BC Parents Will Have to Lie to Keep Kids out of Gay Advocacy

News Forums

Previous 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ... 28 Next

SireJoe @ Fri Sep 15, 2006 10:35 pm

hwacker hwacker:

IceOwl IceOwl:

hwacker hwacker:

SireJoe SireJoe:

The fuck are you even talking about? How is making this a genetic issue, making it a disease factor? Your mind is so fucking warped its not even funny.

Your basically telling me that EVERY human trait is a disease. What the hell are you smoking?

No, there is normal and then there is not, Gay is not normal if it was nobody would be here. get it.

So it's a defect.

Being a king, president or prime minister is also not normal. Perhaps we should castrate Stephen Harper.

I know it's hard to understand with only a grade 12 but this is about a human’s composition not what he/she does in life.

Being gay is a defect. Humans are built for reproduction, gays are opposed to that with attraction to the same sex. Not normal, defective.

lol another classic from whackjob

Gays are OPPOSED to reproduction? LOL I seeeee. of course! Becuase we all know that NO gay people actually WANT children! Silly me for thinking such a thing.....but what! Whats this? An example of your utter stupidity?

How many children does that homo hag Rosie O'Donell have again? 4? Thats funny. Silly gays and thier ways of not living up to the whackjob agenda! Grrr!

lol your an idiot. Just stop posting. With no posts at least people wont realize just how stupid you really are.

Jaime_Souviens @ Fri Sep 15, 2006 10:35 pm

SireJoe SireJoe:

lol buddy, think whatever the hell your little mind wants. By you insisting that by me saying that homosexuality is a genetic trait and thus a disease is the exact same thing that I am telling you. Obviously you can "dish it out" but taking it...hurts a little...

Deal with the fact that I have never stated or even hinted that it was a disease.

Actually, you screwed this up. I suggested corrolaries to the idea that homosexuality was genetic, (the paragraph I explained in a looonnnnggg post to lily). Your knee jerk reaction was the same as her knee jerk reaction.

You then jumped to your completely misplaced accusation.

SireJoe SireJoe:

It was you, and by me saying it is genetic by NO means would infer it as a disease. Just like hair or eye color not diseases. Nor is the genetic disposition to being gay.

You make it genetic, and you're making it closer to disease. And certainly you would make it a "screenable" trait.

That's where you are. Don't blame me for pointing it out to you.

SireJoe SireJoe:

If only you could remove that bigot stick from your ass, you could see the light of day.

Well, you can take it to the gutter, I'm not following.

Jaime_Souviens @ Fri Sep 15, 2006 10:36 pm

IceOwl IceOwl:

Jaime_Souviens Jaime_Souviens:

lily lily:

$1:

lily lily:

$1:

Of course, by doing this, the people who have adopted this position have also undercut their own cause. If it's only genetic, we can screen for it and eliminate it. If it's only genetic, then pleas for understanding are meaningless. If its only genetic, then it's not something that can fight for dignity and self-respect, it's just a condition.

That' goes beyond ridiculous into the offensive.

Then why are you insisting it's biological?

Do you like offending yourself?

I'm quoting this bit to highlight your idiocy tonight.

You're being offensive in suggesting that what you consider a defect should be screened for and eliminated.

Am I?

Is that what I said?

Can you read, old lil?

Was I arguing it was genetic? Have I ever in this thread said homosexuality was genetic?

I was saying it was not genetic, wasn't I, old lil?

Now in that paragraph of mine above, can you read that paragraph? Can you read the words in it? Some of them are pretty big, eh, old lil? Can you do it?

Don't I say in there that "the people who have adopted this position (that homosexuality is genetic) have also undercut their own cause," can you see where those words are? Point to the words, old lil. That's right.

So what am I suggesting, in my big paragraph, old lil? Isn't it that, for people who have adopted this wrong position, (like you lil), then these other positions logically follow, right lil?

That's what the paragraph is about, right lil? It's right there, isn't it?

So am I advocating those positions, old, annoying, hate-filled lil?

No, of course not.

You just want to attack me in your boring old passive-aggressive way, and accuse me of taking positions I didn't take.

Isn't that right, lil?

Now, apparently you're not the only one. Iceowl made the same conclusions as you.

So you can reach around and pat yourself on the back that you're now thinking as well as Iceowl.

Goody for you.

Seems you've run out of steam, since there is not a single dispassionate and even remotely factual soundbite in your latest reply. Please, if you're going to attack me, refute my statement. Just try.

What?

Do you realize this was not a response to you?

SireJoe @ Fri Sep 15, 2006 10:39 pm

Jaime_Souviens Jaime_Souviens:

SireJoe SireJoe:

It was you, and by me saying it is genetic by NO means would infer it as a disease. Just like hair or eye color not diseases. Nor is the genetic disposition to being gay.

You make it genetic, and you're making it closer to disease. And certainly you would make it a "screenable" trait.

That's where you are. Don't blame me for pointing it out to you.

SireJoe SireJoe:

If only you could remove that bigot stick from your ass, you could see the light of day.

Well, you can take it to the gutter, I'm not following.

One word to describe you would be: Simpleton.

Some how you just cant grasp what Im saying, so I think I'll just stop trying fer ya. I dont wanna hurt yer purdy little head with all this postin. :roll:

Jaime_Souviens @ Fri Sep 15, 2006 10:39 pm

lily lily:

Jaime_Souviens Jaime_Souviens:

... a lot of words liberally laced with the phrase "old lil" and not much else

Did it ever occur to you, Jaime, that if I were sensitive about my age I wouldn't have my profile proclaim to all who wish to read it that I'm 42 years old?

How come you can't as frankly proclaim that you misread my post and started to pick a fight, like an ass, over nothing, Ms Extremely Offended??

Jaime_Souviens @ Fri Sep 15, 2006 10:40 pm

SireJoe SireJoe:

Jaime_Souviens Jaime_Souviens:

SireJoe SireJoe:

It was you, and by me saying it is genetic by NO means would infer it as a disease. Just like hair or eye color not diseases. Nor is the genetic disposition to being gay.

You make it genetic, and you're making it closer to disease. And certainly you would make it a "screenable" trait.

That's where you are. Don't blame me for pointing it out to you.

SireJoe SireJoe:

If only you could remove that bigot stick from your ass, you could see the light of day.

Well, you can take it to the gutter, I'm not following.

Backing off? Good plan.

Zipperfish @ Fri Sep 15, 2006 10:40 pm

hwacker hwacker:

Humans are built for reproduction.

So the only purpose of sex is reproduction. That explains why you never get laid. :lol:

hwacker @ Fri Sep 15, 2006 10:41 pm

SireJoe SireJoe:

hwacker hwacker:

IceOwl IceOwl:

hwacker hwacker:

SireJoe SireJoe:

No, there is normal and then there is not, Gay is not normal if it was nobody would be here. get it.

So it's a defect.

Being a king, president or prime minister is also not normal. Perhaps we should castrate Stephen Harper.

How many from having sex? you Idiot. 50 years ago she'd have none, and thats the way it should be today.

And also her brother Daniel O'Donnell is gay too. 2 defects from the same family.

SireJoe @ Fri Sep 15, 2006 10:42 pm

lol God. Your like the playground bully. Tryin to act all tough on the outside and crying a little on the inside. Stay strong little lady, stay strong. One day your simplistic views may come to fruition. Probably not, but dont lose that hope!

hwacker @ Fri Sep 15, 2006 10:44 pm

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

hwacker hwacker:

Humans are built for reproduction.

So the only purpose of sex is reproduction. That explains why you never get laid. :lol: