Rick Perry compares homosexuality to alcoholism

[Bush92]

Perhaps smoking cocks is like smoking cigarettes. We can invent an "anti-gay" patch that will stop their addiction to dicks.

Not that easy , but Ex-gay therapy could help - it works on about the same ratio as substance abuse therapy. But the queer needs to want to quit ,and why should they when all these near do gooders and socio-fascist liberals running around telling them it's okay to be Gay, who cares if you die youngher, who cares if your a societal outcast, keep smoking that crack pipe faggot and when your done come on over and smoke big brothers penis pipe Gay is Not Okay

Perhaps a patch that fits over their mouths.

 

[Seawytch]

I am a bigot because I believe in free will?

You can search the entire board and never find a single thing negative against anyone's sexual preferences. You, however, love to jump to conclusions simply because people don't believe the same mumbo jumbo you insist is true, even though all the real science stacks up against our argument. If that is how you define bigotry than you are the one with the problem, not me.

I just asked if "bigot" is what you considered "name calling". Is it?

I define bigotry as wanting to deny equal rights based on animus towards that group you wish to deny those rights.

What "conclusion" do you not believe science supports?

Calling someone a bigot simply because they don't agree with your definition of gay rights is definitely name calling. If it bothers you, you should stop doing it.

There is nothing to "disagree" about. Either you believe gays deserve rights equal to you or you don't. If you don't, it's bigotry. If you don't like it, stop being a bigot.

Science has conclusively proven that people are not born gay, it is not an immutable characteristic. Baisng a defense of gay rights on the assumption that people do not have free will is idiotic and will eventually expose you as an idiot.

Why does that matter in a free country? Basing opposition because you think it's a choice is more idiotic.

I know for a fact I did not choose to be gay. Science supports my position more than yours.

 

[Seawytch]

I oppose government regulation of marriage, so I guess that means my answer to your question is no.

So you're not married, never been married? Does your state and federal legislator know you wish to get rid of all involvement in civil marriage?

Marriage is something private between two people, and no business of anyone else. In other words, I don;t expose my private life on this forum, go barking up some other tree in search of personal tidbits to satisfy your gratuitous and misplaced curiosity.

So I'll take that as a yes...married but against marriage.

 

[sitarro]

So how about NAMBLA, are the participants in this group born with the desire to molest little boys or is it a lifestyle choice? How is it different from the non reproductive defect that homosexuals are "born with"?

 

[GreenBean]

I just asked if "bigot" is what you considered "name calling". Is it?

I define bigotry as wanting to deny equal rights based on animus towards that group you wish to deny those rights.

What "conclusion" do you not believe science supports?

Calling someone a bigot simply because they don't agree with your definition of gay rights is definitely name calling. If it bothers you, you should stop doing it.

There is nothing to "disagree" about. Either you believe gays deserve rights equal to you or you don't. If you don't, it's bigotry. If you don't like it, stop being a bigot.

Science has conclusively proven that people are not born gay, it is not an immutable characteristic. Baisng a defense of gay rights on the assumption that people do not have free will is idiotic and will eventually expose you as an idiot.

Why does that matter in a free country? Basing opposition because you think it's a choice is more idiotic.

I know for a fact I did not choose to be gay. Science supports my position more than yours.

Not it doesn't dike - you've already been smacked down on that time and time again .
Some really smart guy - might have been Einstein, once said that doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is a sure sign of insanity - by that definition , you are one wacked out loonybird !

There is nothing to "disagree" about. Either you believe gays deserve rights equal to you or you don't. If you don't, it's bigotry. If you don't like it, stop being a bigot.

Either you agree with the SeaWytch ,bow down and prostrate yourself before her agenda ,revel in her insanity and grovel at her feet ...or ...you're just another "homophobic bigot"

 

[Bush92]

So how about NAMBLA, are the participants in this group born with the desire to molest little boys or is it a lifestyle choice? How is it different from the non reproductive defect that homosexuals are "born with"?

Oh he got all of that pitch...back...back...back...GONE!!!! A HOME RUN!

 

[Bush92]

So how about NAMBLA, are the participants in this group born with the desire to molest little boys or is it a lifestyle choice? How is it different from the non reproductive defect that homosexuals are "born with"?

I suppose NAMBLA will push their sexual perversion as a"civil rights issue" too.

 

[Bush92]

Gay's tried to use civil rights tactics, but to no avail. They tried a freedom ride on Greyhound buses...but everyone got off. Then they had a sit-in movement at lunch counters but whenever someone tried to grab them...they beat them off.

 

[Uncensored2008]

If he has any influence in 2016 Presidential run get ready for 8 more years of a Democrat.
Time is now to call these kooks out.

What is inaccurate about it?

 

[g5000]

Some really smart guy - might have been Einstein, once said that doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is a sure sign of insanity

Like saying over and over again that being gay is a choice or a mental illness. You seem to believe that saying it enough times makes it true!

 

[g5000]

So how about NAMBLA, are the participants in this group born with the desire to molest little boys or is it a lifestyle choice? How is it different from the non reproductive defect that homosexuals are "born with"?

I suppose NAMBLA will push their sexual perversion as a"civil rights issue" too.

Really? You two cannot tell the difference between two consenting adults having sex and an adult molesting a child? You are actually that retarded?

 

[Seawytch]

So how about NAMBLA, are the participants in this group born with the desire to molest little boys or is it a lifestyle choice? How is it different from the non reproductive defect that homosexuals are "born with"?

