Homosexuality Now, Pedophilia Next

[manu1959]

Actually I am. Fortunately, I do not live in a glass house.
Probably because it hasn't been announced on Fox yet. Perhaps you should start reading non-right wing sources.

leprose is a non-heredity disease caused by a contagious bacillus....
So leprosy is a choice? Shouldn't you be wishing death on them?
wickans do have live sacrifics for a varity of things...your point
I was not aware that you were a wiccan.

you do live in a glass house....i am sorry that you windows are dirty....
i watch msnbc, cspan, bbc and cnn...care to provide a link to your claim....
you compared an alledged genetic disease with a contagious one....been to molokai...
i am not wickan....

for a follower of jesus you seem to exhibit traits i was unaware he held dear....

[glockmail]

So your scientific method is to only count gay people who live with another gay person? Actually the comparison is gay households compared to all US households. Plus, the number jives perfectly with the other survey data I cited.

You lose. :poke:

[glockmail]

Jesus said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
Homosexuality was considered a sin in Biblical days because they did not know it was hereditary. Lepers and those born deformed were also outcasts.

If we are going to condemn homosexuality because it is in the Bible, shouldn't we also be doing live sacrifices to insure better crop harvests?

Obviously you've never read the Bible. Both your assertions are completely incorrect. :pee:

[Missileman]

Actually the comparison is gay households compared to all US households.
The data only referred to couples...the figure says nothing about singles or gays that are still living with their parents.



Plus, the number jives perfectly with the other survey data I cited.

You lose. :poke:


So in your "scientific" opinion, 15-20 year-old data is more likely to be accurate about today's numbers than data from a few months ago? I knew you sucked at science, but you just demonstrated that I drastically underestimated the degree to which you do.

[glockmail]

The data only referred to couples...the figure says nothing about singles or gays that are still living with their parents.





So in your "scientific" opinion, 15-20 year-old data is more likely to be accurate about today's numbers than data from a few months ago? I knew you sucked at science, but you just demonstrated that I drastically underestimated the degree to which you do.

You not only suck at science but you can't read either. For the third time: THE DATA IS FOR HOUSEHOLDS, NOT INDIVIDUALS.

I cited 7 studies from 7 sources between 1986 and 2000, and they are all consistent. You lose again.

[Pale Rider]

Actually I am. Fortunately, I do not live in a glass house.
Probably because it hasn't been announced on Fox yet. Perhaps you should start reading non-right wing sources.

So leprosy is a choice? Shouldn't you be wishing death on them?

I was not aware that you were a wiccan.


Yeeaahh umm.... I didn't see any proof that homosexuality was hereditary there either. That's ok, I know you don't have any anyway.

[Missileman]

You not only suck at science but you can't read either. For the third time: THE DATA IS FOR HOUSEHOLDS, NOT INDIVIDUALS.

I cited 7 studies from 7 sources between 1986 and 2000, and they are all consistent. You lose again.


The majority of these unmarried-partner households had partners of the opposite sex (4.9 million) but about 1 in 9 (594,000) had partners of the same sex.

They were only counting couples. The figure is interesting, but can't be used to deduce the total percentage of gays in the U.S. It does nothing to support your claim that gays only comprise 1-1.5% of the population. It would be like trying to extrapolate the total number of whites in the U.S. by counting only the whites in an interracial marriage.

The data I cited was from 2006...your sources that were speaking to the total number of gays ranged from 1986-1993. Your data is outdated.

[glockmail]

They were only counting couples. The figure is interesting, but can't be used to deduce the total percentage of gays in the U.S. It does nothing to support your claim that gays only comprise 1-1.5% of the population. It would be like trying to extrapolate the total number of whites in the U.S. by counting only the whites in an interracial marriage.

The data I cited was from 2006...your sources that were speaking to the total number of gays ranged from 1986-1993. Your data is outdated.


Bullshit. The 2000 census contains the largest study sample ever about this issue, and shows the number of queer households directly against the total, a sampling of over 200 million people, of 2/3 of the total population! If there are queers in the remaining 1/3, science tells us that they would be in a similar proportion.

The remaining 6 studies between 1986 and 1993 all show the same thing.

You assume that some po-dunk study from the UCLA with a pitifully small sampling indcates that the percentage of queers TRIPLED in 6 years. :lol: :lol:

[glockmail]

:laugh2: Oh gawd, I'm splitting a gut! :laugh2:

[CockySOB]

Bullshit. The 2000 census contains the largest study sample ever about this issue, and shows the number of queer households directly against the total, a sampling of over 200 million people, of 2/3 of the total population! If there are queers in the remaining 1/3, science tells us that they would be in a similar proportion.

The remaining 6 studies between 1986 and 1993 all show the same thing.

You assume that some po-dunk study from the UCLA with a pitifully small sampling indcates that the percentage of queers TRIPLED in 6 years. :lol: :lol:

AHEM! Last I checked the UCLA link was MINE, not MissileMan's. And the sample sizes in that document are far superior to the studies cited by the FRC which you and others have put forth. To wit, many of the "studies" cited in the FRC documents regarding an alleged connection between homosexuality and pedophilia use samples sizes less than one hundred, a number which cannot even BEGIN to deal with population sizes many, MANY orders of magnitude larger than the sample set.

If you'd care to discuss the aspects of the PDF from UCLA which I linked to, I'd be more than happy to do so. Just make certain you have your ducks in a row first, please.

[glockmail]

AHEM! Last I checked the UCLA link was MINE, not MissileMan's. And the sample sizes in that document are far superior to the studies cited by the FRC which you and others have put forth. To wit, many of the "studies" cited in the FRC documents regarding an alleged connection between homosexuality and pedophilia use samples sizes less than one hundred, a number which cannot even BEGIN to deal with population sizes many, MANY orders of magnitude larger than the sample set.

If you'd care to discuss the aspects of the PDF from UCLA which I linked to, I'd be more than happy to do so. Just make certain you have your ducks in a row first, please.


So what was the sample set of UCLA vs the sample set of the US Census? :poke: :laugh2:

[Missileman]

Bullshit. The 2000 census contains the largest study sample ever about this issue, and shows the number of queer households directly against the total, a sampling of over 200 million people, of 2/3 of the total population! If there are queers in the remaining 1/3, science tells us that they would be in a similar proportion.

All it said was that over 10% (1 in 9) of unmarried households were gay. It makes no mention of the sexual orientation of the people occupying the other 46.5 million households and you can't make any guesses based on the data in that paragraph.


The remaining 6 studies between 1986 and 1993 all show the same thing.

They show nothing of the sort.



You assume that some po-dunk study from the UCLA with a pitifully small sampling indcates that the percentage of queers TRIPLED in 6 years. :lol: :lol:

As it is now your assertion that the 2006 numbers are wrong, prove that the estimated 8.8 million GLB figure is incorrect. 15-year old data isn't going to get it done.

[glockmail]

All it said was that over 10% (1 in 9) of unmarried households were gay. It makes no mention of the sexual orientation of the people occupying the other 46.5 million households and you can't make any guesses based on the data in that paragraph.



They show nothing of the sort.




As it is now your assertion that the 2006 numbers are wrong, prove that the estimated 8.8 million GLB figure is incorrect. 15-year old data isn't going to get it done.

Creative misreading of the data I see. You expect me to fall for that shit? Nice move, bowels. :laugh2:

The burden of proof is on you to show that a puny UCLA sampling negates the 2000 US census and 6 other studies.

Or show how the population of Queers blossomed by a factor of three in 6 years. How could that happen if y'all a born that way? :laugh2:

[Missileman]

Creative misreading of the data I see. You expect me to fall for that shit? Nice move, bowels. :laugh2:

Go back and carefully read the paragraph again, and get back to me.

[CockySOB]

So what was the sample set of UCLA vs the sample set of the US Census? :poke: :laugh2:

Try reading the study and you might find out that they used Census data, as well as the ACS study which drew from a sample set of 1.4 million individuals.

1,400,000 compared to sample sets of 100 or less?

Poke away, but right now you're looking the fool, and not because your smilie has a colorful hat on.

[glockmail]

Go back and carefully read the paragraph again, and get back to me. Perhaps you can fully explain yourself instead of trolling fer me to guess at how a yankee mind works. :coffee:

[glockmail]

Try reading the study and you might find out that they used Census data, as well as the ACS study which drew from a sample set of 1.4 million individuals.

1,400,000 compared to sample sets of 100 or less?

Poke away, but right now you're looking the fool, and not because your smilie has a colorful hat on.



The number of same-sex couples in the U.S. grew by more than 30 percent from 2000 to 2005, from nearly 600,000 couples in 2000 to almost 777,000 in 2005. Such an increase is five times the six percent rate of growth in the U.S.
population. That statement right there shows that the study, based on US Census data, is flawed. Whoda thunk a liberal would try and cook the data?

I prefer to go directly to the source.

[Missileman]

Perhaps you can fully explain yourself instead of trolling fer me to guess at how a yankee mind works. :coffee:


Census 2000 enumerated 105.5 million households in the United States, of which the majority (52 percent) were maintained by married couples (54.5 million). A reflection of changing life styles is mirrored in Census 2000’s enumeration of 5.5 million couples who were living together but who were not married, up from 3.2 million in 1990. These unmarried-partner households were self-identified on the census form as being maintained by people who were sharing living quarters and who also had a close personal relationship with each other. The majority of these unmarried-partner households had partners of the opposite sex (4.9 million) but about 1 in 9 (594,000) had partners of the same sex.

105.5 million households minus 54.5 million married couple households leaves 51 million households. Of the 51 million, 5.5 million had a couple shacking up. That leaves 45.5 million households occupied by either a single person or more than one person, but they aren't a couple. There is no mention in that paragraph of the sexual orientation distributed among those 45.5 million houses. All it states is that 1 in 9 of the shacker-upper households was gay.

