Queer enablers = liars

[glockmail]

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

Some of the Big Lies about Homosexuality. It is:

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

Any that I missed? :poke:

[Lightning Waltz]

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:

Proof?

[glockmail]

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

[nevadamedic]

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

And what in your opinion is a queer enabler?

[Lightning Waltz]

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

Must have missed those other threads. I've seen threads where people have made value judgements based on their own personal beliefs....but not any "proof".

:link: to these other threads?

[Hagbard Celine]

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

[glockmail]

And what in your opinion is a queer enabler?
Those that perpetuate the lies.

[glockmail]

Must have missed those other threads. I've seen threads where people have made value judgements based on their own personal beliefs....but not any "proof".

:link: to these other threads? Here's one. There are several, not diffucult to find. They are generally lengthy, as the queer enablers never admit being wrong and insist on being the last to post. http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=10617&postcount=1

[glockmail]

..... the "right" actively pursues policy and legislation that specifically discriminates against gays and then they parade around disguising their blatant bigotry as righteousness and piety...... That's another lie made by the queers. I'm surprised that you bought into it.

[nevadamedic]

Those that perpetuate the lies.

I fully support Gay and Lesbian rights and I am not nor have I ever been a liar.

[Hagbard Celine]

That's another lie made by the queers. I'm surprised that you bought into it.

Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman--specifically designed to discriminate against the gay community. You stand corrected.

[nevadamedic]

This thread needs to be put in the Steel Cage.

[Lightning Waltz]

Here's one. There are several, not diffucult to find. They are generally lengthy, as the queer enablers never admit being wrong and insist on being the last to post. http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=10617&postcount=1

That thread is a great example of the slippery slope fallacy.

Anything else?

[glockmail]

I fully support Gay and Lesbian rights and I am not nor have I ever been a liar. Since they choose their immoral lifestyles then to be consistent you should support all immoral decisions.

[nevadamedic]

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

It's immorial in your eyes. Who are you to judge another human being for the way they feel?

[glockmail]

Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman--specifically designed to discriminate against the gay community. You stand corrected.
I would argue that the proposal is to defend a sacred institution that has been around for 5000 years and is the bedrock of civilization, and that it has been attacked by queers.

[glockmail]

This thread needs to be put in the Steel Cage. Because the enablers always start insulting truth tellers?

[nevadamedic]

Because the enablers always start insulting truth tellers?

Other way around.

[glockmail]

That thread is a great example of the slippery slope fallacy.

Anything else?
Ever use the "search" button? Try the word "queer".

[Hagbard Celine]

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

Apparently you see the world in black and white eh?

[nevadamedic]

Apparently you see the world in black and white eh?

People are just scared of things they dont know anything about.

[glockmail]

It's immorial in your eyes. Who are you to judge another human being for the way they feel?
Oops- you broke the Cardinal Rule of Queer Enablers. You admitted that queers choose their lifestyle.

[glockmail]

Apparently you see the world in black and white eh? Some things are black and white. Like the lies that I listed in post 1.

[nevadamedic]

Oops- you broke the Cardinal Rule of Queer Enablers. You admitted that queers choose their lifestyle.

I never said that they can help it.

[glockmail]

People are just scared of things they dont know anything about. The old "homophobic" insult. Sorry, I've known a lot of queers and I can't say I was scared of any of them.

[Hagbard Celine]

I would argue that the proposal is to defend a sacred institution that has been around for 5000 years and is the bedrock of civilization, and that it has been attacked by queers.

Well that's just plain laughable. Do you really think straight people would stop getting married if queers started doing it too? Get real.

[glockmail]

I never said that they can help it. Queers chose to be queers. You just admitted that. Are you backing off now?

[nevadamedic]

Well that's just plain laughable. Do you really think straight people would stop getting married if queers started doing it too? Get real.

:laugh2:

[glockmail]

Well that's just plain laughable. Do you really think straight people would stop getting married if queers started doing it too? Get real. That's not the issue. The issue is that queers can live and work freely without having to attack a sacred institution. Yet they choose to attack it, and a huge pecentage of straights choose to defend it.

[nevadamedic]

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

No I didn't, learn to read. GAY people cant help the way they feel, it's natural to them, just like being with a woman is natural to a straight person. You obviously don't understand anything about GAY people. This attitude you have reeks of fear. Don't worry being GAY isn't a virus, I promise you wont catch it.

[glockmail]

.... just like being with a woman is natural to a straight person..... .
Then why do pre-teen boys resist being around girls?

[nevadamedic]

Then why do pre-teen boys resist being around girls?

what the hell are you talking about now?

[Hagbard Celine]

That's not the issue. The issue is that queers can live and work freely without having to attack a sacred institution. Yet they choose to attack it, and a huge pecentage of straights choose to defend it.

I'm guessing that you've somehow perceived homosexuals' interest in par-taking in the joys of marriage as an "attack" on the institution. This is also laughable. If they were attacking marriage, as you say they are, they'd be trying to put a stop to the practice. So far, this hasn't happened.

[Hagbard Celine]

what the hell are you talking about now?

I think he's referring to the dread "cooties" phenomenon.

[glockmail]

I'm guessing that you've somehow perceived homosexuals' interest in par-taking in the joys of marriage as an "attack" on the institution. This is also laughable. If they were attacking marriage, as you say they are, they'd be trying to put a stop to the practice. So far, this hasn't happened.

That's a minority perspecrive, just like a minority of French saw Hitler as their liberator. The vast majority of Americans, about 75-80% based on voting on there specific issues, see queer marriage as an attack on traditional marriage.

[glockmail]

I think he's referring to the dread "cooties" phenomenon.

Bingo. I thought that it was obvious.

[Doniston]

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: No, in fact you added about four imaginary ones.

[Doniston]

Then why do pre-teen boys resist being around girls? They got cooties (just like you think Gays have cooties)

[Hagbard Celine]

That's a minority perspecrive, just like a minority of French saw Hitler as their liberator. The vast majority of Americans, about 75-80% based on voting on there specific issues, see queer marriage as an attack on traditional marriage.

No. I think the majority of people who actually think about the issue see it the way I've posted above. The majority of Americans, however don't think about issues. They react to them or buy into whatever propaganda pipeline they listen to. I think you're right from the standpoint that the majority of Americans see the issue your way, but whether that view is intelligent, well thought-out or even justified is a whole other issue.

[Lightning Waltz]

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

My views (and no, these are not lies).
1. Normal -- very subjective term. I bet any one of us can come up with 10 things they are that aren't "normal". Examples for me: atheist, would rather watch MASH reruns over American Idol, hates the new Pirates movies (all of them), etc... So, being gay may not be "normal", but I really don't see how that's a horrible thing... If everyone were normal, we'd be the Borg.

2. Natural -- since homosexuality occurs in nature, I don't see how homosexuality isn't "natural"...sorry, can't agree with you on this one.

3. Healthy -- I haven't seen anything that indicates that homosexuality, in an of itself, is unhealthy.

4. 10% of the population -- no idea on the number of homosexuals there are in society. Not really all that important to me, either.

5. Not a choice -- as with most things with humans, I think homosexuality is partly engrained, and partly choice. Humans choose to do some pretty weird things. But, I think that homosexuals aren't completely choosing their lifestyle, either. This goes into the whole "free choice" thing (a concept that I don't believe in, anyway). So, at some level, I doubt that anyone has a choice...but on the level that you are talking about, I think it's about 30% choice, 70% hard-wired (pulling that out of my ass, but that's what I suspect).

6. Moral -- I think that homosexuality is as moral or immoral as having a favorite flavor of ice cream (that is to say, no morality involved either way).

[glockmail]

They got cooties (just like you think Gays have cooties)
What makes you think you know how I think?

[glockmail]

No. I think the majority of people who actually think about the issue see it the way I've posted above. The majority of Americans, however don't think about issues. They react to them or buy into whatever propaganda pipeline they listen to. I think you're right from the standpoint that the majority of Americans see the issue your way, but whether that view is intelligent, well thought-out or even justified is a whole other issue.


If the majority thought like you do then they would all be intelligent, right? :laugh2:

[musicman]

Aside from our country's indifferent attitude towards poverty...

Please elaborate.

[Pale Rider]

Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman--specifically designed to discriminate against the gay community. You stand corrected.

There is no such amendment. Even if there was, marriage "IS" the holy union between a man and a woman, not two homos.

How about the fags trying to make "ANY" speech against what they do and are "illegal?" Isn't that descrimination against the hetero community by the homos?

[glockmail]

My views (and no, these are not lies).
1. Normal -- very subjective term. I bet any one of us can come up with 10 things they are that aren't "normal". Examples for me: atheist, would rather watch MASH reruns over American Idol, hates the new Pirates movies (all of them), etc... So, being gay may not be "normal", but I really don't see how that's a horrible thing... If everyone were normal, we'd be the Borg.

2. Natural -- since homosexuality occurs in nature, I don't see how homosexuality isn't "natural"...sorry, can't agree with you on this one.

3. Healthy -- I haven't seen anything that indicates that homosexuality, in an of itself, is unhealthy.

4. 10% of the population -- no idea on the number of homosexuals there are in society. Not really all that important to me, either.

5. Not a choice -- as with most things with humans, I think homosexuality is partly engrained, and partly choice. Humans choose to do some pretty weird things. But, I think that homosexuals aren't completely choosing their lifestyle, either. This goes into the whole "free choice" thing (a concept that I don't believe in, anyway). So, at some level, I doubt that anyone has a choice...but on the level that you are talking about, I think it's about 30% choice, 70% hard-wired (pulling that out of my ass, but that's what I suspect).

6. Moral -- I think that homosexuality is as moral or immoral as having a favorite flavor of ice cream (that is to say, no morality involved either way).

