View Full Version : Queer enablers = liars
manu1959
03-04-2008, 04:51 PM
Can you point to the part of the Constitution that limits the institution of marriage only to a man and woman?
just telling you what a sf judge asked ...don't like the question take it up with him /her/it.....
Missileman
03-04-2008, 04:52 PM
not if we rely on gay sex it won't.....:poke:
When the number of gays hits 50-60% of the population there might be something to be concerned about. I haven't seen any data that suggests an increase in the numbers of gays that's disproportional to the increase of the overall population. I'd say that the chances that mankind will need to rely on gays to maintain the species are negligible.
manu1959
03-04-2008, 04:54 PM
When the number of gays hits 50-60% of the population there might be something to be concerned about. I haven't seen any data that suggests an increase in the numbers of gays that's disproportional to the increase of the overall population. I'd say that the chances that mankind will need to rely on gays to maintain the species are negligible.
not worried in the least.....btw how are gays planning to maintain their species....
Missileman
03-04-2008, 04:56 PM
not worried in the least.....btw how are gays planning to maintain their species....
Seems the heteros are pumping them out in sufficient numbers....go figure! :poke:
manu1959
03-04-2008, 04:58 PM
Seems the heteros are pumping them out in sufficient numbers....go figure! :poke:
well i guess when gays can start pumping out their own members they can get married....till then.........:poke:
glockmail
03-05-2008, 07:01 AM
Seems the heteros are pumping them out in sufficient numbers....go figure! :poke: Yeah about 1%- big numbers.:lame2:
actsnoblemartin
03-05-2008, 04:54 PM
i wish we could make this little guy :lame2: say other words, it would be rad!
Yeah about 1%- big numbers.:lame2:
LuvRPgrl
03-12-2008, 01:02 AM
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.
The govt has concerns if it is an issue that has or potentially has great impact on our society. And that is BY THEIR OPINION if it has a great impact.
Marriage is not a right, its a privledge, hence those giving out the privledge, dictate who it is appropriate to give it to.
Age discrimination is illegal, yet we dont allow minors to drink or drive, for the most part, because it has a potential or real major impact on society.
Marriage is not for the benefit of those married, but for the benefit of society in that it fosters stronger and better families. It is for the children for the most part, because a stable family home is in their best interest.
If we had a society set up where the kids are not raised by mom and dad for the most part, but instead go into a type of communal herd raised by the entire local community equally, then marriage would not be necessary and all its aspects would be strictly legal. The marriage bond is a "promise" between a man and a woman, and this promise, why not legally binding, is an attempt to keep disheartened married couples from breaking the bonds quite so easily, and in the long run, that effort is to help the kids.
Their is absolutely no societal advantage for homos to marry, or stay married. Hence the privledge should not be extended to them.
Pale Rider
03-12-2008, 02:29 AM
not worried in the least.....btw how are gays planning to maintain their species....
Well as of late, it has been a push to indoctrinate very young children in school, and then tell the parents they have no right to oppose it, and they have no right to home school. What a deal, a legally captive audience, and there's nothing you can do about it.
Little-Acorn
03-12-2008, 11:49 AM
not worried in the least.....btw how are gays planning to maintain their species....
"Gays cannot reproduce. They must convert."
(seen on a protest sign)
glockmail
03-12-2008, 03:52 PM
"Gays cannot reproduce. They must convert."
(seen on a protest sign)
Would make a great T shirt.:lol:
LuvRPgrl
03-15-2008, 01:05 AM
Seems the heteros are pumping them out in sufficient numbers....go figure! :poke:
Not in Europe.
Missileman
03-15-2008, 09:48 AM
Not in Europe.
Really? That an opinion or is it based on some real numbers?
LuvRPgrl
03-15-2008, 04:20 PM
Really? That an opinion or is it based on some real numbers?
compare the numbers of real live births by Europeans compared to Americans in the US.
Missileman
03-15-2008, 06:25 PM
compare the numbers of real live births by Europeans compared to Americans in the US.
What does that have to do with the percentage of gays being born to hetero couples?
Said1
03-15-2008, 08:16 PM
What does that have to do with the percentage of gays being born to hetero couples?
I guess declining birth rates is indicative to gayness per total population? :laugh2:
LuvRPgrl
03-16-2008, 01:59 AM
What does that have to do with the percentage of gays being born to hetero couples?
You brought it up.
Typical of you though. Proven wrong and you run.
coward
Missileman
03-16-2008, 09:57 AM
You brought it up.
Typical of you though. Proven wrong and you run.
coward
Damned if you aren't a total imbecile. YOU brought Europe up. Where's YOUR evidence that the percentage of homosexuals being born to heterosexuals is LOWER in Europe than it is here in the U.S. ?
glockmail
03-18-2008, 05:47 AM
Damned if you aren't a total imbecile. YOU brought Europe up. Where's YOUR evidence that the percentage of homosexuals being born to heterosexuals is LOWER in Europe than it is here in the U.S. ?
You brought up the base argument. He gave an well-known example where your argument fails.
LuvRPgrl
03-18-2008, 06:32 PM
Damned if you aren't a total imbecile. YOU brought Europe up. Where's YOUR evidence that the percentage of homosexuals being born to heterosexuals is LOWER in Europe than it is here in the U.S. ?
Im seriously concerned about your mental health.
This is how it started :
Quote:
Originally Posted by Missileman
Seems the heteros are pumping them out in sufficient numbers....go figure!
My response, "Not in Europe."
Missileman
03-18-2008, 09:38 PM
Im seriously concerned about your mental health.
This is how it started :
Quote:
Originally Posted by Missileman
Seems the heteros are pumping them out in sufficient numbers....go figure!
My response, "Not in Europe."
Exactly! YOU brought Europe into the conversation and as yet have provided no evidence that the percentage of gays in Europe is dwindling. Still waiting.
Perhaps you missed the context...the "them" in the line of mine you just quoted is referring to homosexuals.
glockmail
03-19-2008, 07:48 AM
Exactly! YOU brought Europe into the conversation and as yet have provided no evidence that the percentage of gays in Europe is dwindling. Still waiting.
Perhaps you missed the context...the "them" in the line of mine you just quoted is referring to homosexuals.
A desparate attempt by MM to put words in someone's mouth. Pitiful.
LuvRPgrl
03-20-2008, 02:06 AM
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.
NOPE and NOPE
LuvRPgrl
03-20-2008, 02:09 AM
Can you point to the part of the Constitution that limits the institution of marriage only to a man and woman?
Marriage isnt a right, its a privledge. Marriage license, drivers license. Its in the interest of govt and society to foster healthy enviorments for kids to grow up in. If it werent for that, the govt could care less and wouldnt be involved in marriage any more than its involved in baptisms or kids going "stready"
LuvRPgrl
03-20-2008, 02:10 AM
Indeed, it's on the same page that grants the right of marriage to straight couples.
homosexual fags have the right to marry. End of issue, :lol:
LuvRPgrl
03-20-2008, 02:12 AM
Exactly! YOU brought Europe into the conversation and as yet have provided no evidence that the percentage of gays in Europe is dwindling. Still waiting.
Perhaps you missed the context...the "them" in the line of mine you just quoted is referring to homosexuals.
PERCENTAGE"?'.nice try, but you said they are pumping them out in sufficient enough NUMBERS,,,the numbers of births in Europe are dwindling, hence the NUMBERS of Homo's would be dwindling also
And, I didnt bring it up, YOU DID
Missileman
03-20-2008, 04:01 PM
PERCENTAGE"?'.nice try, but you said they are pumping them out in sufficient enough NUMBERS,,,the numbers of births in Europe are dwindling, hence the NUMBERS of Homo's would be dwindling also
And, I didnt bring it up, YOU DID
Numbers sufficient to maintain their percentage in the population. You seem to be the only one who didn't grasp that.
Missileman
03-20-2008, 04:04 PM
Marriage isnt a right, its a privledge.
homosexual fags have the right to marry. End of issue, :lol:
You just argued two opposite positions in consecutive posts...imbecile!
Marriage isnt a right, its a privledge. Marriage license, drivers license. Its in the interest of govt and society to foster healthy enviorments for kids to grow up in. If it werent for that, the govt could care less and wouldnt be involved in marriage any more than its involved in baptisms or kids going "stready"
actually, marriage is a fundamental right
glockmail
03-20-2008, 04:31 PM
actually, marriage is a fundamental right
So I have a right to be married to Kim Basinger?
So I have a right to be married to Kim Basinger?
if she's dumb enought to accept :laugh2:
glockmail
03-20-2008, 06:55 PM
if she's dumb enought to accept :laugh2:
She accepted Alex....
LuvRPgrl
03-23-2008, 02:38 AM
You just argued two opposite positions in consecutive posts...imbecile!
You are right, but you think its productive to call me an imbecile because I made one mistake? Ha, shows how desperate you are.
I should have said they have the privledge to marry. My mistake, but when the lie is repeated often enough, its easy to repeat it.
I use to think 10 percent of the population was homo, and I helped spread that lie...
and there is a host of other examples.
So, the homo fags have been given the same privledge as everyone else. And frankly, Im glad you pointed out my error so that I shant go on repeating as I most surely would have.
LuvRPgrl
03-23-2008, 02:42 AM
actually, marriage is a fundamental right
Where exactly, is that in the Constitution>?
Some cultures dont even have marriage as we have it.
Human rights should not be able to be taken away by the govt, if the person, persons involved have done nothing to cause its removal.
Why dont I have the right to marry TWO WOMEN? or my dog, or my daughter?
LuvRPgrl
03-23-2008, 02:49 AM
Numbers sufficient to maintain their percentage in the population. You seem to be the only one who didn't grasp that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by manu1959
not worried in the least.....btw how are gays planning to maintain their species....
Seems the heteros are pumping them out in sufficient numbers....go figure!
You musta had a good dance instructor !!!
But I dont see any mention of percentage there.
You stated that heteros are pumping them out in sufficient enough numbers to maintain their species , maintaining ones species is a matter of sheer numbers, NOT PERCENTAGES of anything.
so I mentioned the fact that the SHEER NUMBERS are dwindling in Europe.
YOU BROUGHT IT UP.
Now, lets see if you can be man enough, and show some character, and admit you are wrong. I do recall someone else doing that recently, :) , lets see if you can do it too.
Missileman
03-23-2008, 09:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by manu1959
not worried in the least.....btw how are gays planning to maintain their species....
Seems the heteros are pumping them out in sufficient numbers....go figure!
You musta had a good dance instructor !!!
But I dont see any mention of percentage there.
You stated that heteros are pumping them out in sufficient enough numbers to maintain their species , maintaining ones species is a matter of sheer numbers, NOT PERCENTAGES of anything.
so I mentioned the fact that the SHEER NUMBERS are dwindling in Europe.
YOU BROUGHT IT UP.
Now, lets see if you can be man enough, and show some character, and admit you are wrong. I do recall someone else doing that recently, :) , lets see if you can do it too.
There's no dancing involved. Whether it's 3 or 4 out of 100 or 3,000,000-4,000,000 out of 100,000,000, the homosexual population is being maintained by the heterosexual couples that have children. Their NUMBERS within the total population appears to remain fairly constant. That NUMBER is typically represented with a PERCENTAGE.
LuvRPgrl
03-23-2008, 01:55 PM
There's no dancing involved. Whether it's 3 or 4 out of 100 or 3,000,000-4,000,000 out of 100,000,000, the homosexual population is being maintained by the heterosexual couples that have children. Their NUMBERS within the total population appears to remain fairly constant. That NUMBER is typically represented with a PERCENTAGE.
WHICH is not happening in Europe. And YOU brought it up, just as I suspected, you wont take responsability for mis stating something, BUT HEY MAN, not all of us can be like you "NEVER WRONG"
Missileman
03-23-2008, 02:15 PM
WHICH is not happening in Europe. And YOU brought it up, just as I suspected, you wont take responsability for mis stating something, BUT HEY MAN, not all of us can be like you "NEVER WRONG"
Where is your data that this:
Originally Posted by Missileman
Their NUMBERS within the total population appears to remain fairly constant. That NUMBER is typically represented with a PERCENTAGE.
is not happening in Europe as YOU just claimed?
LuvRPgrl
03-25-2008, 02:53 AM
Where is your data that this:
is not happening in Europe as YOU just claimed?
funny how you pulled that out of context.
My statement, that it isnt happening in Europe was in response to statement BEFORE the two you selected.\\
Your tactics are obvious and pathetically weak, just proves you are deserate and wrong.
since their population by natural birth is dwindling, then they ARENT maintaining the homosexual population also.
Missileman
03-25-2008, 07:12 AM
funny how you pulled that out of context.
My statement, that it isnt happening in Europe was in response to statement BEFORE the two you selected.\\
Your tactics are obvious and pathetically weak, just proves you are deserate and wrong.
since their population by natural birth is dwindling, then they ARENT maintaining the homosexual population also.
Then PLEASE provide the data that "Whether it's 3 or 4 out of 100 or 3,000,000-4,000,000 out of 100,000,000, the homosexual population is being maintained by the heterosexual couples that have children." isn't true.
That's not out of context, and the statement CLEARLY states the maintenance of a 3-4 PERCENT population.
Pale Rider
03-27-2008, 05:17 PM
Then PLEASE provide the data that "Whether it's 3 or 4 out of 100 or 3,000,000-4,000,000 out of 100,000,000, the homosexual population is being maintained by the heterosexual couples that have children." isn't true.
That's not out of context, and the statement CLEARLY states the maintenance of a 3-4 PERCENT population.
No that statement isn't true. The sneaky fags are doing their damnedest to indoctrinate young children in schools. They ought to be cast out of every possible public entity for the good of man.
Missileman
03-27-2008, 05:33 PM
No that statement isn't true. The sneaky fags are doing their damnedest to indoctrinate young children in schools. They ought to be cast out of every possible public entity for the good of man.
Sorry Pale, but it's an undeniable fact that nearly every, if not every, homosexual is born to heterosexual parents. As yet, I've seen no evidence that awareness of the existence of homosexuals has caused anyone to "switch teams". If kids to be "talked" into homosexuality, their numbers would be showing a drastic increase.
Pale Rider
03-27-2008, 05:38 PM
Sorry Pale, but it's an undeniable fact that nearly every, if not every, homosexual is born to heterosexual parents. As yet, I've seen no evidence that awareness of the existence of homosexuals has caused anyone to "switch teams". If kids to be "talked" into homosexuality, their numbers would be showing a drastic increase.
Sorry Mm... but that is a lie. Indoctrination of young school children is newest tool the homos arsenal of agenda driven goals.
To say NO ONE HAS EVERY turned HOMO from straight is a outright, blatant, extraordinarily outrageous LIE!
Missileman
03-27-2008, 06:26 PM
To say NO ONE HAS EVERY turned HOMO from straight is a outright, blatant, extraordinarily outrageous LIE!
Firstly, that's not what I said. However, if I had, you couldn't provide a single shred of reliable evidence to support that statement...it doesn't exist. Homosexuals have always existed, even in cultures where discovery meant a swift death, and certainly before kids were told "Johnny has two daddies" stories in school.
glockmail
03-28-2008, 06:48 PM
Sorry Pale, but it's an undeniable fact that nearly every, if not every, homosexual is born to heterosexual parents. As yet, I've seen no evidence that awareness of the existence of homosexuals has caused anyone to "switch teams". If kids to be "talked" into homosexuality, their numbers would be showing a drastic increase.
1. How does anyone get born from homosexual parents?
2. Since they have been lying about their true numbers since at least the 1960's, and QE's like you still deny the actual percentage of 1%, how are we supposed to figure out if their numbers are rising or not?
glockmail
04-07-2008, 10:18 AM
Still waiting for the Head QE to respond to my last post. :smoke:
bullypulpit
04-07-2008, 11:10 AM
No that statement isn't true. <b>The sneaky fags are doing their damnedest to indoctrinate young children in schools</b>. They ought to be cast out of every possible public entity for the good of man.
DO you have ANY credible evidence, say from and independent, peer reviewed journal, to support your silly-assed assertion? Or is this just another one of your paranoid, homophobic delusions?
LuvRPgrl
04-09-2008, 01:43 AM
DO you have ANY credible evidence, say from and independent, peer reviewed journal, to support your silly-assed assertion? Or is this just another one of your paranoid, homophobic delusions?
DO you have ANY credible evidence, say from and independent, peer reviewed journal, to support your silly-assed assertion? that he is a paranoid, homophobic
bullypulpit
04-09-2008, 11:17 PM
DO you have ANY credible evidence, say from and independent, peer reviewed journal, to support your silly-assed assertion? that he is a paranoid, homophobic
The research done and presented for peer review deal with large sample groups and other populations. A case study can also be submitted for a peer reviewed article, but in PR's case, I don't believe any such study is available and, in any event, a case study is not representative of the population in general.
PR submits his opinion of homosexuals based on nothing more than his own narrow, prejudicial, bigoted view, unsupported by any independently sourced facts.
Judging from PR's posts, it is not unreasonable to assume that he is a homophobe, and while a further assumption of paranoia on PR's part may be hyperbole on mine, I don't think so.
He could answer the short questionnaire <a href=http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/assault/etc/quiz.html>HERE</a> to clarify his stance.
actsnoblemartin
04-10-2008, 11:09 PM
if one doesnt support another's view, he should be demonized?
you dont support pro-life, so i should call you names?
having a negitive opinion of something or someone doesnt make you racist.
hating someone does.
i guess this is all subjective anyway right bp?
The research done and presented for peer review deal with large sample groups and other populations. A case study can also be submitted for a peer reviewed article, but in PR's case, I don't believe any such study is available and, in any event, a case study is not representative of the population in general.
PR submits his opinion of homosexuals based on nothing more than his own narrow, prejudicial, bigoted view, unsupported by any independently sourced facts.
Judging from PR's posts, it is not unreasonable to assume that he is a homophobe, and while a further assumption of paranoia on PR's part may be hyperbole on mine, I don't think so.
He could answer the short questionnaire <a href=http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/assault/etc/quiz.html>HERE</a> to clarify his stance.
actsnoblemartin
04-10-2008, 11:15 PM
I took the test
44 - Your score rates you as "non-homophobic."
In his 1996 study of 64 white, male college students, Dr. Henry Adams classed 29 participants as "non-homophobic." Their mean score was 30.48. This is not conclusive, however. Dr. Adams, the researcher who helped develop this scale, writes that "a major difficulty of this area of research is in defining and measuring homophobia." Elsewhere, he cautions: Since there is no universally accepted definition of homophobia, the scales currently in use may not measure all aspects of homophobia.
LuvRPgrl
04-11-2008, 02:39 AM
The research done and presented for peer review deal with large sample groups and other populations. A case study can also be submitted for a peer reviewed article, but in PR's case, I don't believe any such study is available and, in any event, a case study is not representative of the population in general.
PR submits his opinion of homosexuals based on nothing more than his own narrow, prejudicial, bigoted view, unsupported by any independently sourced facts.
Judging from PR's posts, it is not unreasonable to assume that he is a homophobe, and while a further assumption of paranoia on PR's part may be hyperbole on mine, I don't think so.
He could answer the short questionnaire <a href=http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/assault/etc/quiz.html>HERE</a> to clarify his stance.
where is your evidence, and peer reviews.???
Sitarro
04-11-2008, 03:23 AM
He could answer the short questionnaire <a href=http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/assault/etc/quiz.html>HERE</a> to clarify his stance.
Hey, I'm not homophobic! Who would of thought?
45 - Your score rates you as "non-homophobic."
In his 1996 study of 64 white, male college students, Dr. Henry Adams classed 29 participants as "non-homophobic." Their mean score was 30.48. This is not conclusive, however. Dr. Adams, the researcher who helped develop this scale, writes that "a major difficulty of this area of research is in defining and measuring homophobia." Elsewhere, he cautions: Since there is no universally accepted definition of homophobia, the scales currently in use may not measure all aspects of homophobia.
GW in Ohio
04-11-2008, 07:50 AM
Queer Enablers = Liars
This thread always struck me as the quintessence of right-wing wacko thinking.....kind of like the 7th Circle of Dante's Inferno.
And the enduring vitality of this thread is a testament to the stupidity and intolerance of right wingers.
To wit:
If you don't see anything wrong with homosexuality, you're a "queer enabler," i.e., you're aiding and abetting those immoral queers. (And you're also a liar.)
That's another tendency of right-wing wackos......if you don't see things their way, e.g., if you don't think gay people are immoral perverts, then you don't just have a difference of opinion with our right-wing friends, you're a goddamn liar.
:salute::dance::salute:
Rock on, right-wing wacko friends.........
glockmail
04-11-2008, 09:56 AM
Queer Enablers = Liars
This thread always struck me as the quintessence of right-wing wacko thinking.....kind of like the 7th Circle of Dante's Inferno.
And the enduring vitality of this thread is a testament to the stupidity and intolerance of right wingers.
To wit:
If you don't see anything wrong with homosexuality, you're a "queer enabler," i.e., you're aiding and abetting those immoral queers. (And you're also a liar.)
That's another tendency of right-wing wackos......if you don't see things their way, e.g., if you don't think gay people are immoral perverts, then you don't just have a difference of opinion with our right-wing friends, you're a goddamn liar.
:salute::dance::salute:
Rock on, right-wing wacko friends.........
The OP laid out a clear case which you liberals are unable to dispute. So instead you call conservatives wackos. How quaint.
GW in Ohio
04-11-2008, 09:59 AM
The OP laid out a clear case which you liberals are unable to dispute. So instead you call conservatives wackos. How quaint.
I'm sorry, what is the "OP"?
glockmail
04-11-2008, 10:04 AM
Opening Piece.
bullypulpit
04-11-2008, 02:38 PM
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:
The "OP" consists of nothing more than unsubstaniated right wing talking points. Your complaint that your "evidence" has been presented in other threads does not relieve you of the burden of offering evidence to support your statements in this thread.
glockmail
04-11-2008, 03:10 PM
Sure it does. Most people don't want to be bored with a long post going over old issues. But if you want to argue any of these facts, knock yourself out. :pee:
took the test thingy (load of crap but...)
11 - Your score rates you as "high-grade non-homophobic."
If i can just bring up a point in th OP, numbers 1, 2 & 5.
You say that being homosexual is not natural and not normal, and then you state that it is choice, so surly it is natual for someone to chose what they want, and normal for someone to chose the lifestyle that they want.
As far as i know it can be both choice or natural, some people i know have been homosexual from day one, others have chosen to be homo/bi sexual but your 'lies' don't account for both
bullypulpit
04-11-2008, 04:18 PM
Sure it does. Most people don't want to be bored with a long post going over old issues. But if you want to argue any of these facts, knock yourself out. :pee:
Pee on thee. You need to present some facts first...
bullypulpit
04-12-2008, 05:11 AM
where is your evidence, and peer reviews.???
Evidence of what? If you're referring to PR's posts on this thread, the evidence is in their content. Unless PR has been the sole subject of a case study which has been reviewed and published, none will be forthcoming.
Perhaps you are talking about the dictum, "Nature abhors a vacuum...". The space between your ears is the exception which proves the rule.
Pale Rider
04-12-2008, 02:48 PM
DO you have ANY credible evidence, say from and independent, peer reviewed journal, to support your silly-assed assertion? Or is this just another one of your paranoid, homophobic delusions?
How about this just for starters you gargantuan ass wad liberal shit stain...
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55429
Teachers insist: Being 'gay' GOOD
'Educators' promoting homosexuality
no matter what children learn at home
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: April 29, 2007
9:34 pm Eastern
© 2008 WorldNetDaily.com
A nationally distributed training video produced by a "gay" advocacy group – which claims it's been shown on more than 100 public television stations – advises teachers to promote homosexuality as normal and healthy to children as young as kindergarten age, regardless of what values the child has been taught at home.
"We are asking kids to believe this [homosexuality] is right. Not as a matter of moral principle, but as a matter of, we're educating them and this is part of what we consider to be a healthy education," one unidentified teacher said during the videotaped meeting of educators preparing to teach – or as their critics charge, "brainwash" – their students.
That particular response was to a question from another teacher who wondered how to approach homosexual advocacy when a student comes from a background of biblical teaching, that is, that homosexuality is a sin.
Now refute THAT you fucking piece of shit faggot apologist....
actsnoblemartin
04-12-2008, 02:55 PM
we know that liberal institutions like public education k-12, college, and most liberals demand you change your mind if you dont cow tow.
im against people trying to force their views on me.
bullypulpit
04-12-2008, 04:50 PM
How about this just for starters you gargantuan ass wad liberal shit stain...
Now refute THAT you fucking piece of shit faggot apologist....
Firstly, an uncredited editorial in WorldNetDaily doesn't constitute proof of anything. Secondly, their source (which they don't even link to) Mass Resistance, is on the Southern Poverty Law Center's list of hate groups. Judging from the rhetoric I found on their web-page, it's no wonder.
Consider your "evidence" refuted, ass-hat.
Pale Rider
04-12-2008, 04:53 PM
Firstly, an uncredited editorial in WorldNetDaily doesn't constitute proof of anything. Secondly, their source, which they don't even link to, Mass Resistance is on the Southern Poverty Law Center's list of hate groups.
Consider your evidence refuted, ass-hat.
OH GO FUCK YOURSELF YOU DUMBASS MOTHER FUCKING MORON!
I COULD FIND SEVEN HUNDRED PAGES OF FACTS JUST LIKE WHAT I ALREADY DID, AND YOU'D POO POO AWAY ALL OF IT. YOU ARE A FUCKING GAS BAG AND A LIAR. NOW GO BUTT FUCK YOUR BUDDY MFM YOU OBLIVIOUS STEAMING PILE OF DONKEY SHIT.
Said1
04-12-2008, 05:06 PM
:lol:
Pale Rider
04-12-2008, 05:19 PM
:lol:
I'll tell ya Said... that fucking imbecile bullpull could watch someone get SHOT IN THE FACE, and he'd deny it was a real gun and real shooting. I've never seen more sheer ignorance in my life. That mother fucker takes the cake.
bullypulpit
04-12-2008, 06:59 PM
OH GO FUCK YOURSELF YOU DUMBASS MOTHER FUCKING MORON!
