Queer enablers = liars

[Missileman]

My interpretation is based on an educated study of the Bible.

And a VIVID imagination!

[glockmail]

Too bad you are unable to debate interpretation.

[Missileman]

Too bad you are unable to debate interpretation.

Too bad you are unable to debate without interpretation. A book of real truth would appear true to everyone, not just the brainwashed and indoctrinated. It certainly wouldn't be dependent on your questionable mental abilities to make it appear true.

[glockmail]

Too bad you are unable to debate without interpretation. A book of real truth would appear true to everyone, not just the brainwashed and indoctrinated. It certainly wouldn't be dependent on your questionable mental abilities to make it appear true. Debate always relies on interpretation. My interpretation is based on reading of scripture as well as the musings of others more learned than I, along with an open-minded evaluation as to the reasonableness of their arguments.

[GW in Ohio]

Queers chose to be queers. You just admitted that. Are you backing off now?

glockie: You didn't choose to be a complete idiot. You were born with those tendencies.

Oh, sure, you can try and suppress your natural urges and pretend you are intelligent, but why live a lie?

Do you see any parallels with gay people?

By the way, you must be a big fan of the Rev. Fred Phelps, right? Is he one of your heroes?

[glockmail]

[1] glockie: You didn't choose to be a complete idiot. You were born with those tendencies.

Oh, sure, you can try and suppress your natural urges and pretend you are intelligent, but why live a lie?

[2] Do you see any parallels with gay people?

[3] By the way, you must be a big fan of the Rev. Fred Phelps, right? Is he one of your heroes?

1. Direct insult scored:

Queer Eanblers = 2
Truth Tellers = 12

2. Explain. Or if this is just part of your insult then please don't bother.
3. No, and no.

[GW in Ohio]

1. Direct insult scored:

Queer Eanblers = 2
Truth Tellers = 12

2. Explain. Or if this is just part of your insult then please don't bother.
3. No, and no.

glockie: You label yourself a "truth teller." And you label those who are sympathetic to gay people "queer enablers" and "liars."

And you expect people to take you seriously?

:dance::salute::dance:

[glockmail]

glockie: You label yourself a "truth teller." And you label those who are sympathetic to gay people "queer enablers" and "liars."

And you expect people to take you seriously?

:dance::salute::dance: The OP is very specific. Am I to take you, as one who has refused a direct challenge, seriously?

[Hagbard Celine]

Gays don't have or need to be enabled. The same as you don't have to be enabled to be an asshat. It's not up to you what other adults do in their sex lives. Give it up. You'll never control everything. You missed-out on the third reich--get used to living in a free country. And get a life.

[Missileman]

Debate always relies on interpretation. My interpretation is based on reading of scripture as well as the musings of others more learned than I, along with an open-minded evaluation as to the reasonableness of their arguments.

Truth is unaffected by interpretation. A thing is either true or not true...no amount of interpretation can change something that's true to false or vice versa.

[Hagbard Celine]

The Bible is not here to serve you.

Who are you to dictate who the Bible is here to serve? :poke:

[glockmail]

Gays don't have or need to be enabled. The same as you don't have to be enabled to be an asshat. It's not up to you what other adults do in their sex lives. Give it up. You'll never control everything. You missed-out on the third reich--get used to living in a free country. And get a life. Where did I say that I wanted to control queers?

[glockmail]

Truth is unaffected by interpretation. A thing is either true or not true...no amount of interpretation can change something that's true to false or vice versa.
Since you have no interpretation of the passages cited that's really a moot point.

[glockmail]

Who are you to dictate who the Bible is here to serve? :poke:
It serves no one.

[Missileman]

Since you have no interpretation of the passages cited that's really a moot point.

If it doesn't literally mean exactly what it says, it's not truth.

[glockmail]

If it doesn't literally mean exactly what it says, it's not truth. So you haven't read it and have no interpretation of it then.

[Missileman]

So you haven't read it and have no interpretation of it then.

I've read the passages we were discussing and taken literally, they don't say what you claim.

[glockmail]

I've read the passages we were discussing and taken literally, they don't say what you claim. That's all you've read? Obviously you've no understanding of the context then.

[Missileman]

That's all you've read? Obviously you've no understanding of the context then.

I read enough of the surrounding verses to get context. Enough even that I could discern the motive for the slaying of the Canaanites was acquisition of land justified by difference of religion and that no mention of Ham or Noah's curse was included in Numbers or Deuteronomy.

[glockmail]

I read enough of the surrounding verses to get context. Enough even that I could discern the motive for the slaying of the Canaanites was acquisition of land justified by difference of religion and that no mention of Ham or Noah's curse was included in Numbers or Deuteronomy. So the fact the tribes in question were defendants of Ham somehow alluded you?

[Missileman]

So the fact the tribes in question were defendants of Ham somehow alluded you?

There were other tribes descended from Ham, a fact that somehow eludes you.

Noah's curse upon the descendants of Ham was that they would be the slaves of his brother's descendants, not the victims of an invading Jewish army. The books of Numbers and Deuteronomy lay out the reason for the slaughter and neither mention a damned thing about Noah or Ham. The lineage of the Canaanites was irrelevant...at least according to what's written in the Bible.

[glockmail]

There were other tribes descended from Ham, a fact that somehow eludes you.

Noah's curse upon the descendants of Ham was that they would be the slaves of his brother's descendants, not the victims of an invading Jewish army. The books of Numbers and Deuteronomy lay out the reason for the slaughter and neither mention a damned thing about Noah or Ham. The lineage of the Canaanites was irrelevant...at least according to what's written in the Bible.

The Bible is not a complete record of history. The other tribes either dissapeared in some other fashion or were repentant, I suppose.

Again, that was Noah's curse. The curse of death was God's, for Ham's queer act.

[Missileman]

The curse of death was God's, for Ham's queer act.

A curse that exists nowhere other than in your imagination...it sure as hell doesn't exist in the Bible.

[glockmail]

A curse that exists nowhere other than in your imagination...it sure as hell doesn't exist in the Bible. When read in context of heaven and hell, it surely does. :coffee:

[Missileman]

When read in context of heaven and hell, it surely does. :coffee:

See post #523.

[glockmail]

See post #523.
Debate always relies on interpretation. My interpretation is based on reading of scripture as well as the musings of others more learned than I, along with an open-minded evaluation as to the reasonableness of their arguments.

[Missileman]

Debate always relies on interpretation. My interpretation is based on reading of scripture as well as the musings of others more learned than I, along with an open-minded evaluation as to the reasonableness of their arguments.

It's hardly interpretation when you make something up out of thin air, hence why, without any doubt, it's pure imagination.

[glockmail]

It's hardly interpretation when you make something up out of thin air, hence why, without any doubt, it's pure imagination.
You can ask gaffer if he thinks this is thin air. http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=19684&postcount=1

[Missileman]

You can ask gaffer if he thinks this is thin air. http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=19684&postcount=1

Well why didn't you just say that your imagination was bolstered by the imagination of some other guy...that makes all the difference in the world. :rolleyes: Gimme a break. It's nothing more than more Monday-morning-quarterbacking trying to justify prejudice against homosexuals.

[glockmail]

Well why didn't you just say that your imagination was bolstered by the imagination of some other guy...that makes all the difference in the world. :rolleyes: Gimme a break. It's nothing more than more Monday-morning-quarterbacking trying to justify prejudice against homosexuals. Actually the guy is quite learned, not quite thin air as you portend. But hey if you want to live your life believing the opposite then knoock yerself out.

[Missileman]

Actually the guy is quite learned, not quite thin air as you portend. But hey if you want to live your life believing the opposite then knoock yerself out.

What kind of moron would curse his grandson for something his son did? What idiot would consider it just to murder entire tribes for the actions of an ancestor? Surely a man who lieth with another man shall be put to death...why didn't Noah just execute Ham for his sin? You believe that homosexuality isn't genetic, why wouldn't the descendents of one (if Ham was one) be potentially normal, God-fearing individuals?

[glockmail]

What kind of moron would curse his grandson for something his son did? What idiot would consider it just to murder entire tribes for the actions of an ancestor? Surely a man who lieth with another man shall be put to death...why didn't Noah just execute Ham for his sin? You believe that homosexuality isn't genetic, why wouldn't the descendents of one (if Ham was one) be potentially normal, God-fearing individuals? I don't think its wise of you to judge the actions of Biblical figures based on your contemporary, liberal perspective.

Noah was not a murderer, and the Bible clearly states his reasoning for his curse on Ham, later agrred upon by God after Ham's descendents turned evil. It was common practice to reward or damn entire generations for the actions of an individual. We're talking about creation of races here.

Apparently some of Ham's descendents were normal, God-fearing individuals as I stated previously.

[Missileman]

I don't think its wise of you to judge the actions of Biblical figures based on your contemporary, liberal perspective.

I'm not a liberal. And when exactly did conservatives depart from believing in personal responsibility and it become a liberal ideal?


Noah was not a murderer, and the Bible clearly states his reasoning for his curse on Ham, later agrred upon by God after Ham's descendents turned evil. It was common practice to reward or damn entire generations for the actions of an individual. We're talking about creation of races here.

I asked 2 questions...one started with "what kind of moron" and the other started with "what idiot". You seem eager to establish yourself as the answer to both. They were Jews, inter-marrying with other Jews, what new races could spring up from that?


Apparently some of Ham's descendents were normal, God-fearing individuals as I stated previously.

Homosexuals can't reproduce...at least according to you and your "quite learned" article writer. How did a homosexual give rise to so many offspring?

[glockmail]

.....I asked 2 questions...one started with "what kind of moron" and the other started with "what idiot". You seem eager to establish yourself as the answer to both. ....

Queer Enablers = 2
Truth Tellers = 12

Tsk, tsk....

[Missileman]

Queer Enablers = 2
Truth Tellers = 12

Tsk, tsk....

Just a smokescreen to hide your inability to posit a real argument.

[glockmail]

Just a smokescreen to hide your inability to posit a real argument. I agree. That is exactly what your repeated insults are.

[Missileman]

I agree. That is exactly what your repeated insults are.

If it weren't for your reading disorder, you would see the argument that accompanies the insult.

[glockmail]

If it weren't for your reading disorder, you would see the argument that accompanies the insult.

Queer Enablers = 2
Truth Tellers = 13

Why should I read further after I've been insulted? To find a second insult? :cool:

[Missileman]

Queer Enablers = 2
Truth Tellers = 13

Why should I read further after I've been insulted? To find a second insult? :cool:

You have no desire to engage in real debate, so fuck off! Welcome to the unique status of the only person on my ignore list.

[glockmail]

......They were Jews, inter-marrying with other Jews, what new races could spring up from that?



Homosexuals can't reproduce...at least according to you and your "quite learned" article writer. How did a homosexual give rise to so many offspring?

1. There were other tribes around. If you read Genesis carefully you will find that out.

2. Queers cannot reproduce through their queer acts, true. But Ham was not the queer, his father was.

[glockmail]

[1]You have no desire to engage in real debate, so fuck off! [2]Welcome to the unique status of the only person on my ignore list.


1. Queer Enablers = 2
Truth Tellers = 14

2. Somehow I doubt that.

[Missileman]

If you're going to make an accusation, have the courtesy to back it up. Post an example and explain why you think it's a dishonest argument.

*bump*

Yo Gabs...now that you're back, let's see if you're anything other than a left-coast windbag.

[glockmail]

*bump*

Yo Gabs...now that you're back, let's see if you're anything other than a left-coast windbag.
Looking for a little help?:laugh2:

[GW in Ohio]

1. Queer Enablers = 2
Truth Tellers = 14

2. Somehow I doubt that.

Glockie: I also participate in a couple other political forums. If you described people sympathetic to gays as "queer enablers" and called yourself "Mr. Truth Teller" on those sites, you would be laughed off the forum.

I'm glad you've found a home at Debate Policy where kindred spirits dwell. (And there are nice liberals like me, who wouldn't think of making fun of you.)

[glockmail]

I've noticed that you liberals always laugh when faced with an argument that you are unable to defend against.

[glockmail]

You have no desire to engage in real debate, so fuck off! Welcome to the unique status of the only person on my ignore list.

I love the smell of napalm in the morning. It reminds me of: victory. :coffee:

[actsnoblemartin]

I dont know what percent gays make up, but i do know male homosexual anal sex accounts for the most new aids cases still, at 50%, while heterosexual unprotected sex account for 26%.

I would like the truth on this issue, and I think some in the gay community have an agenda, that want to silence anyone who dares think, lets alone says, i dont agree.

One should not be forced to accept anything, especially when they dont agree with it, but tolerance is justified to ask for and receive.

[glockmail]

Time to get this thread back on top.

[REDWHITEBLUE2]

In another thread I have been attacked as having "issues" because I have a adverse opinion of queers and post my opinion often on the queer threads. The fact is that I do it because I don't like being lied to, and the entire queer "industry" is based on several huge lies. I would argue that the queer enablers are the ones with "issues", as they don't mind being lied to, and in fact perpetuate the lies.

Some of the Big Lies about Homosexuality. It is:

1. normal
2. natural
3. healthy
4. 10% of the population
5. not a choice
6. moral
7. queers are no more likely to be child molesters

Any that I missed? :poke: I agree 100 percent queers are just sick perverted freaks

[diuretic]

I agree 100 percent queers are just sick perverted freaks


And they should be rooted out of the GOP before the GOP becomes the GAY Old Party.

