Parents Protest Gay Fairytale for 2nd Graders...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Apr 25 2006, 05:28 PM) [snapback]245088[/snapback]</div>

Don't worry, Doc. MS is too dependent on the attention he gets here to ever actually leave.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Apr 25 2006, 05:54 PM) [snapback]245101[/snapback]</div>

OK. What's the over/under on his return? 5 hours? Or am I giving him too much credit?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(windstrings @ Apr 24 2006, 09:48 PM) [snapback]244705[/snapback]</div>

This is another glaring case of inaccurate translation from the original Hebrew text. The proper translation of the Hebrew word NADIV (נָדִיב) is: charitable, generous ; broad, given with an open hand ; noble, open-hearted. I have never seen any dictionary translating it to liberal.

 

I am truly amazed, This was an excelent topic, So many came out and spoke their opinions quite a few are agenst it, but seems the majority are for reading gay stories to 2nd graders. This is what our country has become and it will get worse..

We have learned that a majority of the posters here are for The (Gay Lifestyle = Homosexuality). For those who beleive, Its obvious we are following the great story book(bible) as most of you call it to the final chapters.

When its your time you'll finally get to see were you go to after die.
Will it be heaven? Hell? or just cease to exsist.. everyone has their own ideas, I chose to play it safe I was born again (but not a bible thumper) and I believe I will go to heaven, if Im wrong? Im wrong. but if I & millions out there are right, then take a floatation device and a cold one for your swim in the eternal lake of fire..

I do not belive homosexuals parenting children, I however do not have a problem with homosexual relationships & more power to ya and your cause.

Does anyone really know were AIDS came from???? (and its not from guy banging monkeys in africa) (The conspirisy theory people say the goverment started it to kill off the homosexuals but I really do not believe that either) I know its not just a gay disease anymore hetrosexuals are spreading it & other STDs like a untamed wild fire too, thanks to intrvenis users, bisexuals & unprotected sex. But were did it really come from????:.

This day and age people are learning to be more sexual and know their bodies what was taboo isnt anymore, if it feels good do it.

Im also amazed at how fast some of you twist the words around in these posts to suit your needs. If you start at the begining this was an abnormal post but it was news, now its turned into a mean sprited meadow muffin throwing contest..

I will be sure to pray for all of you to night before bed,


windstrings & MS I will pray for you, for strength in keeping with what you believe in.. showing your a non-conformist that just follows the rest of the pack ^5 to you both....


I happen to enjoy PC & FHOP and Im not leaving If I did, you will have won something by chasing off another non liberal that doesn't conform to your belief system.

Imagine If you had todrop every thing you believe in & conform to extreme left liberalizim to own a prius, would you do it? I think I'd get the H-3 LOL

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bobr1 @ Apr 25 2006, 04:06 PM) [snapback]245074[/snapback]</div>

Windstrings AND Mystery Squid in a gay bar? This I gotta see. The mental images alone are already priceless.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Apr 25 2006, 03:42 PM) [snapback]245042[/snapback]</div>

Yes, you can. It's discrimination. Whether it's based on gender, race, age, religion, or sexual orientation, it's discrimination.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(priusguy04 @ Apr 25 2006, 05:55 PM) [snapback]245215[/snapback]</div>

Thanks for your support. Glad to know you also think that I am (and others in this thread are) harming the country.

We know that a majority of the posters here are for equality, tolerance, respect, and inclusiveness.

What we haven't learned is just what, exactly, a "Gay Lifestyle" is. A few of the folks on here have taken a stab at defining it, but there is no consensus among the people using that term.

Could I find this lifestyle in "Details" magazine, or is it more of a Martha Stewart type of thing?

How charitable of you. Meanwhile, continue to support laws that make things difficult for people in the here and now.

Are you saying that your choice to become a Christian was based upon fear of the unknown and fear of eternal retribution? Some God you conceive of there.

Eternal torture and punishment. Abu Ghraib couldn't even come close.

More power to us unless we raise kids? Great.

You won't find anyone on this side of the fence advocating for "If it feels good, do it." Something more along the lines of "if it does no harm and is consensual, do it safely..." would be more accurate.

I agree that it has been mean-spirited. So far, I have been compared to child molesters, baby thieves, bestialphiles, and now hedonists and people who are making our country "worse".