I COULD FIND SEVEN HUNDRED PAGES OF FACTS JUST LIKE WHAT I ALREADY DID, AND YOU'D POO POO AWAY ALL OF IT. YOU ARE A FUCKING GAS BAG AND A LIAR. NOW GO BUTT FUCK YOUR BUDDY MFM YOU OBLIVIOUS STEAMING PILE OF DONKEY SHIT.
Hmmmm...Seem to have hit a raw nerve. You presented no facts...Just an uncredited editorial from a right wing media outlet which sourced material from a known hate group. Yeah...buddy them's facts alright!
Now admit it PR...You want to ride a high hard one until you squeal like a long-tailed cat in a room full of rocking chairs...You big ole closet queen you. ;)
actsnoblemartin
04-12-2008, 07:18 PM
what bugs me is, if its a conservative source, its automatically a lie.
ok fine, everytime you or another libbie brings up a democratic source can i say, bullcrap, liberal source :laugh2:
Im kinda torn about the gays serving in the military thing, im not sure if its a good idea :dance: or bad idea :pee:
at this point, i have no horse in this race
Hmmmm...Seem to have hit a raw nerve. You presented no facts...Just an uncredited editorial from a right wing media outlet which sourced material from a known hate group. Yeah...buddy them's facts alright!
Now admit it PR...You want to ride a high hard one until you squeal like a long-tailed cat in a room full of rocking chairs...You big ole closet queen you. ;)
actsnoblemartin
04-12-2008, 07:19 PM
what percentage or world militaries allow gays to serve openly as opposed to those who dont.
can anyone site any success or failures of said policy.
bullypulpit
04-12-2008, 09:32 PM
what bugs me is, if its a conservative source, its automatically a lie.
ok fine, everytime you or another libbie brings up a democratic source can i say, bullcrap, liberal source :laugh2:
Im kinda torn about the gays serving in the military thing, im not sure if its a good idea :dance: or bad idea :pee:
at this point, i have no horse in this race
No...It's not a conservative source. It's a bullshit source. The National Review is a conservative source, not WorldNetDaily. You can say whatever you want. It doesn't matter if the source is Liberal or Conservative...If it doesn't source the story with independently verifiable facts, it's bullshit. Such was PR's "source" of "evidence".
what percentage or world militaries allow gays to serve openly as opposed to those who dont.
can anyone site any success or failures of said policy.
isn't iran's military all gay....
j/k
bullypulpit
04-12-2008, 10:45 PM
what percentage or world militaries allow gays to serve openly as opposed to those who dont.
can anyone site any success or failures of said policy.
And this has exactly what to do with the topic at hand? Or are you just trying to boost your post count again?
My Winter Storm
04-12-2008, 11:00 PM
Normal
Define 'normal'. Many things are not thought to be normal, but it doesn't mean they are wrong.
Natural
As above, something doesn't have to be natural for it to be wrong.
Healthy
I would imagine that homosexual sex is just as healthy/unhealthy as heterosexual sex. Sex is sex, after all.
10% of the population
How many people we estimate are homosexual depends on how we define homosexuality.
Many more people experience sexual feelings for someone of the same sex than report recent sexual experience with someone of the same sex.
Because homosexuality is stigmatised it is more likely to be under than over reported.
See More Here (http://www.avert.org/hsexu1.htm)
Not a choice
Define 'choice'. Many people misinterpret this simple word.
People think that sexual orientation is a choice, which is not. However, choosing which lifestyle to lead is a choice, whether you believe that choice to be right or wrong.
Moral
Define 'moral'. Everyone has beliefs, and everyone has morals, however, not everyone will have the same morals as each other.
Queers are no more likely to be child molesters
This is true, for the simple reason that homosexuals are attracted to adults, not children. Peodophiles molest children, homosexuals do not.
Perhaps you need to take a look at NAMBLA (http://www.nambla.org/) to get an understanding of what a peodophile actually is.
And this has exactly what to do with the topic at hand? Or are you just trying to boost your post count again?
what exactly do you find a problem with? his quest for "benchmarks" when it comes to openly gay military? you can't answer that? you have a problem with answering that?
Define 'normal'. Many things are not thought to be normal, but it doesn't mean they are wrong.
As above, something doesn't have to be natural for it to be wrong.
I would imagine that homosexual sex is just as healthy/unhealthy as heterosexual sex. Sex is sex, after all.
See More Here (http://www.avert.org/hsexu1.htm)
Define 'choice'. Many people misinterpret this simple word.
People think that sexual orientation is a choice, which is not. However, choosing which lifestyle to lead is a choice, whether you believe that choice to be right or wrong.
Define 'moral'. Everyone has beliefs, and everyone has morals, however, not everyone will have the same morals as each other.
This is true, for the simple reason that homosexuals are attracted to adults, not children. Peodophiles molest children, homosexuals do not.
Perhaps you need to take a look at NAMBLA (http://www.nambla.org/) to get an understanding of what a peodophile actually is.
Somebody take this newbie.............i've defeated all of her points so many damn times the past 4 years I don't have the patience.
I'll just ask the simple question though: where is the homosexual gene that defines one as queer from birth? I mean after billions of dollars and decades spent on trying to find it to this very minute researchers and scientists have nothing, maybe you have it in your pocket Sharon since you say for sure its not a choice? Just wondering.
By default queerness is a choice, I mean queers know what they do is wrong and they have the choice to choose between right and wrong, its not like its a natural urge or anything.
My Winter Storm
04-12-2008, 11:33 PM
Somebody take this newbie.............i've defeated all of her points so many damn times the past 4 years I don't have the patience.
I've been here not five minutes, and suddenly you have 'defeated all my points over the past four years'?
I'll just ask the simple question though: where is the homosexual gene that defines one as queer from birth?
It hasn't been found yet, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
A heterosexual gene hasn't been found, eithor, and don't we need this to prove that heterosexuality is, in fact, normal?
I mean after billions of dollars and decades spent on trying to find it to this very minute researchers and scientists have nothing, maybe you have it in your pocket Sharon since you say for sure its not a choice? Just wondering.
We have spent decades, and billions of dollars trying to find a cure for AIDS, yet we are no closer to finding one, so don't expect scientists to find a gay gene any time soon. Right now, it's simply a theory, until proven otherwise.
Homosexuality is not a choice. We cannot change our sexuality. Homosexuals cannot change their sexuality any more than heterosexuals can.
If you believe that homosexuality is a choice, isn't it fair to say that you yourself could become one, if you wished?
Sexual orientation is not a choice, and never has been. Choosing who to share your life with, and choosing who to have a sexual relationship with, is.
By default queerness is a choice, I mean queers know what they do is wrong and they have the choice to choose between right and wrong, its not like its a natural urge or anything.
By default heterosexuality is also a choice, but can you prove it?
The only reason homosexuals may feel that their sexuality is 'wrong' is because they have been made to feel that way by people like yourself. I have never felt that my sexuality was wrong - why should I? To me, homosexuality is just as normal as heterosexuality, it just depends on how you define the term 'normal'.
I've been here not five minutes, and suddenly you have 'defeated all my points over the past four years'?
It hasn't been found yet, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
A heterosexual gene hasn't been found, eithor, and don't we need this to prove that heterosexuality is, in fact, normal?
We have spent decades, and billions of dollars trying to find a cure for AIDS, yet we are no closer to finding one, so don't expect scientists to find a gay gene any time soon. Right now, it's simply a theory, until proven otherwise.
Homosexuality is not a choice. We cannot change our sexuality. Homosexuals cannot change their sexuality any more than heterosexuals can.
If you believe that homosexuality is a choice, isn't it fair to say that you yourself could become one, if you wished?
Sexual orientation is not a choice, and never has been. Choosing who to share your life with, and choosing who to have a sexual relationship with, is.
By default heterosexuality is also a choice, but can you prove it?
The only reason homosexuals may feel that their sexuality is 'wrong' is because they have been made to feel that way by people like yourself. I have never felt that my sexuality was wrong - why should I? To me, homosexuality is just as normal as heterosexuality, it just depends on how you define the term 'normal'.
You are in definite need of a biology 101 course. ALL humans are born with the innate attraction to the opposite sex, thats on the same level with the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, meaning its irrefuteable.
So you think a guy buggering another guy in the bunghole or a chick snacking on another chick's clam is normal? Uhhhhh, let me make the counseling appointment for you.
Oh and forgot, you are just the last in a long of line of homosexual apologists who almost to a person come up with the same arguments. That is why your points have already been shredded here.
Here Sharon are some helpful links to show you just how damaging the choice to live the queer lifestyle can be:
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/one-a.php
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/pdf_files/statistics_on_homosexual_lifestyle.pdf
http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality_and_Illegal_Drug_Use
Said1
04-13-2008, 08:51 AM
I haven't taken biology 101 and don't intend to - is there an identifiable heterosexual gene? A simple yes or no (with links) will suffice.
PostmodernProphet
04-13-2008, 08:56 AM
A heterosexual gene hasn't been found, eithor, and don't we need this to prove that heterosexuality is, in fact, normal?
not certain why an analysis of genes is necessary....even someone who has not studied biology at all can tell you that a race consisting entirely of homosexuals is not going to last more than a single generation....
heterosexuality is "normal" for humanity....it's the way we reproduce.....
not certain why an analysis of genes is necessary....even someone who has not studied biology at all can tell you that a race consisting entirely of homosexuals is not going to last more than a single generation....
heterosexuality is "normal" for humanity....it's the way we reproduce.....
Exactly.
But here is a link that could explain that in fact if queers are born that way they are defects.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation
Missileman
04-13-2008, 09:58 AM
ALL humans are born with the innate attraction to the opposite sex,
Post a single scientific reference to back that shit up....please!
Post a single scientific reference to back that shit up....please!
Its how we populate and regenerate, there is no other way and when you get right down to it that is the #1 purpose of humans.
Why do you need science to tell you what you already know is 100% irrefuteably correct?
Are you not confident enough?
Missileman
04-13-2008, 10:23 AM
Its how we populate and regenerate, there is no other way and when you get right down to it that is the #1 purpose of humans.
Why do you need science to tell you what you already know is 100% irrefuteably correct?
Are you not confident enough?
It's your claim that 100% of humans are born identically when it comes to sexual orientation. I'm asking you to post a single scientific reference that supports it. I already know that you can't post one...no such reference exists.
What you wrote is like saying that ALL humans are born capable of having children.
If you're going to post absolutes, you should be able to back em up.
Said1
04-13-2008, 11:12 AM
I would support the assumption of birth defect in some instances - gestation hormonal something or other and other genetic defects...... In other cases I would also support the assumption of environmental factors given the high number of homosexuals that have been sexually abused.
bullypulpit
04-13-2008, 12:10 PM
You are in definite need of a biology 101 course. <b>ALL humans are born with the innate attraction to the opposite sex</b>, thats on the same level with the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, meaning its irrefuteable.
So you think a guy buggering another guy in the bunghole or a chick snacking on another chick's clam is normal? Uhhhhh, let me make the counseling appointment for you.
You got a link to back that up? And you might actually want to make that counseling appointment for yourself.
PostmodernProphet
04-13-2008, 03:57 PM
ALL humans are born with the innate attraction to the opposite sex
I would find that conclusion illogical.....a certain small number of humans are born with abnormal parts of every other kind.....it would not be unexpected that some would be born with abnormal sexual inclinations.....
bullypulpit
04-13-2008, 06:23 PM
I would find that conclusion illogical.....a certain small number of humans are born with abnormal parts of every other kind.....it would not be unexpected that some would be born with abnormal sexual inclinations.....
Define "normal".
82Marine89
04-13-2008, 06:24 PM
Define "normal".
A state of mind made up by insecure people so they wouldn't have to be different.
I would find that conclusion illogical.....a certain small number of humans are born with abnormal parts of every other kind.....it would not be unexpected that some would be born with abnormal sexual inclinations.....
Sexual inclination is not a part and to say that that could be a defect is like saying a human could be born without the urge to breathe.
Define "normal".
In relation to sexuality normal is defined as heterosexual and abnormal would be defined as homosexual.
You got a link to back that up? And you might actually want to make that counseling appointment for yourself.
I don't have a link to the sky is always blue yet...............it always is.
LMFAO@ you people trying to argue against my POV, silly rabbits.
My Winter Storm
04-13-2008, 07:30 PM
Here Sharon are some helpful links to show you just how damaging the choice to live the queer lifestyle can be:
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/one-a.php
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/pdf_files/statistics_on_homosexual_lifestyle.pdf
http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality_and_Illegal_Drug_Use
Do you have any other websites besides religious ones to show me? The sites you direct me to are not worth visiting, as all contain unsupported facts, and manipulative data/statistics.
My Winter Storm
04-13-2008, 07:34 PM
ALL humans are born with the innate attraction to the opposite sex
Do you have any proof to back up this statement?
Do you have any other websites besides religious ones to show me? The sites you direct me to are not worth visiting, as all contain unsupported facts, and manipulative data/statistics.
All conclusions are supported by facts and data is clear and concise. Instead of acting as al;l queer apologists do and bashing the source why don't you try and refute their very reasearched and well thought out conclusions?