[glockmail]

105.5 million households minus 54.5 million married couple households leaves 51 million households. Of the 51 million, 5.5 million had a couple shacking up. That leaves 45.5 million households occupied by either a single person or more than one person, but they aren't a couple. There is no mention in that paragraph of the sexual orientation distributed among those 45.5 million houses. All it states is that 1 in 9 of the shacker-upper households was gay.
Try again but here's a clue: married couples can't be gay.

[Missileman]

Try again but here's a clue: married couples can't be gay.

Try what again...it's right there in black and white. Notice that there's also no accounting of any gay children that might be living in those 54.5 million married households.

[glockmail]

Try what again...it's right there in black and white. Notice that there's also no accounting of any gay children that might be living in those 54.5 million married households.The 2000 census shows the number of queer households directly against the total, a sampling of over 200 million people, of 2/3 of the total population. If there are queers in the remaining 1/3, science tells us that they would be in a similar proportion.

[Missileman]

The 2000 census shows the number of queer households directly against the total, a sampling of over 200 million people, of 2/3 of the total population. If there are queers in the remaining 1/3, science tells us that they would be in a similar proportion.

Okay, I'll lead you by the hand, step by step.

How many total households in the U.S. according to that paragraph?

[glockmail]

Okay, I'll lead you by the hand, step by step.

How many total households in the U.S. according to that paragraph? Bottom line it. Readers Digest Version.

[Missileman]

Bottom line it. Readers Digest Version.

I already explained it...of the 105 million households, 45.5 million of them were being occupied by a person or persons other than a married couple or 2 people living as a couple (either straight or gay). There is no mention of the sexual orientation of the occupants of those 45.5 million houses.

[glockmail]

I already explained it...of the 105 million households, 45.5 million of them were being occupied by a person or persons other than a married couple or 2 people living as a couple (either straight or gay). There is no mention of the sexual orientation of the occupants of those 45.5 million houses. Doesn't matter. The math is simple. # queers of # total = percentage queer.

[Missileman]

Doesn't matter. The math is simple. # queers of # total = percentage queer.

You can't extrapolate the total number of gays from the number of them living together as a couple...it isn't possible.

[glockmail]

You can't extrapolate the total number of gays from the number of them living together as a couple...it isn't possible.
An extrapolation is when you interpret the data beyond the set. That's not what was done.

Why do you expel so much effort over this? It is obvious that the percent queer is very small, not the 10% tat we were led to believe, for years.

Ancedotal evidence: at international queer day last week, my son told me that only one student out all his classes refused to speak. That's about 1/120, less than 1%. AGAIN.

[Missileman]

An extrapolation is when you interpret the data beyond the set. That's not what was done.

Why do you expel so much effort over this? It is obvious that the percent queer is very small, not the 10% tat we were led to believe, for years.

Ancedotal evidence: at international queer day last week, my son told me that only one student out all his classes refused to speak. That's about 1/120, less than 1%. AGAIN.

Using the same figures from that paragraph and the same method you used to determine the percentage of gays, tell me what the percentage of heterosexuals in the U.S. is. If it works for gays, it should work for straights.

[Missileman]

What's the matter Glock....isn't it working?

[emmett]

Does it matter exactly what percentage of the population is queer? I mean, really!

Obviously there are enough gay folks to have begun a definite influence of policy in our nation. They aren't just in the closet any more.

Personally I think the percentage is more like 7%, not that it matters. Hell, in SF it's 50 to 70%

[Nuc]

Does it matter exactly what percentage of the population is queer? I mean, really!

Obviously there are enough gay folks to have begun a definite influence of policy in our nation. They aren't just in the closet any more.

Personally I think the percentage is more like 7%, not that it matters. Hell, in SF it's 50 to 70%

I think 100% of the Democratic Party are gay, because they've sure been fucking themselves in the ass every chance they get at election time. :laugh2: :laugh2: :dance: :slap: :pee: :salute:

[gabosaurus]

As opposed to Bush, who has been screwing the entire country up the arse since Jan. of 2001.
It's no wonder that there has been such an increase in AIDS.

[Pale Rider]

What's the matter Glock....isn't it working?

Not with you MM. You've been shown, and shown, and shown, and..... on and on, but you deny, deny, deny, deny, and so on. You're a real good example of someone lying to yourself for so long that you believe your lie, and no amount of facts, figures or rational explanation will change your mind.

You're out there MM, on some alternate astral plain that defies reasoning with. If you feel comfortable there, stay there, but the rest of us can understand. We see the truth. Just because you can't changes nothing. Homo's are far more inclined to be a pedophile than a hetero. The research and numbers prove it. You've seen it. You've read it, and you've denied it. There's nothing else left we can do for you. Live your lie.

[Pale Rider]

As opposed to Bush, who has been screwing the entire country up the arse since Jan. of 2001.
It's no wonder that there has been such an increase in AIDS.

Yeah riiiiiiiiiiiight.... that's why the economy is booming. That's why the stock market keeps hitting record highs. That's why unemployment is the lowest it's been since clinton fucked us good. Yeah, the country is sooooooooooo bad off... :lmao:

[Missileman]

Not with you MM. You've been shown, and shown, and shown, and..... on and on, but you deny, deny, deny, deny, and so on. You're a real good example of someone lying to yourself for so long that you believe your lie, and no amount of facts, figures or rational explanation will change your mind.

You're out there MM, on some alternate astral plain that defies reasoning with. If you feel comfortable there, stay there, but the rest of us can understand. We see the truth. Just because you can't changes nothing. Homo's are far more inclined to be a pedophile than a hetero. The research and numbers prove it. You've seen it. You've read it, and you've denied it. There's nothing else left we can do for you. Live your lie.

Hey bud...if you can make his bass-ackwards math work, go for it. He arrives at his numbers by pulling them outta his ass.

[Pale Rider]

Hey bud...if you can make his bass-ackwards math work, go for it. He arrives at his numbers by pulling them outta his ass.

There is no make it work MM, I understand. I'm just blown away you can't. You're the only one.

[Missileman]

There is no make it work MM, I understand. I'm just blown away you can't. You're the only one.

Glock thinks he's invented a new field of mathematics...let's call it Gayometry. It violates every known tenet of real math, but according to him it counts gays with 100% accuracy.

[glockmail]

Using the same figures from that paragraph and the same method you used to determine the percentage of gays, tell me what the percentage of heterosexuals in the U.S. is. If it works for gays, it should work for straights.

Your question makes no sense.


What's the matter Glock....isn't it working?

Its called having a life. :slap:

[glockmail]

Does it matter exactly what percentage of the population is queer? I mean, really!... Of course it does. Gays are trying to normalize somthing that is abnormal in order to gain new converts.

[glockmail]

Glock thinks he's invented a new field of mathematics...let's call it Gayometry. It violates every known tenet of real math, but according to him it counts gays with 100% accuracy. It's called "statistics". :slap:

[Nuc]

As opposed to Bush, who has been screwing the entire country up the arse since Jan. of 2001.
It's no wonder that there has been such an increase in AIDS.

Then maybe the Democrats should stop intentionally losing the elections. Doncha think?

[Missileman]

Your question makes no sense.



Its called having a life. :slap:

It's a simple question. You claim you can determine the population of gays in the U.S. based on the percentage of gays living together as couples. If your method is sound, you should be able to determine the percentage of heterosexuals in the U.S. based on the percentage of heterosexuals living together as couples also. All I'm asking you to do is demonstrate that the heterosexual population is over 98% using this "formula" you came up with.

[glockmail]

It's a simple question. You claim you can determine the population of gays in the U.S. based on the percentage of gays living together as couples. If your method is sound, you should be able to determine the percentage of heterosexuals in the U.S. based on the percentage of heterosexuals living together as couples also. All I'm asking you to do is demonstrate that the heterosexual population is over 98% using this "formula" you came up with.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/censr-5.pdf

Do the math:

(105,000,000-594,000) / 105,000,000 = 99.4%.

[Missileman]

http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/censr-5.pdf

Do the math:

(105,000,000-594,000) / 105,000,000 = 99.4%.

That's not the same method you used to determine the gay population...nice try though. Since you're too chicken shit to demonstrate it yourself, allow me.

Here's your data set:


Census 2000 enumerated 105.5 million households in the United States, of which the majority (52 percent) were maintained by married couples (54.5 million). A reflection of changing life styles is mirrored in Census 2000’s enumeration of 5.5 million couples who were living together but who were not married, up from 3.2 million in 1990. These unmarried-partner households were self-identified on the census form as being maintained by people who were sharing living quarters and who also had a close personal relationship with each other. The majority of these unmarried-partner households had partners of the opposite sex (4.9 million) but about 1 in 9 (594,000) had partners of the same sex.

You used only the numbers of gays living together as couples to base your conclusion, so applying the SAME method to your "formula" 4.9 million/105.5 million = 4.6% heterosexual.

Now, because noone is going to argue that the 54.5 million married couples shouldn't be counted as heterosexuals, they need to be added to your "formula" to be fair. So...59.4 million(the number of married couple households+number of heterosexual couples living together)/105.5 million = 56% heterosexual. I used the same exact method you used and just PROVED that there's only a 56% population of heterosexuals in the U.S.

Can you see now that your formula is worthless?

[glockmail]

That's not the same method you used to determine the gay population...nice try though. Since you're too chicken shit to demonstrate it yourself, allow me.

Here's your data set:



You used only the numbers of gays living together as couples to base your conclusion, so applying the SAME method to your "formula" 4.9 million/105.5 million = 4.6% heterosexual.

Now, because noone is going to argue that the 54.5 million married couples shouldn't be counted as heterosexuals, they need to be added to your "formula" to be fair. So...59.4 million(the number of married couple households+number of heterosexual couples living together)/105.5 million = 56% heterosexual. I used the same exact method you used and just PROVED that there's only a 56% population of heterosexuals in the U.S.

Can you see now that your formula is worthless?

I was wondering when the insults would start. That's always an excellent indicator that you have lost the debate.

I used the number of gay couples living together vs. the total number of couples living together. It ain't rock science. Your math skills haven't helped you either.

[Missileman]

I was wondering when the insults would start. That's always an excellent indicator that you have lost the debate.

I used the number of gay couples living together vs. the total number of couples living together. It ain't rock science. Your math skills haven't helped you either.

And I used the exact same method to calculate the percentage of heterosexuals and it comes out to 56%. Are you trying to say that your math only works with gay numbers?

[CockySOB]

I was wondering when the insults would start. That's always an excellent indicator that you have lost the debate.

I used the number of gay couples living together vs. the total number of couples living together. It ain't rock science. Your math skills haven't helped you either.

Actually, your use of statistics is flawed. You try to use 105,000,000 households and 594,000 households which self-identify as homosexual, multiple-person households. You are leaving out the single homosexual figure which was not reported (as well as the heterosexual single person households).

Sorry glock, but the more you talk, the less mathematically and statistically inclined you seem. And in this case, you are WAY off base.

105,000,000 total households (not dependent on the household being single, or multi-person)
 54,500,000 heterosexual, multi-person households
-    594,000 homosexual, multi-person households
 49,906,000 single-person households, sexual preference unknown

So in actuality, you need to know how many of those single-person households are heterosexual and homosexual. Since those numbers were not reported in this Census, there is no logical way to draw any real conclusion. Moreover, since homosexual "marriages" are not recognized in most states, the individuals most likely have to report as individuals, increasing the inaccuracy and invalidity of your statistical mumbo-jumbo.

[manu1959]

And I used the exact same method to calculate the percentage of heterosexuals and it comes out to 56%. Are you trying to say that your math only works with gay numbers?

are gay numbers the odd or even ones?

[glockmail]

And I used the exact same method to calculate the percentage of heterosexuals and it comes out to 56%. Are you trying to say that your math only works with gay numbers? You prolly need to back to the 4th grade, basic math.

[glockmail]

.....So in actuality, you need to know how many of those single-person households are heterosexual and homosexual. ..... Statistically you can assume that they exist in the same percentage as the couples, and therefore ignore both: Stats 101.

[glockmail]

are gay numbers the odd or even ones? The odd ones divisible by two. :laugh2:

[CockySOB]

Statistically you can assume that they exist in the same percentage as the couples, and therefore ignore both: Stats 101.

Bullshit. As I already pointed out, homosexual "marriage" is not recognized in most states, and as such the reported total number of homosexual multi-person households will be drastically lower that the expected percentages using more generalized statistical surveys such as the other surveys I've cited.

Again, the largest unknown is the distribution of homosexuals and heterosexuals in that single-person household calculation. Until those unknowns can be determined, there is NO valid statistical conclusion which can be drawn about the overall population.

Go back to school and actually try paying attention in class. While Statistics 101 might be a good class for you, I happen to TEACH discrete mathematics and I can tell you right now that your understanding of set theory and cardinality of sets is minimal at best. Or perhaps you're simply being intellectually dishonest, at this point, that sounds highly probable.

BTW, I bring up the discrete mathematics because set theory is the basis of ALL statistical analyses. If you need a good textbook, try the latest edition of the Rosen text - it is the de facto standard for undergraduate discrete mathematics.

[glockmail]

.....homosexual "marriage" is not recognized in most states, and as such the reported total number of homosexual multi-person households will be drastically lower that the expected percentages using more generalized statistical surveys such as the other surveys I've cited.

.... While Statistics 101 might be a good class for you, I happen to TEACH discrete mathematics ......

Queers getting married does nothing to increase the number of queers.

Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. :laugh2:

[Missileman]

are gay numbers the odd or even ones?

As it pertains to Glock's math, they're imaginary numbers.

[gabosaurus]

Why do we have 37 pages of homosexual arguments, yet not ONE poster has been brave enough to read and answer my thread about homosexuality and gender identity confusion?
I mean, I know most of you are anti-intelligence, but this is ridiculous. :cool:

[Missileman]

Statistically you can assume that they exist in the same percentage as the couples, and therefore ignore both: Stats 101.

Then you would have to make the same assumption for heteros too, and that figure comes out to 56%...

[CockySOB]

Queers getting married does nothing to increase the number of queers.

Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. :laugh2:

So you are intellectually dishonest then. Good thing we figured that out. Why don't you go argue with someone closer to your own IQ, like say a rock.... You know, you are the equivalent of gabby or psycho, cut from the same cloth, and just as worthless in an intellectual debate.

[glockmail]

Then you would have to make the same assumption for heteros too, and that figure comes out to 56%... No its over 99% as I pointed out previously. :coffee:

[glockmail]

So you are intellectually dishonest then. Good thing we figured that out. Why don't you go argue with someone closer to your own IQ, like say a rock.... You know, you are the equivalent of gabby or psycho, cut from the same cloth, and just as worthless in an intellectual debate. As you have resorted to insults it is clear to all except you and MM that you have lost the argument. :clap:

[diuretic]

As you have resorted to insults it is clear to all except you and MM that you have lost the argument. :clap:

Can I quote you against yourself?

No, belay that, I will anyway.

[glockmail]

Can I quote you against yourself?

No, belay that, I will anyway. Go fer it. :laugh2:

[CockySOB]

As you have resorted to insults it is clear to all except you and MM that you have lost the argument. :clap:

Gee, last time I checked, YOU started the insults...


Queers getting married does nothing to increase the number of queers.

Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. :laugh2:

Choke on your own words, you classless, moronic bigot.

[glockmail]

Gee, last time I checked, YOU started the insults...



Choke on your own words, you classless, moronic bigot.

Mine was subtle, classy. Yours was direct and crass. :laugh2:

[diuretic]

Go fer it. :laugh2:

But how will I know if you understand?

[glockmail]

But how will I know if you understand? Jus' ax me.

[CockySOB]

Mine was subtle, classy. Yours was direct and crass. :laugh2:

And now you are trying to deflect the thread AWAY from the fact you got your ass handed to you, and your "statistics" shown to be in line with the saying "lies, damned lies, and statistics."

As for me being direct and crass, blow me. If you like speaking like a professional politician (weasel), then by all means continue. Personally, I'll speak my mind plainly and clearly and stand behind what I say.

[diuretic]

Jus' ax me.

That takes me back. LA 1984, whizzing down a freeway at night and listening to the car radio. Jesse Jackon was being interviewed by a radio jock, obviously a black man - can I say that? Black I mean. Anyway this bloke was asking him questions and I heard, "Now Rev I gotta ax you this..." Talk about piss myself laughing, I nearly ran into the fucking guard rail. "Can I ax you this?" My first intro to that bullshit Ebonics.

[glockmail]

And now you are trying to deflect the thread AWAY from the fact you got your ass handed to you, and your "statistics" shown to be in line with the saying "lies, damned lies, and statistics."

As for me being direct and crass, blow me. If you like speaking like a professional politician (weasel), then by all means continue. Personally, I'll speak my mind plainly and clearly and stand behind what I say.

Stretch out your arms real wide and get ready to have your ass in both of your hands again: "Queers getting married does nothing to increase the number of queers." :laugh2:

[glockmail]

That takes me back. LA 1984, whizzing down a freeway at night and listening to the car radio. Jesse Jackon was being interviewed by a radio jock, obviously a black man - can I say that? Black I mean. Anyway this bloke was asking him questions and I heard, "Now Rev I gotta ax you this..." Talk about piss myself laughing, I nearly ran into the fucking guard rail. "Can I ax you this?" My first intro to that bullshit Ebonics. It all starts when they's chirren. :laugh2:

[diuretic]

It all starts when they's chirren. :laugh2:

I really hate that crap, Cosby got a flogging for it but who the hell is going to hire someone talking like that............well, apart from Stick A Gun In My Arse Records, a wholly owned subsidiary of Sony Corporation. Most businesses want people who speak even a rudimentary form of standard English, not a bloody patois from an urban ghetto.

[CockySOB]

Stretch out your arms real wide and get ready to have your ass in both of your hands again: "Queers getting married does nothing to increase the number of queers." :laugh2:

You really are a joke. You left out some 49 million households which were classified as single individuals, and for which NO information on sexual preference was collected. That's the point MissileMan made, and to which you are STILL being intellectually dishonest. Not all homosexuals live in a multi-person household as designated by either the US Census or the individual states. Yet your argument is claiming that very thing.

You really are a moral coward and an intellectual fraud, glock. You know nothing of statistics (or set theory) yet you insist that your bastardized numbers are valid. You should really try to save face by admitting your math was in error, and then step away from the keyboard for a while. But I'm betting your not a big enough man to do that, as it would require a little backbone, some guts, and some balls to actually do so. So keep on bringing your blind, bigoted diatribe, and I'll continue to knock you on your on-line ass.

BTW, since you skipped breakfast... :slap:

[Missileman]

No its over 99% as I pointed out previously. :coffee:

One last time for the intellectually dishonest and mathematically challenged: You claim you can estimate the gays in the general population based on their percentage of couples living together. If this is true, you should be able to estimate the percentage of heterosexuals in the general population using the same method. There are a couple of serious flaws in your method. First, 44% of all households in the U.S. are not occupied by people living together as a couple. There was no information about the percentages of hetero vs. homo given in the census. You can't claim that 44% is heterosexual, as you've been trying, because you have no clue at all what their makeup is. There was also no information given about the number of households being maintained by heterosexuals that also had a homosexual living there.


When proven wrong, I have admitted it gracefully.

This is looking more and more like another turd in your huge pile of bullshit!

[GW in Ohio]

Typical. You can't attack the facts, so you attack the source. This isn't supposed to be a 'scientific' article. It's supposed to be a social commentary. Thrity years ago, a fringe group of liberal professors suggested that homosexuality was normal and should be accepted or even endorsed by our laws. People laughed at them and never took them seriously, and now there's a movement to enact gay marriage across the country.

Now, a fringe group of liberal professors are saying the same things about pedophilia, and those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it.

hobbit: Here is a news bulletin for you.....

The real "fringe group" here is right-wing wackos like yourself who hate gay people and embrace any idiot who puts forth a theory linking homosexuality and pedophilia.

The conviction of an overwhelming majority in the Western world today is that homosexuals are not a threat to any aspect or segment of our society. the "threat" is entirely in the minds of certain right-wing Bible thumpers who think this country is going down the tubes because it accepts those members of society who are gay.

Everyone else has accepted gay people and moved on. And we've left relics like yourself back in the 1950s.

But if it makes you feel noble or virtuous to see yourself as the rear guard for Jesus, fighting the good fight against sin and societal decay, by all means, have at it.

This is America, and our society is built on a foundation of tolerance for wackos of every kind.

[manu1959]

hobbit: Here is a news bulletin for you.....

The real "fringe group" here is right-wing wackos like yourself who hate gay people and embrace any idiot who puts forth a theory linking homosexuality and pedophilia.

The conviction of an overwhelming majority in the Western world today is that homosexuals are not a threat to any aspect or segment of our society. the "threat" is entirely in the minds of certain right-wing Bible thumpers who think this country is going down the tubes because it accepts those members of society who are gay.

Everyone else has accepted gay people and moved on. And we've left relics like yourself back in the 1950s.

But if it makes you feel noble or virtuous to see yourself as the rear guard for Jesus, fighting the good fight against sin and societal decay, by all means, have at it.

This is America, and our society is built on a foundation of tolerance for wackos of every kind.

if true....why has one of the most liberal states in the union voted down gay marriage?

[GW in Ohio]

if true....why has one of the most liberal states in the union voted down gay marriage?

manu: There are a lot of Americans who, while they accept gay people, do not condone same-sex marriage.

[glockmail]

You really are a joke. You left out some 49 million households which were classified as single individuals, and for which NO information on sexual preference was collected. That's the point MissileMan made, and to which you are STILL being intellectually dishonest. Not all homosexuals live in a multi-person household as designated by either the US Census or the individual states. Yet your argument is claiming that very thing.

You really are a moral coward and an intellectual fraud, glock. You know nothing of statistics (or set theory) yet you insist that your bastardized numbers are valid. You should really try to save face by admitting your math was in error, and then step away from the keyboard for a while. But I'm betting your not a big enough man to do that, as it would require a little backbone, some guts, and some balls to actually do so. So keep on bringing your blind, bigoted diatribe, and I'll continue to knock you on your on-line ass.

BTW, since you skipped breakfast... :slap:

As you have mischaracterized my posts on this, ignored the facts, turned up the level of insults, it has become painfully obvious that you have lost the argument. So suck dick, you homo enabler. :fu:

:laugh2:

[glockmail]

One last time for the intellectually dishonest and mathematically challenged: You claim you can estimate the gays in the general population based on their percentage of couples living together. If this is true, you should be able to estimate the percentage of heterosexuals in the general population using the same method. There are a couple of serious flaws in your method. First, 44% of all households in the U.S. are not occupied by people living together as a couple. There was no information about the percentages of hetero vs. homo given in the census. You can't claim that 44% is heterosexual, as you've been trying, because you have no clue at all what their makeup is. There was also no information given about the number of households being maintained by heterosexuals that also had a homosexual living there.



This is looking more and more like another turd in your huge pile of bullshit!

You keep ignoring the fact that my estimate is based on 105,000 households, vs. the number of queer households. As I have stated several times now, the non households are not part of the equation, but you may estimate the % queer is the same as the household population. Same goes for the queers that happen to live in a household not identified for sexual preference.

But at least you have toned down the insults (although they have not been eliminated). I can't say the same for your buddy CockySucker. :laugh2:

[glockmail]

You really are a joke. .... So your intials stand for Cocky Sucker on Board? :poke:

[Missileman]

You keep ignoring the fact that my estimate is based on 105,000 households, vs. the number of queer households. As I have stated several times now, the non households are not part of the equation, but you may estimate the % queer is the same as the household population. Same goes for the queers that happen to live in a household not identified for sexual preference.

But at least you have toned down the insults (although they have not been eliminated). I can't say the same for your buddy CockySucker. :laugh2:

And that's the point that you keep ignoring. You can't base your argument on 105 million households because the sexual orientation make-up of 44% of them is UNKNOWN. The number of homosexuals living together as couples can't be used to estimate their general population anymore than the number of heterosexuals living together as couples can be used to estimate the percentage of heterosexuals in the general population.

[Missileman]

You keep ignoring the fact that my estimate is based on 105,000 households, vs. the number of queer households. As I have stated several times now, the non households are not part of the equation, but you may estimate the % queer is the same as the household population. Same goes for the queers that happen to live in a household not identified for sexual preference.

But at least you have toned down the insults (although they have not been eliminated). I can't say the same for your buddy CockySucker. :laugh2:

What you wrote earlier...


I used the number of gay couples living together vs. the total number of couples living together. It ain't rock science. Your math skills haven't helped you either.

The bolded part is in error...the total numer of couples living together is 60 million, not 105 million.

[glockmail]

What you wrote earlier...



The bolded part is in error...the total numer of couples living together is 60 million, not 105 million.

You are correct that I made an error. The correct calculation is:

594,000 queer, unmarried couples
4,900,000 normal, unmarried couples
54,500,000 married couples

Since queers can't marry, 594,000 / (4,900,000 + 54,000,000) = 0.010, or 1%. This jives with the other studies that I have cited as well as what I have been saying all along.

It ain't 10%, 5%, or even 3.5% as you have suggested.

Therefore homosexuality is abnormal.

[gabosaurus]

Glock are you hiding something from us? Your hatred level is obviously a signal of inner repressed feelings of shame and/or guilt. Is there some homosexuality in your family that has made you angry or embarrassed? Or perhaps a childhood incident that has left you deeply scarred?
I have a degree in psychology. You can talk to me. :coffee:

[Missileman]

You are correct that I made an error. The correct calculation is:

594,000 queer, unmarried couples
4,900,000 normal, unmarried couples
54,500,000 married couples

Since queers can't marry, 594,000 / (4,900,000 + 54,000,000) = 0.010, or 1%. This jives with the other studies that I have cited as well as what I have been saying all along.

It ain't 10%, 5%, or even 3.5% as you have suggested.

Therefore homosexuality is abnormal.

I didn't suggest that it was 3.5%...I provided data from 2006 that estimates the GLB population in the U.S. at 8.8 million. The current population of the U.S. is approximately 300 million...you do the math.

Another reason why your logic is flawed: gays can't marry, so they're a subset of couples living together, not a subset of all couples.

[glockmail]

Glock are you hiding something from us? Your hatred level is obviously a signal of inner repressed feelings of shame and/or guilt. Is there some homosexuality in your family that has made you angry or embarrassed? Or perhaps a childhood incident that has left you deeply scarred?
I have a degree in psychology. You can talk to me. :coffee:
Amazing how libs always use gay as an insult.

[glockmail]

I didn't suggest that it was 3.5%...I provided data from 2006 that estimates the GLB population in the U.S. at 8.8 million. The current population of the U.S. is approximately 300 million...you do the math.

Another reason why your logic is flawed: gays can't marry, so they're a subset of couples living together, not a subset of all couples. So are you now admitting that you were wrong? :poke:

Doesn't matter if gays are a subset of society. You're logic is wrong again. Admit.

[OCA]

Amazing how libs always use gay as an insult.

Yes, isn't that interesting?

Funny too how if you are opposed to something vehemently that you are just covering up that you are practicing what you are preaching against. Its the oldest and most bankrupt argument that libs pull out of their bag of failed tricks.

Laughable really.

[glockmail]

Yes, isn't that interesting?

Funny too how if you are opposed to something vehemently that you are just covering up that you are practicing what you are preaching against. Its the oldest and most bankrupt argument that libs pull out of their bag of failed tricks.

Laughable really.


It should not even be considered a trick, as no one is too stoopid to fall fer it. :laugh2:

[OCA]

It should not even be considered a trick, as no one is too stoopid to fall fer it. :laugh2:

Yet they've been trying it over and over again in my 3+years here. A lib will try it, get slapped down, stop, and then a new lib will come in, get slapped down, stop etc. etc. etc.

Its the argument they fall back on when all else fails.

[OCA]

I'm gonna start accusing all the anti-war people here of just covering up their warmongering tendencies.:laugh2:

[glockmail]

I'm gonna start accusing all the anti-war people here of just covering up their warmongering tendencies.:laugh2: They jus' pussies.
:pee:

[Missileman]

So are you now admitting that you were wrong? :poke:


Nothin from nothin, but my guesstimate of 5% is apparently closer to the truth than your "scientific fact" of 1-1.5%

[Nuc]

Yet they've been trying it over and over again in my 3+years here.

Hey you limp wristed, pillow biting, turd licking, sperm gagging descendent of Aristotle and the other original fruitcakes I thought this board has only been here for a few months?

[glockmail]

Nothin from nothin, but my guesstimate of 5% is apparently closer to the truth than your "scientific fact" of 1-1.5% So although I have proved, using the 2000 US census, that the # queer is almost exactly 1%, you insist on going on a little gay-wish outing. What's with that?

[Pale Rider]

Hey you limp wristed, pillow biting, turd licking, sperm gagging descendent of Aristotle and the other original fruitcakes I thought this board has only been here for a few months?

Aaah Nuc, there are a lot of us that have been together for years. We started out a long time ago on the USMessageboard.com. Myself included. I knew exactly what he was saying, and he's right. We've heard the same old stale bullshit from faggot loving liberals for years. They start losing a debate, and start right in with character assassinations, and acusations that the person opposing homosexuality is a queer. If I've heard that crap once, I've heard it a hundred times. Case in point, typoretard just did it to me again in the most beautiful woman thread. There's your proof.

[Missileman]

So although I have proved, using the 2000 US census, that the # queer is almost exactly 1%, you insist on going on a little gay-wish outing. What's with that?

You've proven nothing of the sort. Pulling data out of your ass, (and estimating the population of single people based on the percentage of people living as a couple is pulling it out of your ass) doesn't prove anything. As I've pointed out on countless occasions in this thread, if your method were worth a shit, you could estimate both the number of gays AND the number of straights using the SAME method. Since it fails miserably for estimating heterosexuals, it's worthless for estimating homosexuals too.

