sexual orientation biological afterall . . .?

Originally posted by Gay Guy
There you go again..you post some drivel..and then you LIE..

you post some more drivel. and then you LIE..

You know nothing about me.. have you ever even had sex?!!! Do you even masterbate?

no one in this forum stated that most abstainers are ugly..what they stated was that most people who CLAIM to be reborn abstinents are too ugly to have sex.

Oh, well that seems to be very in depth, you were attacking "reborn abstinent" - strange how one can't see any of that in the *actual post*

Originally posted by Gay Guy
Being abstinent is not something you should brag about. Most people who claim to be abstinent are just people who are to ugly to get any from either sex.

Yes, a veritable critique there of a particular portion of abstinent, not "most people."

I was trying to point out that these people are just hypocritcal Bible thumpers, who believe in a 5 thousand year old book that has been found to be historically accurate by most modern theologians.

these people brag about being reborn abstinents to cover up the fact that they can't get any because there not good looking anymore and full of STD's. Nobody wants to have sex with them. that's why they CLAIM to be abstinent. Once again, you selectively cut and paste what I've said, and subjectively present it. Refuting my arguments with logical ones is often the sign of the weaker person..who has a weaker argument.

Hahahahahaha.... Hahahahaha. So refuting *your arguments* with logical ones is a sign of weakness? How are you still not stereotyping? I find it hard to believe a proud, self confident gay such as your self would spend a lot of time around hard line Christian abstinent in order to be able to make such a claim that you are not stereotyping when you say "most of them are to ugly."

And lets not forget I just above quoted your post I am referring to. It says nothing about what you have said above. Nor did you refute the evidence from other threads where you blithely insulted and implied a good portion of the other members where homophobic, even the gay ones.

your argument is sh*t!!

Right back at ya. In fact that is a lovely snap shot of your debating skills right there.

I've opened up a thread for LBGT people in this forum and am generally respected by the homosexual AND heterosexual community in KMC. and I've also helped out homeless crippled people in real life on the streets who lost their colastamy bags, by giving them leftover grocery bags that I got from 7 Eleven.

Odd, I seem to remember you reporting KMC member after KMC member the other day because they disagreed with you, insulting all the way. Tell me, precisely which KMC members hold you in high respect?

Now let me get back to my laughter. So, you give homeless people plastic bags because they have lost their colostomy bags? My Goodness, you make it sound like a normal thing. How many do you help a night?

Firstly..I don't CHOOSE to do anything. I was born the way I am.
Secondly, i was talking about regional dialects and how teh historical context of words is different from what they are now..read the next response and I'll go into full detail..

Regional dialect? You claim to come from California, last time I was in California people called jeans jeans.

Jeans were first created in [b]Genoa, Italy when the city was an independent Republic and a naval power. The first jeans were made for the Genoese Navy because it required all-purpose trousers for its sailors that could be worn wet or dry, and whose legs could easily be rolled up to wear while swabbing the deck. Gênes is the name of a département of the First French Empire in present Italy. It was named after the city Genoa.

The French word for these trousers was very similar to their word for Genoa; this is where we get the term 'jeans' today.

So anyway..the english word genes is actually derived from the italian word Genoa..the english used to spell the word genes too but American's got the word and started spelling it JEANS.

😂 [/b]

Lucky you have wikipedia. Because what you just posted was cut straight from there. And incidentally you have misinterpreted the evolution of the word. Shame on you. And besides, way to show that you know nothing about fashion. Trying to pretend you actually know the history of jeans.

Likewise, perhaps you should go to wiki again and look up "genes" or "gene".

you know nothing about the english language, and I am an english teacher.

Despite all evidence to the contrary.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Oh, well that seems to be very in depth, you were attacking "reborn abstinent" - strange how one can't see any of that in the *actual post*

Yes, a veritable critique there of a particular portion of abstinent, not "most people."

Hahahahahaha.... Hahahahaha. So refuting *your arguments* with logical ones is a sign of weakness? How are you still not stereotyping? I find it hard to believe a proud, self confident gay such as your self would spend a lot of time around hard line Christian abstinent in order to be able to make such a claim that you are not stereotyping when you say "most of them are to ugly."

