Study shows link between homosexuality and pedophilia

[glockmail]

Im trying to make sure that you understand what the big people are saying from over there at your kiddie table.

Yeah OK. I noticed that you didn't deny your relations with biker either.

 

[KittenKoder]

Here's a good one for people with kids:
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

 

[glockmail]

I get bored with dancing with you, Shogun. You drag every single thread you're in through the same old steps. You start out on a good topic, you go back and forth, then eventually it becomes about you and your fave five calling each other faggots, and then you start bible bashing.

It's always the same. It's boring. It's depressing. It makes me feel guilty for entering into it, because I know it demeans the bible and Christianity, and I know I end up saying things I really shouldn't say, but at the same time I feel guilty if I DON'T enter into it, because I think I should defend the word.

I have noticed that pattern as well. Also, when someone who can actually debate comes along in support of his position, he bends over and becomes a cheerleader.

 

[frazzledgear]

From a REAL doctor on homosexuality.
Sexual Health: Sex Matters: Is Homosexuality "Against Nature?"

Well I guess that just totally negates all those studies done by pro-gay groups that shows it is, in fact, NOT healthy for a human being to be gay. Oh, except that isn't what this site is discussing at all. She is discussing "homosexual" appearing activity among some species. But among the examples she cites, none of those animals are actually homosexual. In none of these species are there specific males that will ONLY attempt to mate with other males and not any females. She is describing an activity that a normally heterosexual male will do for purposes scientists may not fully understand -and pretending they must be doing it for the same reasons a homosexual human will do it. Applying human reasons and motivation for it is a stupid and very unscientific mistake though.

True homosexuality -specific males within a cross-gender reproducing species who will only attempt to mate with other males ONLY - doesn't exist in the wild. Which means that "homosexual" appearing activity in otherwise heterosexual animals is much more likely to mean something else that is unrelated to sexual pleasure. And far more likely to involve group dynamics, establishing a pecking order, territorial or breeding rights, establish dominance etc. The dominant male in a wolf pack will hump lower ranked males anytime they appear to be getting less than quickly subservient -but not because that dominant male is homosexual and trying to get his rocks off with another male. It is to remind that lower ranked male where his place is within the pack.

There are no wild species where some males of that species are "born" homosexual and will only attempt to mate with other males. Nor did she claim there were. Which means it is unlikely that what she describes is true homosexuality, but an activity that serves another purpose within that species entirely. Unless this woman can point to a wild species where some males of that species will ONLY attempt to engage in sexual activity with other males and not with females which would then clearly point towards a true homosexual animal -then I fail to see where this has anything to do with human homosexuality at all.

There are always people who anthropomorphize animal activity in order to pretend they think exactly the way we do and engage in similar appearing activities for the very same reasons humans will. A patently false belief. Just because two similar looking activities are seen in two different species, in no way means it is done for identical reasons or is interpreted by other members of both species the same way either. Human beings show their teeth when smiling -but among ape species, it is seen as an act of aggression and most likely will result in a physical attack in response. Similar act seen in two different species -but done for totally different reasons and is interpreted entirely differently by other members of the two species as well.

So the fact that some male goose tries to goose another male goose for reasons we do not fully understand when that same male goose actually routinely breeds with females showing it is in fact, NOT a homosexual animal that only finds other males sexually attractive -then I can't see much bearing here. Except wishful thinking.

 

[KittenKoder]

So the fact that some male goose tries to goose another male goose for reasons we do not fully understand when that same male goose actually routinely breeds with females showing it is in fact, NOT a homosexual animal that only finds other males sexually attractive -then I can't see much bearing here. Except wishful thinking.

Bisexuality is considered homosexuality by most, so that point is moot. The rest is just garbage and won't bother pointing out how so, smart people know it is.

 

[frazzledgear]

Bisexuality is considered homosexuality by most, so that point is moot. The rest is just garbage and won't bother pointing out how so, smart people know it is.

Bisexuality is NOT homosexuality -or it would always be called bisexuality and not homosexuality, huh? Redefining the word for your own agenda won't make it true. Please don't bore me with your bs by insisting that animals can't possibly be engaged in an act that means something entirely different within that species than YOU want to pretend it does. You have shown you are certainly deficient in the sciences.

Oh sure -you can believe that a human and an ape making the very same facial gesture means something entirely different within the two species. But if you see a male wolf humping another male wolf, why it means he's just trying to get his rocks off with whatever wolf happens to be closest? LOL

In the meantime you can't argue with reality. There are no wild species where some males within that species are just "born" homosexual and will only attempt to mate with another male. No matter how much you may wish it to be otherwise. Which means that what YOU take to be an act of homosexuality for nothing but the heck of it -probably carries a totally different significance within that species. Deal with it.

 

[Shogun]

Yeah OK. I noticed that you didn't deny your relations with biker either.

kinda like how you have never denied sucking Haggert's dick after lighting his crackpipe?


WOW. you sure GOT ME there!

 

[Shogun]

I have noticed that pattern as well. Also, when someone who can actually debate comes along in support of his position, he bends over and becomes a cheerleader.

Are you fucking kidding me? I KNOW you are not pointing a finger at someone for being a cheerleader, dude. I know that you wouldn't be so ironic purposefully. I'm betting Allie likes the dazzle of your turn colored pom poms with that ironic post.

