Homosexsuals...

[Vic]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
anyone that tells you it is a choice is probably basing it on their own self experience as a bisexual. closeted or not.

Is that meant to be a homophobic slight? Are you trying to demean those who believe it is choice by alluding that they must be homosexual? Or at least engage in homosexual acts. That's seems pretty obvious, and it's also very hypocritical of you.

 

[Robor]

Come on... A gay person doesn't chose to be gay any more than a straight person chooses to be straight. You are attracted to who you are attracted to and that's the way it is. It's not like you can change what you find attractive.

If any of you out there think different ask yourself if you could change if your personal preference was suddenly labeled a defect or abnormal. Could you switch because what you are attracted to was considered wrong? I doubt it.

 

[tooltime]

not sure i want to know

 

[JASANITY]

People without religion, and are susceptible to the media turn gay. It's for weak-minded fools. another example is prison, ie people get desperate.

 

[Piobaireachd]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Piobaireachd

Originally posted by: Tabb
This is really confusing me, if being "gay" isn't a defect or a disease... Than what is it exactly? Why are some people "gay" and others not? I know being gay is NOT a choice, I know a couple gay people they did not choose this.

I've been told it's like being "alcholic" some people are just more suspectible to becoming a alcholic than others....

Hopefully someone can help me out here..

It's abhorrent and deviant sexual behavior. No, it is not "ok" or "normal".

Oh look, another morally-righteous bigot.

Oh look, another opinionated asshat.

You have absolutely no f*cking idea what my background is. You're just another stereotyping dipsh*t.

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: JASANITY
People without religion, and are susceptible to the media turn gay. It's for weak-minded fools. another example is prison, ie people get desperate.

sex in prison (usually rape) is more about power and much much less about sex. find another example.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
anyone that tells you it is a choice is probably basing it on their own self experience as a bisexual. closeted or not.

Is that meant to be a homophobic slight? Are you trying to demean those who believe it is choice

WHAT is a choice? Sexual orientation? Or sexual behavior? Get you're terminology right, you obfuscating fool.

Originally posted by: Vic
by alluding that they must be homosexual? Or at least engage in homosexual acts. That's seems pretty obvious, and it's also very hypocritical of you.

If you do think *sexual orientation* (i.e., who you are attracted to) is a choice, then you are either:

-stupid

-lying

or

-for you, sexual attractions to a given gender really are a matter of choice and a matter of what you choose to think about and focus on, i.e., you are bisexual and capable of experiencing attractions to both genders.

 

[Piobaireachd]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Piobaireachd
No, it is not "ok".

why not?

It's not ok to teach kids that it is perfectly normal. This doesn't mean that it gives everyone else the right to discriminate or to use violence against gays. What they do in the privacy of their own home is their business and not mine. But to push the agenda that is normal is not correct.

I frankly could care less if they get married or "have" kids. There are more f*cked up hetero marriages and parents than there are gay ones. Many heteros should never have had or have kids. They the gay unions need to be held to the same rules and laws as hetero ones. Same benefits, but also the same responsibilites (divorce, community property, taxes, etc.)

Also, hate crime legislation needs to go away. A crime is a crime no matter what the sexual orientation is of the victim. When you treat one group differently than another it only perpetuates hate and animosity.

But to get back to the topic, homosexuallity by it's definition is deviant (outside of the norm) and should be taught that way in school.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: MowSow
So in conclusion, homosexuality could be normal or genetic, because it will defy the purpose of our existence, which is to be a reproductive tool for the DNA (or RNA is some life forms, like viruses)

This is just my personal analysis, it is both scientific and philosophical.

It is entirely plausible that the genes coding for homosexuality in males are responsible for some form of reproductive advantage in females (explaining why such genes remain in our gene pools):

For example, recent studies indicate that the female relatives of gay males are MORE FERTILE (i.e., have MORE CHILDREN) than the female relatives of heterosexual men. See HERE for a description of this research:

"The researchers discovered that women tend to have more children when they inherit the same - as yet unidentified - genetic factors linked to homosexuality in men. This fertility boost more than compensates for the lack of offspring fathered by gay men, and keeps the ?gay? genetic factors in circulation. The findings represent the best explanation yet for the Darwinian paradox presented by homosexuality: it is a genetic dead-end, yet the trait persists generation after generation. ?We have finally solved this paradox,? says Andrea Camperio-Ciani of the University of Padua. ?The same factor that influences sexual orientation in males promotes higher fecundity in females.?"

