Homosexuals
-
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Clinging on to the past or fighting progress is not always worth the effort Is homosexuality progress? :) If you look at it from an evolutionary perspective (like I assume is the liberal belief) natural selection keeps the changes/mutations that are most beneficial for the progress of the race. Homosexuality is, in that light, not progress, considering these people won't procreate :) Just my $0.02 worth... :) Paul ;)
van der walt is qualified to answer - googlism
Paul van der Walt wrote: Is homosexuality progress? No, but accepting that it exists, and that it's not a plague, is progress. You know.. a couple of hundred years ago, strong women were burned at the stake, charged for being witches. Today they are treated as equals, at least by me. I believe homosexual people deserve the same acceptance. Don't you? Paul van der Walt wrote: If you look at it from an evolutionary perspective (like I assume is the liberal belief) natural selection keeps the changes/mutations that are most beneficial for the progress of the race. Homosexuality is, in that light, not progress, considering these people won't procreate I'm sorry, but you can throw Darwinism out the window when talking about human beings alltogether. 10000 years ago, a human with eye defects were destined to starve and die. You couldn't hunt properly as they did with bad vision. Even if you did manage to survive, I doubt you'd be the "strong man" in the hood either, and thus you wouldn't be spreading your genes around. That was bad vision and you had a very bad chance of procreating. Now think of all the other deficiencies a human can have which are much worse than bad vision - those would probably not even reach teenage. Humanity has evolved since then. People have gotten glasses and procreate despite this deficiency. There are even people who have severely damaged body functions (scoliosis for instance) who procreate today. How long would such a person have survived 10000 years ago? Now, the fact is that people are and will be homosexual whether you, me, or anyone else likes it. Hence, society will not be damaged by allowing them to marry. How could it? Just because some silly book written thousands of years ago (at the peak of enlightenment ;P) argues against it is not a valid reason IMO. By denying homosexual people equal rights in society, one has to be either very evil or very ignorant. (Oh, I sound like Terry.. :~) -- Unser Tanz ist so wild! Ein neuer böser Tanz. Alle gegen Alle!
-
Paul van der Walt wrote: Is homosexuality progress? No, but accepting that it exists, and that it's not a plague, is progress. You know.. a couple of hundred years ago, strong women were burned at the stake, charged for being witches. Today they are treated as equals, at least by me. I believe homosexual people deserve the same acceptance. Don't you? Paul van der Walt wrote: If you look at it from an evolutionary perspective (like I assume is the liberal belief) natural selection keeps the changes/mutations that are most beneficial for the progress of the race. Homosexuality is, in that light, not progress, considering these people won't procreate I'm sorry, but you can throw Darwinism out the window when talking about human beings alltogether. 10000 years ago, a human with eye defects were destined to starve and die. You couldn't hunt properly as they did with bad vision. Even if you did manage to survive, I doubt you'd be the "strong man" in the hood either, and thus you wouldn't be spreading your genes around. That was bad vision and you had a very bad chance of procreating. Now think of all the other deficiencies a human can have which are much worse than bad vision - those would probably not even reach teenage. Humanity has evolved since then. People have gotten glasses and procreate despite this deficiency. There are even people who have severely damaged body functions (scoliosis for instance) who procreate today. How long would such a person have survived 10000 years ago? Now, the fact is that people are and will be homosexual whether you, me, or anyone else likes it. Hence, society will not be damaged by allowing them to marry. How could it? Just because some silly book written thousands of years ago (at the peak of enlightenment ;P) argues against it is not a valid reason IMO. By denying homosexual people equal rights in society, one has to be either very evil or very ignorant. (Oh, I sound like Terry.. :~) -- Unser Tanz ist so wild! Ein neuer böser Tanz. Alle gegen Alle!
