View Full Version : Question
Guernicaa
10-01-2007, 08:32 PM
If you knew a man was gay (say you worked with him) or you knew him from someplace and you had to be near him frequently, and he really pissed you off one day to the point where you called him a name, would you call him a "faggot"????
You could call him anything...a dumb fucker...a shit head...a piece of shit..a bitch even....but would you choose to call him a faggot knowing that he was gay?
MtnBiker
10-01-2007, 08:33 PM
No, nothing constructive would come of it.
stephanie
10-01-2007, 08:37 PM
I have a homosexual nephew, and I love him very much..
If he pissed me off, I'd probably call him a shithead and :slap:the shit out of him....:coffee:
Guernicaa
10-01-2007, 08:44 PM
I have a homosexual nephew, and I love him very much..
If he pissed me off, I'd probably call him a shithead and :slap:the shit out of him....:coffee:
Lemme ask you this then stephanie...
Do you think hes going to hell?
stephanie
10-01-2007, 08:52 PM
Lemme ask you this then Stephanie...
Do you think hes going to hell?
That's not for me to call..
But, no I don't..
He's a wonderful kid, with a heart of gold..
BoogyMan
10-01-2007, 08:53 PM
If you knew a man was gay (say you worked with him) or you knew him from someplace and you had to be near him frequently, and he really pissed you off one day to the point where you called him a name, would you call him a "faggot"????
You could call him anything...a dumb fucker...a shit head...a piece of shit..a bitch even....but would you choose to call him a faggot knowing that he was gay?
Obama08, not everyone falls prey to their baser instincts and uses name-calling as a tool to express their internal angst.
wait for it
wait for it
wait for it
Doofus!
Bwahahahahahah
Cheyenne
10-01-2007, 09:34 PM
Lemme ask you this then stephanie...
Do you think hes going to hell?Sin separates us from God. The end result is permanent separation. Therefore since all of us sin, how prudent would be to say yes?
manu1959
10-01-2007, 09:54 PM
If you knew a man was gay (say you worked with him) or you knew him from someplace and you had to be near him frequently, and he really pissed you off one day to the point where you called him a name, would you call him a "faggot"????
You could call him anything...a dumb fucker...a shit head...a piece of shit..a bitch even....but would you choose to call him a faggot knowing that he was gay?
i use the same four letter word for these folks male or female gay or straight and it is preceeded with fucking and starts with a C....
If you were on a bus full of homos, would you beat them off?
actsnoblemartin
10-02-2007, 02:03 AM
No I would not.
If you knew a man was gay (say you worked with him) or you knew him from someplace and you had to be near him frequently, and he really pissed you off one day to the point where you called him a name, would you call him a "faggot"????
You could call him anything...a dumb fucker...a shit head...a piece of shit..a bitch even....but would you choose to call him a faggot knowing that he was gay?
Sitarro
10-02-2007, 03:24 AM
If you knew a man was gay (say you worked with him) or you knew him from someplace and you had to be near him frequently, and he really pissed you off one day to the point where you called him a name, would you call him a "faggot"????
You could call him anything...a dumb fucker...a shit head...a piece of shit..a bitch even....but would you choose to call him a faggot knowing that he was gay?
I have worked with homos, I have had good friends who were into homo sex and yes I called them all of those things including faggot, they didn't give a shit, they called me pet names back...... they are just words and words can only hurt you if you let them....... sand nigger.:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:
actsnoblemartin
10-02-2007, 03:40 AM
I only call heteros fag, because its funny, and not the way your thinking
stephanie
10-02-2007, 03:48 AM
I have worked with homos, I have had good friends who were into homo sex and yes I called them all of those things including faggot, they didn't give a shit, they called me pet names back...... they are just words and words can only hurt you if you let them....... sand nigger.:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:
I agree...
:laugh2:
actsnoblemartin
10-02-2007, 04:05 AM
That would provey our not homophobic :laugh2:
If you were on a bus full of homos, would you beat them off?
If you knew a man was gay (say you worked with him) or you knew him from someplace and you had to be near him frequently, and he really pissed you off one day to the point where you called him a name, would you call him a "faggot"????
You could call him anything...a dumb fucker...a shit head...a piece of shit..a bitch even....but would you choose to call him a faggot knowing that he was gay?
I would've called him faggot and told him to stay away from my sons long before this.
Not trying to help this poor soul out of his suicidal lifestyle choice would be the real unforgiveable sin.
Lemme ask you this then stephanie...
Do you think hes going to hell?
I don't think, I know, without repenting from his queer lifestyle choice he is without doubt going straight to hell.
GW in Ohio
10-02-2007, 03:04 PM
I would've called him faggot and told him to stay away from my sons long before this.
Not trying to help this poor soul out of his suicidal lifestyle choice would be the real unforgiveable sin.
Wow. Some of you conservative guys just astound me. It's almost incomprehensible how anyone can be so insensitive and nasty.
darin
10-02-2007, 03:18 PM
Wow. Some of you conservative guys just astound me. It's almost incomprehensible how anyone can be so insensitive and nasty.
It's insensitive to want to HELP people turn from their destructive behaviour?