4. It is important as it ties into the idea of normality. The real percentage, based on the latest US census as well as other scientific data, suggests that the actual percentage is very close to 1%. Any percentage less than 5% is statistically abnormal.

1. Addressed above.
2. Its not natural because it doesn’t occur without human intervention.
3. On April 25, 2001, the CDC reported that "We are seeing substantial increases in sexually transmitted diseases among men who have sex with men in multiple locations across this country."
Associated Press, April 25, 2001: Queers are responsible for the "first sexually transmitted outbreak of typhoid fever" in the history of the United States. This disease is caused by ingesting human feces.
Reuters, Feb. 5, 2001: more than 10% of queers in major U.S. urban areas are infected with HIV. To this day, they still make up more than 50% of reported AIDS cases in the United States.
5. Assuming for a moment that you are correct, that 30% choose to be queer. How many of those who made this decision did so because they were told it was normal, natural, healthy and moral?
6. Morality is defined in the Bible, and as such queerness is immoral.

[Pale Rider]

People are just scared of things they dont know anything about.

No... it's more the thought of a man shoving his cock down the throat of another man, or up his ass, that makes "normal" people feel sick. It creeps them out. That is "normal." If it doesn't you, then you most certainly have a tinge of homosexual tendencies yourself.

[OCA]

And what in your opinion is a queer enabler?

Someone who is afraid to tell a queer friend the truth about theirselves and their behavior, someone who avoids confrontation by couching said friend's behavior in terms of ''can't help it", "born that way", "people or groups that produce facts on what a detrimental lifestyle choice it is are just homophobic bigots"....thats what a queer enabler is.

I would argue that a queer enabler is not a true friend to queer choicers.

[OCA]

I fully support Gay and Lesbian rights and I am not nor have I ever been a liar.

You may not be the one spouting the lies but at the very least you are gullible by believing the lies that others spout.

[Pale Rider]

No I didn't, learn to read. GAY people cant help the way they feel, it's natural to them, just like being with a woman is natural to a straight person. You obviously don't understand anything about GAY people. This attitude you have reeks of fear. Don't worry being GAY isn't a virus, I promise you wont catch it.

Two things here, one, even though you claim queers feel natural, and I wonder how you know that for a fact, they "know" that what they're doing is wrong. Men were NOT built to have sex with other men. What part about that don't you people understand? When I see a man with a vagina, I'll agree with "you." Until then, there is NOTHING natural about men having sex with men. That "natural" argument is bizarre at best. Second, yes, people CAN "catch" homosexuality. Since it is a choice, homosexuals are constantly trying to indoctrinate new people into their perversion. That's why they spend so much time trying to infiltrate schools full of young and impressionable children that don't know any better yet. It's part of their agenda.

[OCA]

Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman--specifically designed to discriminate against the gay community. You stand corrected.

No. America is a country based on laws and value judgements and society as a whole has deemed homosexuality to be valueless. Queers are allowed to practice whatever vile thing they choose however society is saying that it will not change laws to fit the vile behavior. If you choose to live the queer lifestyle you should be mature enough to know that that lifestyle limits oneself to access to certain things such as marriage, its called consequences.

[OCA]

It's immorial in your eyes. Who are you to judge another human being for the way they feel?

We judge people all the time, we judge murderers and rapists, we judge speeders and parking violators....queers should not be exempted because they falsely claim theirselves to be a minority, a minority they are for sure but a minority that CHOSE their lot in life.

[OCA]

People are just scared of things they dont know anything about.

Another example of the great lies being told by enablers.

[OCA]

That's not the issue. The issue is that queers can live and work freely without having to attack a sacred institution. Yet they choose to attack it, and a huge pecentage of straights choose to defend it.


Glock you must never forget that queers do nbot desire marriage, they desire legitimization of their perversion of choice, marriage is just the vehicle they want to drive to get to that point.

[OCA]

No I didn't, learn to read. GAY people cant help the way they feel, it's natural to them, just like being with a woman is natural to a straight person. You obviously don't understand anything about GAY people. This attitude you have reeks of fear. Don't worry being GAY isn't a virus, I promise you wont catch it.

Do you have any irrefuteable proof of that?

I tire of asking this question and never getting a response, wonder why? Hmmmmmmmmmm........

[Lightning Waltz]

2. Its not natural because it doesn’t occur without human intervention.

So driving a car isn't natrual...firing a gun...watching TV...etc.


3. On April 25, 2001, the CDC reported that "We are seeing substantial increases in sexually transmitted diseases among men who have sex with men in multiple locations across this country."

That doesn't say that homosexuality is the cause of the problems. You have established no causal connection.


Associated Press, April 25, 2001: Queers are responsible for the "first sexually transmitted outbreak of typhoid fever" in the history of the United States. This disease is caused by ingesting human feces.

And straights couldn't have caused this? Again, no causal connection.


Reuters, Feb. 5, 2001: more than 10% of queers in major U.S. urban areas are infected with HIV. To this day, they still make up more than 50% of reported AIDS cases in the United States.

Look up stats on HIV world-wide...


5. Assuming for a moment that you are correct, that 30% choose to be queer. How many of those who made this decision did so because they were told it was normal, natural, healthy and moral?

You misunderstood me. I'm not saying that 30% choose to be gay, but that the "choice" is based on 30% actual CHOOSING one way or the other, and 70%, that's the way they are hardwired to be.

Actually, let me amend that. I think that everyone is kind of on a sliding scale. Some people are "hardwired" 100% straight and couldn't be gay if they wanted to be. Some people are "hardwired" 100% gay and couldn't be straight if they wanted to be. Most people are some mix. 95/5, 50/50, 5/95, whatever... From there, people can, and have acted against their natures to varying degrees of sucess.

But, for the record, I doubt that anyone was "convinced" or somehow "talked into" being gay...


6. Morality is defined in the Bible, and as such queerness is immoral.

That book has some interesting things to say on slavery, too. I reject the bible as a moral guide, obviously.

[glockmail]

Glock you must never forget that queers do nbot desire marriage, they desire legitimization of their perversion of choice, marriage is just the vehicle they want to drive to get to that point. That's probably true with a large percentage of them. If they choose a deviant lifestyle, then it would be natural for them to want to attack traditions in other ways as well.

[Hagbard Celine]

No. America is a country based on laws and value judgements and society as a whole has deemed homosexuality to be valueless. Queers are allowed to practice whatever vile thing they choose however society is saying that it will not change laws to fit the vile behavior. If you choose to live the queer lifestyle you should be mature enough to know that that lifestyle limits oneself to access to certain things such as marriage, its called consequences.

*sigh* This is a contradiction in itself. You're saying "Americuh" doesn't "change laws to fit vile behavior," but if that's true, then how do you explain the very constitutional amendment you're arguing in favor of? People of your mind wanted to change the law--the constitution no less--to fit their own ideological views in regard to homosexuality. So I guess straight people can change the law to reflect their views of what sexuality and marriage should be, but gays can't? C'mon man. I know you can do better than that.

[Lightning Waltz]

Do you have any irrefuteable proof of that?

I tire of asking this question and never getting a response, wonder why? Hmmmmmmmmmm........

There is a profound lack of proof both that homosexuality is 100 percent choice or that homosexuality is 100 percent hard-wired.

[glockmail]

[1]So driving a car isn't natrual...firing a gun...watching TV...etc.



[2]That doesn't say that homosexuality is the cause of the problems. You have established no causal connection.
…
And straights couldn't have caused this? Again, no causal connection.



[3]Look up stats on HIV world-wide...



[4]You misunderstood me. I'm not saying that 30% choose to be gay, but that the "choice" is based on 30% actual CHOOSING one way or the other, and 70%, that's the way they are hardwired to be.

[5]Actually, let me amend that. I think that everyone is kind of on a sliding scale. Some people are "hardwired" 100% straight and couldn't be gay if they wanted to be. Some people are "hardwired" 100% gay and couldn't be straight if they wanted to be. Most people are some mix. 95/5, 50/50, 5/95, whatever... From there, people can, and have acted against their natures to varying degrees of sucess.

[6]But, for the record, I doubt that anyone was "convinced" or somehow "talked into" being gay...



That book has some interesting things to say on slavery, too. I reject the bible as a moral guide, obviously.

1. Correct. None of those are natural. The point here is that no one is lying to me and saying that they are.
2. I’m not going to argue the obvious here.
3. I’ll let you do that.
4. No misunderstanding here, babe. I could choose to be a murderer, a rapist, or a queer. I choose none of those.
5. Nice theory, but billions have been spent trying to find a gay gene, and none found. The money would have been better spent on education, IMO.
6. Sure they were. It starts from a very early age, with the lies, as stated in post 1.

[glockmail]

*sigh* This is a contradiction in itself. You're saying "Americuh" doesn't "change laws to fit vile behavior," but if that's true, then how do you explain the very constitutional amendment you're arguing in favor of? People of your mind wanted to change the law--the constitution no less--to fit their own ideological views in regard to homosexuality. So I guess straight people can change the law to reflect their views of what sexuality and marriage should be, but gays can't? C'mon man. I know you can do better than that. Hagbard- I'm surprised at you. This argument makes no sense. Starihts want laws that bolster morality, queers and their enablers want laws that support immoral behaivior. Its that simple.

[glockmail]

There is a profound lack of proof both that homosexuality is 100 percent choice or that homosexuality is 100 percent hard-wired. So again, why do queer enablers foster the lies that make some chose this abnormal, immoral, unnatural and unhealthy behavior?

[OCA]

*sigh* This is a contradiction in itself. You're saying "Americuh" doesn't "change laws to fit vile behavior," but if that's true, then how do you explain the very constitutional amendment you're arguing in favor of? People of your mind wanted to change the law--the constitution no less--to fit their own ideological views in regard to homosexuality. So I guess straight people can change the law to reflect their views of what sexuality and marriage should be, but gays can't? C'mon man. I know you can do better than that.