The causes of this finding are not known. The researchers think the mechanism is genetic. (I.e., the "gay genes" have quite different effects depending on whether they are being expressed in male or female individuals - the genes that code for homosexuality in males also code for greater fertility in females.)

However an equally plausible mechanism, to my mind, is that homosexual males are likely to participate in raising their female relative's children; this takes some of the burden of child rearing off the female relative, making it easier for her to have more children. I see this happen with my male gay friends all the time: as soon as their sisters start having kids, the gay uncle's are immediately dragged in to do baby-sitting while the mother catches a break or gets out of the house, or does whatever. The point is that having an additional care-giver (a gay brother, or gay son) to assist her with raising her children makes it easier for these women to have MORE children than women who don't have any gay male relatives.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Piobaireachd

Originally posted by: Tabb
This is really confusing me, if being "gay" isn't a defect or a disease... Than what is it exactly? Why are some people "gay" and others not? I know being gay is NOT a choice, I know a couple gay people they did not choose this.

I've been told it's like being "alcholic" some people are just more suspectible to becoming a alcholic than others....

Hopefully someone can help me out here..

It's abhorrent and deviant sexual behavior. No, it is not "ok" or "normal".

In my opinion, homosexual sex is not abhorrent, at all.

In my opinion, homosexual sexual behaviors are perfectly "OK", if by "OK" you mean morally acceptable.

It is true that exclusive homosexual sexual preferences are "deviant", much in the same way that left-handedness is "deviant":

Deviant - someone or something that deviates from the norm

That is, both homosexual sexual preferences and left-handedness are things that differ from the norm. Note that homosexuality and left-handedness occur in all human societies. In fact, it would be "deviant" to discover a human society in which there was no homosexuality.

Homosexual sexual preferences are not "normal" much in the same way that left-handedness is not normal. Rather, both homosexuality and left-handedness represent the preferences or orientations of a small group of people in all human societies.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
anyone that tells you it is a choice is probably basing it on their own self experience as a bisexual. closeted or not.

Is that meant to be a homophobic slight? Are you trying to demean those who believe it is choice

WHAT is a choice? Sexual orientation? Or sexual behavior? Get you're terminology right, you obfuscating fool.

Originally posted by: Vic
by alluding that they must be homosexual? Or at least engage in homosexual acts. That's seems pretty obvious, and it's also very hypocritical of you.

If you do think *sexual orientation* (i.e., who you are attracted to) is a choice, then you are either:

-stupid

-lying

or

-for you, sexual attractions to a given gender really are a matter of choice and a matter of what you choose to think about and focus on, i.e., you are bisexual and capable of experiencing attractions to both genders.

Nope. I just don't think that homosexuality is so abhorrent that people MUST have been born that way in order to justify it.
I also don't believe that people are victims to fate or genetics. Sell that to a weak mind. The gay community would have my complete support if they weren't unwittingly selling the slave agenda.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
anyone that tells you it is a choice is probably basing it on their own self experience as a bisexual. closeted or not.

Is that meant to be a homophobic slight? Are you trying to demean those who believe it is choice

WHAT is a choice? Sexual orientation? Or sexual behavior? Get you're terminology right, you obfuscating fool.

Originally posted by: Vic
by alluding that they must be homosexual? Or at least engage in homosexual acts. That's seems pretty obvious, and it's also very hypocritical of you.

If you do think *sexual orientation* (i.e., who you are attracted to) is a choice, then you are either:

-stupid

-lying

or

-for you, sexual attractions to a given gender really are a matter of choice and a matter of what you choose to think about and focus on, i.e., you are bisexual and capable of experiencing attractions to both genders.

Nope. I just don't think that homosexuality is so abhorrent that people MUST have been born that way in order to justify it.

Who said anything about being born that way? I am saying adult sexual orientation is not consciously chosen. That doesn't necessarily mean you were born with it. It is just as plausible that sexual orientation is established after birth, say in the first 5 years of life. However, regardless of when it is established (before or after birth), and by what mechanism (genetics, hormones, early social/ family environment), the simple FACT remains that sexual orientation is not consciously chosen in adulthood. Anyone who claims that it is, quite simply, a fool or a liar. I.e., Vic -- I am saying you are either a FOOL or a LIAR.

