The Homosexual Agenda, The aclu, And Your Children...

[Shogun]

once again you are full of shit.


your pattern is becoming boring, Allie.



accusations don't equal proof, by the way. You know, like how your OPINION does not equal a consensus just because you are too lazy to prove your own assertions..


well, then again, maybe you DON't know.

 

[AllieBaba]

once again you are full of shit.


your pattern is becoming boring, Allie.



accusations don't equal proof, by the way. You know, like how your OPINION does not equal a consensus just because you are too lazy to prove your own assertions..


well, then again, maybe you DON't know.

I know you pretty effectively hijacked the thread with idiotic posts and yammering about nothing. Ultimately, you've proved nothing except you have no argument to make.

And I know accusations don't equal proof, which is why your accusation that my information is somehow tainted is worthless.

I proved my assertion. You question the proof, there's not much I can do with that unless you come up with something substantial.

 

[Shogun]

TRUST ME...


anyone who clicks on your links from today will know just how WORTHLESS they are. Hell, Im not running from what you've posted... I HOPE people check out what you've tried to pass of as evidence today. For real, I WANT them to see what kind of a nutty fruitcake you are.

and yes, since the burden of proof is on YOU it is YOUR responsibility to come up with something actually viable. If I, as a prosecuting attorney, can't PROVE my case with the first example because it's obviously total bullshit then it is MY task to find something else. It is NOT the defense that must UNPROVE your retarded opinion, Allie. I don't know how to make it any clearer than that. Google it. Find out for yourself. It's obvious that i've got you by the scruff of the neck and you are desperate to save face. I've asked you multiple tiimes to PROVE your lame shit today and each time you reply with bullshit and call it gold. And THEN assume that IM the one that has to prove it's shit rather than bullion. Sorry. Your pattern in faking evidence that you hope no one will call you on is clear enough that it's like a fucking batsignal above gotham in every thread you claim to have evidence in. I'm not the only person to tell you this today.

deal with it or actually *gasp* post evidence that is worthwhile instead of shit from a catholic blog and totally misleading a link to the CDC.

 

[AllieBaba]

Oh, you mean like the CDC link that you said I didn't provide, or the links to the prevent abuse sites, or the link which takes you to the Bibliography of the Statutory Rape article? Or the link that provides child sex laws for all the states?

 

[AllieBaba]

TRUST ME...


anyone who clicks on your links from today will know just how WORTHLESS they are. Hell, Im not running from what you've posted... I HOPE people check out what you've tried to pass of as evidence today. For real, I WANT them to see what kind of a nutty fruitcake you are.

and yes, since the burden of proof is on YOU it is YOUR responsibility to come up with something actually viable. If I, as a prosecuting attorney, can't PROVE my case with the first example because it's obviously total bullshit then it is MY task to find something else. It is NOT the defense that must UNPROVE your retarded opinion, Allie. I don't know how to make it any clearer than that. Google it. Find out for yourself. It's obvious that i've got you by the scruff of the neck and you are desperate to save face. I've asked you multiple tiimes to PROVE your lame shit today and each time you reply with bullshit and call it gold. And THEN assume that IM the one that has to prove it's shit rather than bullion. Sorry. Your pattern in faking evidence that you hope no one will call you on is clear enough that it's like a fucking batsignal above gotham in every thread you claim to have evidence in. I'm not the only person to tell you this today.

deal with it or actually *gasp* post evidence that is worthwhile instead of shit from a catholic blog and totally misleading a link to the CDC.

No, it's my job to come up with evidence. I came up with evidence. If you don't like the evidence, you can continue to think your own warped way, but if you are going to challenge the evidence, I only have to defend it if you actually provide some evidence there's something wrong with it.

Let me see. So far, you've denied that I've provided any evidence, stated the evidence (that I didn't provide?) is no good because it was posted on a catholic website (despite the bibliography, which is anything but catholic) and finally, made vague accusations that other links (which remember, you said I didn't provide) probably have something wrong with them, though you haven't specified what.

So you're just trying to embark on a wild goose chase, meant to divert attention from the fact that you lost this argument a really long time ago.

 

[Shogun]

Ill tell you what.


post your evidence for peer review so that all the board posters can look at what you've got and what you think it says so that I can have a good belly laugh tomorrow...


OR, try to squirm.. I've already busted down the latest shit you try to pass of as evidence so I really don't have much more to prove about your lack of congitive function.