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: but accepting that it exists, and that it's not a plague, is progress True, well said :-) Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Humanity has evolved since then. People have gotten glasses and procreate despite this deficiency True again, I don't disagree :-) Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: By denying homosexual people equal rights in society, one has to be either very evil or very ignorant Didn't say I was against it, but I was playing devil's advocate... :-) I agree with what you're saying, though :) Paul ;)
Homepage: pvdw.ath.cx
Sonork: 100.33943 -
Stan Shannon wrote: Yes, I beleive that modern liberalism represents nothing less than a new world religion, as it has assumed the responsibiltiy of displacing the traditionally defined moral authority of the church with that of the state. The homosexual issue is the clearist example of that process at work. What? Now you're just being ridiculous. I could possibly agree upon that modern liberalism is a philosophy, but not a religion. Liberalism doesn't try to explain the meaning of life, nor are there any tales of creation, deities and end of time. It's not a religion. Period. Stan Shannon wrote: My child, my discision. Once the child has passed a certain age (18, 20, 21?), it is no longer your responsibility. Then what do you do? I'm sure all your "fixes" will have failed. Either the child is still homosexual, or it has quite possibly taken his/her life. Stan Shannon wrote: Progress as defined by who? The future generations of course. For every generation, society changes, whether we in our generation, likes it or not. Had society not worked this way, we'd still be burning strong women (witches) on the stake. Stan Shannon wrote: Stoping a runaway freight train in its tracks. Defeating liberalism for no other reason than to prove that it can be defeated, to demonstrate that there is still an affective challange to an otherwise narrow minded, anti-intellectual group of moral zealots. Heh, you know what? You're gonna lose, as the others before you. :) -- Unser Tanz ist so wild! Ein neuer böser Tanz. Alle gegen Alle!
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: What? Now you're just being ridiculous. I could possibly agree upon that modern liberalism is a philosophy, but not a religion. Liberalism doesn't try to explain the meaning of life, nor are there any tales of creation, deities and end of time. It's not a religion. Period. Liberalism has assumed the responsibilities of a source of moral authority in our society in competition with other, traditional, sources such as the church. As such, it is entirely fair to characterized it as a religion, since it provides a moral infrastructure for its believers and adherents. It has become far more than merely a philosophy or a set of political principles. In fact, it has coopted scientific theory to replace creation myths, its dieties are to be found in government, and it constantly warns of an "end of time" if all of humanity does not behave as demanded. Of course its a religion. Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Once the child has passed a certain age (18, 20, 21?), it is no longer your responsibility. Then what do you do? I'm sure all your "fixes" will have failed. Either the child is still homosexual, or it has quite possibly taken his/her life. Of course your sure they will have failed, because none exist. Why does none exist, because scientific progress into the subject has been stifled by the religious orthodoxy of the left. The notion that homosexuality is not treatable is a perfect examply of one of the tenants of your religion. There is no scientific credibility for such a belief and is to be accepted as a tenant of faith. Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: The future generations of course. For every generation, society changes, whether we in our generation, likes it or not Under the careful control of their intellectual masters, of course. Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Had society not worked this way, we'd still be burning strong women (witches) on the stake. Yeah, its exactly the same thing. Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Heh, you know what? You're gonna lose, as the others before you. You're probably correct, but at least once you guys finally realize what you have actually created, I will be there to say "I told you so". "In the final analysis, secularism is little more than another religion the first amendment should be protecting the American people against."
-
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Gay people don't know they're gay until their sex drive kicks in. Before that they just know they're different than others. How do you know this? :rolleyes: Jeremy Falcon
Jeremy Falcon wrote: How do you know this? Valid question, despite you trying to joke about it.. ;) I can only say I was certain to 95% until I got laid. I knew I was straight then. <pseudo-serious>Ask yourself next time you have sex, and when you fondle her ass; "I wonder if it would be nicer if her ass was hairy", and you'll know.. ;)</pseudo-serious> -- Unser Tanz ist so wild! Ein neuer böser Tanz. Alle gegen Alle!
-
Jeremy Falcon wrote: How do you know this? Valid question, despite you trying to joke about it.. ;) I can only say I was certain to 95% until I got laid. I knew I was straight then. <pseudo-serious>Ask yourself next time you have sex, and when you fondle her ass; "I wonder if it would be nicer if her ass was hairy", and you'll know.. ;)</pseudo-serious> -- Unser Tanz ist so wild! Ein neuer böser Tanz. Alle gegen Alle!
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Ask yourself next time you have sex, and when you fondle her ass; "I wonder if it would be nicer if her ass was hairy", and you'll know X| X| X| X| Well looks like I know the answer for me. :) Jeremy Falcon
-
John Carson wrote: Belief in a role of genetics in determining human characteristics has nothing to do with creationism. Yes, and the notion that a characteristic which by definition disallows the production of a viable offspring is genetic, and that such a gene could survive unaffected for thousands of generations such that it affects virtually every human population in near equal percentages, can only be explained by appealing to a devine authority. John Carson wrote: The true position is the opposite of what you claim. In reality, religious cranks torment homosexuals with totally bogus "cures" that have no scientific or medical basis. Well, OK, so how about some well funded non-bogus, controlled research to establish a set of treatments for those few individuals who might wake up one morning and decide they no longer wanted to be homosexual? I mean, if we can have research on how to convert the "trans-gendered" from one sex to another, certainly changing a homosexual to a heterosexual can't be all that difficult. John Carson wrote: I'm glad we agree on something. I just knew all you mindless true believers would like that. :) "In the final analysis, secularism is little more than another religion the first amendment should be protecting the American people against."
