PDA

View Full Version : Life Brittish neuroscientist says that being gay is genetic


Pages : 1 [2] 3

Rausch
06-25-2011, 02:22 PM
Being able to put yourself in someone else's shoes is a sign of intellect. Treating others as you would want to be treated if you were in their shoes is a sign of morality.

You're barking up the wrong tree...

Rausch
06-25-2011, 02:23 PM
Homosexuals aren't normal. That's just a fact.

Neither is Bob Dole (not homosexual...)

Rausch
06-25-2011, 02:27 PM
you don't have to be gay to be bullied, ostracized, or told you're going to hell.

Being Catholic works just fine...

Pants
06-25-2011, 02:32 PM
deflection.

is your implication that the high suicide rate is societies fault incorrect?

Deflection from what? You're just now starting to frame your argument, lol.

No, I think if you kill yourself, the decision and the fault lies with you.

stevieray
06-25-2011, 02:35 PM
No, I think if you kill yourself, the decision and the fault lies with you.

I agree.

go bowe
06-25-2011, 02:44 PM
Deflection from what? You're just now starting to frame your argument, lol.

No, I think if you kill yourself, the decision and the fault lies with you.

i don't know...

i've killed myself several times and i blame it on a shortage of good quality drugs...

Fire Me Boy!
06-25-2011, 02:44 PM
Homosexuals aren't normal. That's just a fact.

It is a fact, you are correct. Yet we don't place governmental marriage restrictions on all abnormal people.

Take for instance a few other facts: Muscular dystrophy (1:5,000); multiple sclerosis (1:1,000); cleft lip/palate (1:1,000); cerebral palsy (1:500)

It's pretty widely accepted that anywhere from 2-4 percent of the population is homosexual, translating to 100-200:5,000, 10-20:1,000, and 5-10:500, more than any of the above.

But all of those people with muscular dystrophy, multiple sclerosis, cleft lip and cerebral palsy - we don't prevent them from marrying; we don't bully them, tell them they're going to hell; we don't call them call them names.

Why do we treat homosexuals differently?

Pants
06-25-2011, 02:47 PM
Why do we treat homosexuals differently?

Because it was thought of as a choice for a very long time.

Donger
06-25-2011, 02:52 PM
It is a fact, you are correct. Yet we don't place governmental marriage restrictions on all abnormal people.

Take for instance a few other facts: Muscular dystrophy (1:5,000); multiple sclerosis (1:1,000); cleft lip/palate (1:1,000); cerebral palsy (1:500)

It's pretty widely accepted that anywhere from 2-4 percent of the population is homosexual, translating to 100-200:5,000, 10-20:1,000, and 5-10:500, more than any of the above.

But all of those people with muscular dystrophy, multiple sclerosis, cleft lip and cerebral palsy - we don't prevent them from marrying; we don't bully them, tell them they're going to hell; we don't call them call them names.

Why do we treat homosexuals differently?

Thank you. I fail to see why so many others (looking at you, Brock) don't acknowledge it, let alone call someone a bigot and narrow-minded for doing so.

They are abnormal and they will never be normal. I realize that really bothers some people, but it is what it is.

Actually, if any of those other people you mention also happen to be homosexual, yes, they are prevented from marrying. And, I remember a kid in school that had some kind of chromosomal disorder. He was taunted and teased horribly.

Donger
06-25-2011, 02:54 PM
Because it was thought of as a choice for a very long time.

No, they are treated by some just like the other abnormalities he listed.

loochy
06-25-2011, 02:56 PM
It is a fact, you are correct. Yet we don't place governmental marriage restrictions on all abnormal people.

Take for instance a few other facts: Muscular dystrophy (1:5,000); multiple sclerosis (1:1,000); cleft lip/palate (1:1,000); cerebral palsy (1:500)

It's pretty widely accepted that anywhere from 2-4 percent of the population is homosexual, translating to 100-200:5,000, 10-20:1,000, and 5-10:500, more than any of the above.

But all of those people with muscular dystrophy, multiple sclerosis, cleft lip and cerebral palsy - we don't prevent them from marrying; we don't bully them, tell them they're going to hell; we don't call them call them names.

Why do we treat homosexuals differently?

LOL where did you go to school? Utopia Elementary?

vailpass
06-25-2011, 02:57 PM
I hope your kid is gay.

Going at people's kids? Punk move.

Fire Me Boy!
06-25-2011, 02:57 PM
Thank you. I fail to see why so many others (looking at you, Brock) don't acknowledge it, let alone call someone a bigot and narrow-minded for doing so.

They are abnormal and they will never be normal. I realize that really bothers some people, but it is what it is.

Actually, if any of those other people you mention also happen to be homosexual, yes, they are prevented from marrying. And, I remember a kid in school that had some kind of chromosomal disorder. He was taunted and teased horribly.

So we arbitrarily pick and choose which abnormal people upon which we place marital restrictions. Got it.

Fire Me Boy!
06-25-2011, 02:57 PM
LOL where did you go to school? Utopia Elementary?

I was thinking mature adults, not kids.

Pants
06-25-2011, 02:58 PM
No, they are treated by some just like the other abnormalities he listed.

Why does it bother you so much when someone "abnormal" wants to be treated like a normal human being?

loochy
06-25-2011, 02:59 PM
"I'm bigoted and homophobic. Just because. Because I am. WHY WON'T YOU ACCEPT ME?"

- is what that would look like.

OK make up whatever names you want for it. That doesn't change it.

Pants
06-25-2011, 03:01 PM
Dang, loochy, my mental image of you just completely changed, lol. Not that you care or anything.

loochy
06-25-2011, 03:02 PM
Dang, loochy, my mental image of you just completely changed, lol. Not that you care or anything.

Meh. I see where you guys are coming from, but I just don't agree. Sorry. :shrug:

Pants
06-25-2011, 03:05 PM
Meh. I see where you guys are coming from, but I just don't agree. Sorry. :shrug:

Don't tell us you're sorry, tell it to the gays.

go bowe
06-25-2011, 03:05 PM
OK make up whatever names you want for it. That doesn't change it.

change it from what?

loochy
06-25-2011, 03:08 PM
change it from what?

It should read "It doesn't change my opinion on the matter."

loochy
06-25-2011, 03:08 PM
Don't tell us you're sorry, tell it to the gays.

They probably don't care either.

DA_T_84
06-25-2011, 03:08 PM
How this party is 18 pages deep and still in the lounge, I will never know.

It's like the parents are out of town, or something.

loochy
06-25-2011, 03:09 PM
How this party is 18 pages deep and still in the lounge, I will never know.

It's like the parents are out of town, or something.

The fact that it's in the lounge has probably kept this conversation reasonably civil. Once it goes to DC people like Mad Crapper and Orange get a hold of it and everything goes downhill.

Donger
06-25-2011, 03:28 PM
So we arbitrarily pick and choose which abnormal people upon which we place marital restrictions. Got it.

No. It isn't arbitrary at all. I've never heard of two heterosexual quadriplegics complaining about not being allowed to marry. Because they are allowed.

Homosexuals aren't allowed to marry because marriage throughout our history has been between two people of the opposite sex.

Donger
06-25-2011, 03:29 PM
Why does it bother you so much when someone "abnormal" wants to be treated like a normal human being?

It doesn't bother me that much. Not as much as, say, illegal aliens.

But, you answered your own question. Re-read what you wrote.

Pants
06-25-2011, 03:34 PM
It doesn't bother me that much. Not as much as, say, illegal aliens.

But, you answered your own question. Re-read what you wrote.

Illegal aliens bother the fuck out of me too!

I have no issues whatsoever considering a boy who likes boys or a girl who likes girls normal human beings.

Donger
06-25-2011, 03:35 PM
Illegal aliens bother the **** out of me too!

I have no issues whatsoever considering a boy who likes boys or a girl who likes girls normal human beings.

Didn't you state that they have a "harmless mutation" earlier?

Pants
06-25-2011, 03:38 PM
Didn't you state that they have a "harmless mutation" earlier?

Sure. Just like your psoriasis is a harmless mutation. That wouldn't make me consider you abnormal either.

Donger
06-25-2011, 03:39 PM
Sure. Just like your psoriasis is a harmless mutation. That wouldn't make me consider you abnormal either.

Answer this: looking at human beings as a whole, which is vastly more common? Homosexuality or heterosexuality?

Pants
06-25-2011, 03:40 PM
Answer this: looking at human beings as a whole, which is vastly more common? Homosexuality or heterosexuality?

Heterosexuality.

Answer me this: looking at human beings as a whole, which are vastly more common? Those suffering from psoriasis or those who are not?

Fire Me Boy!
06-25-2011, 03:42 PM
No. It isn't arbitrary at all. I've never heard of two heterosexual quadriplegics complaining about not being allowed to marry. Because they are allowed.

Homosexuals aren't allowed to marry because marriage throughout our history has been between two people of the opposite sex.

Hmm. So history should be what dictates what we do. Got it. There are a lot of things that are historical that aren't practiced any more. Do you suggest we (society) should not grow as we develop a heightened understanding of science, self, religion and morality?

Fire Me Boy!
06-25-2011, 03:45 PM
A quick search finds that psoriasis occurs in 2.2 percent of the U.S. population, according to the National Psoriasis Foundation. That's on the low end of estimation of homosexuality. Just throwin' numbers out there for anyone that cares.

stevieray
06-25-2011, 03:45 PM
It is a fact, you are correct. Yet we don't place governmental marriage restrictions on all abnormal people.

Take for instance a few other facts: Muscular dystrophy (1:5,000); multiple sclerosis (1:1,000); cleft lip/palate (1:1,000); cerebral palsy (1:500)



don't you find it odd that you are using physical ailments that most don't view as a postive for a comparison?

Fire Me Boy!
06-25-2011, 03:48 PM
do you find it odd that you are using physical ailments that most don't view as a postive as a comparison?

I'm simply putting the instance of homosexuality in perspective. We do not put social restriction (such as marriage bans) on people that by the numbers are more abnormal than homosexuals. People with such issues are treated by the government as normal individuals.

stevieray
06-25-2011, 03:50 PM
I'm simply putting the instance of homosexuality in perspective. We do not put social restriction (such as marriage bans) on people that by the numbers are more abnormal than homosexuals. People with such issues are treated by the government as normal individuals.

you're avoiding the question.

Fire Me Boy!
06-25-2011, 03:50 PM
don't you find it odd that you are using physical ailments that most don't view as a postive for a comparison?

I've given the view that homosexuality is abnormal, though I disagree they should be treated as such. By the definition of the word, homosexuals are abnormal. There's no argument. But there are a lot of things that are abnormal that are not sanctioned by society or the government, such things that are more abnormal than homosexuality.

Donger
06-25-2011, 03:50 PM
Heterosexuality.

Answer me this: looking at human beings as a whole, which are vastly more common? Those suffering from psoriasis or those who are not?

Those who are not.

Fire Me Boy!
06-25-2011, 03:52 PM
you're avoiding the question.

I'm not avoiding the question at all. Yes, I chose a handful of diseases (I'm not saying homosexuality is a disease, by the way) that are not terribly uncommon and generally not a good thing and comparing how the government and society treat those individuals in regards to human rights with the rights we afford to homosexuals.

Donger
06-25-2011, 03:53 PM
Hmm. So history should be what dictates what we do. Got it. There are a lot of things that are historical that aren't practiced any more. Do you suggest we (society) should not grow as we develop a heightened understanding of science, self, religion and morality?

Sure. Things such as human slavery and mass persecution because of one's religion (or lack thereof) were once acceptable practice. Homosexuals were once persecuted horribly, too.

Pants
06-25-2011, 03:54 PM
Those who are not.

Would you consider someone suffering from psoriasis a normal human being?

stevieray
06-25-2011, 03:55 PM
I'm not avoiding the question at all. Yes, I chose a handful of diseases (I'm not saying homosexuality is a disease, by the way) that are not terribly uncommon and generally not a good thing and comparing how the government and society treat those individuals in regards to human rights with the rights we afford to homosexuals.

in essence, aren't you using negatives to validate another negative?

Donger
06-25-2011, 03:55 PM
I've given the view that homosexuality is abnormal, though I disagree they should be treated as such.

Ah, you acknowledge the truth, but just don't like the icky factor of that truth?

Donger
06-25-2011, 03:56 PM
Would you consider someone suffering from psoriasis a normal human being?

Is this person homosexual, too?

Fire Me Boy!
06-25-2011, 03:58 PM
in essence, aren't you using negatives to validate another negative?

I'm not trying to be obtuse, stevieray, but I don't know what you mean by that. We (society/government) do not treat people suffering from MS with inequality, despite an abnormality. We do treat homosexuals differently because of an abnormality.

Pants
06-25-2011, 04:00 PM
Is this person homosexual, too?

No.

Donger
06-25-2011, 04:01 PM
No.

Then yes, that person is a normal human being with an abnormal medical condition.

Donger
06-25-2011, 04:03 PM
I'm not trying to be obtuse, stevieray, but I don't know what you mean by that. We (society/government) do not treat people suffering from MS with inequality, despite an abnormality. We do treat homosexuals differently because of an abnormality.

Personally, only when they attempt to normalize their behavior (and equate it with heterosexuals, which is what gay marriage is) do I have any issue at all with homosexuals.

Pants
06-25-2011, 04:03 PM
Then yes, that person is a normal human being with an abnormal medical condition.

LOL, kewl.

Donger
06-25-2011, 04:04 PM
LOL, kewl.

You aren't suggesting that homosexuals have a abnormal medical condition, are you?

Fire Me Boy!
06-25-2011, 04:09 PM
Ah, you acknowledge the truth, but just don't like the icky factor of that truth?

I don't see an "icky factor" with the truth. They're abnormal. I'm a lefty - I'm abnormal. I don't have a problem with them. I don't believe "because they're different" is a viable excuse to treat someone differently. People with tattoos are different; amputees are different; people who don't wash their legs are different. The government has no business prescribing a different set of rules on them just because they're different.

It wasn't too long ago that black people weren't allowed to vote based on skin color and women weren't allowed to vote based on gender. These are things that simply are discriminatory. Not allowing two men or two women to marry is discriminatory, and in time, our system of government will allow it. It's happening already and will continue to happen.

stevieray
06-25-2011, 04:17 PM
. The government has no business prescribing a different set of rules on them just because they're different.


see what you just wrote?... yet that's almost exactly what you want the goverment to do.

and that, good or bad, will create a slippery slope. if it accepted as normal, then what takes its place in pushing the envelope? transsexual/transgender? ok. after that? beastiality? and after that? child porn?

it's the tail wagging the dog.

Mr. Laz
06-25-2011, 04:40 PM
http://s3.amazonaws.com/twitpic/photos/full/329701556.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJF3XCCKACR3QDMOA&Expires=1309038988&Signature=A8US7cl9dyQEQsnnnrvQBdq8xLw%3D

Donger
06-25-2011, 04:42 PM
I don't see an "icky factor" with the truth. They're abnormal. I'm a lefty - I'm abnormal. I don't have a problem with them. I don't believe "because they're different" is a viable excuse to treat someone differently. People with tattoos are different; amputees are different; people who don't wash their legs are different. The government has no business prescribing a different set of rules on them just because they're different.

It wasn't too long ago that black people weren't allowed to vote based on skin color and women weren't allowed to vote based on gender. These are things that simply are discriminatory. Not allowing two men or two women to marry is discriminatory, and in time, our system of government will allow it. It's happening already and will continue to happen.

I don't have a problem with them either, as long as they don't attempt to normalize their abnormality, which is what they are trying to do. Want to hook up? Fine, hook up. Want to have a legally-binding union? Fine, do that. But not when it is defined as marriage.

ClevelandBronco
06-25-2011, 04:42 PM
Being able to put yourself in someone else's shoes is a sign of intellect.

Bullshit alert.

Fire Me Boy!
06-25-2011, 04:49 PM
see what you just wrote?... yet that's almost exactly what you want the goverment to do.

and that, good or bad, will create a slippery slope. if it accepted as normal, then what takes its place in pushing the envelope? transsexual/transgender? ok. after that? beastiality? and after that? child porn?

it's the tail wagging the dog.

You're comparing a relationship between two consenting adults with bestiality and/or child pornography. :spock:

And for the record, in many cases, transgenders are allowed to marry because after sexual reassignment surgery is complete, the person is legally the other gender and (in many states) can have his/her birth certificate changed to show the "new" gender. That would mean a man could get SRS to become a woman and marry another man.

Ugly Duck
06-25-2011, 04:50 PM
Male giraffes mount other male giraffes over 90% of the time

Donger has a point. Apparently, male giraffes are abnormal 90% of the time. On the rare occasion, they are normal. So far, 100% of observed Bonobo chimps (our closest genetic relative) hump members of their own gender. Up to this point, all members of that species are abnormal. It is possible that some observer will eventually find a Bonobo that only humps members of the opposite sex. If that individual is ever found, he will be the one & only normal member of his species. Makes sense in a twisted, convoluted kinda way - if you've had a lot to drink before pondering it.

stevieray
06-25-2011, 04:57 PM
You're comparing a relationship between two consenting adults with bestiality and/or child pornography. :spock:

And for the record, in many cases, transgenders are allowed to marry because after sexual reassignment surgery is complete, the person is legally the other gender and (in many states) can have his/her birth certificate changed to show the "new" gender. That would mean a man could get SRS to become a woman and marry another man.


...in reference to pushing the envelope of what is considered abnormal/normal.

....and the first part of my post?

Fire Me Boy!
06-25-2011, 05:02 PM
...in reference to pushing the envelope of what is considered abnormal/normal.

....and the first part of my post?

I think we're already treating them differently by withholding civil rights. The right to marry is afforded all other consenting adults of a certain state-mandated age... except the gays. How are we not discriminating against them? Just because that's how it's always been done?

go bowe
06-25-2011, 05:07 PM
I think we're already treating them differently by withholding civil rights. The right to marry is afforded all other consenting adults of a certain state-mandated age... except the gays. How are we not discriminating against them? Just because that's how it's always been done?

do your parents know how you feel about gay people?

Brainiac
06-25-2011, 05:08 PM
see what you just wrote?... yet that's almost exactly what you want the goverment to do.

and that, good or bad, will create a slippery slope. if it accepted as normal, then what takes its place in pushing the envelope? transsexual/transgender? ok. after that? beastiality? and after that? child porn?

it's the tail wagging the dog.
The slippery slope argument is the most bogus argument there is. You are basically saying that you can't make a compelling argument against what you are arguing against, so you instead argue against something else. I call bullshit on anyone who uses the slippery slope argument.

Fire Me Boy!
06-25-2011, 05:10 PM
do your parents know how you feel about gay people?

How I feel about gay people? I don't feel any differently about gay people than I do straight people.

They don't believe homosexuals should be allowed to marry, but I've disagreed with them openly about it.

What does that have to do with anything?

Donger
06-25-2011, 05:19 PM
I think we're already treating them differently by withholding civil rights. The right to marry is afforded all other consenting adults of a certain state-mandated age... except the gays. How are we not discriminating against them? Just because that's how it's always been done?

We are discriminating against them and, yes, because that's how it has always been done: between a man and a woman. I don't have a problem with this tradition and this history.

Pitt Gorilla
06-25-2011, 05:20 PM
The slippery slope argument is the most bogus argument there is. You are basically saying that you can't make a compelling argument against what you are arguing against, so you instead argue against something else. I call bullshit on anyone who uses the slippery slope argument.He knows that.

go bowe
06-25-2011, 05:20 PM
How I feel about gay people? I don't feel any differently about gay people than I do straight people.

They don't believe homosexuals should be allowed to marry, but I've disagreed with them openly about it.

What does that have to do with anything?

um, sarcasm meter needs adjusting...

poor attempt at humor alert...

Fire Me Boy!
06-25-2011, 05:25 PM
um, sarcasm meter needs adjusting...

poor attempt at humor alert...

Whoops. Sorry.

BIG_DADDY
06-25-2011, 05:28 PM
I don't see an "icky factor" with the truth. They're abnormal. I'm a lefty - I'm abnormal. I don't have a problem with them. I don't believe "because they're different" is a viable excuse to treat someone differently. People with tattoos are different; amputees are different; people who don't wash their legs are different. The government has no business prescribing a different set of rules on them just because they're different.

It wasn't too long ago that black people weren't allowed to vote based on skin color and women weren't allowed to vote based on gender. These are things that simply are discriminatory. Not allowing two men or two women to marry is discriminatory, and in time, our system of government will allow it. It's happening already and will continue to happen.

You're getting ridiculous with your metaphores.The vast majority of people don't care if they have civil unions with the same financial benefits of marriage along with all the pitfalls especially divorce. Peoples biggest issues by far are with adoption for all the reasons nobody could address when I posted them.

Baby Lee
06-25-2011, 07:41 PM
Donger has a point. Apparently, male giraffes are abnormal 90% of the time. On the rare occasion, they are normal. So far, 100% of observed Bonobo chimps (our closest genetic relative) hump members of their own gender. Up to this point, all members of that species are abnormal. It is possible that some observer will eventually find a Bonobo that only humps members of the opposite sex. If that individual is ever found, he will be the one & only normal member of his species. Makes sense in a twisted, convoluted kinda way - if you've had a lot to drink before pondering it.

I'm so sick of this argument. First off they're animals, just because people like to anthropomorphize doesn't make it any semblance of reality. Steers will rub their junk on tree stumps and dogs will hump human legs. Doesn't mean they have a 'sexual preference' for plants or humans.