Imagine if your life and relationships constantly ran afoul of intolerant laws designed to marginalize you and people like you.

Nobody is requiring you to conform to anything, in case you hadn't noticed.

- Bob R.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bobr1 @ Apr 25 2006, 09:31 PM) [snapback]245237[/snapback]</div>

Again twisted posts to make ones self feel justified

Im starting to look at this as one big joke On your side & mine, and no winners not that thats what was set out for but by the 12th page I guess we are just getting tired, time to rest a while.....

on to the next thread!

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Apr 25 2006, 12:47 PM) [snapback]245047[/snapback]</div>

"Deeply religious"? Have we ever had a better picture of how ugly and dehumanizing "deeply religious" people can be in their thinking?

Ever hear of "demonizing"? What we have here, before our eyes, is a person who, in his somewhat soft-spoken, bumbling way, is LITERALLY demonizing gays and women who want an equal relationship with their husbands! No, he isn't calling names (which some people think is "demonizing"), but he's literally telling Bob and galaxee, and all like them, that they are possessed of Satan, or some evil spirit in any case. The net result is that's he's just as offensive (to me, at least) as any of the well-known flame-throwers at PC who accomplish the same thing by agitation, badgering, innuendo and flaunting a sense of superiority to make others feel trivialized.

Unfortunately, winstrings [sic] is willing to hurl his Biblical thunderbolts, but not willing to answer reasonable questions from the "objects of his disaffection". In other words, he's cowardly, too.

Irrational homophobia? Get a life.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(priusguy04 @ Apr 25 2006, 09:11 PM) [snapback]245260[/snapback]</div>

Translation: "I can't really defend my viewpoint in light of your well thought out and reasonable post, so I will make a brush off type joke and not answer your questions."

The fundamentalists are trying to force the lawmakers to write laws that are hostile towards a specific group of people. It is wrong and is a modern day version of having a seperate water fountain for those black people. Your religion does not belong in our government. Get that through your heads. No a judge cannot put the 10 commandments up, no kids are not supposed to pray in schools, and gay people should be afforded the same rights and protections as straight. I don't really care what you believe, I start caring when you force it on the rest of us.

Here is the fundamentalist argument in a nutshell.

"It is evil because a book says so. I have never seen any of the crazy things this book claims happened, but when I was a kid my parents taught me it is true so it must be. I feel that the invisible man in the sky speaks to me in some deep way and he told me you will burn for eternity for your evil ways. I will also ignore all of the things in the book that do not fit with what I want to follow. Now I think you all should follow these rules, so I will use any political clout I can muster to make you."

 

Question: has anyone seen reliable data on what proportion of child molestations are perpetrated by homosexual men compared with heteros?

I honestly don't know. I don't want to "score points" with the info one way or another. I think I remember hearing that most child molestation was done by heteros, but that may only have been that done against girls.

What about that done by all those priests? Any law enforcement types check on what the "orientation" of those guys was, regardless of their vows of celibacy? Or is it just assumed they're "gay"?

To my knowledge, far more child molestation is done by hetero men than gay men. But I would stand corrected.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Apr 25 2006, 01:31 PM) [snapback]245035[/snapback]</div>

I'd like to hear Bob's thoughts on this.

I would think, for starters, that all anti-gay religious organizations would have to reverse their thinking on the matter. They SHOULD want to publicly apologize to gays, and admit that all Biblical references to homosexuality are ill-informed (as well they might be, given the lack of systematic knowledge about such things at that time). They SHOULD want to invite gays into their churches, though it would get sticky at that point, as inevitably the question of gay clergy would come up, and some of those churches wouldn't want to go that far, "genetic or not".

Insofar as so many of the inhumane acts perpetrated against gays is concerned, both by organizations such as businesses as well as individuals, were motivated by the myth that gays choose to live "perverse" and "ungodly" lives, I would think that many people would owe apologies to people whom there was no chance of contacting again. And, of course, the damage was done, whether it was shouting "fag!" in a school hallway or beating a gay person to death.

Whether it would be a spur to the removal of most or all discriminatory laws and regulations would remain to be seen, and would not happen overnight in any case. Some people would still equate gayness with leprosy rather than simple differentness, natural phenomenon or not.

I doubt any gay bars would close.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Apr 25 2006, 01:47 PM) [snapback]245047[/snapback]</div>

The Taliban are deeply religious, too.