[Nuc]

Aaah Nuc, there are a lot of us that have been together for years. We started out a long time ago on the USMessageboard.com. Myself included. I knew exactly what he was saying, and he's right. We've heard the same old stale bullshit from faggot loving liberals for years. They start losing a debate, and start right in with character assassinations, and acusations that the person opposing homosexuality is a queer. If I've heard that crap once, I've heard it a hundred times. Case in point, typoretard just did it to me again in the most beautiful woman thread. There's your proof.

I know, i just couldn't resist!:laugh2: :poke: :clap: :slap:

[OCA]

Hey you limp wristed, pillow biting, turd licking, sperm gagging descendent of Aristotle and the other original fruitcakes I thought this board has only been here for a few months?

Here is meant to be USMB/DP, most everyone here was there so its understood.

[glockmail]

You've proven nothing of the sort. Pulling data out of your ass, (and estimating the population of single people based on the percentage of people living as a couple is pulling it out of your ass) doesn't prove anything. As I've pointed out on countless occasions in this thread, if your method were worth a shit, you could estimate both the number of gays AND the number of straights using the SAME method. Since it fails miserably for estimating heterosexuals, it's worthless for estimating homosexuals too.

I see you’re getting on the hissy fit part of your cycle again. :laugh2:

All statistics uses a sampling of the population to arrive at a conclusion about that population. In most university or media driven studies this sampling is pitifully small, well below 1% or even below 0.1%. In contrast, my calculation uses a huge statistical sampling of about 20% of the US population, and therefore is undoubtedly the most accurate analysis of % queers ever.

Thus it is an entirely reasonable assumption that the non-couples are queer in the same percentage that they would be queer in couples. If you believe otherwise, then you should state your reasoning.

Now, to ascertain the % normal in the population, the calculation is again very simple. First the basic data:

594,000 queer, unmarried couples
4,900,000 normal, unmarried couples
54,500,000 married couples
59,994,000 total couples in the sampling

Since married couples are by definition heterosexual, (54,500,000 + 4,900,000) / 59,994,000) = 0.990, or 99.0%.

Of course, this jives perfectly with the conclusion that 1% of the population is queer.

Thus, homosexuality is abnormal. :laugh2:

[Missileman]

I see you’re getting on the hissy fit part of your cycle again. :laugh2:

All statistics uses a sampling of the population to arrive at a conclusion about that population. In most university or media driven studies this sampling is pitifully small, well below 1% or even below 0.1%. In contrast, my calculation uses a huge statistical sampling of about 20% of the US population, and therefore is undoubtedly the most accurate analysis of % queers ever.

Thus it is an entirely reasonable assumption that the non-couples are queer in the same percentage that they would be queer in couples. If you believe otherwise, then you should state your reasoning.

Now, to ascertain the % normal in the population, the calculation is again very simple. First the basic data:

594,000 queer, unmarried couples
4,900,000 normal, unmarried couples
54,500,000 married couples
59,994,000 total couples in the sampling

Since married couples are by definition heterosexual, (54,500,000 + 4,900,000) / 59,994,000) = 0.990, or 99.0%.

Of course, this jives perfectly with the conclusion that 1% of the population is queer.

Thus, homosexuality is abnormal. :laugh2:

You hand-pick a group that's mostly heterosexual and use it as proof that most people are heterosexual? Sorry, but that isn't logic or logical. Try again! Before you can use those numbers to estimate gay and heterosexual populations, you have to show that there's a similar percentage of heterosexuals living as couples vs. living single before assuming gays might share a similar pattern. FYI, a quick scan of the numbers shows your assumption is way off.

[glockmail]

You hand-pick a group that's mostly heterosexual and use it as proof that most people are heterosexual? Sorry, but that isn't logic or logical. Try again! Before you can use those numbers to estimate gay and heterosexual populations, you have to show that there's a similar percentage of heterosexuals living as couples vs. living single before assuming gays might share a similar pattern. FYI, a quick scan of the numbers shows your assumption is way off. Your lack of knowledge about basic statistics as well as your inability to admit defeat are astounding. :laugh2:

[CockySOB]

Your lack of knowledge about basic statistics as well as your inability to admit defeat are astounding. :laugh2:

Glock, you sound like the librull moonbats barking for GWB's impeachment - same old rhetoric without ANY substantiating factual evidence. But hey, I guess you enjoy being compared to the rabid, BDS-afflicted freaks.

When you decide to actually post something of factual consequence, I'll consider re-evaluating my opinion of you.

[glockmail]

Glock, you sound like the librull moonbats barking for GWB's impeachment - same old rhetoric without ANY substantiating factual evidence. But hey, I guess you enjoy being compared to the rabid, BDS-afflicted freaks.

When you decide to actually post something of factual consequence, I'll consider re-evaluating my opinion of you.

For some reason you seem to think that your opinion of me matters more than the truth about queers. Whatever led you to believe that?

As you, too, are unable to use logic and your supposed high brow knowledge of statistics to prove me wrong, it appears that you are the one acting like a "librull moonbat".

[glockmail]

..... Before you can use those numbers to estimate gay and heterosexual populations, you have to show that there's a similar percentage of heterosexuals living as couples vs. living single before assuming gays might share a similar pattern. ..... .

*crickets chirping while CockySOB thinks up a defense for your indefensible statement*

[Missileman]

*crickets chirping while CockySOB thinks up a defense for your indefensible statement*

That noise you are hearing is from the last 2 brain cells you have rubbing together. You present bullshit arguments, claim them as fact even though they've been shown to be illogical and unfounded, and claim victory. You have provided no evidence to support your contention that people are dispersed among coupled and singles populations in equal percentages. Your claims that your assumptions, without supporting evidence, are fact are worthless.

According to your data, of the 105.5 million households in the U.S., 59.4 million were heterosexual couples. That's 56% of all households heterosexual couples. Let's assume for the sake of argument that of the remaining 44% of all households that your figure of 1% homosexual is accurate. That means that the percentage of heterosexual single households is 43%. That's a discrepancy of nearly 25% in the dispersal of heterosexuals. Your assumption has just been proven WRONG! There is no correlation between the percentage of couples and singles.

[CockySOB]

I wouldn't waste anymore bandwidth trying to argue with Glock, MissileMan. He's obviously too convinced of his own cockamamie numbers-mangling to really care about such concepts as "truth" or "intellectual honesty." He's managed to jumble some numbers together to find a figure that he THINKS validates his homophobic stance, and he's not going to listen to anyone who can refute his claims. (Sounds like some eco-nuts, come to think of it, using junk science to try to support an otherwise non-supported position.)

Glock, go on your merry way, boy. I'll let me posts speak for themselves. Any intelligent person who comes along and reads them will be able to discern which of the two of us is full of it and which is being objective. 'Nuff said.

[Pale Rider]

That noise you are hearing is from the last 2 brain cells you have rubbing together. You present bullshit arguments, claim them as fact even though they've been shown to be illogical and unfounded, and claim victory. You have provided no evidence to support your contention that people are dispersed among coupled and singles populations in equal percentages. Your claims that your assumptions, without supporting evidence, are fact are worthless.

According to your data, of the 105.5 million households in the U.S., 59.4 million were heterosexual couples. That's 56% of all households heterosexual couples. Let's assume for the sake of argument that of the remaining 44% of all households that your figure of 1% homosexual is accurate. That means that the percentage of heterosexual single households is 43%. That's a discrepancy of nearly 25% in the dispersal of heterosexuals. Your assumption has just been proven WRONG! There is no correlation between the percentage of couples and singles.


MM... I'm amazed at how you can so vehemnetly defend a nondefensible position. Amazed and, a little disappointed, that you would put forth such effort to defend such a perversion. If you are queer, then I understand. But I don't think you are. I think you're just totally immersed at this point, and don't know how to bow out gracefully.

In any case, I give you positive rep for hanging in there. :beer:

[glockmail]

That noise you are hearing is from the last 2 brain cells you have rubbing together. You present bullshit arguments, claim them as fact even though they've been shown to be illogical and unfounded, and claim victory. You have provided no evidence to support your contention that people are dispersed among coupled and singles populations in equal percentages. Your claims that your assumptions, without supporting evidence, are fact are worthless.

....

As you have yet again resorted to insults (along with repeating failed arguments) it is apparent that you have lost the debate. (I've already addressed the bold and the ellipsed text previously.)

[glockmail]

....

Glock, go on your merry way, boy. I'll let me posts speak for themselves. Any intelligent person who comes along and reads them will be able to discern which of the two of us is full of it and which is being objective. 'Nuff said. Two bad you can't disprove the 2000 US Census, teach. :laugh2:

[Missileman]

MM... I'm amazed at how you can so vehemnetly defend a nondefensible position. Amazed and, a little disappointed, that you would put forth such effort to defend such a perversion. If you are queer, then I understand. But I don't think you are. I think you're just totally immersed at this point, and don't know how to bow out gracefully.

In any case, I give you positive rep for hanging in there. :beer:

If someone wants to knock gays for real reasons like the spread of STD's, you won't hear me make a peep. I happen to not believe that homosexuality leads to pedophilia, it doesn't pass a common sense test.

At this point in this thread, I am only "vehemently" trying to get Glock to open his eyes and see the error of his reasoning. To leave bad conclusions like his unchallenged leads to their acceptance as truth by those who might read them. IMO, that's how nonsense like "homosexuality leads to pedophilia" takes root and thrives.

[Pale Rider]

If someone wants to knock gays for real reasons like the spread of STD's, you won't hear me make a peep. I happen to not believe that homosexuality leads to pedophilia, it doesn't pass a common sense test.

At this point in this thread, I am only "vehemently" trying to get Glock to open his eyes and see the error of his reasoning. To leave bad conclusions like his unchallenged leads to their acceptance as truth by those who might read them. IMO, that's how nonsense like "homosexuality leads to pedophilia" takes root and thrives.

Well that's all fine and dandy with you and glock MM, but I think the reasoning that, first off, homosexuality is a deviant behavior, and that pedophilia is too. So for a homo to commit pedophelia is much less of a "wrong", than to a hetero. They're already doing something that's wrong. They don't see it as wrong. So why should they be inclined to think pedophilia is then wrong?

[glockmail]

If someone wants to knock gays for real reasons like the spread of STD's, you won't hear me make a peep. I happen to not believe that homosexuality leads to pedophilia, it doesn't pass a common sense test.
At this point in this thread, I am only "vehemently" trying to get Glock to open his eyes and see the error of his reasoning. To leave bad conclusions like his unchallenged leads to their acceptance as truth by those who might read them. IMO, that's how nonsense like "homosexuality leads to pedophilia" takes root and thrives. Hypocrite as well I see. Typical lib. :slap:

[Missileman]

(I've already addressed the bold and the ellipsed text previously.)

You have not explained the discrepancy between the percentages of heterosexual couples and those living single that renders your conclusion they are linked invalid.

Care to give it a whirl?

And FYI, my insults have no bearing on who's won or lost this argument. If all I resorted to was an insult, you might have a point, but each and every time, along with my calling you a dimwit, I've presented you with a set of facts that you still haven't refuted with anything resembling logic or math.

[Missileman]

Well that's all fine and dandy with you and glock MM, but I think the reasoning that, first off, homosexuality is a deviant behavior, and that pedophilia is too. So for a homo to commit pedophelia is much less of a "wrong", than to a hetero. They're already doing something that's wrong. They don't see it as wrong. So why should they be inclined to think pedophilia is then wrong?


And as I said earlier, it makes no sense that a homosexual would enter into an illegal activity and risk prison time if he can go down to the local bathhouse and get his needs fulfilled.

[glockmail]

You have not explained the discrepancy between the percentages of heterosexual couples and those living single that renders your conclusion they are linked invalid.

Care to give it a whirl?

And FYI, my insults have no bearing on who's won or lost this argument. If all I resorted to was an insult, you might have a point, but each and every time, along with my calling you a dimwit, I've presented you with a set of facts that you still haven't refuted with anything resembling logic or math.

Bullshit. All you've done is repeat the same question, as if you don't understand the simple argument that I have spoon fed to you.

If you're going to insult someone, be a man about it and don't try to hide the fact that that is what your post is soley about. :slap:

[glockmail]

And as I said earlier, it makes no sense that a homosexual would enter into an illegal activity and risk prison time if he can go down to the local bathhouse and get his needs fulfilled. Needle dick queer wants a tighter butt to get off in. I suppose it's like drugs where the junkie needs a higher dose to get high.
:coffee:

[Missileman]

Bullshit. All you've done is repeat the same question, as if you don't understand the simple argument that I have spoon fed to you.

You're a joke. You LOST!

If and when I ever REALLY insult you, your fuckin dog will bleed. No need to worry though, I wouldn't waste my best material on the likes of you. :fu:

[Missileman]

Needle dick queer wants a tighter butt to get off in.

Speaking from experience? :poke:

[glockmail]

You're a joke. You LOST!

If and when I ever REALLY insult you, your fuckin dog will bleed. No need to worry though, I wouldn't waste my best material on the likes of you. :fu:

Dream on, boy.

Leave my dog out of this. She's family, and you don't cross that line. Douchebag.

:fu:

[glockmail]

Speaking from experience? :poke: Amazing how libs always use gay as an insult. :lame2:

[Pale Rider]

And as I said earlier, it makes no sense that a homosexual would enter into an illegal activity and risk prison time if he can go down to the local bathhouse and get his needs fulfilled.

As I explained MM, it does make sense. And they've proved it. You've read the evidence here in this thread, only to deny it.

[glockmail]

As I explained MM, it does make sense. And they've proved it. You've read the evidence here in this thread, only to deny it. That boy's been pwned. :laugh2:

[Missileman]

As I explained MM, it does make sense. And they've proved it. You've read the evidence here in this thread, only to deny it.

There's evidence to the contrary that you deny also.

[Missileman]

Amazing how libs always use gay as an insult. :lame2:

Just trying to determine how you became an expert on the subject...I guess in this case you maybe pulled it out of someone else's ass. :laugh2:

[Pale Rider]

There's evidence to the contrary that you deny also.

I haven't seen any.

[glockmail]

Just trying to determine how you became an expert on the subject...I guess in this case you maybe pulled it out of someone else's ass. :laugh2: Sorry to dissapoint you, but I'm a God fearing social conservative, remember?
:slap:

[Pale Rider]

Sorry to dissapoint you, but I'm a God fearing social conservative, remember?
:slap:

Here we go again glock... the liberal loosing the debate, and resorting to calling his opponent queer..... man..... I wish I had a dollar for every time I've seen that lame ass crap on here.

[glockmail]

There's evidence to the contrary that you deny also.

This has gotta hurt:


U.S. CENSUS DATA SHOWS HOMOSEXUAL COUPLES ACCOUNT FOR 1 PERCENT OF ALL COUPLES
WASHINGTON, March 13, 2003 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Census Bureau released a Census 2000 report on married- and unmarried-couple households today. The 16-page report, Married-Couple and Unmarried-Partner Households: 2000, indicates that homosexual couples account for only 1 percent of all couples - married and non-married. Of the 60 million households headed by couples, 0.6 million were headed by same-sex partners.

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2003/mar/03031302.html

And confirmed by a pro-queer site.

http://www.gaydemographics.org/USA/USA.htm

:laugh2: pwned:laugh2:

[CockySOB]

Two bad you can't disprove the 2000 US Census, teach. :laugh2:

I didn't have to disprove the 200 Census, fool. In fact, I used the same Census. The fact is that I used it correctly, while you mangled your so-called statistical analysis. That's what's so funny - I use YOUR source and show you how you screwed the pooch. Yet you refuse to see it because you are more interested in your own rhetoric than in honest discussion or debate. Kinda makes Diuretics comment in another thread seem valid.

[glockmail]

I didn't have to disprove the 200 Census, fool. In fact, I used the same Census. The fact is that I used it correctly, while you mangled your so-called statistical analysis. That's what's so funny - I use YOUR source and show you how you screwed the pooch. Yet you refuse to see it because you are more interested in your own rhetoric than in honest discussion or debate. Kinda makes Diuretics comment in another thread seem valid.


Post 627 confirms my stats.

[Missileman]

Here we go again glock... the liberal loosing the debate, and resorting to calling his opponent queer..... man..... I wish I had a dollar for every time I've seen that lame ass crap on here.

He's the self-professed expert on what motivates an adult to go after children. I asked the question to point out that once again, he's pullin shit outta his ass, not to call him gay.

[Nuc]

This has gotta hurt:



http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2003/mar/03031302.html

And confirmed by a pro-queer site.

http://www.gaydemographics.org/USA/USA.htm

:laugh2: pwned:laugh2:

OK then here's the question. If gays are only 1% of the population why do you guys spend 67% of your time whining about them?

[Missileman]

The 16-page report, Married-Couple and Unmarried-Partner Households: 2000, indicates that homosexual couples account for only 1 percent of all couples - married and non-married.

Where exactly does it say that homosexuals account for only 1% of all people there?

[Nuc]

Where exactly does it say that homosexuals account for only 1% of all people there?

Yep a lot of gays prefer the single lifestyle. :dance: That's why there are so many gay bars. Married couples don't usually hang out in bars all night.

[Missileman]

I haven't seen any.

Read post 268. In Groth's study, not one of the pedophiles had converted from the "gay lifestyle".

[CockySOB]

Post 627 confirms my stats.

No, post 627 only mentions COUPLES, which does not provide ANY insight into the SINGLES in the population. Your "calculations" still ignore the ~49 million single households for which NO information regarding sexual orientation was gathered. Therefore there is NO scientifically valid way for you to assume that only 1% of the singles population is homosexual, which is exactly what you've been asserting.

[gabosaurus]

Of course, none of the homophobes are intelligent enough to response to an intellectual, scientifically based thread. So they have to stay here and defend themselves with insults. :lame2:

[glockmail]

OK then here's the question. If gays are only 1% of the population why do you guys spend 67% of your time whining about them? No whine, just the relentless pursuit of the truth.

[glockmail]

Where exactly does it say that homosexuals account for only 1% of all people there? Statistics with a 20% sampling rate. What percent sampling are your preferred studies?

[glockmail]

Yep a lot of gays prefer the single lifestyle. :dance: That's why there are so many gay bars. Married couples don't usually hang out in bars all night. Married couples aren't gay.

[glockmail]

No, post 627 only mentions COUPLES, which does not provide ANY insight into the SINGLES in the population. Your "calculations" still ignore the ~49 million single households for which NO information regarding sexual orientation was gathered. Therefore there is NO scientifically valid way for you to assume that only 1% of the singles population is homosexual, which is exactly what you've been asserting.
Addressed in Post 638 for about the 10th time. Now you answer the question there as well.

[glockmail]

Of course, none of the homophobes are intelligent enough to response to an intellectual, scientifically based thread. So they have to stay here and defend themselves with insults. :lame2: Perhaps you should read who wrote the insults before commenting: your queer enabling buds.

[Missileman]

Statistics with a 20% sampling rate. What percent sampling are your preferred studies?

That's your interpretation of the results...where is that conclusion in the census report?

[Missileman]

Married couples aren't gay.

And heterosexuals are divided in hugely different percentages between single households and coupled households. This renders your opinion that gays are dispersed in similar percentages between coupled and single households laughably unfounded.

[Missileman]

Perhaps you should read who wrote the insults before commenting: your queer enabling buds.

Don't kid yourself...your assinine illogic has been an "insult" to everyone's intelligence since you first proclaimed "1-1.5% is a scientific fact".

[glockmail]

That's your interpretation of the results...where is that conclusion in the census report? That question makes no sense. Nice dodge though.

[glockmail]

And heterosexuals are divided in hugely different percentages between single households and coupled households. This renders your opinion that gays are dispersed in similar percentages between coupled and single households laughably unfounded. Where's your supporting data?

[glockmail]

Don't kid yourself...your assinine illogic has been an "insult" to everyone's intelligence since you first proclaimed "1-1.5% is a scientific fact".
Face facts: I own you now.

