Queer enablers = liars [Archive] - Page 2 - Debate Policy

5stringJeff

06-13-2007, 08:07 PM

The argument is not automatically false because it is tradition. Ignoring someone's previous answer and asking an old question a second time is never good form. Or have things degraded that much at SU?

Your answer is also not automaticallycorrect because it is a tradition.

To be specific, the chance of someone being homosexual is best shown using a binomial (or Bernoulli) distribution, not a normal, or bell-shaped distribution.

Now I'm not arguing that homosexuality is normal, since only 2-5% of the populationexhibits the behavior. I'm only saying that a normal distribution is not the tool with which to measure its normalcy.

gabosaurus

06-14-2007, 01:04 AM

Just out of curiosity, why would you be discussing your feelings on queers in the grocery store line in the first place?

It's an updated version of the old pick-up line "Nice shoes, wanna fuck?"

Pale Rider

06-14-2007, 11:49 AM

It's an updated version of the old pick-up line "Nice shoes, wanna fuck?"

And you're better at sex than any of us... now all you need is a partner... if they can get past the smell.

glockmail

06-14-2007, 01:09 PM

[1]Your answer is also not automaticallycorrect because it is a tradition.

[2]To be specific, the chance of someone being homosexual is best shown using a binomial (or Bernoulli) distribution, not a normal, or bell-shaped distribution.

[3]Now I'm not arguing that homosexuality is normal, since only 2-5% of the populationexhibits the behavior. I'm only saying that a normal distribution is not the tool with which to measure its normalcy.

1. Correct.
2. Post 143:
I would be modelling sexual deviancy. ....
3. The actual percentage is about 1%, as indicated by the latest US Census data. This goes right to my point that queers have been lying all along by telling us 10%, then 5%, then 3%. They are still lying about it at 3%.

glockmail

06-14-2007, 01:11 PM

And you're better at sex than any of us... now all you need is a partner... if they can get past the smell.:slap:

Just when I was thinking we were going to shut them out, you have to go ahead and pull this. Queer enablers get their first point.

Queer enablers = 1
Truth Tellers = 6

:cool:

Missileman

06-14-2007, 04:09 PM

The actual percentage is about 1%, as indicated by the latest US Census data. This goes right to my point that queers have been lying all along by telling us 10%, then 5%, then 3%. They are still lying about it at 3%.

3.5%, as indicated by the latest U.S census data. Of course these numbers were arrived at through the use of real numbers and statistics not your imaginary numbers and gayometry.

Pale Rider

06-14-2007, 04:45 PM

:slap:

Just when I was thinking we were going to shut them out, you have to go ahead and pull this. Queer enablers get their first point.

Queer enablers = 1
Truth Tellers = 6

:cool:

I wasn't playing, so "you" still have perfect score.

glockmail

06-14-2007, 05:59 PM

3.5%, as indicated by the latest U.S census data. Of course these numbers were arrived at through the use of real numbers and statistics not your imaginary numbers and gayometry.

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

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

And confirmed by a pro-queer site.

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

glockmail

06-14-2007, 06:00 PM

I wasn't playing, so "you" still have perfect score. Sorry, but you are on my team. We are the Truth Tellers. :salute:

5stringJeff

06-14-2007, 08:20 PM

2. Post 143: I would be modelling sexual deviancy. ....

In your original statistics-based posts, #45 and #77, you reference only homosexuality, not sexual deviancy in general.

Nonetheless, one is either a sexual deviant (however that is defined/measured) or one is not, so the binomial distribution is still the best measure.

3. The actual percentage is about 1%, as indicated by the latest US Census data. This goes right to my point that queers have been lying all along by telling us 10%, then 5%, then 3%. They are still lying about it at 3%.

3% was my best guess. I didn't read the whole thread. Obviously, with MM's post, census data places the percentage of gays somewhere between 1-3.5%.

glockmail

06-14-2007, 08:29 PM

In your original statistics-based posts, #45 and #77, you reference only homosexuality, not sexual deviancy in general.

Nonetheless, one is either a sexual deviant (however that is defined/measured) or one is not, so the binomial distribution is still the best measure.

3% was my best guess. I didn't read the whole thread. Obviously, with MM's post, census data places the percentage of gays somewhere between 1-3.5%.

1. Picky, picky. I didn't realize that we were insisting on linguistic perfection on every post.
2. Deviancy (not deviant) is not an all or no variable.
3. Your guess is wrong. MM's "post" has no backup data, as he has admitted. By your standard, MM could post 51% and the percentage of gays then becomes 25%.
4. If you are going to be picky then be consistently so, and at least follow your own example.

Missileman

06-14-2007, 08:53 PM

3. Your guess is wrong. MM's "post" has no backup data, as he has admitted.

You're a fucking liar! Again, post where I admitted that I have no data or shut that gaping hole on the front of that useless lump above your shoulders. And don't feel shy about apologizing for telling the lie either.

glockmail

06-14-2007, 09:07 PM

You're a fucking liar! Again, post where I admitted that I have no data or shut that gaping hole on the front of that useless lump above your shoulders. And don't feel shy about apologizing for telling the lie either. http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=50202&postcount=591

Queer Enablers = 1
Truth Tellers = 7

Missileman

06-14-2007, 09:22 PM

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=50202&postcount=591

Queer Enablers = 1
Truth Tellers = 7

There isn't anything in that post that says I have no data to back up the 3.5% figure. You're still a fucking liar. I provided the link that supports the 3.5% in another thread. And since you're too dishonest to put it into context, let me remind you that I wrote
Nothin from nothin, but my guesstimate of 5% is apparently closer to the truth than your "scientific fact" of 1-1.5% AFTER posting my evidence supporting the 3.5% figure. It appears you're incapable of comprehending that 3.5 is closer to 5 than to 1.

gabosaurus

06-14-2007, 11:47 PM

Just remember that there are three kinds of liars: liar, damn liars and statistics.

My statistic: 100 percent of homophobes are retarded idiots

glockmail

06-15-2007, 10:37 AM

There isn't anything in that post that says I have no data to back up the 3.5% figure. You're still a fucking liar. I provided the link that supports the 3.5% in another thread. And since you're too dishonest to put it into context, let me remind you that I wrote AFTER posting my evidence supporting the 3.5% figure. It appears you're incapable of comprehending that 3.5 is closer to 5 than to 1. The 3.5% figure was given to you by another poster, after you "guestimated" 5% without justification.

Queer Enablers = 1
Truth Tellers = 8

Missileman

06-15-2007, 11:23 AM

The 3.5% figure was given to you by another poster, after you "guestimated" 5% without justification.

Queer Enablers = 1
Truth Tellers = 8

You seem incapable of telling the truth...lie, after lie, after lie.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=47302&postcount=483

It appears you are lying intentionally at this point.

glockmail

06-15-2007, 11:46 AM

You seem incapable of telling the truth...lie, after lie, after lie.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=47302&postcount=483

It appears you are lying intentionally at this point.

That doesn't change the fact that you "guestimated" (your own language) 5%, which is what I responded to.

gabosaurus

06-15-2007, 11:55 AM

You guys need to meet somewhere and "sort" this thing out. Bring some some drinks and a few toys. :cheers2:

Missileman

06-15-2007, 11:59 AM

That doesn't change the fact that you "guestimated" (your own language) 5%, which is what I responded to.

I abandoned my estimate of 5% when better evidence placed the number at 3.5%. You choose to ignore the 3.5% and cling to the 1% figure that can only be reached through your use of imaginary numbers and ass-backwards logic.

None of what you've just written alters the fact that you lied when you wrote that I had no data to back up the 3.5% and had admitted such.

glockmail

06-15-2007, 12:13 PM

I abandoned my estimate of 5% when better evidence placed the number at 3.5%. You choose to ignore the 3.5% and cling to the 1% figure that can only be reached through your use of imaginary numbers and ass-backwards logic.

None of what you've just written alters the fact that you lied when you wrote that I had no data to back up the 3.5% and had admitted such.

I just looked back through your posts and you are correct. You did claim backup with the 3.5%, but after you "guestimated" 5%. So I was mistaken, justifiably so IMO, but regardless, I apologize for that. But I did not "lie" as you assert, and you still give up two debate points for flying off the handle, twice, hysterically calling me a "fucking liar".

As with regards to the 1%, this has been argued ad nauseam, and I have proved myself correct. However I will not call you a "fucking liar", or even simply a liar. I will merely say that you have a strong opinion and a closed mind.

Even based on your assertion that queers are 3.5%, their lifestyle choice is still abnormal.

Missileman

06-15-2007, 12:29 PM

I just looked back through your posts and you are correct. You did claim backup with the 3.5%, but after you "guestimated" 5%. So I was mistaken, justifiably so IMO, but regardless, I apologize for that. But I did not "lie" as you assert, and you still give up two debate points for flying off the handle, twice, hysterically calling me a "fucking liar".

Apology accepted. It wasn't hysterics, it was anger. On at least two other occasions in the past couple weeks, you have said that I said something that I didn't. That's enough to piss most people off.

As far as the debate points go, grow up! They're as juvenile and insignificant as "Nuh uh" and "Nanner nanner nannnnnner".

Even based on your assertion that queers are 3.5%, their lifestyle choice is still abnormal.

And while I consider homosexuality to be abnormal, I'm still waiting on the credible reference to your < 5% = abnormal statement. A simple dictionary entry or text book that says abnormal is defined as less than 5% will suffice.

glockmail

06-15-2007, 01:46 PM

Apology accepted. It wasn't hysterics, it was anger. On at least two other occasions in the past couple weeks, you have said that I said something that I didn't. That's enough to piss most people off.

As far as the debate points go, grow up! They're as juvenile and insignificant as "Nuh uh" and "Nanner nanner nannnnnner".

And while I consider homosexuality to be abnormal, I'm still waiting on the credible reference to your < 5% = abnormal statement. A simple dictionary entry or text book that says abnormal is defined as less than 5% will suffice.

1. Perhaps you could point out the other instance.

2. The debate points here are based on one simple thing as I described. If you insult someone, then you have a point charged against you. You may assert that it is infantile, but it has served to reduce infantile behavior fairly well.

3. Now its time for you to grow up. I've explained the statistical definiton of the term, you admit that queers are abnormal, yet you want me to cite some dictionary. I have spent considerable effort explaining basis statistic you before yet you have exhibited no aptitude for the subject.

Missileman

06-15-2007, 03:03 PM

1. Perhaps you could point out the other instance.

I told you in thread on both of the other occasions immediately after your offending posts.

3. Now its time for you to grow up. I've explained the statistical definiton of the term, you admit that queers are abnormal, yet you want me to cite some dictionary. I have spent considerable effort explaining basis statistic you before yet you have exhibited no aptitude for the subject.

All I'm asking for is corroboration of that which you allege is fact. If you can't provide any, just say so. Trying to make off that your inability to provide corroboration is an inability on my part to comprehend your twisted statistical machinations is disingenuous.

glockmail

06-15-2007, 06:53 PM

I told you in thread on both of the other occasions immediately after your offending posts.

All I'm asking for is corroboration of that which you allege is fact. If you can't provide any, just say so. Trying to make off that your inability to provide corroboration is an inability on my part to comprehend your twisted statistical machinations is disingenuous.

