LORD_RED_DRAGON said:
Majority rule = popularity contest = lowest common denominator.
DEATH TO DEMOCRACY
Homosexuality
- Thread starter Xorv
- Start date
- Status
Majority rule = popularity contest = lowest common denominator.
DEATH TO DEMOCRACY
1. Thing is, if there are gay people, you're child may grow up to be one. You don't want your family name ending, do you?
2. There are more gay guys that rape men than girls that rape men and women combined. I want to lower that risk.
3. They don't bring progress to the world with gay sex. They just kinda sit there and use up our natural resources.
2. There are more gay guys that rape men than girls that rape men and women combined. I want to lower that risk.
3. They don't bring progress to the world with gay sex. They just kinda sit there and use up our natural resources.
xicor said:
This is why I sponsor localization. Localization is a concept developed by both left and right to deal with modern problems. Basically, it allows each neighborhood to define its own character. Some might exclude gays, while some others might be nearly exclusively gay (I'm sweating expectantly, salivating, and panting at the thought). In a normal neighborhood, you don't really want your kids around fags. In a gay neighborhood, you don't want any of those spooky hets gumming up the works.
LORD_RED_DRAGON
New Metal Member
I agree with this^^^ also I think its kinda weird that posts #320 and #322 were written by the same guy because they are seemingly contridictary so if post #322 is how he really feels then it seems that post #320 was just a suck-up response to post #318 which was the lengthy one that I wrote(unless post #322 was a suck-up to someone else) and "hating gays but loving lesbians" is definetely something that could be considered really offensive (to lesbians as well as gays) even if (or possibly especially if) it is understood to be a jokeinfoterror said:
LORD_RED_DRAGON
New Metal Member
we already have this in Texasinfoterror said:
Dallas Austin Houston all have huge-ass areas where there's no straight people at all
Thing is, it is my business. I'm being hit on by a gay guy at my work. He knows I'm not gay. Its so hard not to beat the crap out of him.
Technically, I have ways to torture people to turn them straight. I KNOW the worst torture strategies, so don't tell me I won't be able to get information out of someone.
Technically, I have ways to torture people to turn them straight. I KNOW the worst torture strategies, so don't tell me I won't be able to get information out of someone.
LORD_RED_DRAGON
New Metal Member
first off there are a lot of gay people (both male and lesbian) that only try to get with straight people so that they can "turn you out" change you from being straght into reaching orgasm whith them. if you're reaching orgasm and they're not then they fuck up your sense of sexual identity ("a guy's mouth/ass/hand is the just the same as a girl's mouth/ass/hand") and try to hold it over your head by making you orgasm over and over and then trying to convince you to do something non-sexual that you wouldn't other wise be inclined to do (like giving them a ridiculously large amount of money or giving them a favor that you can do and they're freinds can't because of your job-title) by saying "well I'm the one making you cum every night" then you feel guilty cuz they're not reaching orgasm (when you're in the room) and you continue questioning your sexual identity and at some point you either cave in and give them what they want or they find another way to get it and either way they leave you to go get someone else and the proccess starts all over againxicor said:
at this point i think that i must stress that this is not the norm for gays these are people addictid to chaos who just happen to be gay
so to fix your problem i suggest trying to find gay people (prolly not hard if you're working in corperate office) and set up the guy that's been bothering you up on a date with some one else
LORD_RED_DRAGON
New Metal Member
okay yeah ya should feel flatered didn't really think of it but if you're not going to sleep whith the gay guy then you should try to find someone else for that guy to sleep with because gay guys r horny 24/7 same as straight guysspeed said:
Thing is, I believe homosexuals in general do nothing but spread STDs, and when there is a bi, it gets spread to straight people too. Thing is, you gotta admit this, but guys are a LOT hornier than girls are... Most girls at LEAST want to go out for a month before having sex, but guys will take it whenever given.
Dude I love that show .
Trust me, I could eventually. Most gay people have never tried straight sex... they don't know what its like... Its definitely a lot better than havin a $!@$ up your @!$.
should have seen that coming lol... good one Speed...
You can make anyone change anything mentally with a certain amount of "mind pressure". Humans are mentally weak, they will break. The strong with become traumatized before changing, yet the weak will change without resistance.
LORD_RED_DRAGON
New Metal Member
1st gays don't really spread STDs that much more than straights (straight people spread STDs pretty quick on their own)xicor said:
2nd guys are horny 24/7 guys being hornier than girls is in our DNA (the part thats different than female DNA) so if a girl is fucking a guy she's only known for 3 seconds then she's either (A) a nymphomaniac (B) addicted to chaos (C) something chaotic is happening in her life (D) just broke-up whith the best sex she's ever had (E) is trying to get back with or revenge on ex or (F) more than one of the above
3rd the reason guys like receiving anal is because it massages the prostate which can cause an orgasm whith out an erection (any one want instructions PM me)
4th if you really tried you could prolly get the gay guy to fuck a woman but i wouldn't recomend it cuz you'd prolly end up whith a bull-dyke fucking the gay guy's ass whith a strap-on (which would prolly be fun to watch)
LORD_RED_DRAGON
New Metal Member
Yea why havent we...............thats a good point..................I love lesbians....as long as theyre hot.
Im sorry if this has been beaten to death already, or if Im speaking out of turn, I am kind of new here after all...
but addressing the initial question of whether homosexuality is biological or a choice, there has been some interesting research done recently on homosexuality (im a scientist, can you tell?).