And in this case, we're witnessing a religious display that represents the very worst organized religion has to offer.

Ever hear of "demonizing"? Some associate it with shouting, cursing tirades. Yet what winstrings [sic] is providing for us, in his own relatively softspoken, bumbling way, is nothing less than the literal demonizing of Bob and galaxee and all the gays and equality-seeking women in the world. He literally believes they are possessed by Satan or some other evil spirit. This, of course, gives him carte blanche to vent his righteous superiority beyond the reach of appeals to reason, data or the law. It is beyond pathetic. People like him, and there are hundreds of thousands, cause more anguish and suffering in this country than all the gangsta rappers and druggies you can conjure up.

"Irrational homophobia [sic]"? Get a life.

Vexingly, poor winstrings is too cowardly to answer the questions posed to him by those whom he would torment with his inaccurate Biblical thunderbolts.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Apr 25 2006, 03:19 PM) [snapback]245117[/snapback]</div>

I don't debate your translation.... the point the scripture is making is that those who carry the label "liberal" are the same as "vile" and that there would come a day when an apple is an apple and a day when good is not bad and bad is not good.

What is labeled as "liberal" is really vile in this illustration.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bobr1 @ Apr 25 2006, 02:06 PM) [snapback]245074[/snapback]</div>

So until you get the name of the spirit or a pig interview its all bunk right?

If someone was casting out demons in a man, and you hear the converstion and immediately see them given permission to enter the pigs as requested and the pigs immediately go hurling themselves down a cliff to their death against all normal natural survival instincts and still not realize what happened is someone trying to be blind on purpose.

Can't you see the obvious? Dont' think so.

Here are some more lightening bolts.....

(Mat 8:28 KJV) And when he was come to the other side into the country of the Gergesenes, there met him two possessed with devils, coming out of the tombs, exceeding fierce, so that no man might pass by that way.
(Mat 8:29 KJV) And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?
(Mat 8:30 KJV) And there was a good way off from them an herd of many swine feeding.
(Mat 8:31 KJV) So the devils besought him, saying, If thou cast us out, suffer us to go away into the herd of swine.
(Mat 8:32 KJV) And he said unto them, Go. And when they were come out, they went into the herd of swine: and, behold, the whole herd of swine ran violently down a steep place into the sea, and perished in the waters.
(Mat 8:33 KJV) And they that kept them fled, and went their ways into the city, and told every thing, and what was befallen to the possessed of the devils.

Now if you can't assimilate such an easy story.... how is anything else to have to say to be considered credible?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Deaden @ Apr 25 2006, 11:08 PM) [snapback]245302[/snapback]</div>

*********************************************************************************


Why should we apologize for being agenst a persons choice to be a homosexual, its not a rite to be gay its a lifestyle choice. ie mormons choose to live life under thier religon same goes for jehovas witnesses, example: lifestyle is the way a person (or a group) lives. This includes patterns of social relations, consumption, entertainment, and dress. A lifestyle typically also reflects an individual's attitudes, values or worldview based on choice.

Having a specific "lifestyle" implies a conscious or unconscious choice between one set of behaviours and some other sets of behaviours...

The term gay agenda is a pejorative political term and talking point (a political tool) used by those who oppose gay rights. It is not definitively known who first coined the term, but it is used by many Christian fundamentalists groups and the Right, especially in the United States.

Its core claim is that gays, lesbians and their supporters have a "master plan" to redefine religion (particularly Christianity), marriage, and family through "special rights" and shifting focus away from Bible-based morality. James Dobson, director of Focus on the Family, describes it as:

"For more than 40 years, the homosexual activist movement has sought to implement a master plan that has had as its centerpiece the utter destruction of the family. The institution of marriage, along with an often weakened and impotent Church, is all that stands in the way of its achievement of every coveted aspiration. Those goals include universal acceptance of the gay lifestyle, discrediting of Scriptures that condemn homosexuality, muzzling of the clergy and Christian media, granting of special privileges and rights in the law, overturning laws prohibiting pedophilia, indoctrinating children and future generations through public education, and securing all the legal benefits of marriage for any two or more people who claim to have homosexual tendencies."

The term "homosexual agenda" is viewed by some as an attempt to make the argument more palatable to moderate voters. However, some gays consider the term insulting (while they see "gay agenda" as simply inaccurate) since they view it as a refusal to call them by the term by which they define themselves, i.e. "gay."