1. Then perhaps you could point it out.
2. It was corraborated by a pro-gay site.

glockmail

06-24-2007, 12:48 PM

*crickets chirping*

Missileman

06-24-2007, 03:52 PM

1. Then perhaps you could point it out.
2. It was corraborated by a pro-gay site.

1. I already told you at the time you made the posts in question. I'm not going to spoon feed you.

2. I'm asking you to corroborate your statement that <5% = abnormal. If it's one of the major tenets of statistics, you shouldn't have any problem doing so.

glockmail

06-24-2007, 03:58 PM

....I'm asking you to corroborate your statement that <5% = abnormal. If it's one of the major tenets of statistics, you shouldn't have any problem doing so.I already told you at the time you asked the first time. I'm not going to spoon feed you.

Missileman

06-24-2007, 04:04 PM

I already told you at the time you asked the first time. I'm not going to spoon feed you.

You have NEVER posted any corroboration of your <5% = abnormal statement...NEVER. I have asked you for it time and again, as yet, it remains unposted. It's not there to find.

Your accusing me of statements that I didn't make and my telling you so ARE there to find.

glockmail

06-24-2007, 04:10 PM

You have NEVER posted any corroboration of your <5% = abnormal statement...NEVER. I have asked you for it time and again, as yet, it remains unposted. It's not there to find.

Your accusing me of statements that I didn't make and my telling you so ARE there to find.

So if I find my post where I explained it before what will you agree to do?

Missileman

06-24-2007, 04:23 PM

So if I find my post where I explained it before what will you agree to do?

You explaining how you conclude that <5% = abnormal isn't corroboration.

glockmail

06-24-2007, 05:05 PM

You explaining how you conclude that <5% = abnormal isn't corroboration.See item 2 of this post: http://www.debatepolicy.com/reputation.php?p=75944

And I'll attempt to explain it to you yet again.

In the study of behavior, normal refers to a lack of significant deviation from the average. In statistics, a standard deviation for the normal distribution accounts for 68 % of the set, two standard deviations from the mean account for 95%, and three standard deviations account for 99.7 %. Therefore in a normal distribution, those individuals outside of one standard deviation, or 100 % – 68 % = 32 %, would be considered abnormal. I am being conservative and equating two standard deviations, or 100 % – 95 % = 5 %, with the term “abnormal”.

Missileman

06-24-2007, 06:01 PM

See item 2 of this post: http://www.debatepolicy.com/reputation.php?p=75944

And I'll attempt to explain it to you yet again.

In the study of behavior, normal refers to a lack of significant deviation from the average. In statistics, a standard deviation for the normal distribution accounts for 68 % of the set, two standard deviations from the mean account for 95%, and three standard deviations account for 99.7 %. Therefore in a normal distribution, those individuals outside of one standard deviation, or 100 % – 68 % = 32 %, would be considered abnormal. I am being conservative and equating two standard deviations, or 100 % – 95 % = 5 %, with the term “abnormal”.

To paraphrase what you just said...you made it up.

glockmail

06-24-2007, 06:13 PM

To paraphrase what you just said...you made it up. So by your standard being conservative with scientifically defined terms is "making it up"?

Missileman

06-24-2007, 06:51 PM

So by your standard being conservative with scientifically defined terms is "making it up"?

No, by my standard, being a conservative with made up terms is unscientific. :laugh2:

glockmail

06-24-2007, 07:19 PM

No, by my standard, being a conservative with made up terms is unscientific. :laugh2:
What term is made up?

5stringJeff

06-24-2007, 07:31 PM

Missileman

06-24-2007, 07:32 PM

What term is made up?

Term...statement...I used term because it was a spin on your post.

In the study of behavior, normal refers to a lack of significant deviation from the average.

I searched and could not find this anywhere...and since I can't get you to post any corroboration for your statements, I believe this one is made up.

glockmail

06-25-2007, 07:17 AM

And I already explained in this thread that, because being a homosexual is a yes or no issue, that this statistic is best graphed using a binomial distribution, not a normal distribution, so you'd have to calculate your mean and standard deviation for a binomial distribution. As I've already explained to you earlier in this thread, I would be modelling sexual deviancy.

glockmail

06-25-2007, 07:23 AM

Term...statement...I used term because it was a spin on your post.

I searched and could not find this anywhere...and since I can't get you to post any corroboration for your statements, I believe this one is made up.

Normality (behavior)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
In behavior, normal refers to a lack of significant deviation from the average. The phrase "not normal" is often applied in a negative sense (asserting that someone or some situation is improper, sick, etc.). Abnormality varies greatly in how pleasant or unpleasant this is for other people; somebody may half-jokingly be called "pleasantly disturbed".

From the Latin Normalis (f).

I patiently await your admission of ignorance.

GW in Ohio

06-25-2007, 01:02 PM

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

Some of the Big Lies about Homosexuality. It is:

1. normal
2. natural
3. healthy
4. 10% of the population
5. not a choice
6. moral

Any that I missed? :poke:

Yes. Gay bashers are not all closet queens.

glockmail

06-25-2007, 01:54 PM

Yes. Gay bashers are not all closet queens. Are you a gay basher, or did the Truth Tellers just get another point?

Missileman

06-25-2007, 04:21 PM

I patiently await your admission of ignorance.

Congratulations, you corroborated one of your statements. I stand corrected, you didn't make that one up.

You still made up the <5% = abnormal crap. And you still need to corroborate your use of a bell curve to gauge abnormal sexual behavior. If homosexuals are at one end of the curve, what sexual deviancy exists at the other end?

BTW...wikipedia has some other things to say about abnormal behavior.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abnormality_%28behavior%29

Pay close attention to the part about statistical infrequency.

glockmail

06-25-2007, 04:50 PM

Congratulations, you corroborated one of your statements. I stand corrected, you didn't make that one up.

You still made up the <5% = abnormal crap. And you still need to corroborate your use of a bell curve to gauge abnormal sexual behavior. If homosexuals are at one end of the curve, what sexual deviancy exists at the other end?

BTW...wikipedia has some other things to say about abnormal behavior.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abnormality_%28behavior%29

Pay close attention to the part about statistical infrequency.

1. I accept your admission graciously.
2. If you read my post, you would see that abnormal can be considered much higher, but then again, I am being gracious.
3. The other end could be celibates, but my point is made regardless.
4. Internet Explorer cannot display the webpage.

5stringJeff

06-25-2007, 04:53 PM

As I've already explained to you earlier in this thread, I would be modelling sexual deviancy.

Even though you entitled the thread "queer enablers = liars," not "sexual deviant enablers = liars?"

Regardless, an act is either sexual deviant or it is not, and so the binomial distribution holds.

Hagbard Celine

06-25-2007, 05:00 PM

When I have sex, I like to use positions other than "missionary." Am I a sexual deviant? ARE YOU? :eek:

glockmail

06-25-2007, 05:19 PM

Even though you entitled the thread "queer enablers = liars," not "sexual deviant enablers = liars?"

Regardless, an act is either sexual deviant or it is not, and so the binomial distribution holds.

Celibates are rarely liars.

We are not modelling acts, but individual behavior, which is comprised of many series of acts. This is demonstrated by Hag's post below.

glockmail

06-25-2007, 05:20 PM

When I have sex, I like to use positions other than "missionary." Am I a sexual deviant? ARE YOU? :eek: It depends on which posiotions and which orifices (SP?) :eek:

Missileman

06-25-2007, 06:46 PM

Celibates are rarely liars.

We are not modelling acts, but individual behavior, which is comprised of many series of acts. This is demonstrated by Hag's post below.

Celibates are sexual deviants?

glockmail

06-25-2007, 06:50 PM

Celibates are sexual deviants? Depending how you model which aspect of a behavior, yes. Just as those with IQs over 140 are intellectual deviants.

Missileman

06-25-2007, 08:23 PM

Depending how you model which aspect of a behavior, yes. Just as those with IQs over 140 are intellectual deviants.

If you're going to try to place homosexuals at the far end of one side of the curve and celibates at the other end, where on your curve do pedophiles, zoophiles, scat lovers, etc fall? And what data do you have on the numbers of celibates...it will have a drastic impact on what the mean is. For that matter, other than a 3.5% figure for homosexuals to work with, on what data are you constructing your curve to assess normality? What are the populations of all the different kinds of deviants out there? You can't conclude anything without sufficient data.

glockmail

06-25-2007, 09:08 PM

If you're going to try to place homosexuals at the far end of one side of the curve and celibates at the other end, where on your curve do pedophiles, zoophiles, scat lovers, etc fall? And what data do you have on the numbers of celibates...it will have a drastic impact on what the mean is. For that matter, other than a 3.5% figure for homosexuals to work with, on what data are you constructing your curve to assess normality? What are the populations of all the different kinds of deviants out there? You can't conclude anything without sufficient data.

I'm not constructing a curve. From day one I've just used this as an example of the definition of normal. You and the other queer enabler have taken this beyond where it needs to go.

And no, the number of queers is about 1%. You repetiton of the 3.5% figure is a lie identified in post 1.

5stringJeff

06-25-2007, 09:18 PM

From day one I've just used this as an example of the definition of normal.

On what basis?

glockmail

06-25-2007, 09:21 PM

On what basis? As explained.

5stringJeff

06-25-2007, 09:25 PM

As explained.

I must not be following you. You haven't laid out exactly what you consider to be sexually deviant, nor how that falls on any sort of continuum, nor what percentage of the population falls into each category - assuming (probably erroneously) that each person would only fall into one category. So really, you've only made an assertion with nothing to back it up.

glockmail

06-25-2007, 09:35 PM

I must not be following you. You haven't laid out exactly what you consider to be sexually deviant, nor how that falls on any sort of continuum, nor what percentage of the population falls into each category - assuming (probably erroneously) that each person would only fall into one category. So really, you've only made an assertion with nothing to back it up. Surely your smarter than this. Statistical data can be manipultated to show all sorts of tendancies. I'm simply giving examples showing how, and going way beyond what is reasonable to explain the simple fact that a 1% occurance in a population set is statistically abnormal. Are you denying this undeniable fact? If so what is your basis?

I don't feel the need to construct an actual statistical curve to prove the obvious. If I spent the time to do that queer enablers would simply argue against my assumptions, which are all completely irrelevant to the main argument.

Missileman

06-25-2007, 09:37 PM

I'm not constructing a curve. From day one I've just used this as an example of the definition of normal. You and the other queer enabler have taken this beyond where it needs to go.

And no, the number of queers is about 1%. You repetiton of the 3.5% figure is a lie identified in post 1.

I have posted a credible source that places the figure at 3.5% using census data. What's your source again? Oh, I remember now...it was your own gayometry using imaginary numbers supposedly corroborated by supposition from a poster on a gay site.

I have no doubt you aren't interested in trying to complete your theoretical curve...it's so much easier to just pull figures out of your ass and claim them as scientific.

glockmail

06-25-2007, 09:41 PM

I have posted a credible source that places the figure at 3.5% using census data. What's your source again? Oh, I remember now...it was your own gayometry using imaginary numbers supposedly corroborated by supposition from a poster on a gay site.