Not sure how a constitutional amendment is changing laws to fit vile behavior but i'll bite anyway.

Actually i'm not in favor anymore of a constitutional amendment as it seems that states that have the balls to let the populace vote on this issue are taking care of business as well as the Supreme Court's of said states. In reality though regular folks aren't changing laws because one day they decided to get downright hardcore on this issue but rather its a reaction to the push for legitimization of something which for millenia has been deemed to be abnormal by the queer choice community, in reality queer choicers have brought this upon themselves. People were content to let people do whatever weird shit they wanted in the confines of their own homes but in public and within public institutions such as marriage there was a certyain set of standards one was supposed to live by and homosexuality didn't meet those standards, everybody on both sides of the issue understood this and nobody felt discriminated against..........until the new "we're here, we're queer" leadership emerged, now they have fucked up things for their own people with their in your face attitude. It is my opinion that they have done a disservice to their constituency.

[OCA]

So again, why do queer enablers foster the lies that make some chose this abnormal, immoral, unnatural and unhealthy behavior?

Glock ask them just how in the hell you prove choice? Do we disect the minds of queers? Do we torture the shit out of them to admit choice? No queer in his/her right mind would ever admit choice because it blows up every foundation of every argument they make, it would be suicide.

[gabosaurus]

If you honestly believe all this "queer enabler" shit, or the absurd notion that individuals actually choose to be homosexual, you are a pathetic moron. Homosexuals are people, just like you are. Anyone who believes otherwise, and actively fosters the notion that non-heterosexuals are less than human, is a lying sack of shit who deserves to die of AIDS. Which can be contracted by heterosexuals, by the way.

[glockmail]

Glock ask them just how in the hell you prove choice? Do we disect the minds of queers? Do we torture the shit out of them to admit choice? No queer in his/her right mind would ever admit choice because it blows up every foundation of every argument they make, it would be suicide.
Just like you prove anything else when the defendant doesn't want to admit the truth.
1. Logic, as you and I have done so admirably here and in other threads.
2. Interrogate and trip them up. Several enablers have fallen for this and have as much admitted as such (only to deny it later, of course.) See post 15 for a recent example.
3. Historical record. Queerness use to be PC'd as "sexual preference" but is now uber-PC'd as "orientation". It is only recent that the "not a choice" argument has come to fruition.

Ultimately, though, the burden of proof lies with the enablers to prove that queers are born that way.

[glockmail]

If you honestly believe all this "queer enabler" shit, or the absurd notion that individuals actually choose to be homosexual, you are a pathetic moron. Homosexuals are people, just like you are. Anyone who believes otherwise, and actively fosters the notion that non-heterosexuals are less than human, is a lying sack of shit who deserves to die of AIDS. Which can be contracted by heterosexuals, by the way.

It looks like we Truth Tellers have scored the first insult. Actually I count at least two here.

Queer Enablers = 0
Truth Tellers = 2

:D

[Lightning Waltz]

It looks like we Truth Tellers have scored the first insult. Actually I count at least two here.

Queer Enablers = 0
Truth Tellers = 2

:D

You must not consider being called a liar to be an insult...

"It's no secret that a liar won't believe anyone else"

[nevadamedic]

I think he's referring to the dread "cooties" phenomenon.

You mean there is no such thing as cooties? :(

[nevadamedic]

No... it's more the thought of a man shoving his cock down the throat of another man, or up his ass, that makes "normal" people feel sick. It creeps them out. That is "normal." If it doesn't you, then you most certainly have a tinge of homosexual tendencies yourself.

I dont think about sick crap like that. They dont do that shit out in public.

[glockmail]

You must not consider being called a liar to be an insult...

"It's no secret that a liar won't believe anyone else"

Six years ago it was considere an insult. But after the mantra of "Bush Lied" by tolerant, honest, America-loving liberals, I naturally figgered that it was no longer considered as such. If you feel insulted than I'm sorry that you feel that way. :D

[glockmail]

I dont think about sick crap like that. They dont do that shit out in public. Again you show your true self, your natural tendency to be disgusted by immoral, unnatural, abnormal chosen behavior.

[Lightning Waltz]

1. Correct. None of those are natural. The point here is that no one is lying to me and saying that they are.

Then as I said before, not being "normal"...isn't that big of a deal.


4. No misunderstanding here, babe. I could choose to be a murderer, a rapist, or a queer. I choose none of those.

Could you really choose to be homosexual? You are open and honest enough with your own sexuality, that you could see yourself being gay if you wanted to be?


5. Nice theory, but billions have been spent trying to find a gay gene, and none found. The money would have been better spent on education, IMO.

Heh, you first state that we haven't found any "Gay gene", which is true. Of course, we haven't found many, many genes, so I'm not sure that's so surprising. Next you insinuate that we shouldn't look... Kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy...


6. Sure they were. It starts from a very early age, with the lies, as stated in post 1.

Prove it.

[Missileman]

4. It is important as it ties into the idea of normality. The real percentage, based on the latest US census as well as other scientific data, suggests that the actual percentage is very close to 1%

Speaking of lies...that's a huge one. It's more like 3.5%.

And for the record, please elaborate on this less than 5% = abnormal thing that you've posted a couple times now. I'd like to see you provide a link to a text that supports that claim.

[nevadamedic]

Again you show your true self, your natural tendency to be disgusted by immoral, unnatural, abnormal chosen behavior.

Your right it does make me sick, but just because I feel that way doesn't mean it's not right.

[Missileman]

Do you have any irrefuteable proof of that?

I tire of asking this question and never getting a response, wonder why? Hmmmmmmmmmm........

Do you have irrefuteable proof that it's a choice? The notion that there really aren't any homosexuals, only heterosexuals who choose to engage in homosexuality is one of the most ridiculous ideas put forth by the anti-homosexual folks. Ask any true heterosexual if he could switch hit under ANY circumstances and I'll wager that the answer would be almost unanimously, not only no, but HELL NO!

[glockmail]

Then as I said before, not being "normal"...isn't that big of a deal.



Could you really choose to be homosexual? You are open and honest enough with your own sexuality, that you could see yourself being gay if you wanted to be?



Heh, you first state that we haven't found any "Gay gene", which is true. Of course, we haven't found many, many genes, so I'm not sure that's so surprising. Next you insinuate that we shouldn't look... Kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy...



Prove it.


1. If its not a big deal then why not simply admit that it is abnormal instead of lying about it?
2. If I was indoctrinated from an early age then I suppose so. Same with about any chosen behavior.
3. IMO money would be better spent on curing cancer or something rather than this science-for-political-agenda dead end. Real science requires at least some support of a theory. So far there is none.
4. Again, I’m not obliged to prove anything here, especially the obvious.

[glockmail]

Speaking of lies...that's a huge one. It's more like 3.5%.

And for the record, please elaborate on this less than 5% = abnormal thing that you've posted a couple times now. I'd like to see you provide a link to a text that supports that claim.

1.

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

2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_deviation#Rules_for_normally_distributed_ data

[glockmail]

Your right it does make me sick, but just because I feel that way doesn't mean it's not right.
It's natural for you to be repelled by the unnatural, unhealthy and immoral. That should give you a clue to see that I am right.

[Lightning Waltz]

1. If its not a big deal then why not simply admit that it is abnormal instead of lying about it?

Where have I lied about anything?


2. If I was indoctrinated from an early age then I suppose so. Same with about any chosen behavior.

I don't understand this answer. Could you, now, choose to be gay if you wanted to?


3. IMO money would be better spent on curing cancer or something rather than this science-for-political-agenda dead end. Real science requires at least some support of a theory. So far there is none.

I think there is a value of scientific research for purely science sake...so I have to disagree with you. Also, we discover a lot of things about other fields when we do scientific research with no "practical value". Example...learning about better ways to make shoes from space travel.


4. Again, I’m not obliged to prove anything here, especially the obvious.

It's not "obvious"...and if you expect anyone to believe you, then you are obligated to prove it.

[Joan]

Originally Posted by glockmail View Post
Queers chose to be queers. You just admitted that. Are you backing off now?

I will probably catch hell from my son for this one, but I don't believe it is a choice with them. While I was still working, I became very close with about 4 of what you label "queers". In fact I was so friendly with one of them, we discussed this issue. He said he wished it had been another way, but he knew from when he was quite young that he was "different". I also knew a lesbian, whose partner developed breast cancer, and since she was the one who stayed home with the adopted children, she therefore had no insurance coverage. This is where I think equal rights should come into play. I don't say legalize gay marriage, but a civil union which entitles these partners to medical coverage, etc. is just fine by me. You may now feel free to cuss me out!!

[glockmail]

Where have I lied about anything?


I don't understand this answer. Could you, now, choose to be gay if you wanted to?



I think there is a value of scientific research for purely science sake...so I have to disagree with you. Also, we discover a lot of things about other fields when we do scientific research with no "practical value". Example...learning about better ways to make shoes from space travel.



It's not "obvious"...and if you expect anyone to believe you, then you are obligated to prove it.

1. Are you now denying your support of the post 1 issues?
2. I think you understand I perfectly but want the conversation to go somewhere else.
3. In the case of space travel the goal is betterment of mankind. In the case of queer research the benefit is to 1% of the population.
4. I don’t expect you to believe me, if you can’t accept the obvious. No queer enabler has ever been convinced by me and I have no misconceptions about that. They are too closed-minded. Therefore I choose what I make effort to prove, not you.

[glockmail]

I will probably catch hell from my son for this one, but I don't believe it is a choice with them. While I was still working, I became very close with about 4 of what you label "queers". In fact I was so friendly with one of them, we discussed this issue. He said he wished it had been another way, but he knew from when he was quite young that he was "different". I also knew a lesbian, whose partner developed breast cancer, and since she was the one who stayed home with the adopted children, she therefore had no insurance coverage. This is where I think equal rights should come into play. I don't say legalize gay marriage, but a civil union which entitles these partners to medical coverage, etc. is just fine by me. You may now feel free to cuss me out!!