Needless to say, almost all evidence points to the idea that homosexuality has at the very least some sort of genetic component. There is much evidence that shows that it may be an x-linked recessive trait. Recent studies have shown that homosexuality is highly prevalent on the maternal side of a genealogy, while far far less common on the paternal side. If it were a choice, this should be random. Other evidence supports the idea that genes regulating sexual orientation are dispersed across at least 4 chromosomes. Yet another theory holds that androgen is responsible when the child is in the womb, as it orients a default pattern female brain into male brain (or using female hormones continues along the female line). this supposedly includes such topics as anatomy, sexual identity, masculinity, and finally sexual orientation. With this explanation, the primary literature I have read finds support in the idea that you can have any degree of a homosexual. For men, you can know one who is flamboyant and feminine, and another that is not flamboyant and appears to be an average male in every other respect (im not assigning value to these terms, "average" is meant to mean heterosexual, the most common form).
As for my opinion on which research has it the most correct....I really dont know. It seems to me that people tend to simplify behavior and culture down to something that is too simple. Very rarely is something as complex as social interactions (even among organisms like invertebrates) reducible to one gene, or one hormone. It just doesnt work that way. If I were to side with one group or another, I would side with the idea that genes regulating sexual orientation are found througout the genome, perhaps including the X chromosome, explaining the maternal effect seen by some data.
Basically what this boils down to, for me, is how do we apply this research and information? If homosexuality is biological (hell even if its a choice) our revulsion to it, doesnt mean it isnt a perfectly acceptable way of life. Its two consenting adults, not a child and a person of power/authority. Its not beastiality, its two adults. There is no reason to limit the rights of homosexuals, and since marriage is not a religious event (you can get married by a justice of the peace with absolutely no religion involved, it just happens that most people get married in a church) no basis for banning gay marriage. I dont understand why people have to make such a big deal about it.
but addressing the initial question of whether homosexuality is biological or a choice, there has been some interesting research done recently on homosexuality (im a scientist, can you tell?).
Needless to say, almost all evidence points to the idea that homosexuality has at the very least some sort of genetic component. There is much evidence that shows that it may be an x-linked recessive trait. Recent studies have shown that homosexuality is highly prevalent on the maternal side of a genealogy, while far far less common on the paternal side. If it were a choice, this should be random. Other evidence supports the idea that genes regulating sexual orientation are dispersed across at least 4 chromosomes. Yet another theory holds that androgen is responsible when the child is in the womb, as it orients a default pattern female brain into male brain (or using female hormones continues along the female line). this supposedly includes such topics as anatomy, sexual identity, masculinity, and finally sexual orientation. With this explanation, the primary literature I have read finds support in the idea that you can have any degree of a homosexual. For men, you can know one who is flamboyant and feminine, and another that is not flamboyant and appears to be an average male in every other respect (im not assigning value to these terms, "average" is meant to mean heterosexual, the most common form).
As for my opinion on which research has it the most correct....I really dont know. It seems to me that people tend to simplify behavior and culture down to something that is too simple. Very rarely is something as complex as social interactions (even among organisms like invertebrates) reducible to one gene, or one hormone. It just doesnt work that way. If I were to side with one group or another, I would side with the idea that genes regulating sexual orientation are found througout the genome, perhaps including the X chromosome, explaining the maternal effect seen by some data.
Basically what this boils down to, for me, is how do we apply this research and information? If homosexuality is biological (hell even if its a choice) our revulsion to it, doesnt mean it isnt a perfectly acceptable way of life. Its two consenting adults, not a child and a person of power/authority. Its not beastiality, its two adults. There is no reason to limit the rights of homosexuals, and since marriage is not a religious event (you can get married by a justice of the peace with absolutely no religion involved, it just happens that most people get married in a church) no basis for banning gay marriage. I dont understand why people have to make such a big deal about it.
I know why they make a big deal out of it! cause theyre all a bunch of ass holes!
The thing is, marriage originated from a RELIGIOUS thing. This country originated from a RELIGION that was being prosecuted. We owe this country to RELIGION. RELIGIOUS marriage is the marital binding of a man and a women to always be together.
The thing is, marriage originated from a RELIGIOUS thing. This country originated from a RELIGION that was being prosecuted. We owe this country to RELIGION. RELIGIOUS marriage is the marital binding of a man and a women to always be together.
Scott W said:
Here's the paradox:
It's both rational for a homosexual to want to be gay, and for a heterosexual to want to be repulsed by it and to want it far away from them.
Separate communities. There is no other way.
Im also repulsed by people who listen to britney spears, more so than gay men, and yet Im fine living next to them. Separate communities isnt the only way, destroying intolerance is the only way, and it WILL happen. Just as equal rights for african americans happened, equal rights for gays will happen, just a matter of time, and generations being used to it.infoterror said:
This country owes nothing to religion the founding fathers wanted a secular government, secular means free of religion. In this country, marriage is free of religion, no matter what the neocons want you to think.xicor said:I know why they make a big deal out of it! cause theyre all a bunch of ass holes!
The thing is, marriage originated from a RELIGIOUS thing. This country originated from a RELIGION that was being prosecuted. We owe this country to RELIGION. RELIGIOUS marriage is the marital binding of a man and a women to always be together.
Well, i may as well throw my 2 cents in as well...
I dont agree with people being gay but i dont have a real problem with it, i dont have a real problem with gay marrige, but i do if your a christian. Waht i do have a problem with is when gay people want to adopt children, that is wrong and just not be allowed. How would you like it if you were raised by two Fathers, its just fucked up, and no doubt the kid would turn fucked up.
I dont agree with people being gay but i dont have a real problem with it, i dont have a real problem with gay marrige, but i do if your a christian. Waht i do have a problem with is when gay people want to adopt children, that is wrong and just not be allowed. How would you like it if you were raised by two Fathers, its just fucked up, and no doubt the kid would turn fucked up.
- Status
Similar threads