I have no doubt you aren't interested in trying to complete your theoretical curve...it's so much easier to just pull figures out of your ass and claim them as scientific.

And I have proven your data wrong. A pro-gay site agrees with me as well. You repetition is more evidence of the thread title.

Missileman

06-25-2007, 09:44 PM

Surely your smarter than this. Statistical data can be manipultated to show all sorts of tendancies. I'm simply giving examples showing how, and going way beyond what is reasonable to explain the simple fact that a 1% occurance in a population set is statistically abnormal. Are you denying this undeniable fact? If so what is your basis?

I don't feel the need to construct an actual statistical curve to prove the obvious. If I spent the time to do that queer enablers would simply argue against my assumptions, which are all completely irrelevant to the main argument.

So tell us...does the existence of zoophiles etc, shift homosexuals abnormality towards the center of your curve? Don't you think that straying outside the species would be more abnormal than homosexuality within the same species? How about sex with the dead...more or less abnormal? What other sexual deviations might be considered more abnormal than homosexuality?

glockmail

06-25-2007, 09:48 PM

So tell us...does the existence of zoophiles etc, shift homosexuals abnormality towards the center of your curve? Don't you think that straying outside the species would be more abnormal than homosexuality within the same species? How about sex with the dead...more or less abnormal? What other sexual deviations might be considered more abnormal than homosexuality?

Both points irrelevant, but just out of curiosity, what are the percentages of zoophiles in the population? How many of them are also queers?

Missileman

06-25-2007, 09:52 PM

And I have proven your data wrong. A pro-gay site agrees with me as well. You repetition is more evidence of the thread title.

You haven't proven anything except your ineptitude with numbers. Your gayometry has been shown useless in reaching meaningful numbers. That people on your side of the gay issue have also pointed out the fallacy in your logic should be an indication that you're off the mark.

glockmail

06-25-2007, 10:05 PM

You haven't proven anything except your ineptitude with numbers. Your gayometry has been shown useless in reaching meaningful numbers. That people on your side of the gay issue have also pointed out the fallacy in your logic should be an indication that you're off the mark.

I don't recall any of The Truth Tellers disagreeing with my logic nevertheless pointing out a fallacy.

Missileman

06-25-2007, 10:09 PM

Both points irrelevant, but just out of curiosity, what are the percentages of zoophiles in the population? How many of them are also queers?

It's up to you to fill in the data in your curve. Don't get lazy now. It's your argument, act like you have a pair and defend it. If you're going to argue that homosexuality can be graphed on a bell curve as part of the set {sexual deviants}, you should be prepared to provide some basic data on all of the other deviants. Otherwise, the conclusions reached are as unsubstantial as your "1% of the population" statement.

And to answer your question, I would consider a zoophile, whether gay or straight, to be more abnormal than a homosexual. Statistically though, any deviation that occurs less in less than 3.5% of the population would be more abnormal than homosexuality.

Missileman

06-25-2007, 10:10 PM

I don't recall any of The Truth Tellers disagreeing with my logic nevertheless pointing out a fallacy.

Self-delusion!

5stringJeff

06-25-2007, 11:25 PM

It's up to you to fill in the data in your curve. Don't get lazy now. It's your argument, act like you have a pair and defend it. If you're going to argue that homosexuality can be graphed on a bell curve as part of the set {sexual deviants}, you should be prepared to provide some basic data on all of the other deviants.

MM, I'm sure that we disagree about a lot of things in the 'homosexual debate,' but I agree with your point. Glockmail hasn't shown anything, only given assertions.

5stringJeff

06-25-2007, 11:26 PM

I don't feel the need to construct an actual statistical curve to prove the obvious.

You're the one making the assertions. If it's as obvious as you say, it should be no problem for you to show it.

Missileman

06-25-2007, 11:27 PM

MM, I'm sure that we disagree about a lot of things in the 'homosexual debate,' but I agree with your point. Glockmail hasn't shown anything, only given assertions.

Ah man...Glock's gotta take away your "Truth Teller" card now. :laugh2:

5stringJeff

06-25-2007, 11:30 PM

Ah man...Glock's gotta take away your "Truth Teller" card now. :laugh2:

And I just had it laminated!!!

Missileman

06-25-2007, 11:33 PM

And I just had it laminated!!!

:lmao:

You get to keep the secret decoder ring as his free gift though!

nevadamedic

06-25-2007, 11:33 PM

Ah man...Glock's gotta take away your "Truth Teller" card now. :laugh2:

:laugh2:

glockmail

06-26-2007, 06:26 AM

You're the one making the assertions. If it's as obvious as you say, it should be no problem for you to show it.Again, I'm not here to suffer trolls.

Ah man...Glock's gotta take away your "Truth Teller" card now. :laugh2:He never had it to begin with.

Missileman

06-26-2007, 07:13 AM

He never had it to begin with.

Lot's of luck convincing anyone that Jeff is a liar. He and I disagree on some issues, but he's never displayed anything but sincerity and integrity. This is a new low for you...inferring that the board's arguably most honest person is untruthful so you can avoid eating a little crow.

glockmail

06-26-2007, 07:34 AM

Lot's of luck convincing anyone that Jeff is a liar. He and I disagree on some issues, but he's never displayed anything but sincerity and integrity. This is a new low for you...inferring that the board's arguably most honest person is untruthful so you can avoid eating a little crow.
This is a repeated low for you...inferring that I have calimed something that I ain't. :laugh2:

5stringJeff

06-26-2007, 07:48 AM

Again, I'm not here to suffer trolls.

Fine. Suffer me. (Not that I think MM is a troll. He's among the most level-headed and intelligent posters around here, even if we frequently disagree.)

glockmail

06-26-2007, 08:08 AM

Fine. Suffer me. (Not that I think MM is a troll. He's among the most level-headed and intelligent posters around here, even if we frequently disagree.)

Then you two can stop trying to steer the discussion away from the issues raised in post 1.

I am amazed at the length queer enablers will go to continue a thread where they disagree with the premise, in an effort to be the last man standing, as if that proves something. We now have several pages dedicated to their tactic of asking someone to prove the undeniable.

Missileman

06-26-2007, 06:44 PM

This is a repeated low for you...inferring that I have calimed something that I ain't. :laugh2:

Does this mean that non-members of the Truth Tellers aren't liars? Not really what the title of the thread implies is it?

glockmail

06-26-2007, 06:48 PM

Does this mean that non-members of the Truth Tellers aren't liars? Not really what the title of the thread implies is it? There you go again with assumptions.

5stringJeff

06-26-2007, 09:28 PM

Then you two can stop trying to steer the discussion away from the issues raised in post 1.

I am amazed at the length queer enablers will go to continue a thread where they disagree with the premise, in an effort to be the last man standing, as if that proves something. We now have several pages dedicated to their tactic of asking someone to prove the undeniable.

OK. Post 1, in its entirety, reads:

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

Some of the Big Lies about Homosexuality. It is:

1. normal
2. natural
3. healthy
4. 10% of the population
5. not a choice
6. moral

Any that I missed? :poke:

I see nothing about "sexual deviancy," only about homosexuals (i.e. "queers"), which, one could argue, is only a subset of all sexual deviants.

Now, I happen to agree with you that homosexuality is not normal, natural, healthy, or moral; that homosexuals do not make up 10% of the population, and that homosexuality is a choice. What I'm getting at is that you've asserted that one can model homosexuality (which you later broadened to "sexual deviancy") via normal (bell-shaped) distribution in order to show that homosexuality is abnormal. I disagree, and have now asked for you to show how you use a statistical model to arrive at your label of abnormal. I believe MM has asked what your threshold is for "normal." This gets right back to your first assertion that homosexuality is not normal. Again, since you said that the answer is "obvious," it shouldn't be much work at all to statistically model homosexual behavior and show how it is not normal.

Missileman

06-26-2007, 10:48 PM

There you go again with assumptions.

Since when does asking a question constitute making an assumption? Oh, wait...I see now how it can be. It was an assumption on my part that, one of these days, you might actually answer a straight question with a straight answer. I should have known better.

glockmail

06-27-2007, 07:17 AM

.... What I'm getting at is that you've asserted that one can model homosexuality (which you later broadened to "sexual deviancy") via normal (bell-shaped) distribution in order to show that homosexuality is abnormal. I disagree, and have now asked for you to show how you use a statistical model to arrive at your label of abnormal. I believe MM has asked what your threshold is for "normal." This gets right back to your first assertion that homosexuality is not normal. Again, since you said that the answer is "obvious," it shouldn't be much work at all to statistically model homosexual behavior and show how it is not normal.

You have indicated to me previously that queerness should be an all or none situation. In my response I have pointed out that you are undoubtedly aware that in the study of statistics, one may model all types of behavior, and that it is merely a matter of choosing the correct variable and mathematical technique in order to come up with some approximation of a “bell curve”. You continue to ignore this obvious fact.

You are also aware that at each end of the bell curve are the fringes of that particular behavior, and the locations of these fringes can be defined by standard deviation. In a typical curve, one SD is the top or bottom 32%, 2SD = 5%, 3SD = >1%, etc.

All I’m saying is that the fat part of the curve can be considered normal, therefore the fringes abnormal. Your definition of where normal ends and abnormal begins may be different. Technically, one may assert that past 1SD is abnormal, but as I do not know the shape of the “queer curve”, I am being conservative by suggesting that 2SD’s would be considered, my most, as abnormal.

So far in this discussion no one has suggested that the definition of where normal ends and abnormal begins should be higher than 5%. All that has been done is to assert that I should construct a bell curve of sexual behavior. I suggested earlier that I could possibly model sexual deviancy. Now you appear to allege that I am backpedaling and then insist that I perform mathematical computations for you.

But as I assert, that is not the focus of the discussion.

glockmail

06-27-2007, 07:18 AM

Since when does asking a question constitute making an assumption? Oh, wait...I see now how it can be. It was an assumption on my part that, one of these days, you might actually answer a straight question with a straight answer. I should have known better.

Yet another attempt to deflect the OP issues with continued mental masturbation.

Missileman

06-27-2007, 04:29 PM

I am being conservative by suggesting that 2SD’s would be considered, my most, as abnormal.

You claimed < 5% was a scientific fact, now it's a suggested consideration. Why not just admit that you pulled it straight out of your ass?

In order to plot on a bell curve, you need to know the numbers of each group contained in the set, you then have to establish the average, and only then can you state where any group within the set falls in relation to the average. In the case of sexual deviants, if celibates are on one end and the freaks are on the other, who's in the middle...IOW, what's the average?

Missileman

06-27-2007, 04:32 PM

Yet another attempt to deflect the OP issues with continued mental masturbation.

You not answering questions is my attempt at deflection? Bullshit! Try again.

glockmail

06-27-2007, 04:48 PM

You claimed < 5% was a scientific fact, now it's a suggested consideration. Why not just admit that you pulled it straight out of your ass? .... Nice try at putting words in my mouth, but this is what I actually wrote: "Your definition of where normal ends and abnormal begins may be different. Technically, one may assert that past 1SD is abnormal, but as I do not know the shape of the “queer curve”, I am being conservative by suggesting that 2SD’s would be considered, my most, as abnormal. "

Missileman

06-27-2007, 05:44 PM

Nice try at putting words in my mouth, but this is what I actually wrote: "Your definition of where normal ends and abnormal begins may be different. Technically, one may assert that past 1SD is abnormal, but as I do not know the shape of the “queer curve”, I am being conservative by suggesting that 2SD’s would be considered, my most, as abnormal. "

So you've never written anything like this?:
If you are in the under 5% range of behavior, then you are abnormal.