I don't need to cuss you out. Why would I give points to the enablers? :laugh2:

1. Odds are that your friend was not born gay. He had some queer tendancies and was probably told that they were normal, natural, moral, and healthy, so he went with it. If he was not told the Big Lies he'd probably be a an old married fart with two kids and a nice pink house somewhere.
2. The lesbians should never have been allowed to adopt, for the obvious reasons but also because of the insurance issue. Because that mistake was made doesn't mean we need to make another and change the laws on marraige, or force corporations to support the burden of someone's abnormal choice.

[Pale Rider]

I dont think about sick crap like that. They dont do that shit out in public.

But that is exactly what homosexuality is all about. If you face the "truth," then you'll understand what this thread is all about.

Either you think homosexaul acts are disgusting, or you don't. Which are you?

[Pale Rider]

Your right it does make me sick, but just because I feel that way doesn't mean it's not right.

Wha... ? Unbelievable... :uhoh: - - :cuckoo:

[Pale Rider]

Do you have irrefuteable proof that it's a choice? The notion that there really aren't any homosexuals, only heterosexuals who choose to engage in homosexuality is one of the most ridiculous ideas put forth by the anti-homosexual folks. Ask any true heterosexual if he could switch hit under ANY circumstances and I'll wager that the answer would be almost unanimously, not only no, but HELL NO!

Here's the crux of that Mm, regardless of how they feel, to "act out" such perverted thoughts "IS" a "CHOICE." There is NO DENYING that. Say my neighbor pisses me off, I then feel like shooting the fucker in the face. I know it's wrong, so I "don't do it," and I have made a "conscience choice." Same as the butt boys. They make a "conscience choice" to act it out.

[glockmail]

Wha... ? Unbelievable... :uhoh: - - :cuckoo: That's what happens when morality becomes fluid. Up is down and black is white. Sort of like being on LSD.

[Pale Rider]

That's what happens when morality becomes fluid. Up is down and black is white. Sort of like being on LSD.

I know that's how it works in the homo enabler, liberal's world, but neither you nor I understand it.

[nevadamedic]

I don't need to cuss you out. Why would I give points to the enablers? :laugh2:

1. Odds are that your friend was not born gay. He had some queer tendancies and was probably told that they were normal, natural, moral, and healthy, so he went with it. If he was not told the Big Lies he'd probably be a an old married fart with two kids and a nice pink house somewhere.
2. The lesbians should never have been allowed to adopt, for the obvious reasons but also because of the insurance issue. Because that mistake was made doesn't mean we need to make another and change the laws on marraige, or force corporations to support the burden of someone's abnormal choice.

Get off it already.

[Pale Rider]

Get off it already.

:smoke:

[nevadamedic]

That's what happens when morality becomes fluid. Up is down and black is white. Sort of like being on LSD.

It seems to me like your obsessed with the subject......... :poke:

[glockmail]

I know that's how it works in the homo enabler, liberal's world, but neither you nor I understand it. I tried LSD once. I understand it. :laugh2:

[glockmail]

It seems to me like your obsessed with the subject......... :poke: See post 1. :poke:

[glockmail]

Get off it already. Huh?:slap:

[Pale Rider]

It seems to me like your obsessed with the subject......... :poke:

Aaaahh, he's not the one defending perversion that has little blow job boys smilies in his sig line... :poke:

[glockmail]

Aaaahh, he's not the one defending perversion that has little blow job boys smilies in his sig line... :poke:
Ouch- that's gotta hurt. :clap:

[Pale Rider]

Ouch- that's gotta hurt. :clap:

Ya know glock... it's just SOOOOO PREDICTABLE!!! When the queer lovers start losing the debate, they ALWAYS throw that out there... "well you must be gay".... it's pathetic, and I get tired of hearing it.

[glockmail]

Ya know glock... it's just SOOOOO PREDICTABLE!!! When the queer lovers start losing the debate, they ALWAYS throw that out there... "well you must be gay".... it's pathetic.
It is, man. I lost count how many times they used gay as an insult for not being a queer enabler. It what started this thread, BTW. Some dude claims that I have "issues".

[Missileman]

Here's the crux of that Mm, regardless of how they feel, to "act out" such perverted thoughts "IS" a "CHOICE." There is NO DENYING that. Say my neighbor pisses me off, I then feel like shooting the fucker in the face. I know it's wrong, so I "don't do it," and I have made a "conscience choice." Same as the butt boys. They make a "conscience choice" to act it out.

This is of course assuming that homosexuality is as criminal as shooting your neighbor in the face, and assuming also that someone born gay (as I believe they are) thinks that their sex is as wrong as shooting someone in the face. Neither assumption is reasonable.

[Missileman]

It is, man. I lost count how many times they used gay as an insult for not being a queer enabler. It what started this thread, BTW. Some dude claims that I have "issues".

Like you've never done it....what a fucking hypocrit! Just like when you toss an insult and then claim someone loses an argument when they return fire.

[Yurt]

No I didn't, learn to read. GAY people cant help the way they feel, it's natural to them, just like being with a woman is natural to a straight person. You obviously don't understand anything about GAY people. This attitude you have reeks of fear. Don't worry being GAY isn't a virus, I promise you wont catch it.

While I believe that homosexuals who want to cohabitat should have the same legal rights as married people, in terms of the STATE created CONTRACTUAL rights, the choice to buttfuck someone is NOT natural.

There are hetrosexual's who choose not to engage in sex. There are hetrosexuals who choose to not engage in extra marital affairs, even though the urge to have sex is "natural."

Feeling a certain way and acting on it are two very different things.

I have no fear. Just ask Pale and OCA about my defense of gays. The fact remains, while Pale and OCA disagree with me on rights, we agree on choice

[Missileman]

1.
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2003/mar/03031302.html

And confirmed by a pro-queer site.

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

It was already proven that your conclusions based on couples was illogical and useless. I also presented solid evidence that the figure is more like 3.5%.


2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_deviation#Rules_for_normally_distributed_ data

I read the entire article, and there isn't a single thing there that says 5% is the "normal" cutoff. Nice try though.

[Pale Rider]

This is of course assuming that homosexuality is as criminal as shooting your neighbor in the face, and assuming also that someone born gay (as I believe they are) thinks that their sex is as wrong as shooting someone in the face. Neither assumption is reasonable.

No... wrong, wrong, and wrong again Mm. Don't "assume" anything. Just follow what I said. It's very clear. I'm making a precise example of how a person makes "choices." Acting out perverse homosexual acts is a "conscience choice." That's all there is to it. It's not any more complicated than that, and needs no assuming to understand it.

[Missileman]

I have no fear. Just ask Pale and OCA about my defense of gays. The fact remains, while Pale and OCA disagree with me on rights, we agree on choice

The act itself, yep...choice. The question is whether the orientation is a choice or not. And yes, it DOES make a difference.

[Yurt]

The act itself, yep...choice. The question is whether the orientation is a choice or not. And yes, it DOES make a difference.

Ever wanted to hit someone and did not? What was the difference?

[OCA]

If you honestly believe all this "queer enabler" shit, or the absurd notion that individuals actually choose to be homosexual, you are a pathetic moron. Homosexuals are people, just like you are. Anyone who believes otherwise, and actively fosters the notion that non-heterosexuals are less than human, is a lying sack of shit who deserves to die of AIDS. Which can be contracted by heterosexuals, by the way.

Queers are people who were born heterosexual who at 1 time in their life chose, whether consciously or subconsciously is another debate, to enage in and live the queer choice lifestyle.

People who believe that queers are born that way without nary a shred of irrefuteable evidence saying so are the pathetic morons IMO. Its intellectually bankrupt thinking.

[OCA]

I dont think about sick crap like that. They dont do that shit out in public.


They don't? Want me to link you to some sick shit that queers do at highway rest stops throughout California? Would that be public enough for you?

Open your eyes.

[Missileman]

No... wrong, wrong, and wrong again Mm. Don't "assume" anything. Just follow what I said. It's very clear. I'm making a precise example of how a person makes "choices." Acting out perverse homosexual acts is a "conscience choice." That's all there is to it. It's not any more complicated than that, and needs no assuming to understand it.

Negative rampart...you are making the moral judgement that homosexuality is wrong and comparing it to choosing to commit a crime.

I make a conscious choice to get up every morning and go to work. That doesn't mean you can compare that choice to shooting someone in the face.

[Yurt]

Queers are people who were born heterosexual who at 1 time in their life chose, whether consciously or subconsciously is another debate, to enage in and live the queer choice lifestyle.

People who believe that queers are born that way without nary a shred of irrefuteable evidence saying so are the pathetic morons IMO. Its intellectually bankrupt thinking.

They don't have a bank to begin with...

[OCA]

Your right it does make me sick, but just because I feel that way doesn't mean it's not right.

Pedophilia makes me sick, people who abuse newborn babies makes me sick.......just because they make me sick doesn't mean their wrong.

Lol see how ridiculous you sound?

[OCA]

Do you have irrefuteable proof that it's a choice? The notion that there really aren't any homosexuals, only heterosexuals who choose to engage in homosexuality is one of the most ridiculous ideas put forth by the anti-homosexual folks. Ask any true heterosexual if he could switch hit under ANY circumstances and I'll wager that the answer would be almost unanimously, not only no, but HELL NO!

All people are born heterosexual, you know this.

I've said before, if modern psychology were allowed to delve into the minds of queers i'll bet that there is a wire shorted out that allowed them to make this decision. Not a genetic factor but a mental shortwire just like an autistic person.

[Yurt]

Negative rampart...you are making the moral judgement that homosexuality is wrong and comparing it to choosing to commit a crime.

