Blame not Homosexuality, but attack the root.

Originally posted by DavidWillts

Originally posted by RyanFromCan
reply to post by DavidWillts

 

Please quote it or admit that you are making things up, do it now.

Yup, I will get on it right away as ordered Mr. Dragon SIR!..............hey, that looks tasty.............................[click]

Originally posted by DavidWillts

Romans 1:26-27

King James Version (KJV)

26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Lesbians are a no no too. I really wish people would stop trying to say that the bible somehow condones homosexuality. Nothing is taken out of context, it is really clear on the subject.

Lesbians are a no-no??
That makes me laugh.

No matter what any dusty book says, no matter how long busy-bodies continue to disapprove abuse or otherwise try to control it, human sexuality will flourish, it is more powerful than any of that. It is the manifest life force of all species. Gays will keep gaying, lesbians will keep lesbianning and there is nothing, NOTHING anyone can do about it. Comprende?

Originally posted by DavidWillts
reply to post by RyanFromCan

 

The bible, Leviticus specifically, tells you that children who disobey their parents must be stoned, that women must not go out in public while on their periods, that those who work on the sabbath (does not matter what day you consider it) must be killed, I could go on and on, take it all, or leave it all, stop cherry picking when you are a sinner yourself.

I have to go, I have a toasted bacon cheese and tomato sandwich waiting for me, oh wait, pork, meat with dairy, darn, i am in holy trouble now!

And you will continue to feel clever until you actually read and see that I specifically told everyone that I don't believe in the bible nor do i agree with it.

Then stop quoting the stupid thing.

reply to post by Starchild23


why you so mad?

reply to post by Pilot


Please go back and read all my posts on the subject, your post makes it look like you can't read.

Originally posted by DavidWillts
reply to post by Starchild23

 

why you so mad?

Is this your version of rebuttal?

No wonder you never make any sense. I am beginning to think you're only here to laugh at everyone on the forum...in which case, you're more than welcome to take a hike.

Originally posted by DavidWillts
reply to post by Pilot

 

Please go back and read all my posts on the subject, your post makes it look like you can't read.

I can read, I was quoting you because of the "Lesbians are a no-no" thing, the rest of my post was not directed toward you, just my opinion. Get over yourself.

Originally posted by Starchild23

Originally posted by DavidWillts
reply to post by Starchild23

 

why you so mad?

Is this your version of rebuttal?

No wonder you never make any sense. I am beginning to think you're only here to laugh at everyone on the forum...in which case, you're more than welcome to take a hike.

See - - we can agree on something.

He never makes any sense.

reply to post by Starchild23

You're saying that survival through reproduction is a more important aspect of life in a world where overpopulation is a legit problem, rather than loving everyone no matter what form it takes?

Exactly... How can the OP possibly be concerned about human extinction?
Seems like inbreeding would be a problem way before extinction!

This is why ATS should implement a "negative" rating system as well as positive, so threads like this can quickly fall into the waste bin... no stars for this thread, just a moon!

reply to post by DeReK DaRkLy


A negative rating system will simply incite the trolls...

Lets stick with the stars and flags shall we...

Originally posted by Starchild23

Originally posted by DavidWillts
reply to post by Starchild23

 

why you so mad?

Is this your version of rebuttal?

I figured it was a proper response to "Then stop quoting the stupid thing " . Im not sure how in depth you want to get considering I can now see what lengths you and others will go to in order to dodge a question and avoid the topic in the OP. All you got is ad hominem and strawmen, it is like arguing with a retarded child, no point really.

Originally posted by DavidWillts

Originally posted by Starchild23

Originally posted by DavidWillts
reply to post by Starchild23

 

why you so mad?

Is this your version of rebuttal?

I figured it was a proper response to "Then stop quoting the stupid thing " . Im not sure how in depth you want to get considering I can now see what lengths you and others will go to in order to dodge a question and avoid the topic in the OP. All you got is ad hominem and strawmen, it is like arguing with a retarded child, no point really.

edit on 12-4-2012 by DavidWillts because: (no reason given)

If you have a question, state it. I'll try to be patient with your antics.

Oh, and I'll thank you to put a cap on those "retarded" comments, as well. I'm sure the mods wouldn't appreciate it either.

reply to post by luciddream

The gene that belongs to a women which should have been a mute expression in male but it is not, which would make it a abnormality.

IMO, i would say Homosexuality is an abnormality in the gene expression. It is still natural but it isn't normal because the ratio of it being expressed is really low.

Do the figures, such as those quoted in this study suggest 'abnormality' or just relatively low prevalence?

If one is determined to stigmatize homosexuals (or anyone else) one can always find a reason.

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by luciddream

 

If one is determined to stigmatize homosexuals (or anyone else) one can always find a reason.

I thought AIDS did that

reply to post by Annee

Give... just ONE unselfish reason for bringing another child into this world.

It might be the person to save it.

In any case, animal reproduction is not a rational business. The need to breed is instinctive.

reply to post by DavidWillts

I thought AIDS did that

Really? How?

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by DavidWillts

 

I thought AIDS did that

Really? How?

AIDS is more prevalent in homosexuals thus stigmatizing it by placing in the same high risk group as IV drug users and prostitutes.

Originally posted by DavidWillts

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by DavidWillts

 

I thought AIDS did that

Really? How?

AIDS is more prevalent in homosexuals thus stigmatizing it by placing in the same high risk group as IV drug users and prostitutes.

Actually that is not true.

Two new books just came out on the history of AIDS. You should read them.

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by Annee

 

Give... just ONE unselfish reason for bringing another child into this world.

It might be the person to save it.

In any case, animal reproduction is not a rational business. The need to breed is instinctive.

Talking around a direct question is not answering it.

Human's can choose to have or not have sex.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by DavidWillts

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by DavidWillts

 

I thought AIDS did that

Really? How?

AIDS is more prevalent in homosexuals thus stigmatizing it by placing in the same high risk group as IV drug users and prostitutes.

Actually that is not true.

Two new books just came out on the history of AIDS. You should read them.

I like modern statistics over history books on subjects such as these. The "history" of AIDS does not change the fact that the high risk groups for aids are prostitutes, IV drug users and homosexuals.