Emphasis on "are" added by me.

Maybe this wasn't you either...
Actually according to the statistical definition of "normal" (in reference to this remark of yours..."If you want to be gay, then fine. But don't call your behavior and sexual practices normal, natural, or healthy, because it is none of those.")

glockmail

06-27-2007, 08:21 PM

So you've never written anything like this?:

Emphasis on "are" added by me.

Maybe this wasn't you either... (in reference to this remark of yours..."If you want to be gay, then fine. But don't call your behavior and sexual practices normal, natural, or healthy, because it is none of those.")

If you're past the 5% fringe in any set you are abnormal in that set. Actually fairly simple.

Missileman

06-27-2007, 08:53 PM

If you're past the 5% fringe in any set you are abnormal in that set. Actually fairly simple.

And of what percentage are homosexuals among the set {sexual deviants} that you claim to be modeling?

glockmail

06-27-2007, 08:58 PM

And of what percentage are homosexuals among the set {sexual deviants} that you claim to be modeling? Queers are about 1% of the entire population.

Missileman

06-27-2007, 09:08 PM

Queers are about 1% of the entire population.

That wasn't the question, besides, it's more like 3.5%.

glockmail

06-28-2007, 11:25 AM

That wasn't the question, besides, it's more like 3.5%. Your question attempted to put words in my mouth, and I re-directed you back to the initial argument (again). But as I have proven, and a pro-gay source has confirmed, queers are about 1% of the population. Your insistence on claiming the percentage is 350% higher is why I have chosen the thread title.

Missileman

06-28-2007, 04:03 PM

Your question attempted to put words in my mouth, and I re-directed you back to the initial argument (again).

I would be modelling sexual deviancy.

It appears that the only way you can consider yourself a truth teller is because you have no idea what truth is.

glockmail

06-28-2007, 06:07 PM

It appears that the only way you can consider yourself a truth teller is because you have no idea what truth is. I'm sorry that you misunderstood (but I think you do so on purpose). If I was inclined to go off on the tangent that you wish, then I would model sexual deviancy, not "sexual deviants", as you insist. That is, the population as a whole and individual tendencies, from extreme deviancies (peds, queers, S&M) through the vast majority of normal folk who have a wide range of sexual practices, to the extreme deviants in the opposite (people who don't want anyone to touch them in any way).

But again, as this serves no purpose other than to waste time, and is tangential to the discussion, I would not be performing this research at this time.

And besides, as you have exhibited no understanding of basis statistics, my work would simply be dismissed by you as incomprehensible, as demonstrated by your comment towards me regarding a comedy video in another thread.

Missileman

06-28-2007, 06:36 PM

I'm sorry that you misunderstood (but I think you do so on purpose). If I was inclined to go off on the tangent that you wish, then I would model sexual deviancy, not "sexual deviants", as you insist. That is, the population as a whole and individual tendencies, from extreme deviancies (peds, queers, S&M) through the vast majority of normal folk who have a wide range of sexual practices, to the extreme deviants in the opposite (people who don't want anyone to touch them in any way).

So would you assign groups a place on the curve based on statistical frequency or by the degree of abnormality?

glockmail

06-28-2007, 06:40 PM

So would you assign groups a place on the curve based on statistical frequency or by the degree of abnormality? Dunno. Try it yourself and see what works best.

Missileman

06-28-2007, 06:51 PM

Dunno. Try it yourself and see what works best.

It can't be done either way. Guess you were wrong in proposing that it can be.

glockmail

06-28-2007, 07:52 PM

It can't be done either way. Guess you were wrong in proposing that it can be. I'd ask you to prove your assertion but as you have shown no aptitude for statistics it would be like asking a fish to walk.

Missileman

06-28-2007, 10:01 PM

I'd ask you to prove your assertion but as you have shown no aptitude for statistics it would be like asking a fish to walk.

And as you're some self-proclaimed expert, it ought to be easy for you to show that I'm wrong...knock yourself out!
It was after all, YOUR assertion that you could prove the abnormality of homosexuality using a bell curve.

manu1959

06-28-2007, 10:06 PM

homosexual sex is a biological abnormality and biologically pointless

glockmail

06-29-2007, 08:24 AM

And as you're some self-proclaimed expert, it ought to be easy for you to show that I'm wrong...knock yourself out!
It was after all, YOUR assertion that you could prove the abnormality of homosexuality using a bell curve.

Actually it is my assertion that behavior exhibited by less than 5% of a population is considered abnormal. Period.

What you choose to read into that is totally up to you.

glockmail

06-29-2007, 08:25 AM

homosexual sex is a biological abnormality and biologically pointless Both points are true for obvious reasons, yet queer enablers feel the need to argue about it anyway.

Missileman

06-29-2007, 11:10 AM

Actually it is my assertion that behavior exhibited by less than 5% of a population is considered abnormal. Period.

What you choose to read into that is totally up to you.

What you lack in logic, you make up for with a lack of credibility.

Your assertion is one that you claimed proven through the use of a bell curve. Do you deny that? I've never seen anyone as reluctant as you to stand by a made argument. Why waste the effort of typing them when it's painfully obvious that you don't even believe them?

glockmail

06-29-2007, 11:39 AM

What you lack in logic, you make up for with a lack of credibility.

Your assertion is one that you claimed proven through the use of a bell curve. Do you deny that? I've never seen anyone as reluctant as you to stand by a made argument. Why waste the effort of typing them when it's painfully obvious that you don't even believe them?

It was proven in post 130.

Missileman

06-29-2007, 02:06 PM

It was proven in post 130.

As was pointed out by Jeff, homosexuality, in relation to the entire population, is an either or question that can't be plotted on a bell curve. I though you were an expert at this...:poke:

glockmail

06-29-2007, 02:29 PM

As was pointed out by Jeff, homosexuality, in relation to the entire population, is an either or question that can't be plotted on a bell curve. I though you were an expert at this...:poke: This has been explained to you several times now, and it is becoming painfully obvious that you are simply trolling on this issue. Also I never claimed to be an expert.

Missileman

06-29-2007, 02:51 PM

This has been explained to you several times now, and it is becoming painfully obvious that you are simply trolling on this issue. Also I never claimed to be an expert.

Asking you to substantiate your argument isn't trolling. And accusing me of trolling isn't a suitable substitute for actually substantiating your assertions.

glockmail

06-29-2007, 04:08 PM

We've been over this many many times. Until you come up with a new argument I will no longer respond.

Missileman

06-29-2007, 05:06 PM

We've been over this many many times. Until you come up with a new argument I will no longer respond.

As all you've done is post bullshit, that oughta clear the air nicely...thanks in advance.

glockmail

06-29-2007, 07:45 PM

As all you've done is post bullshit, that oughta clear the air nicely...thanks in advance.

Queer Enablers = 1
Truth Tellers = 8

Missileman

06-29-2007, 08:05 PM

Queer Enablers = 8
Truth Tellers = 1

It's always gratifying to have concrete proof appear so quickly after an argument.

glockmail

07-04-2007, 11:58 AM

Funny that although I have received several complainnts from the queer enablers about the score sheet, it has had the effect of making the conversation more civil, preventing a lock down of the thread, which has happened for most of the threads dealing squarely with the queer issue.

Missileman

07-04-2007, 03:50 PM

glockmail

07-04-2007, 03:58 PM

CBN.com – Stephen Bennett is a former homosexual, who lived the "gay" lifestyle for 11 years. Today he's married and has two young children. He's also a born-again Christian who has a ministry to men and women who want to be set free from homosexuality.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/953334/posts

glockmail

07-04-2007, 04:04 PM

"There could be hundreds of millions of straight men walking around with this gay allele [variety of a gene] but who are straight simply because it didn't penetrate" Chandler Burr, "A Separate Creation" 1

"As a mother, I know that homosexuals cannot biologically reproduce children; therefore, they must recruit our children." Anita Bryant, 1977 2

"There is no scientific data that substantiates a genetic or biologic basis for same-sex attraction. Anybody can change." Richard Cohen, at the year 2000 PFOX convention, 2000-MAY-19. 3

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_fixe.htm

glockmail

07-04-2007, 04:09 PM

I had to get some copies made yesterday of a petition I wanted to begin. This is an attempt to keep lies from being taught to our children in public schools concerning homosexuality. So they will not be told that this is an acceptable alternative to natural sex. I went to a neighboring convenience store to use their copy machine.

I printed off ten copies and went to pay. The young lady, about seventeen or eighteen years of age working the cash register took my money and was reading one petition from upside down, she asked me excitedly, "What is your petition about? Can I see, I might want to sign it"? I permitted her to read the heading, I never asked her to sign it. She blew that opportunity apart as she spoke. "I wouldn’t sign that because I don’t agree with you". Her excited and friendly look had changed to one of disgust. I asked her if she thought teaching children how to be homosexual was, in her opinion, the right thing to do. "Yes, I do."

http://truthforall.townhall.com/

Missileman

07-04-2007, 04:13 PM

glockmail

07-04-2007, 04:16 PM

ONE guy who BELIEVES he wasn't born gay is supposed to be concrete evidence that none of them are? Gimme a break. Obviously he wasn't born queer, he just belived the lies and finally found the truth.

Missileman

07-04-2007, 04:22 PM

Obviously he wasn't born queer, he just belived the lies and finally found the truth.

He voluntarily engaged in homosexual sex for 11 years...he can call himself a martian for all I care, he's still a homosexual.

glockmail

07-04-2007, 04:26 PM

He voluntarily engaged in homosexual sex for 11 years...he can call himself a martian for all I care, he's still a homosexual.
He's married with two kids and doesn't stab shit anymore. It's obvious he was not born queer, made a bad choice early in life, but then realized his mistake.

Missileman

07-04-2007, 04:34 PM

He's married with two kids and doesn't stab shit anymore. It's obvious he was not born queer, made a bad choice early in life, but then realized his mistake.

"It's obvious that he wasn't born heterosexual" is a statement that just as accurately fits the scenario.

glockmail

07-04-2007, 04:38 PM

"It's obvious that he wasn't born heterosexual" is a statement that just as accurately fits the scenario. So you know better than he? :rolleyes:

glockmail

07-04-2007, 04:44 PM

LOUISVILLE, Ky.--A social researcher who has studied sexual behavior for 24 years believes the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) has sound reasons for maintaining its prohibition against gay scoutmasters.

A homosexual cannot automatically be considered a child molester, said Judith Reisman, president of the Institute for Media Education in suburban Louisville, Ky.

But with 17-24 percent of boys being abused by age 18, nearly as many as the 25 percent of girls, there is cause for concern, she said.

Since heterosexuals outnumber the homosexual population about 44 to 1, as a group the incidence of homosexuals molesting children is up to 40 times greater than heterosexuals, she said.

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b16c39b2b18.htm

Looks like I erred. This should have been included along with the 6 other big lies being told by queers and their enablers: queers are no more likely to be child molesters.