Do you have any proof to back up this statement?
*yawn*
:bang3:
retiredman
04-13-2008, 10:52 PM
*yawn*
:bang3:
it is a reasonable question.
My Winter Storm
04-14-2008, 12:54 AM
*yawn*
:bang3:
If you are going to claim something, at least back it up, or else I must assume you have no proof of what you say.
Please back up your statements - without the usage of religious websites, if at all possible.
Pale Rider
04-14-2008, 05:51 AM
If you are going to claim something, at least back it up, or else I must assume you have no proof of what you say.
Please back up your statements - without the usage of religious websites, if at all possible.
He's not "claiming something." He's pointing out a truth. If you want to try and convince people here that you believe something different, then the burden lies on you. You're the one trying to twist a story around against nature, so show us YOU'RE proof he's NOT right.
But just to warn you now.... we've been over this very same argument a hundred times here on this board, with every new person here that takes it upon themselves to defend faggots, and the outcome is always the same... you lose.
Pale Rider
04-14-2008, 05:55 AM
Hmmmm...Seem to have hit a raw nerve. You presented no facts...Just an uncredited editorial from a right wing media outlet which sourced material from a known hate group. Yeah...buddy them's facts alright!
Now admit it PR...You want to ride a high hard one until you squeal like a long-tailed cat in a room full of rocking chairs...You big ole closet queen you. ;)
Blah, blah, blah... you're a closet homo... blah, blah. How typical. Got no defense so just spew out the same old, stale bull shit. :laugh:
You didn't hit shit moron. You're a fuckin' liar and a dumbass.
My Winter Storm
04-14-2008, 05:59 AM
He's not "claiming something." He's pointing out a truth. If you want to try and convince people here that you believe something different, then the burden lies on you. You're the one trying to twist a story around against nature, so show us YOU'RE proof he's NOT right.
If I am going to claim something, I will at least attempt to back up what I say. The fact that you do not believe you, or anyone else, should back up your own statements shows that you have no evidence of anything you say.
But just to warn you now.... we've been over this very same argument a hundred times here on this board, with every new person here that takes it upon themselves to defend faggots, and the outcome is always the same... you lose.
I haven't lost yet, have I? Simply saying something like 'It's against the laws of nature' or 'It's disgusting' or something similar does not make an arguement.
I have provided a good arguement. I have seen nothing even remotely intelligent coming from you or anyone else opposed to homosexuality.
My Winter Storm
04-14-2008, 06:02 AM
Blah, blah, blah... you're a closet homo... blah, blah. How typical. Got no defense so just spew out the same old, stale bull shit. :laugh:
I wonder if you don't rely on This (http://www.godhatesfags.com/) website for your 'facts'.
Pale Rider
04-14-2008, 06:23 AM
If I am going to claim something, I will at least attempt to back up what I say. The fact that you do not believe you, or anyone else, should back up your own statements shows that you have no evidence of anything you say.
I haven't lost yet, have I? Simply saying something like 'It's against the laws of nature' or 'It's disgusting' or something similar does not make an arguement.
I have provided a good arguement. I have seen nothing even remotely intelligent coming from you or anyone else opposed to homosexuality.
I've backed up here more than you will ever know, and I'm not the one trying to argue against nature. You are. You are the one trying to tell people that 2+2=5. The ball is in your court to prove that true, not mine, and you haven't even begun to show anyone something worth reading that proves anything.
Pale Rider
04-14-2008, 06:25 AM
I wonder if you don't rely on This (http://www.godhatesfags.com/) website for your 'facts'.
And I wonder if you rely on this (http://www.nambla.org/) for your's.
My Winter Storm
04-14-2008, 06:31 AM
And I wonder if you rely on this (http://www.nambla.org/) for your's.
I like the fact that you don't even know the difference between homosexuality and peodophilia, and that you abuse the reputaion system.
Prove to me that homosexuality is against the laws of nature. If you are going to make that claim, prove it. Don't just say it and expect people to accept it. That's not a good debate, that's simply saying, 'Well if I say it's wrong, then it's wrong'. Doesn't work like that, buddy.
glockmail
04-14-2008, 08:19 AM
Define 'normal'. Many things are not thought to be normal, but it doesn't mean they are wrong.
....
All these points have been argued before Sharon. So let's just single out your first issue:
In the study of behavior, normal refers to a lack of significant deviation from the average. In statistics, a standard deviation for the normal distribution accounts for 68% of the set, two standard deviations from the mean account for 95%, and three standard deviations account for 99.7 %. Therefore in a normal distribution, those individuals outside of one standard deviation, or 100 % – 68 % = 32 %, would be considered abnormal. I am being conservative and equating two standard deviations, or 100% – 95 % = 5%, with the term “abnormal”.
bullypulpit
04-14-2008, 08:32 AM
Blah, blah, blah... you're a closet homo... blah, blah. How typical. Got no defense so just spew out the same old, stale bull shit.
You consistently fail to provide any evidence showing that homosexuals pose any demonstrable harm to the community at large. Beyond your own revulsion and phony concerns about propagating the species, you have brought nothing to the argument. What is patently clear though is that you feel threatened by homosexuals, and this is most often the result of underlying concerns regarding one's own sexuality. You aren't gay, but you do have some deep seated insecurities.
[I]You didn't hit shit moron. You're a fuckin' liar and a dumbass.
Unable to bring any cogent argument to bear you have, yet again, resorted to peurile insults more befitting a school-yard than any serious discussion.
glockmail
04-14-2008, 08:43 AM
....
Unable to bring any cogent argument to bear you have, yet again, resorted to peurile insults more befitting a school-yard than any serious discussion. This is coming from a QE who has called the President of the US "Chimpy" on about every third post. :lol:
bullypulpit
04-14-2008, 12:26 PM
This is coming from a QE who has called the President of the US "Chimpy" on about every third post.
Your intellectual bankruptcy is also readily apparent. :lol:
Pale Rider
04-14-2008, 01:33 PM
You consistently fail to provide any evidence showing that homosexuals pose any demonstrable harm to the community at large. Beyond your own revulsion and phony concerns about propagating the species, you have brought nothing to the argument. What is patently clear though is that you feel threatened by homosexuals, and this is most often the result of underlying concerns regarding one's own sexuality. You aren't gay, but you do have some deep seated insecurities.
Unable to bring any cogent argument to bear you have, yet again, resorted to peurile insults more befitting a school-yard than any serious discussion.
Getting that feeling bull? You know... the one you get when you lie? No? Well you should be. Because there's been HUNDREDS of post made on this board, by me and others showing homosexuality is not only a mental illness, but a very dangerous and destructive perversion. You sitting there typing out the same old, stale line lying your ass off isn't doing you one bit of good. All you faggot lovers have had your asses verbally kicked up one side and down the other seven times over here, and all you can counter with is denial of the facts, and dumb ass innuendo... yeah, yeah... you're a closet home... blah, blah, blah. Get a clue, stop the horse shit, bring something to the table worth while, or just shut the fuck up moron.
bullypulpit
04-14-2008, 01:54 PM
Getting that feeling bull? You know... the one you get when you lie? No? Well you should be. Because there's been HUNDREDS of post made on this board, by me and others showing homosexuality is not only a mental illness, but a very dangerous and destructive perversion. You sitting there typing out the same old, stale line lying your ass off isn't doing you one bit of good. All you faggot lovers have had your asses verbally kicked up one side and down the other seven times over here, and all you can counter with is denial of the facts, and dumb ass innuendo... yeah, yeah... you're a closet home... blah, blah, blah. Get a clue, stop the horse shit, bring something to the table worth while, or just shut the fuck up moron.
Now you're showing signs of being delusional. At no point in any of your posts on threads regarding homosexuality have you presented anything that could even vaguely be called proof of your assertions about homosexuality. You have, at best, provided material of questionable provenance, gathered from fundie religious websites as well as those of various hate groups. You have proven nothing beyond your own fear and ignorance.
glockmail
04-14-2008, 02:30 PM
Your intellectual bankruptcy is also readily apparent. :lol:
You resort to peurile insults yet again. Whouda thunk?
bullypulpit
04-14-2008, 02:42 PM
You resort to peurile insults yet again. Whouda thunk?
Peurile...? Hardly. Just calling it as I see it.
glockmail
04-14-2008, 02:47 PM
Peurile...? Hardly. Just calling it as I see it. So when someone insults you it's "peurile ", but when you insult them in the same way it's "calling it like you see it". Interesting.
bullypulpit
04-14-2008, 03:07 PM
So when someone insults you it's "peurile ", but when you insult them in the same way it's "calling it like you see it". Interesting.
Let's define puerile.
<blockquote>
pu·er·ile
Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[pyoo-er-il, -uh-rahyl, pyoor-il, -ahyl] –adjective
1. of or pertaining to a child or to childhood.
2. <b>childishly foolish; immature or trivial</b></blockquote>
At no point did I use profanity or scatalogical references...Hence, my insults were not puerile.
So, if you have nothing to add which is relevant to the topic of the thread...You're a poopy face.
glockmail
04-14-2008, 03:13 PM
I'll let that one stand on its own lack of substance. :pee:
bullypulpit
04-14-2008, 06:47 PM
I'll let that one stand on its own lack of substance. :pee:
:pee: on thee. It was obvious that you were unaware of the definition of puerile. I provided a definition and an example.
glockmail
04-14-2008, 06:57 PM
:pee: on thee. It was obvious that you were unaware of the definition of puerile. I provided a definition and an example. Oh yes. You are so much more educated that I am and I'm too poor to have a dictionary.
Not quite. :lol:
:pee: on thee. It was obvious that you were unaware of the definition of puerile. I provided a definition and an example.
Bully give it up, you empty bedpans and change depends undergarments for a living for chrissakes, you ain't no smarter or more knowledgeable than anybody else here despite your condescending persona well.................unless you wanna talk about which baby wipes work best on wrinked 90 yr old bums then I defer to you my friend.
If you are going to claim something, at least back it up, or else I must assume you have no proof of what you say.
Please back up your statements - without the usage of religious websites, if at all possible.
Why? Do you have something against religion? Or have they stumbled upon something which makes you uncomfortable with the choices you've made in your life?
The site's findings are valid, either refute them or move onto a different subject.
bullypulpit
04-14-2008, 08:13 PM
Bully give it up, you empty bedpans and change depends undergarments for a living for chrissakes, you ain't no smarter or more knowledgeable than anybody else here despite your condescending persona well.................unless you wanna talk about which baby wipes work best on wrinked 90 yr old bums then I defer to you my friend.
Actually, I only have to empty a bed pan occasionally. Most of my time is spent initiating and monitoring hemodialysis treatments and medication administration in intensive care units. So, while not a genius, I am certainly smarter and more knowledgeable than some of the slack-jawed mouth breathers that grace this forum.
My Winter Storm
04-14-2008, 08:59 PM
Why? Do you have something against religion? Or have they stumbled upon something which makes you uncomfortable with the choices you've made in your life?
The site's findings are valid, either refute them or move onto a different subject.
I have a lot against religion, and religious sites are not the sort of sites that can provide accurate statistics and data.
I am looking for scientific facts, not something dreamed up from the Bible.
My Winter Storm
04-14-2008, 09:06 PM
All these points have been argued before Sharon. So let's just single out your first issue:
In the study of behavior, normal refers to a lack of significant deviation from the average.
You confuse me.:laugh2:
I take it you mean that if more people in this world are heterosexual, then heterosexuality is normal?
If this is what you mean, then many things in this world are abnormal, yet they are accepted.
There are more white people than black people, yet black people are not abnormal. There are more seeing and hearing people than those who are blind or deaf, yet we don't tell these people they are abnormal. Cancer is abnormal, because the majority of us have not, and will not, be touched by cancer, yet we don't tell cancer sufferers they are abnormal.
I am not too sure what you mean, like I said, you confused me, but I think I get your point.
Dilloduck
04-14-2008, 09:09 PM
I have a lot against religion, and religious sites are not the sort of sites that can provide accurate statistics and data.
I am looking for scientific facts, not something dreamed up from the Bible.
Why are you looking for scientific facts when so many of them that were once presented to us as scientific facts---well--they just turned out to be wrong ? How can you trust them?
I am certainly smarter and more knowledgeable than some of the slack-jawed mouth breathers that grace this forum.
I'd be willing to lay a small wager that some of the people you consider slack jawed have more smarts.
My Winter Storm
04-14-2008, 09:21 PM
Why are you looking for scientific facts when so many of them that were once presented to us as scientific facts---well--they just turned out to be wrong ? How can you trust them?
How can you trust facts provided by religious organisations?
Missileman
04-14-2008, 09:39 PM
Why are you looking for scientific facts when so many of them that were once presented to us as scientific facts---well--they just turned out to be wrong ? How can you trust them?
Next you'll be telling us that you've never been to a doctor or taken medication. :poke:
I have a lot against religion, and religious sites are not the sort of sites that can provide accurate statistics and data.
I am looking for scientific facts, not something dreamed up from the Bible.
Is it because religion proposes a certain set of very dignified parameters and rules that one must live by that you are against? Or is it because religious and family oriented groups have discovered the truth about queers and the queer choice lifestyle that you guys want to desperately keep hidden, is that a problem for ya too?