It's simply INHUMANE to give ppl a free pass SIMPLY because the truth hurts their feelings.
mrg666
10-02-2007, 03:23 PM
Obama08, not everyone falls prey to their baser instincts and uses name-calling as a tool to express their internal angst.
wait for it
wait for it
wait for it
Doofus!
Bwahahahahahah
if the man was bauld , fat , ugly , black , jewish , hisspanic , what would you call him / her it's the first thing people latch onto its a weakness they think they have established so if you no they are gay then well
stephanie
10-02-2007, 03:23 PM
Wow. Some of you conservative guys just astound me. It's almost incomprehensible how anyone can be so insensitive and nasty.
:rolleyes:
Guernicaa
10-02-2007, 03:25 PM
It's insensitive to want to HELP people turn from their destructive behaviour?
It's simply INHUMANE to give ppl a free pass SIMPLY because the truth hurts their feelings.
The truth? You mean your opinions?
The bible is not "truth"...You believe its true, but that doesn't make it.
The sooner you realize that the sooner you'll use reason.
Saying the bible is "true" is saying you have an IQ thats lower than a retard.
But saying that you believe the bible to be true is a testament to your faith and is entirely your own personal choice.
Your choice to believe a story is the same as a persons choice to have sex with a partner of their same gender.
Hagbard Celine
10-02-2007, 03:26 PM
If you knew a man was gay (say you worked with him) or you knew him from someplace and you had to be near him frequently, and he really pissed you off one day to the point where you called him a name, would you call him a "faggot"????
You could call him anything...a dumb fucker...a shit head...a piece of shit..a bitch even....but would you choose to call him a faggot knowing that he was gay?
No, don't call him that. You'll get fired or sued. Seriously.
Guernicaa
10-02-2007, 03:28 PM
:rolleyes:
Uh I believe he was sticking up for your nephew so I wouldn't roll your eyes.
I too have many homosexual friends, do I understand it - No. But as long as they don't try to push their life style on me, why should I care? They happen to be some of the kindest people I know. One of my finest capers at work was being in the office of one of my gay bosses, and very nonchalantly, asking about his new dog - I said "and how is that faggot dog of yous". I never heard him laugh so hard. He told me it was the first time he ever saw me speechless!!
And as for you my man OCA, "let he among you who is without sin, cast the first stone".
Now I will shut the hell up!
stephanie
10-02-2007, 04:00 PM
Uh I believe he was sticking up for your nephew so I wouldn't roll your eyes.
No one needs to stick up for my nephew...He's a big boy..:poke:
I too have many homosexual friends, do I understand it - No. But as long as they don't try to push their life style on me, why should I care? They happen to be some of the kindest people I know. One of my finest capers at work was being in the office of one of my gay bosses, and very nonchalantly, asking about his new dog - I said "and how is that faggot dog of yous". I never heard him laugh so hard. He told me it was the first time he ever saw me speechless!!
And as for you my man OCA, "let he among you who is without sin, cast the first stone".
Now I will shut the hell up!
*picks up rock and throws it*:laugh2:
hjmick
10-02-2007, 04:27 PM
*picks up rock and throws it*:laugh2:
One day while Jesus was walking along, he came across a group of people who were about to stone a prostitute to death. He stopped them, saying "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone". The crowd started to disperse, when a little old lady in the crowd let fly with a large rock, which hit the prostitute on the side of the head. Jesus turned to her and said, "Sometimes you really piss me off, Mother"
darin
10-02-2007, 04:30 PM
The truth? You mean your opinions?
The bible is not "truth"...You believe its true, but that doesn't make it.
The sooner you realize that the sooner you'll use reason.
Saying the bible is "true" is saying you have an IQ thats lower than a retard.
But saying that you believe the bible to be true is a testament to your faith and is entirely your own personal choice.
Your choice to believe a story is the same as a persons choice to have sex with a partner of their same gender.
The bible has nothing to do with my Answer.
The bible does NOT need my belief to be true. Ad Hominem all you like - it doesn't make your argument stronger.
The bible has nothing to do with my Answer.
The bible does NOT need my belief to be true. Ad Hominem all you like - it doesn't make your argument stronger.
Obama simply cannot accept that even without religion involved and based upon facts alone homosexuality is in all categories detrimental, so he has to bring religion in in a fruitless attempt to steer the conversation away from these facts.
He's young, dumb and full of cum but he'll come around with age.
5stringJeff
10-02-2007, 07:35 PM
Saying the bible is "true" is saying you have an IQ thats lower than a retard.
The Bible is "true."
And my IQ is verifiably much higher than a retard's.
(P.S. I did that just to prove you wrong.)
The truth? You mean your opinions?
The bible is not "truth"...You believe its true, but that doesn't make it.
The sooner you realize that the sooner you'll use reason.
Saying the bible is "true" is saying you have an IQ thats lower than a retard.
But saying that you believe the bible to be true is a testament to your faith and is entirely your own personal choice.
Your choice to believe a story is the same as a persons choice to have sex with a partner of their same gender.
Wait a minute, how do you know it is not true? Where is your undisputed evidence?