Missileman

07-04-2007, 04:53 PM

So you know better than he? :rolleyes:

Well, having been born heterosexual, I've never engaged in nor had any urge to engage in homosexual sex. I don't see it as any kind of huge leap to believe that's the case for most (if not all) heterosexuals.

As for knowing better than the person making the claim, isn't that exactly what you are doing when someone claims they were born gay and you say they weren't?

Missileman

07-04-2007, 04:57 PM

glockmail

07-04-2007, 05:04 PM

Well, having been born heterosexual, I've never engaged in nor had any urge to engage in homosexual sex. I don't see it as any kind of huge leap to believe that's the case for most (if not all) heterosexuals.

As for knowing better than the person making the claim, isn't that exactly what you are doing when someone claims they were born gay and you say they weren't?

Haven't you answered your question in the 2nd paragraph with your 1st?

glockmail

07-04-2007, 05:06 PM

I can't believe you would even consider using this as a source. Why would you trust a site whose estimates of the gay population vastly differ from your own? :poke: The article is before the US census data came out. Besides, doesn't it make the 40:1 ratio more towards your (queer enabler) side?

Missileman

07-04-2007, 05:13 PM

Haven't you answered your question in the 2nd paragraph with your 1st?

No, I was commenting on you chastising me for the same thing that you do on a regular basis.

And you misread what I wrote...I didn't say, nor do I believe that everyone is born heterosexual. I wrote that a person who is born heterosexual doesn't engage in homosexual sex, in most cases, and IMO.

glockmail

07-04-2007, 06:56 PM

No, I was commenting on you chastising me for the same thing that you do on a regular basis.

And you misread what I wrote...I didn't say, nor do I believe that everyone is born heterosexual. I wrote that a person who is born heterosexual doesn't engage in homosexual sex, in most cases, and IMO. You put forth something based soley on your personal opinon yet you ask me repeatedly to give you absolute proof.

Missileman

07-04-2007, 09:20 PM

You put forth something based soley on your personal opinon yet you ask me repeatedly to give you absolute proof.

You had a problem with my questioning the claim of the "reformed" homosexual that he wasn't born homosexual and implied that he should know better than I whether he had been or not. Yet, you have no problem with your own questioning of the claims of those homosexuals who say that they were born that way.

What I put forth was an argument that heterosexuals don't engage in nor have any urge to engage in homosexual sex. While I can offer no "proof" of that argument, I STILL don't know of any heterosexuals that have homosexual urges. It is my opinion that a person has to be homosexual(or bisexual) to even consider the idea.

See the HUGE difference is that I acknowledged that what I wrote was my opinion. You on the other hand, like to make out that your opinions are scientific facts and then are rarely able to back it up.

Missileman

07-04-2007, 09:21 PM

The article is before the US census data came out. Besides, doesn't it make the 40:1 ratio more towards your (queer enabler) side?

Are you conceding the 3.5% argument?

glockmail

07-04-2007, 09:38 PM

....

What I put forth was an argument that heterosexuals don't engage in nor have any urge to engage in homosexual sex. ......

All people are born heerosexual, about 1% turn queer.

Missileman

07-04-2007, 09:39 PM

All people are born heerosexual, about 1% turn queer.

In your opinion, of course.

glockmail

07-04-2007, 09:46 PM

In your opinion, of course. My opinio just happenns to be supported with facts:

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

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

And also confirmed by a pro-queer site.

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

Time to admit that you are wrong, missleman, or, continue to perpetuate the lie. The choice is yours.

Missileman

07-04-2007, 10:06 PM

My opinio just happenns to be supported with facts:

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

And also confirmed by a pro-queer site.

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

Time to admit that you are wrong, missleman, or, continue to perpetuate the lie. The choice is yours.

We've already ridden this merry-go-round. I've provided clear, reliable evidence that refutes your gayometry and statistical hackery. You have no proof whatsoever that everyone is born heterosexual and you are wrong about your 1% claims. You post information that conflicts with your own false conclusions and choose to ignore it.

Your confirmation link is a repeat of the same information provided by the census. It speaks only to the number of coupled homosexuals and neither link makes any effort to number gays in total like the link I provided does. In order for your second link to confirm your OPINION, you have to subject it to the same totally meaningless and useless gayometry you applied to the figures from the census.

nevadamedic

07-04-2007, 11:32 PM

glockmail

07-05-2007, 07:21 AM

We've already ridden this merry-go-round. I've provided clear, reliable evidence that refutes your gayometry and statistical hackery. You have no proof whatsoever that everyone is born heterosexual and you are wrong about your 1% claims. You post information that conflicts with your own false conclusions and choose to ignore it.

Your confirmation link is a repeat of the same information provided by the census. It speaks only to the number of coupled homosexuals and neither link makes any effort to number gays in total like the link I provided does. In order for your second link to confirm your OPINION, you have to subject it to the same totally meaningless and useless gayometry you applied to the figures from the census.

The analysis of the census data was done independently of mine and shows %queer as being about 1%. The pro-queer site has reviewed the findings and concurs. You can put up all the smoke, mirrors, and made-up words that you want and it still does not mask the fact that these findings are the most complete and accurate analysis ever done of %queer in the US.

glockmail

07-05-2007, 07:21 AM

that study is innacurate.
Perhaps you could elaborate for us, Oh Wise One.

GW in Ohio

07-05-2007, 10:24 AM

Since they choose their immoral lifestyles then to be consistent you should support all immoral decisions.

Whoa!

"Immoral lifestyle"? Who set you up as the moral arbiter, to decide who is moral and who is not?

If you're doing your condemning and judging of who is "moral" and who is not from a religious perspective, I assume it is some variant of the Christian religion that has given you a license to judge your fellow Americans.

But wasn't it Jesus Christ who condemned hypocrites and Pharisees, and said:

"Judge not, lest ye be judged"?

I think you might be in trouble when your time comes for judgment, pally.

glockmail

07-05-2007, 02:54 PM

Whoa!

"Immoral lifestyle"? Who set you up as the moral arbiter, to decide who is moral and who is not?

......

The Bible.

I'm not judging anyone; I am merely stating that the choice to be queer is immoral.

OCA

07-05-2007, 03:19 PM

that study is innacurate.

The study is completely accurate as are thousands of other studies that say the same exact thing.

Why do you insist on apologizing for queer behaviors?

Missileman

07-05-2007, 03:54 PM

The analysis of the census data was done independently of mine and shows %queer as being about 1%. The pro-queer site has reviewed the findings and concurs. You can put up all the smoke, mirrors, and made-up words that you want and it still does not mask the fact that these findings are the most complete and accurate analysis ever done of %queer in the US.

Are you blind or just stupid? Both of the links you provide estimate the number of gays living together as couples, neither one says a single thing about the total number of gays. Neither one of the links can be used to ascertain the total number of gays, the information to do so isn't in either one of them.

glockmail

07-05-2007, 05:53 PM

Are you blind or just stupid? Both of the links you provide estimate the number of gays [...]living together as couples[/...], neither one says a single thing about the total number of gays. Neither one of the links can be used to ascertain the total number of gays, the information to do so isn't in either one of them.

Queer Enablers = 1
Truth Tellers = 9

A couple is two.

Missileman

07-05-2007, 06:21 PM

Queer Enablers = 1
Truth Tellers = 9

A couple is two.

Wow! How very astute of you. But FYI, you can't calculate the number of gays in total solely from the number of those living as couples...it requires more information than what is supplied by either of your links.

glockmail

07-05-2007, 07:25 PM

Wow! How very astute of you. But FYI, you can't calculate the number of gays in total solely from the number of those living as couples...it requires more information than what is supplied by either of your links.
We went through this in painful detail in that other thread. If you have an issue with something specific, then why not bring that up?
The fact that several independent researchers agree with me, as well as the pro-queer site that I provided a link to, should tell you that perhaps you are wrong and I am right.

glockmail

07-09-2007, 07:50 PM

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_fixe.htm

It's full of lies, so many I can't list them all.

Missileman

07-09-2007, 09:54 PM

We went through this in painful detail in that other thread. If you have an issue with something specific, then why not bring that up?

I already exposed your gayometry for the exercise in absurdity that it is...no need to do so again.

The fact that several independent researchers agree with me, as well as the pro-queer site that I provided a link to, should tell you that perhaps you are wrong and I am right.

How many times do you have to read that your links are only estimating the numbers of gays who are living as couples before it registers?

You can no more estimate the number of gays in total based solely on how many are living as couples than you can estimate the number of blacks in total based solely on how many are living in prison.

For someone who claims to know a lot about statistics this should be very obvious.

glockmail

07-10-2007, 07:30 AM

I already exposed your gayometry ….. As I explained to you several times before, and you choose to ignore, statisticians manipulate numbers to find hidden data all the time. Usually its done by sampling say, 1000 people from a much bigger population, a sampling rate typically much less than 1%. Here we have a sampling rate much greater, hence much greater accuracy.

Citing this as “gayometry” is simply immature and silly.

Missileman

07-10-2007, 04:24 PM

As I explained to you several times before, and you choose to ignore, statisticians manipulate numbers to find hidden data all the time. Usually its done by sampling say, 1000 people from a much bigger population, a sampling rate typically much less than 1%. Here we have a sampling rate much greater, hence much greater accuracy.

You can explain your manipulation until the cows come home. It doesn't change the fact that your method and reasoning are unsound.

Citing this as “gayometry” is simply immature and silly.

Calling it gayometry isn't nearly as silly as you calling it math. How about applying your method to the other example I listed. Let's see you figure the percentage of blacks in total based solely on their representation in prisons.

Before you start aguing that it's not the same thing, both would be trying to estimate the total based on their representation in a subset.

glockmail

07-10-2007, 08:09 PM

You can explain your manipulation until the cows come home. It doesn't change the fact that your method and reasoning are unsound.

Calling it gayometry isn't nearly as silly as you calling it math. How about applying your method to the other example I listed. Let's see you figure the percentage of blacks in total based solely on their representation in prisons.

Before you start aguing that it's not the same thing, both would be trying to estimate the total based on their representation in a subset.

My reasoning is what statisticians use every day. In this specific example I came up with the same numbers as other researchers, and the numbers were confirmed by a pro-queer site as well.

You're welcome to do the math yourself in your other unrelated example. I don't feel the need to teach you about stataistics.

I am curious why this is such a huge issue for you, queers being only 1% of the population. You think the number is 3.5%. The fact remains, however, that the queers have been telling us 10% for the better part of 40 years now, knowing all the while they were lying to us.

Missileman

07-10-2007, 08:53 PM

My reasoning is what statisticians use every day. In this specific example I came up with the same numbers as other researchers, and the numbers were confirmed by a pro-queer site as well.

One last time in the hope that you might actually see past your blind spot. You came up with a figure of 1% based solely on the number of homosexuals living together as couples...AKA committed relationships. I'm not arguing that the number of homosexual couples is greater than 1%, the census came up with that figure and it sounds reasonable. The "pro-queer" site reposted the exact same information, so it sounds reasonable too. It hardly qulaifies as substantiation, but as I've already stated, I'll accept the conclusions of both. The problem with your gayometry is the number of homosexuals in a committed relationship cannot be used by itself to determine the number of homosexuals in total without making a huge, unsubstantiated assumption, namely, that the percentage of singles is identical to the percentage of couples.