Queer groups only want studies that say they are not responsible for the bad choices they make and that don't address all the detrimental aspects of the queer choice lifestyle.
How can you trust facts provided by religious organisations?
Are you kidding me? You'd rather trust a secular organization than a religious one? Yes I know, all those wicked Baptists in Westboro, KS.
My Winter Storm
04-14-2008, 09:47 PM
Is it because religion proposes a certain set of very dignified parameters and rules that one must live by that you are against? Or is it because religious and family oriented groups have discovered the truth about queers and the queer choice lifestyle that you guys want to desperately keep hidden, is that a problem for ya too?
Queer groups only want studies that say they are not responsible for the bad choices they make and that don't address all the detrimental aspects of the queer choice lifestyle.
Homosexual groups go out and do their research. A religious group could conduct a 'study' or whether or not people thought homosexuality was acceptable. They would compile this 'study' by knocking on the doors of everyone they knew was religious, or they would purposely omit the comments of those who supported homosexuality. I am well aware of how religious 'surveys' are obtained.
My Winter Storm
04-14-2008, 09:50 PM
Are you kidding me? You'd rather trust a secular organization than a religious one? Yes I know, all those wicked Baptists in Westboro, KS.
I would rather trust any organisation than a religious one. I don't rely on religion for anything, because it is often bias and unsubstanciated.
Dilloduck
04-15-2008, 06:31 AM
Next you'll be telling us that you've never been to a doctor or taken medication. :poke:
Are you talking about the kind of cough medicine that was recalled because it not only did not not help kids--it hurt them ?
Missileman
04-15-2008, 07:11 AM
Are you talking about the kind of cough medicine that was recalled because it not only did not not help kids--it hurt them ?
That wasn't the question.
glockmail
04-15-2008, 08:52 AM
Actually, I only have to empty a bed pan occasionally. Most of my time is spent initiating and monitoring hemodialysis treatments and medication administration in intensive care units. So, while not a genius, I am certainly smarter and more knowledgeable than some of the slack-jawed mouth breathers that grace this forum. You and Obama are both the smartest guys on the planet. [/sarcasm] :lol:
glockmail
04-15-2008, 08:56 AM
You confuse me.:laugh2:
I take it you mean that if more people in this world are heterosexual, then heterosexuality is normal?
If this is what you mean, then many things in this world are abnormal, yet they are accepted.
There are more white people than black people, yet black people are not abnormal. There are more seeing and hearing people than those who are blind or deaf, yet we don't tell these people they are abnormal. Cancer is abnormal, because the majority of us have not, and will not, be touched by cancer, yet we don't tell cancer sufferers they are abnormal.
I am not too sure what you mean, like I said, you confused me, but I think I get your point.
Heerosexuality is indeed normal, since 99% of the people hit that way.
With regards to race, if there is one black guy in a group of 100 and the rest are whites, then he's abnormal with resect to color for that set. It doesn't mean he's a bad guy, just that he's not conforming to the group.
Cancer is definitely abnormal and bad. I don't wish cancer on anyone.
glockmail
04-15-2008, 08:58 AM
I would rather trust any organisation than a religious one. I don't rely on religion for anything, because it is often bias and unsubstanciated.
Atheism is more biased and unsubstantiated than religion. You gotta have real FAITH in your convictions to be one! Cuz if you're wrong... :laugh2:
My Winter Storm
04-15-2008, 08:56 PM
Atheism is more biased and unsubstantiated than religion. You gotta have real FAITH in your convictions to be one! Cuz if you're wrong... :laugh2:
Well...I guess I think that Athiests keep more of an open mind, and are not so quick to judge, you know?
I think religion has a problem with judgement, I think they make assumptions about people without even knowing anything about the people they judge.
glockmail
04-15-2008, 09:01 PM
Well...I guess I think that Athiests keep more of an open mind, and are not so quick to judge, you know?
I think religion has a problem with judgement, I think they make assumptions about people without even knowing anything about the people they judge. You obviously don't know that much about religion. Also, most atheists that I've met have been very closed-minded, presumptive, and closed-minded. All three traits you've exhibited quite well in your post above.
My Winter Storm
04-15-2008, 09:08 PM
You obviously don't know that much about religion. Also, most atheists that I've met have been very closed-minded, presumptive, and closed-minded. All three traits you've exhibited quite well in your post above.
Okay, well, I don't consider myself to be that sort of person, and I do simply go by my own experiences of meeting religious people, as I am sure you go by your experiences of meeting Athiests.
I don't like the fact that many Christians judge homosexuals without even meeting, and talking with homosexuals to understand how they think and feel. Instead, they pressume things which are not true.
I believe that if someone wishes to make assumptions about someone, or a group of people, they should actually make an effort to learn about those people, and understand their feelings.
glockmail
04-15-2008, 09:13 PM
Okay, well, I don't consider myself to be that sort of person, and I do simply go by my own experiences of meeting religious people, as I am sure you go by your experiences of meeting Athiests.
I don't like the fact that many Christians judge homosexuals without even meeting, and talking with homosexuals to understand how they think and feel. Instead, they pressume things which are not true.
I believe that if someone wishes to make assumptions about someone, or a group of people, they should actually make an effort to learn about those people, and understand their feelings.
I judge homosexuals on their stated behavior, about their behavior. Their opinions or feelings about that are irrelevant to that.
You seem to dismiss the Christian concept of love the sinner and hate the sin.
My Winter Storm
04-15-2008, 09:19 PM
I judge homosexuals on their stated behavior, about their behavior. Their opinions or feelings about that are irrelevant to that.
You seem to dismiss the Christian concept of love the sinner and hate the sin.
I know this is the way that Christians are meant to feel about homosexuals, but to me, preaching about how evil it is doesn't seem to show much love toward the actual homosexual person.
You say you judge homosexuals on their stated behavior - if I told you that I never chose to be gay (and I have not yet had a gay relationship) would you dismiss that as being untrue? But how would you know if you have not felt what I have?
Isn't dismissing homosexual claims that they did not choose to be gay judging them, in a way?
glockmail
04-15-2008, 09:26 PM
I know this is the way that Christians are meant to feel about homosexuals, but to me, preaching about how evil it is doesn't seem to show much love toward the actual homosexual person.
You say you judge homosexuals on their stated behavior - if I told you that I never chose to be gay (and I have not yet had a gay relationship) would you dismiss that as being untrue? But how would you know if you have not felt what I have?
Isn't dismissing homosexual claims that they did not choose to be gay judging them, in a way?
If you like money but don't rob banks then your not a bank robber. If you don't lick clams then you're not a clam licker. Sure that's a judgement, and not a problem as far as I'm concerned.
If a bank robber doesn't think his crime is a big deal, that's of no concern to me. Societal norns say otherwise though.
My Winter Storm
04-15-2008, 09:30 PM
If a bank robber doesn't think his crime is a big deal, that's of no concern to me. Societal norns say otherwise though.
Okay, so I don't think that the fact that I am gay is a big deal at all, so why do Christians insist that it is? And why do they tell me I am immoral and hellbound, if they should not think something is such a big deal?
glockmail
04-15-2008, 09:36 PM
Okay, so I don't think that the fact that I am gay is a big deal at all, so why do Christians insist that it is? And why do they tell me I am immoral and hellbound, if they should not think something is such a big deal?
First of all you just said that you never did the gay thing.
As a Christian, I'm interested in telling people the truth. Me telling you that homosexuality will get your ass fried in hell is no different than a cop telling you you'll get it busted in prison for robbing a bank. Neither one of us wants to see that happen to you, so we tell you the truth. Compare that with some "friends" who may tell you otherwise.
My Winter Storm
04-15-2008, 09:40 PM
First of all you just said that you never did the gay thing.
As a Christian, I'm interested in telling people the truth. Me telling you that homosexuality will get your ass fried in hell is no different than a cop telling you you'll get it busted in prison for robbing a bank. Neither one of us wants to see that happen to you, so we tell you the truth. Compare that with some "friends" who may tell you otherwise.
But how do you know there is Hell? You haven't been there, it is just described in the Bible, but how do you know there is actually a Hell, or a Heaven, for that matter?
How can you tell someone they will go to Hell when you have never seen Hell for yourself?
glockmail
04-15-2008, 09:52 PM
But how do you know there is Hell? You haven't been there, it is just described in the Bible, but how do you know there is actually a Hell, or a Heaven, for that matter?
How can you tell someone they will go to Hell when you have never seen Hell for yourself?
I haven't seen the dark side of the moon either, but I know its there. No-one's seen inside the sun, nut we know that it's hot. Intelligent people use evidence and deductive reasoning to determine the truth all the time.
In the case of heaven, the canonization of saints requires that the person be dead, a believer while living, that living people attempt to communicate to the deceased through prayer, and the dead communicate back through some physical miracle. And this must be done by three different living people with three separate events. Since miracles can only be performed by God, this is evidence that saints are close to God. And I’m fairly certain that God exists in heaven, not hell. But hey that’s just a Catholic thing.
My Winter Storm
04-15-2008, 09:56 PM
I haven't seen the dark side of the moon either, but I know its there. No-one's seen inside the sun, nut we know that it's hot. Intelligent people use evidence and deductive reasoning to determine the truth all the time.
In the case of heaven, the canonization of saints requires that the person be dead, a believer while living, that living people attempt to communicate to the deceased through prayer, and the dead communicate back through some physical miracle. And this must be done by three different living people with three separate events. Since miracles can only be performed by God, this is evidence that saints are close to God. And I’m fairly certain that God exists in heaven, not hell. But hey that’s just a Catholic thing.
Well, you are entitled to your own beliefs, I guess. :)
glockmail
04-16-2008, 05:31 AM
Well, you are entitled to your own beliefs, I guess. :)
That's like saying a jurist that studied the evidence presented and came to a logical conclusion is entitled to his "beliefs" about the case.
Homosexual groups go out and do their research. A religious group could conduct a 'study' or whether or not people thought homosexuality was acceptable. They would compile this 'study' by knocking on the doors of everyone they knew was religious, or they would purposely omit the comments of those who supported homosexuality. I am well aware of how religious 'surveys' are obtained.
Yet with this statement you proved you didn't even peruse the links I provided, not 1 of them addressed whether someone approved homosexuality or not nor were they even studies conducted by the religious group but rather conclusions by the religious group based upon various INDEPENDENT SCIENTIFIC STUDIES.
But maybe a little something from the CDC will change your mind.............or are they a religious group too?
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/resources/factsheets/msm.htm
Okay, well, I don't consider myself to be that sort of person, and I do simply go by my own experiences of meeting religious people, as I am sure you go by your experiences of meeting Athiests.
I don't like the fact that many Christians judge homosexuals without even meeting, and talking with homosexuals to understand how they think and feel. Instead, they pressume things which are not true.
I believe that if someone wishes to make assumptions about someone, or a group of people, they should actually make an effort to learn about those people, and understand their feelings.
You see you are mistaken. I don't hate homosexuals, rather I have empathy for them, what I do hate however is the queer political movement and how through political correctness you are deemed a bigot or homophobe if you speak out on homosexuality and the wicked truth surrounding the queer lifestyle.
If queers really wanted to just live their life as they choose then there would be no need for politics or marriage or anything else, would there? But you know, you know damn well its not what queers want, they want LEGITIMIZATION OF THEIR PERVERSION OF CHOICE and marriage is the ticket they hope will get them there. That is why there is a rash of divorces happening amongst the queers who got married in Massachusets, they didn't really want to get married because marriage and monogamy are anathema to the uberpromiscuous queer lifestyle
I also dislike the Warren Jeffs style polygamy movement, does that make me a polygamophobe?(lol is that a fucking word?):laugh2:
My Winter Storm
04-16-2008, 07:11 PM
So you believe homosexuality is a choice? Then heterosexuality is also a choice, correct?
My Winter Storm
04-16-2008, 07:13 PM
Yet with this statement you proved you didn't even peruse the links I provided, not 1 of them addressed whether someone approved homosexuality or not nor were they even studies conducted by the religious group but rather conclusions by the religious group based upon various INDEPENDENT SCIENTIFIC STUDIES.
But maybe a little something from the CDC will change your mind.............or are they a religious group too?
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/resources/factsheets/msm.htm
No, this would be accurate, but so what? Just because there is a rise in HIV/AIDS among homosexual men doesn't mean anything.
Doesn't mean homosexuality is a deviant lifetstyle.
So you believe homosexuality is a choice? Then heterosexuality is also a choice, correct?
No, we are all born heterosexuals. Same as we are all born free from drug addiction(unless you have a crack momma) and some decide at 1 point to use drugs we are all born hetero and some decide at 1 point to go queer.
My Winter Storm
04-16-2008, 07:21 PM
No, we are all born heterosexuals. Same as we are all born free from drug addiction(unless you have a crack momma) and some decide at 1 point to use drugs we are all born hetero and some decide at 1 point to go queer.
That sounds rather hypocritical to me. Both heterosexuality and homosexuality are sexualities, yet only gay people choose to be gay, everyone is just straight because they were born that way?