 

[AllieBaba]

Well I guess that just totally negates all those studies done by pro-gay groups that shows it is, in fact, NOT healthy for a human being to be gay. Oh, except that isn't what this site is discussing at all. She is discussing "homosexual" appearing activity among some species. But among the examples she cites, none of those animals are actually homosexual. In none of these species are there specific males that will ONLY attempt to mate with other males and not any females. She is describing an activity that a normally heterosexual male will do for purposes scientists may not fully understand -and pretending they must be doing it for the same reasons a homosexual human will do it. Applying human reasons and motivation for it is a stupid and very unscientific mistake though.

True homosexuality -specific males within a cross-gender reproducing species who will only attempt to mate with other males ONLY - doesn't exist in the wild. Which means that "homosexual" appearing activity in otherwise heterosexual animals is much more likely to mean something else that is unrelated to sexual pleasure. And far more likely to involve group dynamics, establishing a pecking order, territorial or breeding rights, establish dominance etc. The dominant male in a wolf pack will hump lower ranked males anytime they appear to be getting less than quickly subservient -but not because that dominant male is homosexual and trying to get his rocks off with another male. It is to remind that lower ranked male where his place is within the pack.

There are no wild species where some males of that species are "born" homosexual and will only attempt to mate with other males. Nor did she claim there were. Which means it is unlikely that what she describes is true homosexuality, but an activity that serves another purpose within that species entirely. Unless this woman can point to a wild species where some males of that species will ONLY attempt to engage in sexual activity with other males and not with females which would then clearly point towards a true homosexual animal -then I fail to see where this has anything to do with human homosexuality at all.

There are always people who anthropomorphize animal activity in order to pretend they think exactly the way we do and engage in similar appearing activities for the very same reasons humans will. A patently false belief. Just because two similar looking activities are seen in two different species, in no way means it is done for identical reasons or is interpreted by other members of both species the same way either. Human beings show their teeth when smiling -but among ape species, it is seen as an act of aggression and most likely will result in a physical attack in response. Similar act seen in two different species -but done for totally different reasons and is interpreted entirely differently by other members of the two species as well.

So the fact that some male goose tries to goose another male goose for reasons we do not fully understand when that same male goose actually routinely breeds with females showing it is in fact, NOT a homosexual animal that only finds other males sexually attractive -then I can't see much bearing here. Except wishful thinking.

Llamas will attempt to mate with anything in front of them, until eventually they hit it right. They aren't attracted to males, they're just too stupid to know the difference.

 

[AllieBaba]

Are you fucking kidding me? I KNOW you are not pointing a finger at someone for being a cheerleader, dude. I know that you wouldn't be so ironic purposefully. I'm betting Allie likes the dazzle of your turn colored pom poms with that ironic post.

What are turn colored pom poms?

 

[ABikerSailor]

FG, do a google search and look for "gay penguins". It came out on the news a year or two ago.

There IS homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom.

 

[glockmail]

kinda like how you have never denied sucking Haggert's dick after lighting his crackpipe?


WOW. you sure GOT ME there!

I'm not sure when I was given the opportunity to ignore that one, but ignoring a post is not the same as responding to it and acknowledging what it said is true.

 

[glockmail]

Are you fucking kidding me? I KNOW you are not pointing a finger at someone for being a cheerleader, dude. I know that you wouldn't be so ironic purposefully. I'm betting Allie likes the dazzle of your turn colored pom poms with that ironic post.

I'm not sure what "turn colored pom poms" are either, or how expounding on someone's post with some original material is considered cheer leading.

 

[glockmail]

FG, do a google search and look for "gay penguins". It came out on the news a year or two ago.

There IS homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom.

Well, you are the self-confessed expert on that type of behavior.

 

[KittenKoder]

Well, you are the self-confessed expert on that type of behavior.

You just proved you are an extremist moron incapable or unwilling to learn or show any signs of intelligence.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

How can anyone logically believe and support the notion that two men shagging each other in the rectum is "love-making" ? Neo-Libtards come up with answer, since you all support it. And still no Neo-libetard has said anything about that link the Bass posted that stated homos were trying to lower the legal age limit for anal sex. Neo-libtards do what they do best:

Rabidly personally attack people and not the arguments or positions put forth.

 

[Shogun]

I'm not sure what "turn colored pom poms" are either, or how expounding on someone's post with some original material is considered cheer leading.

ORIGINAL MATERIAL?




oh.. you mean like "post 666" as a reply to having your ass handed to you?

Or, how about "look in the mirror" when asking for evidence of creation on par with ASTRONOMY?

 

[Bass v 2.0]

How can anyone logically believe and support the notion that two men shagging each other in the rectum is "love-making" ? Neo-Libtards come up with answer, since you all support it. And still no Neo-libetard has said anything about that link the Bass posted that stated homos were trying to lower the legal age limit for anal sex. Neo-libtards do what they do best:

Rabidly personally attack people and not the arguments or positions put forth.

bump

 

[Shogun]

crybaby. For a guy who is all to often ON THE ATTACK you sure are a little girl about being criticized.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

crybaby. For a guy who is all to often ON THE ATTACK you sure are a little girl about being criticized.

Still no answers and or comments on the points raised