I make a conscious choice to get up every morning and go to work. That doesn't mean you can compare that choice to shooting someone in the face.

What about a guy that buttfucks another guy, contracts aids because of buttfucking and then has sex with a women because he is a confused person?


Would you cuddle him and tell him it is alright? Tell him that it was not a crime? Sure, go ahead and have ASS sex. The most unclean sex you can have. Go for it. It is your right. Even if you don't have sex with a woman and spread your disease to the rest us, it is your natural right to have ass sex. That is why procreation happens through the ass. The ass is not a means of getting rid of the bodies waste, oh no...

Do you like ass sex? Do you support it?

yes or no

[Missileman]

Ever wanted to hit someone and did not? What was the difference?

Having been born heterosexual, I didn't choose to be attracted to women, I just am. Because I was born heterosexual, I don't feel that sex with a woman is wrong, therefore I cannot compare it to hitting someone.

[OCA]

I will probably catch hell from my son for this one, but I don't believe it is a choice with them. While I was still working, I became very close with about 4 of what you label "queers". In fact I was so friendly with one of them, we discussed this issue. He said he wished it had been another way, but he knew from when he was quite young that he was "different". I also knew a lesbian, whose partner developed breast cancer, and since she was the one who stayed home with the adopted children, she therefore had no insurance coverage. This is where I think equal rights should come into play. I don't say legalize gay marriage, but a civil union which entitles these partners to medical coverage, etc. is just fine by me. You may now feel free to cuss me out!!

Maam do you really believe queers will ever admit they made a choice? No, because in doing so they blow up everything they argue for so of course they will use the cop out " I can't help it".

Now where has your wayward son Johnny been?:salute:

[Missileman]

All people are born heterosexual, you know this.

I don't know that, and neither do you.


I've said before, if modern psychology were allowed to delve into the minds of queers i'll bet that there is a wire shorted out that allowed them to make this decision. Not a genetic factor but a mental shortwire just like an autistic person.

And my personal opinion is also, that it's a mis-wiring that occurs in-utero. Funny how you never hear anyone claiming that autism is a choice though.

[OCA]

I don't know that, and neither do you.



And my personal opinion is also, that it's a mis-wiring that occurs in-utero. Funny how you never hear anyone claiming that autism is a choice though.

There is the other side of the argument that says if the ability to choose the queer lifestyle was due to a MENTAL defect then psychologists should be allowed to treat them.........but alas they are not, the pc crowd shames them into turning a blind eye. Either way queers are fucked.

[Missileman]

There is the other side of the argument that says if the ability to choose the queer lifestyle was due to a MENTAL defect then psychologists should be allowed to treat them.........but alas they are not, the pc crowd shames them into turning a blind eye. Either way queers are fucked.

What kind of treatment might there be for a wiring issue? Seems to me that only a correction of the wiring would work.

[OCA]

I don't know that, and neither do you.





Oh and I do know...biology 101, think biology 101.

[OCA]

What kind of treatment might there be for a wiring issue? Seems to me that only a correction of the wiring would work.

Well whatever the treatment would be whether medical or psychological it should be an available option and not taken out of the playbook which is the current status under APA guidelines.

[glockmail]

Like you've never done it....what a fucking hypocrit! Just like when you toss an insult and then claim someone loses an argument when they return fire.

Truth Tellers = 3
Queer Enablers = 0

And you spelled "hypocrite" wrong-o. :laugh2:

[Missileman]

Well whatever the treatment would be whether medical or psychological it should be an available option and not taken out of the playbook which is the current status under APA guidelines.

Mis-wiring would surely have to be treated medically, not with psychotherapy...least ways I haven't heard of anyone being cured of innate blindness or autism through counseling.

[glockmail]

It was already proven that your conclusions based on couples was illogical and useless. I also presented solid evidence that the figure is more like 3.5%.



I read the entire article, and there isn't a single thing there that says 5% is the "normal" cutoff. Nice try though.


This is perfect proof that your knowledge of basic statistics is lacking. What is really pitiful is that you appear to be the only one that doesn't realize it.

[Missileman]

Truth Tellers = 2
Queer Enablers = 0

And you spelled "hypocrite" wrong-o. :laugh2:

Doesn't change the fact you are one, does it cupcake?

[glockmail]

They don't? Want me to link you to some sick shit that queers do at highway rest stops throughout California? Would that be public enough for you?

Open your eyes.

Masachusetts too. They had to close one place down. Cost the Commonwealth millions.

[glockmail]

Doesn't change the fact you are one, does it cupcake?

SCORE!

Truth Tellers =4
Queer Enablers = 0

:laugh2::laugh2:

[Missileman]

This is perfect proof that your knowledge of basic statistics is lacking. What is really pitiful is that you appear to be the only one that doesn't realize it.

Then kindly point to the part of the article which says "5% is the cutoff for normal" or even a reasonable facsimile of that statement. What's going to be really pitiful is how you will avoid doing so in your next response.

[glockmail]

I don't know that, and neither do you.



And my personal opinion is also, that it's a mis-wiring that occurs in-utero. Funny how you never hear anyone claiming that autism is a choice though.
Funny how we don't have a segment of society lying about autism and ENABLING it. :D

[Yurt]

Having been born heterosexual, I didn't choose to be attracted to women, I just am. Because I was born heterosexual, I don't feel that sex with a woman is wrong, therefore I cannot compare it to hitting someone.

Have you ever felt like hitting someone?

[Missileman]

SCORE!

Truth Tellers =4
Queer Enablers = 0

:laugh2::laugh2:

You can keep score all you wish...you've already demonstrated you either don't really believe it, or think yourself above your own standards. Either way, these posts are as meaningless as the rest of the crap you posit.

[Missileman]

Have you ever felt like hitting someone?

Of course...my "don't do it filter" kicked in because I knew it was wrong. Last night I felt like eating ice cream. My "don't do it filter" stayed silent.

[glockmail]

Then kindly point to the part of the article which says "5% is the cutoff for normal" or even a reasonable facsimile of that statement. What's going to be really pitiful is how you will avoid doing so in your next response.

Dark blue is less than one standard deviation from the mean. For the normal distribution, this accounts for 68.27 % of the set; while two standard deviations from the mean (medium and dark blue) account for 95.45 %; and three standard deviations (light, medium, and dark blue) account for 99.73 %.What's going to be really pitiful is how you will avoid admitting that I am right in your next response.

[glockmail]

You can keep score all you wish...you've already demonstrated you either don't really believe it, or think yourself above your own standards. Either way, these posts are as meaningless as the rest of the crap you posit.

Kindly show us where I have insulted anyone in this thread. :poke:

[Missileman]

What's going to be really pitiful is how you will avoid admitting that I am right in your next response.

I've already told you I read the whole article. You STILL haven't posted anything that says 5% is the cutoff for normal.

[Yurt]

Of course...my "don't do it filter" kicked in because I knew it was wrong. Last night I felt like eating ice cream. My "don't do it filter" stayed silent.

Thank you for proving my point.

What leg are you going to stand on now?

[Missileman]

Kindly show us where I have insulted anyone in this thread. :poke:

Do your insults, double standards, and hypocrisy only count in this thread?

[Missileman]

Thank you for proving my point.

What leg are you going to stand on now?

For someone's "don't do it filter" to kick in, that someone would have to believe they are about to do something wrong. My point is still standing firmly on two feet.

[glockmail]

I've already told you I read the whole article. You STILL haven't posted anything that says 5% is the cutoff for normal.


Wow.

If you can't figger it out how I've demonstrated then at what grade level must I stoop too?

[glockmail]

Do your insults, double standards, and hypocrisy only count in this thread?

I didn't think that you could point out any insults. Nor can you point out that other shit as well.

[5stringJeff]

What's going to be really pitiful is how you will avoid admitting that I am right in your next response.

Bell curves don't prove that homosexuality is abnormal, unless one wants to break one's sexuality into different values. If you are rguing (as I'm sure you are) that homosexuality is a choice, then you've got three options: hetero, bi, or homo. Those three choices wouldn't graph into a bell curve.

[glockmail]

For someone's "don't do it filter" to kick in, that someone would have to believe they are about to do something wrong. My point is still standing firmly on two feet.
Circular reasoning. I see the pattern re-emerging. Next comes hysteria.

[Missileman]

Bell curves don't prove that homosexuality is abnormal, unless one wants to break one's sexuality into different values. If you are rguing (as I'm sure you are) that homosexuality is a choice, then you've got three options: hetero, bi, or homo. Those three choices wouldn't graph into a bell curve.

Guess he'll be insinuating his intellect is greater than yours now too.

[Pale Rider]

Negative rampart...you are making the moral judgement that homosexuality is wrong and comparing it to choosing to commit a crime.

I make a conscious choice to get up every morning and go to work. That doesn't mean you can compare that choice to shooting someone in the face.

You're still twisting the point, even though you admitted in an earlier post that homos make a conscience choice to act out deviant behavior.


The act itself, yep...choice.

I made no reference to morality, however it is immoral. That judgement doesn't come from me, it comes from God.

Life is made up of choices. If someone with the urge to suck another mans dick knows that's wrong, and chooses not to do it, then he in effect, isn't queer. If I get the urge to shoot my neighbor in the face because he pissed me off, but chose not to do it because I know it's wrong, then in effect, I am not a murderer. Choices. They're all the same. They simply effect us in different ways.

[Missileman]

Wow.

If you can't figger it out how I've demonstrated then at what grade level must I stoop too?

Dunno, what grade do they teach interpretation of someone else's figments of imagination?

[glockmail]

Bell curves don't prove that homosexuality is abnormal, unless one wants to break one's sexuality into different values. If you are rguing (as I'm sure you are) that homosexuality is a choice, then you've got three options: hetero, bi, or homo. Those three choices wouldn't graph into a bell curve. I would be modelling sexual deviancy. But the basic concept is the same. Normal is what most people do, and abnormal is what the small minority do. Past 2 SD's is considered abnormal.

[glockmail]

Dunno, what grade do they teach interpretation of someone else's figments of imagination? Kindergarten?

[Yurt]

For someone's "don't do it filter" to kick in, that someone would have to believe they are about to do something wrong. My point is still standing firmly on two feet.

So you can hit anyone you feel like? And don't lie, you know you have at ONE point in your life wanted to.

[Missileman]

Life is made up of choices. If someone with the urge to suck another mans dick knows that's wrong, and chooses not to do it, then he in effect, isn't queer. If I get the urge to shoot my neighbor in the face because he pissed me off, but chose not to do it because I know it's wrong, then in effect, I am not a murderer. Choices. They're all the same. They simply effect us in different ways.

You are making an assumption here. Someone born gay probably doesn't find gay sex wrong. And whether acted on or not, any male with the urge to have sex with another male is queer.

[Missileman]

I would be modelling sexual deviancy. But the basic concept is the same. Normal is what most people do, and abnormal is what the small minority do. Past 2 SD's is considered abnormal.

Quote where it says that in your article.

[Missileman]

So you can hit anyone you feel like? And don't lie, you know you have at ONE point in your life wanted to.

Where did I say that?

[Missileman]

Kindergarten?

Must have been absent on the day they taught Cupcake's Fairy Tales...maybe another poster here can interpret it for me. Let's see if you can find someone else who's read your fluff and thinks it's logical.

[5stringJeff]

I would be modelling sexual deviancy. But the basic concept is the same. Normal is what most people do, and abnormal is what the small minority do. Past 2 SD's is considered abnormal.

I know all about normal distributions, SDs, etc. I'm taking data analysis in graduate school as we speak, not to mention I've studied high-IQ distributions on the side.

You cannot use SD's to model seual orientation, because one's orientation is a yes/no question. It doesn't graph to a bell curve, it graphes to two bars: one small, one about 19-20 times bigger. There are no curves or SDs to calculate.

[Yurt]

Where did I say that?

Do you know what a question mark is???????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????

:)


Now you do...

[Pale Rider]

For someone's "don't do it filter" to kick in, that someone would have to believe they are about to do something wrong. My point is still standing firmly on two feet.

Not true at all. Totally not true. There are multitudes of people that know what they're doing is wrong, and do it anyway., i.e., queers.

[glockmail]

Quote where it says that in your article.


[In this example] ... For the normal distribution, this accounts for 68.27 % of the set; while two standard deviations from the mean (medium and dark blue) account for 95.45 % Actually 31.73% is abnormal by this example in this article. Since every condition is different I am simply being more generous. As usual, no good deed goes unpunished.

[glockmail]

Must have been absent on the day they taught Cupcake's Fairy Tales...maybe another poster here can interpret it for me. Let's see if you can find someone else who's read your fluff and thinks it's logical.


Truth Tellers = 5
Queer Enablers = 0.

[Yurt]

You are making an assumption here. Someone born gay probably doesn't find gay sex wrong. And whether acted on or not, any male with the urge to have sex with another male is queer.

We are talking about ass sex. Why do you shy from it? Do you support it:


Yes

No



Stop dodging with you bull, just answer it.

[glockmail]

I know all about normal distributions, SDs, etc. I'm taking data analysis in graduate school as we speak, not to mention I've studied high-IQ distributions on the side.

You cannot use SD's to model seual orientation, because one's orientation is a yes/no question. It doesn't graph to a bell curve, it graphes to two bars: one small, one about 19-20 times bigger. There are no curves or SDs to calculate.


I went to the same graduate school that you are in now, just a few decades earlier. I was taught not to ignore someone's previous answer. Have the standards changed?

[Pale Rider]

You are making an assumption here. Someone born gay probably doesn't find gay sex wrong. And whether acted on or not, any male with the urge to have sex with another male is queer.

I hope you're not in pain with all the twisting you're doing Mm. I believe you get my point, but will never admit it. I know from experience you'll argue in circles until the cows come home, over the same stuff, time and time again, only with a some recycled spin. It gets old.

I win, and that's it. You're wrong, and we all know it. :D

[nevadamedic]

I hope you're not in pain with all the twisting you're doing Mm. I believe you get my point, but will never admit it. I know from experience you'll argue in circles until the cows come home, over the same stuff, time and time again, only with a some recycled spin. It gets old.

I win, and that's it. You're wrong, and we all know it. :D

This is the one issue your wrong about.

[glockmail]

I hope you're not in pain with all the twisting you're doing Mm. I believe you get my point, but will never admit it. I know from experience you'll argue in circles until the cows come home, over the same stuff, time and time again, only with a some recycled spin. It gets old.

I win, and that's it. You're wrong, and we all know it. :D

You and I both know he's in pain. :laugh2:

[Lightning Waltz]

1. Are you now denying your support of the post 1 issues?

So, let me get this straight. If I don't agree with you, I'm lying?


2. I think you understand I perfectly but want the conversation to go somewhere else.

You claimed that people are homosexual by choice and choice alone. I'm asking if you are heterosexual by choice and choice alone. If so, then are you trying to claim that your up-bringing with no "gay enablers" has taken away your choice to become gay if you so choose now?

Or, are you still capable of becoming gay now, if you choose to?


3. In the case of space travel the goal is betterment of mankind. In the case of queer research the benefit is to 1% of the population.

You totally missed the point.


4. I don’t expect you to believe me, if you can’t accept the obvious. No queer enabler has ever been convinced by me and I have no misconceptions about that. They are too closed-minded. Therefore I choose what I make effort to prove, not you.

You assume that it is "obvious". It is not. Therefore, you have to prove it.

[glockmail]

This is the one issue your wrong about.
No- I've argued with MM about these issues for years on several threads. Its a familiar pattern. Pale Rider called it dead nuts.

[Lightning Waltz]

No- I've argued with MM about these issues for years on several threads. Its a familiar pattern. Pale Rider called it dead nuts.

Pale Rider IS dead nuts....

[nevadamedic]

No- I've argued with MM about these issues for years on several threads. Its a familiar pattern. Pale Rider called it dead nuts.

So? Doesn't mean he's wrong, he just likes to go in circles. He's actaully a pretty cool cat, atleast I think.

[glockmail]

So, let me get this straight. If I don't agree with you, I'm lying?



You claimed that people are homosexual by choice and choice alone. I'm asking if you are heterosexual by choice and choice alone. If so, then are you trying to claim that your up-bringing with no "gay enablers" has taken away your choice to become gay if you so choose now?

Or, are you still capable of becoming gay now, if you choose to?



You totally missed the point.



You assume that it is "obvious". It is not. Therefore, you have to prove it.
1. If you perpetuate the lies, then you are lying.
2. As I have been raised to be normal, I am now incapable of being abnormal, barring a lightning bolt. If I had been fed lies as a young child then it would have been possible for me to choose to be abnormal.
3. No response warranted.
4. Ditto.

[glockmail]

Pale Rider IS dead nuts....
Truth Tellers = 6
Queer Enablers = 0.

:clap:

[glockmail]

So? Doesn't mean he's wrong, he just likes to go in circles. He's actaully a pretty cool cat, atleast I think. He goes in circles because he can not admit that he is wrong. That ain't cool, man.

[nevadamedic]

He goes in circles because he can not admit that he is wrong. That ain't cool, man.

Neither can you though.

[Missileman]

Do you know what a question mark is???????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????

:)


Now you do...

I never even implied it, question mark or no question mark, hence my question, which did as a matter of fact include a question mark. :poke:

[glockmail]

Neither can you though. Bullshit. When I have been wrong I have admitted it graciously. I never circle.

[Missileman]

Actually 31.73% is abnormal by this example in this article. Since every condition is different I am simply being more generous. As usual, no good deed goes unpunished.

Well that can't be right...you've already stated emphatically that abnormal is less than 5%.

[nevadamedic]

Bullshit. When I have been wrong I have admitted it graciously. I never circle.

I have never seen you do it, but if you say you have then i'll take your word for it because the one thing I know your not is a liar.

[glockmail]

I never even implied it, question mark or no question mark, hence my question, which did as a matter of fact include a question mark. :poke:


Well that can't be right...you've already stated emphatically that abnormal is less than 5%.

Nevadamedic: Perfect examples of circling.

MM: Sorry dude, lesson's over on that one.

[glockmail]

I have never seen you do it, but if you say you have then i'll take your word for it because the one thing I know your not is a liar. You haven't seen me do it because I am wrong so little. I appreciate the compliment.

[Missileman]

Not true at all. Totally not true. There are multitudes of people that know what they're doing is wrong, and do it anyway., i.e., queers.

You keep making the same mistake over and over agian. For there to be even a possibility of the "don't do it filter" to kick in, the person HAS to believe that they're doing something wrong. If the person doesn't feel they're doing anything wrong, there's no reason to inhibit the action.

[glockmail]

Circle, circle......

[nevadamedic]

Can we stop going in circles here and get back on the topic?

[Missileman]

We are talking about ass sex. Why do you shy from it? Do you support it:


Yes

No



Stop dodging with you bull, just answer it.

What two consenting adult homosexuals engage in is of no concern to me. I am neither a proponent or opponent of homosexuality.

[glockmail]

Can we stop going in circles here and get back on the topic? Please.

[Missileman]

Nevadamedic: Perfect examples of circling.

MM: Sorry dude, lesson's over on that one.

There's no circling in that answer. I had previously answered a question about hitting someone with a "no" answer and was subsequently asked if that meant I could hit anyone I wanted to. There was no basis for asking the second question since I had already stated that I wouldn't.

So let's get this straight...when you post conflicting arguments, you're trying to teach a lesson?