Howz the bus ride coming...
Guernicaa
10-02-2007, 08:41 PM
The bible has nothing to do with my Answer.
The bible does NOT need my belief to be true. Ad Hominem all you like - it doesn't make your argument stronger.
Ok then, would you like to explain to me how anal sex is "destructive behavior" considering its now becoming widespread in both hetero and homo couples?
How about oral sex. Please explain to me the destructivness in oral sex.
Is it destructive because you don't get it at night?
Perhaps thats why you cling to the church. It helps you embody what you don't like about yourself and tells you that that stuff is wrong to begin with.
excuses, excuses, excuses :laugh2:
Guernicaa
10-02-2007, 08:44 PM
Obama simply cannot accept that even without religion involved and based upon facts alone homosexuality is in all categories detrimental, so he has to bring religion in in a fruitless attempt to steer the conversation away from these facts.
He's young, dumb and full of cum but he'll come around with age.
OCA has homosexuality, actually no, let me be more specific:
Pedophilia in his roots.
OCA saying homosexuality is bad is like the children of Nazi's saying the holocaust never happened.
Guernicaa
10-02-2007, 08:47 PM
The Bible is "true."
Uh no, you believe its true.
Stop while you're ahead. You're only making my point stand out more.
Guernicaa
10-02-2007, 08:50 PM
Wait a minute, how do you know it is not true? Where is your undisputed evidence?
Howz the bus ride coming...
Hello Yurt.
I'm glad to see you lowered yourself another 5 steps on the retard meter since we last talked.
Well thats a good question. Where is the evidence?
Perhaps the better question is:
Where's the evidence that its true?
Until we get that, theres no point in discussing it as anything more than stories made to explain things that science at the time could not.
TheyLive
10-02-2007, 09:05 PM
Hello Yurt.
I'm glad to see you lowered yourself another 5 steps on the retard meter since we last talked.
Well thats a good question. Where is the evidence?
Perhaps the better question is:
Where's the evidence that its true?
Until we get that, theres no point in discussing it as anything more than stories made to explain things that science at the time could not.
The burden of proof is usually on whomever makes the original claim. It's not anybody else's job to disprove unsubstantiated claims. And, needless to say, there is no obligation to accept something that cannot be persuasively supported.
Sitarro
10-02-2007, 09:07 PM
I'm curious Obama, how would science explain the way Jack (gay) White can take any guitar, no matter how great of quality and make it sound like something bought for 29 dollars in China? White Stripes are easily the most amateurish joke in music today........ and you've fallen for it.:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:
JackDaniels
10-02-2007, 09:19 PM
I'm curious Obama, how would science explain the way Jack (gay) White can take any guitar, no matter how great of quality and make it sound like something bought for 29 dollars in China? White Stripes are easily the most amateurish joke in music today........ and you've fallen for it.:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:
Translation: Sitarro does not have the intellectual capacity to debate using facts, so he goes off on these stupid tangents.
JackDaniels
10-02-2007, 09:20 PM
I don't think, I know, without repenting from his queer lifestyle choice he is without doubt going straight to hell.
Do you base this on any factor besides your belief in a fictional mythological book?
First off, fuck you, my brother is "retarded" and your insult is not becoming. People have forgotten that there really are medically termed people that are "retarded" and have debased the term throwing it around like you.
Obama08;132550]Hello Yurt.
I'm glad to see you lowered yourself another 5 steps on the retard meter since we last talked.
You lost me at hello
Well thats a good question. Where is the evidence?
Perhaps the better question is:
Where's the evidence that its true?
Ah, the circle. I "believe" in the bible and YOU say it is not true. You say, why of course it is not true. I say, prove it since you are so sure. Then you return the "proof" serve. You forget the first rule, I believe and offer proof only as belief, not as masquerading "facts" like you do. Your comments were one of fact. Prove it.
Until we get that, theres no point in discussing it as anything more than stories made to explain things that science at the time could not
Ok, you claim they are stories. Prove it. If I said you murdered my .....friend whatnot..... you would expect more proof from me than you are willing to give. You allege that "stories" are not real and that christianity is false, ok plaintiff, you have the burden, prove your point.
JackDaniels
10-02-2007, 09:24 PM
It's insensitive to want to HELP people turn from their destructive behaviour?
It's simply INHUMANE to give ppl a free pass SIMPLY because the truth hurts their feelings.
How is homosexuality inherently "destructive" ?
Do you base this on any factor besides your belief in a fictional mythological book?
If you believe that the bible is mythological then why the fuck do you care about whether queer choicers go to hell or not since it would be logical that you don't believe in heaven or hell?
Are you another queer choice apologist?
OCA has homosexuality, actually no, let me be more specific:
Pedophilia in his roots.
OCA saying homosexuality is bad is like the children of Nazi's saying the holocaust never happened.
IOW Obama can't nor has he ever been able to counter any anti-queer argument i've ever made so he then makes up fallacies and attacks.
Very bad debating tactic son, very bad.
How is homosexuality inherently "destructive" ?
Question:
If ALL people practiced homosexuality, how would humans continue?
How is homosexuality inherently "destructive" ?