Second, flowing from the first, is that it's actually denigrating to the homosexuals you think you are championing to liken their sexual and romantic appetites to what wild animals do.

Brock
06-25-2011, 08:19 PM
Second, flowing from the first, is that it's actually denigrating to the homosexuals you think you are championing to liken their sexual and romantic appetites to what wild animals do.

Is it more or less denigrating than casting them as mutations akin to people born with physical and mental defects?

Mr. Kotter
06-25-2011, 10:26 PM
Is it more or less denigrating than casting them as mutations akin to people born with physical and mental defects?

Eh. Either is pretty appropriate, really. Quite telling, really. Just sayin'. :shrug:

MIAdragon
06-25-2011, 11:21 PM
did anyone consult Neil Patrick Harris, because apparently he is a gay!?!?

HMc
06-25-2011, 11:29 PM
Those who oppose gay marriage (and consider homosexuals to be inferior) today will be looked upon at some point in the future in much the same way that we look upon those that considered (and still do) people of colour to be inferior, or women to be inferior, and other such nonsense.

The fact that Donger is part of that (the former) group shouldn't surprise anyone.

Donger
06-26-2011, 07:17 AM
Those who oppose gay marriage (and consider homosexuals to be inferior) today will be looked upon at some point in the future in much the same way that we look upon those that considered (and still do) people of colour to be inferior, or women to be inferior, and other such nonsense.

The fact that Donger is part of that (the former) group shouldn't surprise anyone.

They are inferior, from a breeding perspective. Any honest person will acknowledge that.

BigMeatballDave
06-26-2011, 07:40 AM
I don't care that people are gay, or how they came to be that way. Live and let live.

Those who think they are defending homosexuals by comparing their sexual preference to what animals do is hilarious. Its also Fucking stupid of you to make that comparison.

BigMeatballDave
06-26-2011, 07:44 AM
Also, I tend to agree with Donger on breeding.

If you have a heterosexual couple and a gay couple and ask them to procreate, who is going to be successful?

Count Alex's Losses
06-26-2011, 08:34 AM
Also, I tend to agree with Donger on breeding.

If you have a heterosexual couple and a gay couple and ask them to procreate, who is going to be successful?

Statistically speaking the hetero couple.

But there are hetero couples who can't get pregnant and use sperm donors, surrogate mothers or adopt. Gay couples also have those options. And since we ALL start life as sperm, what's the fucking difference?

Donger
06-26-2011, 09:14 AM
Statistically speaking the hetero couple.

But there are hetero couples who can't get pregnant and use sperm donors, surrogate mothers or adopt. Gay couples also have those options. And since we ALL start life as sperm, what's the ****ing difference?

The difference is that with those heterosexual couples who can't breed, there is something medical wrong with them. Two homosexuals can be perfectly healthy with no medical issues, but they cannot procreate with each other. Period.

Nature's rule, not mine.

HMc
06-26-2011, 11:49 AM
They are inferior, from a breeding perspective. Any honest person will acknowledge that.

And when it comes to whether or not they should be allowed to marry, that has as much relevance as heterosexuals being inferior in the "ability to be attracted to people of the same sex" category does.

As in, absolutely none.

I presume you have no issue with heterosexual couples marrying despite deciding beforehand that they won't be having children, and couples who are unable to have kids doing the same.

The difference when it comes to gay couples is merely your narrowminded prejudice. I think that's fairly clear.

MOhillbilly
06-26-2011, 11:59 AM
Gay threads make Donger hard.

Demonpenz
06-26-2011, 12:49 PM
the worst thing about being gay? Finding clothes your size

Donger
06-26-2011, 12:51 PM
And when it comes to whether or not they should be allowed to marry, that has as much relevance as heterosexuals being inferior in the "ability to be attracted to people of the same sex" category does.

As in, absolutely none.

I presume you have no issue with heterosexual couples marrying despite deciding beforehand that they won't be having children, and couples who are unable to have kids doing the same.

The difference when it comes to gay couples is merely your narrowminded prejudice. I think that's fairly clear.

No, I have no issue at all with heterosexuals who can't or don't want to breed getting married.

I don't think that homosexuals should be allowed to marry, yes.

Donger
06-26-2011, 12:51 PM
Gay threads make Donger hard.

LMAO

Backwards Masking
06-26-2011, 01:02 PM
They are inferior, from a breeding perspective. Any honest person will acknowledge that.

Really? Are you saying that because you think homos are inferior physically and mentally compared to heterosexuals, or because they scientifically are incapable of reproducing? If it's the former you're a bigot and if it's the latter you're dead flat wrong. Either way you're a liar and IMO any honest person will acknowledge that. Not saying there's anything wrong with being a bigot, a liar, or dead flat wrong. It's certainly you're right to choose to be those things, and you're entitled to your opinion. But I highly doubt you're stupid enough not to know that medical science has the ability to put a lesbian egg with a gay sperm and make a new human being.

Count Alex's Losses
06-26-2011, 01:04 PM
The difference is that with those heterosexual couples who can't breed, there is something medical wrong with them. Two homosexuals can be perfectly healthy with no medical issues, but they cannot procreate with each other. Period.

Nature's rule, not mine.

That's not really important.

Count Alex's Losses
06-26-2011, 01:05 PM
I don't think that homosexuals should be allowed to marry, yes.

Who is it hurting if they get married?

Mr. Laz
06-26-2011, 01:31 PM
I mean nothing can drive a thread at CP like teh gheys. :shake:

Just Passin' By
06-26-2011, 01:34 PM
Funny thread

Mr. Laz
06-26-2011, 01:36 PM
Who is it hurting if they get married?
Their very existence hurts the moral fiber of the world/Donger

Baby Lee
06-26-2011, 01:42 PM
Is it more or less denigrating than casting them as mutations akin to people born with physical and mental defects?

Do you understand the subtle distinctions between criticizing and championing?

Mr. Laz
06-26-2011, 01:44 PM
Do you understand the subtle distinctions between criticizing and championing?
Aren't they the same?

:spock:

Okie_Apparition
06-26-2011, 01:49 PM
Would you attend a gay wedding if they served bacon

Donger
06-26-2011, 01:51 PM
Really? Are you saying that because you think homos are inferior physically and mentally compared to heterosexuals, or because they scientifically are incapable of reproducing? If it's the former you're a bigot and if it's the latter you're dead flat wrong. Either way you're a liar and IMO any honest person will acknowledge that. Not saying there's anything wrong with being a bigot, a liar, or dead flat wrong. It's certainly you're right to choose to be those things, and you're entitled to your opinion. But I highly doubt you're stupid enough not to know that medical science has the ability to put a lesbian egg with a gay sperm and make a new human being.

The latter. And, yes, I'm well-aware that all that is needed for procreation is a sperm and an egg. Now, please tell me how two sperm or two eggs can lead to child. To put it more graphically, you can't fertilize a turd.

Donger
06-26-2011, 01:52 PM
That's not really important.

On the contrary. It's exceedingly important.

Donger
06-26-2011, 01:53 PM
Who is it hurting if they get married?

Hurt? No one. I've stated why I don't agree with homosexual marriage.

BigMeatballDave
06-26-2011, 01:54 PM
The latter. And, yes, I'm well-aware that all that is needed for procreation is a sperm and an egg. Now, please tell me how two sperm or two eggs can lead to child. To put it more graphically, you can't fertilize a turd.LMAO

BigMeatballDave
06-26-2011, 01:55 PM
Hurt? No one. I've stated why I don't agree with homosexual marriage.Why? Im too lazy to search.

Mr. Laz
06-26-2011, 01:56 PM
Really? Are you saying that because you think homos are inferior physically and mentally compared to heterosexuals, or because they scientifically are incapable of reproducing? If it's the former you're a bigot and if it's the latter you're dead flat wrong. Either way you're a liar and IMO any honest person will acknowledge that. Not saying there's anything wrong with being a bigot, a liar, or dead flat wrong. It's certainly you're right to choose to be those things, and you're entitled to your opinion. But I highly doubt you're stupid enough not to know that medical science has the ability to put a lesbian egg with a gay sperm and make a new human being.You forgot the 'asshole' option.

Just Passin' By
06-26-2011, 01:57 PM
You forgot the 'asshole' option.

Way to be intolerant of those who aren't 'tolerant' of the exact same things as you. :thumb:

Mr. Laz
06-26-2011, 01:58 PM
Way to be intolerant of those who aren't 'tolerant' of the exact same things as you. :thumb:um yes, because considering someone an asshole for being a bigot is clearly the same thing.


(btw pardon me if my sarcas-o-meter is on the blink, never can tell in these type of threads)

BigMeatballDave
06-26-2011, 01:59 PM
Really? Are you saying that because you think homos are inferior physically and mentally compared to heterosexuals, or because they scientifically are incapable of reproducing? If it's the former you're a bigot and if it's the latter you're dead flat wrong. Either way you're a liar and IMO any honest person will acknowledge that. Not saying there's anything wrong with being a bigot, a liar, or dead flat wrong. It's certainly you're right to choose to be those things, and you're entitled to your opinion. But I highly doubt you're stupid enough not to know that medical science has the ability to put a lesbian egg with a gay sperm and make a new human being.LMAO I would much rather be a bigot than a moron. You appear to be the latter...

Donger
06-26-2011, 01:59 PM
Why? Im too lazy to search.

Because it is an attempt to normalize homosexuality and equate it with heterosexuality.

Donger
06-26-2011, 02:00 PM
um yes, because considering someone an asshole for being a bigot is clearly the same thing.


(btw pardon me if my sarcas-o-meter is on the blink, never can tell in these type of threads)

How am I a bigot?

BigMeatballDave
06-26-2011, 02:01 PM
um yes, because considering someone an asshole for being a bigot is clearly the same thing.


(btw pardon me if my sarcas-o-meter is on the blink, never can tell in these type of threads)Are you gay? Why does Donger's bigotry bother you?

BigMeatballDave
06-26-2011, 02:02 PM
Because it is an attempt to normalize homosexuality and equate it with heterosexuality.I agree with you on procreation, but I certainly don't care about any of this. Live and let live.

Donger
06-26-2011, 02:04 PM
I agree with you on procreation, but I certainly don't care about any of this. Live and let live.

Everyone who is honest must agree with me on the procreation part. It's just a biological fact.

Mr. Laz
06-26-2011, 02:05 PM
Are you gay? Why does Donger's bigotry bother you?
No matter how many times you change your name your stupidity shines through.

Backwards Masking
06-26-2011, 02:08 PM
How am I a bigot?

Well you've stated in practically every gay thread (including this one) that they are "inferior breeders" for the last 6 plus years, even though you know a man and woman even 99.99999 percent gay can have one single 3 second straight experience and produce a child. So there's that....

Never mind you choose to ignore the reality of in vitro fertilization.