 

[AllieBaba]

Naw, I posted what I needed to, and as I said, if you have a problem with it, come up with something and I'll rebutt.

But asking for evidence, then more evidence, then more, then more, then more won't get you anywhere with me. I've already enabled you way more than I should have.

 

[Big_D]

Preference is not black-and-white. Some days someone might like chocolate ice cream. Later, he might like vanilla.

Why would they "like" the people of their gender if they are only born to be attracted to the other? If someone is only attracted to the opposite gender then why would someone continually have intercourse with someone of their own? Wouldn't someone only have intercourse with someone whom they are attracted to? Also, why would fox news, who obviously has a reputation of being to the right, make a claim that homosexuality is genetics?

 

[mattskramer]

Why would they "like" the people of their gender if they are only born to be attracted to the other? If someone is only attracted to the opposite gender then why would someone continually have intercourse with someone of their own? Wouldn't someone only have intercourse with someone whom they are attracted to? Also, why would fox news, who obviously has a reputation of being to the right, make a claim that homosexuality is genetics?

People might be born with s weak predisposition to be attracted to people of the same sex or to the opposite sex. If they are born with that predisposition or not, I think that environment, curiosity, and experimentation plays a role. While a man might prefer relationships with other men, he might become bored and try a relationship with a woman and prefer them. I didn’t think that I’d like Brussels sprouts until someone talked me into trying some. Then, someone might try relationships with women for a while and conclude that he prefers sex with men. Perhaps there is a bisexual gene. I don’t know and I don’t care. In a nutshell, I think that whether or not one is “born gay” one can change with enough mental and physical force. I don’t know if homosexuality is genetic or not and I don’t care.

 

[doniston]

People might be born with s weak predisposition to be attracted to people of the same sex or to the opposite sex. If they are born with that predisposition or not, I think that environment, curiosity, and experimentation plays a role. While a man might prefer relationships with other men, he might become bored and try a relationship with a woman and prefer them. I didn’t think that I’d like Brussels sprouts until someone talked me into trying some. Then, someone might try relationships with women for a while and conclude that he prefers sex with men. Perhaps there is a bisexual gene. I don’t know and I don’t care. In a nutshell, I think that whether or not one is “born gay” one can change with enough mental and physical force. I don’t know if homosexuality is genetic or not and I don’t care.

Other than beleiving that some are predestined to be gay, I definitely agree with you ---In my position I would say "Who cares"???

 

[Big_D]

People might be born with s weak predisposition to be attracted to people of the same sex or to the opposite sex. If they are born with that predisposition or not, I think that environment, curiosity, and experimentation plays a role. While a man might prefer relationships with other men, he might become bored and try a relationship with a woman and prefer them. I didn’t think that I’d like Brussels sprouts until someone talked me into trying some.

Your brusel sprouts example is irrelevant to what we are talking about. Someone cannot talk someone into being attracted to another.

Then, someone might try relationships with women for a while and conclude that he prefers sex with men. Perhaps there is a bisexual gene. I don’t know and I don’t care. In a nutshell, I think that whether or not one is “born gay” one can change with enough mental and physical force. I don’t know if homosexuality is genetic or not and I don’t care.

Why would a man conclude to have a relationship with someone of his own gender, when he knows that gay people get hassled a lot why would someone choose to be gay and put up with all the persecution that comes with it thats just suicidal ( socially speaking)? I am not gay myself, but why would someone put themselves through the stress of coming out if they could be straight. I can even remember a gay man saying once that he would go to church and pray to God to make him a heterosexual. You also might be aware that a number of gay people go through electroshock therapy with the idea of making them a heterosexual. So then why would these people take these methods if they could be like the rest?

Additionally, gay people are more like to have aids so why would they put themselves at extra risk and spend their whole life with someone of the same gender if they were merely 'curious'? Thats just pointless. Nobody sacrifices a life of happiness out of curiosity.
If you are just looking for a male companion you can just find a friend i mean lots of people have male friends they just aren't sexually involved with them - so i don't get where you are coming from with the companionship bit

 

[Shogun]

Naw, I posted what I needed to, and as I said, if you have a problem with it, come up with something and I'll rebutt.

But asking for evidence, then more evidence, then more, then more, then more won't get you anywhere with me. I've already enabled you way more than I should have.

yeeaaaaa... I kinda figured that you would bow out when confronted with the bullshit "evidence" you post..