Originally posted by: Vic
I also don't believe that people are victims to fate or genetics.

Um, what exactly do you mean by this?

Sexual orientation can be likened to any enduring, life-long, stable personality trait. Take shyness for example. We know that a shy temperament is in part inherited, but can also be influenced by certain social experiences early in infancy. A shy temperament is observable in very young infants. Individuals with a shy temperament as an infant almost always continue to have that shy temperament in adulthood. The shy temperament INFLUENCES the social behaviors of the individual. Shy people will tend to have fewer friends, go to fewer social events, be more uncomfortable around strangers, etc. The individual still makes CHOICES about how he or she will live his or her life. For example, the individual may force himself to be more social, attend more parties, meet more people, in an effort to counter some of the nagative side-effects of shyness in our society. Nevertheless, the enduring, stable, life-long shy temperament will be with the individual for the course of his or her life.

Similarly, adult sexual orientation is likely mediated by a combination of genetic and early hormonal and social conditions, is often than not visible from early childhood, remains stable throughout the individual's life, and influences the sexual choices the individual makes. Of course, people are perfectly free to spend their life in the closet, pretend to be heterosexual, refrain from gay sex, etc. -- but seeing as homosexual sex is INCREDIBLY ENJOYABLE and PERFECTLY MORALLY DESIRABLE, what possible reason could there be for doing this?

Originally posted by: Vic
Sell that to a weak mind.

You have a weak mind. Specifically, you seem quite unable to wrap your feeble brain around the concept of an enduring, stable personality trait that is established early in life and not consciously chosen, that persists through the course of a life, and (importantly) influences the kinds of choices that will appeal to an individual. There are countless examples of this kind of stable, enduring personality trait: handedness (left- or right-), shyness, extroversion, AND of course sexual orientation.

Originally posted by: Vic
The gay community would have my complete support if they weren't unwittingly selling the slave agenda.

Take your support and shove it.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Piobaireachd

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Piobaireachd
No, it is not "ok".

why not?

It's not ok to teach kids that it is perfectly normal.

Well, homosexual sexual preferences are not the most common sexual preferences, and therefore are not "normal" in the statistical sense.

However homosexual sexual preferences and behaviors are perfectly morally acceptable, in my opinion, and it is very important to let kids know that their homosexual desires are perfectly "OK" and that there is no need to hide them or suppress them.

Originally posted by: Piobaireachd
This doesn't mean that it gives everyone else the right to discriminate or to use violence against gays. What they do in the privacy of their own home is their business and not mine. But to push the agenda that is normal is not correct.

It is important to let gay kids know that their homosexual preferences are perfectly healthy, and that they have nothing to be ashamed about, in my opinion.

Originally posted by: Piobaireachd
I frankly could care less if they get married or "have" kids.

How big of you. :disgust:

Originally posted by: Piobaireachd
There are more f*cked up hetero marriages and parents than there are gay ones. Many heteros should never have had or have kids. They the gay unions need to be held to the same rules and laws as hetero ones. Same benefits, but also the same responsibilites (divorce, community property, taxes, etc.)

Yes, married same-sex couples should be held to the same laws as are married heterosexual couples.

Originally posted by: Piobaireachd
Also, hate crime legislation needs to go away. A crime is a crime no matter what the sexual orientation is of the victim. When you treat one group differently than another it only perpetuates hate and animosity.

Oops, you seem to have lost your brain somewhere.

Originally posted by: Piobaireachd
But to get back to the topic, homosexuallity by it's definition is deviant (outside of the norm) and should be taught that way in school.

Kids hardly need to be taught that homosexuals are in the minority in the community (outside of the norm). Do you advocate teaching that left-handed people, Asians, Jews, are in the minorty in the community? Or is that BLEEDING OBVIOUS??

However it is important to let kids no that there is no necessary moral condemnation attached to homosexuality, that it is perfectly normal for at elast some people to have homosexual desires, and that kids who are gay have nothing to be ashamed about and shouldn't feel the need to be silent about their preferences.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: JASANITY
People without religion, and are susceptible to the media turn gay.