[Missileman]

Where's your supporting data?

Already provided...do I have to spoon feed it to you again?

[Missileman]

Face facts: I own you now.

You never did answer my question.

[glockmail]

Already provided...do I have to spoon feed it to you again?

Yup.


You never did answer my question.

Only about ten times now.

[Missileman]

Yup.

Thoroughly explained in #604.




Only about ten times now.

Since I didn't specify, the correct response should have been "which question?"

[CockySOB]

Don't kid yourself...your assinine illogic has been an "insult" to everyone's intelligence since you first proclaimed "1-1.5% is a scientific fact".

Well, I did provide sufficient research to support the 1-2% figures, although in compromise I thought you and I had agreed that 3.5% (avg of 2% and 5%) was a viable estimate. Of course, Glock never supported anything except with vague reference to the 2000 Census which I doubt he even bothered to read. I don't know if they put the US Census out in crayola or water colors, so it's understandable that he might not understand what was IN the census.

[Missileman]

Well, I did provide sufficient research to support the 1-2% figures, although in compromise I thought you and I had agreed that 3.5% (avg of 2% and 5%) was a viable estimate. Of course, Glock never supported anything except with vague reference to the 2000 Census which I doubt he even bothered to read. I don't know if they put the US Census out in crayola or water colors, so it's understandable that he might not understand what was IN the census.

The "insult to intelligence" comment was not aimed at you. You provided data that supported your estimates and presented your reasoning in an honest manner. You never made an indefensible claim like "1-1.5% is a scientific fact" and then proceed to craft a theory while discarding nearly half of the data. And yes, based on the 8.8 million GLB estimates, I accept the 3.5% figure.

[CockySOB]

I know MissileMan, I just didn't want Glock to think he's contributed anything beyond his link to the 2000 Census. The actual proof/scientific study (incl. properly drawn conclusions based on those studies) was mine. I didn't mean to come off sounding like I was riding your case, and I apologize if I did.

[glockmail]

I know MissileMan, I just didn't want Glock to think he's contributed anything beyond his link to the 2000 Census. The actual proof/scientific study (incl. properly drawn conclusions based on those studies) was mine. I didn't mean to come off sounding like I was riding your case, and I apologize if I did. You two are so cute together. My little puppies.

[glockmail]

.... in compromise ...... Yeah teacher! That's science!....


....NOT.:slap:

[Missileman]

So instead of responding to #651, you make a couple juvenile remarks. :lame2:

[glockmail]

So instead of responding to #651, you make a couple juvenile remarks. :lame2:

I have explained the simple math of my argument several ways so even a fourth grader can understand, yet you still do not. Still you insist on having me explain it to you yet again. I suugest you go back to elementary school and listen to what the teachers tell you this time.

You have yet to provide any original research disputing mine, and instead are simply repeating the same old stuff. In fact, you claimed that CockySOB's research as your own.

[Missileman]

I have explained the simple math of my argument several ways so even a fourth grader can understand, yet you still do not. Still you insist on having me explain it to you yet again. I suugest you go back to elementary school and listen to what the teachers tell you this time.

You have yet to provide any original research disputing mine, and instead are simply repeating the same old stuff. In fact, you claimed that CockySOB's research as your own.

And none of this explains the 25% minimum margin of error between the number of heterosexuals living as couples and those living single. I posted an estimate of 8.8 million GLBs that was obtained through actually counting individuals, not through your bullshit, "let's pretend", pseudo-statistical-assumption method. As yet, you've provided nothing relevant that disputes that 8.8 million figure. When you can, come back and post it.

[glockmail]

And none of this explains the 25% minimum margin of error between the number of heterosexuals living as couples and those living single. I posted an estimate of 8.8 million GLBs that was obtained through actually counting individuals, not through your bullshit, "let's pretend", pseudo-statistical-assumption method. As yet, you've provided nothing relevant that disputes that 8.8 million figure. When you can, come back and post it.

Where's your supporting data? What percent sampling are your preferred studies?

Why not face the music, man. The US Census is correct, jives with a half dozen older studies, and is confirmed by some gay group. I own you now. Don't make me into a God.

[gabosaurus]

That is such a gay argument. Guys just can't come to grips with their feelings.

[Missileman]

The US Census is correct, jives with a half dozen older studies,

The census made no estimate of the total population of homosexuals. Notice that I've never questioned their findings of the number of homosexuals living together. I have though thoroughly proven that your methods for estimating the number of singles based on the number of couples are logically unsound. Any resemblance of your logically bankrupt mental machinations to a 15-year-old Canadian study are insignificant and meaningless.

I'm still waiting for you to provide a quote from the U.S. census report that homosexuals are only 1% of the TOTAL POPULATION. Until you do, your claims that the census proves your conclusion are pure bullshit and a figment of your imagination.

I posted the source that estimates the GLB population at 8.8 million. You still haven't provided a single shred of relevant contradictory evidence.

[gabosaurus]

There are undoubtedly a ton of homosexuals still in the closet. Some of them may be here.

[glockmail]

The census made no estimate of the total population of homosexuals. Notice that I've never questioned their findings of the number of homosexuals living together. I have though thoroughly proven that your methods for estimating the number of singles based on the number of couples are logically unsound. Any resemblance of your logically bankrupt mental machinations to a 15-year-old Canadian study are insignificant and meaningless.

I'm still waiting for you to provide a quote from the U.S. census report that homosexuals are only 1% of the TOTAL POPULATION. Until you do, your claims that the census proves your conclusion are pure bullshit and a figment of your imagination.

I posted the source that estimates the GLB population at 8.8 million. You still haven't provided a single shred of relevant contradictory evidence.

You didn't answer my questions.

[Missileman]

You didn't answer my questions.

All the answers you need are in #662.

[glockmail]

All the answers you need are in #662. Nope. That's just you old circle jerk technique again.

[LuvRPgrl]

For the FOURTH time I post this info...

In 1998, another study using four contemporary databases suggested that homosexual activity may be associated with a lifespan shortened by 20 to 30 years. Source: Cameron, P., Cameron, K., Playfair, WL., " Does Homosexual Activity Shorten Life? ", Psychological Reports, 1998, 83, pp. 847-66.

"Given what I now know, I believe there are FLAWS with Paul Cameron's study". BILL BENNETT

Oh, and who's Paul Cameron?
Early in 1984, all members of the American Psychological Association received official written notice that "Paul Cameron (Nebraska) was dropped from membership for a violation of the Preamble to the Ethical Principles of Psychologists" ...it would be remarkable that the largest professional organization of psychologists in the United States (and other professional associations, as noted below) went to such lengths to disassociate itself from one individual.

In 1985, the American Sociological Association (ASA) adopted a resolution which asserted that "Dr. Paul Cameron has consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented sociological research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism" ....At its August, 1986 meeting, the ASA officially accepted the committee's report and passed the following resolution:

The American Sociological Association officially and publicly states that Paul Cameron is NOT a sociologist, and condemns his consistent misrepresentation of sociological research. Information on this action and a copy of the report by the Committee on the Status of Homosexuals in Sociology, "The Paul Cameron Case," is to be published in Footnotes, and be sent to the officers of all regional and state sociological associations and to the Canadian Sociological Association with a request that they alert their members to Cameron's frequent lecture and media appearances."8

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbo...ron_sheet.html


I do believe thats the same treatment that Davinci got from his peers. I personally dont give any credibility to those groups. Just the the oscars and the noble peace prize, when they get to big, it becomes all about the money, and anyone who threatens it is ostracized.

I remember when George C Scott refused his oscar, I admire that man more than any other actor, particularly more than lieing hypocrites like Baldwin and fuck face loser sean penn.

[LuvRPgrl]

What really cracks me up is the typical, ignore the patently obvious, by the liberals. They claim that a male pedophilia who molests boys, not girls, is not a homosexual, he is a pedophile. OH MY GOD !

And anyone who denies that homosexuals dont have a much shorter life span than their heterosexual counterparts is delusional.

Further, saying homosexuality is normal, and I dont give a rats ass what information, facts, studies or anything you come up with, its just fucking wrong. Packing the fudge on another guy is so obviously patently and obviously a MISTAKE somewhere along the line, its delusional to believe otherwise.

NOt to mention most homosexuals have much more problems with alcoholism, emotional problems, etc, etc. Oh, but the libs will simply say, "its because society doesnt accept them." BUllshit. But the arguement implies, if any evidence comes out making homos look good, we accept it. If any comes out makiing them look abnormal or bad, "well, its not because of their homosexuality, but because of society" (even though you dont have a shred of proof) or in essence, the arguement against them simply cant be won in the delusional minds of liberals.

[LuvRPgrl]

hobbit: Here is a news bulletin for you.....

The real "fringe group" here is right-wing wackos like yourself who hate gay people.
Why is it that any of us who oppose homosexual marriage automatically makes us homophobes? I dont see the science in that.

and embrace any idiot who puts forth a theory linking homosexuality and pedophilia..[/QUOTE]
circular reasoning. You assume if the conclusion is a link, then the researcher must be an idiot.


The conviction of an overwhelming majority in the Western world today is that homosexuals are not a threat to any aspect or segment of our society..
But yet the overwhelming majority of Americans still oppose same gender marriage.


the "threat" is entirely in the minds of certain right-wing Bible thumpers who think this country is going down the tubes because it accepts those members of society who are gay..
Tell that to the milllions of teens whose first sexual experience was being seduced by an adult homosexual.


Everyone else has accepted gay people and moved on. And we've left relics like yourself back in the 1950s.

But if it makes you feel noble or virtuous to see yourself as the rear guard for Jesus, fighting the good fight against sin and societal decay, by all means, have at it.

This is America, and our society is built on a foundation of tolerance for wackos of every kind.

so you admit that homos are whackos ! Bravo !

[Samantha]

What fascinates me is the obsession that the GOP, the right, the Republicans have with all things gay.