It always amazes me how people like you can cut and paste statements that I've made to selectively prove that the basic presumed premise of your point, underlies the inherent stupidity of mine.

Once again, your definitions of the words I used is flawed. I stated that people who CLAIM to be abstinent are the one's who are ugly. Not the ones who ARE abstinent. Perhaps you should look up the word CLAIM and ABSTINENT in teh dictionary, because you are obviously having difficulty understanding the meanings of both words.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Nor did you refute the evidence from other threads where you blithely insulted and implied a good portion of the other members where homophobic, even the gay ones.

Right back at ya. In fact that is a lovely snap shot of your debating skills right there.

Let me get this straight, your likening all homosexuals and their anti homophobic arguments to sh*t? By doing this your basically comparing homosexuals to being interested in sexual behaviors that involve sh*t, and I don't know how much longer your arguments should continue to be allowed to be presented in these forums.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Now let me get back to my laughter. So, you give homeless people plastic bags because they have lost their colostomy bags? My Goodness, you make it sound like a normal thing. How many do you help a night?

You know, I've always wondered how people like yourself can satirize the compassionate gestures of others, yet at the same time not realize how oblivious they are to the fact that they themselves are unabel and unwilling to perform such acts of charity. For your information, I gave not one, but TWO homeless people without colastamy bags, "plastic bags" to sh*t in.

I walked right up to the 7 eleven, cut in front of all the other people in line and put a dollar bill in front of the cashier. I then asked him to give me as many bags as he could for a dollar. Each homeless man received not just one bag, but TWO bags. I told them both that they could sh*t in each bag that they received instead of on the ground, and then throw the sh*tty bags in the dumpster located behind the store.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Despite all evidence to the contrary.

You can't win an argument by selectively quoting sh*t from biased websites and using basic common sense to refute my arguments. The next time you wake up with a wet dream and another cum spot in your sheets, remember that's one less time you could have ejaculated on a woman or a man. Ohh..and everyone is laughing at you.

Originally posted by Gay Guy
It always amazes me how people like you can cut and paste statements that I've made to selectively prove that the basic presumed premise of your point, underlies the inherent stupidity of mine.

Once again, your definitions of the words I used is flawed. I stated that people who CLAIM to be abstinent are the one's who are ugly. Not the ones who ARE abstinent. Perhaps you should look up the word CLAIM and ABSTINENT in teh dictionary, because you are obviously having difficulty understanding the meanings of both words.

Of course. Because people who "are" abstinent don't claim to be, do they? And people who "claim" to be abstinent, well of course they aren't actually abstinent at all? I posted, word for word your post. No selective editing. Fact: You are stereotyping. Pure. Simple.

You defense is to try and obfuscate your previous post on a technical level. "No, I wasn't actually talking about abstinence at all, just the people who claim to be abstainers." It seems like saying "I wasn't talking about Christians at all, just the ones who believe the Bible." You used a blanket statement to the effect that "most of the people" in a group are to ugly, thus their stance. Regardless of ones feelings on the subject of abstinence any basically intelligent person would know that such a statement is stereotypical and thoroughly unprovable. Unless you tell me know that your university gave you a grant to survey abstainers to see what % are ugly (ugly, of course, being purely subjective)

Let me get this straight, your likening all homosexuals and their anti homophobic arguments to sh*t? By doing this your basically comparing homosexuals to being interested in sexual behaviors that involve sh*t, and I don't know how much longer your arguments should continue to be allowed to be presented in these forums.

Hmmm. Botankus asks why you don't come and talk about genes and you accuse him of stereotyping. You claim my arguments are something, and I say the same could be said about yours, and suddenly it becomes somehow homophobic and linked to sexual orientation. Does taking things out of context and giving them a totally new meaning come natural to you, or do you have to work at it? And fact: we weren't talking about homosexuality and arguments for or against - we were talking about you stereotyping.

You know, I've always wondered how people like yourself can satirize the compassionate gestures of others, yet at the same time not realize how oblivious they are to the fact that they themselves are unabel and unwilling to perform such acts of charity. For your information, I gave not one, but TWO homeless people without colastamy bags, "plastic bags" to sh*t in.