No, this would be accurate, but so what? Just because there is a rise in HIV/AIDS among homosexual men doesn't mean anything.
Doesn't mean homosexuality is a deviant lifetstyle.
Sure it does. If there were a rise in overdoses among heroin addicts would you claim that it still doesn't mean that heroin addiction is a deviant lifestyle lol.
That sounds rather hypocritical to me. Both heterosexuality and homosexuality are sexualities, yet only gay people choose to be gay, everyone is just straight because they were born that way?
Correct. Again, take a biology 101 class and a human reproduction course for verification.
Abbey Marie
04-16-2008, 07:41 PM
:popcorn:
Here is a little diddy I almost forgot about, tells how queers and the queer lifestyle really is:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1347417/posts
The original newsweek link is no longer there so this is all I could find but whats really interesting are the reader comments after the article, gives me hope that there are still rational people out there.
glockmail
04-16-2008, 09:00 PM
Classic OCA. I'm lovin' it. :coffee:
My Winter Storm
04-17-2008, 12:32 AM
Sure it does. If there were a rise in overdoses among heroin addicts would you claim that it still doesn't mean that heroin addiction is a deviant lifestyle lol.
There could be rise in heroin overdoses one month, and a drop in them the following month.
Means nothing.
My Winter Storm
04-17-2008, 12:35 AM
Correct. Again, take a biology 101 class and a human reproduction course for verification.
So you admit to being a hypocrite, yet you still think I should believe you when you tell me that homosexuality is a deviant lifetsyle?
You are not a homosexual, so what does it matter to you what deviance other people get up to?
LuvRPgrl
04-17-2008, 01:03 AM
So you admit to being a hypocrite, yet you still think I should believe you when you tell me that homosexuality is a deviant lifetsyle?
You are not a homosexual, so what does it matter to you what deviance other people get up to?
Of course its deviant, it is by definition, it is a large minority who are homos.
Its not us who brought up the issue of marriage. They did.
They homosexual community activists are the ones who bring up issues and try to stick it in our face, not the other way around, get that straight pal.
LuvRPgrl
04-17-2008, 01:05 AM
Well...I guess I think that Athiests keep more of an open mind, and are not so quick to judge, you know?
I think religion has a problem with judgement, I think they make assumptions about people without even knowing anything about the people they judge.
sounds to me like you are the one making assumptions about religous people.
LuvRPgrl
04-17-2008, 01:07 AM
Okay, so I don't think that the fact that I am gay is a big deal at all, so why do Christians insist that it is? And why do they tell me I am immoral and hellbound, if they should not think something is such a big deal?
ALL Christians do that?
LuvRPgrl
04-17-2008, 01:09 AM
Actually, I only have to empty a bed pan occasionally. Most of my time is spent initiating and monitoring hemodialysis treatments and medication administration in intensive care units. So, while not a genius, I am certainly smarter and more knowledgeable than some of the slack-jawed mouth breathers that grace this forum.
WOW ! You give people drugs and monitor a machine doing dialysis? Musta taken a whole two hour seminar to learn how to do that.
bullypulpit
04-17-2008, 12:26 PM
WOW ! You give people drugs and monitor a machine doing dialysis? Musta taken a whole two hour seminar to learn how to do that.
Since you obviously don't know what the hell you're talking about, your ignorance can be overlooked. :finger3:
My Winter Storm
04-18-2008, 01:32 AM
ALL Christians do that?
Not all, but Christians who don't feel this way are harder and harder to find.
LuvRPgrl
04-19-2008, 03:50 AM
Since you obviously don't know what the hell you're talking about, your ignorance can be overlooked. :finger3:
OVERLOOKED? Isnt that how ignorance starts in the first place? HAHHAHAHHA
LuvRPgrl
04-19-2008, 03:52 AM
Not all, but Christians who don't feel this way are harder and harder to find.
Probably as time goes on, you notice the ones who leave you alone to live your own life, less and less. There are a huge percentage of Christians who disagree with homosexuality, they think it is a sin, but they dont go preaching it down peoples throats./
My Winter Storm
04-19-2008, 11:28 PM
Probably as time goes on, you notice the ones who leave you alone to live your own life, less and less. There are a huge percentage of Christians who disagree with homosexuality, they think it is a sin, but they dont go preaching it down peoples throats./
I agree, but where are these good Christians? Where are the Christians who don't preach this? Why do we only hear of the 'bad' ones? Don't the good ones have a voice?
Why do some Christians choose to speak out, and others stay silent?
LuvRPgrl
04-20-2008, 02:50 AM
I agree, but where are these good Christians? Where are the Christians who don't preach this? Why do we only hear of the 'bad' ones? Don't the good ones have a voice?
Why do some Christians choose to speak out, and others stay silent?
what do you want the good ones to do? WHen they walk by, say "I accept your gayness"?
My Winter Storm
04-20-2008, 06:10 AM
what do you want the good ones to do? WHen they walk by, say "I accept your gayness"?
They don't have to accept the fact that someone may be gay, all they have to do is accept who I am, and respect me as a person, and love me just as much as they would anyone else. Simple as that, really. I don't think that is too much to ask.
Pale Rider
04-20-2008, 09:04 AM
They don't have to accept the fact that someone may be gay, all they have to do is accept who I am, and respect me as a person, and love me just as much as they would anyone else. Simple as that, really. I don't think that is too much to ask.
I see... now it's a DEMAND that we accept your perversion... not in this life time sister. Yes I'm a Christian, but since I didn't bring it up, I will tell you, the Bible calls homosexuality an abomination, and that you will pay for your perverse discretion's with your own blood.
They don't have to accept the fact that someone may be gay, all they have to do is accept who I am, and respect me as a person, and love me just as much as they would anyone else. Simple as that, really. I don't think that is too much to ask.
Why do they have to accept it? What they are really trying to do is help you just as they would help the homesless, addicts etc. etc.
And really if queers just want to live their lives and be left alone then why the big political push? I'll tell ya why, its because it ain't about marriage or benefits or any of that other crap its about legitimization of your perversion of choice.............nothing more, nothing less.
LuvRPgrl
04-20-2008, 07:48 PM
They don't have to accept the fact that someone may be gay, all they have to do is accept who I am, and respect me as a person, and love me just as much as they would anyone else. Simple as that, really. I don't think that is too much to ask.
SO, if you walk by a group of Christians, and only one says something about you, then you remember that and think ALL Christians, or a lot anyways, are like that. BUT FACT IS, nine others did accept you.
As for respect, that has to be earned.
Love, Im sure most would be willing to help you in any field or issues you have.
The thing is this, Christianity says homosexualilty is a sin. Im an alcoholic, and for me, alcohol consumption is a sin, so I dont.
The view is, as long as you claim the BS of society, that it is perrectly normal, then we believe you are delusional, misguided.
The thing is, I dont for a second believe anyone chooses to be a homosexual. But, on the other hand, even if you are, abstinence is an option. Hell, I have a natural desire for four women at a time, thats much more normal than your desires, but I dont do it.
glockmail
04-20-2008, 07:54 PM
They don't have to accept the fact that someone may be gay, all they have to do is accept who I am, and respect me as a person, and love me just as much as they would anyone else. Simple as that, really. I don't think that is too much to ask. No problem here babe. All you have to do in return is admit that homosexuality is not:
1. normal
2. natural
3. healthy
4. moral
My Winter Storm
04-20-2008, 09:51 PM
No problem here babe. All you have to do in return is admit that homosexuality is not:
1. normal
2. natural
3. healthy
4. moral
If I thought all those things about myself, I'd not believe myself to be a good person. I am a good person, and there is only ONE thing that makes me just a little bit different. Never mind all the good things, why do people insist on focusing on that ONE thing they do not like? It's incredibly judgemental.
My Winter Storm
04-20-2008, 09:59 PM
Why do they have to accept it? What they are really trying to do is help you just as they would help the homesless, addicts etc. etc.
I never said they had to accept it, all they have to do is accept that some people are different, that is all.
glockmail
04-21-2008, 07:36 AM
If I thought all those things about myself, I'd not believe myself to be a good person. I am a good person, and there is only ONE thing that makes me just a little bit different. Never mind all the good things, why do people insist on focusing on that ONE thing they do not like? It's incredibly judgemental. It sounds like you've repeated the mantra well. However, there is nothing good verses bad about any of these issues. As I have said from the get-go, this thread is about truth, not judgement, and you now seem to be resisting these truths.
I never said they had to accept it, all they have to do is accept that some people are different, that is all.
Why do they have to accept that you are different in a demented way? Should we just accept the polygamist cults that marry up underage girls with elderly men? Thats demented and so is homosexuality so no we don't have to accept it.
You act as if the choice you made to go queer is on the same par as someone who is BORN Black or someone who has a cleft palate.............its not. You made the choice to do what you do whether you want to admit it or not, the others had zero choice.
My Winter Storm
04-21-2008, 08:15 PM
Why do they have to accept that you are different in a demented way? Should we just accept the polygamist cults that marry up underage girls with elderly men? Thats demented and so is homosexuality so no we don't have to accept it.
You act as if the choice you made to go queer is on the same par as someone who is BORN Black or someone who has a cleft palate.............its not. You made the choice to do what you do whether you want to admit it or not, the others had zero choice.
You can say that as much as you like, doesn't make you right.
Could you change yourself into a gay man? You say that gay people chose to be gay, so obviously any straight person would be easily able to change themselves into gay men, so tell me, could you?
My Winter Storm
04-21-2008, 08:16 PM
It sounds like you've repeated the mantra well. However, there is nothing good verses bad about any of these issues. As I have said from the get-go, this thread is about truth, not judgement, and you now seem to be resisting these truths.
I am not denying any truth, because the truth that you want me to hear I do not believe.
Nice to know that I could be the most perfect person in the world, but one thing means you discriminate. Lovely people you are.
Pale Rider
04-21-2008, 10:21 PM
I never said they had to accept it, all they have to do is accept that some people are different, that is all.
You just said it again... that people "have to accept" your sickness. Well I've got news for ya sister... NO WE DON'T! It's vile, it's disgusting, it's perverted, and WE DON'T ACCEPT IT! And just for the record, WE ARE 95% OF THE WORLDS POPULATION!
You're sick. Just get help and quit trying to force us into thinking you're OK. You're not. Get help.
actsnoblemartin
04-21-2008, 10:26 PM
we may not have to accept it, but we dont have to judge it so harshly either
You just said it again... that people "have to accept" your sickness. Well I've got news for ya sister... NO WE DON'T! It's vile, it's disgusting, it's perverted, and WE DON'T ACCEPT IT! And just for the record, WE ARE 95% OF THE WORLDS POPULATION!
You're sick. Just get help and quit trying to force us into thinking you're OK. You're not. Get help.
Missileman
04-21-2008, 10:30 PM
WE ARE 95% OF THE WORLDS POPULATION!
Where the fuck do you get off claiming to speak for 95% of the world's population?
actsnoblemartin
04-21-2008, 10:38 PM
Im starting to think, why a comprimise cant be worked out instead of the the all or none propositions of we're gay, accept us or will rape you and the you're gay, faggot youre going to hell bitch crowds
obviously not all on either side feel this way.
But, im just thinking some kind of comprimise is in order
Where the fuck do you get off claiming to speak for 95% of the world's population?
LuvRPgrl
04-22-2008, 02:27 AM
Where the fuck do you get off claiming to speak for 95% of the world's population?
He probably gets off at 1st and main st
Uh, 100% minus 5% (# of homosexuals) = 95%.
My Winter Storm
04-22-2008, 03:12 AM
You just said it again... that people "have to accept" your sickness. Well I've got news for ya sister... NO WE DON'T! It's vile, it's disgusting, it's perverted, and WE DON'T ACCEPT IT! And just for the record, WE ARE 95% OF THE WORLDS POPULATION!
You're sick. Just get help and quit trying to force us into thinking you're OK. You're not. Get help.
Vile, disgusting and perverted is your personal opinion - all are things I would say about you and other homophobes. Homophobia is more vile than homosexuality. I may not agree with what some people choose to do, but at least I don't openly express my hatred for them. I actually have respect, something which seems not come easy to you.
My Winter Storm
04-22-2008, 03:14 AM
Where the fuck do you get off claiming to speak for 95% of the world's population?
Lets assume the other 5% are homosexuals themselves, then we must also take off about another 30 - 40%, perhaps more, of people who support gay rights, and he only speaks for around 55 - 65% of the worlds population.
My Winter Storm
04-22-2008, 03:28 AM
Could you change yourself into a gay man? You say that gay people chose to be gay, so obviously any straight person would be easily able to change themselves into gay men, so tell me, could you?
OCA, still waiting for a reply on this one. Convienient that you have ignored it.
You can say that as much as you like, doesn't make you right.
Could you change yourself into a gay man? You say that gay people chose to be gay, so obviously any straight person would be easily able to change themselves into gay men, so tell me, could you?
Sure if I suddenly went batshit retarded crazy, which is where the ability to make the choice comes from, a mental condition and that mental condition should be treated.
OCA, still waiting for a reply on this one. Convienient that you have ignored it.
I'm not usually up at 4:28 a.m., get a clue.
glockmail
04-22-2008, 05:47 AM
I am not denying any truth, because the truth that you want me to hear I do not believe.