[Missileman]

You haven't seen me do it because I am wrong so little. I appreciate the compliment.

Pure delusion! :lmao:

Sad or maybe funnier part is you probably really believe it....

[Yurt]

I never even implied it, question mark or no question mark, hence my question, which did as a matter of fact include a question mark. :poke:

If I think about beating the shit out of you, can I?

[Missileman]

If I think about beating the shit out of you, can I?

You can make the attempt, but you need to be prepared for the consequences. :poke:

Do you feel that assault is wrong?

[Pale Rider]

This is the one issue your wrong about.

No, you are wrong. See how that works? I have nature and morality which is the vast majority of people on my side that say I am right. What is it you have on your side? The godless, immoral, homo enablers? You're saying I'm wrong just got thrown down the tiolet. It wasn't worth the bandwidth it took to display it.

[Pale Rider]

You keep making the same mistake over and over agian. For there to be even a possibility of the "don't do it filter" to kick in, the person HAS to believe that they're doing something wrong. If the person doesn't feel they're doing anything wrong, there's no reason to inhibit the action.

Then your argument has disintegrated to the point of saying that homos are all so uneducated and ignorant, that they don't KNOW that a penis does NOT belong shoved up a RECTUM? Is THAT what you're saying?

[Missileman]

Then your argument has disintegrated to the point of saying that homos are all so uneducated and ignorant, that they don't KNOW that a penis does NOT belong in an ASS? Is THAT what you're saying?

I am saying that someone born gay probably doesn't think that gay sex is wrong.

[Pale Rider]

I am saying that someone born gay probably doesn't think that gay sex is wrong.

Just answer my question Mm, no more word games, do you or don't you think that a queer knows that a penis was not made to be insert into a rectum?

[Missileman]

Just answer my question Mm, no more word games, do you or don't you think that a queer knows that a penis was not made to be insert into a rectum?

I'm not playing word games...I told you exactly what I'm saying in the previous post.

Your question is irrelevant to the argument, and I can prove it with another question. Do you think heterosexuals know that a penis wasn't made to be inserted into the mouth?

[glockmail]

There's no circling in that answer. I had previously answered a question about hitting someone with a "no" answer and was subsequently asked if that meant I could hit anyone I wanted to. There was no basis for asking the second question since I had already stated that I wouldn't.

So let's get this straight...when you post conflicting arguments, you're trying to teach a lesson?


Pure delusion! :lmao:

Sad or maybe funnier part is you probably really believe it....
Hmmm... do we take points for nonsense posts?

[glockmail]

I am saying that someone born gay probably doesn't think that gay sex is wrong.
This is a good example of a liberal argument: start with a premise that is wrong then extrapolate from that.

[Lightning Waltz]

1. If you perpetuate the lies, then you are lying.

First of all, wrong.
Second of all, you haven't proven any lies...


2. As I have been raised to be normal, I am now incapable of being abnormal, barring a lightning bolt. If I had been fed lies as a young child then it would have been possible for me to choose to be abnormal.

So, you have "no choice" now. Interesting.
How do you explain periods in society where homosexuals were looked down upon so much greater than they are today, yet, homosexuals have always existed?
How do you explain gay people coming out of families that are just as homophobic as you are?

[glockmail]

First of all, wrong.
Second of all, you haven't proven any lies...



So, you have "no choice" now. Interesting.
How do you explain periods in society where homosexuals were looked down upon so much greater than they are today, yet, homosexuals have always existed?
How do you explain gay people coming out of families that are just as homophobic as you are?


1. My lack of response is due to your lack of argument.
2. There have always been people who rebelled against societal norms for one reason or another.

BTW I conside an accusation of "homophobic" without evidence to be an insult. Use it again as such and the Truth Tellers will gain points.

[Lightning Waltz]

1. My lack of response is due to your lack of argument. What's next: "I know you are but what am I"?
2. There have always been people who rebelled against societal norms for one reason or another.

1. Right back at you, sir.
2. Yes, there have been. But, you claim it's "not possible" for you to do so, because of the way that you were brought up.

If everyone was brought up like you, how could there be people who rebel against societal norms?

How could another child, brought up as you were, become gay?

[glockmail]

1. Right back at you, sir.
2. Yes, there have been. But, you claim it's "not possible" for you to do so, because of the way that you were brought up.

If everyone was brought up like you, how could there be people who rebel against societal norms?

How could another child, brought up as you were, become gay?

2. As I am an individual, there is no statistical legitimacy to using me as some sort of example to compare the population as a whole.

BTW please respond to the edited post.

[Lightning Waltz]

BTW I conside an accusation of "homophobic" without evidence to be an insult. Use it again as such and the Truth Tellers will gain points.

I couldn't really care less about your score keeping...you are hardly the unbiased ref...

[Lightning Waltz]

2. As I am an individual, there is no statistical legitimacy to using me as some sort of example to compare the population as a whole.

Then where are you getting the notion that you know it's a choice to be gay or not, in the first place?

[glockmail]

I couldn't really care less about your score keeping...you are hardly the unbiased ref... Can you point out where I have been unbiased with respect to the score? Remember, I am tallying insults expelled from both side here, nothing more.

[glockmail]

Then where are you getting the notion that you know it's a choice to be gay or not, in the first place? I hardly think that it is my original thought, if that is where you are going.

[Lightning Waltz]

Can you point out where I have been unbiased with respect to the score? Remember, I am tallying insults expelled from both side here, nothing more.

Again, claiming that people are liars IS an insult.

[Lightning Waltz]

I hardly think that it is my original thought, if that is where you are going.

So, where do you get the notion from?

[Missileman]

2. As I am an individual, there is no statistical legitimacy to using me as some sort of example to compare the population as a whole.


Without a doubt, the most intelligent thing you've ever said. But, gather enough of the individual information and you do get statistical legitimacy. So far, I haven't heard a single heterosexual say they might consider switch hitting.

[glockmail]

Again, claiming that people are liars IS an insult. This issue was addressed earlier. Don't insult my intelligence. :D

[glockmail]

So, where do you get the notion from?
As answered previously.

[glockmail]

Without a doubt, the most intelligent thing you've ever said. But, gather enough of the individual information and you do get statistical legitimacy. So far, I haven't heard a single heterosexual say they might consider switch hitting. I appreciate the compliment, but your question does not address the issue.

I suspect that most queers get wired that way during their younger years, when they are the most impressionable. If not taught that something is wrong they may go that way. Or if taught it is wrong but have a desire to rebel, they may go that way.

I think the instance of adults rebbelling to choose queerness is very low, but an example case is a divorsee that chooses to insult her ex husband by turning lesbian.

[diuretic]

Laws are irrelevant. Gays will be gays, bisexuals will be bisexuals and heterosexuals will be heterosexuals.

The criminal law will continue to be used to prosecute and imprison those who society deem need to be imprisoned. If society deems that a couple of gay men should be imprisoned for having consensual sex with each other then so be it.

The civil law will continue to be used to control society. If two men or two women wish to have their domestic relationship recognised by the state and the state says it shouldn't be recognised then that's that.

Until the law is changed of course.

[glockmail]

Laws are irrelevant. Gays will be gays, bisexuals will be bisexuals and heterosexuals will be heterosexuals.

The criminal law will continue to be used to prosecute and imprison those who society deem need to be imprisoned. If society deems that a couple of gay men should be imprisoned for having consensual sex with each other then so be it.

The civil law will continue to be used to control society. If two men or two women wish to have their domestic relationship recognised by the state and the state says it shouldn't be recognised then that's that.

Until the law is changed of course.

In the US there is no federal law against queer marraige. In the past one was not needed, as common sense prevailed. Over time, the queer lobby has perpetuated the lies stated in post 1, causing an erosion of decency and common sense. Now we have liberal judges and even liberal city mayors declaring at whim that queers can get married. That's why there is a push for a constitutional ammendment defining marraige as between one man and one woman.

[Lightning Waltz]

This issue was addressed earlier. Don't insult my intelligence. :D

It was not addressed. Don't insult mine.

[Lightning Waltz]

As answered previously.

Subjective opinion. Gotcha.

[glockmail]

It was not addressed. Don't insult mine.
Post 70.

[glockmail]

Subjective opinion. Gotcha.

It's refreshing that you admit that "gotcha" is your goal, but mine is "truth".

[Lightning Waltz]

Six years ago it was considere an insult. But after the mantra of "Bush Lied" by tolerant, honest, America-loving liberals, I naturally figgered that it was no longer considered as such. If you feel insulted than I'm sorry that you feel that way. :D

That in no way proves that calling someone a liar isn't an insult. Even you can't be that intellectually dishonest...or can you be?

[Lightning Waltz]

It's refreshing that you admit that "gotcha" is your goal, but mine is "truth".

Nice spin. I was saying "Gotcha", as in, "I understand".

But, you aren't looking for the truth. Anyone that disagrees with you, you label as being a liar. That is in no way, "looking for the truth".

[glockmail]

That in no way proves that calling someone a liar isn't an insult. Even you can't be that intellectually dishonest...or can you be? Again, due to the tone set by liberals in the past six years, I do not. And again, if you feel insulted then I'm sorry that you feel that way. If you feel so strongly the other way then I suggest you start a new thread about that instead of trying to derail this one.

[glockmail]

Nice spin. I was saying "Gotcha", as in, "I understand".

But, you aren't looking for the truth. Anyone that disagrees with you, you label as being a liar. That is in no way, "looking for the truth".

OK. Gotcha.

[Lightning Waltz]

Again, due to the tone set by liberals in the past six years, I do not. And again, if you feel insulted then I'm sorry that you feel that way. If you feel so strongly the other way then I suggest you start a new thread about that instead of trying to derail this one.

You asked why I didn't consider your score-keeping of any value. I simply responded. Don't accuse me of trying to derail anything. You post something, especially a question, expect a response.