 

[mattskramer]

Your brusel sprouts example is irrelevant to what we are talking about. Someone cannot talk someone into being attracted to another.

It is not irrelevant. It is only a poor example because influence in convincing someone to try Brussels sprouts, might not need to be as strong as convincing one to try a homosexual relationship. An unusually attractive man can certainly convince someone to have a physical relationship with him depending on how convincing he is and how receptive the other person is.

Why would a man conclude to have a relationship with someone of his own gender, when he knows that gay people get hassled a lot why would someone choose to be gay and put up with all the persecution that comes with it thats just suicidal ( socially speaking)? I am not gay myself, but why would someone put themselves through the stress of coming out if they could be straight. I can even remember a gay man saying once that he would go to church and pray to God to make him a heterosexual. You also might be aware that a number of gay people go through electroshock therapy with the idea of making them a heterosexual. So then why would these people take these methods if they could be like the rest?

I think that the hassle and harassment has been exaggerated. I am not saying that it does not exist but I think that it has been blown out of proportion to raise attention to it. Gay couples can have private relationships and people would not realize that they are gay or having a homosexual affair. People get harassed and hassled. It is practically a part of life. People just ignore the rude and insensitive remarks. If it progresses to rare incidences of violence, regal recourse are contacted. EST and prayer is not enough to change someone.

Additionally, gay people are more like to have aids so why would they put themselves at extra risk and spend their whole life with someone of the same gender if they were merely 'curious'? Thats just pointless. Nobody sacrifices a life of happiness out of curiosity.

I am not saying that gay people are no all simply straight people curious about homosexual relationships. Sometimes the love and desire that one has for another is so strong that he is willing to take chances.

 

[CorpMediaSux]

An unusually attractive man can certainly convince someone to have a physical relationship with him depending on how convincing he is and how receptive the other person is.

The logic behind your argument doesn't make sense. Who is the unusually attractive man you're talking about in your example. Is he the one who is "really" gay, since he is doing all this effort to seduced a heterosexual man into a relationship with him. How do you explain for that one. Is he only trying to convince this other guy because the other guy is ALSO incredibly attractive. So homosexuality is when otherwise straight men find ONE guy who overrides their natural sexuality and singularly focuses them? Complete and utter bollocks.

I hate to keep repeating this but people are so fricking thick that I keep having to say it.
IF YOU ARE A GUY AND WOMEN GIVE YOU A BONER, YOU ARE STRAIGHT.
IF YOU ARE A GUY AND MEN GIVE YOU A BONER, YOU ARE GAY
PERIOD.

Now what I'd like to hear from are the men on this board who choose their boners. Cause when you can choose your boners, you can choose your sexuality. And I don't mean the ability to get RID of a boner, you can do that with practice most times. But I'm talking about getting the boner, it's not a hoice, it happens. It IS that simple. It IS that crude. Boner? You like it. No boner? You don't like it. Good lord, how many times does this have ot be repeated. Jeez.

 

[Shogun]

 

[mattskramer]

The logic behind your argument doesn't make sense. Who is the unusually attractive man you're talking about in your example. Is he the one who is "really" gay, since he is doing all this effort to seduced a heterosexual man into a relationship with him. How do you explain for that one. Is he only trying to convince this other guy because the other guy is ALSO incredibly attractive. So homosexuality is when otherwise straight men find ONE guy who overrides their natural sexuality and singularly focuses them? Complete and utter bollocks.

I was briefly sexually attracted to a young man several years ago for some time. Later, my interest seemed to subside. Today, I’m happily married to a woman and have no interest in having any homosexual relationship.

Anyway, there could be a decidedly gay person who tries to convince a straight person to try to be gay. It is a possibility. There is no explanation for it. I’ve even read that it happened. I don’t have a source right off hand.

The logic makes perfect sense. You are trying to make it black-and-white when it isn’t. The issue of why someone is gay or straight or changes preferences or “tries to change preferences and fails” is very nebulous. Perhaps it is genetic or perhaps it is environmental. Perhaps it is a combination of genetics and environment. Perhaps genetics plays such a small role that you can overcome it. Some people can and some people can’t. I’ve read about men who have thought that they were straight until they found men that they were attracted to for some unknown reason. I’ve read about gay men who went straight. Perhaps genetic influences taper off after time for some people. Perhaps they grow stronger. There are so many possible variables and combinations of variables that might apply to small degrees or large degrees. Each person has different life experiences.

