency not being allowed to research gun violence?
This is trying to score points rather than make a substantive argument.
5th and more importantly, Republican Pols are out of touch with We the People, they fear any vote to control guns will jeopardize the donations (aka bribes) they receive from the NRA. They count on the social conservative vote.
My question is, do most social conservatives fear porn or guns are the greatest danger to their children and grandchildren?
I don't consider any national politicians particularly in touch with the people, regardless of party.
Really? In the 21st. Century, which party supported:
And which party has opposed them?
- Civil Rights
- Gay & Lesbian Rights to marry & serve in the military
- The Equal Rights Amendment for Women
- The Lily Ledbetter Act
- The voting rights act
- Environmental protections
- Children's health Insurance Program
- Health care reform
Nope and no hairy palms eitherNeither guns nor porn are dangerous
You didn't go blind?
Florida Republicans Believe Porn Is More Dangerous Than Guns
The state's House of Representatives approved the resolution by a voice vote on Tuesday. The resolution states a need for education, research and policy changes to protect Floridians, especially teenagers, from pornography.
Republican Rep. Ross Spano says there is research that finds a connection between pornography use and mental and physical illnesses, forming and maintaining intimate relationships and deviant sexual behavior. Spano is also a candidate for attorney general.
The most twisted part of this is the demands by Florida Republicans to research the public health impact of porn, while the CDC is implicitly banned from doing research on gun violence. The 1996 Dickey Amendment specifically blocks the CDC from using its budget to "advocate or promote gun control," and since objective, peer-reviewed, scientific studies consistently show effective gun control would reduce gun violence, there's no research the CDC can do that won't sacrifice its funding.
-------------------------------------------------------
Yea, that's right. Republicans want to study the damage caused by porn but not the damage caused by guns.
And yet, they follow a guy who not only dates porn stars, they want him to be a role model for their children.
What is with these people?
That doesn't fit the regressive liberal media agenda.People always get upset when rich kids are murdered.By the way, here's a link that shows what the median income is for Parkland FL.
Parkland, Florida Economy
The rest of us? Not so much.
So why not make a thread about the scores of black kids shot to death by other black kids in poor neighborhoods?
Nope and no hairy palms eitherNeither guns nor porn are dangerous
You didn't go blind?
That's the one positive I see in Trump, and basically why I voted for him in my state primary. He's not a professional politician. And I actually hope Oprah runs. The best of the gop lot seemed to be Rubio, and he sold his soul. At least he had the right idea in just not running for reelection until the natl gop convinced his to hold his senate seat for the gop. And THAT's what's broken. George Washington feared political parties, and until recently I thought they were useful in organizing around some common ideas, but the reality is both parties are just whores for special interests.I saw this on CNN.com. It was as ridiculous there as it is in GQ.
First, there is no connection between the two things. A legislature can vote on one bill unconnected to another bill.
Second, the "assault weapon" debate sounds as if it was going to be about banning all semi-automatic weapons.
Third, disagreeing with a weapons ban does not mean one considers gun violence unimportant. It means one does not consider a gun ban to be a good idea.
Fourth, the strange comparison between the actions of the Florida legislature and the federal government makes no sense. Did Florida prevent the CDC from doing research on gun violence? What is the connection between Florida wanting to do research on the public health impact of porn and a federal agency not being allowed to research gun violence?
This is trying to score points rather than make a substantive argument.
5th and more importantly, Republican Pols are out of touch with We the People, they fear any vote to control guns will jeopardize the donations (aka bribes) they receive from the NRA. They count on the social conservative vote.
My question is, do most social conservatives fear porn or guns are the greatest danger to their children and grandchildren?
I don't consider any national politicians particularly in touch with the people, regardless of party.
Exactly. In the TWENTIETH century the gop gave the needed votes for public accomodations in civil rights. They supported Schips. Until the tea party was organized by the wealthy who don't want to pay taxes, some supported HC reform. They supported clean air and water acts. But now they must march in lockstep or be primariedI saw this on CNN.com. It was as ridiculous there as it is in GQ.
First, there is no connection between the two things. A legislature can vote on one bill unconnected to another bill.
Second, the "assault weapon" debate sounds as if it was going to be about banning all semi-automatic weapons.
Third, disagreeing with a weapons ban does not mean one considers gun violence unimportant. It means one does not consider a gun ban to be a good idea.
Fourth, the strange comparison between the actions of the Florida legislature and the federal government makes no sense. Did Florida prevent the CDC from doing research on gun violence? What is the connection between Florida wanting to do research on the public health impact of porn and a federal agency not being allowed to research gun violence?
This is trying to score points rather than make a substantive argument.
5th and more importantly, Republican Pols are out of touch with We the People, they fear any vote to control guns will jeopardize the donations (aka bribes) they receive from the NRA. They count on the social conservative vote.
My question is, do most social conservatives fear porn or guns are the greatest danger to their children and grandchildren?
I don't consider any national politicians particularly in touch with the people, regardless of party.
Really? In the 21st. Century, which party supported:
And which party has opposed them?
- Civil Rights
- Gay & Lesbian Rights to marry & serve in the military
- The Equal Rights Amendment for Women
- The Lily Ledbetter Act
- The voting rights act
- Environmental protections
- Children's health Insurance Program
- Health care reform