You're welcome to do the math yourself in your other unrelated example. I don't feel the need to teach you about stataistics.

If I'm ever in the mood to take Clueless 101, you'll be the first person I'll seek for instruction.

The fact remains, however, that the queers have been telling us 10% for the better part of 40 years now, knowing all the while they were lying to us.

You would have us all trade their lie for your lie...:poke:

glockmail

07-11-2007, 09:24 AM

One last time in the hope that you might actually see past your blind spot. You came up with a figure of 1% based solely on the number of homosexuals living together as couples...AKA committed relationships. I'm not arguing that the number of homosexual couples is greater than 1%, the census came up with that figure and it sounds reasonable. The "pro-queer" site reposted the exact same information, so it sounds reasonable too. It hardly qulaifies as substantiation, but as I've already stated, I'll accept the conclusions of both. The problem with your gayometry is the number of homosexuals in a committed relationship cannot be used by itself to determine the number of homosexuals in total without making a huge, unsubstantiated assumption, namely, that the percentage of singles is identical to the percentage of couples.

If I'm ever in the mood to take Clueless 101, you'll be the first person I'll seek for instruction.

You would have us all trade their lie for your lie...:poke:

So you admit that I am right. That only took, what, 1500 posts?

Missileman

07-11-2007, 04:15 PM

So you admit that I am right. That only took, what, 1500 posts?

No, I admit that you don't know shit about statistics and that the percentage of gays in the U.S is higher than 1%. I also freely admit that you have a reading disorder.

glockmail

07-11-2007, 04:25 PM

No, I admit that you don't know shit about statistics and that the percentage of gays in the U.S is higher than 1%. I also freely admit that you have a reading disorder.

Then how do you explain this:
I'm not arguing that the number of homosexual couples is greater than 1%, the census came up with that figure and it sounds reasonable. ?

Missileman

07-11-2007, 04:38 PM

Then how do you explain this: ?

Like I said, you have a reading disorder.

I'm not arguing that the number of homosexual couples is greater than 1%, the census came up with that figure and it sounds reasonable.

glockmail

07-11-2007, 08:48 PM

Like I said, you have a reading disorder.

The % couples is the most accurate indicator of % individuals currently available. The numbers are therefore statistically identical.

Missileman

07-11-2007, 09:40 PM

The % couples is the most accurate indicator of % individuals currently available. The numbers are therefore statistically identical.

Bullshit! The % of couples is ONLY an accurate indicator of the % of couples. The other example I cited about % of blacks in prison proves without a doubt your method is unsound.

BTW, what evidence, other than your gayometry, can you provide that the link I posted used unsound methods to arrive at their figures?

glockmail

07-12-2007, 07:26 AM

Bullshit! The % of couples is ONLY an accurate indicator of the % of couples. The other example I cited about % of blacks in prison proves without a doubt your method is unsound.

BTW, what evidence, other than your gayometry, can you provide that the link I posted used unsound methods to arrive at their figures?

I used the same method as other researchers, all who arrived at the same number of 1%, and it was confirmed by a pro-queer site.

Missileman

07-12-2007, 03:50 PM

I used the same method as other researchers, all who arrived at the same number of 1%, and it was confirmed by a pro-queer site.

Only for the percentage living as couples. Neither link made any effort to enumerate gays in total. You applied your gayometry to their findings to erroneously claim a percentage of the total.

glockmail

07-12-2007, 08:21 PM

Only for the percentage living as couples. Neither link made any effort to enumerate gays in total. You applied your gayometry to their findings to erroneously claim a percentage of the total. I don't think you understand how I arrived at the number. Regardless, I came up with the same percenatge as other researchers, and confirmed by a pro-queer site.

Missileman

07-12-2007, 08:47 PM

I don't think you understand how I arrived at the number. Regardless, I came up with the same percenatge as other researchers, and confirmed by a pro-queer site.

I know exactly how you arrived at the number...you applied gayometry to imaginary numbers. Funny how none of your fellow researchers arrived at the same 1% of gays in total. First statistician...now researcher...how long before you promote yourself to Nobel prize winner? :lmao:

glockmail

07-12-2007, 09:00 PM

I know exactly how you arrived at the number...you applied gayometry to imaginary numbers. Funny how none of your fellow researchers arrived at the same 1% of gays in total. First statistician...now researcher...how long before you promote yourself to Nobel prize winner? :lmao: Feel free to nominate me at any time.

Missileman

07-12-2007, 09:16 PM

Feel free to nominate me at any time.

It'll be the week before your Hades Ski Trip or when you show that your fellow researchers enumerate the total number of gays at 1%...whichever comes first.

glockmail

07-13-2007, 07:52 AM

It'll be the week before your Hades Ski Trip or when you show that your fellow researchers enumerate the total number of gays at 1%...whichever comes first.Done.

Missileman

07-13-2007, 03:47 PM

Done.

Negative.

glockmail

07-13-2007, 03:55 PM

Negative.

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

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

Missileman

07-13-2007, 04:04 PM

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

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

Neither of those links makes an effort to enumerate the total percentage of gays, they only deal with couples. The titles of both articles CLEARLY indicate such.

glockmail

07-13-2007, 04:40 PM

Neither of those links makes an effort to enumerate the total percentage of gays, they only deal with couples. The titles of both articles CLEARLY indicate such.
Is there a higher percentage of queers that are single than normal folks who are single?

Missileman

07-13-2007, 04:54 PM

Is there a higher percentage of queers that are single than normal folks who are single?

Unknown. But there are apparently more single homosexuals than those living as couples. This isn't surprising given the fact they aren't allowed to marry.

The data (number of singles) required to enumerate the total number of homosexuals by adding it to the number of couples isn't included in either link.

glockmail

07-13-2007, 05:00 PM

Unknown. But there are apparently more single homosexuals than those living as couples. This isn't surprising given the fact they aren't allowed to marry.

The data (number of singles) required to enumerate the total number of homosexuals by adding it to the number of couples isn't included in either link.

Not being married stops few from living together. In fact, it would only affect those with very high moral standards. Wouldn't you agree?

Trinity

07-13-2007, 05:19 PM

I have no idea why I am even jumping in this thread.....but here it goes..........

I have discovered through observation and conversation that a lot of gay individuals are of a younger generation, not saying that there are none in the older generations, because there are. But what I am seeing and hearing is a lot of individuals making a statement because it is not the norm.

Think about it from this perspective you have an 8 year old child who you rarely give any positive attention to, so what does he do acts out because at least then in his mind he is getting attention, it might only be negative attention but it is attention.

nevadamedic

07-13-2007, 05:21 PM

Missileman

07-13-2007, 05:29 PM

Not being married stops few from living together. In fact, it would only affect those with very high moral standards. Wouldn't you agree?

The ratio of married vs living together among heterosexuals is over 10:1. Without the option to choose marriage over shacking up, I'd say morals has nothing to do with it.

glockmail

07-13-2007, 09:17 PM

glockmail

07-13-2007, 09:24 PM

The ratio of married vs living together among heterosexuals is over 10:1. Without the option to choose marriage over shacking up, I'd say morals has nothing to do with it. Well I don't expect you to agree to the obvious as it affects your assumption negatively. But for you to assume that queers don't live together because they can't legally marry is an argument devoid of logic as well as honesty.

Therefore the % queer couples to normal couples is a good indicator of queer indinviduals to normal individuals. If anything it would give a higher estimate, since queers, having a lower moral standard, would be less hesitant to live together.

Missileman

07-13-2007, 09:44 PM

Well I don't expect you to agree to the obvious as it affects your assumption negatively. But for you to assume that queers don't live together because they can't legally marry is an argument devoid of logic as well as honesty.

First, all I said was that it appears that there are more single gays than coupled. Lack of the ability to marry would certainly be a factor, to what degree, who knows. I never claimed that it was the only reason, did I?

Therefore the % queer couples to normal couples is a good indicator of queer indinviduals to normal individuals. If anything it would give a higher estimate, since queers, having a lower moral standard, would be less hesitant to live together.

Since you seem hell-bent on ignoring the data that shows the total percentage is 3.5% and since gays can't marry, the more accurate assumption, if you're going to make one, is comparing unmarried heterosexual couples to unmarried gay couples. Gay couples make up 10% of unmarried couples.

Therefore gays make up 10% of singles too.

BTW, blanket statements like homosexuals have lower moral standards only serve to certify your status as an ignorant ass.

glockmail

07-13-2007, 09:59 PM

......

BTW, blanket statements like homosexuals have lower moral standards only serve to certify your status as an ignorant ass.

Queer Enablers = 1
Truth Tellers = 9

Shall we play to 15 or 21? :laugh2:

Missileman

07-13-2007, 10:02 PM

Queer Enablers = 1
Truth Tellers = 9

Shall we play to 15 or 21? :laugh2:

Hate to break it to you, but you are masturbating!

glockmail

07-13-2007, 10:11 PM

Hate to break it to you, but you are masturbating!

You appear to be the master at that technique.

Queer Enablers = 10
Truth Tellers = 2.

nevadamedic

07-13-2007, 11:47 PM

Hate to break it to you, but you are masturbating!

Why are you even thinking about that? :poke:

Missileman

07-14-2007, 12:12 AM

Why are you even thinking about that? :poke:

It was in response to to his comment "Shall we play to 15 or 21?" I said it to indicate that he is playing by(with) himself.

glockmail

07-14-2007, 06:18 AM

It was in response to to his comment "Shall we play to 15 or 21?" I said it to indicate that he is playing by(with) himself.
Shall we call you "sticky fingers"? :laugh2:

Missileman

07-14-2007, 11:37 AM

Shall we call you "sticky fingers"? :laugh2:

How does that make sense if you are the one playing by yourself?

glockmail

07-14-2007, 11:51 AM

How does that make sense if you are the one playing by yourself?
I'm just keeping track of your insults, due to your inability to address points logicaly. You were the one who brought up the thing about masturbation. That came 100% out of your imagination.

So back onto the discussion, prior to your latest barrage of insults, it can be reasoably assumed that queers have lower moral standards because they perform queer acts on each other, which is called out as an "abomination" in the Bible.

I suspect that you will now respond by saying that these acts are not immoral, or that the Bible is not the standard of morality, either one which would be a lie, hence post 1.

Missileman

07-14-2007, 12:40 PM

I'm just keeping track of your insults, due to your inability to address points logicaly. You were the one who brought up the thing about masturbation. That came 100% out of your imagination.

I was making a joke about your game. I'm not playing, only you are. You are playing by yourself (with yourself) in regards to your game.

So back onto the discussion, prior to your latest barrage of insults, it can be reasoably assumed that queers have lower moral standards because they perform queer acts on each other, which is called out as an "abomination" in the Bible.

Is homosexuality a worse sin than murder or theft or adultery?

I suspect that you will now respond by saying that these acts are not immoral, or that the Bible is not the standard of morality, either one which would be a lie, hence post 1.

With so many dictates of the Bible NOT followed literally, upon what basis do you demand that we take anything regarding homosexuality as gospel?