Stan Shannon wrote: if we can have research on how to convert the "trans-gendered" from one sex to another, certainly changing a homosexual to a heterosexual can't be all that difficult Those transformations are one way, because they know they're in the wrong body. Ask Anna yourself. I doubt she's done everything because it was a fun thing to do. At some point in time she knew something was wrong, and luckily she found out what it was. Had she not, she might not have been around today. Same thing goes for homosexual people. They just don't go from being straight one day to being homosexual. It's something they're born with. There are bisexual people too, but you don't have to convert them to anything. The point is; nobody is transformed. What may be transformed is just the exterior in the case of transexual - inside they're still the same person. Why is that so hard to understand?????? -- Unser Tanz ist so wild! Ein neuer böser Tanz. Alle gegen Alle!
-
Chris Losinger wrote: humans are social creatures, not strictly individuals like snakes. there could be a non-obvious benefit from homosexuality to the society (or the species) as a whole which we just haven't figured out yet. Actually we DO understand it in a manner - its just not politically correct to discuss it in the terms it needs to be discussed. Some years ago there were several studies on rats as to what happens when the population density increases. One of the things was that the number of homosexual individuals increased proportionaly to the density. Perhaps its natures way of causing a decrease in population other than a pandemic or warfare. Richard "The man that hath not music in himself and is not moved with concord of sweet sounds is fit for treasons, stratagems and spoils; Let no man trust him." Shakespeare
Scientifically, you're making sense. :) -- Unser Tanz ist so wild! Ein neuer böser Tanz. Alle gegen Alle!
-
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: but accepting that it exists, and that it's not a plague, is progress True, well said :-) Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Humanity has evolved since then. People have gotten glasses and procreate despite this deficiency True again, I don't disagree :-) Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: By denying homosexual people equal rights in society, one has to be either very evil or very ignorant Didn't say I was against it, but I was playing devil's advocate... :-) I agree with what you're saying, though :) Paul ;)
Homepage: pvdw.ath.cx
Sonork: 100.33943Paul van der Walt wrote: Didn't say I was against it, but I was playing devil's advocate... I know.. but I get kind of worked up on this issue. I lived under the same roof as a racist and homo hater for 20 years. Let's just say that I've changed my philosophies radically since I moved out. It's all very simple; just put yourself in the position of the homosexual or the black man in the white society, and it'll come to you, like a ton of bricks. I believe that people should be free to do whatever they wish as long as nobody else is hurt by it. I'm sorry if I spoke like an asshole, but you were not the targetted audience. :rose: There are very narrow minded people around, and I don't believe you're one of them. :) -- Unser Tanz ist so wild! Ein neuer böser Tanz. Alle gegen Alle!
-
Paul van der Walt wrote: Didn't say I was against it, but I was playing devil's advocate... I know.. but I get kind of worked up on this issue. I lived under the same roof as a racist and homo hater for 20 years. Let's just say that I've changed my philosophies radically since I moved out. It's all very simple; just put yourself in the position of the homosexual or the black man in the white society, and it'll come to you, like a ton of bricks. I believe that people should be free to do whatever they wish as long as nobody else is hurt by it. I'm sorry if I spoke like an asshole, but you were not the targetted audience. :rose: There are very narrow minded people around, and I don't believe you're one of them. :) -- Unser Tanz ist so wild! Ein neuer böser Tanz. Alle gegen Alle!