Lower life expectancy, higher rates of physical abuse of "significant others lol", higher rates of drug abuse and suicide and................higher rates of STD which leads to the early mortality.
Need more?
JackDaniels
10-02-2007, 09:29 PM
If you believe that the bible is mythological then why the fuck do you care about whether queer choicers go to hell or not since it would be logical that you don't believe in heaven or hell?
Are you another queer choice apologist?
I am someone who believes it is the responsibility of each individual person in our society to make their own lifestyle choices however they see fit.
To paraphrase Christopher Hitchens, the only thing I regret is that there is not a hell for you to go to.
JackDaniels
10-02-2007, 09:30 PM
Lower life expectancy, higher rates of physical abuse of "significant others lol", higher rates of drug abuse and suicide and................higher rates of STD which leads to the early mortality.
Need more?
None of which are inherent characteristics of homosexuality. Perhaps you need to reread my post or perhaps purchase a dictionary?
I am someone who believes it is the responsibility of each individual person in our society to make their own lifestyle choices however they see fit.
To paraphrase Christopher Hitchens, the only thing I regret is that there is not a hell for you to go to.
Not when those lifestyle choices impact society as a whole.
Prove that homosexuality is inherited and not a choice and then prove its normal and natural.
None of which are inherent characteristics of homosexuality. Perhaps you need to reread my post or perhaps purchase a dictionary?
Sure they are, homosexuality is a lifestyle "choice", that much is fact, all of those things are characteristic of the queer lifestyle once you choose it.
JackDaniels
10-02-2007, 09:35 PM
Not when those lifestyle choices impact society as a whole.
Prove that homosexuality is inherited and not a choice and then prove its normal and natural.
I never claimed homosexuality is inherited, therefore your point is invalid. Try again when you use logic and reason, because you haven't shown any thus far.
JackDaniels
10-02-2007, 09:37 PM
Sure they are, homosexuality is a lifestyle "choice", that much is fact, all of those things are characteristic of the queer lifestyle once you choose it.
Wrong. Perhaps you should look up the term "inherent"
You understand that no educated social scientist would agree with your findings, correct? You are backed by nothing but hatred, bigotry, and more than likely, homosexual feelings of your own.
I never claimed homosexuality is inherited, therefore your point is invalid. Try again when you use logic and reason, because you haven't shown any thus far.
Seeing logic that renders your POV invalid and then falsely claiming that said person who so eloquently stated the logic and reason used neither of those qualities is a poor debating tactic.
You will get eaten alive on this subject like dozens before you, best to stop now. In fact I can almost guess the course this conversation will take cause your side is so predictable.
Wrong. Perhaps you should look up the term "inherent"
You understand that no educated social scientist would agree with your findings, correct? You are backed by nothing but hatred, bigotry, and more than likely, homosexual feelings of your own.
Perhaps you've found that queer gene that modern science has to date been unable to find? If so please share.
By default its a choice.
Wow you jumped ahead to lib queer position #5......if you oppose homosexuality you must be queer yourself.:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:
So predictable, so fucking predictable.
There is nothing inherent in the queer lifestyle since its a choice, but there are learned traits such as the facts on queers i've previously listed.
JackDaniels
10-02-2007, 09:43 PM
Seeing logic that renders your POV invalid and then falsely claiming that said person who so eloquently stated the logic and reason used neither of those qualities is a poor debating tactic.
You will get eaten alive on this subject like dozens before you, best to stop now. In fact I can almost guess the course this conversation will take cause your side is so predictable.
It's interesting to hear such words from someone who so obviously proves to all the logical minded people on this board that you are uneducated and extremely bigoted.
Why do you feel you have the moral superiority to tell people whom they should feel attracted to?
JackDaniels
10-02-2007, 09:46 PM
Perhaps you've found that queer gene that modern science has to date been unable to find? If so please share.
By default its a choice.
Wow you jumped ahead to lib queer position #5......if you oppose homosexuality you must be queer yourself.:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:
So predictable, so fucking predictable.
There is nothing inherent in the queer lifestyle since its a choice, but there are learned traits such as the facts on queers i've previously listed.
You keep going to back to the fact that homosexuality is a choice. You are obviously not a scientist. I am not a scientist.
However, either way it's irrelevant. You know why? Because, lets say for the sake of argument that homosexuality is a choice. Even with that fact considered, there is still no reason you should feel the moral superiority to tell someone that they must behave a certain way because you do not approve of that choice.
Get it?
It's interesting to hear such words from someone who so obviously proves to all the logical minded people on this board that you are uneducated and extremely bigoted.
Why do you feel you have the moral superiority to tell people whom they should feel attracted to?
Not the moral superiority............the moral obligation.
Hey slick, most here agree with me.
The more you use the word bigot to try and bolster your pathetic moral relativist argument the more you get laughed at, you understand that, right?
You keep going to back to the fact that homosexuality is a choice. You are obviously not a scientist. I am not a scientist.
However, either way it's irrelevant. You know why? Because, lets say for the sake of argument that homosexuality is a choice. Even with that fact considered, there is still no reason you should feel the moral superiority to tell someone that they must behave a certain way because you do not approve of that choice.