Backwards Masking
06-26-2011, 02:09 PM
Everyone who is honest must agree with me on the procreation part. It's just a biological fact.

You're lying to support to your argument. It's YOU who is not being honest.

BigMeatballDave
06-26-2011, 02:10 PM
No matter how many times you change your name your stupidity shines through.I aspire to be just like you. *Kisses*

Donger
06-26-2011, 02:10 PM
Well you've stated in practically every gay thread (including this one) that they are "inferior breeders" for the last 6 plus years, even though you know a man and woman even 99.99999 percent gay can have one single 3 second straight experience and produce a child. So there's that....

Never mind you choose to ignore the reality of in vitro fertilization.

Again, I'm well-aware that all that is needed for procreation is a sperm and an egg.

Now, please tell me how two sperm or two eggs can lead to child.

I'll wait.

BigMeatballDave
06-26-2011, 02:11 PM
Well you've stated in practically every gay thread (including this one) that they are "inferior breeders" for the last 6 plus years, even though you know a man and woman even 99.99999 percent gay can have one single 3 second straight experience and produce a child. So there's that....

Never mind you choose to ignore the reality of in vitro fertilization.Yeah, you're a moron.

Donger
06-26-2011, 02:12 PM
You're lying to support to your argument. It's YOU who is not being honest.

How am I lying? Please give me one example where two homosexuals have combined their respective same sex baby-making batter and created a child.

Just Passin' By
06-26-2011, 02:12 PM
um yes, because considering someone an asshole for being a bigot is clearly the same thing.


(btw pardon me if my sarcas-o-meter is on the blink, never can tell in these type of threads)

You should probably look up the definition of bigot. Here, let me help:

–noun
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigot

That would make you the bigot here.

Backwards Masking
06-26-2011, 02:13 PM
I never made the argument that two women or two men could produce a child. I said they can make one elsewhere. How does that make them inferior breeders?

Fire Me Boy!
06-26-2011, 02:13 PM
Again, I'm well-aware that all that is needed for procreation is a sperm and an egg.

Now, please tell me how two sperm or two eggs can lead to child.

I'll wait.

Can you explain why it's important for you that gays not be allowed to marry? Why it's a problem for you to "normalize" it? it's not like people are going to be like, "Wait... wait... so, even though I like women, now it's OK for me to be gay? I think I'm goin' gay from here on out boys."

BigMeatballDave
06-26-2011, 02:13 PM
No matter how many times you change your name your stupidity shines through.So, how many name changes do you think I've had?

Donger
06-26-2011, 02:13 PM
Yeah, you're a moron.

Maybe, but he's also arguing against himself. He's providing great examples of the ONLY reason we have male and female.

Backwards Masking
06-26-2011, 02:14 PM
Using in vitro fertilization doesn't make someone straight. Nor does having a single straight experience.

Donger
06-26-2011, 02:14 PM
I never made the argument that two women or two men could produce a child. I said they can make one elsewhere. How does that make them inferior breeders?

Because homosexuals have incompatible reproductive cells.

Fire Me Boy!
06-26-2011, 02:15 PM
I never made the argument that two women or two men could produce a child. I said they can make one elsewhere. How does that make them inferior breeders?

Because they can't do it by themselves, without aid. I get his point, I just don't understand why it's an important one.

BigMeatballDave
06-26-2011, 02:15 PM
I never made the argument that two women or two men could produce a child. I said they can make one elsewhere. How does that make them inferior breeders?LMAO Comprehension fail.

Donger
06-26-2011, 02:15 PM
Can you explain why it's important for you that gays not be allowed to marry? Why it's a problem for you to "normalize" it? it's not like people are going to be like, "Wait... wait... so, even though I like women, now it's OK for me to be gay? I think I'm goin' gay from here on out boys."

I don't like changes to tradition just to satiate the desires of the minority, especially a tradition that is intrinsic to our society.

Backwards Masking
06-26-2011, 02:16 PM
Maybe, but he's also arguing against himself. He's providing great examples of the ONLY reason we have male and female.

no i'm not arguing that two men can produce a child, i'm arguing that that makes them inferior breeders. But keep ignoring that part.

Just Passin' By
06-26-2011, 02:17 PM
I never made the argument that two women or two men could produce a child. I said they can make one elsewhere. How does that make them inferior breeders?

Your claim to justifying the homosexuality seems to be that they can also do non-homosexual things. That pretty much eliminates the "we don't have a choice" argument put forth by the homosexual lobby, which means that your argument undercuts your argument.

Homosexuals are inferior breeders, simply because of their choice of "breeding"(sex) partners. You'd have to be a complete idiot to claim otherwise.

Donger
06-26-2011, 02:17 PM
Using in vitro fertilization doesn't make someone straight. Nor does having a single straight experience.

You are apparently a little dense, so I'll try another example: how long would the human race last if, all of a sudden, men only had sex with men and women only had sex with women?

BigMeatballDave
06-26-2011, 02:18 PM
Because they can't do it by themselves, without aid. I get his point, I just don't understand why it's an important one.Its not, but Donger has a point on breeding inferiority. Some just can't grasp it.

Backwards Masking
06-26-2011, 02:18 PM
You are apparently a little dense, so I'll try another example: how long would the human race last if, all of a sudden, men only had sex with men and women only had sex with women?

In vitro fertilization. Oh dense one.

I'm sure that's going to be a problem.

Fire Me Boy!
06-26-2011, 02:19 PM
Using in vitro fertilization doesn't make someone straight. Nor does having a single straight experience.

Having a million straight experiences and no homosexual experiences doesn't make someone straight, either. Many, many people did and still do live life completely in the closet. The sexual act performed has no bearing on hetero/homosexuality. You could be straight and make the choice to have sex with another man, but that would in no way change your sexuality if you are not attracted - physically, emotionally - to the same sex.

Donger
06-26-2011, 02:19 PM
no i'm not arguing that two men can produce a child, i'm arguing that that makes them inferior breeders. But keep ignoring that part.

I'm not ignoring. I've already explained why it isn't relevant.

Who are you, BTW? I don't think that we've ever interacted before. Long time lurker?

Donger
06-26-2011, 02:22 PM
In vitro fertilization. Oh dense one.

I'm sure that's going to be a problem.

You didn't answer the question. What would happen to the human race in that scenario?

Can homosexuals "cheat" and use one of their reproductive cells to combine with the reproductive cells of the opposite sex's and create a child, yes. You may note that that isn't homosexual sex.

Or not.

Backwards Masking
06-26-2011, 02:23 PM
I'm not ignoring. I've already explained why it isn't relevant.

Who are you, BTW? I don't think that we've ever interacted before. Long time lurker?

I'm not arruing that homosexuality is genetic, i don't know and i don't care. I'm arruing the part about "inferior breeders". Inferior breeders cause they can't make a kid together. AGREED (again). Inferior breeders cause that's what they are? No f*ing way.

Yes long time lurker. Long enough to know the "Inferior Breeder" argument is a favorite of yours. NTTAWWT. Just disagreeing.

Donger
06-26-2011, 02:23 PM
The sexual act performed has no bearing on hetero/homosexuality.

I disagree, at least with respect to this argument of procreation.

Fire Me Boy!
06-26-2011, 02:26 PM
I don't like changes to tradition just to satiate the desires of the minority, especially a tradition that is intrinsic to our society.

OK. I understand, but disagree with your stance. I think it's "traditionalists" like yourself that hold us back as a society. Minorities deserve the same rights and privileges as the majority.

And whether you like it or not, that train's a comin', and it ain't gonna stop for you.

Donger
06-26-2011, 02:26 PM
I'm not arruing that homosexuality is genetic, i don't know and i don't care. I'm arruing the part about "inferior breeders". Inferior breeders cause they can't make a kid together. AGREED (again). Inferior breeders cause that's what they are? No f*ing way.

Err, they are inferior breeders because they are homosexual. That's what they are. I understand you don't like that fact, but it is what it is.

Yes long time lurker. Long enough to know the "Inferior Breeder" argument is a favorite of yours. NTTAWWT. Just disagreeing.

Fair enough. Nice to meet you.

Donger
06-26-2011, 02:27 PM
OK. I understand, but disagree with your stance. I think it's "traditionalists" like yourself that hold us back as a society. Minorities deserve the same rights and privileges as the majority.

And whether you like it or not, that train's a comin', and it ain't gonna stop for you.

Yeah, it probably is unstoppable. Like I said, this isn't something that keeps me awake at night.

Backwards Masking
06-26-2011, 02:27 PM
You didn't answer the question. What would happen to the human race in that scenario?

Can homosexuals "cheat" and use one of their reproductive cells to combine with the reproductive cells of the opposite sex's and create a child, yes. You may note that that isn't homosexual sex.

Or not.

Chatrooming isn't a "natural" source of communication (like talking). Are you cheating in your communication skills by using a computer.

And to answer your question, the human race would survive based on the aforementioned technology. And if a gay man c*ms on another gay man's hand, that gay man shakes hands with a lesbian, the lesbian puts the c*m inside another lesbian, they can make a child that way as well. Is that homosexual sex? No. But it's another way the human race would survive, to answer the question TWICE.

Do you think homosexuals will destroy the reproduction of the human race based on their homoseuxality alone? Really?

BigMeatballDave
06-26-2011, 02:30 PM
Chatrooming isn't a "natural" source of communication (like talking). Are you cheating in your communication skills by using a computer.

And to answer your question, the human race would survive based on the aforementioned technology. And if a gay man c*ms on another gay man's hand, that gay man shakes hands with a lesbian, the lesbian puts the c*m inside another lesbian, they can make a child that way as well. Is that homosexual sex? No. But it's another way the human race would survive, to answer the question TWICE.

Do you think homosexuals will destroy the reproduction of the human race based on their homoseuxality alone? Really?Good God you are stupid. Or maybe just stubborn.

Baby Lee
06-26-2011, 02:31 PM
Aren't they the same?

:spock:

criticize - to enumerate faults or shortcomings.

champion - to defend against threat or support one's success.

Donger
06-26-2011, 02:33 PM
Chatrooming isn't a "natural" source of communication (like talking). Are you cheating in your communication skills by using a computer.

Can someone translate this for me?

And to answer your question, the human race would survive based on the aforementioned technology. And if a gay man c*ms on another gay man's hand, that gay man shakes hands with a lesbian, the lesbian puts the c*m inside another lesbian, they can make a child that way as well. Is that homosexual sex? No. But it's another way the human race would survive, to answer the question TWICE.

Do you think homosexuals will destroy the reproduction of the human race based on their homoseuxality alone? Really?

No, no. Everyone "turns" gay and only has sex with the same sex. Men ejaculating into the other man's anus and the women releasing their egg into another woman's vagina.

What would happen to our species in that scenario? (it's okay if you don't want to answer).

Again, I'm well-aware that there are other delivery methods of the sex cells.

Fire Me Boy!
06-26-2011, 02:33 PM
I disagree, at least with respect to this argument of procreation.

I'm not talking about procreation. I'm talking about the difference between sex and sexuality; one does not equal the other.

You, Donger, could have homosexual sex. I'm not saying you enjoyed it. I'm saying you could make that choice for any number of reasons. Maybe someone offered you and every one of your children and their children $1 billion. Maybe it was a senseless crime, and guy with a gun liked forcing people to do what they didn't want to do. Or maybe you're in prison and you were raped. Any way you slice it, you had sex with another dude. Does that mean you're gay? Even for those few minutes during which you were having sex with another man? Of course it doesn't. You aren't attracted to men.

A gay man can have sex with a woman - that does not automatically make him heterosexual. It doesn't even necessarily make him bi. It means he was able to put his penis inside a vagina. That's it.

Backwards Masking
06-26-2011, 02:33 PM
Err, they are inferior breeders because they are homosexual. That's what they are. I understand you don't like that fact, but it is what it is.

No they're not, i don't care one way or the other, i ain't gay and i ain't having kids. The fact that they can still have children with the opposite sex and are gay doesn't make them INFERIOR at it. It required "cheating", but "cheating" isn't inferior. Any more than talking on a phone is "cheating" and makes it "inferior" to talking to someone in person. I get your point, I just don't agree with you.


Fair enough. Nice to meet you.

Nice to meet you too.

Donger
06-26-2011, 02:35 PM
I'm not talking about procreation. I'm talking about the difference between sex and sexuality; one does not equal the other.

But I am, at least with respect to my inferior breeding argument. The sex act is how most pregnancies occur.

Backwards Masking
06-26-2011, 02:36 PM
Can someone translate this for me?



No, no. Everyone "turns" gay and only has sex with the same sex. Men ejaculating into the other man's anus and the women releasing their egg into another woman's vagina.

What would happen to our species in that scenario? (it's okay if you don't want to answer).

Again, I'm well-aware that there are other delivery methods of the sex cells.

We'd live on. How could you argue that knowing there are other delivery methods of sex cells?

Fire Me Boy!
06-26-2011, 02:36 PM
Can someone translate this for me?



No, no. Everyone "turns" gay and only has sex with the same sex. Men ejaculating into the other man's anus and the women releasing their egg into another woman's vagina.

What would happen to our species in that scenario? (it's okay if you don't want to answer).

Again, I'm well-aware that there are other delivery methods of the sex cells.

:spock:

Donger
06-26-2011, 02:38 PM
We'd live on. How could you argue that knowing there are other delivery methods of sex cells?

Again, imagine in this hypothetical that other delivery methods cannot be used.

Just Passin' By
06-26-2011, 02:39 PM
OK. I understand, but disagree with your stance. I think it's "traditionalists" like yourself that hold us back as a society. Minorities deserve the same rights and privileges as the majority.

You're really making a blanket statement here that I don't think you believe. What you're really saying is that you're opposed to Donger with regards to this particular minority. You're just couching it in more expansive terms that make Donger's otherwise reasonable position seem somehow hostile, mean and unbalanced in general.

Also, the notion that preventing homosexuals from legally marrying is somehow holding us back as a society is nothing more than an extension of that same argument. It's certainly not factual, because it's nothing but opinion based upon your version of what constitutes holding society back.

Fire Me Boy!
06-26-2011, 02:39 PM
But I am, at least with respect to my inferior breeding argument. The sex act is how most pregnancies occur.

Then I'm done here. You apparently have but one, long, boring track that plays on repeat.

Donger
06-26-2011, 02:42 PM
:spock:

LMAO

Well, that's the best example I could think of. If you have another example of how to squish to eggs together, go right ahead.

Donger
06-26-2011, 02:42 PM
Then I'm done here. You apparently have but one, long, boring track that plays on repeat.

Okay.

Backwards Masking
06-26-2011, 02:44 PM
Again, imagine in this hypothetical that other delivery methods cannot be used.

Oh, this a HYPOTHETICAL agrument, why didn't you say so? I thought we were argueing in terms of actual real life scenarios that have a bearing on the future that IS going to come to fruition. Why didn;t you say so earlier.

Well, if 7 billions people all turned gay overnight and in vitro fertilazion vanished and our take the sperm, shake hands, have a lesbian insert it into another lesbian concept just flew over the heads of everyone for 100 or so years, than, yes, the human race would be wiped out within a few generations.

You're asbolutely right Donger. You win.

Rain Man
06-26-2011, 02:46 PM
Not to change the subject, but I had a real dilemma on my jog yesterday.

So I'm going down the street, and coming toward me I see a very attractive MILF woman with two kids trailing behind. Probably mid-30s in age. On the Rain Man rating scale I'd probably give her a solid 8-8-8 (ratings above neck, waist to neck, below waist, and she was wearing a low cut summer dress. Very nice. So I'm watching her as we approach, but then - hey!

On my right, exiting a restaurant, two young women exit. They're not as attractive as the MILF, the first being maybe a 6-4-6 and the second being probably a 6-3-7. However, they're holding hands and walking pretty close to each other. Given their route, they're heading across the paths of me and the MILF, and the arrangement is such that I can only ogle them or the MILF, but not both.

So what do I do? Who do I ogle? Do I go with the attractive MILF in the low-cut dress, or do I check out the two above-average lesbians, who are the more rare sight and also may possibly kiss or something?

Most of the time, I see nothing good on my runs, so it was unfair that both happened at once. In my case, I checked out the two lesbians until the MILF got close enough that I could see cleavage, and then I switched to the MILF from there on out. Unfortunately, that meant missing out on the walking-away view of the lesbian couple, which was really their best angle. I'm not sure if that was the right thing to do or not.

Fire Me Boy!
06-26-2011, 02:47 PM
LMAO

Well, that's the best example I could think of. If you have another example of how to squish to eggs together, go right ahead.

I'm not sure I have another example, but I'm pretty certain women aren't walking around with their eggs falling out.

Donger
06-26-2011, 02:49 PM
Oh, this a HYPOTHETICAL agrument, why didn't you say so? I thought we were argueing in terms of actual real life scenarios that have a bearing on the future that IS going to come to fruition. Why didn;t you say so earlier.

Well, if 7 billions people all turned gay overnight and in vitro fertilazion vanished and our take the sperm, shake hands, have a lesbian insert it into another lesbian concept just flew over the heads of everyone for 100 or so years, than, yes, the human race would be wiped out within a few generations.

You're asbolutely right Donger. You win.

No, not in a few generations. One.

Sorry, I thought it was self-evident that it was hypothetical, since not everyone is going to "turn" gay overnight in the real world.

Fire Me Boy!
06-26-2011, 02:50 PM
Not to change the subject, but I had a real dilemma on my jog yesterday.

So I'm going down the street, and coming toward me I see a very attractive MILF woman with two kids trailing behind. Probably mid-30s in age. On the Rain Man rating scale I'd probably give her a solid 8-8-8 (ratings above neck, waist to neck, below waist, and she was wearing a low cut summer dress. Very nice. So I'm watching her as we approach, but then - hey!

On my right, exiting a restaurant, two young women exit. They're not as attractive as the MILF, the first being maybe a 6-4-6 and the second being probably a 6-3-7. However, they're holding hands and walking pretty close to each other. Given their route, they're heading across the paths of me and the MILF, and the arrangement is such that I can only ogle them or the MILF, but not both.

So what do I do? Who do I ogle? Do I go with the attractive MILF in the low-cut dress, or do I check out the two above-average lesbians, who are the more rare sight and also may possibly kiss or something?

Most of the time, I see nothing good on my runs, so it was unfair that both happened at once. In my case, I checked out the two lesbians until the MILF got close enough that I could see cleavage, and then I switched to the MILF from there on out. Unfortunately, that meant missing out on the walking-away view of the lesbian couple, which was really their best angle. I'm not sure if that was the right thing to do or not.

It's basic math, my friend. You gotta add scales. You have 8-8-8 MILF, or a 12-7-13 lesbo couple.

Just Passin' By
06-26-2011, 02:52 PM
Not to change the subject, but I had a real dilemma on my jog yesterday.

So I'm going down the street, and coming toward me I see a very attractive MILF woman with two kids trailing behind. Probably mid-30s in age. On the Rain Man rating scale I'd probably give her a solid 8-8-8 (ratings above neck, waist to neck, below waist, and she was wearing a low cut summer dress. Very nice. So I'm watching her as we approach, but then - hey!

On my right, exiting a restaurant, two young women exit. They're not as attractive as the MILF, the first being maybe a 6-4-6 and the second being probably a 6-3-7. However, they're holding hands and walking pretty close to each other. Given their route, they're heading across the paths of me and the MILF, and the arrangement is such that I can only ogle them or the MILF, but not both.

So what do I do? Who do I ogle? Do I go with the attractive MILF in the low-cut dress, or do I check out the two above-average lesbians, who are the more rare sight and also may possibly kiss or something?

Most of the time, I see nothing good on my runs, so it was unfair that both happened at once. In my case, I checked out the two lesbians until the MILF got close enough that I could see cleavage, and then I switched to the MILF from there on out. Unfortunately, that meant missing out on the walking-away view of the lesbian couple, which was really their best angle. I'm not sure if that was the right thing to do or not.

Always go with the straight, because that's your best chance for a follow up performance. Now, if you knew that one of the 'lesbian' couple was bi, that would change the equation.

Donger
06-26-2011, 02:52 PM
I'm not sure I have another example, but I'm pretty certain women aren't walking around with their eggs falling out.

They fall out every month in most females, unless they are fertilized by a sperm.

Fire Me Boy!
06-26-2011, 02:54 PM
They fall out every month in most females, unless they are fertilized by a sperm.

But lesbians aren't exactly trading eggs during sex. They're not just fallin' out all willy nilly.

I just had a mental image of the butch lesbo announcing her orgasm: "I'm about to drop! I'm dropping! I'm dropping! Ohhhh....."

Backwards Masking
06-26-2011, 02:55 PM
No, not in a few generations. One.

Sorry, I thought it was self-evident that it was hypothetical, since not everyone is going to "turn" gay overnight in the real world.

It would still take a hundred or so years for a few of the babies born ealier today to die off.

And I doubt you believed it was self evidentingly hypotetical since it took you pages of arguing to point that out, never mind You were the first one who actually said "hypothetically."

Donger
06-26-2011, 03:05 PM
It would still take a hundred or so years for a few of the babies born ealier today to die off.

And I doubt you believed it was self evidentingly hypotetical since it took you pages of arguing to point that out, never mind You were the first one who actually said "hypothetically."

You wrote: "the human race would be wiped out within a few generations." That is incorrect. There would be no more generations.

No, you didn't release that it was hypothetical. I was well-aware that it was and assumed that anyone who read about everyone "turning" gay overnight did as well. Sorry if you were the exception.

Donger
06-26-2011, 03:06 PM
But lesbians aren't exactly trading eggs during sex. They're not just fallin' out all willy nilly.

I just had a mental image of the butch lesbo announcing her orgasm: "I'm about to drop! I'm dropping! I'm dropping! Ohhhh....."

LMAO

"No, butch! Not perpendicular!!! Make them line up!"

Backwards Masking
06-26-2011, 03:10 PM
You wrote: "the human race would be wiped out within a few generations." That is incorrect. There would be no more generations.

No, you didn't release that it was hypothetical. I was well-aware that it was and assumed that anyone who read about everyone "turning" gay overnight did as well. Sorry if you were the exception.

I guess we'll just have to let our fellow Planateers decide by reading the last few pages how "hypothetical" our arugment was for themselves. Before you pointed out you were speaking hypotheically.

Just Passin' By
06-26-2011, 03:11 PM
I guess we'll just have to let our fellow Planateers decide by reading the last few pages how "hypothetical" our arugment was for themselves. Before you pointed out you were speaking hypotheically.

It's pretty obvious that a 100% conversion to homosexuality is a hypothetical.

Donger
06-26-2011, 03:15 PM
I guess we'll just have to let our fellow Planateers decide by reading the last few pages how "hypothetical" our arugment was for themselves. Before you pointed out you were speaking hypotheically.

Okay. Did anyone else assume that I wasn't being hypothetical when I proposed the all-to-common, mass gay-turning event?

Fire Me Boy!
06-26-2011, 03:20 PM
Okay. Did anyone else assume that I wasn't being hypothetical when I proposed the all-to-common, mass gay-turning event?

I understood you were being hypothetical. But the situation loses any source of meaning when you put too many variables in it. The situation isn't worth discussing if you say, a) everyone's gay; b) we lose all technology for medically aided pregnancy from the past 50 years.

It appears as though you're creating a hypothetical, and then changing variables.

Backwards Masking
06-26-2011, 03:20 PM
Okay. Did anyone else assume that I wasn't being hypothetical when I proposed the all-to-common, mass gay-turning event?

You brought up the term "hypothetical" for the first time in post #395. I brought up the "mass gay turning event" (in your words) in post #400. If you can point to the post where you brought it up first (or, in my words, 7 Billion people turning gay overnight), then I obviously didn't read back far enough.

Backwards Masking
06-26-2011, 03:22 PM
And BTW, you using a hypothetical arugment to prove your point proves how much validity your point has. Care to argue that one?

Rain Man
06-26-2011, 03:22 PM
It's basic math, my friend. You gotta add scales. You have 8-8-8 MILF, or a 12-7-13 lesbo couple.

That's a good thought, but I think you have to base it on a rating of 5 with a +/- thing. Otherwise you'd find yourself staring at a Weight Watchers tour bus instead of a pair of cheerleaders.

So an 8-8-8 would be a +9 (difference from 5's), while the lesbo couple would be a +2 in total. However, the lesbian part is the kicker, because it seems like there should be a huge bonus for that somewhere in the calculations.

Just Passin' By
06-26-2011, 03:23 PM
And BTW, you using a hypothetical arugment to prove your point proves how much validity your point has. Care to argue that one?

You're an idiot.

Rain Man
06-26-2011, 03:24 PM
Always go with the straight, because that's your best chance for a follow up performance. Now, if you knew that one of the 'lesbian' couple was bi, that would change the equation.

But what if they started making out? And since I'm married I have no chance for follow up anyway, other than maybe a "wife left me for Jude Law" rebound scenario.

Just Passin' By
06-26-2011, 03:31 PM
But what if they started making out? And since I'm married I have no chance for follow up anyway, other than maybe a "wife left me for Jude Law" rebound scenario.

Married folk stray all the time, or at least have the ability to do so in their minds. It's tough to go down the "well, they're dykes, but they'd still do me" road with any conviction. That's why I mentioned the bi/lesbian pairing. You've still got a shot.

Backwards Masking
06-26-2011, 03:32 PM
You're an idiot.

Sometimes, but not all the time. I'm not so idiotic not to know that people who vehemently argue against homosexuality to the point where they use End Of The World scenarios in which, hypotheticallyh speaking, In Vitro Fertilization and manually inserting sperm into women aren't relevant to prove why gay people are "Inferior Breeders" don't themselves harbor homosexuality fantasies themselves they can't admit to. Run on sentence, I know. But true nevertheless.

Donger
06-26-2011, 03:40 PM
I understood you were being hypothetical. But the situation loses any source of meaning when you put too many variables in it. The situation isn't worth discussing if you say, a) everyone's gay; b) we lose all technology for medically aided pregnancy from the past 50 years.

It appears as though you're creating a hypothetical, and then changing variables.

That defeats the purpose of the hypothetical (that same sex reproductive batter can't make a baby). I've already acknowledged that all that is required for procreation is to squish the respective reproductive cells together.

Okie_Apparition
06-26-2011, 03:40 PM
As long as there is fertile woman & 13-21 year old men, gay or not. The human race will live on. Something is going to get ****ed, 13-21 yo's don't care

Donger
06-26-2011, 03:41 PM
You brought up the term "hypothetical" for the first time in post #395. I brought up the "mass gay turning event" (in your words) in post #400. If you can point to the post where you brought it up first (or, in my words, 7 Billion people turning gay overnight), then I obviously didn't read back far enough.

That's because it was so abundantly clear except for you, unless you're familiar with mass turning gay events that have actually happened.

Donger
06-26-2011, 03:43 PM
And BTW, you using a hypothetical arugment to prove your point proves how much validity your point has. Care to argue that one?

My point is perfectly valid and irrefutable. I merely offered you that hypothetical to demonstrate the facts, since you seemed incapable of understanding the biological facts.

Just Passin' By
06-26-2011, 03:44 PM
Sometimes, but not all the time. I'm not so idiotic not to know that people who vehemently argue against homosexuality to the point where they use End Of The World scenarios in which, hypotheticallyh speaking, In Vitro Fertilization and manually inserting sperm into women aren't relevant to prove why gay people are "Inferior Breeders" don't themselves harbor homosexuality fantasies themselves they can't admit to. Run on sentence, I know. But true nevertheless.

In Vitro is not a natural process, so it's entirely irrelevant.

Backwards Masking
06-26-2011, 03:44 PM
That's because it was so abundantly clear except for you, unless you're familiar with mass turning gay events that have actually happened.

You admit then that you lied to support your argument when you said you brought that point up first?

Donger
06-26-2011, 03:45 PM
You admit then that you lied to support your argument when you said you brought that point up first?

:spock:

What did I lie about?

Backwards Masking
06-26-2011, 03:45 PM
In Vitro is not a natural process, so it's entirely irrelevant.

It can produce children. So it very much is relevant.

Backwards Masking
06-26-2011, 03:47 PM
:spock:

What did I lie about?

That you said you speaking hypothetically when you said YOU were the first one to bring up the mass gay turning when you never brought it until AFTER you said you were speaking hypothetically in Post 395. The history and order of sequences is there. That's what.

Donger
06-26-2011, 03:49 PM
That you said you speaking hypothetically when you said YOU were the first one to bring up the mass gay turning when you never brought it until AFTER you said you were speaking hypothetically in Post 395. The history and order of sequences is there. That's what.

I first brought up the everyone turning gay in post 375: "how long would the human race last if, all of a sudden, men only had sex with men and women only had sex with women?"

375 was before 395, BTW.

Donger
06-26-2011, 03:51 PM
It can produce children. So it very much is relevant.

It can, when the reproductive cells of different sexes are combined. Is that relevant to the discussion that two guys (or two girls) can't breed with each other? No.

Backwards Masking
06-26-2011, 03:51 PM
I first brought up the everyone turning gay in post 375: "how long would the human race last if, all of a sudden, men only had sex with men and women only had sex with women?"

375 was before 395, BTW.

YES! And i answered forever because of in vitro fertilization, then you said in 395, hypothetically speaking, suppose that didin;t exist.

Backwards Masking
06-26-2011, 03:53 PM
It can, when the reproductive cells of different sexes are combined. Is that relevant to the discussion that two guys (or two girls) can't breed with each other? No.

No, but it is relevant to the argument that the world wouldn't end due to in vitro fertilization, at least it was until you said you were speaking hypothetically that wasn't, in post 395.

Rain Man
06-26-2011, 03:54 PM
Married folk stray all the time, or at least have the ability to do so in their minds. It's tough to go down the "well, they're dykes, but they'd still do me" road with any conviction. That's why I mentioned the bi/lesbian pairing. You've still got a shot.

Well, this is a good point. And the bi/lesbian pairing means an automatic threesome, which is the best possible outcome. But how can you tell a bi/lesbian pairing (best possible outcome) from a lesbian/lesbian pairing (spectator sport only)? That's the trick.

Donger
06-26-2011, 03:56 PM
YES! And i answered forever because of in vitro fertilization, then you said in 395, hypothetically speaking, suppose that didin;t exist.

Right. And since clearly not everyone is going to turn gay overnight, it isn't too much of a reality stretch to assume that in-vitro doesn't exist in this fantasy world, either.

Donger
06-26-2011, 03:59 PM
No, but it is relevant to the argument that the world wouldn't end due to in vitro fertilization, at least it was until you said you were speaking hypothetically that wasn't, in post 395.

Again, it was pretty clear that it was a hypothetical to begin with to illustrate a biological fact. You muddled up the hypothetical with a valid medical procedure that doesn't exist in that fantasy land scenario.

Backwards Masking
06-26-2011, 04:25 PM
Our fellow planateers can decide that for themselves (again). The history is there.

That said, I'm tired of arguing with you. You think homos are "inferior breeders" and admit to using a fantasy land scenario to illustrate why. That says all I need to know to try and change your mind without getting into sub arguments involving semantics.

But you've been saying that for 6 years in practically every gay thread on CP. I doubt you've ever had a man on man fantasy, but I do think you have some sort of deep seated issues with gays that go far beyond morality clauses for you to devote that much time and energy.

I'm not aruging that comment because I'm gay, but I do have an open relationship with my gf that gets me plenty of "inferior" esque comments from people in traditional relationships (especially men), hence why I side with the alt life side in arguements like this. You have a traditional relationship, that's great. I don't use words like "inferior" to describe it though, and I especially don't make fantasy world arguemnts to belittle people for not making babies the way nature intended.

And if you have had homosexual fantasies, I say tell your wife. Maybe she's had two man fantasies and you both could have the best of both worlds. Even if your kids and family find out, you're still who you are. I doubt they'd disown you. Not insinuating, just respectfully sayin.

Donger
06-26-2011, 04:29 PM
That said, I'm tired of arguing with you. You think homos are "inferior breeders" and admit to using a fantasy land scenario to illustrate why.

No, I used biological fact to prove why. I only gave you that fantasy land scenario because you seem unwilling to accept that fact.