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: I lived under the same roof as a racist and homo hater for 20 years I can imagine that that'd certainly sensitize one to the issue :omg: Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: just put yourself in the position of the homosexual or the black man I think most of us could only gain by doing that every now and then... Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: I believe that people should be free to do whatever they wish as long as nobody else is hurt by it. Indeed :) Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: I'm sorry if I spoke like an asshole, but you were not the targetted audience No problem, no offense taken :) Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: There are very narrow minded people around, and I don't believe you're one of them Thanks, I try to keep an open mind (without letting my brains drop out :~ ;P) :) Paul ;)
Homepage: pvdw.ath.cx
Sonork: 100.33943 -
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: What? Now you're just being ridiculous. I could possibly agree upon that modern liberalism is a philosophy, but not a religion. Liberalism doesn't try to explain the meaning of life, nor are there any tales of creation, deities and end of time. It's not a religion. Period. Liberalism has assumed the responsibilities of a source of moral authority in our society in competition with other, traditional, sources such as the church. As such, it is entirely fair to characterized it as a religion, since it provides a moral infrastructure for its believers and adherents. It has become far more than merely a philosophy or a set of political principles. In fact, it has coopted scientific theory to replace creation myths, its dieties are to be found in government, and it constantly warns of an "end of time" if all of humanity does not behave as demanded. Of course its a religion. Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Once the child has passed a certain age (18, 20, 21?), it is no longer your responsibility. Then what do you do? I'm sure all your "fixes" will have failed. Either the child is still homosexual, or it has quite possibly taken his/her life. Of course your sure they will have failed, because none exist. Why does none exist, because scientific progress into the subject has been stifled by the religious orthodoxy of the left. The notion that homosexuality is not treatable is a perfect examply of one of the tenants of your religion. There is no scientific credibility for such a belief and is to be accepted as a tenant of faith. Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: The future generations of course. For every generation, society changes, whether we in our generation, likes it or not Under the careful control of their intellectual masters, of course. Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Had society not worked this way, we'd still be burning strong women (witches) on the stake. Yeah, its exactly the same thing. Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Heh, you know what? You're gonna lose, as the others before you. You're probably correct, but at least once you guys finally realize what you have actually created, I will be there to say "I told you so". "In the final analysis, secularism is little more than another religion the first amendment should be protecting the American people against."
Stan Shannon wrote: The notion that homosexuality is not treatable is a perfect examply of one of the tenants of your religion. There is no scientific credibility for such a belief and is to be accepted as a tenant of faith. Ask a homosexual person. They, if anybody, would know. Stan Shannon wrote: Yeah, its exactly the same thing. So, you'd like to go back when we burned the heretics? ;P -- Unser Tanz ist so wild! Ein neuer böser Tanz. Alle gegen Alle!
-
Stan Shannon wrote: The notion that homosexuality is not treatable is a perfect examply of one of the tenants of your religion. There is no scientific credibility for such a belief and is to be accepted as a tenant of faith. Ask a homosexual person. They, if anybody, would know. Stan Shannon wrote: Yeah, its exactly the same thing. So, you'd like to go back when we burned the heretics? ;P -- Unser Tanz ist so wild! Ein neuer böser Tanz. Alle gegen Alle!
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: So, you'd like to go back when we burned the heretics? Not at all, since I'm the heretic in this current scenario... :~ "In the final analysis, secularism is little more than another religion the first amendment should be protecting the American people against."
-
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: So, you'd like to go back when we burned the heretics? Not at all, since I'm the heretic in this current scenario... :~ "In the final analysis, secularism is little more than another religion the first amendment should be protecting the American people against."
Uhm.. you're the guy with the lighter. ;P -- Unser Tanz ist so wild! Ein neuer böser Tanz. Alle gegen Alle!
-
Uhm.. you're the guy with the lighter. ;P -- Unser Tanz ist so wild! Ein neuer böser Tanz. Alle gegen Alle!
Not at all, I'm the guy challenging the most well established moral orthodoxy of this age. :rolleyes: "In the final analysis, secularism is little more than another religion the first amendment should be protecting the American people against."
-
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: I lived under the same roof as a racist and homo hater for 20 years I can imagine that that'd certainly sensitize one to the issue :omg: Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: just put yourself in the position of the homosexual or the black man I think most of us could only gain by doing that every now and then... Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: I believe that people should be free to do whatever they wish as long as nobody else is hurt by it. Indeed :) Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: I'm sorry if I spoke like an asshole, but you were not the targetted audience No problem, no offense taken :) Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: There are very narrow minded people around, and I don't believe you're one of them Thanks, I try to keep an open mind (without letting my brains drop out :~ ;P) :) Paul ;)
Homepage: pvdw.ath.cx
Sonork: 100.33943Paul van der Walt wrote: Thanks, I try to keep an open mind (without letting my brains drop out Always remember; The Mind Is a Terrible Thing to Taste[^] :rolleyes: -- Unser Tanz ist so wild! Ein neuer böser Tanz. Alle gegen Alle!
-
marriage is much more than reproduction. in a 1999 study, the General Accounting Office counted over a thousand government-recognized benefits given to couples by the Federal government: (big long PDF here). Cleek | Losinger Designs | ClickPic | ThumbNailer
I guess its come out of the Culture. Most of the US couple dont marry soon even after they have kids. So gov made this law to make ppl get married (or provide one good reason to marry) Now gays also want those advantages thats why now there is a gay marrage problem. Problem?? you may say where is the prob? Well i guess it is , Bush says it very sensitive issue.