I walked right up to the 7 eleven, cut in front of all the other people in line and put a dollar bill in front of the cashier. I then asked him to give me as many bags as he could for a dollar. Each homeless man received not just one bag, but TWO bags. I told them both that they could sh*t in each bag that they received instead of on the ground, and then throw the sh*tty bags in the dumpster located behind the store.

Oh, I don't need to satirize this. You are doing a great job with a story that I fear is full of the same stuff as a colostomy bag. As someone who has done plenty of volunteer work with a day clinic, let me tell you that that story has not a single fact of truth, and not single working component. You might have done better to simply pick words from a dictionary, which would create a more believable scenario.

But let me clarify - your greatest charity act - *you claim* - was to buy four plastic bags for two homeless men.

You can't win an argument by selectively quoting sh*t from biased websites and using basic common sense to refute my arguments. The next time you wake up with a wet dream and another cum spot in your sheets, remember that's one less time you could have ejaculated on a woman or a man. Ohh..and everyone is laughing at you.

Actually you selectively quoted from wikipedia. Your "history of jeans" was cut straight from there. I didn't quote a web site at all. I think your memory must be going - to reiterate You posted from a website. And you, sock or no, are in trouble if your arguments can't stand up to common sense, the most basic part of a debate.

And as to everyone laughing... I notice you couldn't provide names of the people who hold you in high regards. Speaks fathoms.

No one is born Gay. Becoming gay is mostly due to circumstances. Tons and tons a research proves this. If you probe every gay deep enough you will always find our the event or events that made him become gay.

If you really want to find our more then get the BRINGING UP BOYS dvd collection.

Originally posted by MARCMAN
No one is born Gay. Becoming gay is mostly due to circumstances. Tons and tons a research proves this. If you probe every gay deep enough you will always find our the event or events that made him become gay.

If you really want to find our more then get the BRINGING UP BOYS dvd collection.

I agree with you totally. But no one is born straight either. No one is born thinking about sex or who you want to have it with. But the moment you exist in this world, we all start developing personality traits. None of which are chosen. Perhaps that's proof of god. I don't know. But neither do you.

And people who, like youself, preach that being gay is a learned trait, I pose the question: How? How does a parent, through direct intervention or otherwise, "teach" their child to be gay? I might be gay, but no one tried to make me gay...which is the inherent flaw in such an argument. "Oh, Johnny became gay because he learned it from his parents!" So, tell us how you make a kid gay. I'd really like to know. You seem to think it's a matter of the influence picking the child, rather than the other way around. Any child, biologically, genetically, or otherwise, figures out the things to which he or she is attracted. I hated wrestling growing up. All my friends had those rubber Hulk Hogan and Andre the Giant figures...but I played with GI Joe. I'm sure there are many people on this forum that play video games....experience the violence in such things...and don't go out and kill someone. So, if violence in video games causes violent reactions from children, then I'm sure that an effiminate character in a movie will cause a child to "turn out" gay. However, such is not the case. We've all been kids, and we've all experienced "adult" situations at that age. But how that experience changes someone on such a basic level as sexual attraction is beyond me. You blame it on circumstance. Which is cool. Your opinion is your own. But circumstance is beyond the control of everybody that reads this forum. You can't do anything about circumstance any more than you can about genetics.

Originally posted by leonidas
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-2244488,00.html

hmm . . .

Environment not biological. A good excuse in my opinion.

Originally posted by Justbyfaith
Environment not biological. A good excuse in my opinion.

An opinion with no supporting evidence is worthless.

Originally posted by MARCMAN
No one is born Gay. Becoming gay is mostly due to circumstances. Tons and tons a research proves this. If you probe every gay deep enough you will always find our the event or events that made him become gay.

If you really want to find our more then get the BRINGING UP BOYS dvd collection.

The DVD would not work. Let me guess, it has rules like:

1) Always make sure your son plays sports
2) Never let your son play with dolls
3) Have your child look at naked women at an early age
4) Never take showers with your son
5) Tell him being gay is wrong

ETC ETC ETC

That is all worthless......there are gay people who are born from straight, conservative, religious parents. How do you figure?

There are straight kids who come from gay parenting...how do you figure?