The Bible is only THE standard of morality for Christians.

glockmail

07-14-2007, 07:30 PM

I was making a joke about your game. I'm not playing, only you are. You are playing by yourself (with yourself) in regards to your game.

Is homosexuality a worse sin than murder or theft or adultery?

With so many dictates of the Bible NOT followed literally, upon what basis do you demand that we take anything regarding homosexuality as gospel?

The Bible is only THE standard of morality for Christians.

1. In this game, the Truth Tellers have so many points due to your participation. That still doesn't mean that we are participating in sexual acts together. So why would you tell us you are participating in sexual acts by yourself?
2. In the grand scheme I believe that it is worse than murder. It is certaintly worse than theft or adultery.
3. You'll need to be specific on which Biblical mandates are not supposed to be taken literally.
4. The Bible is the standard for all, since the basis of our laws are in the Bible. Look up at the SCOTUS for a rendering of the Ten Commandments.

nevadamedic

07-14-2007, 07:40 PM

Can't we all just get along?!? :laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

glockmail

07-14-2007, 07:50 PM

Can't we all just get along?!? :laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2: When the Queer Enablers stop lying, then yes. But I expect to see pigs flying first.

Missileman

07-14-2007, 07:57 PM

1. In this game, the Truth Tellers have so many points due to your participation. That still doesn't mean that we are participating in sexual acts together. So why would you tell us you are participating in sexual acts by yourself?

Here we go with YOUR reading disorder AGAIN. You are the one who is keeping score in a game that only you are playing. I said you were engaged in masturbation, I never said I was.

2. In the grand scheme I believe that it is worse than murder. It is certaintly worse than theft or adultery.

Who appointed you the judge of others sins? Does the Bible say that homosexuality is worse than adultery?

3. You'll need to be specific on which Biblical mandates are not supposed to be taken literally.

Do I really need to list them?

4. The Bible is the standard for all, since the basis of our laws are in the Bible. Look up at the SCOTUS for a rendering of the Ten Commandments.

List more than 4 of the 10 Commandments that are U.S. law.

glockmail

07-14-2007, 08:10 PM

Here we go with YOUR reading disorder AGAIN. You are the one who is keeping score in a game that only you are playing. I said you were engaged in masturbation, I never said I was.

Who appointed you the judge of others sins? Does the Bible say that homosexuality is worse than adultery?

Do I really need to list them?

List more than 4 of the 10 Commandments that are U.S. law.

1. Your fascination with masturbation is disturbing. Nearly as disturbing as your defense of homosexuality.
2. Yes in fact the Bible does say that. a) When Ham did the queer act he and all his future generations were damned. This was never done to a philaderer. b) Jesus defended and forgave an adultress but never a queer.
3. Only if you care about credibility would you list one or more.
4. I said the commandments are the basis of our laws.

Missileman

07-14-2007, 08:42 PM

2. Yes in fact the Bible does say that. a) When Ham did the queer act he and all his future generations were damned. This was never done to a philaderer. b) Jesus defended and forgave an adultress but never a queer.

I don't care about your interpretation of the Bible...quote the verse that says homosexuality is a worse sin than adultery. BTW, since both sins were to result in death, it sounds very much like they were considered equal.

3. Only if you care about credibility would you list one or more.

Leviticus
19:19 'Keep my decrees.
'Do not mate different kinds of animals.
'Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed.
'Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.

20:9 For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.

20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

Deuteronomy

22:23-24 If a betrothed virgin is raped in the city and doesn't cry out loud enough, then "the men of the city shall stone her to death.

22:28 If a man rapes an unbetrothed virgin, he must pay her father 50 shekels of silver and then marry her.

There are lots more, but the point is made.

4. I said the commandments are the basis of our laws.

If the 10 commandments were the basis of our laws, they'd have a higher representation than 40%. Nice try though.

nevadamedic

07-14-2007, 09:13 PM

:poke:

glockmail

07-14-2007, 09:52 PM

[1]I don't care about your interpretation of the Bible...quote the verse that says homosexuality is a worse sin than adultery. BTW, since both sins were to result in death, it sounds very much like they were considered equal.

[2]Leviticus
19:19 'Keep my decrees.
'Do not mate different kinds of animals.
'Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed.
'Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.

20:9 For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.

20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

Deuteronomy

22:23-24 If a betrothed virgin is raped in the city and doesn't cry out loud enough, then "the men of the city shall stone her to death.

22:28 If a man rapes an unbetrothed virgin, he must pay her father 50 shekels of silver and then marry her.

There are lots more, but the point is made.

[3]If the 10 commandments were the basis of our laws, they'd have a higher representation than 40%. Nice try though.

1. see Genesis 9:24

“And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.”
“Cursed be Canaan: a servant of servants shall he be to his brethren.”
The further consequence of Ham’s sin of homosexuality is illustrated in the fact that the seven sons of Canaan each fathered tribes that became nations occupying all of what generally became known as the land of Canaan. Those seven nations were identified as the Hittites, the Jebusites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, and the Canaanites. The curse of Noah upon Ham’s seed was, in reality, God’s curse; and in Deuteronomy 7:1, 2, the Lord says to Moses,
“When the Lord thy God shall bring thee into the land whiter thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou; And when the Lord thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them: thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them; Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son……”

2. All of these edicts are for the ancient Jews. What do they have to do with modern Christians?
3. 40% ain’t bad. We were founded as a Christian Nation, not a theocracy.

Psychoblues

07-16-2007, 02:28 AM

You don't have a clue.

I have no idea why I am even jumping in this thread.....but here it goes..........

I have discovered through observation and conversation that a lot of gay individuals are of a younger generation, not saying that there are none in the older generations, because there are. But what I am seeing and hearing is a lot of individuals making a statement because it is not the norm.

Think about it from this perspective you have an 8 year old child who you rarely give any positive attention to, so what does he do acts out because at least then in his mind he is getting attention, it might only be negative attention but it is attention.

Homosexuality is not an attention getting ploy. Dig it, or not?!??!?!?!!?!?!?!?

glockmail

07-16-2007, 06:31 AM

You don't have a clue.

Homosexuality is not an attention getting ploy. Dig it, or not?!??!?!?!!?!?!?!?

Of course it is: Post 429.

Trinity

07-16-2007, 06:48 AM

You don't have a clue.

Homosexuality is not an attention getting ploy. Dig it, or not?!??!?!?!!?!?!?!?

and why would you assume I don't have a clue?

Do you know what the definition of assume is?

Assume = make an ass out of u and me = ass u me

So why don't you enlighten me with your words of wisdom................

Missileman

07-16-2007, 05:36 PM

1. see Genesis 9:24

That verse does not say that homosexuality is a sin worse than any other.

The further consequence of Ham’s sin of homosexuality is illustrated in the fact that the seven sons of Canaan each fathered tribes that became nations occupying all of what generally became known as the land of Canaan. Those seven nations were identified as the Hittites, the Jebusites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, and the Canaanites. The curse of Noah upon Ham’s seed was, in reality, God’s curse; and in Deuteronomy 7:1, 2, the Lord says to Moses,

What about the tribes founded by Cush and Mizraim?

2. All of these edicts are for the ancient Jews. What do they have to do with modern Christians?

Are you saying that the dictates of the OT don't apply to Christians?

3. 40% ain’t bad. We were founded as a Christian Nation, not a theocracy.

And of the 40% that "ain't bad", how many are uniquely or even originally Christian?

glockmail

07-16-2007, 08:57 PM

[1]That verse does not say that homosexuality is a sin worse than any other.
[2]What about the tribes founded by Cush and Mizraim?
[3]Are you saying that the dictates of the OT don't apply to Christians?
[4]And of the 40% that "ain't bad", how many are uniquely or even originally Christian?
1. It says a single queer act caused wars against several tribes and the subsequent deaths of thousands. Yeah, that's about equal with stealing a piece of fruit. :rolleyes.
2. What about them?
3. Most, yes. The modern day situation is completely different than the exodus from Egypt. Then there's all those scriptures that were fullfilled.
4. Who cares?

nevadamedic

07-16-2007, 09:08 PM

OCA

07-16-2007, 09:12 PM

and why would you assume I don't have a clue?

Do you know what the definition of assume is?

Assume = make an ass out of u and me = ass u me

So why don't you enlighten me with your words of wisdom................

Uhh Trinity off topic but you have some significant psychology you want to talk about?:laugh2:(your little siggy in God's language)

OCA

07-16-2007, 09:13 PM

You don't have a clue.

Homosexuality is not an attention getting ploy. Dig it, or not?!??!?!?!!?!?!?!?

Do you or do you not hit your knees for attention?

Missileman

07-16-2007, 11:35 PM

1. It says a single queer act caused wars against several tribes and the subsequent deaths of thousands. Yeah, that's about equal with stealing a piece of fruit. :rolleyes.

It says nothing of the sort.

2. What about them?

If the sons of Ham were all cursed by their father's act, why didn't the tribes of Cush and Mizraim suffer the same fate as Canaan?

3. Most, yes. The modern day situation is completely different than the exodus from Egypt. Then there's all those scriptures that were fullfilled.

I suppose you've appointed yourself judge of which OT rules are to be adhered to and which can be ignored?

4. Who cares?

Well if you're going to propose that our laws are based in Christianity, there should be something uniquely Christian about them don't ya think? The 10 commandments were actually Jewish laws. Doesn't that mean our laws are based in Judaism?

Trinity

07-17-2007, 05:42 AM

Uhh Trinity off topic but you have some significant psychology you want to talk about?:laugh2:(your little siggy in God's language)

Hi OCA, been a long time!:laugh2:
No actually I'm good, I'm working on a B.S. in Psychology and thought I'd put that in Greek just for you! It is always difficult to translate from English to Greek and get it just right, but that was close enough.

glockmail

07-17-2007, 07:04 AM

[1]It says nothing of the sort.
[2]If the sons of Ham were all cursed by their father's act, why didn't the tribes of Cush and Mizraim suffer the same fate as Canaan?
[3]I suppose you've appointed yourself judge of which OT rules are to be adhered to and which can be ignored?
[4]Well if you're going to propose that our laws are based in Christianity, there should be something uniquely Christian about them don't ya think? The 10 commandments were actually Jewish laws. Doesn't that mean our laws are based in Judaism?
1. You must be delusional.
2. I thought "it said nothing of the sort"?
3. No.
4. Christianity is based on Judaism.

Missileman

07-17-2007, 07:16 AM

1. You must be delusional.

It said ALL the sons of Ham would be the lowest of slaves...said nothing about murder victims.

2. I thought "it said nothing of the sort"?

See above.

3. No.

Who decides then?

4. Christianity is based on Judaism.

Thought you said that ancient Jewish law didn't apply to modern Christians? Care to make up your mind?

JohnDoe

07-17-2007, 07:21 AM

Well if you're going to propose that our laws are based in Christianity, there should be something uniquely Christian about them don't ya think? The 10 commandments were actually Jewish laws. Doesn't that mean our laws are based in Judaism?

The term is "Judeo/Christian Principles"....

And Missileman, Christ said He did not come to abollish The Law, but to forfill the Law...