And, to anticipate, here's the fact again: homosexuals cannot breed together. Fact. That makes them inferior compared to heterosexuals, who by design, can readily breed together.

Not liking a fact doesn't make any less true.

Backwards Masking
06-26-2011, 04:35 PM
And, to anticipate, here's the fact again: homosexuals cannot breed together. Fact. That makes them inferior compared to heterosexuals, who by design, can readily breed together.

Not liking a fact doesn't make any less true.

I've agreed with that fact at least once. Homosexuals cannot breed together (at least twice) homosexuals cannot breed together (thrice).

It doesn't make you better than them. I know you think it does, but it doesn't.

Donger
06-26-2011, 04:37 PM
I've agreed with that fact at least once. Homosexuals cannot breed together (at least twice) homosexuals cannot breed together (thrice).

It doesn't make you better than them. I know you think it does, but it doesn't.

As it relates to breeding, of course I am (as is every other health heterosexual). Acknowledging inferiority doesn't bother me in the slightest.

Just Passin' By
06-26-2011, 04:39 PM
Well, this is a good point. And the bi/lesbian pairing means an automatic threesome, which is the best possible outcome. But how can you tell a bi/lesbian pairing (best possible outcome) from a lesbian/lesbian pairing (spectator sport only)? That's the trick.

Well, if one's in heels and one's in 'comfortable shoes', you've got one of each. ;)

Backwards Masking
06-26-2011, 04:39 PM
As it relates to breeding, of course I am (as is every other health heterosexual). Acknowledging inferiority doesn't bother me in the slightest.

That's the quite the Life Legacy to hang your hat on. Few people can attest to that.

Donger
06-26-2011, 04:43 PM
That's the quite the Life Legacy to hang your hat on. Few people can attest to that.

No, it's actually quite normal and common (as opposed to abnormal).

Just Passin' By
06-26-2011, 04:44 PM
It can produce children. So it very much is relevant.

Using the "tech" argument, I assume you're in favor of legalizing incest at all levels, since tech can insure that the couples aren't giving birth to children with birth defects as a result of the pairings.

Backwards Masking
06-26-2011, 04:46 PM
Using the "tech" argument, I assume you're in favor of legalizing incest at all levels, since tech can insure that the couples aren't giving birth to children with birth defects as a result of the pairings.

Tech can? Care to post a link?

Just Passin' By
06-26-2011, 04:53 PM
Tech can? Care to post a link?

You've never heard of genetic testing of the unborn?



How old are you?

Backwards Masking
06-26-2011, 04:57 PM
You've never heard of genetic testing of the unborn?



How old are you?

Genetic testing of the unborn and removing defects specifically to inbreeding are two different things.

28? How old are you? Not old enough to be able to argue without completely changing your choice of words to the point of denying you said them...

Backwards Masking
06-26-2011, 04:58 PM
tech can insure that the couples aren't giving birth to children with birth defects as a result of the pairings.

Right?

alnorth
06-26-2011, 04:58 PM
Genetic testing of the unborn and removing defects specifically to inbreeding are two different things.

He's probably talking about selective abortion.

RedNFeisty
06-26-2011, 04:59 PM
Wow...why do people care so damn much and feel they have to dictate or control others lives. History books have been writing about the Roman men fornicating with each other on the streets of Roman, for centuries. Studying other species, it isn't uncommon for males to get on with other males.

Our society has made "it, abnormal". Who are we to judge or discriminate? May he without sin be the first to cast a stone.

Backwards Masking
06-26-2011, 05:03 PM
He's probably talking about selective abortion.

When he said this little gem "tech can removie the abnormalities of incestuous pairings" or damn close, NO, he wasn't.

Donger
06-26-2011, 05:05 PM
Wow...why do people care so damn much and feel they have to dictate or control others lives. History books have been writing about the Roman men fornicating with each other on the streets of Roman, for centuries. Studying other species, it isn't uncommon for males to get on with other males.

Our society has made "it, abnormal". Who are we to judge or discriminate? May he without sin be the first to cast a stone.

No, the simple numbers make it abnormal.

alnorth
06-26-2011, 05:06 PM
Wow...why do people care so damn much and feel they have to dictate or control others lives. History books have been writing about the Roman men fornicating with each other on the streets of Roman, for centuries. Studying other species, it isn't uncommon for males to get on with other males.

Our society has made "it, abnormal". Who are we to judge or discriminate? May he without sin be the first to cast a stone.

For most people on the other side, it probably can all be boiled down, in the rear primitive lizard portion of the brain, to "gay people are icky. If they get married, that puts those icky people up on my level"

Just Passin' By
06-26-2011, 05:07 PM
When he said this little gem "tech can removie the abnormalities of incestuous pairings" or damn close, NO, he wasn't.

What I posted:

tech can insure that the couples aren't giving birth to children with birth defects as a result of the pairings.

Genetic testing for defects, followed by either abortion or 'repair' (when possible), and there you have it.

So, can we now put you down as a supporter of full legalization of incestuous relationships, including incestuous marriages?

Just Passin' By
06-26-2011, 05:08 PM
Wow...why do people care so damn much and feel they have to dictate or control others lives. History books have been writing about the Roman men fornicating with each other on the streets of Roman, for centuries. Studying other species, it isn't uncommon for males to get on with other males.

Our society has made "it, abnormal". Who are we to judge or discriminate? May he without sin be the first to cast a stone.

First, your argument uses the word uncommon, which opens it up to vagaries. Homosexuals make up between 1%-3% of the population, so homosexuality is certainly uncommon in terms of those percentages.

Second, if your question is "who are we...." than who are you to question those who are questioning?

alnorth
06-26-2011, 05:09 PM
Genetic testing for defects, followed by either abortion or 'repair' (when possible), and there you have it.

So, can we now put you down as a supporter of full legalization of incestuous relationships, including incestuous marriages?

No, after the "how old are you?" insult you tossed at him from out of the blue, followed by a counter-burn, at this point he's gonna focus on words and semantics.

Backwards Masking
06-26-2011, 05:10 PM
For most people on the other side, it probably can all be boiled down, in the rear primitive lizard portion of the brain, to "gay people are icky. If they get married, that puts those icky people up on my level"

Damn close. For most people on the other side, it can be boiled down to "I've always wanted to try being gay. I don't have the balls to try being gay. I'm in a life situation that doesn't allow me to be gay. If it were known I thought about it I would be mortified and some poeple I'm close to might look at me differnetly if they knew. So I'm gonna spent the rest of my life arguing against homosexual conduct and rights cause that's the best defense to prove I've never thought about being gay even though I have." Not that yours was wrong.

Donger
06-26-2011, 05:13 PM
Damn close. For most people on the other side, it can be boiled down to "I've always wanted to try being gay. I don't have the balls to try being gay. I'm in a life situation that doesn't allow me to be gay. If it were known I thought about it I would be mortified and some poeple I'm close to might look at me differnetly if they knew. So I'm gonna spent the rest of my life arguing against homosexual conduct and rights cause that's the best defense to prove I've never thought about being gay even though I have." Not that yours was wrong.

That's really what you are resorting to? Here's a hint: I don't like communists. That doesn't mean I want to run out and join them.

Good Lord. How juvenile.

Backwards Masking
06-26-2011, 05:14 PM
What I posted:



Genetic testing for defects, followed by either abortion or 'repair' (when possible), and there you have it.

So, can we now put you down as a supporter of full legalization of incestuous relationships, including incestuous marriages?

"Abortion" was never included in the original statement, nor was "when possible" (Still don't see Your link), and there YOU have it.

Did I say I supported the full legalization of incestuous relasionships/marriages?

Backwards Masking
06-26-2011, 05:15 PM
That's really what you are resorting to? Here's a hint: I don't like communists. That doesn't mean I want to run out and join them.

Good Lord. How juvenile.

I haven't noticed 6-7 years of you attacking communists on here though.... Juvenile? i wonder what Freud would say about this 6-7 year anti gay CP crusade of yours? I guess he was pretty juvenile too.

Just Passin' By
06-26-2011, 05:18 PM
No, after the "how old are you?" insult you tossed at him from out of the blue, followed by a counter-burn, at this point he's gonna focus on words and semantics.

How is it out of the blue? Most adults know about genetic testing, after all.

Donger
06-26-2011, 05:18 PM
I haven't noticed 6-7 years of you attacking communists on here though.... Juvenile? i wonder what Freud would say about this 6-7 year anti gay CP crusade of yours? I guess he was pretty juvenile too.

How about liberals? Have you ever seen me attack liberals?

Just Passin' By
06-26-2011, 05:19 PM
"Abortion" was never included in the original statement, nor was "when possible" (Still don't see Your link), and there YOU have it.

Did I say I supported the full legalization of incestuous relasionships/marriages?

Genetic testing wasn't specifically mentioned either. I noted "tech" as an overriding term. This is pretty basic stuff that most American adults know about these days.

You're not really an adult, are you?

Backwards Masking
06-26-2011, 05:20 PM
You're not really an adult, are you?

You're not really a full blown heterosexual, are you?

Backwards Masking
06-26-2011, 05:22 PM
How about liberals? Have you ever seen me attack liberals?

And for 5 thousand, what sub group of people is INCLUDED as liberals? Anyone, anyone?

Donger
06-26-2011, 05:23 PM
And for 5 thousand, what sub group of people is INCLUDED as liberals? Anyone, anyone?

You've got to be kidding me...

Just Passin' By
06-26-2011, 05:24 PM
No, after the "how old are you?" insult you tossed at him from out of the blue, followed by a counter-burn, at this point he's gonna focus on words and semantics.

And for 5 thousand, what sub group of people is INCLUDED as liberals? Anyone, anyone?

You've got to be kidding me...

LMAO

RedNFeisty
06-26-2011, 05:29 PM
No, the simple numbers make it abnormal.

For most people on the other side, it probably can all be boiled down, in the rear primitive lizard portion of the brain, to "gay people are icky. If they get married, that puts those icky people up on my level"

First, your argument uses the word uncommon, which opens it up to vagaries. Homosexuals make up between 1%-3% of the population, so homosexuality is certainly uncommon in terms of those percentages.

Second, if your question is "who are we...." than who are you to question those who are questioning?

I'm not going to argue or debate, everyone has their own opinion, and I wouldn't win anyway. My opinion is.... If everyone would take ten minutes to put themselves in someone else shoes, it would be a different story.

What if the straight man and woman were being kept apart, because the government said so, would that person still feel the same about the law and regulations set on the homosexuals??

Your beloved Annie, mate of 15 years lies dying in a hospital ICU bed. You can't go in and comfort her, because the state does not recognize you as immediate family. Would you still feel the same??

I have a lot of respect for most homosexuals. They live their lives, their way, knowing the persecution they face.