People who had religion rammed down their throat by the culture surrounding them, or who are subject to religious brainwashing from an early age, are susceptible to develop into homophobic bigots.

Originally posted by: JASANITY
It's for weak-minded fools.

I wonder why some people are homophobes, and some are not. Is it stupidity? Weak-mindedness? Something else? I don't know.

Originally posted by: JASANITY
another example is prison, ie people get desperate.

[/quote]

A homosexual sexual orientation doesn't have anything to do with desperation.

 

[Vic]

"Wah! It's not my fault! I'm a victim! Wah!"

:roll:

You people would be hilarious if you weren't so sad. For once wake up and realize that you are a member of the most powerful, most intelligent species of life that we know of in the universe.


Anyway, I already argued FOR early childhood impression in this thread and got flamed for it, and was told that "born that way" meant genetics only. If we're going back to early childhood impression then of course I believe that. Most people spend their whole lives trying to overcome emotionally the pain they suffered when very young.

In fact my first response in this thread, answering the OP's question as to why gays were gay and he was straight, was "Because when you were a little boy, your parents told you that you should like little girls. That is all. "
And the response I received from 3chordcharlie was "Pure bullsh!t."
However, if you now wish to accept this simple factual reality of early childhood impression, that's fine by me, but recognize that I have mentioned it repeatedly on this board and been told every time that it is part of the "choice" argument and not accepted by those who believe in the "born that way" argument.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Piobaireachd

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Piobaireachd

Originally posted by: Tabb
This is really confusing me, if being "gay" isn't a defect or a disease... Than what is it exactly? Why are some people "gay" and others not? I know being gay is NOT a choice, I know a couple gay people they did not choose this.

I've been told it's like being "alcholic" some people are just more suspectible to becoming a alcholic than others....

Hopefully someone can help me out here..

It's abhorrent and deviant sexual behavior. No, it is not "ok" or "normal".

Oh look, another morally-righteous bigot.

Oh look, another opinionated asshat.

You have absolutely no f*cking idea what my background is. You're just another stereotyping dipsh*t.

No need to hear about your background to understand you are a "morally righteous bigot" I guess.

 

[Piobaireachd]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Piobaireachd

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Piobaireachd
No, it is not "ok".

why not?

It's not ok to teach kids that it is perfectly normal.

Well, homosexual sexual preferences are not the most common sexual preferences, and therefore are not "normal" in the statistical sense.

However homosexual sexual preferences and behaviors are perfectly morally acceptable, in my opinion, and it is very important to let kids know that their homosexual desires are perfectly "OK" and that there is no need to hide them or suppress them.

Originally posted by: Piobaireachd
This doesn't mean that it gives everyone else the right to discriminate or to use violence against gays. What they do in the privacy of their own home is their business and not mine. But to push the agenda that is normal is not correct.

It is important to let gay kids know that their homosexual preferences are perfectly healthy, and that they have nothing to be ashamed about, in my opinion.

Originally posted by: Piobaireachd
I frankly could care less if they get married or "have" kids.

How big of you. :disgust:

Originally posted by: Piobaireachd
There are more f*cked up hetero marriages and parents than there are gay ones. Many heteros should never have had or have kids. They the gay unions need to be held to the same rules and laws as hetero ones. Same benefits, but also the same responsibilites (divorce, community property, taxes, etc.)

Yes, married same-sex couples should be held to the same laws as are married heterosexual couples.

Originally posted by: Piobaireachd
Also, hate crime legislation needs to go away. A crime is a crime no matter what the sexual orientation is of the victim. When you treat one group differently than another it only perpetuates hate and animosity.

Oops, you seem to have lost your brain somewhere.

Originally posted by: Piobaireachd
But to get back to the topic, homosexuallity by it's definition is deviant (outside of the norm) and should be taught that way in school.

Kids hardly need to be taught that homosexuals are in the minority in the community (outside of the norm). Do you advocate teaching that left-handed people, Asians, Jews, are in the minorty in the community? Or is that BLEEDING OBVIOUS??

However it is important to let kids no that there is no necessary moral condemnation attached to homosexuality, that it is perfectly normal for at elast some people to have homosexual desires, and that kids who are gay have nothing to be ashamed about and shouldn't feel the need to be silent about their preferences.

