Homosexuality is not a sin

Mr.Mason said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
That depends on the "culture" of the family and friends (and/or society in general). I personally feel that if you're old enough to join the army, you're old enough to have sex. In America, anyone under the age of 18 is NOT considered an adult. And in most states, you must be 18 and over to have premarital sex. Therefore, you have "statutory rape" when one participant is 17 and the other is 19.

However,

In some states, parental approval can be given for junior high school girls to marry grown (over 21 yrs old) men. In other states, the "age of consent" is below 18.

That's how it stands. My major argument would not be trying for a national consensus on the age of consent, but to change how this country treats sex education. I've always said that if we treated sex education as we do car and sports culture, STD's and abortions would indeed be the rare exception.
Click to expand...


Kind of a problem when people start getting horny way before 18!
Click to expand...

As it has since time in memorial, my friend. Societies across the globe have dealt with this in various ways...some logical, some rational and vice versa...my previous post is just an example from America. It's an on-going situation that evolves with the idea of culture and society. Hopefully, the next few generations will get it right. And the band played
 
AProudLefty said:
Abnormality is a statistical term. And it is false that they MUST RELY on them. They are capable of reproducing the natural way as I have stated.



I do not agree with artificial insemination. In my opinion that is unnatural. Where's the love?
Click to expand...

No "abnormality" is NOT originated as a statistical term. From the Cambridge dictionary: abnormality - something abnormal, usually in the body

- genetic/congenital abnormalities

An increasing number of tests are available for detecting fetal abnormalities.
The X-rays showed some slight abnormality.


And FOR THE THIRD TIME, I NEVER STATE OR INSINUATED THAT GAY PEOPLE WERE STERILE, INFERTILE OR PHYSICALLY INCAPABLE OF CONCEIVING OR PRODUCING A CHILD. I merely point out the BIOLOGICAL FACT that two men or two women cannot conceive a child in a gay relationship. Put it bluntly, gay folk having sex with other gay folk will not result in a pregnant woman. YOU admitted this yourself.

Your confusion as to what I stated my come from this: in the LGBTQ world, you have "bi-sexual" folk. So you can have a gay man have sex with a gay woman, and a child can be conceived....but that is still BIOLOGICALLY natural conception based on natural sex. That is an impossibility with same sex partners unless they use artificial insemination, adoption or surrogacy to become parents. Capice?

Your last sentence I find hysterical given your resistance to accepting my statements as fact, because the "love" according to the gay couple is what they give the child birthed by the partner. They enjoy gay sex, but it ain't producing no baby. So it's this way, or adoption or surrogacy.

Hope this clarifies my position, because I really don't want to beat a dead horse here.
 
Taichiliberal said:
No "abnormality" is NOT originated as a statistical term. From the Cambridge dictionary: abnormality - something abnormal, usually in the body

- genetic/congenital abnormalities

An increasing number of tests are available for detecting fetal abnormalities.
The X-rays showed some slight abnormality.
Click to expand...

Abnormal is a combination of the Latin prefix ab which means “away from,” and the English word normal. It essentially means “not normal,” or "unusual.” Abnormal implies that whatever is “not normal” is also undesirable. However, abnormal is sometimes used in a positive context. The phrase “abnormal intelligence,” for instance, usually refers to someone with especially high intelligence.

It means deviating from what is normal. Like IQs. IQs below 70 is abnormal.

And FOR THE THIRD TIME, I NEVER STATE OR INSINUATED THAT GAY PEOPLE WERE STERILE, INFERTILE OR PHYSICALLY INCAPABLE OF CONCEIVING OR PRODUCING A CHILD.
Click to expand...

I never said you did that. I was merely expressing my opinion about artificial insemination, regardless of sexual orientations.

I merely point out the BIOLOGICAL FACT that two men or two women cannot conceive a child in a gay relationship. Put it bluntly, gay folk having sex with other gay folk will not result in a pregnant woman. YOU admitted this yourself.
Click to expand...

Correct. It goes without saying. So why state the obvious?

Your confusion as to what I stated my come from this: in the LGBTQ world, you have "bi-sexual" folk. So you can have a gay man have sex with a gay woman, and a child can be conceived....but that is still BIOLOGICALLY natural conception based on natural sex. That is an impossibility with same sex partners unless they use artificial insemination, adoption or surrogacy to become parents. Capice?
Click to expand...