Nice to know that I could be the most perfect person in the world, but one thing means you discriminate. Lovely people you are. Again you play the victim. That usually happens when someone loses an argument, as you obviously have. You consider yourself to be open minded, except when it comes to the obvious, simple truths that I have exposed here.
My Winter Storm
04-22-2008, 10:30 PM
Again you play the victim. That usually happens when someone loses an argument, as you obviously have. You consider yourself to be open minded, except when it comes to the obvious, simple truths that I have exposed here.
I am open minded, but someone has to present a half decent arguement in order for me to even consider what they have said. I have heard here the same things I have heard for years. You have no arguement. Come up with something better, please.
My Winter Storm
04-22-2008, 10:32 PM
Sure if I suddenly went batshit retarded crazy, which is where the ability to make the choice comes from, a mental condition and that mental condition should be treated.
So if you yourself were gay you'd be begging doctors to cure you?
:clap::laugh2: Shit you make me laugh.
Pale Rider
04-23-2008, 05:26 AM
I am open minded, but someone has to present a half decent arguement in order for me to even consider what they have said. I have heard here the same things I have heard for years. You have no arguement. Come up with something better, please.
In other words you've said: "I'm a queer and I know it, and even though you can prove I'm perverted, I'm not going to listen."
Yeah, we've heard all THAT crap before too.
glockmail
04-23-2008, 07:44 AM
I am open minded, but someone has to present a half decent arguement in order for me to even consider what they have said. I have heard here the same things I have heard for years. You have no arguement. Come up with something better, please. I don't have to come up with a different argument because you have yet to engage the first. Feel free to pick any one of the 7 in the OP. And stop playing the victim, please.
LuvRPgrl
04-23-2008, 01:55 PM
Vile, disgusting and perverted is your personal opinion - all are things I would say about you and other homophobes. Homophobia is more vile than homosexuality. I may not agree with what some people choose to do, but at least I don't openly express my hatred for them. I actually have respect, something which seems not come easy to you.
So, hating homosexuality is wrong,
But hating those who hate, is ok.
Besides, you say OPENLY express, are you hiding something?
LuvRPgrl
04-23-2008, 01:57 PM
So if you yourself were gay you'd be begging doctors to cure you?
:clap::laugh2: Shit you make me laugh.
I would abstain from having sex, as I did when I wasnt married.
And I certainly wouldnt be pushing for further destruction of our already fragile social structure. COMPLETE freedom = ANARCHY.
So if you yourself were gay you'd be begging doctors to cure you?
:clap::laugh2: Shit you make me laugh.
Yes, same as if I made the choice to smoke crack, i'd be begging for some help. Both things are along the same lines.
Abbey Marie
04-23-2008, 02:28 PM
I am open minded, but someone has to present a half decent arguement in order for me to even consider what they have said. I have heard here the same things I have heard for years. You have no arguement. Come up with something better, please.
SdA, arguments for gravity have been around for centuries, yet they are still valid and accepted.
Pale Rider
04-23-2008, 03:47 PM
Vile, disgusting and perverted is your personal opinion - all are things I would say about you and other homophobes. Homophobia is more vile than homosexuality. I may not agree with what some people choose to do, but at least I don't openly express my hatred for them. I actually have respect, something which seems not come easy to you.
You speak as a typical homo, spewing out your buzz word in hopes of intimidating your opposition. Well, homophobia my dear is the "fear" of homosexuality, and no one here has even come close to expressing "fear." A "phobia" is a "fear." We have, however, expressed "disgust." Now I know you know the difference, because I just told you, and I don't expect to hear that word again, unless you can prove it's legitimacy in a statement.
glockmail
04-23-2008, 03:52 PM
You speak as a typical homo, spewing out your buzz word in hopes of intimidating your opposition. Well, homophobia my dear is the "fear" of homosexuality, and no one here has even come close to expressing "fear." A "phobia" is a "fear." We have, however, expressed "disgust." Now I know you know the difference, because I just told you, and I don't expect to hear that word again, unless you can prove it's legitimacy in a statement. Expect her to redefine the term to include intolerance and disgust. We've seen that one before.
glockmail
04-30-2008, 08:33 AM
bump
Abbey Marie
04-30-2008, 09:38 AM
bump
So, what's Adolph listening to- 99 Luftballons? :laugh2:
glockmail
04-30-2008, 09:41 AM
So, what's Adolph listening to- 99 Luftballons? :laugh2:In Hell, he's forced to listen to Barry Manilow and Neil Sadaka continuosly. :laugh2:
Abbey Marie
04-30-2008, 11:47 AM
In Hell, he's forced to listen to Barry Manilow and Neil Sadaka continuosly. :laugh2:
:laugh2:
actsnoblemartin
04-30-2008, 05:03 PM
two things: god isnt only tough on homosexuals. He says fornication is a sin.
Can u imagine how many sinning hetero's their are, not that, that excuses anything.
I think, if their was a cure for homosexuality. Then homosexuals should have the right to choose if they wanted to take it or not.
I think its possible to hate sin, or not agree with things, and not hate people.
I certainly dont hate sharon at all :)
glockmail
04-30-2008, 07:11 PM
two things: god isnt only tough on homosexuals. He says fornication is a sin.
Can u imagine how many sinning hetero's their are, not that, that excuses anything.
I think, if their was a cure for homosexuality. Then homosexuals should have the right to choose if they wanted to take it or not.
I think its possible to hate sin, or not agree with things, and not hate people.
I certainly dont hate sharon at all :) I think Sharon's "the berries", as we used to say in my day.
My Winter Storm
04-30-2008, 10:15 PM
I think Sharon's "the berries", as we used to say in my day.
No idea what that means, but hopefully it's something good.:cool:
My Winter Storm
04-30-2008, 10:19 PM
I would abstain from having sex, as I did when I wasnt married.
Well, what a boring person you are. Ever heard of try before you buy?
And I certainly wouldnt be pushing for further destruction of our already fragile social structure. COMPLETE freedom = ANARCHY.
I wonder why our society is fragile? Could it be that we see nothing wrong with letting straights marry and divorce a half dozen times? Could it be that straights have no idea what marriage actually means?
Hmm...
My Winter Storm
04-30-2008, 10:30 PM
So, hating homosexuality is wrong,
But hating those who hate, is ok.
Besides, you say OPENLY express, are you hiding something?
You can hate homosexuality, just give me a good reason as to why. So far, I haven't heard one, other than personal opinion, which doesn't count.
manu1959
04-30-2008, 11:01 PM
You can hate homosexuality, just give me a good reason as to why. So far, I haven't heard one, other than personal opinion, which doesn't count.
if personal opinion doesn't count....that kinda negates your post no.....
Pale Rider
04-30-2008, 11:08 PM
I think, if their was a cure for homosexuality. Then homosexuals should have the right to choose if they wanted to take it or not.
There is a cure. Many have taken advantage of it. But part of the homo agenda is to stifle such information as bogus. It delegitimizes their sickness because it's curable, and the last thing they want is for information like that to reach the main stream.
Pale Rider
05-01-2008, 12:59 AM
You can hate homosexuality, just give me a good reason as to why. So far, I haven't heard one, other than personal opinion, which doesn't count.
It's disgusting. The mere thought of homosexual acts to the "normal" person is revolting. You wouldn't understand, because you suffer from the illness.
Get help, then you'll understand what 97% of the rest of mankind on earth knows. You're sick, and what you do is perverted.
Missileman
05-01-2008, 06:58 AM
There is a cure. Many have taken advantage of it. But part of the homo agenda is to stifle such information as bogus. It delegitimizes their sickness because it's curable, and the last thing they want is for information like that to reach the main stream.
:bsflag:
:link:
glockmail
05-01-2008, 07:35 AM
No idea what that means, but hopefully it's something good.:cool:
It is. :coffee:
Pale Rider
05-01-2008, 11:40 AM
:link:
There's PLENTY more... you find it.
'Cure' for homosexuality?
Study: Some 'gays' can become 'predominantly' heterosexual with psychotherapy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: October 06, 2003, 3:28 am Eastern
© 2008 WorldNetDaily.com
Are people born homosexual?
The republishing of 2001 research has rekindled this smoldering debate and created a firestorm within academia, reports the London daily Independent.
A study based on interviews with 200 men and women who claimed to have switched their homosexual preferences demonstrates some "gays" are capable of becoming "predominantly" heterosexual through psychotherapy.
"In some of the subjects, the reports of change in sexual orientation were substantial, credible and believable," said Robert Spitzer, the professor of psychiatry at Columbia University in New York who conducted the study.
"The subjects' self-reports of change appear to be, by and large, valid, rather than gross exaggerations, brain-washing or wishful thinking," Spitzer said in a summary of his analysis, according to the Washington Post.
Spitzer's research has been republished in the current issue of Archives of Sexual Behavior.
Read the rest here... (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34943)
Missileman
05-01-2008, 04:23 PM
There's PLENTY more... you find it.
'Cure' for homosexuality?
Study: Some 'gays' can become 'predominantly' heterosexual with psychotherapy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: October 06, 2003, 3:28 am Eastern
© 2008 WorldNetDaily.com
Are people born homosexual?
The republishing of 2001 research has rekindled this smoldering debate and created a firestorm within academia, reports the London daily Independent.
A study based on interviews with 200 men and women who claimed to have switched their homosexual preferences demonstrates some "gays" are capable of becoming "predominantly" heterosexual through psychotherapy.
"In some of the subjects, the reports of change in sexual orientation were substantial, credible and believable," said Robert Spitzer, the professor of psychiatry at Columbia University in New York who conducted the study.
"The subjects' self-reports of change appear to be, by and large, valid, rather than gross exaggerations, brain-washing or wishful thinking," Spitzer said in a summary of his analysis, according to the Washington Post.
Spitzer's research has been republished in the current issue of Archives of Sexual Behavior.
Read the rest here... (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34943)
Look up the words predominantly and some and tell us again how there's a cure. :poop:
bullypulpit
05-01-2008, 08:16 PM
Look up the words predominantly and some and tell us again how there's a cure. :poop:
Never mind that his source was "WorldNet Daily"...a right wing mouthpiece if there ever was one. An unsourced story is proof of nothing beyond the writer's prejudices and their desire to pander to the same prejudices in the readers.
Try again PR...from a reputable source.
glockmail
05-01-2008, 08:27 PM
Actually, before you QE’s demonize Spitzer, you ought to know that he’s your buddy:
Professor Spitzer is an eminent authority on sexual orientation and, in 1973, was instrumental in having homosexuality removed from the American Psychiatric Association's list of mental illnesses.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/en/doc/2003-10/08/content_269765.htm
Some more info:
http://www.narth.com/docs/spitzer2.html
glockmail
05-01-2008, 08:28 PM
Look up the words predominantly and some and tell us again how there's a cure. :poop:
This is pshrinks we are discussing. There are never any absolutes.
Missileman
05-01-2008, 08:28 PM
Never mind that his source was "WorldNet Daily"...a right wing mouthpiece if there ever was one. An unsourced story is proof of nothing beyond the writer's prejudices and their desire to pander to the same prejudices in the readers.
Try again PR...from a reputable source.
If he possessed anything better than a rudimentary grasp of English, he'd be able to recognize that there's a single, perfect word for a homosexual who is predominantly heterosexual, and it isn't "cured"...it's "bisexual". OMG...what a breakthrough!
actsnoblemartin
05-01-2008, 08:32 PM
So anything left source, the new york times, l.a. times, most newspapers,
ill just say, nope liberal bias :dance:
Never mind that his source was "WorldNet Daily"...a right wing mouthpiece if there ever was one. An unsourced story is proof of nothing beyond the writer's prejudices and their desire to pander to the same prejudices in the readers.
Try again PR...from a reputable source.
glockmail
05-01-2008, 08:38 PM
So anything left source, the new york times, l.a. times, most newspapers,
ill just say, nope liberal bias :dance:
Why do you think I cited the same article from a source in Communist China. :coffee:
actsnoblemartin
05-01-2008, 08:45 PM
thats classic. :laugh2:
actually, i think you can find multiple sources on most issues, but a left or right source should not automatically disqualify a source, what happened to liberal openness, aparently, as long as its only liberal stuff/sources :coffee:
Why do you think I cited the same article from a source in Communist China. :coffee:
My Winter Storm
05-02-2008, 12:28 AM
There's PLENTY more... you find it.
'Cure' for homosexuality?
Study: Some 'gays' can become 'predominantly' heterosexual with psychotherapy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: October 06, 2003, 3:28 am Eastern
© 2008 WorldNetDaily.com
Are people born homosexual?
The republishing of 2001 research has rekindled this smoldering debate and created a firestorm within academia, reports the London daily Independent.
A study based on interviews with 200 men and women who claimed to have switched their homosexual preferences demonstrates some "gays" are capable of becoming "predominantly" heterosexual through psychotherapy.
"In some of the subjects, the reports of change in sexual orientation were substantial, credible and believable," said Robert Spitzer, the professor of psychiatry at Columbia University in New York who conducted the study.
"The subjects' self-reports of change appear to be, by and large, valid, rather than gross exaggerations, brain-washing or wishful thinking," Spitzer said in a summary of his analysis, according to the Washington Post.