I hate to keep repeating this but people are so fricking thick that I keep having to say it. IF YOU ARE A GUY AND WOMEN GIVE YOU A BONER, YOU ARE STRAIGHT. IF YOU ARE A GUY AND MEN GIVE YOU A BONER, YOU ARE GAY PERIOD.

If you are a guy and women can give you a boner and men can give you a boner, then you are bisexual. If you are a guy who sometimes does not get a bonder from a woman or a man for some time, you are simply not interested.

 

[doniston]

The logic behind your argument doesn't make sense. Who is the unusually attractive man you're talking about in your example. Is he the one who is "really" gay, since he is doing all this effort to seduced a heterosexual man into a relationship with him. How do you explain for that one. Is he only trying to convince this other guy because the other guy is ALSO incredibly attractive. So homosexuality is when otherwise straight men find ONE guy who overrides their natural sexuality and singularly focuses them? Complete and utter bollocks.

I hate to keep repeating this but people are so fricking thick that I keep having to say it.
IF YOU ARE A GUY AND WOMEN GIVE YOU A BONER, YOU ARE STRAIGHT.
IF YOU ARE A GUY AND MEN GIVE YOU A BONER, YOU ARE GAY
PERIOD.

Now what I'd like to hear from are the men on this board who choose their boners. Cause when you can choose your boners, you can choose your sexuality. And I don't mean the ability to get RID of a boner, you can do that with practice most times. But I'm talking about getting the boner, it's not a hoice, it happens. It IS that simple. It IS that crude. Boner? You like it. No boner? You don't like it. Good lord, how many times does this have to be repeated. Jeez.

OH, I think we all inderstand your point. repeating is not necessary or fruitful. I and others simply disagree with your position and think you are dead wrong.

 

[Big_D]

It is not irrelevant. It is only a poor example because influence in convincing someone to try Brussels sprouts, might not need to be as strong as convincing one to try a homosexual relationship. An unusually attractive man can certainly convince someone to have a physical relationship with him depending on how convincing he is and how receptive the other person is.

It's irrelevant because someone cannot change their physical attraction to someone. Overtime someone can gain to like different foods.

I think that the hassle and harassment has been exaggerated. I am not saying that it does not exist but I think that it has been blown out of proportion to raise attention to it. Gay couples can have private relationships and people would not realize that they are gay or having a homosexual affair. People get harassed and hassled. It is practically a part of life. People just ignore the rude and insensitive remarks. If it progresses to rare incidences of violence, regal recourse are contacted. EST and prayer is not enough to change someone.

You missed the point completely. A lot of people do not want to be gay. They do not want to inform their parents that they are this way. Like I said before they will go through extreme methods to try to fix their orientation (obviously failing). So why would someone go through such if they are not born this way?

I am not saying that gay people are no all simply straight people curious about homosexual relationships. Sometimes the love and desire that one has for another is so strong that he is willing to take chances.

But why would they let themselves become this way? As I am saying, being gay is negative in the American Society. Calling someone gay is considered an insult. A lot of the gay community do not want to be how they are. If they could change then why wouldn't they?

 

[CorpMediaSux]

OH, I think we all inderstand your point. repeating is not necessary or fruitful. I and others simply disagree with your position and think you are dead wrong.

Than construct an argument that proves it.

 

[CorpMediaSux]

The logic makes perfect sense. You are trying to make it black-and-white when it isn’t.

Sorry, in my effort to move away from the question of morality issues I became dogmatic. You are right to call me on it. Here's the real deal. People can fall on an infinite number of places on the sexuality continuum. Fromm 100% homosexuality to 100% heterosexuality there are a number of spots. HOWEVER. None of them are CHOSEN. My point, while crude, still remains the same. You don't choose what turns you on. Boners are not chosen, they happen. What stimulates them in each person is varied. That doesn't mean people "choose" their sexuality.

What people do choose is whether or not to act on their attraction. That choice is unconnected to the actual boner. Any guy can tell you that they dont have sex or even get to make out everytime they pop one. Sexuality drives your boners. Personal choices guide your sexual ACTS. Being gay isnt about sexual ACTS. You can be gay and be celibate. It's about sexual attraction. And no matter how you slice it, there's no way to choose anything about it.