[glockmail]

And they should be rooted out of the GOP before the GOP becomes the GAY Old Party. We push them out as soon as we find 'em! :laugh2:

[glockmail]

You have no desire to engage in real debate, so fuck off! Welcome to the unique status of the only person on my ignore list.
Time to look back on this memorable post. I consider it one of my finest victories.
:laugh2:

[Hagbard Celine]

Time to look back on this memorable post. I consider it one of my finest victories.
:laugh2:

I used to have RSR on my ignore list due to his spamming. I took him off though because I don't like to neg rep people and ignoring people is kinda like an all-time neg rep. I thought it was unfair to discriminate against people based on stupidity alone.:cheers2:

[glockmail]

I used to have RSR on my ignore list due to his spamming. I took him off though because I don't like to neg rep people and ignoring people is kinda like an all-time neg rep. I thought it was unfair to discriminate against people based on stupidity alone.:cheers2: I think the reason why you call me stupid is that you can't deal with my arguments as effectively as you'd like. But I won't hold that against you. In fact I'd be pleased to share that toast the next time I'm in Atlanta to visit my adopted Sis. You'd like her- she's as hopelessly liberal and out-flanked as you. :cheers2:

[Hagbard Celine]

I think the reason why you call me stupid is that you can't deal with my arguments as effectively as you'd like. But I won't hold that against you. In fact I'd be pleased to share that toast the next time I'm in Atlanta to visit my adopted Sis. You'd like her- she's as hopelessly liberal and out-flanked as you. :cheers2:

Hey, what's her name I might know her. Only if she's hot though--I don't associate with ugly or fat people. By the way, I was calling RSR stupid since that was who I referred to in my post. Not every song is about you glock.

[Pale Rider]

Hey, what's her name I might know her. Only if she's hot though--I don't associate with ugly or fat people. By the way, I was calling RSR stupid since that was who I referred to in my post. Not every song is about you glock.

You don't do far or ugly? What the hell is wrong with you man? Think you're normal or something? :slap:

[glockmail]

Hey, what's her name I might know her. Only if she's hot though--I don't associate with ugly or fat people. By the way, I was calling RSR stupid since that was who I referred to in my post. Not every song is about you glock. They ain't? Shit I don't think so.

Well she's about 5-8, long stawberry blonde hair, used to model actually. a bit old for you though- turned 40 last summer. She might use you for a boy-toy though.

[bullypulpit]

Issued many times in several other threads. Queer enablers dismiss and ignore proofs as a matter of course.

Your "proof" is constituted of little more than the skewed opinion of right wing-nut demagogues.

Let me offer some facts to deflate you overheated rhetoric...

<center><a href=http://www.apahelpcenter.org/articles/article.php?id=31>Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality</a></center>

The article addresses every one of your issues, and puts them to rest.

[glockmail]

Your "proof" is constituted of little more than the skewed opinion of right wing-nut demagogues.

Let me offer some facts to deflate you overheated rhetoric...

<center><a href=http://www.apahelpcenter.org/articles/article.php?id=31>Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality</a></center>

The article addresses every one of your issues, and puts them to rest. From your link:

Is Sexual Orientation a Choice?

No, human beings cannot choose to be either gay or straight. For most people, sexual orientation emerges in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed.
Opinion, not fact.

By the way, the APA is the largest organization of Queer Enablers on the planet.

[bullypulpit]

From your link:
Opinion, not fact.

By the way, <b>the APA is the largest organization of Queer Enablers on the planet</b>.


The "opinion" of the APA is based on research...repeatable, independently verifiable, peer reviewed, research.

Your statement, however is based upon nothing but your prejudices, ignorance and gross misinformation.

[glockmail]

The "opinion" of the APA is based on research...repeatable, independently verifiable, peer reviewed, research.

Your statement, however is based upon nothing but your prejudices, ignorance and gross misinformation. The current opinion of the APA is based on pressure from queer groups. Pshrinks used to cure gays but were forced out of that, in spite of scientific evidence that some queers can be cured.

[bullypulpit]

The current opinion of the APA is based on pressure from queer groups. Pshrinks used to cure gays but were forced out of that, in spite of scientific evidence that some queers can be cured.

Ah, more of your uninformed, ignorant, prejudiced, unsubstantiated opinion...Unless, of course, you have citations to prove your assertions.

[Pale Rider]

They ain't? Shit I don't think so.

Well she's about 5-8, long stawberry blonde hair, used to model actually. a bit old for you though- turned 40 last summer. She might use you for a boy-toy though.

Hot damn glock... she sounds perfect for ME! I love red heads. Hook me up... :dance:

[Classact]

In another thread I have been attacked as having "issues" because I have a adverse opinion of queers and post my opinion often on the queer threads. The fact is that I do it because I don't like being lied to, and the entire queer "industry" is based on several huge lies. I would argue that the queer enablers are the ones with "issues", as they don't mind being lied to, and in fact perpetuate the lies.

Some of the Big Lies about Homosexuality. It is:

1. normal
2. natural
3. healthy
4. 10% of the population
5. not a choice
6. moral
7. queers are no more likely to be child molesters

Any that I missed? :poke:Allow me to troll in here... I've been barred from two sites because of my position on gays.

My position is as follows: Gays are not normal, they are abnormal because the normal is to be strait.

Gay is natural in that it occurs naturally in nature... it is a alteration of the gonads in the developing fetus.

Gays can be healthy but they are prone to unhealthy lifestyles and are generally more likely to have multiple partners that promotes poor health as it does in straits that live these lifestyles.

Some gay people are not gay but were brainwashed to believe they are gay.

Here is where I refer back to my first point: Gays are not normal, they are abnormal because the normal is to be strait. If you are abnormal then you should not celebrate being abnormal... if you had two noses or four ears it is not time to have a fucking parade.

When I was growing up I thought all gays recognized they were abnormal and that is why they all moved to Greenwich Village and to San Francisco so they could be amongst "their own kind" so they could not be faced by their abnormality. Later my dad told me to watch out for queers in the bus station bathrooms and he was right. I automatically thought, hey these gays ran out of money to their queer heaven and bigger than Stuttgart they all have a gay bar near the bus station across America... some sick puppies...

There is nothing to celebrate when one is gay... get on the fucking bus and complete the trip... you are abnormal and you deserve to live free among people of "your kind" as do straits deserve to live free among people of their kind.

[Pale Rider]

Ah, more of your uninformed, ignorant, prejudiced, unsubstantiated opinion...Unless, of course, you have citations to prove your assertions.

Allow me glock... I've read about enough of bully's insults and faggot enabling lies....



Intimidating the APA

"homosexuals have gone beyond the plane of defensiveness and now argue that their deviancy is a 'desirable, noble, preferable way of life.'"[69]

"[I]n a deliberately planned campaign of intimidation and disruption, the U.S. National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF), declaring that 'psychiatry is the enemy incarnate,'[25] actually managed to force a 1973 convention of the American Psychiatric Association (APA) to declare homosexuality, theretofore defined as deviant, 'a normal condition.'"[G374] It should be noted that only half of the APA members voted, and of these, only 58 percent agreed with the change.[G375] It should also be noted, that the study by the NIMH task-force which recommended the change did not include psychoanalytic clinicians.[R143]

"Only three psychiatrists were participants [in the NIMH study]. One of them, Dr. Judd Marmor, had for years espoused the view that homosexuality is normal. The chairman, a psychologist, Evelyn Hooker, Ph.D., was of the same long-time conviction. The Kinsey-Hopkins faction was represented by Paul Gebhard, Ph.D., Director of the Institute for Sex, Indiana University, and John Money, Ph.D., from Johns Hopkins, a prime mover among the proponents for transsexual surgery."[s86]

"The consequences of this action are of a formidable nature. Not only will the homosexual be victimised, but the entire area of research in the development of gender identity will be damaged. Young men and women with relatively minor sexual fears of the opposite sex will be led with equanimity by psychiatrists and other members of the medical profession who buy this bill of boods into a self-despising pattern and lifestyle. Homosexuality will henceforth be touted as simply an acceptable variation on the norm. Adolescents, nearly all of whom suffer some sort of uncertainty as to identity, will be discouraged from assuming that one form of gender identity (one's own birth-right) is preferable to another.[74] And those persons who already have a homosexual problem will be discouraged from fighting their way out of a self-destructive fantasy, discouraged from learning to accept themselves as male or female, discouraged from all of those often painful but necessary courses that allow us all to function as reasonable and participating individuals in a co-operating society." [s89]

"Even four years later, a survey of 2500 psychiatrists found that 69 percent believed homosexuality was 'a pathological adaptation.' About 18 percent disagreed; 13 percent were uncertain."[G375] The decision was the result of political pressure, not expert consensus.

"And homosexuals tended to feel the same way about themselves. About 25 percent believed their behaviour was an emotional disorder, and 37 percent answered they they were 'emotionally disturbed.' Young male homosexuals (14-21) commit suicide at two to three times the rate of heterosexuals (Paediatrics, June 1991). For all ages, their rate is six times that of heterosexuals."[G375]

"many members of our profession still privately express the opinion that homosexual development is not normal. The 1973 ruling did not resolve the issue --it simply silenced 80 years of psychoanalytic observation."[13]

Politically Correct Research

And what has followed the ruling? Pseudo-scientific garbage written by homosexuals, citing their own work or that of other homosexuals, trying to justify their behaviour which, instead of being based on scientific tradition, is based on political dictate. Post-1973 research is a vast sterile wasteland peppered only by abortive attempts, for how can 22 years of research, stemming from political dictate, even begin to compare with over 80 years of impartial scientific inquiry? It can't, and it shows.

To give one example, I mention the Lavey experiment: a gay physician compared the brains of heterosexual and homosexual men. Never mind the fact that there are large differences in brains between individuals and he used a relatively small sample size, he also has to contend with the fact that many of his "gay" subjects died of AIDS --which frequently causes brain deterioration and that brains literally can change according to use.

This author has worked in the medical community, and knows that there is no medically-acceptable way of "normalising" and comparing brains, let alone functional "parts" of brains. This pathetic and morbid image --the image of a lone homosexual slicing up the brains of his formerly diseased and now dead friends in an effort to justify his behaviour, makes a more vivid statement about post-1973 research than all the words I could ever write in a lifetime.

And how do you identify "pro-homosexual" research? Through the use of politically mandated phrases like "sexual orientation" --which implicitly assume that there is more than one kind of sexuality. Such phrases, when used in an argument about homosexuality, beg the question in favour of the mandated outcome. Likewise, the word "gay": It is a sad attempt to pretend that the homosexual condition is a somehow happier existence than that of common man.

"In 1973 a movement first spearheaded by Vice President Marmor of the A.P.A. and other psychiatrists in league with the Gay Activists Alliance, the Mattachine Society, and the Daughters of Bilitis (the women's arm of the Mattachine Society), undertook to influence the Nomenclature Committee of the association to delete 'homosexuality' from the diagnostic nomenclature."[s88] More recently, homosexuals have been attempting to ADD the word "Homophobia" to the nomenclature --in an attempt to suggest that those who OPPOSE homosexuals are mentally ill.

Another recent study (not worth referencing), is one in which "homophobic" males were subjected to "gay" pornography while a "peter-meter" read their level of arousal. Typically, this study is summarised by saying that it "found that homophobic men became aroused when viewing gay pornography."

Yeah, right... Since the study was intended to prove the existence of homophobia, it is plain question-begging --assuming what you wish to prove-- to categorise certain males as "homophobic" and to then subject them to a test for arousal. The screening method (for "homophobes") could easily be tailored to eliminate problematic individuals.

Also, there is the question of believability: What real homo-hater would consent to have a device attached to his penis, and to be subjected to homosexual pornography? --especially when you consider that the study was probably administered by homosexuals.

In addition to this, we might ask what exactly is meant by "gay" pornography --how we are certain that these images are what gay men prefer --as opposed to homosexual images tailored to arouse normal men; And we might ask what are their comparative reactions to viewing normal pornography.

It is conceivable that the average person might very well become aroused (not noticeably to themselves) by any graphic images, and people who hate homosexuals may very well have a greater overall arousal rate in general. But Homosexuals PREFER sex with other men, and any man whose reaction to homosexual pornography is less than that to normal pornography can not be a homosexual (in the closet or otherwise).

On top of this, the researchers themselves admit: "anxiety has been shown to enhance arousal and erection," and so it is also possible that "a response to homosexual stimuli [in these men] is a function of the threat condition rather than sexual arousal per se. These competing notions can and should be evaluated by future research." And then there's the sample size: 35 "homophobic" men, and 29 "nonhomophobic" men.

Another question which could be asked is just what sort of reputable institution would facilitate a study involving "gay" pornography, penis-meters, and such shoddy, politically-inspired science? (Hint: The University of Georgia.) It probably isn't any place you'd want to send your kids.

The use of terms like "sexual orientation", "gay", and "homophobia", is a form of political pandering to "gay approval". Any so-called "scientist" who resorts to such linguistic trickery or pandering should be recognised as having compromised his scientific objectivity. The correct psychoanalytic term for these people is "homosexual" and what they do is have "intercourse" (although a more accurate term for their practices would be "mutual masturbation") --NOT "sex". All of this linguistic nonsense results from homosexual anxiety about their own behaviour --trying to make the unpalatable more palatable by renaming it.

http://members.tripod.com/british-nation/illness.htm

[glockmail]

Hot damn glock... she sounds perfect for ME! I love red heads. Hook me up... :dance:
You'd like her, but she's high maintenance, both fiscally and emotionally.

[Hagbard Celine]

They ain't? Shit I don't think so.

Well she's about 5-8, long stawberry blonde hair, used to model actually. a bit old for you though- turned 40 last summer. She might use you for a boy-toy though.

Aha! She's a cougah! I love redheads, but I prefer 'em to be young-n-perky.

[bullypulpit]

Allow me glock... I've read about enough of bully's insults and faggot enabling lies....



Intimidating the APAhttp://members.tripod.com/british-nation/illness.htm

Let me tell you something about your "source". It's a British ultra right-wing website which is just a gnat's ass to the left of Hitler. The bibliography for their little screed is comprised mostly papers from the 1950's and 60's...long since dated and superceded...with a few more current scholarly articles with sentences taken out of context to lend an air of credibility to the crap this piece really is. But you already knew that, didn't you.