It has nothing to do with NURTURE.....it is most likely all physiological...developments that are brought on by the environment perhaps, but involuntary, indirect stimuli.

You cannot make your kid straight, gay, or bisexual...it is something that happens without your permission or intervention. NATURE has ALL to do with it. 😉

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
That is all worthless......there are gay people who are born from straight, conservative, religious parents.

Not so. I was born to those types of people, but they showed me gay porn, encouraged me to play with dolls, to envy female singers like Madona, Cher, Diana Ross, etc., to speak with a lisp. They also told me that vagina was evil and that Republicans and Jesus hated ****...which they had convinced me I was. Then they started me on a ritual diet of pot, sin, red meat, show tunes and condoms.

And look at me now.

In all actuality: I have a deep voice, I don't own a CD by a female artist, musical theater irritates the hell out of me, I played with GI Joe growing up, I don't pluck my eyebrows or wear make-up, I can change a tire(but I won't) and I never pick up my clothes when I take them off. Oh, and I've also never bought an item out of a catalouge that wasn't a toy, DVD, electronics or clothes retailer.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
An opinion with no supporting evidence is worthless.

Then doesn't that mean the opinion that you've just given is 'worthless'... 😕

Originally posted by Gay Guy
Then doesn't that mean the opinion that you've just given is 'worthless'... 😕

I did not give an opinion.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
I did not give an opinion.

Well then..I guess that means that you believe what you've given us a fact, however, that is just your opinion of what you've given us, one in which we are not obligated to accept or believe.

So you see my friend, by your own admission, what you originally posted above was worthless. As is the proceeding opinion that you just posted. Does this then mean that my opinion of your opinions is worthless as well? Of course not, because you see the fact remains, you've given me two worthless opinions as evidence to base my opinion on.

Have a nice day. 🙂

Is playing an idiot easy for you?

Originally posted by Gay Guy
Well then..I guess that means that you believe what you've given us a fact, however, that is just your opinion of what you've given us, one in which we are not obligated to accept or believe.

So you see my friend, by your own admission, what you originally posted above was worthless. As is the proceeding opinion that you just posted. Does this then mean that my opinion of your opinions is worthless as well? Of course not, because you see the fact remains, you've given me two worthless opinions as evidence to base my opinion on.

Have a nice day. 🙂

A valid argument consists of a set of true premises that support a particular conclusion. Stating an opinion, i.e. a particular conclusion, without evidence, i.e. a set of true premises that support this conclusion, is worthless, i.e. is not a valid argument. Nice try.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Is playing an idiot easy for you?

Only when I'm engaging in conversation/debate with people who aren't that intelligent. 😉

Have a nice day.🙂

Originally posted by Bardock42
Is playing an idiot easy for you?

What makes you think he is playing?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
What makes you think he is playing?

If people are born gay, why hasn't Darwinism weeded out people who don't reproduce? And if gays can't change, who do liberals think child-molesters can?

- from page 2 in GODLESS: The Curch of Liberalism by Ann Coulter

"If people are born gay, why hasn't Darwinism weeded out people who don't reproduce?"

What has the one to do with the other? Homosexuals can reproduce.
Also, it might be a mixture of genes. And generally recessive, with that not possible to be "weeded out". All in all a stupid question. That doesn't mean that I think it is Genetic, but it doesn't prove anything,

"And if gays can't change, who do liberals think child-molesters can?"

On the one hand that are two different things. But even then, do liberals really think you can "cure" paedophiles. Or that you can convince them to not answer to those urges?

Originally posted by Darth Callous
- from page 2 in GODLESS: The Curch of Liberalism by Ann Coulter

A book of HATRED written by a Hateful Woman. Doesn't seem to relevant when it comes to Civil Rights.

WOW, I REALLY WANNA READ THAT !!!!!! 🙄 I think the title "Godless" was meant to describe Ann Coulter herself. IF God is a god of LOVE, then Ann Coulter is his antithesis.

Secondly, most Peadophiles are STRAIGHT.....the minority of them are Gay. Get your facts straight[/b]. No pun intended.

[i]Pedophilia and Homosexuality are NOT the same thing, so stop cheap-shooting with that kind of INVALID argument