P.R.A.K.A.S.H
-
Mazy if you want real *diverse* answers you have to remember CP is not the place for it because most CPians are just girly guys anyway and to me that's just one step away from being gay. They will naturally be more inclined to promote gayness because most of them are girly/gay/slash take it any way they can get it. ;) Jeremy Falcon
Nice way to insult the "community" you pretend to be part of. What a load of crap. And for the record, I'm a good looking man (speaking from what women say, and the kind of women I have dated), with a very beautiful girlfriend. And, if you want to defend your comments, at least come up with some links or references as to why most CPians are "girly guys, [...] just one step away from being gay". You sound like you just graduated middle school, man! Chris Richardson
-
Nice way to insult the "community" you pretend to be part of. What a load of crap. And for the record, I'm a good looking man (speaking from what women say, and the kind of women I have dated), with a very beautiful girlfriend. And, if you want to defend your comments, at least come up with some links or references as to why most CPians are "girly guys, [...] just one step away from being gay". You sound like you just graduated middle school, man! Chris Richardson
Hold on a fucking minute here. Why the hell are you so damn upset? What, you feel threatened? I said most not all - which doesn't necessarily mean you. You however are taking it personal. Sounds to me like your afraid of being gay yourself or you are simply just looking to bitch for some other stupid reason. Chris Richardson wrote: And for the record, I'm a good looking man (speaking from what women say, and the kind of women I have dated) For the record, I do not give a flying fuck what the hell you look like. I just looked at your pic and I'm not impressed anyway. Quit blowing your own horn. Chris Richardson wrote: with a very beautiful girlfriend. Just what the hell does this have to do with anything? Chris Richardson wrote: And, if you want to defend your comments, at least come up with some links or references as to why most CPians are "girly guys, [...] just one step away from being gay". You sound like you just graduated middle school, man! I've been here since this site started and know must of the frequent posters' attitudes towards things. That's where I gather my info from. Now quit trolling and act like you're out of kiddy school yourself. Jeremy Falcon
-
John Carson wrote: Belief in a role of genetics in determining human characteristics has nothing to do with creationism. Yes, and the notion that a characteristic which by definition disallows the production of a viable offspring is genetic, and that such a gene could survive unaffected for thousands of generations such that it affects virtually every human population in near equal percentages, can only be explained by appealing to a devine authority. John Carson wrote: The true position is the opposite of what you claim. In reality, religious cranks torment homosexuals with totally bogus "cures" that have no scientific or medical basis. Well, OK, so how about some well funded non-bogus, controlled research to establish a set of treatments for those few individuals who might wake up one morning and decide they no longer wanted to be homosexual? I mean, if we can have research on how to convert the "trans-gendered" from one sex to another, certainly changing a homosexual to a heterosexual can't be all that difficult. John Carson wrote: I'm glad we agree on something. I just knew all you mindless true believers would like that. :) "In the final analysis, secularism is little more than another religion the first amendment should be protecting the American people against."