Well, it looks like another leftie who can't seem to debate the issues without hurling insults and innuendo. :disgust:

Looks like we're done with this conversation.

So do you and this dipsh*t Conjur have a club or something? Are the dues expensive?

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Vic
"Wah! It's not my fault!

Fault implies that something is wrong or broken.

I am perfectly happy with MY homosexual sexual orientation, thanks.

Originally posted by: Vic
I'm a victim! Wah!"

Who said anything about being a victim? I don't think of myself as a victim, at all.

Originally posted by: Vic
You people would be hilarious if you weren't so sad.

You might be worth talking to, if you weren't so stupid.

Originally posted by: Vic
For once wake up and realize that you are a member of the most powerful, most intelligent species of life that we know of in the universe.

Anyway, I already argued FOR early childhood impression in this thread and got flamed for it, and was told that "born that way" meant genetics only. If we're going back to early childhood impression then of course I believe that. Most people spend their whole lives trying to overcome emotionally the pain they suffered when very young.

In fact my first response in this thread, answering the OP's question as to why gays were gay and he was straight, was "Because when you were a little boy, your parents told you that you should like little girls. That is all. "
And the response I received from 3chordcharlie was "Pure bullsh!t."
However, if you now wish to accept this simple factual reality of early childhood impression, that's fine by me, but recognize that I have mentioned it repeatedly on this board and been told every time that it is part of the "choice" argument and not accepted by those who believe in the "born that way" argument.

There is no evidence that being told you should "like little girls" as a young child has any effect, what so ever, on adult sexual orientation. If you think this does have an influence on adult sexual orientation, then you are an idiot.

 

[Trevelyan]

Originally posted by: tss4
That is simply not true. Its a very active debate currently in many churches. The reason, is that the Bible, is for all intenets and purposes often vague and conflicting. I don't want to get into pointing out specific examples of conflicting passages (as well as those that no christian follows anymore) because I feel it is beneath this dsicussion, but I do think that there are passages in the bible that the translation should not be taken literal.

The Bible only has contradictions if you take things out of context. An exhaustive and unbiased study of the scriptures in the Bible reveals impressive harmony among the writers of the various books. Many of the commonly cited contradictions have been proven invalid countless times by many authors and scholars.

Originally posted by: tss4
I'll give you my favorite example. Creation in Genesis.

Yes, you could take Genesis to mean that the earth was literally created in seven days, but if you stepped back for a minute and realized these were visions passed to people of biblical times that were trying to make sense of them without current scientific knowledge, then you can see how a non literal interpretation fits scientific evidence almost perfectly. Seriously, imagine yourself devoid of all modern scientific knowledge and then have someone present pictures of the big bang and the resulting evolution of animals. Its absolutely amazing as to the accuateness of Genesis if you are willing to realize that days might merely mean passage of time and the statement "then god created" to decribe the evolutionary relationship. Anyway, I digress.

You are very correct in what you are saying. There is no reason to think that the "days" in the creation story must mean literal days, for several reasons the least of which would be the fact that God created the Sun, meaning before that there were no literal days. There are other such reasons for thinking the creation account is not neccessarily literal in timing, but that isn't to say it is inaccurate (not to say you are claiming that).

Saying that God used evolution to create the world, however, is a little more risky, simply because evolution as scientists define it is an unguided process, meaning if you say God was involved natural selection is no longer the mechanism. It very well could've taken God millions of years to create all life, I don't know for sure and I don't claim to.

Originally posted by: tss4
I was simply making the point that the bible is not always to be taken literally, and that as much as conservative christians want to claim to always follow the literal interpreation of the bible, they do not. The bible is gods word and as such, beyond our total understanding. No man can know exactly what he meant. So of course its been decided by the bible but our understanding of the texts is in question and that's why there most certainly is a modest but growing debate in the church on this.

Surely, the Bible is beautiful book, employing many literary devices including imagery and analogy. Thus, not everything is 100% literal, but most Christians will default to a literal translation for the sake of caution and not corrupting Jesus's teachings, which I think is a pretty smart decision.

As far as homosexuality, it's hard to find another translation for 1 Corinthians 6:9-11

"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."