Get it?
Sure, then why do we tell people that they should not shoot heroin? Heroin is self destructive and damaging to society same as the queer lifestyle.
Hey if it isn't a choice then where is that definitive genetic link?:laugh2:
JackDaniels
10-02-2007, 09:50 PM
Not the moral superiority............the moral obligation.
You do not have the right to impose your morals on people that do not wish to follow. That is authoritarianism, and it has no place in a free society. Do you wish to live in a free society?
Hey slick, most here agree with me.
You do understand that this board is hardly a representative sample of the world, right?
The more you use the word bigot to try and bolster your pathetic moral relativist argument the more you get laughed at, you understand that, right?
If you honestly believe that, you are a horrible person. I'm not gay, and I sometimes get uncomfortable around homosexuality getting shoved in my face. But I'm tolerant enough to know that it's not my place to impose any morality on someone who doesn't follow that morality.
I get uncomfortable when two guys make out right next to me. But guess what? I also get uncomfortable when a white trash man and wife make out next to me. But YOU need to understand that YOUR morality is not THE morality.
JackDaniels
10-02-2007, 09:53 PM
Sure, then why do we tell people that they should not shoot heroin? Heroin is self destructive and damaging to society same as the queer lifestyle.
You do understand there is no valid social science research to support what you're saying, right?
Hey if it isn't a choice then where is that definitive genetic link?:laugh2:
You are building a straw man, which is a very poor debating tactic. Please read my posts closely enough to understand what my point is, because you're showing barely enough reading comprehension to participate...I have NOT even come CLOSE to saying homosexuality isn't a choice...please learn to read.
You do not have the right to impose your morals on people that do not wish to follow. That is authoritarianism, and it has no place in a free society. Do you wish to live in a free society?
You do understand that this board is hardly a representative sample of the world, right?
If you honestly believe that, you are a horrible person. I'm not gay, and I sometimes get uncomfortable around homosexuality getting shoved in my face. But I'm tolerant enough to know that it's not my place to impose any morality on someone who doesn't follow that morality.
I get uncomfortable when two guys make out right next to me. But guess what? I also get uncomfortable when a white trash man and wife make out next to me. But YOU need to understand that YOUR morality is not THE morality.
Freedom run amok will be the downfall of American society.
WE ALL have a moral obligation to oppose things such as homosexuality and like that are of no redeeming value to society and in fact create a downward drag on society.
JackDaniels
10-02-2007, 09:59 PM
Freedom run amok will be the downfall of American society.
This is a fundamental difference that we can not remedy. I believe it is the fabric of our society that each person is allowed free will regarding their own life, even if some people do not like it. My grandparents went nuts when Elvis first shook his hips on Ed Sullivan, and said it would be the downfall of society. We're still here/
WE ALL have a moral obligation to oppose things such as homosexuality and like that are of no redeeming value to society and in fact create a downward drag on society.
This is your opinion, and you have a right to it. However, as long as it's clear that there is no fact in that statement, just opinion, much like my statement in italics above.
You have essentially given up on "proving" homosexuality is wrong and reverted back to your opinion on morality. That's fine.
diuretic
10-02-2007, 10:00 PM
If you knew a man was gay (say you worked with him) or you knew him from someplace and you had to be near him frequently, and he really pissed you off one day to the point where you called him a name, would you call him a "faggot"????
You could call him anything...a dumb fucker...a shit head...a piece of shit..a bitch even....but would you choose to call him a faggot knowing that he was gay?
Probably not. I'm pretty sure I haven't taken a verbal shot at anyone using their sexuality as an insult - there are a lot of other options usually :laugh2:
You do understand there is no valid social science research to support what you're saying, right?
You are building a straw man, which is a very poor debating tactic. Please read my posts closely enough to understand what my point is, because you're showing barely enough reading comprehension to participate...I have NOT even come CLOSE to saying homosexuality isn't a choice...please learn to read.
Sure you are, by saying that science has not done research to support you are in fact disputing it. But let me ask you this, just what evidence could they posibly find? How do you prove that? Don't you think that by never finding the genetic link, even after decades and billions spent on research, that is in fact proving choice?
I do.
Listen rookie, you will follow my leads on this discussion, not the other way around, ok? I read fine, you just don't like being factually refuted. Its ok, taking a debate beatdown so publicly like this must be tough, i've never experienced it but I imagine it must be tough.
This is a fundamental difference that we can not remedy. I believe it is the fabric of our society that each person is allowed free will regarding their own life, even if some people do not like it. My grandparents went nuts when Elvis first shook his hips on Ed Sullivan, and said it would be the downfall of society. We're still here/
This is your opinion, and you have a right to it. However, as long as it's clear that there is no fact in that statement, just opinion, much like my statement in italics above.
You have essentially given up on "proving" homosexuality is wrong and reverted back to your opinion on morality. That's fine.
Given up? :laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:
Still waiting for any refutation from you. Maybe you will think of something tommorrow, doubtful but maybe.
Its nearing the time when I bomb him with links to prove homosexuality destructive and wrong and then he tells me the sources are biased.:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:
Maybe tommorrow.