Ohio GOP Smears Al Franken In Press Release With Doctored Photo, Fabricated Quote
Yesterday, the Ohio Republican Party sent out a news release attacking Rep. Sherrod Brown (D) for enlisting the support of comedian Al Franken:



It is not surprising that Sherrod Brown is enlisting the help of a Hollywood liberal, who like him, is so far out of the mainstream of Ohio values. What is troubling is that Brown would solicit support from someone [Franken] who compared conservatives to Nazis “who should drink poison and die.”

The quote used in the news release is taken from Bernard Goldberg book, 110 People Who Are Screwing Up America, in an alleged interview between Goldberg and Franken. But in his book, Goldberg makes it clear that the exchange is completely fictional. The Ohio Republican Party represented it as fact.

The news release was accompanied by this photograph, showing Franken dressed up like a baby bunny, wearing adult diapers and clutching a fluffy white teddy bear.

Andy Barr, director of Franken’s Midwest Values PAC, confirmed, “The picture is a fake.” The Ohio Republican Party used a 2004 AP photo of Franken for the doctored image:

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2006/10/frankendoctored2.jpg
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/10/26/franken-ohio-photo/

Why is the right so fixated on homo-erotica? Abu Gharaib and Gitmo homo erotic torture, hiring Jeff Gannon aka Guckert, male prostitute to pretend to be a journalist, visiting the White House 200 times, not notifying Democrats when they knew Mark Foley emailing young boys perverted text...



And the Republican leadership was aware that an elected Republican representative was sending personal e-mails and IMs to various teenage pages — but either didn't investigate any more closely to see if they were wholly inappropriate and/or sexually explicit or what, according to Hastert's hemming and hawing in the WaPo this morning…and they did not tell the Democratic leadership nor did they take any overt actions from what I've been able to ascertain to remove this Republican representative from contact with these teenagers other than telling him to act more appropriately.

http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/09/30/putting-party-interests-over-child-safety-is-not-acceptable/

Does Karl Rove have something to do with all the homo erotic obsessions in the GOP?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-moore/the-closets-of-karl-and-k_b_28669.html

What is it with this obsession and the Republican party?

[glockmail]

*snore*

[Samantha]

*snore*You're right, there's no justification for the GOP's dirty tricks and sexual hypocrisy. Sleep well.

[Doniston]

"Who could have possibly envisioned an erection in Iraq at this point in history?"
GW Bush, Jan. 10, 2005 I gotta admit, I missed that particular quote. Glad you offered it up. HEH HE

[Doniston]

[QUOTE=Samantha;53667]What fascinates me is the obsession that the GOP, the right, the Republicans have with all things gay.


QUOTE] HI SAM My forced permanency brings me here.

[OCA]

What fascinates me is the obsession that the GOP, the right, the Republicans have with all things gay.



http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2006/10/frankendoctored2.jpg
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/10/26/franken-ohio-photo/

Why is the right so fixated on homo-erotica? Abu Gharaib and Gitmo homo erotic torture, hiring Jeff Gannon aka Guckert, male prostitute to pretend to be a journalist, visiting the White House 200 times, not notifying Democrats when they knew Mark Foley emailing young boys perverted text...




http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/09/30/putting-party-interests-over-child-safety-is-not-acceptable/

Does Karl Rove have something to do with all the homo erotic obsessions in the GOP?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-moore/the-closets-of-karl-and-k_b_28669.html

What is it with this obsession and the Republican party?

*yawn*

Defeat the arguments, prove that homosexuality is by birth and therefore natural.

Your dodging of the subject is telling.

[Yurt]

What fascinates me is the obsession that the GOP, the right, the Republicans have with all things gay.



http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2006/10/frankendoctored2.jpg
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/10/26/franken-ohio-photo/

Why is the right so fixated on homo-erotica? Abu Gharaib and Gitmo homo erotic torture, hiring Jeff Gannon aka Guckert, male prostitute to pretend to be a journalist, visiting the White House 200 times, not notifying Democrats when they knew Mark Foley emailing young boys perverted text...




http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/09/30/putting-party-interests-over-child-safety-is-not-acceptable/

Does Karl Rove have something to do with all the homo erotic obsessions in the GOP?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-moore/the-closets-of-karl-and-k_b_28669.html

What is it with this obsession and the Republican party?


Are you telling me that a baby in diapers, holding a giant stuffed animal, and the baby wearing bunny ears and striped socks is "homo erotica?"

I think you answered yourself why male gay sex is wrong, way wrong...

[glockmail]

HI SAM My forced permanency brings me here. We've got you now you can not escape! :laugh2:

[glockmail]

*yawn*

Defeat the arguments, prove that homosexuality is by birth and therefore natural.

Your dodging of the subject is telling. Al Franken in diapers. What a brilliant comedian. What talent. What deflection by Sam. :pee:

[Pale Rider]

Ya know what's funny, the very same people here that argue in support of faggots, if they'd only go over to the NAMBLA site and tell those faggot pedophiles, "hey, we've been arguing in SUPPORT of you, and telling people there is NOT a connection between you being queer and wanting to feel up little boys," and those very same people, the ones here are arguing FOR would tell them, "NO, don't do that, we LIKE to feel up little boys, please shut the hell up because you're NOT HELPING US!"

[glockmail]

It looks like the libs have zero logical arguments about this issue. Therefore queers are more likely to be peds.

[chum43]

when was the last time a crime where EVERYONE agreed there was a victim become widely acceptable and legalized?

the possible links between homosexuality and pedophilia are interesting, but suggesting that it will follow the same revolution that homosexuality has had or anything even close to it, is ridiculous.

[Doniston]

Are you telling me that a baby in diapers, holding a giant stuffed animal, and the baby wearing bunny ears and striped socks is "homo erotica?"

I think you answered yourself why male gay sex is wrong, way wrong...Since it ISN'T a baby in either case, I have to wonder where "YOU" are coming from.

[Doniston]

We've got you now you can not escape! :laugh2: Yah, I guess. :)

[Doniston]

Ya know what's funny, the very same people here that argue in support of faggots, if they'd only go over to the NAMBLA site and tell those faggot pedophiles, "hey, we've been arguing in SUPPORT of you, and telling people there is NOT a connection between you being queer and wanting to feel up little boys," and those very same people, the ones here are arguing FOR would tell them, "NO, don't do that, we LIKE to feel up little boys, please shut the hell up because you're NOT HELPING US!"

Hokay, I'm puzzeled. what's your point????:confused:

[glockmail]

Yah, I guess. :)
"Welcome to the Hotel California. You can check out any time you like/ but you can never leave."

[Doniston]

It looks like the libs have zero logical arguments about this issue. Therefore queers are more likely to be peds. this is post 680 on this thread. if you were even remotely accurate in that statement, the thread would long since have become unused and terminated.

[Doniston]

"Welcome to the Hotel California. You can check out any time you like/ but you can never leave."

'HOKAY"

[glockmail]

this is post 680 on this thread. if you were even remotely accurate in that statement, the thread would long since have become unused and terminated. Queer enablers never give up. They can't comprehend simple logic and truth.

[glockmail]

'HOKAY"http://lyrics-keeper.com/en/pennywise/hotel-california.html

[Pale Rider]

when was the last time a crime where EVERYONE agreed there was a victim become widely acceptable and legalized?

the possible links between homosexuality and pedophilia are interesting, but suggesting that it will follow the same revolution that homosexuality has had or anything even close to it, is ridiculous.

I don't think so. Homos have a warped sense of what's right and what's wrong. They so nothing wrong with men on men, and they see nothing wrong with men on little boys. They use the same strategy as the fags did to legitimize their sickness. It already exists. They just want people to think it's all cute and cuddly so they can gain acceptance like the faggots have.

[Pale Rider]

Hokay, I'm puzzeled. what's your point????:confused:

If you don't get it, then you're just plain too retarded to understand.

[Pale Rider]

this is post 680 on this thread. if you were even remotely accurate in that statement, the thread would long since have become unused and terminated.

Well you just added another post to this thread and had nothing to say about the issue.

Shut up or make an argument.

[nevadamedic]

Well you just added another post to this thread and had nothing to say about the issue.

Shut up or make an argument.

Eventhough I don't agree with this thread. :clap:

[Doniston]

Well you just added another post to this thread and had nothing to say about the issue.

Shut up or make an argument.

1. I responded to a stated oponion ABOUT the thread

2. Ref (and had nothing to say about the issue.) KETTLE POT BLACK> why should I be different you post many many comments which say nothing about the topic. (And like the latest, you can't even explain what you meant.)

But the real difference is "MY" nothings are CIVIL yours are usually personal

3. Do you think your are the leader of the pack? or some such????

[Pale Rider]

1. I responded to a stated oponion ABOUT the thread

2. Ref (and had nothing to say about the issue.) KETTLE POT BLACK> why should I be different you post many many comments which say nothing about the topic. (And like the latest, you can't even explain what you meant.)

But the real difference is "MY" nothings are CIVIL yours are usually personal

3. Do you think your are the leader of the pack? or some such????

No... the difference is, when I make an arguement, there's "SUBSTANCE.". You on the other hand just BABBLE.

[gabosaurus]

Sometimes it takes a retarded person to know one. Or to argue with one.

From all his threads, Pale has shown a keen interest in fudge packing. Fred Phelps would be gushing with pride at his loyal disciple.

[nevadamedic]

Sometimes it takes a retarded person to know one. Or to argue with one.

From all his threads, Pale has shown a keen interest in fudge packing. Fred Phelps would be gushing with pride at his loyal disciple.

Gabby, you don't have any room to talk about someone being retarded. The only interest he has in gay people is that he doesn't like them. I don;t know Pale all to well, but I can say after all the times ive talked to him, he has no interest in the Gay lifestyle.

[Pale Rider]

Sometimes it takes a retarded person to know one. Or to argue with one.

From all his threads, Pale has shown a keen interest in fudge packing. Fred Phelps would be gushing with pride at his loyal disciple.

You're just a rotten filthy stinking drippy gash you maggot infested whore. I'll bet you have to wear reinforced undearwear so that when you stand up your guts don't fall out you fatass ugly zit ridden bitch.

[darin]

wow.