Oh, and you really need to stop posting entire copyrighted articles to the board. That's copyright infringement, and I don't think Jimmy wants to get shut down because of your stupidity.

[theHawk]

Let me tell you something about your "source". It's a British ultra right-wing website which is just a gnat's ass to the left of Hitler. The bibliography for their little screed is comprised mostly papers from the 1950's and 60's...long since dated and superceded...with a few more current scholarly articles with sentences taken out of context to lend an air of credibility to the crap this piece really is. But you already knew that, didn't you.

Oh, and you really need to stop posting entire copyrighted articles to the board. That's copyright infringement, and I don't think Jimmy wants to get shut down because of your stupidity.


Bully, you'd call any source that disputes your view as "ultra right-wing".

[Pale Rider]

Let me tell you something about your "source". It's a British ultra right-wing website which is just a gnat's ass to the left of Hitler. The bibliography for their little screed is comprised mostly papers from the 1950's and 60's...long since dated and superceded...with a few more current scholarly articles with sentences taken out of context to lend an air of credibility to the crap this piece really is. But you already knew that, didn't you.
I knew you'd deny, deny, deny. You and liesmatter make a fine pair of dunces that spend far more energy denying the truth than accepting it. Whatever... you're the last person here that I'd try and convince. I know it's impossible. You're too far gone. Liberalism has poisoned your brain to the practical point of worthlessness.


Oh, and you really need to stop posting entire copyrighted articles to the board. That's copyright infringement, and I don't think Jimmy wants to get shut down because of your stupidity.
If you clicked the link you'd readily see that what I posted here was but a snippet of the "entire article." Your left wing fever to shut down the truth about homosexuality is real apparent here, so give it a rest pinhead.

[bullypulpit]

I knew you'd deny, deny, deny. You and liesmatter make a fine pair of dunces that spend far more energy denying the truth than accepting it. Whatever... you're the last person here that I'd try and convince. I know it's impossible. You're too far gone. Liberalism has poisoned your brain to the practical point of worthlessness.


If you clicked the link you'd readily see that what I posted here was but a snippet of the "entire article." Your left wing fever to shut down the truth about homosexuality is real apparent here, so give it a rest pinhead.

I DID follow the link dipstick. How'd you think I knew so much about the website...? Psychic powers...? And, let's see...<a href=http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=3487>Rule #2</a> states:

<blockquote>Copyright Infringement - When posting something as fact, it's always best to supply a link to your source if possible. While we encourage the use of linking to sources, please refrain from posting articles in their entirety. <b>The first paragraph or 2 would be fine with a link to the rest of the article</b>. This is acceptable under the fair use doctrine but copying of entire articles will likely result in copyright infringement, and your post may be removed and/or edited to protect the community.</blockquote>

Your plagiarism violates both the letter and spirit of the board rules as well as fair use doctrine.

And, in case you hadn't figured it out, you need to present C-R-E-D-I-B-L-E evidence. A Nazi-lite website doesn't really count now does it.

And, as for poisoned minds, I've seen cleaner toxic waste dumps than what passes for your mind. So, take your meds, lay your head back and think happy thoughts. And remember you have to be consistent with the anti-psychotics or they just don't do you any good.

[actsnoblemartin]

I think it is unfair to label someone homophobic or biggoted simply for pointing out that gay males account for 50% of all new hiv cases, and that the reason is that many gay men have unprotected anal sex.

[Pale Rider]

Copyright Infringement - When posting something as fact, it's always best to supply a link to your source if possible. While we encourage the use of linking to sources, please refrain from posting articles in their entirety.

There's no need for you to wet your pants chief. I'm well within the rules.

And the article is as credible as anything you cite. It just bares out the truth, and you HATE that. You simply CAN'T STAND IT when you're proven WRONG! I, on the other hand, LOVE IT! :laugh:

[Pale Rider]

I think it is unfair to label someone homophobic or biggoted simply for pointing out that gay males account for 50% of all new hiv cases, and that the reason is that many gay men have unprotected anal sex.

It's not "many" queers do the nasty anm, they "ALL" do it. They don't like for you to talk about it though, because that bares out just how SICK and PERVERTED their sexual behavior is.

[actsnoblemartin]

well here is some data to back up what i said :laugh2:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/03/AR2007120301736.html

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health/jan-june05/aids_6-15.html

http://www.avert.org/usastatr.htm

[actsnoblemartin]

gay males, as evidenced in my links over 35% dont even use protection.


It's not "many" queers do the nasty anm, they "ALL" do it. They don't like for you to talk about it though, because that bares out just how SICK and PERVERTED their sexual behavior is.

[actsnoblemartin]

the pro-gay crowd or militant homosexuals and their supports cant argue facts. They can only name call.

I am simpy point out facts.

[actsnoblemartin]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/03/AR2007120301736.html

[actsnoblemartin]

MSM made up more than two thirds (68%) of all men living with HIV in 2005, even though only about 5% to 7% of men in the United States reported having sex with other men.

In a 2005 study of 5 large US cities, 46% of African American MSM were HIV-postitive.

Whatever the reasons, in 2005, MSM still accounted for about 53% of all new HIV/AIDS cases

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/index.htm

[bullypulpit]

There's no need for you to wet your pants chief. I'm well within the rules.

And the article is as credible as anything you cite. It just bares out the truth, and you HATE that. You simply CAN'T STAND IT when you're proven WRONG! I, on the other hand, LOVE IT! :laugh:

Ummm...Yeah, right. :rolleyes: You just keep on deluding yourself with that line of thought. And don't forget those anti-psychotics!. The voices in your head must be deafening.

[glockmail]

Ummm...Yeah, right. :rolleyes: You just keep on deluding yourself with that line of thought. And don't forget those anti-psychotics!. The voices in your head must be deafening. Looks like you won that round Pale. The big indicator is bully's insults.

[Pale Rider]

Looks like you won that round Pale. The big indicator is bully's insults.

It's just a well known fact that the APA is nothing more than a assemblage of gutless, spineless, jellyfish that caved to the homo crowd when the fags started crying about being exposed as mentally ill. The APA is nothing more than a mouth piece for the homo world. I'm surprised they don't back NAMBLA as well.

[LuvRPgrl]

I'm a supporter of the gay rights but I've never alleged that homosexuality was any of the above. My beef is that the "right" actively pursues policy and legislation that specifically discriminates against gays and then they parade around disguising their blatant bigotry as righteousness and piety. Aside from our country's indifferent attitude towards poverty, the "rights'" modern crusade against the gay community is the biggest injustice in the US since before the civil rights movement in the 60s.

What the hell are gay rights?

Defining marriage as a man and woman is not discriminating against gay rights.

First, marriage is a privledge, not a right
Second, I hardly doubt any group would support POV's that would discriminate against their own group, yet a very large number of homosexuals are either in agreement, or totally indifferent to marriage between a man and woman.

[stephanie]

I knew you'd deny, deny, deny. You and liesmatter make a fine pair of dunces that spend far more energy denying the truth than accepting it. Whatever... you're the last person here that I'd try and convince. I know it's impossible. You're too far gone. Liberalism has poisoned your brain to the practical point of worthlessness.


If you clicked the link you'd readily see that what I posted here was but a snippet of the "entire article." Your left wing fever to shut down the truth about homosexuality is real apparent here, so give it a rest pinhead.

:clap:

[gabosaurus]

This thread has gotten SO gay lately. Like, fer real...
Wait until one of your kids comes out of the closet. Your opinion will change.

[glockmail]

This thread has gotten SO gay lately. Like, fer real...
Wait until one of your kids comes out of the closet. Your opinion will change.
I thought queers were born that way?

[bullypulpit]

This thread has gotten SO gay lately. Like, fer real...
Wait until one of your kids comes out of the closet. Your opinion will change.

No, their opinion won't change. They'll disown their child and drive them from their homes. Never mind that they're the same person they've loved and cherished since birth.

[Pale Rider]

No, their opinion won't change. They'll disown their child and drive them from their homes. Never mind that they're the same person they've loved and cherished since birth.

No, I wouldn't lie to them and tell them they're OK. I'd tell them their feelings were unnatural, perverse and immoral, and get them the help they needed. And that gets us right back full circle to the title of the thread, "Queer enabler = liars." I wouldn't "LIE" to any kid of mine. Homos are cured all the time of this illness, and that's another thing you enablers hate to admit.

[Missileman]

Homos are cured all the time of this illness

Any data to support this?

[actsnoblemartin]

I simply dont think god or nature intended homosexuality.

If any one thinks that means, i hate gays, you need a special helmet.

[Yurt]

Any data to support this?

Can pedophiles be cured in your opinion?

[actsnoblemartin]

are you sayin... that gays are pedolphiles, or that you can compare those who rape kids, to those who have consentual relationships with adults

color me confused brother


Can pedophiles be cured in your opinion?

[glockmail]

No, their opinion won't change. They'll disown their child and drive them from their homes. Never mind that they're the same person they've loved and cherished since birth.

Any data to support this?

[glockmail]

Any data to support this?

I've had friends that were cured. Now they're happy, married, with natural kids.

[Yurt]

are you sayin... that gays are pedolphiles, or that you can compare those who rape kids, to those who have consentual relationships with adults

color me confused brother

no. missle is of the belief that you can't "cure" homosexuality. my question is valid. care to answer it?

do you believe pedophiles can be cured?

let me explain. in the bible, just thinking of an act can be the same as committing it. adultery. but the thought must be fairly complete as must the actual. if i see a hot young girl, i don't act on it. i just think it and move on. someone who likes men/boys has a similar type choice. to act on it or not. as i have mentioned in the past, a gentleman, in pretty high position administratively at my christian undergrad, is "gay." however, and very important here, he did not act upon it. he remained celibate. why? because he understood the act was wrong. he could not help his feelings. he is afterall human.

[Yurt]

I've had friends that were cured. Now they're happy, married, with natural kids.

How can you "cure" wanting a penis?

[actsnoblemartin]

oh i thought you asked, how can you cure having a penis.

I was gonna say, ask lorena

:laugh2:


How can you "cure" wanting a penis?

[glockmail]

How can you "cure" wanting a penis? The ones I know found out that they liked having one fill them.

[Missileman]

Can pedophiles be cured in your opinion?

There is a gaggle of credible data out there that pedophiles are incureable.

[Missileman]

he remained celibate.

But even in his celibacy, he is still a homosexual.

[glockmail]

There is a gaggle of credible data out there that pedophiles are incureable. So we can shoot them?

[Yurt]

The ones I know found out that they liked having one fill them.

guys or girls?

[Yurt]

There is a gaggle of credible data out there that pedophiles are incureable.

do you support pedos being in free society?

[Yurt]

But even in his celibacy, he is still a homosexual.

your point?

worthless.

think heavily on act versus thought or disposition. or are you telling me there is no difference between thinking and doing?

[Missileman]

do you support pedos being in free society?

No, I don't support pedos in any manner.

[Missileman]

your point?

worthless.

think heavily on act versus thought or disposition. or are you telling me there is no difference between thinking and doing?

Homosexuality is more than just the act.

[Yurt]

Homosexuality is more than just the act.

bulldoodo. would you say the same about pedophilia?

[Missileman]

bulldoodo. would you say the same about pedophilia?

You said yourself that your friend recognized he was different. Are you arguing now that he's not gay because he's abstained?

[Yurt]

You said yourself that your friend recognized he was different. Are you arguing now that he's not gay because he's abstained?

What do you call a person who looks at a minor sexually, and then does not act on it?

[Missileman]

What do you call a person who looks at a minor sexually, and then does not act on it?

Why do you keep trying to steer this away from homosexuals and towards pedophiles?

[actsnoblemartin]

I wonder if you can be a straight or gay pedophilliac

:lol:

[glockmail]

guys or girls? Queerets, of course. I've known quite a few male queers, but have never been friends with any of them. They were all rather unpleasant people to be around. The girls, on the other hand....

[Classact]

How can you "cure" wanting a penis?I had a dream the other night that my second wife and I changed bodies and my first thought was I don't know what to do when I get my period, my second thought was I'm going to get rich... and then I jumped out of bed at the thought of a penis being stuck in me! I instantly became a lesbian...

Why do hard core macho men turn into gay guys in jail? I have never got so horny that I would chose to have sex with a man regardless how long separated from a female?

Why are gay people celebrating their sexual preferences? Why not simply move to a area like SF where they could be considered normal? If gay isn't normal why should they demand the world to adjust to them?

[glockmail]

I had a dream the other night that my second wife and I changed bodies and my first thought was I don't know what to do when I get my period, my second thought was I'm going to get rich... and then I jumped out of bed at the thought of a penis being stuck in me! I instantly became a lesbian...

Why do hard core macho men turn into gay guys in jail? I have never got so horny that I would chose to have sex with a man regardless how long separated from a female?

Why are gay people celebrating their sexual preferences? Why not simply move to a area like SF where they could be considered normal? If gay isn't normal why should they demand the world to adjust to them?

Wow. I would have started playing with my boobies instantly. :laugh2:

They want us to adapt to them because they are exhibitionists.

[Classact]

Wow. I would have started playing with my boobies instantly. :laugh2:

They want us to adapt to them because they are exhibitionists.On other sites I've been branded a latent homosexual each time I come into a debate on homos... if you don't agree with them they claim you are one in hiding.

Back to the prison thing about how strait men "turn gay" in jail and then become "strait" as soon as they are released...