JackDaniels
10-02-2007, 10:04 PM
Sure you are, by saying that science has not done research to support you are in fact disputing it.
:lol::lol::lol: You don't honestly believe that, do you? You are wrong, and I have taken no position whatsoever on whether homosexuality is a choice, save for mentioning it shouldn't even matter either way, and even if homosexuality is a choice, you are still wrong. Keep building straw men.
ut let me ask you this, just what evidence could they posibly find? How do you prove that? Don't you think that by never finding the genetic link, even after decades and billions spent on research, that is in fact proving choice?
I'm not argument anything regarding homosexuality being a choice, even going so far as to say it really doesn't even matter either way, as it's an irrelevant point in my opinion. Keep building straw men.
I do.
Listen rookie, you will follow my leads on this discussion, not the other way around, ok?
:lol::lol::lol: You can't be serious with this shit. No wonder no one takes you seriously
I read fine, you just don't like being factually refuted. Its ok, taking a debate beatdown so publicly like this must be tough, i've never experienced it but I imagine it must be tough.
(1) You have shown that you are not taking the time to read what I'm saying, because you are completely missing the point on a lot of my points
(2) The only one taking a " debate beatdown" is you
JackDaniels
10-02-2007, 10:06 PM
Given up? :laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:
Still waiting for any refutation from you. Maybe you will think of something tommorrow, doubtful but maybe.
Let me say this slowly...
You are bringing up a point that I have not denied, so how can you look for refutation? How stupid are you?
diuretic
10-02-2007, 10:08 PM
Freedom run amok will be the downfall of American society.
WE ALL have a moral obligation to oppose things such as homosexuality and like that are of no redeeming value to society and in fact create a downward drag on society.
But don't Americans like to think they're the "freest" people in the world? Isn't that a core value? Are you saying that both of those impressions are wrong?
On the second point. What's the origin of that moral authority?
:lol::lol::lol: You don't honestly believe that, do you? You are wrong, and I have taken no position whatsoever on whether homosexuality is a choice, save for mentioning it shouldn't even matter either way, and even if homosexuality is a choice, you are still wrong. Keep building straw men.
I'm not argument anything regarding homosexuality being a choice, even going so far as to say it really doesn't even matter either way, as it's an irrelevant point in my opinion. Keep building straw men.
I do.
:lol::lol::lol: You can't be serious with this shit. No wonder no one takes you seriously
(1) You have shown that you are not taking the time to read what I'm saying, because you are completely missing the point on a lot of my points
(2) The only one taking a " debate beatdown" is you
Nope, got all your erroneous points. Whether its a choice or not IS THE CENTRAL FACTOR especially when considering things such as queer marriage, for if its a choice should we be creating "special rights" based upon individual lifestyle choices?
And regardless of choice or not it is a proven vile and destructive lifestyle, pedophilia is also a thing that people choose to engage in and that is vile and destructive, wanna let that go too?
A civilized society must have standards and parameters set or it will crumble, homosexuality has been set outside those parameters and rightly so.
Let me say this slowly...
You are bringing up a point that I have not denied, so how can you look for refutation? How stupid are you?
Then what is your driving incentive to let people live a lifestyle that is destructive to themselves and to society as a whole?
Is it that you don't give two shits about people? Are you that selfish? I care about people, I oppose homosexuality.
But don't Americans like to think they're the "freest" people in the world? Isn't that a core value? Are you saying that both of those impressions are wrong?
On the second point. What's the origin of that moral authority?
Yes but freedom must have parameters.
Never said moral authority, I said moral obligation.
[QUOTE=JackDaniels;132608
:lol::lol::lol: You can't be serious with this shit. No wonder no one takes you seriously
[/QUOTE]
Yes, no one takes me seriously.:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:
Sitarro
10-02-2007, 10:18 PM
Translation: Sitarro does not have the intellectual capacity to debate using facts, so he goes off on these stupid tangents.
Facts? I said what I wanted to say at the beginning of this thread, what facts are you talking about? I am merely screwing with this little boy and his childish worship of a mediocre guitar noise maker. Who are you to label my tangents?
Jack Daniels eh, everyone I have ever known that was into that shit was an alcoholic........ ring true for you? My friend, the Head of Psychiatric Medicine at a hospital in a major city in the U.S. agrees that you nodoubt have an alcohol problem, how do you like that science bub? Loser drunk!
82Marine89
10-02-2007, 10:18 PM
If you knew a man was gay (say you worked with him) or you knew him from someplace and you had to be near him frequently, and he really pissed you off one day to the point where you called him a name, would you call him a "faggot"????
You could call him anything...a dumb fucker...a shit head...a piece of shit..a bitch even....but would you choose to call him a faggot knowing that he was gay?
I'd either call him a 'fucking faggot' or a 'fucktard'. Only because that's what I call everyone that pisses me off you fucktard.
JackDaniels
10-02-2007, 10:23 PM
Nope, got all your erroneous points. Whether its a choice or not IS THE CENTRAL FACTOR especially when considering things such as queer marriage, for if its a choice should we be creating "special rights" based upon individual lifestyle choices?
You really do not understand the concept of rights.
And regardless of choice or not it is a proven vile and destructive lifestyle, pedophilia is also a thing that people choose to engage in and that is vile and destructive, wanna let that go too?
You like to build straw men, and it only shows how poor your skills in debate are. Once again, you attribute to me something I never said. Therefore, your point is invalid.
A civilized society must have standards and parameters set or it will crumble, homosexuality has been set outside those parameters and rightly so.
You understand that homosexuality acts are legal, right?
JackDaniels
10-02-2007, 10:25 PM
Then what is your driving incentive to let people live a lifestyle that is destructive to themselves and to society as a whole?
Is it that you don't give two shits about people? Are you that selfish? I care about people, I oppose homosexuality.
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
You don't give a shit about people. You have argued nothing except the denial of rights to certain people.
diuretic
10-02-2007, 10:26 PM
Yes but freedom must have parameters.
Never said moral authority, I said moral obligation.
Agreed that any freedom has its limits. The continuing debate is about those limits. And maybe I'm being over-simplistic but I think you can take one of two positions on that.
1. That freedom should be maximised as much as humanly possible and only restricted as much as humanly necessary.
or
2. That freedom is to be dispensed by the authorities who decide what's best.
On the moral obligation. If a moral obligation exists, where did it come from?
JackDaniels
10-02-2007, 10:27 PM
Yes but freedom must have parameters.
Never said moral authority, I said moral obligation.
Your morality is not universal, and that is a FACT
Your arguments echo the Nazis at this point.
Sitarro
10-02-2007, 10:34 PM
Your morality is not universal, and that is a FACT
Your arguments echo the Nazis at this point.
Hey OCA,
It certainly didn't take that long for this idiot to pull out the Nazi card...... like you said, predictable.:laugh2:
JackDaniels
10-02-2007, 10:36 PM
Hey OCA,
It certainly didn't take that long for this idiot to pull out the Nazi card...... like you said, predictable.:laugh2:
Perhaps you should read political theory so you can educate yourself?
Because, there is no doubt that the shoe fits
Sitarro
10-02-2007, 10:40 PM
Perhaps you should read political theory so you can educate yourself?
Because, there is no doubt that the shoe fits
You are nothing but a cliche', go have another fifth.
JackDaniels
10-02-2007, 10:42 PM
You are nothing but a cliche', go have another fifth.
I don't drink very often
82Marine89
10-02-2007, 10:46 PM
Agreed that any freedom has its limits. The continuing debate is about those limits. And maybe I'm being over-simplistic but I think you can take one of two positions on that.
1. That freedom should be maximised as much as humanly possible and only restricted as much as humanly necessary.
or
2. That freedom is to be dispensed by the authorities who decide what's best.
On the moral obligation. If a moral obligation exists, where did it come from?
Probably a poor choice of words on a thread that deals with homosexuality.
JackDaniels
10-02-2007, 10:48 PM
Probably a poor choice of words on a thread that deals with homosexuality.
:laugh2: nice one
diuretic
10-02-2007, 11:10 PM
Probably a poor choice of words on a thread that deals with homosexuality.
Why?
82Marine89
10-02-2007, 11:13 PM
Why?
Seriously?
diuretic
10-02-2007, 11:18 PM
Seriously?
Yes. I mean I didn't say, "you have to tap your foot in two positions on the floor...."
No :laugh2:
82Marine89
10-02-2007, 11:22 PM
:laugh2:
Your morality is not universal, and that is a FACT
Your arguments echo the Nazis at this point.
*yawn* zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Anybody that wants to argue that "special rights" should be granted for queers have anything new to add other than the same old tired bullshit?
Like I said predictable, when they can't win the debate on facts they go to the slander card.
Perhaps you should read political theory so you can educate yourself?
Because, there is no doubt that the shoe fits
Nope, I wear a size 8 and you are trying to put a 14 EEE on me, nice attempt at slinging mud though.
diuretic
10-03-2007, 05:38 AM
I think it's probably a poor choice of words to talk about size in a thread about homosexuality :coffee:
GW in Ohio
10-03-2007, 10:48 AM
Sure they are, homosexuality is a lifestyle "choice", that much is fact, all of those things are characteristic of the queer lifestyle once you choose it.
oca: I believe that men who are as vociferously anti-gay as you are, fall into one of two categories:
They are insecure about their own sexual identity, and see homosexuality as a threat to that identity.
They are themselves latent homosexuals, and their attacks are an attempt to destroy their own latent homosexual tendencies.
As for those who use the Bible to justify an anti-gay agenda, they should not be allowed to vote because they don't meet the minimum requirements for intelligence.
Cheyenne
10-03-2007, 11:17 AM
As for those who use the Bible to justify an anti-gay agenda, they should not be allowed to vote because they don't meet the minimum requirements for intelligence.
And you, Sir, are an insulting boor.
Sitarro
10-03-2007, 11:18 AM
oca: I believe that men who are as vociferously anti-gay as you are, fall into one of two categories:
They are insecure about their own sexual identity, and see homosexuality as a threat to that identity.