And if catechism in youth, and Bible study of the past has served me well, I believe somewhere in the Bible it mentions other Jewish rules and regs and laws that did not have to be followed...there's a 'name' for them...can't remember it at the moment, but basically I believe it is the 10 commandments that we Christians continue to follow of The Law.

glockmail

07-17-2007, 12:02 PM

[1]It said ALL the sons of Ham would be the lowest of slaves...said nothing about murder victims.
See above.
[2]Who decides then?
[3]Thought you said that ancient Jewish law didn't apply to modern Christians? Care to make up your mind?

1. It said: "And when the Lord thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them...". Thus a single queer act resulted in the destruction of generations.
2. Who cares?
3. You can take my posts at face value; they are entirely consistent.

Trinity

07-17-2007, 03:31 PM

Good thing i didn't decide to hold my breath huh? or I'd be dead right now!:laugh2:

glockmail

07-17-2007, 03:36 PM

Good thing i didn't decide to hold my breath huh? or I'd be dead right now!:laugh2:
You can always count on libs to do the expected... :laugh2:

Missileman

07-17-2007, 03:43 PM

3. You can take my posts at two-faced value; they are entirely inconsistent.

Fixed that for you.

glockmail

07-17-2007, 05:23 PM

Fixed that for you. Your arguments are obviously extremely weak to resort to changing my posts.

Quuer Enablers = 2
Truth Tellers = 11

Missileman

07-17-2007, 05:48 PM

Your arguments are obviously extremely weak to resort to changing my posts.

Quuer Enablers = 2
Truth Tellers = 11

Ah yes...the only play in the Glockmail debating playbook. Post after post of unsubstantiated crap and then a claim of victory when someone calls him a crapper. Do you need a tissue?

glockmail

07-18-2007, 07:12 AM

[1]It said ALL the sons of Ham would be the lowest of slaves...said nothing about murder victims.
...

Ah yes...the only play in the Glockmail debating playbook. Post after post of unsubstantiated crap and then a claim of victory when someone calls him a crapper. Do you need a tissue?

1. It said: "And when the Lord thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them...". Thus a single queer act resulted in the destruction of generations.

Missileman

07-18-2007, 04:04 PM

1. It said: "And when the Lord thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them...". Thus a single queer act resulted in the destruction of generations.

Where in Deuteronomy does it say this occurred because of the curse Noah placed upon Ham?

glockmail

07-18-2007, 04:36 PM

Where in Deuteronomy does it say this occurred because of the curse Noah placed upon Ham? The seven sons of Canaan each fathered tribes that became nations occupying all of what generally became known as the land of Canaan. Those seven nations were identified as the Hittites, the Jebusites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, and the Canaanites. These are the cities that God ordered destroyed in Deuteronomy.

Missileman

07-18-2007, 04:57 PM

The seven sons of Canaan each fathered tribes that became nations occupying all of what generally became known as the land of Canaan. Those seven nations were identified as the Hittites, the Jebusites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, and the Canaanites. These are the cities that God ordered destroyed in Deuteronomy.

There you go with the reading disorder thing again...that wasn't what I asked you.

glockmail

07-18-2007, 05:36 PM

There you go with the reading disorder thing again...that wasn't what I asked you. It appears that you are the one with the disorder.

Missileman

07-18-2007, 05:44 PM

It appears that you are the one with the disorder.

Yeah, it's the "Bored with reruns of Glockmail's a Fucktard" syndrome.

glockmail

07-18-2007, 05:48 PM

Yeah, it's the "Bored with reruns of Glockmail's a Fucktard" syndrome.
Clearly you have run out of steam with your argument. Why not present a valid case instead of your flaming?

Missileman

07-18-2007, 05:55 PM

Clearly you have run out of steam with your argument. Why not present a valid case instead of your flaming?

I'm trying to goad you into making your first-ever, honest argument. Why is it always so difficult for you to answer an asked question? Are your abilities so weak that you have to avoid intelligent debate with games? I'll even repeat the question for you:

Where in Deuteronomy does it say the tribes of Canaan were slaughtered because of the curse Noah placed upon Ham?

gabosaurus

07-18-2007, 06:00 PM

You are one to bring up "honest arguments." Way too many of your posts display your brain deficiencies. I would much rather associate with a homosexual than a guy whose brain dangles from his groin.

Missileman

07-18-2007, 06:02 PM

You are one to bring up "honest arguments." Way too many of your posts display your brain deficiencies. I would much rather associate with a homosexual than a guy whose brain dangles from his groin.

Post an example of what you consider a dishonest argument.

gabosaurus

07-18-2007, 06:05 PM

Try most everything that you post.

Missileman

07-18-2007, 06:09 PM

Try most everything that you post.

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

glockmail

07-18-2007, 06:18 PM

I'm trying to goad you into making your first-ever, honest argument. Why is it always so difficult for you to answer an asked question? Are your abilities so weak that you have to avoid intelligent debate with games? I'll even repeat the question for you:

Where in Deuteronomy does it say the tribes of Canaan were slaughtered because of the curse Noah placed upon Ham? God curses the decendants of Canaan in Deuteronomy 7:1,2, a continuation of Noah's curse.

Missileman

07-18-2007, 06:25 PM

God curses the decendants of Canaan in Deuteronomy 7:1,2, a continuation of Noah's curse.

I just read 7:1 through 7:6. There is no mention of Noah or Ham. As a matter of fact, in 7:3,4, and 5 the motive for the slaughter is CLEARLY laid out...elimination of a competing religion.

glockmail

07-18-2007, 06:27 PM

I just read 7:1 through 7:6. There is no mention of Noah or Ham. As a matter of fact, in 7:3,4, and 5 the motive for the slaughter is CLEARLY laid out...elimination of a competing religion.
It was a queer religion.

Missileman

07-18-2007, 06:35 PM

It was a queer religion.

So much for getting an honest argument.

glockmail

07-18-2007, 06:44 PM

So much for getting an honest argument. I was trying to inject some humor into the thread. I'm sorry that you missed that as well as the obviois relationship between Genesis and Deuteronomy.

They were the same tribes, same curse. Their made-up religion was just icing on the cake for God.

Missileman

07-18-2007, 06:59 PM

I was trying to inject some humor into the thread. I'm sorry that you missed that as well as the obviois relationship between Genesis and Deuteronomy.

They were the same tribes, same curse. Their made-up religion was just icing on the cake for God.

You claim an obvious link, but haven't established one for the following reasons:

!. Noah placed a curse on Ham and his progeny that they would be the lowest of slaves. There is a difference between being slaves and being slaughtered.

2. Ham had 4 sons. Noah's curse only affected one?

3. Deuteronomy 7 clearly explains the motive for the slaughter was the elimination of a competing religion.

glockmail

07-18-2007, 08:37 PM

You claim an obvious link, but haven't established one for the following reasons:

!. Noah placed a curse on Ham and his progeny that they would be the lowest of slaves. There is a difference between being slaves and being slaughtered.

2. Ham had 4 sons. Noah's curse only affected one?

3. Deuteronomy 7 clearly explains the motive for the slaughter was the elimination of a competing religion.

Noah was a mere man and did not have the right to destroy Ham's offspring. That was God's decision, based on the aftermath of Ham's queer act.

Cannan was the son chosen to bear the burden of his father's queer act.

The offspring of the queerness rejected Noah's God as well as His rules of behavior.

Missileman

07-18-2007, 09:24 PM

Noah was a mere man and did not have the right to destroy Ham's offspring. That was God's decision, based on the aftermath of Ham's queer act.

Cannan was the son chosen to bear the burden of his father's queer act.

The offspring of the queerness rejected Noah's God as well as His rules of behavior.

This is nothing more than speculation on your part. You haven't posted a single verse that supports your speculation that Moses was instructed to kill the tribes of Canaan as a fulfillment of Noah's curse or Ham's actions. And to kill the children and grandchildren of a criminal for the sole reason that they are a criminal's progeny is one of the stupidest notions I've seen posted. Of course the wholesale slaughter of men, women, and children because they have the audacity to worship a different deity comes in a very close second. Why anyone would choose to worship a deity they believe capable of such heinous acts is unfathomable.

glockmail

07-18-2007, 10:41 PM

This is nothing more than speculation on your part. You haven't posted a single verse that supports your speculation that Moses was instructed to kill the tribes of Canaan as a fulfillment of Noah's curse or Ham's actions. And to kill the children and grandchildren of a criminal for the sole reason that they are a criminal's progeny is one of the stupidest notions I've seen posted. Of course the wholesale slaughter of men, women, and children because they have the audacity to worship a different deity comes in a very close second. Why anyone would choose to worship a deity they believe capable of such heinous acts is unfathomable. You have misrepresented my argument and created a straw man.

Moses cursed Ham's son, Canaan, for Ham's queer act. The offspring of Canaan went on to form tribes that shunned the God of Moses, and for this and the queer factor God ordered them to be annihilated.

My base argument here is that a single act of queerness created the deaths and suffering of thousands of people. That is why queerness is a greater sin than stealing, adultery, or even murder, as seen through the eyes of God, as exemplified in the Bible.

Missileman

07-19-2007, 03:49 PM

Moses cursed Ham's son, Canaan, for Ham's queer act.

In what verse does Moses do this?

My base argument here is that a single act of queerness created the deaths and suffering of thousands of people. That is why queerness is a greater sin than stealing, adultery, or even murder, as seen through the eyes of God, as exemplified in the Bible.

I know that's what you are trying to argue. I understand that's what you believe. I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate that Noah's curse on Ham was the motivation for the slaughter of the tribes of Canaan.

glockmail

07-19-2007, 04:06 PM

In what verse does Moses do this?

I know that's what you are trying to argue. I understand that's what you believe. I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate that Noah's curse on Ham was the motivation for the slaughter of the tribes of Canaan.

We're going around in circles again, me presenting clear concise arguments, then you giving your opinion that they are not.

So exactly how does this relate to the OP?

Missileman

07-19-2007, 04:29 PM

We're going around in circles again, me presenting clear concise arguments, then you giving your opinion that they are not.

You're presenting clear, concise, unsubstantiated argument. I haven't opined that your arguments haven't been clear or concise. I have asked you to substantiate claims you have made about what is written in the Bible. So far, the best you've come up with are verses that don't really say what you claim.

While I'm not from Missouri, rather than taking your word for it, I'd prefer you show me.

So exactly how does this relate to the OP?

Is this going to be your new method for avoiding the answering of questions you have no real answer for?

Hagbard Celine

07-19-2007, 04:34 PM

In what verse does Moses do this?

I know that's what you are trying to argue. I understand that's what you believe. I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate that Noah's curse on Ham was the motivation for the slaughter of the tribes of Canaan.

Someone should name their son Ham. That'd be the tits!

jimnyc

07-19-2007, 05:11 PM

Someone should name their son Ham. That'd be the tits!

And would be even cooler if their last name was "Berger" :)

glockmail

07-23-2007, 01:58 PM

You're presenting clear, concise, unsubstantiated argument. I haven't opined that your arguments haven't been clear or concise. I have asked you to substantiate claims you have made about what is written in the Bible. So far, the best you've come up with are verses that don't really say what you claim.

While I'm not from Missouri, rather than taking your word for it, I'd prefer you show me.

Is this going to be your new method for avoiding the answering of questions you have no real answer for?

Your opinion of what is substantive is incorrect.