Growing up on a dairy farm we had a bull as did the neighbor farmer and they were kept in ajoining lots when not with the cows. They both were large and ours was about 2,500 and the neighbors bull nearing 3,000 lbs... we had a fence made of barbed wire six inches apart from the ground to about six feet mounted on telephone pole fence posts... Both bulls would prance along the fence snorting and flipping dirt with their front feet wanting to be the dominate male of both herds... I knew one day they would fight and as it tuned out when I was returning from school I passed the bull lots and and they were mad as hell and suddenly the neighbor's bull reared and lurched his 3,000lbs into the fence... I could hear the fence staples whizzing by like bullets as he crashed through the fence... The barbed wire sliced his chest open but didn't slow him down a heartbeat as they went into a battle to the death... I watched then fight lifting each other off the ground with their horns as they attacked each other... I went and got my dad and we watched until they were exhausted and then dad took our bull by the ring in his nose and led him into a strong stall as the neighbor did the same with his bull.

About two weeks later dad and the neighbor decided to sell the bulls and start using artificial insemination because the bulls were so much trouble on pastures ajoining the farms when they were with the cows... as it turned out they both were taken to the market the same day and ended up in the same 15 foot pen... Damn, you could have stuck an apple in my open mouth as my brother and I watched them from a raised catwalk... they had turned gay... they were punking each other over and over... I couldn't understand why they weren't fighting since there were cows in nearby pens that, on the farm was reason for a fight of total dominance...

I concluded gay in this natural or actually unnatural situation was related to stress... I wondered if all gay "realities" may also be based on some other "not so obvious" phenomenon? Strait macho bulls one week - gay submitting bulls the next, I can only guess it was based on stress?

I can't imagine punking another man even if I were on a life sentence and cannot come to a reasoning of jail logic that there is always going to be that big dude with a bar of soap in the shower... I don't get it? I don't understand why someone with such urges out of jail would want to share that with the world?

[LuvRPgrl]

No, their opinion won't change. They'll disown their child and drive them from their homes. Never mind that they're the same person they've loved and cherished since birth.

"any data to support that?" MM

Oh missleman, I notice you question the statement of a conservative, but if a liberal makes a bold faced lie about something he couldnt possibly know is true or not, you didnt question it at all.

[LuvRPgrl]

Why do you keep trying to steer this away from homosexuals and towards pedophiles?


Why dont you answer the question?

Because you know it will show how ridiculous your logic is. If a man doesnt molest children, how can you label him a pedophile, regardless of his thoughts/desires.

If you are going to say there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, then you would have to conclude there is nothing wrong with any sexual act as long as its not involving minors.

But, even bringing the minor issue in to it, who are you to draw the line at that? Why would that be wrong, but with consenting adults it is ok.Z
And who defines what a minor is?

Why 18? why not 21? or 16, or 13, when girls start their mens cycles and boys become sexually mature. Isnt that when the Jews have their Bar Mitzphahs? I think more cultures consider a 13 year old closer to manhood than those who dont.
So, whats up with that? Anything wrong with me having sex with a 13 year old girl?
DISCLAIMER: In no way shape or form am I interested in that, it is a hypothetical situation only.

I also have a question nobody answers. Why do a majority of homos have their first sexual experience with an adult, while they are still minors?
What the homo adults do is take advantage of the minors when they are still impressionable, and not sure of themselves, or whats right or wrong.

BUTT, the BOTTOM line is that it is so patently obvious that homosexuality is deviate behavior, its ridiculous. On its face alone, its obvious. Anyone who cant see that is delusional, plain and simple.

As for my kids, if one were homo, then I would suggest they go for therapy. It would be there choice however, if they are 16 or older. If that didnt work, then I would suggest to them to live a life of celibacy, or possibly get married if they can find the right person of the opposite sex.

[glockmail]

On other sites I've been branded a latent homosexual each time I come into a debate on homos... if you don't agree with them they claim you are one in hiding.

Back to the prison thing about how strait men "turn gay" in jail and then become "strait" as soon as they are released...

Growing up on a dairy farm we had a bull as did the neighbor farmer and they were kept in ajoining lots when not with the cows. They both were large and ours was about 2,500 and the neighbors bull nearing 3,000 lbs... we had a fence made of barbed wire six inches apart from the ground to about six feet mounted on telephone pole fence posts... Both bulls would prance along the fence snorting and flipping dirt with their front feet wanting to be the dominate male of both herds... I knew one day they would fight and as it tuned out when I was returning from school I passed the bull lots and and they were mad as hell and suddenly the neighbor's bull reared and lurched his 3,000lbs into the fence... I could hear the fence staples whizzing by like bullets as he crashed through the fence... The barbed wire sliced his chest open but didn't slow him down a heartbeat as they went into a battle to the death... I watched then fight lifting each other off the ground with their horns as they attacked each other... I went and got my dad and we watched until they were exhausted and then dad took our bull by the ring in his nose and led him into a strong stall as the neighbor did the same with his bull.

About two weeks later dad and the neighbor decided to sell the bulls and start using artificial insemination because the bulls were so much trouble on pastures ajoining the farms when they were with the cows... as it turned out they both were taken to the market the same day and ended up in the same 15 foot pen... Damn, you could have stuck an apple in my open mouth as my brother and I watched them from a raised catwalk... they had turned gay... they were punking each other over and over... I couldn't understand why they weren't fighting since there were cows in nearby pens that, on the farm was reason for a fight of total dominance...

I concluded gay in this natural or actually unnatural situation was related to stress... I wondered if all gay "realities" may also be based on some other "not so obvious" phenomenon? Strait macho bulls one week - gay submitting bulls the next, I can only guess it was based on stress?

I can't imagine punking another man even if I were on a life sentence and cannot come to a reasoning of jail logic that there is always going to be that big dude with a bar of soap in the shower... I don't get it? I don't understand why someone with such urges out of jail would want to share that with the world?
Interesting story about the bulls. A queer enabler would simply say "see- its natural", ignoring the unnatural condition of the common pen.

[Missileman]

Why dont you answer the question?

Because you know it will show how ridiculous your logic is. If a man doesnt molest children, how can you label him a pedophile, regardless of his thoughts/desires.

A person who prefers chocolate over vanilla doesn't shed that preference when they aren't eating. A person who is sexually attracted to children is a pedophile whether they've acted on it or not.

[Classact]

Interesting story about the bulls. A queer enabler would simply say "see- its natural", ignoring the unnatural condition of the common pen.What is the unnatural condition is queers in a strait world demanding respect and acceptance of their unatural differences.

In nature, the pecking order as in its origin of the hen house they would be dead... humans are compassionate and have moral reasoning allowing less than normal beings to thrive in an otherwise normal world. When I was growing up polio was a normal condition and no one frowned on a polio victim but the polio victims didn't get together and demand rights of acceptance equal to those without polio... they didn't have parades and show off their crutches.

Almost everything people do in modern cultures is to establish an expected norm... it is the base of law and government to be a tool to allow people to live together in a manner that allows an expected normal. It is the norm that when I go to work everyone has clothes on when I arrive there on Monday morning... to have a gay person interject themselves into my norm would be equal to coming to work and find out it was nude day and I didn't get the memo. Straits deserve an expected norm and to me gays should segregate themselves into a normal environment that would allow them to enjoy an expected norm. Why should my children learn about how they like to consummate their love by sticking their fist up each others butt? That is a shock to my expected norm and should remain in the gay community where they live in their expected norm.

[actsnoblemartin]

gays need to stop trying to force people to accept them.

Their lifestyle leads to many stds, and new hiv cases

why cant gay people just live their lives instead of demanding rights their not entitled to.

Gays cannot be married before god, so they should not get the same rights and benefits.

And as the vast majority of marriages lead to kids, those benefits are neccesary, while gays cant have kids without cheating.



What is the unnatural condition is queers in a strait world demanding respect and acceptance of their unatural differences.

In nature, the pecking order as in its origin of the hen house they would be dead... humans are compassionate and have moral reasoning allowing less than normal beings to thrive in an otherwise normal world. When I was growing up polio was a normal condition and no one frowned on a polio victim but the polio victims didn't get together and demand rights of acceptance equal to those without polio... they didn't have parades and show off their crutches.

Almost everything people do in modern cultures is to establish an expected norm... it is the base of law and government to be a tool to allow people to live together in a manner that allows an expected normal. It is the norm that when I go to work everyone has clothes on when I arrive there on Monday morning... to have a gay person interject themselves into my norm would be equal to coming to work and find out it was nude day and I didn't get the memo. Straits deserve an expected norm and to me gays should segregate themselves into a normal environment that would allow them to enjoy an expected norm. Why should my children learn about how they like to consummate their love by sticking their fist up each others butt? That is a shock to my expected norm and should remain in the gay community where they live in their expected norm.

[Classact]

gays need to stop trying to force people to accept them.

Their lifestyle leads to many stds, and new hiv cases

why cant gay people just live their lives instead of demanding rights their not entitled to.

Gays cannot be married before god, so they should not get the same rights and benefits.

And as the vast majority of marriages lead to kids, those benefits are necessary, while gays cant have kids without cheating.
The reason gays can speak in a demanding voice is due to Hollywood brainwashing... if Hollywood decides to insist pedophiles should not be treated badly since they are "ill" then ten years from now pedophiles would be equal to gays...

I know many people do not believe the above statement right? Well consider this when I was a child all American Indians were portrayed as heathens deserving of being killed by the settlers moving west... all of us kids would cheer as the wagon trains circled and shot the raiding scalping heathen Indians that were attacking. Likewise, all blacks were presented as ignorant on any TV shows that had a reason to mention them... The only show that had black people on it was Amos and Andy and they were two white men dressed and costumed as blacks... Indians were heathens and Negros, at the time were ignorant according to Hollywood. During this same period gays didn't exist on TV or in public as far as that goes... If you were an adult or could get a Penthouse you could read about San Francisco or Greenwich Village where gays lived... In my home town we only had sissies...

Hollywood changed the thinking of young people then and now through brain washing... The concept of opinion of accepting gays as "NORMAL" was originated in HOLLYWOOD! You didn't have the idea, I didn't have the idea, wasn't mom or dad, brother or sister it was Hollywood.

Gays are abnormal according to the majority of US citizens over 30 years of age/// under 30 most people don't understand why those older think the way they do because they have been fully brainwashed since birth on TV and movies. Normal is what Hollywood says is normal so if you think gays are abnormal you will soon be replaced by the youth that think they are normal... there is no stopping Hollywood unless the adults stand up and speak to the youth about values. The same is true to illegal aliens and lazy ghetto blacks that do not try to advance themselves through hard work... If Hollywood says it is your fault white man it is your fault... you need to demand your children and elected officials listen to you better than they listen to Hollywood or you will not recognize your world when you get to my age.

[actsnoblemartin]

absolutely excellent point.


The reason gays can speak in a demanding voice is due to Hollywood brainwashing... if Hollywood decides to insist pedophiles should not be treated badly since they are "ill" then ten years from now pedophiles would be equal to gays...

I know many people do not believe the above statement right? Well consider this when I was a child all American Indians were portrayed as heathens deserving of being killed by the settlers moving west... all of us kids would cheer as the wagon trains circled and shot the raiding scalping heathen Indians that were attacking. Likewise, all blacks were presented as ignorant on any TV shows that had a reason to mention them... The only show that had black people on it was Amos and Andy and they were two white men dressed and costumed as blacks... Indians were heathens and Negros, at the time were ignorant according to Hollywood. During this same period gays didn't exist on TV or in public as far as that goes... If you were an adult or could get a Penthouse you could read about San Francisco or Greenwich Village where gays lived... In my home town we only had sissies...

Hollywood changed the thinking of young people then and now through brain washing... The concept of opinion of accepting gays as "NORMAL" was originated in HOLLYWOOD! You didn't have the idea, I didn't have the idea, wasn't mom or dad, brother or sister it was Hollywood.

Gays are abnormal according to the majority of US citizens over 30 years of age/// under 30 most people don't understand why those older think the way they do because they have been fully brainwashed since birth on TV and movies. Normal is what Hollywood says is normal so if you think gays are abnormal you will soon be replaced by the youth that think they are normal... there is no stopping Hollywood unless the adults stand up and speak to the youth about values. The same is true to illegal aliens and lazy ghetto blacks that do not try to advance themselves through hard work... If Hollywood says it is your fault white man it is your fault... you need to demand your children and elected officials listen to you better than they listen to Hollywood or you will not recognize your world when you get to my age.

[bullypulpit]

Let's address your puerile points one at a time.


gays need to stop trying to force people to accept them.

What force?


Their lifestyle leads to many stds, and new hiv cases

Sexual promiscuity, regardless of gender preference, leads to STDS and HIV. It's not a gay phenomena.


why cant gay people just live their lives instead of demanding rights their not entitled to.

As American citizens, they are guaranteed the same rights as everyone else. Read the equal protection clause in the Constitution.


Gays cannot be married before god, so they should not get the same rights and benefits.

The only interest the state has in marriage is the contractual obligations it established between the married couple. Beyond that, the state has no business in the decision of two consenting adults to be be married. If a given church doesn't want to perform the ceremony, there are plenty that will.


And as the vast majority of marriages lead to kids, those benefits are neccesary, while gays cant have kids without cheating.

Artificial insemination is cheating? Now that's a stretch. Since my wife and I can't have kids, does that invalidate our marriage? That's the logical end to your assertion.

You seem a decent person, but do grow up a little.

[LuvRPgrl]

A person who prefers chocolate over vanilla doesn't shed that preference when they aren't eating. A person who is sexually attracted to children is a pedophile whether they've acted on it or not.

So, I want to steal all the money in the till, but I dont, yet Im still a thief?

[LuvRPgrl]

Let's address your puerile points one at a time.



What force?.

Its called the force of the law. You "must" acknowledge our moral posistion on homosexuality. If you dont, we will use a gun to put you in prison, and/or steal your money.




Sexual promiscuity, regardless of gender preference, leads to STDS and HIV. It's not a gay phenomena. . Gender preference does cause STDS and HIV at a much higher rate in some groups than others, however. BUTT, you are right, HIV is not a gay phenomena, it is a homosexual phenomena, primarially.