PORTRAY GAYS AS VICTIMS, NOT AS AGGRESSIVE CHALLENGERS.

In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be cast as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to assume the role of protector. If gays are presented, instead, as a strong and prideful tribe promoting a rigidly nonconformist and deviant lifestyle, they are more likely to be seen as a public menace that justifies resistance and oppression. For that reason, we must forego the temptation to strut our "gay pride" publicly when it conflicts with the Gay Victim image. And we must walk the fine line between impressing straights with our great numbers, on the one hand, and sparking their hostile paranoia-"They are all around us!"--on the other.

A media campaign to promote the Gay Victim image should make use of symbols which reduce the mainstream's sense of threat, which lower it's guard, and which enhance the plausibility of victimization. In practical terms, this means that jaunty mustachioed musclemen would keep very low profile in gay commercials and other public presentations, while sympathetic figures of nice young people, old people, and attractive women would be featured. (It almost goes without saying that groups on the farthest margin of acceptability such as NAMBLA, [Ed note -- North American Man-Boy Love Association] must play no part at all in such a campaign: suspected child-molesters will never look like victims.)

Now, there are two different messages about the Gay Victim that are worth communicating. First, the mainstream should be told that gays are victims of fate, in the sense that most never had a choice to accept or reject their sexual preference. The message must read: "As far as gays can tell, they were born gay, just as you were born heterosexual or white or black or bright or athletic. Nobody ever tricked or seduced them; they never made a choice, and are not morally blameworthy. What they do isn't willfully contrary - it's only natural for them. This twist of fate could as easily have happened to you!"

Straight viewers must be able to identify with gays as victims. Mr. and Mrs. Public must be given no extra excuses to say, "they are not like us." To this end, the persons featured in the public campaign should be decent and upright, appealing and admirable by straight standards, completely unexceptionable in appearance--in a word, they should be indistinguishable from the straights we would like to reach. the spokesmen for our cause must be R-type "straight gays" rather than Q-type "homosexuals on
display.") Only under such conditions will the message be read correctly: "These folks are victims of a fate that could have happened to me."

By the way, we realize that many gays will question an advertising technique, which might threaten to make homosexuality look like some dreadful disease, which strikes fated "victims". But the plain fact is that the gay community is weak and must manipulate the powers of the weak, including the play for sympathy. In any case, we compensate for the negative aspect of this gay victim appeal

The second message would portray gays as victims of society. The straight majority does not recognize the suffering it brings to the lives of gays and must be shown: graphic pictures of brutalized gays; dramatizations of job and housing insecurity, loss of child custody, and public humiliation: and the dismal list goes on.

"... In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be cast as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to assume the role of protector."

Family values is a political buzzword first used in the United States in 1966 to describe a set of moral guidelines for defining the "proper" structure and role of a family and its members, supported by appeals to tradition. Most often, the term connotes a conservative ideology that supports what they consider to be traditional Christian morality or Christian values.

Typically, "family values" is employed as a code word for Christian values as put forth by some groups of American Christians who see their religion as the sole source of morality and consider the nuclear family to be an essential element in society. These groups variously oppose abortion, pornography, pre-marital sex, homosexuality, feminism, contraception, cohabitation, divorce, and depictions of nudity, sexuality and profanity in the media. Some conservative family values advocates believe the government should explicitly endorse Christian morality, for example by displaying the Ten Commandments or allowing teachers to conduct prayers in public schools. The view of the United States as a "Christian nation" is widespread among conservative family values proponents.

In contrast to the view of family values held by the Christian right, liberal groups such as People for the American Way, Planned Parenthood, and Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays have attempted to redefine the concept in a way that promotes liberal interests and ideology, including normalization of single-parent families, same-sex monogamous relationships and marriage, and unmarried monogamous couples. This understanding of family values does not promote conservative morality, instead focusing on encouraging and supporting alternative family structures, access to contraception, abortion, comprehensive sex education, childcare, and parent-friendly employment laws.