Donger
06-26-2011, 05:33 PM
I'm not going to argue or debate, everyone has their own opinion, and I wouldn't win anyway. My opinion is.... If everyone would take ten minutes to put themselves in someone else shoes, it would be a different story.

What if the straight man and woman were being kept apart, because the government said so, would that person still feel the same about the law and regulations set on the homosexuals??

Your beloved Annie, mate of 15 years lies dying in a hospital ICU bed. You can't go in and comfort her, because the state does not recognize you as immediate family. Would you still feel the same??

I have a lot of respect for most homosexuals. They live their lives, their way, knowing the persecution they face.

Quiet, woman. Hetero men are talking.

RedNFeisty
06-26-2011, 05:35 PM
Quiet, woman. Hetero men are talking.

Bitch, go get my beer and be snappy about it.:whip:

Donger
06-26-2011, 05:36 PM
Bitch, go get my beer and be snappy about it.:whip:

LMAO

Wait, let me put my thong on first.

RedNFeisty
06-26-2011, 05:38 PM
LMAO

Wait, let me put my thong on first.

LMAOLMAO

Make sure it's the one with the pink ruffle in the back!

listopencil
06-26-2011, 06:47 PM
Something that is not a societal norm. In this case, homosexuality.

As in baseline normality for a functioning society, or falling within accepted guidelines of the social group you belong to?

Donger
06-26-2011, 06:56 PM
As in baseline normality for a functioning society, or falling within accepted guidelines of the social group you belong to?

Our society as a whole.

listopencil
06-26-2011, 06:58 PM
This line isn't going anywhere. Someone who is religious will say God said so...


Yeah, I know. To them I say:

'For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.'

listopencil
06-26-2011, 06:59 PM
Our society as a whole.

Yes, I get that. Functioning within normal parameters or existing within established norm?

Donger
06-26-2011, 07:13 PM
Yes, I get that. Functioning within normal parameters or existing within established norm?

Both, I would think.

Just Passin' By
06-26-2011, 07:25 PM
Yeah, I know. To them I say:

'For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.'

Why would you quote them a biblical passage that was completely irrelevant to the discussion, especially when they can counter with John 8:11?

Backwards Masking
06-26-2011, 07:37 PM
Why would you quote them a biblical passage that was completely irrelevant to the discussion, especially when they can counter with John 8:11?

In this case I believe Listo was using "hungry and thirsty" as a metaphor for "unjustly persecuted", and that by doing unto them is the same as doing unto God. I.E. Treating them as inferior is treated God as an inferior. But I didnt quote it and probably have no business answering before Listo. Just my guess/interpretation.

Lots of churches read the Bible as a metaphor for living their lives rather than a literal translation, lots of contradicitons when reading it as literal law, like countering Listos quote with John 8:11.

Just Passin' By
06-26-2011, 07:48 PM
In this case I believe Listo was using "hungry and thirsty" as a metaphor for "unjustly persecuted", and that by doing unto them is the same as doing unto God. I.E. Treating them as inferior is treated God as an inferior. But I didnt quote it and probably have no business answering before Listo. Just my guess/interpretation.

Lots of churches read the Bible as a metaphor for living their lives rather than a literal translation, lots of contradicitons when reading it as literal law, like countering Listos quote with John 8:11.

So you think he'd quote that passage because he was completely misreading it, or just making it up as he went along, then?

Backwards Masking
06-26-2011, 07:54 PM
So you think he'd quote that passage because he was completely misreading it, or just making it up as he went along, then?

I don't know, I definitely don't think he made it up as he went along (it IS an actual Bible verse). Just my interpretation of that quote from a metaphorical standpoint.

I'd ask Listo.

Just Passin' By
06-26-2011, 08:04 PM
I don't know, I definitely don't think he made it up as he went along (it IS an actual Bible verse). Just my interpretation of that quote from a metaphorical standpoint.

I'd ask Listo.

I did. You jumped in with a ridiculous attempt at rationalization.

Backwards Masking
06-26-2011, 08:10 PM
You jumped in with a ridiculous attempt at rationalization.

I don't think it was ridiculous, WRONG maybe, but not ridiculous. It wasn't a rationalization either, it was an interpretation.

Rationalization is the process of taking something unreasonable and trying to give it reason. You're not saying Listo's Bible Verse quote was unreasonable, are you? That would be Anti Christian. You're not Anti-Christian are you?

Just Passin' By
06-26-2011, 08:20 PM
I don't think it was ridiculous, WRONG maybe, but not ridiculous. It wasn't a rationalization either, it was an interpretation.

Rationalization is the process of taking something unreasonable and trying to give it reason. You're not saying Listo's Bible Verse quote was unreasonable, are you? That would be Anti Christian. You're not Anti-Christian are you?

I'm saying that using the selected passage in the attempted manner was not a reasonable one, because it has nothing to do with, and no connection to, the topic it was being used for.

And, yes, your post was ridiculous. You're trying to answer for someone else, and explain how his completely inapplicable quote is somehow applicable if you just reinvent it as a metaphor for something that's in a completely different realm of discussion.

Backwards Masking
06-26-2011, 08:34 PM
And, yes, your post was ridiculous. You're trying to answer for someone else, and explain how his completely inapplicable quote is somehow applicable if you just reinvent it as a metaphor for something that's in a completely different realm of discussion.

But thousands of legitimate churches use/quote the Bible every Sunday in the same manner I did (albeit much better than I did). Metaphorically. Are you saying all those thousands of legitimate churches are ridiculous too?

Just Passin' By
06-26-2011, 08:39 PM
But thousands of legitimate churches use/quote the Bible every Sunday in the same manner I did (albeit much better than I did). Metaphorically. Are you saying all those thousands of legitimate churches are ridiculous too?

I'm saying that your attempt was ridiculous.

listopencil
06-26-2011, 08:41 PM
I'm saying that using the selected passage in the attempted manner was not a reasonable one, because it has nothing to do with, and no connection to, the topic it was being used for.

And, yes, your post was ridiculous. You're trying to answer for someone else, and explain how his completely inapplicable quote is somehow applicable if you just reinvent it as a metaphor for something that's in a completely different realm of discussion.

Don't blame me for your lack of comprehension. Do you understand the core concept that is being communicated in those passages? From your comments so far...you haven't got a clue.

Just Passin' By
06-26-2011, 08:42 PM
Don't blame me for your lack of comprehension. Do you understand the core concept that is being communicated in those passages? From you're comments so far...you haven't got a clue.

I understand the core concept. You clearly don't, given the way you're trying to use it.

listopencil
06-26-2011, 09:02 PM
I understand the core concept. You clearly don't. I find it funny that you really think you struck gold, though.

I find it sad that you can read the Bible and not comprehend some of the most worthwhile concepts in it, because you obviously don't get it.

Try actually reading the section of this thread where I posted that quote. It (that section) has to do with the nature of how abnormality is perceived, and how people are judged based on that perception of abnormality. Within the context of the Bible, that quote is a reminder of exactly how Christ perceived all people. And (if you are Christian) should remind you of that common bond that all humans share, the divine nature of Man.

Just Passin' By
06-26-2011, 09:09 PM
I find it sad that you can read the Bible and not comprehend some of the most worthwhile concepts in it, because you obviously don't get it.

Try actually reading the section of this thread where I posted that quote. It (that section) has to do with the nature of how abnormality is perceived, and how people are judged based on that perception of abnormality. Within the context of the Bible, that quote is a reminder of exactly how Christ perceived all people. And (if you are Christian) should remind you of that common bond that all humans share, the divine nature of Man.

I've read the bible, multiple times. I'm sorry to have to be the one to tell you that your passage doesn't fit the argument.

listopencil
06-26-2011, 09:22 PM
I've read the bible, multiple times. I'm sorry to have to be the one to tell you that your passage doesn't fit the argument.

I've read it multiple times as well, especially the New Testament. Yes it does.

Just Passin' By
06-26-2011, 09:53 PM
I've read it multiple times as well, especially the New Testament. Yes it does.

LMAO

Ok, I didn't want to take this down bible school lane, but it seems that we'll need to go there. Please explain the parable of the sheep and goats to all of us, and then apply it to gay marriage.

Please be sure to reconcile your argument with Corinthians 7 and Mark 10, as well as the general manner in which the bible explains how one becomes married.

Dave Lane
06-26-2011, 10:05 PM
The following is direct quote from Stephen Douglas from 1858 in his famous debates with Lincoln. They did love them some black folk. This is a statement from someone running for political office. The () items are crowd shout outs.

This is how this thread will look in 150 years to most people I would imagine:

Stephen Douglas

Now, I do not believe that the Almighty ever intended the negro to be the equal of the white man.

("Never, never.")

If he did, he has been a long time demonstrating the fact.

(Cheers.)

For thousands of years the negro has been a race upon the earth, and during all that time, in all latitudes and climates, wherever he has wandered or been taken, he has been inferior to the race which he has there met. He belongs to an inferior race, and must always occupy an inferior position.

("Good," "that's so," &c.)

Dave Lane
06-26-2011, 10:07 PM
I believe Douglas was a direct ancestor of Donger.

Backwards Masking
06-26-2011, 10:07 PM
LMAO

Ok, I didn't want to take this down bible school lane, but it seems that we'll need to go there. Please explain the parable of the sheep and goats to all of us, and then apply it to gay marriage.

Please be sure to reconcile your argument with Corinthians 7 and Mark 10, as well as the general manner in which the bible explains how one becomes married.

Jesus would let gay people marry. Nothing else in the Bible trumps God's only son treating "degenerates" (not exact word) as less than everyone else. Arguing scripture < Jesus' teachings.

Dave Lane
06-26-2011, 10:10 PM
Also according to the bible there is no marriage in heaven which seems odd.

Just Passin' By
06-26-2011, 10:19 PM
Jesus would let gay people marry. Nothing else in the Bible trumps God's only son treating "degenerates" (not exact word) as less than everyone else. Arguing scripture < Jesus' teachings.

That must be why he admonished the prostitute.

listopencil
06-26-2011, 10:29 PM
LMAO

Ok, I didn't want to take this down bible school lane, but it seems that we'll need to go there. Please explain the parable of the sheep and goats to all of us, and then apply it to gay marriage.

Please be sure to reconcile your argument with Corinthians 7 and Mark 10, as well as the general manner in which the bible explains how one becomes married.


Just as I expected, you haven't read this thread. Go back to the beginning of the thread. Read all of the posts up to and including mine where I quoted the Bible. If you do that then my point should be fairly obvious to you.

Backwards Masking
06-26-2011, 10:30 PM
That must be why he admonished the prostitute.

I worded my last post wrong. I meant to say that's why Jesus DID NOT treat "degenerates" as less than everybody else. That's why I put arguing scripture < Jesus' teachings. He gave them an opportunity to pursue life in heaven and reached out to those who broke God's laws. Like a good Christian would reach out to other "degererates", as opposed to Christians of conveinance who use the Bible to feel discriminate and feel superior.