As American citizens, they are guaranteed the same rights as everyone else. Read the equal protection clause in the Constitution..And what rights are they denied? PSSSS, marriage is NOT a right, it is a privledge. And those COTUS rights are guaranteed because of their personage, not because of their sexual behaviors.

However you are right about one thing, they should be afforded the SAME rights as everyone else, yet somehow they have managed to get MORE RIGHTS than heterosexuals. Oddly that killing a homosexual can bring a greater penalty than killing a heterosexual person.




The only interest the state has in marriage is the contractual obligations it established between the married couple. Beyond that, the state has no business in the decision of two consenting adults to be be married. If a given church doesn't want to perform the ceremony, there are plenty that will..
Wrong. Those contractual obligations can be enforced with or without marriage. Marriage is a social institution that the govt (people) have an interest in, regarding how it affects children of the couples. Since homosexuals cannot have their own biological children, there is no reason for homosexuals to marry. Fact is, marriage,, or lack of, even between heterosexual couples, extremely affects the kids. The social structure of our culture directly affects the strength of the country. The social structure of the adults directly affects the enviorment the kids grow up in, and the kids have the right to the healthiest enviorment possible.




Artificial insemination is cheating? Now that's a stretch. Since my wife and I can't have kids, does that invalidate our marriage? That's the logical end to your assertion.

You seem a decent person, but do grow up a little.

SOmehow, I dont think he was referring to those who can afford artificial insimination, but to those who dont choose that method of getting pregnant.
But I would disagree with his statement, because homosexuals simply cannot have a biological child of THEIR own.

I do find it odd that liberals say that marriage is merely a piece of paper, yet they are fighting so hard to give that useless piece of paper to homosexuals.

[Missileman]

So, I want to steal all the money in the till, but I dont, yet Im still a thief?

If you have kleptomania, you are still a kleptomaniac even on the occasions that you can muster the self-control to not steal.

[actsnoblemartin]

Let's address your puerile points one at a time.



you:What force?.

me: Their is a contigent of gay and straight people who attack anyone who doesnt accept their lifestyle, tolerance sint enough for them. only acceptance.



you: Sexual promiscuity, regardless of gender preference, leads to STDS and HIV. It's not a gay phenomena.

me: I never said std's were a gay exclusive, but with syphillis coming back in europe because of gay sex, and gays accounting for 53% of new hiv cases, the gay lifestyle is not safe, did you not see the link that said 1/3 of gays dont use condoms.


me: aids first started in gay men.

you: As American citizens, they are guaranteed the same rights as everyone else. Read the equal protection clause in the Constitution.

me: that has nothing to do with marriage, or the benefits of marriage. Gays cannot procreate, (without cheating) so, they are not equal to or entitled to the same benefits as straight married couples, and in countires where they allow gays to marry, (look it up) marriage among hetero's goes down. Your asking to change the definition of marriage.



You: The only interest the state has in marriage is the contractual obligations it established between the married couple. Beyond that, the state has no business in the decision of two consenting adults to be be married. If a given church doesn't want to perform the ceremony, there are plenty that will.

me: wrong, the state has an interest, they want couples to procreate in marriage only, so they give them benefits.


you: Artificial insemination is cheating? Now that's a stretch. Since my wife and I can't have kids, does that invalidate our marriage? That's the logical end to your assertion.

me: its not cheating for straight couples, because you could have kids, but something in you or your wife mal functioned, and dont give me one exeption to the rule crap, 90%+ of heterosexual marriage are capable of having kids, so to try and derail my argument with one example, where im sorry that you and your wife had a problem is non sense on your part.

you:You seem a decent person, but do grow up a little.

me: I have always had a high level of respect for you and respect your opinion here and at all times, even when we disagree.

[gabosaurus]

This thread has gotten totally out of control.

http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa137/gabriella8406/story.jpg

[LuvRPgrl]

If you have kleptomania, you are still a kleptomaniac even on the occasions that you can muster the self-control to not steal.


you didnt answer the question.

[Gunny]

Homosexuality is more than just the act.

Homosexuality is manifest only by behavior. There is NO solid evidence to prove it is anything more. Until such time as that evidence is produced, it is an "act."

[LuvRPgrl]

Homosexuality is manifest only by behavior. There is NO solid evidence to prove it is anything more. Until such time as that evidence is produced, it is an "act."

Yea, IRONIC of MM to make the "if you desire it, then you are it" claim. He is so anti religous, and yet it was Jesus who said "If you desire adultery in your heart, then you are as guilty of sin as though you did it" Libs often use that statement to try and prove how stupid Christianity is. And how MM is supporting the very statement that libs attack as stupid.

I do personally understand the passage by Jesus, as his is referring to a "born again" heart, mind and soul.

Now, according to MM's theory, anyone who desires to do any act, is defined as one who does it, whether they do it or not.

A person thinks of stealing, he is automatically a thief.
A person desires to oft his parents, he is automatically a murderer.
A man desires to have sex with another woman, besides his wife, he is automatically and adulterer.
The list certainly goes on and on and on, and all of us are actually labeled with hordes of adjectives describing a lot of very disturbing behaviors, if MM is going to remain consistent in his thinking.

Of course, MM is myoptic, which doesnt allow him to respond to certain aspects of the debate, which is why his last response totally ignored what I actually said.

[Missileman]

Homosexuality is manifest only by behavior. There is NO solid evidence to prove it is anything more. Until such time as that evidence is produced, it is an "act."

The behavior HAS to have a MOTIVATION.

[Missileman]

Yea, IRONIC of MM to make the "if you desire it, then you are it" claim. He is so anti religous, and yet it was Jesus who said "If you desire adultery in your heart, then you are as guilty of sin as though you did it" Libs often use that statement to try and prove how stupid Christianity is. And how MM is supporting the very statement that libs attack as stupid.

I do personally understand the passage by Jesus, as his is referring to a "born again" heart, mind and soul.

Now, according to MM's theory, anyone who desires to do any act, is defined as one who does it, whether they do it or not.

A person thinks of stealing, he is automatically a thief.
A person desires to oft his parents, he is automatically a murderer.
A man desires to have sex with another woman, besides his wife, he is automatically and adulterer.
The list certainly goes on and on and on, and all of us are actually labeled with hordes of adjectives describing a lot of very disturbing behaviors, if MM is going to remain consistent in his thinking.

Of course, MM is myoptic, which doesnt allow him to respond to certain aspects of the debate, which is why his last response totally ignored what I actually said.

You are totally missing the point. A person who is sexually attracted to children is suffering from pedophilia. Pedophilia isn't the crime, it's the motivation that leads to the crime of molesting a child. In the very same manner, homosexuality isn't the act, it's the motivation that leads to same gender sex.

Your other question about thoughts of stealing hasn't anything at all to do with preferences or predilections or tendencies.

[LuvRPgrl]

The behavior HAS to have a MOTIVATION.

This is one of your constantly classic inabilities to have clear logic.

If A is true, then B must be true, does not equate into If B is true, then A must be true.

Just because you might have a motivation doesnt mean you are guilty of the behavior.

[LuvRPgrl]

You are totally missing the point. A person who is sexually attracted to children is suffering from pedophilia. Pedophilia isn't the crime, it's the motivation that leads to the crime of molesting a child. In the very same manner, homosexuality isn't the act, it's the motivation that leads to same gender sex.

Your other question about thoughts of stealing hasn't anything at all to do with preferences or predilections or tendencies.

READ the BOLD,,you are joking right?

You are among the most myoptic persons I have ever met.

Continuing to repeat your claim, without responding to the counterclaim, doesnt make it true.

Saying one is completely missing the point, doesnt make it so.

Saying one thing doesnt have anything to do with another, doesnt make it so.

All my analogies make perfect sense. Human behavior, undersirable human behaviors and desires.

Now, go ahead and repeat yourself again, :dance:

[glockmail]

This is one of your constantly classic inabilities to have clear logic.

If A is true, then B must be true, does not equate into If B is true, then A must be true.

Just because you might have a motivation doesnt mean you are guilty of the behavior.

Trying to use logic to debate a queer enabler? :laugh2:

[bullypulpit]

Why do y'all get so upset about this? It's a non- issue to anyone with half a brain.

[glockmail]

Why do y'all get so upset about this? It's a non- issue to anyone with half a brain.
The only people here who are upset are the enablers. The truth-tellers have remained predictably logical and calm. :coffee:

[bullypulpit]

The only people here who are upset are the enablers. The truth-tellers have remained predictably logical and calm. :coffee:

Your version of "truth" has little to do with reality. :puke3:

[glockmail]

Your version of "truth" has little to do with reality. :puke3:
:lame2:

Care to point out a specific instance? :lol:

[gabosaurus]

How can we debate your queer logic?

[glockmail]

How can we debate your queer logic? With a logical argument. :coffee:

[actsnoblemartin]

and you expect her to be logical let alone have a cohesive argument


:laugh2:


With a logical argument. :coffee:

[Missileman]

READ the BOLD,,you are joking right?

No, what I wrote is accurate and patently logical...for some reason, the elementary concept "people do things for a reason" is way over your head.

pe·do·phil·i·a /ˌpidəˈfɪliə/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[pee-duh-fil-ee-uh] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun Psychiatry.

sexual desire in an adult for a child.

Notice the definition doesn't say anything about an act. When I argued that a person could be a pedophile without having molested a child, you pitched a hissy. Now YOU want to argue that the desire is a crime...make up your mind which position you hold please.

[glockmail]

Homosexual desires, however, are not in themselves sinful. People are subject to a wide variety of sinful desires over which they have little direct control, but these do not become sinful until a person acts upon them, either by acting out the desire or by encouraging the desire and deliberately engaging in fantasies about acting it out. People tempted by homosexual desires, like people tempted by improper heterosexual desires, are not sinning until they act upon those desires in some manner. http://www.catholic.com/library/Homosexuality.asp

[Missileman]

Just because you might have a motivation doesnt mean you are guilty of the behavior.

Your reading disorder has led you to an erroneous conclusion. I never claimed anyone was guilty of anything. On the contrary, I argued that a person could have a desire and therefore be considered suffering from the condition associated with that desire even having never acted on it.

[glockmail]

No, what I wrote is accurate and patently logical...for some reason, the elementary concept "people do things for a reason" is way over your head.

pe·do·phil·i·a /ˌpidəˈfɪliə/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[pee-duh-fil-ee-uh] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun Psychiatry.

sexual desire in an adult for a child.

Notice the definition doesn't say anything about an act. When I argued that a person could be a pedophile without having molested a child, you pitched a hissy. Now YOU want to argue that the desire is a crime...make up your mind which position you hold please.

If that definition was correct than most of the country's population would be pedophiles. Look at how we define beauty in this day and age. It nearly always has something to do with youth.

[LuvRPgrl]

Why do y'all get so upset about this? It's a non- issue to anyone with half a brain.

upset? who is upset? Its fun proding the mind of complete bufoons. Besides, I get to show my kids how liberals think, then they never have to go through that stage like I did.

[LuvRPgrl]

Your version of "truth" has little to do with reality. :puke3:

ONLY liberals have "versions" of truth. You bufoons need it to remain myoptic on an issue. See MM.

[LuvRPgrl]

A person who prefers chocolate over vanilla doesn't shed that preference when they aren't eating. A person who is sexually attracted to children is a pedophile whether they've acted on it or not.

You claim is absolute. IF A PERSON, ....then....

Fact is, thoughts, fantasies and the such do not have such black and white answers. To claim that ALL people, (YES, you made that claim) who have the desire to have sex with a child is a pedo, is so myoptic its incredible. Do all women who have fantasies (which is a desire and a thought) about being raped, REALLY want to be raped?

Fact is, of the men and women who have thoughts, fantasies or desires about having sex with a child, only some of them would actually like to do it when it comes down to the reality of it actually happening.
SOME who have such desires are pedophiles, some arent.

Now Im sure you have inner thoughts of yourself "Im a fucking idiot", does that mean you are?? Well, in that case, for once you are right.

[LuvRPgrl]

If that definition was correct than most of the country's population would be pedophiles. Look at how we define beauty in this day and age. It nearly always has something to do with youth.

and rapists, and thieves, etc. etc. Oh, thats right MM dictates that the analogy of stealing isnt the same. Hmmmm, desire to steal, stealing, a thief. Desire to have sex with a child, doing so, a pedophile. I just dont see how even a ten year old couldnt see that parrallel/analogy.

As for you dictionary definition, the dictionary is often wrong. Besides that,


If you have kleptomania, you are still a kleptomaniac even on the occasions that you can muster the self-control to not steal.

WOW, somehow I missed this one earlier. Another brainless statement. You are arguing about a desire that labels someone without actually doing the act.
\Then you bring up this example, Please, tell me how one can be a kleptomaniac without having actually ever stolen, since being a klepto means not being able to STOP STEALING, which means they have actually done it. Now, mind you, ANYONE who can control that desire to steal, is by definition, NOT a klepto.

Oh, I get it, you are making an analogy of someone who actually does the act sometimes, with someone who NEVER does the act,

Yet you reject my desire to steal analogy.

in your klepto analogy, the klepto is defined by the times he DOES steal,not by the times he manages NOT TO. An alcoholic is defined by how often he does drink, not by how often he goes in between drinks.

Let me make this simple for you.
A= the desire
B =the label defining the person.
C = the act.

If one has A, then one must be B,even without doing C.

Fill in the blanks.
A = desiring to have sex with kids,
B = pedophilia
C = Having sex with kids

A = desiring to steal
B = thief
C = stealing

A = desire to steal
B = complulsive thief (kleptomaniac)
c = stealing (oopppps, kleptomanics DO steal,by definition, just as one couldnt be a professional ballplayer unless they ACTUALLY played ball and got paid for it.

GUESS WHICH ONE DOESNT FIT MR RETARD??????
TAKE A FUCKING WILD GUESS......

DOOR ONE, TWO OR THREE?????

Man, this is easier than I ever imagined. I was going to turn this one over to my kids to handle, but then they would ask what a pedophile is, and they are too young to learn about that yet.

[Missileman]

You claim is absolute. IF A PERSON, ....then....

Fact is, thoughts, fantasies and the such do not have such black and white answers. To claim that ALL people, (YES, you made that claim) who have the desire to have sex with a child is a pedo, is so myoptic its incredible. Do all women who have fantasies (which is a desire and a thought) about being raped, REALLY want to be raped?

Fact is, of the men and women who have thoughts, fantasies or desires about having sex with a child, only some of them would actually like to do it when it comes down to the reality of it actually happening.
SOME who have such desires are pedophiles, some arent.

Listen up retard. If you want to keep arguing against the fucking undeniable, knock yourself out. A person who is sexually attracted to children suffers from pedophilia. If you are trying to admit that you are, your continued arguing makes some sense, but then you really need to seek some professional help, because it's NOT normal.


"Im a fucking idiot"

The one honest thing you've said in this thread.

[Missileman]

and rapists, and thieves, etc. etc. Oh, thats right MM dictates that the analogy of stealing isnt the same. Hmmmm, desire to steal, stealing, a thief. Desire to have sex with a child, doing so, a pedophile. I just dont see how even a ten year old couldnt see that parrallel/analogy.

As for you dictionary definition, the dictionary is often wrong. Besides that,

Post a definition of pedophilia that proves my argument wrong if you can find one. And it sounds like cupcake is sexually attracted to children also....you both need to see a shrink.

[Missileman]

and rapists, and thieves, etc. etc. Oh, thats right MM dictates that the analogy of stealing isnt the same. Hmmmm, desire to steal, stealing, a thief. Desire to have sex with a child, doing so, a pedophile. I just dont see how even a ten year old couldnt see that parrallel/analogy.

As for you dictionary definition, the dictionary is often wrong. Besides that,



WOW, somehow I missed this one earlier. Another brainless statement. You are arguing about a desire that labels someone without actually doing the act.
\Then you bring up this example, Please, tell me how one can be a kleptomaniac without having actually ever stolen, since being a klepto means not being able to STOP STEALING, which means they have actually done it. Now, mind you, ANYONE who can control that desire to steal, is by definition, NOT a klepto.

Oh, I get it, you are making an analogy of someone who actually does the act sometimes, with someone who NEVER does the act,

Yet you reject my desire to steal analogy.

Let me make this simple for you.
A= the desire
B =the label defining the person.
C = the act.

If one has A, then one must be B,even without doing C.

Fill in the blanks.
A = desiring to have sex with kids,
B = pedophilia
C = Having sex with kids

A = desiring to steal
B = thief
C = stealing

A = desire to steal
B = complulsive thief (kleptomaniac)
c = stealing (oopppps, kleptomanics DO steal,by definition, just as one couldnt be a professional ballplayer unless they ACTUALLY played ball and got paid for it.

GUESS WHICH ONE DOESNT FIT MR RETARD??????
TAKE A FUCKING WILD GUESS......

DOOR ONE, TWO OR THREE?????

Man, this is easier than I ever imagined. I was going to turn this one over to my kids to handle, but then they would ask what a pedophile is, and they are too young to learn about that yet.

Do the world a favor and invest in a dictionary.

klep·to·ma·ni·ac /ˌklɛptəˈmeɪniˌæk/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[klep-tuh-mey-nee-ak] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun Psychology. 1. a person who has kleptomania.


klep·to·ma·ni·a (klěp'tə-mā'nē-ə, -mān'yə) Pronunciation Key
n. An obsessive impulse to steal regardless of economic need.

A person who DESIRES to steal is a kleptomaniac...a person who DOES steal is a thief. Granted, the thief may or may not have been motivated by kleptomania.

Please give the keyboard to your kids...they've no doubt got a stronger grasp on english than you do.

[LuvRPgrl]

Listen up retard. If you want to keep arguing against the fucking undeniable, knock yourself out. A person who is sexually attracted to children suffers from pedophilia. If you are trying to admit that you are, your continued arguing makes some sense, but then you really need to seek some professional help, because it's NOT normal..

This is what your supposed logic has degenerated down to?? accusing me of being a pedophile. Sorry dude, you have totally lost this arguement.




The one honest thing you've said in this thread.
obvioiusly taken out of context, which shows how desperate you are.


Well, according to you, anyone, who ever, even one time has the slightest thought of having sex with a child, is a pedophile.
GET REAL.

Like I said before, the REALITY of the situation is, there are numerous degrees of thoughts and desires. Having a fleeting moment of a thought or desire to do something, doesnt label you as that type of person.
Ever thought of hitting your wife? Does that make you a wife beater?

The bottom line of this is that many, many people who have thoughts of certain acts are not that type of person. Many, many are, but NOT ALL.
Your claim is they ALL ARE
You are wrong, deal with it. Stand up like a man and admit you are wrong.

[LuvRPgrl]

Post a definition of pedophilia that proves my argument wrong if you can find one. And it sounds like cupcake is sexually attracted to children also....you both need to see a shrink.

Your definition of what a pedophile doesnt save you, even if it is true. Just because A is true, therefore B is true, doesnt mean, If B is true, therefore A is true.


Thats basic logic 101a.

Alll pedophiles have desires to have sex wth children.\

Thats all your definition proves.

That doesnt mean all persons who have had on at least one occasion, the desire to have sex with a child, is a pedophile.

[Missileman]

This is what your supposed logic has degenerated down to?? accusing me of being a pedophile. Sorry dude, you have totally lost this arguement.

Uh no, you're the one who wants to argue that a person who is sexually attracted to children ISN'T a pedophile, remember.






Well, according to you, anyone, who ever, even one time has the slightest thought of having sex with a child, is a pedophile.
GET REAL.

NICE STRAWMAN...I've never claimed any such thing.

REALITY...IF YOU ARE SEXUALLY ATTRACTED TO CHILDREN YOU NEED PROFESSIONAL HELP.

Simple question for you jagoff...are you sexually attracted to children?

[LuvRPgrl]

jjjjj

[LuvRPgrl]

Do the world a favor and invest in a dictionary.

klep·to·ma·ni·ac /ˌklɛptəˈmeɪniˌæk/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[klep-tuh-mey-nee-ak] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun Psychology. 1. a person who has kleptomania.


klep·to·ma·ni·a (klěp'tə-mā'nē-ə, -mān'yə) Pronunciation Key
n. An obsessive impulse to steal regardless of economic need.

A person who DESIRES to steal is a kleptomaniac...a person who DOES steal is a thief. Granted, the thief may or may not have been motivated by kleptomania.

Please give the keyboard to your kids...they've no doubt got a stronger grasp on english than you do.

HAHHAHAHHAHHa,

DUUUUUUUUDe,

YOU admitted the kleptomaniac steals, its right in your post.
"If you have kleptomania, you are still a kleptomaniac even on the occasions that you can muster the self-control to not steal."

If "on occasions" you muster the self control to not steal, then you must be stealing in between those occasions.

So, you used an example of someone who DOES SOMETHING, to prove that one doesnt have to DO SOMETHING, to attain the label.

hahhahahhaha,,,,,,,,,,,HAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA HHA
..........BWAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH

(OH, and that was your entire statement in the post, not taken out of context like you did.)

:dance::dance::flameth::flameth::boom2:
:mm::thewave::mm::banana::banana:

owned !!

[LuvRPgrl]

Uh no, you're the one who wants to argue that a person who is sexually attracted to children ISN'T a pedophile, remember.






NICE STRAWMAN...I've never claimed any such thing.

REALITY...IF YOU ARE SEXUALLY ATTRACTED TO CHILDREN YOU NEED PROFESSIONAL HELP.

Simple question for you jagoff...are you sexually attracted to children?

OH, now its "you need professional help" eh?
Now, why do you suddenly need to make this so personal? I dont have to answer that question, and you claim Im making a strawman??
You are insulting, but I forgive you.

[Missileman]

HAHHAHAHHAHHa,

DUUUUUUUUDe,

YOU admitted the kleptomaniac steals, its right in your post.
"If you have kleptomania, you are still a kleptomaniac even on the occasions that you can muster the self-control to not steal."

If "on occasions" you muster the self control to not steal, then you must be stealing in between those occasions.

So, you used an example of someone who DOES SOMETHING, to prove that one doesnt have to DO SOMETHING, to attain the label.

hahhahahhaha,,,,,,,,,,,HAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA HHA
..........BWAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH

(OH, and that was your entire statement in the post, not taken out of context like you did.)

:dance::dance::flameth::flameth::boom2:
:mm::thewave::mm::banana::banana:

owned !!

You're retarded.

Kleptomania isn't stealing, it's the compulsion to steal.

Pedophilia isn't the act, it's the sexual attraction to children.

Homosexuality and heterosexuality aren't acts, they're the sexual attraction to the same or opposite gender respectively.


If we take your illogic, then a young couple, both virgins, aren't heterosexual until they've had sex on their wedding night.

[Missileman]

OH, now its "you need professional help" eh?
Now, why do you suddenly need to make this so personal? I dont have to answer that question, and you claim Im making a strawman??
You are insulting, but I forgive you.

It's only personal if it applies to you.

Look up strawman, you indeed constructed one.

[LuvRPgrl]

You're retarded.

Kleptomania isn't stealing, it's the compulsion to steal.

Pedophilia isn't the act, it's the sexual attraction to children.

Homosexuality and heterosexuality aren't acts, they're the sexual attraction to the same or opposite gender respectively.


If we take your illogic, then a young couple, both virgins, aren't heterosexual until they've had sex on their wedding night.

Yea, you're right. Its clear cut black and white, no shades of gray because you keep ignoring that point and insisting because you say something over and over, that makes it right. Its amazing, but every topic you get into, you do the same thing, repeat, repeat, repeat, ignore, ignore, ignore a point brought up to show you are wrong. Myoptic, thats what you are.

[glockmail]

bump

[diuretic]

swerve :laugh2:

[glockmail]

*stop* *reverse* bump *forward* bump *accellerate* :coffee:

[Missileman]

Yea, you're right. Its clear cut black and white, no shades of gray because you keep ignoring that point and insisting because you say something over and over, that makes it right. Its amazing, but every topic you get into, you do the same thing, repeat, repeat, repeat, ignore, ignore, ignore a point brought up to show you are wrong. Myoptic, thats what you are.

You're repeated avoidance of actually refuting my argument doesn't make you right.

If the bolded part is referring to that lame-ass argument about "not stealing" I didn't ignore it, I dismissed it for the illogical drivel that it was.

BTW, if you want to make out that you are smart enough to use the word myopic, it would behoove you to be able to spell it correctly.

[glockmail]

Lookie here, the #1 Queer Enabler is back.

[Said1]

Lookie here, the #1 Queer Enabler is back.

As is the queer obsessed. :laugh2:

[Missileman]

As is the queer obsessed. :laugh2:

That's because Ol Cupcake got himself a little taste of frosting and loved it.

[glockmail]

As is the queer obsessed. :laugh2:

ob·sess

transitive verb
: to haunt or excessively preoccupy the mind of <was obsessed with the idea>
intransitive verb
: to engage in obsessive thinking : become obsessed with an idea

Sorry, but methinks not. This Missleman guy, though, may meet that definition, as gay threads are nearly the only ones he inhabits.

[Said1]

ob·sess

transitive verb
: to haunt or excessively preoccupy the mind of <was obsessed with the idea>
intransitive verb
: to engage in obsessive thinking : become obsessed with an idea

Sorry, but methinks not. This Missleman guy, though, may meet that definition, as gay threads are nearly the only ones he inhabits.

Why don't you do a queer thread and post count, where you're involved. :laugh2:

[glockmail]

Why don't you do a queer thread and post count, where you're involved. :laugh2: Since you're so obsessed with that, why don't you? :poke:

[Said1]

Since you're so obsessed with that, why don't you? :poke:

I just might, for future reference. Jim might need new contest ideas.

[glockmail]

I just might, for future reference. Jim might need new contest ideas.
You go girl! :lol:

[glockmail]

bump

[GW in Ohio]

Queer enablers = liars?

What the fuck is this? Whoever started this thread managed to encapsulate a lifetime of intolerance, hate and stupidity into just 3 words.

Who started this thread? Stand up and take a bow.

Let's have a nice Ku Klux Klan, 1950s-mentality hand for the thread author.

:clap::salute::clap:

[jimnyc]

Queer enablers = liars?

What the fuck is this? Whoever started this thread managed to encapsulate a lifetime of intolerance, hate and stupidity into just 3 words.

Who started this thread? Stand up and take a bow.

Let's have a nice Ku Klux Klan, 1950s-mentality hand for the thread author.

And let's not forget the truth stated in the first post:


Some of the Big Lies about Homosexuality. It is:

1. normal
2. natural
3. healthy
4. 10% of the population
5. not a choice
6. moral
7. queers are no more likely to be child molesters

[DragonStryk72]

Issued many times in several other threads. Queer enablers dismiss and ignore proofs as a matter of course.

then what is the point of this post, or than to take a swipe, and start an argument that you know, from every other thread, will make not one dent, and will just be drama for everyone involved?

[GW in Ohio]

Some of the Big Lies about Homosexuality. It is:

1. normal
2. natural
3. healthy
4. 10% of the population
5. not a choice
6. moral
7. queers are no more likely to be child molesters


1. 2. & 5. The American Psychological Association and the non-homophobic world agree that being gay is normal and natural for many people. For others, including many lesbians, it is a choice. And so what? It's their choice, it's their life. It's not yours.

3. Healthy? There are a lot of things that aren't healthy? The heterosexual who smokes or eats fried onion rings for breakfast is following a healthy lifestyle. But isn't that what America is all about...the freedom to make those lifestyle choices for yourself?