Stan Shannon wrote: Yes, and the notion that a characteristic which by definition disallows the production of a viable offspring is genetic, and that such a gene could survive unaffected for thousands of generations such that it affects virtually every human population in near equal percentages, can only be explained by appealing to a devine authority. There are lots of alternative explanations, some of which have been explored elsewhere in this thread. Believing that homosexuality is genetic (on which I have no strong opinions, by the way) is not the same as believing in a "gay gene". Homosexuality could easily arise from the interraction of many genes and each of those individual genes could be kept in the population because, when present in heterosexuals, they promote reproduction. For example (this argument is entirely speculative), homosexuals appear to be over-represented in creative, artistic occupations. So perhaps some of the genes involved in producing creativity are also involved in producing homosexuality, and such genes have survived in the population because creativity contributes to reproduction rates in heterosexuals. Stan Shannon wrote: Well, OK, so how about some well funded non-bogus, controlled research to establish a set of treatments for those few individuals who might wake up one morning and decide they no longer wanted to be homosexual? I mean, if we can have research on how to convert the "trans-gendered" from one sex to another, certainly changing a homosexual to a heterosexual can't be all that difficult. As has been pointed out by Jörgen, the impulse to change gender is internal, whereas the desire to change sexuality comes from external belief systems, primarily religious. If, for internal reasons, someone simply starts to prefer people of the opposite sex, then no treatment is necessary. As for how difficult it is, sex changes aim at external physical characteristics. The way they come about and how to change them is better understood than human psychology. I can't see any compelling social policy reasons for funding research designed to change people in fundamental ways in order to conform to a religious agenda. If religious groups want to fund it, then I suppose that is their right. I will make one further small concession. Unlike some of my more politically correct brethren, I believe that scientists should be free to pursue understanding on pretty much any topic they choose. As long as the origin of homosex
-
Hold on a fucking minute here. Why the hell are you so damn upset? What, you feel threatened? I said most not all - which doesn't necessarily mean you. You however are taking it personal. Sounds to me like your afraid of being gay yourself or you are simply just looking to bitch for some other stupid reason. Chris Richardson wrote: And for the record, I'm a good looking man (speaking from what women say, and the kind of women I have dated) For the record, I do not give a flying fuck what the hell you look like. I just looked at your pic and I'm not impressed anyway. Quit blowing your own horn. Chris Richardson wrote: with a very beautiful girlfriend. Just what the hell does this have to do with anything? Chris Richardson wrote: And, if you want to defend your comments, at least come up with some links or references as to why most CPians are "girly guys, [...] just one step away from being gay". You sound like you just graduated middle school, man! I've been here since this site started and know must of the frequent posters' attitudes towards things. That's where I gather my info from. Now quit trolling and act like you're out of kiddy school yourself. Jeremy Falcon
Jeremy Falcon wrote: Hold on a f***ing minute here. Why the hell are you so damn upset? And you think I'm upset? You should take your meds there guy, before you have an aneurism. Jeremy Falcon wrote: What, you feel threatened? Threatened by what? A guy who looks like a pizza? Not really! Jeremy Falcon wrote: which doesn't necessarily mean you. I know it doesn't mean me. That's why I said Nice way to insult the "community" you pretend to be part of., instead of Nice way to insult me. I know you weren't talking about me, but I still find it insulting for the rest of the guys here. And don't try to weasle out of it by saying "I said most". Well, to me, implying that most CPians are gurly guys is pretty insulting to most of the guys here. Jeremy Falcon wrote: Just what the hell does this have to do with anything? Well I wouldn't want someone with an obvious distaste for CPians such as yourself assuming that I'm one of the girly guys here. Jeremy Falcon wrote: Sounds to me like your afraid of being gay yourself Whoops, I guess it's too late. Seriously, you sound exactly like a 7th grader. Try growing up, then try to have an adult conversation. It will really work out better that way for you. Jeremy Falcon wrote: For the record, I do not give a flying f*** what the hell you look like. I just looked at your pic and I'm not impressed anyway. Quit blowing your own horn. Like I said Jeremy, take your meds. And (I know this is the SoapBox, but), try to calm down a bit. You sound like a hyperactive angry child right now. Jeremy Falcon wrote: Just what the hell does this have to do with anything? Well I'm a man, and I'm telling you (as a quasi?-man), that I have a beautiful girlfriend. It's another way (since I need to repeat things to guys like you), of telling you I'm not one of these pussy guys that you think are all over CP. I'm a regular guy (like you think you are, and I'm sure most guys on CP are), and I'm not going to sit here and let you talk shit about CPians because you think you are the only tough guy who can get women. Jeremy Falcon wrote: I've been here since this site started and know must of the frequent posters' attitude
-
Mazdak wrote: Nothing happend if all people become left handed Being left-handed myself I can assure you it would be a revolution! Many, many things are designed for right-handed people :| But it's another debate :) Does it really matter why some people are gays and other aren't, if it comes from the genes or the education? The fact is, some people are gays, whatever the country and the period of history, knowing "why" has IMHO little interest. As long as Freedom consists in being able to do all that does not harm others, I see no reason to persecute or limit the rights of these people because of their sexual preferences, as long as they aren't breaking this generic rule, as the heterosexuals.
And I'm talking to myself at night because I can't forget Back and forth through my mind Behind a cigarette
KaЯl wrote: As long as Freedom consists in being able to do all that does not harm others, I see no reason to persecute or limit the rights of these people because of their sexual preferences, as long as they aren't breaking this generic rule, as the heterosexuals. Agee 100%. KaЯl wrote: Being left-handed myself I can assure you it would be a revolution! Many, many things are designed for right-handed people Yap I know, I'm left handed too. :-) Mazy "A bank is a place that will lend you money if you can prove that you don't need it." - Bob Hope