Is being gay a choice?

poet said:
Really? It put an end to one of the most atrocious acts against humanity......slavery, in the US. There is nothing wrong with the South, per se, it's the racists that live there that is the problem.
Click to expand...

America was a racist country circa 1860. And that included the north as well as the south.

Killing hundreds of thousands of people only demonstrated just how evil the United States government can become.
 
Don Quixote said:
civil wars are terrible, only religious wars are worse

in war there are no true winners, only those that survive better than the other

until antibiotics were discovered and their use became widespread, more soldiers were lost to disease than combat. this was true of our civil war. the south's only hope of winning was for the stronger north to tire of the war and quit.

the flags of the southern civil war participants are symbols of losers.

jackson was killed by his own men by accident

there is no question that war sucks
Click to expand...

You're nothing but a cultural bigot brainwashed by compulsory education.

The fact that you and your associates are shoving this radical gay agenda down the throats of Americans confirms that you are not interested in reason and compromise no more than the government you sanctioned was back during that war.

And what are you using for your basis?

A pack of lies, distortions, and scientific theories all neatly packaged in a politically correct bubble and nothing else.
 
philly rabbit said:
America was a racist country circa 1860. And that included the north as well as the south.

Killing hundreds of thousands of people only demonstrated just how evil the United States government can become.
Click to expand...

would you prefer the alternative that the u s continue to support or at the least allow slavery?

how is it evil to fight a war to prevent an evil practice that the south practiced and attempted to secede from the union so as to continue the practice of slavery

would you not say that governments that support the practice of slavery are evil?
 
Don Quixote said:
would you prefer the alternative that the u s continue to support or at the least allow slavery?
Click to expand...


YES



how is it evil to fight a war to prevent an evil practice that the south practiced and attempted to secede from the union so as to continue the practice of slavery
Click to expand...
would you not say that governments that support the practice of slavery are evil?
Click to expand...

BECAUSE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE WERE KILLED AND SLAVERY COULD HAVE BEEN ENDED PEACEFULLY USING COMPROMISE AND REASON INSTEAD OF WAR, JUST LIKE IT WAS ENDED IN EVERY OTHER CIVILIZED WESTERN SOCIETY.
 
philly rabbit said:
BECAUSE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE WERE KILLED AND SLAVERY COULD HAVE BEEN ENDED PEACEFULLY USING COMPROMISE AND REASON INSTEAD OF WAR, JUST LIKE IT WAS ENDED IN EVERY OTHER CIVILIZED WESTERN SOCIETY.
Click to expand...

It was your guys that fired the first shot, dumbfuck.
 
Howey said:
It was your guys that fired the first shot, dumbfuck.
Click to expand...

Lincoln wouldn't let the South secede because the North needed the revenues from cotton and tobacco. You must remember that the South had enormous agricultural productivity, namely in cotton and tobacco, and exported their goods to the industrialised nations of Europe. Thus, the loss of the South would have meant a great loss of tax revenue to the Union. Slavery, while the catalyst for the war, was not the real issue.
 
Last edited:
Aoxomoxoa said:
Lincoln wouldn't let the South secede because the North needed the revenues from cotton and tobacco. One must remember that the South had enormous agricultural productivity, namely in cotton and tobacco, and exported their goods to the industrialized nations of Europe. Thus, the loss of the South would have meant a great loss of tax revenue to the Union. Slavery, while the catalyst for the war, was not the real issue
Click to expand...

The only thing that slavery had to do with that war was the issue of slavery in the new territories.

The north didn't want slaves in the new territories because the whites didn't want to have to compete with slaves over wages.

And the north didn't want blacks there to begin with.
 
philly rabbit said:
BECAUSE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE WERE KILLED AND SLAVERY COULD HAVE BEEN ENDED PEACEFULLY USING COMPROMISE AND REASON INSTEAD OF WAR, JUST LIKE IT WAS ENDED IN EVERY OTHER CIVILIZED WESTERN SOCIETY.
Click to expand...

If it were not for the southerners who insisted on maintaining their government granted privileges.
 
philly rabbit said:
The only thing that slavery had to do with that war was the issue of slavery in the new territories.

The north didn't want slaves in the new territories because the whites didn't want to have to compete with slaves over wages.

And the north didn't want blacks there to begin with.
Click to expand...

There is a lot of truth in what you say, there were many in the North that were scared of former slave heading North and slave labour being used in places like Kansas and Nebraska.

http://www.shmoop.com/causes-of-civil-war/politics.html
 
Last edited:
philly rabbit said:
BECAUSE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE WERE KILLED AND SLAVERY COULD HAVE BEEN ENDED PEACEFULLY USING COMPROMISE AND REASON INSTEAD OF WAR, JUST LIKE IT WAS ENDED IN EVERY OTHER CIVILIZED WESTERN SOCIETY.
Click to expand...

once slavery becomes deeply rooted into an economy, it is almost impossible to root it out

slavery still exists in the world and illegally here in the u s of a

may you become a slave
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
Lincoln wouldn't let the South secede because the North needed the revenues from cotton and tobacco. You must remember that the South had enormous agricultural productivity, namely in cotton and tobacco, and exported their goods to the industrialised nations of Europe. Thus, the loss of the South would have meant a great loss of tax revenue to the Union. Slavery, while the catalyst for the war, was not the real issue.
Click to expand...

What's worse than a toothless Brit taig trying to tell us about our history?

Did I do that right Rana and Darla?
 
Howey said:
What's worse than a toothless Brit taig trying to tell us about our history?

Did I do that right Rana and Darla?
Click to expand...

If I started calling you a poofter, turd smuggler or pillow biter, you would be rightfully angry. Yet you are perfectly happy to use a word that could get you killed or seriously maimed if you said it in the wrong place.
 
Last edited:
philly rabbit said:
I noticed that Howey has this strange hobby of threatening people with banning's if they do not kiss his homosexual special ring.

Rabbit to Howey - you're fulla sh*t Howey.

Continue on.
Click to expand...

OH CRAP!!
Now you're going to find yourself scutinized by the Mods, for not kowtowing to Howard. :eek2:
 
philly rabbit said:
I care more about homosexuals than you do Professor Rana.
Click to expand...

So which is the homo in your family? Wife? Kid? You?

philly rabbit said:
There is a moderate gay community out here with spokespersons such as Elton John the entertainer. But they are being drowned out by the radical gay element and their supporting allies in the media.
Click to expand...

Elton John is a "moderate gay"? Really?

Aoxomoxoa said:
If I started calling you a poofter, turd smuggler or pillow biter, you would be rightfully angry. Yet you are perfectly happy to use a word that could get you killed or seriously maimed if you said it in the wrong place.
Click to expand...

I never heard of the first two, so I wouldn't give a shit. And I have no need to be called a "pillow biter", since your reference is to anal sex, which I and the majority of gay males don't participate in. Which furthers your ignorance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top