6. Moral? I wouldn't go there if I were you. When you start to brand other people as "immoral," you make your own glass house vulnerable.

7. I believe it's been shown that most child molesters are heterosexuals.

4. No, I don't think gays are 10% of the population. Depends on whether you factor in people who have had one homosexual encounter in their lives, and other things.

[jimnyc]

Take whatever stance you like, no skin off my back. Have the queers in your neighborhood then! I've been in queer neighborhoods like the Village in NYC and I have no need for the freakshow. Every area I've ever seen that was "gay friendly" turns into a filthhole. And you're right, it is their CHOICE, as it's mine to keep my life and my family's away from the vile and perverted behavior.

[theHawk]

7. I believe it's been shown that most child molesters are heterosexuals.


Of course there are "more" hetro child molesters than gay ones. Thats because in the normal population gays only make up 1-2% of the population.
However, if they aren't more prone to be child molesters then they should only make up 1-2% of convicted child molesters. We know for a fact that isn't the case. Nearly 30% of child molestations are that of homosexual nature. Simple math tells us that the group in question is 15-30 times more likely to commit the crime than anyone else.

The numbers don't lie, unlike queer enablers like yourself. The numbers show that there is a real problem within "the gay community" when it comes to child molestation. Many "gay rights" groups have made it public that they seek to "recruit" young boys to their cause. But hey, keep sticking your head in the sand if it makes you feel better.

[Microcosmos]

How about a :link: to an unbiased website?
http://www.robincmiller.com/gayles4.htm
http://www.beyondhomophobia.com/blog/2006/10/07/child-abuse-research/
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

(Okay I'll grant you, my links are biased, but I don't have enough time to do the real research. I'll be back!)

Here's a snippet of what my links point to:

"Although Christian Right groups are highly suspicious of science in matters such as evolution and the origins of the universe, they like to argue that scientific research strongly supports their claims that homosexuality and pedophilia are linked." :scratchinghead:

[glockmail]

Queer enablers = liars?

What the fuck is this? Whoever started this thread managed to encapsulate a lifetime of intolerance, hate and stupidity into just 3 words.

Who started this thread? Stand up and take a bow.

Let's have a nice Ku Klux Klan, 1950s-mentality hand for the thread author.

:clap::salute::clap:

Why all the vitriol? It's just a question. :coffee:

[glockmail]

then what is the point of this post, or than to take a swipe, and start an argument that you know, from every other thread, will make not one dent, and will just be drama for everyone involved?
Drama is underated.

[actsnoblemartin]

your forgot the gay and liberal mantra, if you question, youre a racist, if you think for yourself, you need re education camp, if you dont agree with them, youre a homophobe :laugh2:


Why all the vitriol? It's just a question. :coffee:

[actsnoblemartin]

I admire you for having the balls to tell the truth about homosexuality


In another thread I have been attacked as having "issues" because I have a adverse opinion of queers and post my opinion often on the queer threads. The fact is that I do it because I don't like being lied to, and the entire queer "industry" is based on several huge lies. I would argue that the queer enablers are the ones with "issues", as they don't mind being lied to, and in fact perpetuate the lies.

Some of the Big Lies about Homosexuality. It is:

1. normal
2. natural
3. healthy
4. 10% of the population
5. not a choice
6. moral
7. queers are no more likely to be child molesters

Any that I missed? :poke:

[glockmail]

your forgot the gay and liberal mantra, if you question, youre a racist, if you think for yourself, you need re education camp, if you dont agree with them, youre a homophobe :laugh2:


I admire you for having the balls to tell the truth about homosexuality
Thanks. One purpose of this thread is to have the queer enablers demonstrate these tactics, to see how shallow they are. So far its worked brilliantly!

[Missileman]

However, if they aren't more prone to be child molesters then they should only make up 1-2% of convicted child molesters. We know for a fact that isn't the case. Nearly 30% of child molestations are that of homosexual nature. Simple math tells us that the group in question is 15-30 times more likely to commit the crime than anyone else.

The conclusion drawn from your simple math is in error. It could only be true if the number of victims per offender were the same for both groups. The same folks who compiled that 30% figure also noted that a homosexual pedophile is 7-times more prolific than a heterosexual pedophile.

[Microcosmos]

your forgot the gay and liberal mantra, if you question, youre a racist, if you think for yourself, you need re education camp, if you dont agree with them, youre a homophobe :laugh2:

Disagree all you want, I'm only asking that you back up your outrageous and libelous claims with some factual evidence (not from books that cite other books erroneously, but from the sources themselves), or at least some serious thought. Quoting obvious lies used to misfeed people who believe in Christ does not impress me. (At least we're not debating Intelligent Design over Evolution anymore, thank goodness!)

[glockmail]

The conclusion drawn from your simple math is in error. It could only be true if the number of victims per offender were the same for both groups. The same folks who compiled that 30% figure also noted that a homosexual pedophile is 7-times more prolific than a heterosexual pedophile.

If that is true then queers are 2-4 times more likely to be pedophiles and if they do become pedophiles are likely to be serial pedophiles.

Those are damning statistics!

[Microcosmos]

I respect Christianity, and Christians. But I do not respect the few preachers who feel a need to demonize somebody. God forbid [literally] somebody be given equal rights, whether they be female, black, foreign-born, or gay! This thread, oddly enough, doesn't upset me as much as you might think it would. We've all come so far, that looking back it's pretty amazing the stuff folks used to be forbidden to do because they were considered to be less than fully human. Human rights baby! That's what I'm talking about. Throw as much dirt in my face as you want, if that's all you can do legally, all that means is that I have to take an extra shower. No big deal. But if you start forbidding actual freedoms that you yourself enjoy, for no other reason than I am different in a way that affects you not one bit personally (gays acting up in gay parts of town? How about straight folks acting up in every college campus in the country? Last I heard there weren't any gay bar patrons breaking into people's houses, dragging out couches and setting them on fire, which happened in MD the other year), I start to get riled up. But looking at how much things have changed, and how much support we have from the majority of folks (meaning that a lot of straight folks support us, you know) I calm down again. Sorry, I'm rambling but I just wanted to throw in about a quarter's worth this time.

[glockmail]

Gee I've been to church about 40 times per year for nearly 50 and have yet to hear sinners demonized.

[theHawk]

The conclusion drawn from your simple math is in error. It could only be true if the number of victims per offender were the same for both groups. The same folks who compiled that 30% figure also noted that a homosexual pedophile is 7-times more prolific than a heterosexual pedophile.

Yes it is true that homosexual pedophiles are more likely to do their crime repeatedly, and against more victims. Its just goes to show how dangerous homosexual pedophiles are. But victims aside, there are still far more than 2% of child molesters that are fags.

[actsnoblemartin]

and youre two times more likely to get aids being a homosexual male, as you would be a straight male

No, tolerance to gays, is me bending over and taking it, no thanks :pee:


Yes it is true that homosexual pedophiles are more likely to do their crime repeatedly, and against more victims. Its just goes to show how dangerous homosexual pedophiles are. But victims aside, there are still far more than 2% of child molesters that are fags.

[Missileman]

Yes it is true that homosexual pedophiles are more likely to do their crime repeatedly, and against more victims. Its just goes to show how dangerous homosexual pedophiles are. But victims aside, there are still far more than 2% of child molesters that are fags.

The 1-2% figure is in error according to the last census. It's more in the 3.5% range. When you account for the higher number of victims, a homosexual person is not significantly more likely to molest a child as purported.

[actsnoblemartin]

what study are you referring to and what do you mean 1-2, 3-5 , what do those numbers represent


The 1-2% figure is in error according to the last census. It's more in the 3.5% range. When you account for the higher number of victims, a homosexual person is not significantly more likely to molest a child as purported.

[Microcosmos]

Gee I've been to church about 40 times per year for nearly 50 and have yet to hear sinners demonized.

The fact that you consider homosexuality a sin is bad enough for me.

[Pale Rider]

The 1-2% figure is in error according to the last census. It's more in the 3.5% range. When you account for the higher number of victims, a homosexual person is not significantly more likely to molest a child as purported.

Yes they are. After one takes that perverted leap against nature to have sex with the same sex, molesting a child then is not that much bigger of a stretch.

[Pale Rider]

The fact that you consider homosexuality a sin is bad enough for me.

Homosexuality is not only a sin, it's an abomination.

Are you a new board fag apologist?

[bullypulpit]

Hey, PR...Your Freudian slip is showing...you big ole closet queen you.

[Missileman]

Yes they are.

The facts say otherwise. Also, your "path of perversion" theory fails to explain why at least 95% of pedophiles are heterosexual.

[Missileman]

Make that 94%

[Microcosmos]

Homosexuality is not only a sin, it's an abomination.

Are you a new board fag apologist?

So is eating shellfish. Have you ever tasted crabs or shrimp, PR? Oh no! That's an abomination! It amuses me when people pick and choose certain Bible quotes but completely ignore others that don't meet their needs.

Are you an old board bigot?

[Microcosmos]

Here's a more measured response, from Soulforce.org:

What the Bible Says - And Doesn't Say - About Homosexuality
by Rev. Mel White, co-founder of Soulforce


A Biblical response to the question people often ask... "How can you consider yourself a Christian when you are also gay?"

In this 24-page booklet, Mel White puts forward these eight premises:

1. Most people have not carefully and prayerfully researched the Biblical texts used by some people to condemn God's lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender children.
2. Historically, people's misinterpretation of the Bible has left a trail of suffering, bloodshed, and death.
3. We should be open to new truth from Scripture. Even heroes of the Christian faith have changed their minds about the meaning of various Biblical texts.
4. The Bible is a book about God. The Bible is not a book about human sexuality.
5. We miss what these passages say about God when we spend so much time debating what they say about sex.
6. The Biblical authors are silent about homosexual orientation as we know it today. They neither approve it nor condemn it.
7. The prophets, Jesus, and the Biblical authors say nothing about homosexual orientation as we understand it today. But, they are clear about this one thing. As we search for truth, we are to "Love one another."
8. Whatever some people believe the Bible seems to say about homosexuality, they must not use that belief to deny homosexuals their basic civil rights. To discriminate against sexual or gender minorities is unjust and un-American.

[manu1959]

Here's a more measured response, from Soulforce.org:

What the Bible Says - And Doesn't Say - About Homosexuality
by Rev. Mel White, co-founder of Soulforce


A Biblical response to the question people often ask... "How can you consider yourself a Christian when you are also gay?"

In this 24-page booklet, Mel White puts forward these eight premises:

1. Most people have not carefully and prayerfully researched the Biblical texts used by some people to condemn God's lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender children.
2. Historically, people's misinterpretation of the Bible has left a trail of suffering, bloodshed, and death.
3. We should be open to new truth from Scripture. Even heroes of the Christian faith have changed their minds about the meaning of various Biblical texts.
4. The Bible is a book about God. The Bible is not a book about human sexuality.
5. We miss what these passages say about God when we spend so much time debating what they say about sex.
6. The Biblical authors are silent about homosexual orientation as we know it today. They neither approve it nor condemn it.
7. The prophets, Jesus, and the Biblical authors say nothing about homosexual orientation as we understand it today. But, they are clear about this one thing. As we search for truth, we are to "Love one another."
8. Whatever some people believe the Bible seems to say about homosexuality, they must not use that belief to deny homosexuals their basic civil rights. To discriminate against sexual or gender minorities is unjust and un-American.

religious doctrine for each faith is set by whom.....can't think of one that says homosexuality is not a sin.....as for me....have all the gay sex you want.....biologically it is pointless......

[Missileman]

biologically it is pointless......

So is the vast majority of heterosexual sex.

[manu1959]

So is the vast majority of heterosexual sex.

feel free to point out all the humans produced as a result of gay sex.....

[Missileman]

feel free to point out all the humans produced as a result of gay sex.....

Right after you provide the numbers of hetero copulations that weren't performed to produce a child.

[actsnoblemartin]

if everyone was gay, we would die out as a civilization. if everyone was straight, we wouldnt, and still dont need every straight couple to reproduce.

what part of that, do you not understand

that is gods plan, for islam, judaism, and christianianity


Right after you provide the numbers of hetero copulations that weren't performed to produce a child.

[Missileman]

if everyone was gay, we would die out as a civilization. if everyone was straight, we wouldnt, and still dont need every straight couple to reproduce.

what part of that, do you not understand

that is gods plan, for islam, judaism, and christianianity

The existence of gays doesn't seem to be having a negative effect on population growth. People have sex for reasons other than reproduction.

[actsnoblemartin]

I am not saying that the existence of gays is lowering the birth rate, i am saying gays cant reproduce without cheating.

and of course, i dont think hetero's should have to only have sex to make babies.

:laugh2:


The existence of gays doesn't seem to be having a negative effect on population growth. People have sex for reasons other than reproduction.

[Microcosmos]

What about bisexuals? Include them and we're talking about a much higher percentage of people that at least some of the time are attracted to others of the same sex. Maybe that's why some people feel homosexuality is a choice, because for them it is: they are choosing between two genders that hold an equal sexual attraction for them. I have no problem with bi folks, in fact I envy them; like Henry Rollins said, they can walk into a bar and look at the whole room and go "All right!"

[actsnoblemartin]

I dont think bi-sexuals should be allowed to serve, for the same reason that i believe gays should be able to serve.

I dont want immoral lifestyles and behavior allowed in the military, i only want good moral people in there


What about bisexuals? Include them and we're talking about a much higher percentage of people that at least some of the time are attracted to others of the same sex. Maybe that's why some people feel homosexuality is a choice, because for them it is: they are choosing between two genders that hold an equal sexual attraction for them. I have no problem with bi folks, in fact I envy them; like Henry Rollins said, they can walk into a bar and look at the whole room and go "All right!"

[Microcosmos]

*Psssst. Dude. That's the other thread. We're weren't talking about the military in this thread*

Ahem and er uh oh yeah, bisexuals. What about bisexuals? Are they "normal" "natural" "healthy" "moral" etc?

