BC Parents Will Have to Lie to Keep Kids out of Gay Advocacy
Previous 1 ... 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ... 28 Next
Jaime_Souviens @ Sat Sep 16, 2006 5:29 pm
SireJoe SireJoe:
I call for an arbitrator on this one. In fact! I call for SEVERAL arbitrators! Just to mix things up a bit here. Let others decide who is right. Whoever wins shall concede the point. Agreed?
You can't read that paragraph, can you?
This is beautiful. As long as you're willing to be kicked in the head, I'll keep kicking.
Jaime_Souviens @ Sat Sep 16, 2006 5:30 pm
lily lily:
$1:
I think that parents who have children enrolled in the public school system, should have more of a say perhaps as to what goes on in the curriculum, than two men who are otherwise uninvolved.
Good point.
I have 2 kids currently in the school system.
Anyone else?
You're a liar.
You do not have the character to admit you are wrong.
Jaime_Souviens @ Sat Sep 16, 2006 5:33 pm
For sirejoe & lily
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.
Jaime_Souviens @ Sat Sep 16, 2006 5:36 pm
SireJoe SireJoe:
As for your other quote. You IMPLY that if infact being gay is genetic it should be screened out. How does that NOT back up my claim and support yours? Your obviously confused.
"You IMPLY that if infact being gay is genetic it should be screened out."
Absolutely untrue.
I have consistently said homosexuality is not genetic since the beginning of this thread.
You are completely incorrect.
Jaime_Souviens @ Sat Sep 16, 2006 5:37 pm
lily lily:
Jaime_Souviens Jaime_Souviens:
lily lily:
$1:
I think that parents who have children enrolled in the public school system, should have more of a say perhaps as to what goes on in the curriculum, than two men who are otherwise uninvolved.
Good point.
I have 2 kids currently in the school system.
Anyone else?
You're a liar.
You do not have the character to admit you are wrong.
I don't have 2 kids in the school system?
huh.
I wonder who I'm making those lunches for.
You're a liar.
You do not have the character to admit you are wrong.
Jaime_Souviens @ Sat Sep 16, 2006 5:50 pm
lily lily:
Jaime_Souviens Jaime_Souviens:
For sirejoe & lily
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.
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.
$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.
Who wrote that little bit then, Jaime, if not you?
Correct. And I've always maintained that homosexuality was NOT genetic.
What does "If it's only genetic" mean to you, you lying, sanctimonious, maudite bozo.
Jaime_Souviens @ Sat Sep 16, 2006 6:07 pm
Can't admit you were wrong, can you???
This is really hysterical. I point out the absurdity of your positon, and you had to go off on an attack, as if that was MY position
You have only shown how reprehensible your position is. You lose control when someone shows how ridiculous your position is.
I have you coming and going.
And then you deny it! Lying idiot.
SireJoe @ Sat Sep 16, 2006 6:26 pm
lol buddy, the only one coming and going here is you. You dont even know how the things you write get read by others. Obviously you meant what you said one way and it can VERY easily be taken another way.
Whether what you MEANT was that it COULD be screened out but it cant be cause it isnt genetic. Is still the same stance as if it WAS genetic it SHOULD be screened out.
Just becuase you are saying one thing one way does not exclude the other side of your claim.
Your a piss poor example of acknowledging what you write. A simpleton.
And you are by all means as guilty as anyone else by tacking on meanings to sentences that otherwise would have never be included.
"You stupid idiot, by insisting it's biological, you're the one on the disease side of the equation."
Ring a bell pinky?
hwacker @ Sat Sep 16, 2006 7:18 pm
Ok let’s settle this, they are not normal that’s a fact, now weather it's a disease or a mental problem or just some fucked up electrical imbalance in their brain who knows and really who cares. They have to live with it not us.
The point is they should not be telling us what to teach our children. When they become the majority then maybe we'll see. Until then enjoy your blissful marriages and don’t spread too many STD’s
Just stay away from the kids and keep your sick lifestyles to yourselves.
Jaime_Souviens @ Sat Sep 16, 2006 7:31 pm
SireJoe SireJoe:
lol buddy, the only one coming and going here is you. You dont even know how the things you write get read by others. Obviously you meant what you said one way and it can VERY easily be taken another way.
Whether what you MEANT was that it COULD be screened out but it cant be cause it isnt genetic. Is still the same stance as if it WAS genetic it SHOULD be screened out.
Just becuase you are saying one thing one way does not exclude the other side of your claim.
Whether what you MEANT was that it COULD be screened out but it cant be cause it isnt genetic. Is still the same stance as if it WAS genetic it SHOULD be screened out.
Just becuase you are saying one thing one way does not exclude the other side of your claim.
So... on re-reading the paragraph, you realize now you were wrong.
Great. Jesus Christ, it's like pulling teeth around here.
SireJoe SireJoe:
Your a piss poor example of acknowledging what you write. A simpleton.
And you are by all means as guilty as anyone else by tacking on meanings to sentences that otherwise would have never be included.
"You stupid idiot, by insisting it's biological, you're the one on the disease side of the equation."
And you are by all means as guilty as anyone else by tacking on meanings to sentences that otherwise would have never be included.
"You stupid idiot, by insisting it's biological, you're the one on the disease side of the equation."
Disease. Biological. Genetic. Organic.
Developmental. Psychological. Personal preference. Identity based.
Which side are you on?
SireJoe @ Sat Sep 16, 2006 8:06 pm
Once again you are not reading ANYTHING correctly. But whatever makes ya giggle.
With every post you make, you have this silly idea that taking the side of it being genetic means taking the side of it being a disease.
That is YOUR silly assessment. Not anyone elses. If someone says its genetic, it does not mean they are saying it is then a disease, or a genetic defect. Why is it that whenever you bring up "that side" of the argument you think its same as saying its a disease? It makes no sense.
Arctic_Menace @ Sat Sep 16, 2006 8:25 pm
Okay, that's it...Enough is enough...
Everyone stop yer bitchin'.
Oh, and...
.
Jaime_Souviens @ Sat Sep 16, 2006 8:26 pm
lily lily:
All of the above.
Why do some people insist on pigeon-holing everyone?
Why do some people insist on pigeon-holing everyone?
You're a liar.
You do not have the character to admit you are wrong.
Jaime_Souviens @ Sat Sep 16, 2006 8:32 pm
SireJoe SireJoe:
With every post you make, you have this silly idea that taking the side of it being genetic means taking the side of it being a disease.
No. I said it is closer. Your narrow, unsupported, politically correct, conceptualization of homosexuality makes it easier to argue that it's simply a medical condition. ---And the argument goes from there. And it goes to places you've already made clear you don't like.
So why not re-think what you're doing?
And you might want to address, if it's a genetically linked personality trait, like schizophrenia, then what makes it different from schizophrenia, aside from the fact that you think one's acceptable and the other is a problem?
And why, in general, the knee jerk reactions to this from unthinking zombies of the left?
SireJoe SireJoe:
Once again you are not reading ANYTHING correctly. But whatever makes ya giggle.
You're running around and calling me hideous things because you misread a paragraph of mine, and I'm the one misreading things????
Arctic_Menace @ Sat Sep 16, 2006 8:36 pm
WHAT THE HELL DID I JUST SAY?!?!?!
Previous 1 ... 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ... 28 Next