Family values in U.S. politics
Since 1980, the Republican party has used the issue of family values to attract socially conservative voters, especially those in the South and Middle America. While family values remains a rather vague concept, social conservatives usually understand the term to include some combination of the following principles, to be supported and enforced by the government through laws and regulations:

Support for marriage as a lasting bond between one man and one woman and support for laws and constitutional amendments prohibiting same-sex marriage
Family organization which has the husband as head of the household and the wife primarily as homemaker
Support for public education and popular media that promote (or at least act compatibly with) the current view of traditional Christian morality
Support for two-parent families as opposed to single parent families
Parental responsibility for and control over their children's education
Discipline of children at the discretion of the parents, sometimes including corporal punishment
Rejection of homosexuality as a natural sexual orientation, and rejection of behavior or appearance inconsistent with traditional gender roles Rejection of abortion, and sometimes contraception as well
The use of "family values" as a political term became widespread after a 1992 speech by Vice President Dan Quayle that attributed the Los Angeles riots to a breakdown of family values. Quayle specifically blamed the violence in L.A. as stemming from a decay of moral values and family structure in American society. In an aside, he cited the fictional title character in the television program Murphy Brown as an example of how popular culture contributes to this "poverty of values", saying: "t doesn't help matters when primetime TV has Murphy Brown—a character who supposedly epitomizes today's intelligent, highly paid, professional woman—mocking the importance of fathers, by bearing a child alone, and calling it just another 'lifestyle choice.'" Quayle drew a firestorm of criticism from feminist and liberal organizations and was widely ridiculed by late night talk show hosts for this remark. The "Murphy Brown speech" and the resulting media coverage damaged the Republican ticket in the 1992 presidential election and became one of the most memorable incidents of the 1992 campaign. Long after the outcry had ended, the comment continued to have an effect on US politics. Stephanie Coontz, a professor of family history and the author of several books and essays about the history of marriage, says that this brief remark by Quayle about Murphy Brown "kicked off more than a decade of outcries against the 'collapse of the family.'"

"Family values" remains a core issue for the party. It played a significant role in President George W. Bush's re-election in 2004. The Democratic Party has also tried to use the term family values, with their own definition, to attract social conservatives to its ranks. However, the Democrat's definition of family values is incompatible with that of social conservatives; indeed Democrats who describe themselves as having social conservative values are now increasingly attracted to the Republican party.

List of lifestyles

General lifestyles
Activism
Asceticism
Modern Primitivism
Back to the land
Bibliophilia
Bohemianism
Childfree
Clothes free
Communal living
Groupie lifestyle
Hippie
Nomadism
Quirkyalone
Rural lifestyle
Simple living
Traditional lifestyle

Income or occupation based lifestyles
Criminality
Farming
Jet set
Piracy
Poverty
Prostitution
Sarariman
Workaholic
Yuppie

Consumption-based lifestyles
Conspicuous consumption
Digital lifestyle
Straight edge (see also: punk)
Voluntary simplicity
Homelessness

Lifestyles based on social and political issues
Social liberalism
Vegetarianism
Veganism
Freeganism
Environmentalism
Feminism
Social conservatism
Nationalism
Fundamentalism
Moralism
Political independence

Lifestyle classifications used in marketing
Achievers
Affluent
Belongers (joiners)
Early adopters
Empty nesters
Emulators
Opinion leaders
Over consumers
Survivors
Young singles
Yuppies

Military lifestyles
Guerrilla / Partisan
Child soldier
Mercenary
Survivalism
Soldier
Terrorist

Sexual lifestyles
Celibacy
Chastity
Free love
Leather virginity
Monogamy
Polyamory
Polyandry
Polygamy
Polygyny
BDSM
Secondary virginity
Serial monogamy
Zoosexuality
Transgenderism
Transvestism
Transsexualism

Lifestyles based on spiritual or religious preferences
Ahimsa
Bahá'í Faith
Breatharianism
Buddhism
Christianity
Cults
Evangelicalism
Eremitism (hermit)
Thelema
Missionary
Monastic
Priesthood
Rasta
Islam
Zen
Yoga

Musical subculture lifestyles
Punk
Goth
Emo
Hip-hop
Rave
Beatnik

Lifestyles based on recreation
Surfer
Athleticism
Hunter
Extreme sports
Artist
-********************************************************
sexual orientation
n.
The direction of one's sexual interest toward members of the same, opposite, or both sexes.