[LuvRPgrl]

ob·sess

transitive verb
: to haunt or excessively preoccupy the mind of <was obsessed with the idea>
intransitive verb
: to engage in obsessive thinking : become obsessed with an idea

Sorry, but methinks not. This Missleman guy, though, may meet that definition, as gay threads are nearly the only ones he inhabits.

And pedophilia.....

[LuvRPgrl]

Right after you provide the numbers of hetero copulations that weren't performed to produce a child.

1. How many homosexuals relations can produce children?
2. How many heterosexual relations can produed children?

3. How many homosexual relations dont produce children?
4. How many heterosexual relations dont produce children?

% wise, you lose on both counts.

Comparing #1with #4 is, illogical, stupid, a ploy, deceiving, wrong.
Your tactics are exposed.

[LuvRPgrl]

Here's a more measured response, from Soulforce.org:

What the Bible Says - And Doesn't Say - About Homosexuality
by Rev. Mel White, co-founder of Soulforce


A Biblical response to the question people often ask... "How can you consider yourself a Christian when you are also gay?"

In this 24-page booklet, Mel White puts forward these eight premises:

1. Most people have not carefully and prayerfully researched the Biblical texts used by some people to condemn God's lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender children.
2. Historically, people's misinterpretation of the Bible has left a trail of suffering, bloodshed, and death.
3. We should be open to new truth from Scripture. Even heroes of the Christian faith have changed their minds about the meaning of various Biblical texts.
4. The Bible is a book about God. The Bible is not a book about human sexuality.
5. We miss what these passages say about God when we spend so much time debating what they say about sex.
6. The Biblical authors are silent about homosexual orientation as we know it today. They neither approve it nor condemn it.
7. The prophets, Jesus, and the Biblical authors say nothing about homosexual orientation as we understand it today. But, they are clear about this one thing. As we search for truth, we are to "Love one another."
8. Whatever some people believe the Bible seems to say about homosexuality, they must not use that belief to deny homosexuals their basic civil rights. To discriminate against sexual or gender minorities is unjust and un-American.

This guy is soooo far off base.
All of it, but particularly "The Bible is about God", nope, its about God's relation with man, and mankind's relation with mankind.

[LuvRPgrl]

The existence of gays doesn't seem to be having a negative effect on population growth. People have sex for reasons other than reproduction.


You are joking, right?

You dont actually think that if all the homos were having sex with another gender instead, that they wouldnt produce any offspring? And what number shall we compare that to, the offspring they produce from same gender sex?

Hint, ANY number is an increase from ZERO

[bullypulpit]

You are joking, right?

You dont actually think that if all the homos were having sex with another gender instead, that they wouldnt produce any offspring? And what number shall we compare that to, the offspring they produce from same gender sex?

Hint, ANY number is an increase from ZERO

So, what's your point? My wife and I can't have kids...So we should stop having sex? Bullshit. The whole "sex-for-reproduction" argument the homophobes here keep throwing up has no credibility, and is so shot full of holes as to be useless. But then so are all of the other arguments against same gender couples being being given the smae rights and responsibilities as straight couples.

[Missileman]

1. How many homosexuals relations can produce children?
2. How many heterosexual relations can produed children?

3. How many homosexual relations dont produce children?
4. How many heterosexual relations dont produce children?

% wise, you lose on both counts.

Comparing #1with #4 is, illogical, stupid, a ploy, deceiving, wrong.
Your tactics are exposed.

You're clueless as usual. There was an argument raised that homosexual sex is biologically useless. While it is true, the vast majority of heterosexual sex is performed WITHOUT the intent to produce offspring and also biologically useless.

[Missileman]

You are joking, right?

You're stupid, right? Is the world's population not increasing?

[glockmail]

The fact that you consider homosexuality a sin is bad enough for me. It is a sin. A Big One.

[bullypulpit]

It is a sin. A Big One.

So, based upon religious grounds, the government is permitted to discriminate against a population for behavior which represents no demonstrable threat or harm to you, me, or any one else. Sounds like the First and Fourth amendments are trumped by the irrationality of religious dogma. Not what Founders had in mind, I'm certain.

[glockmail]

So, based upon religious grounds, the government is permitted to discriminate against a population for behavior which represents no demonstrable threat or harm to you, me, or any one else. Sounds like the First and Fourth amendments are trumped by the irrationality of religious dogma. Not what Founders had in mind, I'm certain. You could make the same argument about illegal drugs. :coffee:

[actsnoblemartin]

Hello missileman, how are you today?

while i know this is a cantankerous issue :laugh2:

allow me to make my point :coffee:

while most heterosexual sex is not done to reproduce, you are correct :dance:

equally true, i would think is that if all heterosexuals stopped having children, there would be so civilization, and certainly that includes homosexuals as well as heterosexuals

surely we can disagree without being disagreeable :cheers2:


You're clueless as usual. There was an argument raised that homosexual sex is biologically useless. While it is true, the vast majority of heterosexual sex is performed WITHOUT the intent to produce offspring and also biologically useless.

[actsnoblemartin]

with all due respect bully :cheers2:, because i dont think we have to hate or dislike each other, and/or be venomous towards each other just cause we disagree. were not talking about just you and youre wife. I am sorry that you two cant have kids first of all. there is always adoption, have you tried that route?

secondly, the bigger issue is if all heterosexuals stop having kids, not 1 or two couples or the 10% of heterosexual couples roughly estimated to be childfree by choice.

I think it is really sad you have to slander people who for religious reasons, which are billions of people on this planet, muslims, jews, christians have a moral objection to it, therefore to you they are the enemy.. instead of simply having a different opinion then you

homosexuals cant have children without cheating, i.e. using technology or a heterosexual person because as we both know homosexual sex between two women or two men cant make two kids. So were just gonna have to disagree about rights to kids there. And I and many others dont believe children should be raised by gays, again, we'll have to agree to disagree there. I dont see why gays deserve any special rights or responsibilities simply for being gay, but again, i must be the enemy right? :laugh2:

have a good day bullypulpit


So, what's your point? My wife and I can't have kids...So we should stop having sex? Bullshit. The whole "sex-for-reproduction" argument the homophobes here keep throwing up has no credibility, and is so shot full of holes as to be useless. But then so are all of the other arguments against same gender couples being being given the smae rights and responsibilities as straight couples.

[actsnoblemartin]

so based on youre argument, the government has to change the definition of marriage, and give government recognigtion to an alternative lifestyle to heterosexuality and heterosexual marriage.

well if we do that, we have to do the same for poligamy, and any other behavior which people find immoral.

Funny, i never saw traditional marriage, and traditional family as discrimination but as saving our society. I think gays want the benefits of marriage, not to truly be married, after all just look at gays in the 70's. Funny how gays, and their activist friends :laugh2:, want to impose their definition on us, and kids.


So, based upon religious grounds, the government is permitted to discriminate against a population for behavior which represents no demonstrable threat or harm to you, me, or any one else. Sounds like the First and Fourth amendments are trumped by the irrationality of religious dogma. Not what Founders had in mind, I'm certain.

[actsnoblemartin]

I'd like some coke in my coffee

:laugh2:


You could make the same argument about illegal drugs. :coffee:

[actsnoblemartin]

since when is sex useless? :laugh2:


You're clueless as usual. There was an argument raised that homosexual sex is biologically useless. While it is true, the vast majority of heterosexual sex is performed WITHOUT the intent to produce offspring and also biologically useless.

[Microcosmos]

An interesting point from Diversity Inc. Magazine:


Because we're tribal animals, I think there is a little bigot in all of us. Familiarity, information, training, clearly expressed values and love are the enemies of the little bigot. I don't think a person can extinguish the little bigot entirely, but acknowledging its presence helps to extinguish its boastful power.

There are people, however, who are not well intentioned. They cultivate the little bigot in others and use subjects like orientation to raise money and create a powerbase from fermenting hate. They disingenuously hide behind touchstones like "patriotism" or "religion" to adapt a seemingly irrefutable position. Good people become confused and do not want to "disrespect" another person's "beliefs." It is easy to cut through the smoke and mirrors if you are clear on your values.

[glockmail]

Oh look the bigot card. Whouda thunk? :pee:

[manu1959]

You're clueless as usual. There was an argument raised that homosexual sex is biologically useless. While it is true, the vast majority of heterosexual sex is performed WITHOUT the intent to produce offspring and also biologically useless.

heterosexual sex biologically exisits to further the species....

they same can not be said for gay sex...

[Missileman]

heterosexual sex biologically exisits to further the species....


It's purpose far surpasses reproduction...otherwise there'd be no need for contraception.

[Microcosmos]

Including the bisexual population ("part-timers" and "experimenters"), wouldn't the percentage of homosexual activity increase waaaay beyond 10%?

[actsnoblemartin]

I dont know :laugh2:


Including the bisexual population ("part-timers" and "experimenters"), wouldn't the percentage of homosexual activity increase waaaay beyond 10%?

[bullypulpit]

so based on youre argument, the government has to change the definition of marriage, and give government recognigtion to an alternative lifestyle to heterosexuality and heterosexual marriage.

well if we do that, we have to do the same for poligamy, and any other behavior which people find immoral.

Funny, i never saw traditional marriage, and traditional family as discrimination but as saving our society. I think gays want the benefits of marriage, not to truly be married, after all just look at gays in the 70's. Funny how gays, and their activist friends :laugh2:, want to impose their definition on us, and kids.

The only legitimate issue the government has regarding marriage is in the contractual obligations and relationships it establishes. The genders of the individuals involved should be of no concern to the government beyond that they are consenting adults.

[actsnoblemartin]

why not 3 or 4 consenting adults.

so youre saying... dont discriminate against gays, but :fu: poligamists.

and for the record im talking about consenting adults only.

the government gives benefits to hetero's for a reason, i believe gays want the benefits, not to truly be married :poke:


The only legitimate issue the government has regarding marriage is in the contractual obligations and relationships it establishes. The genders of the individuals involved should be of no concern to the government beyond that they are consenting adults.

[actsnoblemartin]

marriage doesnt establish a relationship, it establishes a life time committment between a man and women, so that IN MOST CASES, a family will be born out of the man and woman.

two fags, i mean gays :laugh2:, cant do that .

oh common gay supporters, learn to take a joke :coffee:


The only legitimate issue the government has regarding marriage is in the contractual obligations and relationships it establishes. The genders of the individuals involved should be of no concern to the government beyond that they are consenting adults.

[Microcosmos]

Does that mean people who are impotent should be denied the right to a loving partnership that has the full support of employers and the government? Things that make ya go hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

[glockmail]

Including the bisexual population ("part-timers" and "experimenters"), wouldn't the percentage of homosexual activity increase waaaay beyond 10%? Then document it.

[glockmail]

Does that mean people who are impotent should be denied the right to a loving partnership that has the full support of employers and the government? Things that make ya go hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.Why should employers and the guv'mint support something that is abnormal, unhealthy and unnatural?

[Microcosmos]

Why should employers and the guv'mint support something that is abnormal, unhealthy and unnatural?

So impotent folks have it just as bad as gays, huh? At least you share the wealth! (of bigotry)

[bullypulpit]

Let's address your ignorance one point at a time.


why not 3 or 4 consenting adults.

so youre saying... dont discriminate against gays, but poligamists.

and for the record im talking about consenting adults only.

the government gives benefits to hetero's for a reason, i believe gays want the benefits, not to truly be married

As for three of four consenting adults...Why not?

Why does the government refuse to extend the same benefits to same gender couples that it does to traditional couples? Do you even know ANY gay people, let alone those in committed, loving long term relationships? If not, your 'belief' is irrelevant.


marriage doesnt establish a relationship, it establishes a life time committment between a man and women, so that IN MOST CASES, a family will be born out of the man and woman.

two fags, i mean gays, cant do that .

oh common gay supporters, learn to take a joke :coffee:

<blockquote>Main Entry: <b>mar·riage</b>
Pronunciation: \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
Date: 14th century

<b>1 a (1):</b> the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law <b>(2):</b> the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> <b>b:</b> the mutual <b><i>relation</b></i> of married persons - Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary</blockquote>

Marriage is, indeed a relationship. And the only legitimate interest of the state in that relationship is the contractual obligation it imposes in the individuals involved. How is the property divided in the event of death or divorce...Who is responsible for the raising of children in the event of death or divorce...Who is responsible for decisions involved in end of life or health care issues when one or the other spouse is unable to make such decisions. The gender of the individuals involved is irrelevant. There is no rational basis for barring same-gender couples from the same benefits and responsibilities as traditional couples.

My wife and I can't have children...does that invalidate our marriage? No. Ours was a civil ceremony, no religious dogma nor any deity's name was invoked. It was, in essence, a contract under which we assumed certain duties and obligations to each other under the law.

So grow up, and get a grip.

[manu1959]

supreme court in SF is hearing arguments on this today.......

one of the first questions from the justice.....(paraphrased)....can you point to the part of the constition that grants this right to marriage to gay couples....

[manu1959]

You're stupid, right? Is the world's population not increasing?

not if we rely on gay sex it won't.....:poke:

[bullypulpit]

supreme court in SF is hearing arguments on this today.......

one of the first questions from the justice.....(paraphrased)....can you point to the part of the constition that grants this right to marriage to gay couples....

Can you point to the part of the Constitution that limits the institution of marriage only to a man and woman?

[Missileman]

supreme court in SF is hearing arguments on this today.......

one of the first questions from the justice.....(paraphrased)....can you point to the part of the constition that grants this right to marriage to gay couples....

Indeed, it's on the same page that grants the right of marriage to straight couples.

[manu1959]

Indeed, it's on the same page that grants the right of marriage to straight couples.

turns out the SF supreme court said they have all the rights they need and have no more or no less than married couples.....