Homosexuality was around back then too; it isn't like it's something new in our society.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Piobaireachd

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Piobaireachd

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Piobaireachd
No, it is not "ok".

why not?

It's not ok to teach kids that it is perfectly normal.

Well, homosexual sexual preferences are not the most common sexual preferences, and therefore are not "normal" in the statistical sense.

However homosexual sexual preferences and behaviors are perfectly morally acceptable, in my opinion, and it is very important to let kids know that their homosexual desires are perfectly "OK" and that there is no need to hide them or suppress them.

Originally posted by: Piobaireachd
This doesn't mean that it gives everyone else the right to discriminate or to use violence against gays. What they do in the privacy of their own home is their business and not mine. But to push the agenda that is normal is not correct.

It is important to let gay kids know that their homosexual preferences are perfectly healthy, and that they have nothing to be ashamed about, in my opinion.

Originally posted by: Piobaireachd
I frankly could care less if they get married or "have" kids.

How big of you. :disgust:

Originally posted by: Piobaireachd
There are more f*cked up hetero marriages and parents than there are gay ones. Many heteros should never have had or have kids. They the gay unions need to be held to the same rules and laws as hetero ones. Same benefits, but also the same responsibilites (divorce, community property, taxes, etc.)

Yes, married same-sex couples should be held to the same laws as are married heterosexual couples.

Originally posted by: Piobaireachd
Also, hate crime legislation needs to go away. A crime is a crime no matter what the sexual orientation is of the victim. When you treat one group differently than another it only perpetuates hate and animosity.

Oops, you seem to have lost your brain somewhere.

Originally posted by: Piobaireachd
But to get back to the topic, homosexuallity by it's definition is deviant (outside of the norm) and should be taught that way in school.

Kids hardly need to be taught that homosexuals are in the minority in the community (outside of the norm). Do you advocate teaching that left-handed people, Asians, Jews, are in the minorty in the community? Or is that BLEEDING OBVIOUS??

However it is important to let kids no that there is no necessary moral condemnation attached to homosexuality, that it is perfectly normal for at elast some people to have homosexual desires, and that kids who are gay have nothing to be ashamed about and shouldn't feel the need to be silent about their preferences.

Well, it looks like another leftie who can't seem to debate the issues without hurling insults and innuendo. :disgust:

Innuendo? Lol, look, I do think you are really, really stupid. But please, look past my insults (mild as they are) to the meat and potatoes of the post.

Originally posted by: Piobaireachd
Looks like we're done with this conversation.

What delicate sensitivities you have.

Originally posted by: Piobaireachd
So do you and this dipsh*t Conjur have a club or something? Are the dues expensive?

Ah. First you complain about the insults in debate, and then you call conjur a dipsh1t. Hypocrisy much?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: aidanjm
...then you are an idiot.

The only idiots I meet in this world are those who think they are never wrong, and that everyone who dares to disagrees with them is never right. You are most certainly one of those btw.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: aidanjm
...then you are an idiot.

The only idiots I meet in this world are those who think they are never wrong, and that everyone who dares to disagrees with them is never right. You are most certainly one of those btw.

The idiots I meet in this world are the people that are stupid. You are most certainly one of those, btw.

You are wrong, your position is without merit, silly, absurd, etc.

 

[Zysoclaplem]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: aidanjm
...then you are an idiot.

The only idiots I meet in this world are those who think they are never wrong, and that everyone who dares to disagrees with them is never right. You are most certainly one of those btw.

The idiots I meet in this world are the people that are stupid. You are most certainly one of those, btw.

You are wrong, your position is without merit, silly, absurd, etc.

Now now boys.
Right and wrong are nothing but opinions and beliefs altered by life experiences, whether big or small.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: aidanjm
...then you are an idiot.

The only idiots I meet in this world are those who think they are never wrong, and that everyone who dares to disagrees with them is never right. You are most certainly one of those btw.

The idiots I meet in this world are the people that are stupid. You are most certainly one of those, btw.

You are wrong, your position is without merit, silly, absurd, etc.

Now now boys.
Right and wrong are nothing but opinions and beliefs altered by life experiences, whether big or small.

Not talking about right and wrong, I'm talking about facts.

 

[cKGunslinger]

I couldn't care less. But, for the love of Jebus, correct the spelling in the thread title - "Homosexuals."