There are several different views on the subject, the major ones of which are:

Sexual orientation is a preference, like any other lifestyle choice. People can be influenced in this choice, as in any other, by their peers, by media exposure, and by society in general, but the responsibility for making the choice is personal. (This view is frequently accompanied by a belief that choosing homosexuality is immoral or undesirable and should be discouraged. However, some who hold this view also believe that homosexuality can be an addictive behavior, like substance abuse, and difficult to stop; and still others believe that this presumed choice to engage in a "gay lifestyle" is morally neutral or even beneficial.)
Sexual orientation is fixed early in life. People should seek romantic and sexual relationships with people of whatever gender they desire. Discrimination against such sexual minorities is immoral.
Sexual orientation is fixed early in life, but homosexuality is immoral. People who have homosexual feelings should be discouraged from acting on them, and should live in celibacy, in opposite-sex relationships, or should attempt to develop heterosexual feelings (see ex-gay for a discussion on this movement).
Sexual orientation is not fixed; however it changes, not by acts of choice or will, but through factors beyond a person's voluntary control. From this, either of the above two sets of consequences may follow.
Sexual orientation is an illusory social construct. People should stop worrying about it and simply allow others and themselves to love whomever they please.
There is a strong correlation between belief in choice and disapproval of homosexuality. (Whether or not there is a causal relationship in either direction is a matter of debate.)

 

there you go, pick this apart too..

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(priusguy04 @ Apr 26 2006, 09:56 AM) [snapback]245482[/snapback]</div>

Wow...just wow. So much crazy stuff in there. I see you think there is a vast conspiracy to destroy family and your religion. I also see you compare gay people to child molesters....nice. You also call up the man should be the head of the household and women the homemaker....I would guess most women are offended. You also state being gay is a choice, which it is not. Cover your ears and go "LALALA" all you want, but people are born gay. For example:

Science published an article (1993, Vol. 261 No. 5119, pp. 291-2) in which Dean H. Hamer, Ph.D., wrote:

"The role of genetics in male sexual orientation was investigated by pedigree and linkage analyses on 114 families of homosexual men. Increased rates of same-sex orientation were found in the maternal uncles and male cousins of these subjects, but not in their fathers or paternal relatives, suggesting the possibility of sex-linked transmission in a portion of the population.

DNA linkage analysis of a selected group of 40 families in which there were two gay brothers and no indication of nonmaternal transmission revealed a correlation between homosexual orientation and the inheritance of polymorphic markers on the X chromosome in approximately 64 percent of the sib-pairs tested.

The linkage to markers on Xq28, the subtelomeric region of the long arm of the sex chromosome, had a multipoint lod score of 4.0 (P = 10(-5), indicating a statistical confidence level of more than 99 percent that at least one subtype of male sexual orientation is genetically influenced."
7/16/93 Science

Or your theory, a kid wakes up and says, "You know, I'd really like to get beat-up more, shunned by my peers, and told I am "evil" by close minded people like you. Maybe I'll be gay!". Yeah, that must be how it really happens.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Deaden @ Apr 26 2006, 08:22 AM) [snapback]245503[/snapback]</div>

Now your getting the picture.. your pretty nieve aren't you?

And if people are Born Gay, how will you continue your race without violating your union and going outside to the opposite sex to continue your twisted genetics?

Not that its wrong to borrow sperm or use a serrogate mother, but you are having to alter the normal natural way to continue.
At very best, I would call gays a hybrid, something genetically altered that cannot reproduce.. but they are not "normal".

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Betelgeuse @ Apr 25 2006, 02:56 PM) [snapback]245103[/snapback]</div>

Based on some of his statements.. he's prob burn't out for now.... He's been on this subject hot and heavy for some time now and prob feels like outnumbered and needs a break.

Give him a chance to get some R@R and my guess is he'll be back.... just because someone leaves, does not mean you won the arguement..... sometimes people realize there is no getting through so why bother?

Its one thing to verbally debate because its fun, its another when you feel there is not one receptive and they just are not going to get it.

You cannot argue and say you disbelieve what I already know.....

So If I ever leave, its because I gave up on you.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bobr1 @ Apr 25 2006, 02:06 PM) [snapback]245074[/snapback]</div>

That would be a fun challenge, if you would follow me and participate in some meetings with me.... I bet you could shock me with the commons "I'm quite good looking as you can tell from my avatar!", but I bet your experiece would freak you to your core foundations..... who knows?