They are themselves latent homosexuals, and their attacks are an attempt to destroy their own latent homosexual tendencies.
As for those who use the Bible to justify an anti-gay agenda, they should not be allowed to vote because they don't meet the minimum requirements for intelligence.
Is this shit suppose to be scientific? Predictable.
Those of you that think that homosexual behavior is equal to normal behavior know nothing about human physiology. The architecture of the human body is quite specific and while some organs can be used for other than what they were designed for, continued abuse will break them. Talk to any older homosexual, if you can find one over 50, that walks around with a colostomy bag attached to his belt.
The asshole is designed to hold shit in until it's time to expell it, it's not designed to take a lifetime of inserting gerbils, lightbulbs, winebottles, fists, golf clubs, baseball bats, big black dildoes and penises through it. The sphincter muscles aren't designed for that abuse and weaken over time. The inner walls of the lower intestines aren't designed for that abuse either and tend to tear and bleed..... this is why the homosexual lifestyle has been so efficient at spreading HIV. The asshole area is a dirty place that harbors some nasty bacteria, rip it open and you let these things straight into the blood stream, very effective way to get many different diseases.
That is science and architectural design, two reasons homosexual sex is detrimental to the ones that practice it. Oh and before you say it, it isn't any better for normal people to screw each other in the ass but the big difference is that it is a novelty for them rather than the primary act. I don't really care what people do in the privacy of their homes but when you bring children into it and demand special rights and have your handout for money to correct what you have knowingly done to yourself.........that is a different story.
GW in Ohio
10-03-2007, 11:25 AM
Sitarro: What you say may well be so, but I still believe that homosexual is not a learned behavior....it's innate, i.e., some people are just wired that way.
And I still think OCA is a latent homosexual.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.......
Abbey Marie
10-03-2007, 11:26 AM
Tough to read, Sitarro, but I guess it needs to be spelled out for some.
darin
10-03-2007, 11:34 AM
I wonder if people think Inmates are latent Homosexuals simply needing the proper circumstance to discover their 'real self'?
Abbey Marie
10-03-2007, 12:50 PM
I wonder if people think Inmates are latent Homosexuals simply needing the proper circumstance to discover their 'real self'?
I'm sure that's it! Their lifelong enjoyment of hetero sex was just a front. :laugh2:
Sitarro: What you say may well be so, but I still believe that homosexual is not a learned behavior....it's innate, i.e., some people are just wired that way.
And I still think OCA is a latent homosexual.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.......
Where is your evidence of innate behavior?
As for the rest, predictable, grasping at straws when losing an argument. Its par for the course though with you.
JohnDoe
10-07-2007, 05:35 PM
the Bible is true imho!
all of those laws and verses in the old testament identifying sin of all sorts are true too....
without the Law, we would not know how sinful in nature i suppose, we really all are or how short we fall from the glory of God....
and without the Law, we would not appreciate and know the extent of God's love to send His Son, as our sacraficial lamb....to DIE for ALL of these sins pointed out by the Law, for all of us.
without the LAW and knowing sin, there would be no need for Jesus Christ to be our Messiah, our Savior.
-------------------------------------------------------------
yes, obama, stephanie's nephew is not condemned to hell, at least NOT any more than the rest of us, with our own sins.... we have God to thank, for giving us the Lamb, who taketh AWAY the Sins of the World and has mercy on us.
Immanuel
10-07-2007, 06:08 PM
the Bible is true imho!
all of those laws and verses in the old testament identifying sin of all sorts are true too....
without the Law, we would not know how sinful in nature i suppose, we really all are or how short we fall from the glory of God....
and without the Law, we would not appreciate and know the extent of God's love to send His Son, as our sacraficial lamb....to DIE for ALL of these sins pointed out by the Law, for all of us.
without the LAW and knowing sin, there would be no need for Jesus Christ to be our Messiah, our Savior.
-------------------------------------------------------------
yes, obama, stephanie's nephew is not condemned to hell, at least NOT any more than the rest of us, with our own sins.... we have God to thank, for giving us the Lamb, who taketh AWAY the Sins of the World and has mercy on us.
Well said jd,
Questions for OCA: is homosexuality any worse than any other sin enumerated in the Bible?
You said early in the thread that the nephew was condemned to hell if he did not repent and I think you said turn away from his sins (by the way repent simply means to turn away for any who do not know that) but as a Christian, I would want to ask you to think if you have repented of all your sins and turned away from them? And if not, are you condemned as well?
Do you not believe that a homosexual can believe in Christ and yet still be "trapped" in his or her sin? I am a Christian. I have a temper. Sometimes that temper gets the best of me. Unrighteous anger is I am afraid a sin and if not some of the things I do when my temper controls me clearly are sins. Therefore, by your statements, I too am condemned despite the fact that I do everything I can to defeat my temper.
I agree homosexuality is a sin. I have no doubt about it. So is adultery. Can an adulterer/adulteress not be Christian? Telling lies is a sin does that mean that a politician cannot be saved? Poor George!
Is the Gospel superceded by the Law or the Law superceded by the Gospel? Which saves and which condemns?
Immie
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.