I suppose NAMBLA will push their sexual perversion as a"civil rights issue" too.

Really? You two cannot tell the difference between two consenting adults having sex and an adult molesting a child? You are actually that retarded?

For the sake of children and animals, I hope they understand the meaning of consent more than they appear to here.

 

[g5000]

I suppose NAMBLA will push their sexual perversion as a"civil rights issue" too.

Really? You two cannot tell the difference between two consenting adults having sex and an adult molesting a child? You are actually that retarded?

For the sake of children and animals, I hope they understand the meaning of consent more than they appear to here.

I don't believe they do. It never ever fails that bigots compare homosexuality to pedophilia in any topic about gay marriage on any forum. They do it over and over and over again. Talk about insanity!

 

[Harry Dresden]

And they still do - and they also defend the rights of faggots and dykes to obtain psychological help and escape from their mental depravity.

Vote GOP. We believe fags are sick in the head and diseased. We care!

Wonderful, another bad argument for gay rights.

You know something, it is people like you that enable the idiots like GreenBean to look halfway intelligent. Just refute the idiot, and move on like an adult. Sexual preference in not a mental disorder, a genetic defect, or a birth defect, it is a choice. That makes it none of anyone else's business, period. End of discussion.

and yet you just conveniently skipped over the question i asked you.....here let me do it again......is it possible for someone to be born "gay"?...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So you support marriage equality for gays?

I oppose government regulation of marriage, so I guess that means my answer to your question is no.

That's a convenient dodge.

The question is, if marriage is going to be regulated by the government, should the regulations be equally applied to opposite sex and same sex marriages?

That was not a dodge, it was a direct answer to the question she asked. If you want to ask me a separate question without lying abut my position, feel free, If you prefer to attack me because you think you are smarter than the average idiot, go find someone else to play with.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I just asked if "bigot" is what you considered "name calling". Is it?

I define bigotry as wanting to deny equal rights based on animus towards that group you wish to deny those rights.

What "conclusion" do you not believe science supports?

Calling someone a bigot simply because they don't agree with your definition of gay rights is definitely name calling. If it bothers you, you should stop doing it.

There is nothing to "disagree" about. Either you believe gays deserve rights equal to you or you don't. If you don't, it's bigotry. If you don't like it, stop being a bigot.

Equal rights does not mean you can force people to show up at your wedding.

Science has conclusively proven that people are not born gay, it is not an immutable characteristic. Baisng a defense of gay rights on the assumption that people do not have free will is idiotic and will eventually expose you as an idiot.

Why does that matter in a free country? Basing opposition because you think it's a choice is more idiotic.

I know for a fact I did not choose to be gay. Science supports my position more than yours.

All you know is you don't remember making a choice, you have absolutely no proof you did not make that choice. There is absolutely no science anywhere that backs the idea that sexual preference is not a choice. If you think you have some, feel free to trot it out so I can laugh at it.

And, if you read my posts, you will see that I argue that, since it is a choice, it is none of my business, or anyone else's, but feel free to pretend you have the moral high ground because you are a self righteous asshole.

 

[Seawytch]

I oppose government regulation of marriage, so I guess that means my answer to your question is no.

That's a convenient dodge.

The question is, if marriage is going to be regulated by the government, should the regulations be equally applied to opposite sex and same sex marriages?

That was not a dodge, it was a direct answer to the question she asked. If you want to ask me a sepeerate question whithout lying abut my postion, feel free, If you prefer to attack me because you think you are smarter than the average idiot, go find someone else to play with.

Okay, "she'll" rephrase.

The question is not whether or not the "regulations" should or should not exist...Should the regulations be equally applied to opposite sex and same sex marriages?

 

[g5000]

And they still do - and they also defend the rights of faggots and dykes to obtain psychological help and escape from their mental depravity.

Vote GOP. We believe fags are sick in the head and diseased. We care!

Wonderful, another bad argument for gay rights.

You know something, it is people like you that enable the idiots like GreenBean to look halfway intelligent. Just refute the idiot, and move on like an adult. Sexual preference in not a mental disorder, a genetic defect, or a birth defect, it is a choice.

Sexual preference is not a choice any more than whether or not you like carrots is a choice.

As for my post, I was illustrating the absurdity. Holding a mirror up to jackasses like GreenBean to show them what they look like to everyone else. And pointing out to the GOP that if they don't take out the trash like Greenbean, their inaction means they own the bigots and all the electoral repercussions which come with that.

 

[Seawytch]

Calling someone a bigot simply because they don't agree with your definition of gay rights is definitely name calling. If it bothers you, you should stop doing it.

There is nothing to "disagree" about. Either you believe gays deserve rights equal to you or you don't. If you don't, it's bigotry. If you don't like it, stop being a bigot.

Science has conclusively proven that people are not born gay, it is not an immutable characteristic. Baisng a defense of gay rights on the assumption that people do not have free will is idiotic and will eventually expose you as an idiot.

Why does that matter in a free country? Basing opposition because you think it's a choice is more idiotic.

I know for a fact I did not choose to be gay. Science supports my position more than yours.

Equal rights does not mean you can force people to show up at your wedding.

Correct. That comes from Public Accommodation laws. Feel free to repeal them ALL, not just the ones that include "the gays".

 

[eagle7_31]

If he has any influence in 2016 Presidential run get ready for 8 more years of a Democrat.
Time is now to call these kooks out.

Yawn. Let us know if he hung out with domestic terrorists in his younger days like our present occupant of the White House did.