[glockmail]

You asked why I didn't consider your score-keeping of any value. ..... I never asked that.

[Lightning Waltz]

Can you point out where I have been unbiased with respect to the score? Remember, I am tallying insults expelled from both side here, nothing more.

Really?

[glockmail]

Really? Yup. I never asked what you assert that I asked. Case closed, move on to the thread topic, please.

[Lightning Waltz]

Yup. I never asked what you assert that I asked. Case closed, move on to the thread topic, please.

Why do I asert that your score-keeping is of no value? Well, I already explained that. It's because you're a biased ref. To which you asked, as I quoted above, how I thought you were a biased ref.

How would you like your crow served?

[glockmail]

.....

How would you like your crow served? With two Molson Dry and an Arturo Fuente Corona Imperial.

[Hagbard Celine]

There is no such amendment. Even if there was, marriage "IS" the holy union between a man and a woman, not two homos.

How about the fags trying to make "ANY" speech against what they do and are "illegal?" Isn't that descrimination against the hetero community by the homos?

You don't remember voting for or against this amendment? The Constitutional Amendment was defeated. The fact that we actually had a national vote on the issue is what's telling about the state of our national psyche. And you're right, marriage is a "holy" union and therefore not something the state should entwine itself in--or try to ban with constitutional amendments.

I don't follow you on the second part. Could you please reword your question?

[Lightning Waltz]

And you're right, marriage is a "holy" union and therefore not something the state should entwine itself in--or try to ban with constitutional amendments.

The problem with that, of course, is that the state and businesses assign a lot of rights and benefits to partners in a married couple that aren't assigned to partners in a non-married couple. This kind of discrimination should not be sanctioned under the government.

[Hagbard Celine]

The problem with that, of course, is that the state and businesses assign a lot of rights and benefits to partners in a married couple that aren't assigned to partners in a non-married couple. This kind of discrimination should not be sanctioned under the government.

Yeah, yeah. We've all discussed this before a million times. I'm for state-sanctioned civil unions between hetero and homo couples. I say give homos the same rights hetero couples get--marriage license, tax stuff, power of attorney, shared healthcare, the works. I don't see why they shouldn't get them--this is what they're after anyway. The word "marriage" should be taken out of the legislation because it has religious implications.

[Lightning Waltz]

Yeah, yeah. We've all discussed this before a million times. I'm for state-sanctioned civil unions between hetero and homo couples. I say give homos the same rights hetero couples get--marriage license, tax stuff, power of attorney, shared healthcare, the works. I don't see why they shouldn't get them--this is what they're after anyway. The word "marriage" should be taken out of the legislation because it has religious implications.

Unless, of course, there are churches that are willing to marry homosexuals, right? Then, they should be called marriage when married under those churches.

Otherwise, I completely agree with you.

[glockmail]

The problem with that, of course, is that the state and businesses assign a lot of rights and benefits to partners in a married couple that aren't assigned to partners in a non-married couple. This kind of discrimination should not be sanctioned under the government.


I would argue that the goverment has an obligation to this bedrock of civilization.

[Lightning Waltz]

I would argue that the goverment has an obligation to this bedrock of civilization.

Me too.

[glockmail]

Yeah, yeah. We've all discussed this before a million times. I'm for state-sanctioned civil unions between hetero and homo couples. I say give homos the same rights hetero couples get--marriage license, tax stuff, power of attorney, shared healthcare, the works. I don't see why they shouldn't get them--this is what they're after anyway. The word "marriage" should be taken out of the legislation because it has religious implications.

I would argue that an unnatural union between humans should not be sanctioned in any way by the government.

[Hagbard Celine]

Unless, of course, there are churches that are willing to marry homosexuals, right? Then, they should be called marriage when married under those churches.

Otherwise, I completely agree with you.

Another circumstance I've mentioned before.. You're right. Even here the government has no say because these ceremonies are religious.

The government only has say over the legal rights gays would get if they were granted civil unions. I think it's wrong to deny them these rights as they seem to genuinely love their partners.

[glockmail]

Another circumstance I've mentioned before.. You're right. Even here the government has no say because these ceremonies are religious.

The government only has say over the legal rights gays would get if they were granted civil unions. I think it's wrong to deny them these rights as they seem to genuinely love their partners.

I genuinely love my dog. In fact she's like one of the kids. Why can't she get benefits of my family health insurance?

[Lightning Waltz]

I genuinely love my dog. In fact she's like one of the kids. Why can't she get benefits of my family health insurance?

I can lock up my dog in a 2 foot by 2 foot steel cage and feed it nothing but dog food and water.

Why can't I do that to my kid?

[glockmail]

I can lock up my dog in a 2 foot by 2 foot steel cage and feed it nothing but dog food and water.

Why can't I do that to my kid?
What's your point?

[Lightning Waltz]

What's your point?

A pet isn't analogous to a human family member.

[Hagbard Celine]

I genuinely love my dog. In fact she's like one of the kids. Why can't she get benefits of my family health insurance?

She's not human genius.

[nevadamedic]

:popcorn:

[Hagbard Celine]

:popcorn:

Deep within the shadows of Debate Policy, nevadamedic lurks...

[nevadamedic]

Deep within the shadows of Debate Policy, nevadamedic lurks...

:laugh2:

[glockmail]

A pet isn't analogous to a human family member.


She's not human genius.

So what? The reason I gave for wanting her to have benefits is the exact same reason y'all gave for wanting queers to have benefits.

[nevadamedic]

So what? The reason I gave for wanting her to have benefits is the exact same reason y'all gave for wanting queers to have benefits.

GAY people.

[Hagbard Celine]

So what? The reason I gave for wanting her to have benefits is the exact same reason y'all gave for wanting queers to have benefits.

If you don't see the difference between your dog and gay people, you're beyond helping.

[glockmail]

If you don't see the difference between your dog and gay people, you're beyond helping. I obviously know the difference and don't appreciate your condescension. But if you can't deal with the thread issues being discussed I supose that you have to vent somehow. I'm glad to be here for you. :D

[nevadamedic]

:popcorn:

[theHawk]

Yeah, yeah. We've all discussed this before a million times. I'm for state-sanctioned civil unions between hetero and homo couples. I say give homos the same rights hetero couples get--marriage license, tax stuff, power of attorney, shared healthcare, the works. I don't see why they shouldn't get them--this is what they're after anyway. The word "marriage" should be taken out of the legislation because it has religious implications.

Nothing stops gays from getting married in churchs willing to perform it for them. Why should homos get the same tax breaks as married people? Power of attorney can be given to anyone you want, all it takes is signing a paper. Shared healthcare? Why should health providers be expected to provide insurance to a group of people that are at really high risk for HIV and other STDs? What this is really about is forcing the rest of America to recognize it, condone it, and to teach our children its perfectly acceptable to be gay....when we all know it isn't.

[Kathianne]

Nothing stops gays from getting married in churchs willing to perform it for them. Why should homos get the same tax breaks as married people? Power of attorney can be given to anyone you want, all it takes is signing a paper. Shared healthcare? Why should health providers be expected to provide insurance to a group of people that are at really high risk for HIV and other STDs? What this is really about is forcing the rest of America to recognize it, condone it, and to teach our children its perfectly acceptable to be gay....when we all know it isn't.

Well some 'want it?' wahhhh!

[Pale Rider]

How about the fags trying to make "ANY" speech against what they do and are "illegal?" Isn't that discrimination against the hetero community by the homos?


I don't follow you on the second part. Could you please reword your question?

I thought it was pretty clear.

There have been several attempts by the homo community to make it illegal to utter anything against them, i.e., I'm standing in a line at a grocery store and I say, "I think queers are sick," well the queers want "my opinion" to be labeled "hate speech." Is that right?

[glockmail]

Well some 'want it?' wahhhh!
Frankly I don't see why we need to change the current laws to suit the wishes of 1% of the population that is queer.

[Missileman]

I suspect that most queers get wired that way during their younger years, when they are the most impressionable. If not taught that something is wrong they may go that way. Or if taught it is wrong but have a desire to rebel, they may go that way.

Based on what? If true, how does this explain the majority of homosexuals coming from your average heterosexual household?


I think the instance of adults rebbelling to choose queerness is very low, but an example case is a divorsee that chooses to insult her ex husband by turning lesbian.

It doesn't occur to you that she divorced her husband because she was a lesbian all along and grew tired of denying it? And when was the last time you heard of a man getting even with his ex-wife by taking one up the ass? I'd say homosexuality for rebellion's sake is probably closer to non-existent.

[nevadamedic]

:popcorn:

[glockmail]

Based on what? If true, how does this explain the majority of homosexuals coming from your average heterosexual household?



It doesn't occur to you that she divorced her husband because she was a lesbian all along and grew tired of denying it? And when was the last time you heard of a man getting even with his ex-wife by taking one up the ass? I'd say homosexuality for rebellion's sake is probably closer to non-existent.


Based on ancedotal evidence: queers that I have known. They've all been rebellious about their childhood, "average" family life, divorced parents, or other.

No, I've never heard of an ex-husband taking it up the ass. If he did, the wife would say have the last laugh for sure. :laugh2:

[glockmail]

:popcorn: Haven't gotten your fill of that stuff yet? Geez- by now you should be 350 pounds.

[nevadamedic]

Haven't gotten your fill of that stuff yet? Geez- by now you should be 350 pounds.

Hey im only at 325 :laugh2:

[Hagbard Celine]

I thought it was pretty clear.

There have been several attempts by the homo community to make it illegal to utter anything against them, i.e., I'm standing in a line at a grocery store and I say, "I think queers are sick," well the queers want "my opinion" to be labeled "hate speech." Is that right?

No that's not right. I also think that those pushing for this inititive, if there even are any, are a very small minority within the gay community--and thus, not anything you should worry about.

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