Spitzer's research has been republished in the current issue of Archives of Sexual Behavior.
Read the rest here... (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34943)
The 'gays' in question were obviously never gay in the first place, because if they were, they could never have 'changed'.
Second, how long does this 'therapy' last? Is it ongoing?
Third, I wouldn't be surprised if the 'partiticpants' were paid large sums of money to claim they 'changed'
I'm sure it's happened before.
glockmail
05-02-2008, 07:40 AM
The 'gays' in question were obviously never gay in the first place, because if they were, they could never have 'changed'.
Second, how long does this 'therapy' last? Is it ongoing?
Third, I wouldn't be surprised if the 'partiticpants' were paid large sums of money to claim they 'changed'
I'm sure it's happened before. You are questioning the integrity of the researcher. My previous quote show that Spitzer has been on both sides of this issue:
Professor Spitzer is an eminent authority on sexual orientation and, in 1973, was instrumental in having homosexuality removed from the American Psychiatric Association's list of mental illnesses. Professor Spitzer is an eminent authority on sexual orientation and, in 1973, was instrumental in having homosexuality removed from the American Psychiatric Association's list of mental illnesses.
This alone should tell you that he doesn’t have an agenda that he’s trying to push.
Why not review the findings instead of demonizing the messenger and dismissing the report out-of hand?
bullypulpit
05-02-2008, 09:13 AM
If he possessed anything better than a rudimentary grasp of English, he'd be able to recognize that there's a single, perfect word for a homosexual who is predominantly heterosexual, and it isn't "cured"...it's "bisexual". OMG...what a breakthrough!
Too true...! :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2:
glockmail
05-02-2008, 01:45 PM
Not quite. :pee:
My Winter Storm
05-02-2008, 10:10 PM
You are questioning the integrity of the researcher. My previous quote show that Spitzer has been on both sides of this issue:
This alone should tell you that he doesn’t have an agenda that he’s trying to push.
Why not review the findings instead of demonizing the messenger and dismissing the report out-of hand?
I read the whole artical. Good on him for the work he has done, but that doesn't mean gay people choose to be gay. Maybe a few do - but they only choose to sleep with people of the opposite sex, not be attracted to them.
Pale Rider
05-03-2008, 05:40 AM
The 'gays' in question were obviously never gay in the first place, because if they were, they could never have 'changed'.
Well, the article is about homos, not happy people, and your claim that they were never homo in the first place is totally without backing. It's just your uneducated, lezbo biased notion.
Second, how long does this 'therapy' last? Is it ongoing?
I don't know. I'm not a homo. Perhaps you should look into it. You're the one that needs it.
Third, I wouldn't be surprised if the 'partiticpants' were paid large sums of money to claim they 'changed'
I'm sure it's happened before.
I'd have bet my total net worth you'd dismiss anything I posted as nothing more than bull, even though there's tons of it, and I could keep posting it every day, non stop. You people do it every, single time. You homo apologists and excuse makers are ALL THE SAME, and your game is highly predictable. Those of us that have been dealing you people on message boards for awhile know the score though. We know you're whipping the straw man.
Fact of the matter is, if a man or woman is able to admit to himself/herself that they're sick, and they seek out help, chances are very good they can be cured. Problem with people like you and all those who are lying to you and making excuses for your sick, perverted behavior is, you don't WANT to be cured, thus you perpetuate your illness. Whatever.... :talk2hand:
Missileman
05-03-2008, 08:11 AM
I'd have bet my total net worth you'd dismiss anything I posted as nothing more than bull, even though there's tons of it, and I could keep posting it every day, non stop. You people do it every, single time. You homo apologists and excuse makers are ALL THE SAME, and your game is highly predictable. Those of us that have been dealing you people on message boards for awhile know the score though. We know you're whipping the straw man.
Fact of the matter is, if a man or woman is able to admit to himself/herself that they're sick, and they seek out help, chances are very good they can be cured. Problem with people like you and all those who are lying to you and making excuses for your sick, perverted behavior is, you don't WANT to be cured, thus you perpetuate your illness. Whatever.... :talk2hand:
Are you REALLY going to defend what you've posted as a cure when it's been proven beyond any doubt that's it nothing of the sort? If you want to stop people from dismissing what you're posting as bullshit, stop posting bullshit. Googling "cure for gays" and grabbing the first thing that pops up is where you get into trouble. It's obvious that a lot of the time you don't even bother to read the article before you post it.
Pale Rider
05-03-2008, 09:13 AM
Are you REALLY going to defend what you've posted as a cure when it's been proven beyond any doubt that's it nothing of the sort?
There ya go... one of the boards biggest homo defenders and excuse makers is making ANOTHER *unsubstantiated claim*.
Link to something, ANYTHING, that can back up you're assertion bottlerocket, or your just blowing hot air.
Missileman
05-03-2008, 10:03 AM
There ya go... one of the boards biggest homo defenders and excuse makers is making ANOTHER *unsubstantiated claim*.
Link to something, ANYTHING, that can back up you're assertion bottlerocket, or your just blowing hot air.
As I have already stated, the evidence of what I'm saying is in YOUR OWN LINK...look up the word predominantly. If it were really a cure, they would be "totally" or "completely" heterosexual, not "mostly" or "almost always" or "predominantly".
Pale Rider
05-03-2008, 10:13 AM
As I have already stated, the evidence of what I'm saying is in YOUR OWN LINK...look up the word predominantly. If it were really a cure, they would be "totally" or "completely" heterosexual, not "mostly" or "almost always" or "predominantly".
How far do you think you pissed that time Mm? Far enough? Your argument is all based on one word of one article, and I can find a hundred more that DON'T say "predominately," but you, being the boards biggest homo excuse maker and apologist will just piss on each and every article for some moronic reason just as you've done this one. So it's not worth it to continue. I'm not talking with anyone that's listening with an open mind, or that I will EVER convince otherwise. You'll go to your grave with the words, "I love homos" on your lips, and I can't change that.
Missileman
05-03-2008, 10:24 AM
How far do you think you pissed that time Mm? Far enough? Your argument is all based on one word of one article, and I can find a hundred more that DON'T say "predominately," but you, being the boards biggest homo excuse maker and apologist will just piss on each and every article for some moronic reason just as you've done this one. So it's not worth it to continue. I'm not talking with anyone that's listening with an open mind, or that I will EVER convince otherwise. You'll go to your grave with the words, "I love homos" on your lips, and I can't change that.
Then post the hundred that don't say "predominantly". Don't get indignant towards me because YOU can't post a decent link. If you're going to continue to post bullshit, you forfeit the right to get mad if someone points out that it stinks.
And if you REALLY consider it a cure when all they've done is turn a few homosexuals into bisexuals, it's your reasoning that's moronic.
Pale Rider
05-03-2008, 10:47 AM
Then post the hundred that don't say "predominantly". Don't get indignant towards me because YOU can't post a decent link. If you're going to continue to post bullshit, you forfeit the right to get mad if someone points out that it stinks.
And if you REALLY consider it a cure when all they've done is turn a few homosexuals into bisexuals, it's your reasoning that's moronic.
No... here's how it's going to work son... I post an article, YOU post an article. You purport "there is no cure."
Prove it.
Missileman
05-03-2008, 11:24 AM
No... here's how it's going to work son... I post an article, YOU post an article. You purport "there is no cure."
Prove it.
You think you're acheiving some kind of high ground by referring to me as son? You're an idiot! I have no need to counter your article with another article, I proved that your link about a cure was shit. Unless you post another, preferably credible, it will mean that it was the only one you could come up with.
glockmail
05-03-2008, 12:17 PM
I read the whole artical. Good on him for the work he has done, but that doesn't mean gay people choose to be gay. Maybe a few do - but they only choose to sleep with people of the opposite sex, not be attracted to them. I think that you are dismissing the research out-of-hand.
glockmail
05-03-2008, 12:19 PM
As I have already stated, the evidence of what I'm saying is in YOUR OWN LINK...look up the word predominantly. If it were really a cure, they would be "totally" or "completely" heterosexual, not "mostly" or "almost always" or "predominantly". Again, we are talkin about human brains and behavior. There are no absolutes.
The study proves that queers who want to be cured can be cured, therefore they ain't born queer.
LuvRPgrl
05-03-2008, 04:41 PM
You speak as a typical homo, spewing out your buzz word in hopes of intimidating your opposition. Well, homophobia my dear is the "fear" of homosexuality, and no one here has even come close to expressing "fear." A "phobia" is a "fear." We have, however, expressed "disgust." Now I know you know the difference, because I just told you, and I don't expect to hear that word again, unless you can prove it's legitimacy in a statement.
Some of us havent even expressed disgust, or any other emotional reaction. But instead we have chosen to remain on the scientific, logical consequences and proof showing that it is damaging and un natural to be homosexual.
as for showing disgust, I havent, "not that there is anything wrong with that"
as for being homosexual, Im not, "not that there is anything wrong with that"
Many of us are merely accepting of the people who are, but NOT accepting of having it rammed down our throats, and forced to accept social changes because of it, using the claim its "normal" or not "unhealthy" to engage in homosexuality.
Again, Tammy Bruce, lesbian, feminist, former president of LA chapter of NOW, states that a vast majority of homo's, and lesbians, are like her, having had their first sexual encounter as a minor, with another homo/lesbian who was an adult.
Funny how the govt arrests and imprisons hetero's for statutory rape, but not homosexuals, for the most part.
LuvRPgrl
05-03-2008, 05:02 PM
Never mind that his source was "WorldNet Daily"...a right wing mouthpiece if there ever was one. An unsourced story is proof of nothing beyond the writer's prejudices and their desire to pander to the same prejudices in the readers.
Try again PR...from a reputable source.
The source is NOT Worldnet Daily, the "source" is the information contained in the article "REPUBLISHED" by WnD, is the study itself, in fact, WnD didnt even republish the original story, but a story by another English paper that had republished the original story with a comment that the republishing f the story has created a firestorm, by The London Daily Independent" (which sounds more likely to be liberal than conservative).
Attacking the facts and/or opinions of the research because it was republished by a source you dont like is akin to attacking live testimony of an ongoing trial as illegitimate, because the source providing it is a TV station, if it were being broadcast by Court TV.
So, try attacking the credibility of the studies author, not those publishing his findings.
Oh, by the way, he he, the author is the guy who got the AMA to declare homosexuality is NOT a mental disorder, so much for the possibility of his being biased against homo's.
LuvRPgrl
05-03-2008, 05:10 PM
As I have already stated, the evidence of what I'm saying is in YOUR OWN LINK...look up the word predominantly. If it were really a cure, they would be "totally" or "completely" heterosexual, not "mostly" or "almost always" or "predominantly".
Why? Why is that son? Because you say so?
Curing homosexuality would mean changing ones sexual preference to something other than only men. Last time I checked, homos only choose others of the same gender, and bi sexuals choose both genders and heterosexuals only choose opposite gender.
So, are you saying there is no difference between homo's and bi's?
Are you saying that the only "cure" that is acceptable as a "cure" is to become completely heterosexual? Cuz apparently those who are the subject of the study, and those whose PERSONAL LIVES are actually affected by this, consider themselves cured.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There is a difference between claiming a cure of homosexuality and a cure of any desire towards the same gender whatsoever.
FOr you to claim otherwise, would be for you to engage in irrelevant semantics.
The spirit of the matter is that one can be changed, and desiring the opposite gender when one previously had no such desire, is dramatic, and PROVES that homosexuality (sexual desire and/or engagement in sex, with ONLY the same gender) is not hard wired in us, or genetic at all times. It is sometimes, at minimum, enviormental.
************************************************** *********
Oddly enough, the liberals who pride themselves on demanding "choice"
for people, want to deny choice to homo's on two levels. One, the choice to seek such therapy, and the choice that the homo's now have, after the therapy, to be able to choose which gender to have sex with.
LuvRPgrl
05-03-2008, 05:16 PM
The 'gays' in question were obviously never gay in the first place, because if they were, they could never have 'changed'.
Second, how long does this 'therapy' last? Is it ongoing?
Third, I wouldn't be surprised if the 'partiticpants' were paid large sums of money to claim they 'changed'
I'm sure it's happened before.
Now, thats tough to argue with. Ever hear of circular reasoning? With your logic, its impossible to cure homosexuals, because automatically one was never a homo if one can become attracted to the opposite gender.
Now, between you and MM, one is claiming they are "not cured" and hence "still homos", while the other is claiming they "NEVER were homos", which is it guys?
actsnoblemartin
05-03-2008, 05:29 PM
I think it would be funny, to see a straight go gay.
or have a show called, bi: which will they choose and see if they fall for the gay or straight, or wait we have that tequilla
Missileman
05-03-2008, 05:53 PM
Why? Why is that son? Because you say so?
Oh lookee...another idiot who thinks calling me son improves his argument.
Curing homosexuality would mean changing ones sexual preference to something other than only men.
No fucktard...curing homosexuality means eliminating the desire to have sex with the same gender.
You don't cure a cold by giving someone the measles. Claiming that since they are predominantly afflicted with the measles that you cured their cold is bullshit.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.