Correct. Again it is my opinion that artificial insemination is unnatural and without love.

Your last sentence I find hysterical given your resistance to accepting my statements as fact, because the "love" according to the gay couple is what they give the child birthed by the partner. They enjoy gay sex, but it ain't producing no baby. So it's this way, or adoption or surrogacy.

Hope this clarifies my position, because I really don't want to beat a dead horse here.
Click to expand...

I understand. It doesn't change the fact that homosexual people CAN reproduce the natural way, no artificial insemination.
 
Taichiliberal said:
No "abnormality" is NOT originated as a statistical term. From the Cambridge dictionary: abnormality - something abnormal, usually in the body

- genetic/congenital abnormalities
Click to expand...

Circular definition. Also, no dictionary defines any word. That is not their purpose.

The word 'abnormal' stems from Latin, 'ab', mean 'off, or away from', and 'normal', meaning 'pattern or fixed rule' (like a standard). First appearing in literature in 1835, and in a somewhat older form 'abnormis' (which carried the same meaning) as early as 1742.

To call something 'abnormal', you must first define what 'normal' is, in other words, you must first define the pattern that is being deviated from.

The pattern of concern here is the presence of male and female, and the reproductive process. That is the 'normal'.
The 'abnormal' is the deviation from this. Specifically, intimate relations with someone of the same sex, which is incapable of reproduction.

Taichiliberal said:
An increasing number of tests are available for detecting fetal abnormalities.
The X-rays showed some slight abnormality.
Click to expand...
Again, the pattern and it's deviation is clearly defined here.
Taichiliberal said:
And FOR THE THIRD TIME, I NEVER STATE OR INSINUATED THAT GAY PEOPLE WERE STERILE, INFERTILE OR PHYSICALLY INCAPABLE OF CONCEIVING OR PRODUCING A CHILD. I merely point out the BIOLOGICAL FACT that two men or two women cannot conceive a child in a gay relationship. Put it bluntly, gay folk having sex with other gay folk will not result in a pregnant woman. YOU admitted this yourself.
Click to expand...
You fell for his constant pivoting and contextomies. He is trolling.
Taichiliberal said:
Your confusion as to what I stated my come from this: in the LGBTQ world, you have "bi-sexual" folk. So you can have a gay man have sex with a gay woman, and a child can be conceived....but that is still BIOLOGICALLY natural conception based on natural sex. That is an impossibility with same sex partners unless they use artificial insemination, adoption or surrogacy to become parents. Capice?

Your last sentence I find hysterical given your resistance to accepting my statements as fact, because the "love" according to the gay couple is what they give the child birthed by the partner. They enjoy gay sex, but it ain't producing no baby. So it's this way, or adoption or surrogacy.

Hope this clarifies my position, because I really don't want to beat a dead horse here.
Click to expand...
He's going to beat this dead horse. He will simply circle around to the other side and continue to beat it.

Pivoting and contextomies and denial of his own arguments are his way. This is how he trolls.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Neither do you, Sybil. Quite bullying people just because you don't like what they have to say. Bring back gfm. He's both smarter and nicer.
Click to expand...

Sybil isn't here. Posting messages to her by responding to me won't help you talk to her. Your hallucination is YOUR problem.

Do you really think this 'Sybil' has the capability to order gfm around?
 
Nordberg said:
Conservatives are those who bulled gay kids making their lives miserable. They just continued on through their whole lives.https://www.huffpost.com/entry/dont-say-gay-nearly-killed-me_n_6256e76ae4b0723f80141662
Click to expand...

They're afraid. Most bullies live in fear. Most react to fictional threats or to combat feelings of inadequacy.

A common example among Trumpers are the poorly educated, not-too-bright Euro-Americans who buy into the idea that the reasons they are losers is because of "<blacks> and <Mexicans>". They also like to believe the "<Chinese>" are the cause of most US problems like our worship of greed and our stupidity in reacting to a pandemic.

They openly blame everyone but themselves for their own problems.

Everyone else. Not "I should have worked harder in school and gone to night school". Instead, losers say either "It's too expensive" or "the Goddamned Chinks fucked us over. It's their fault!"

People who never accept responsibility for their own actions are L-O-S-E-R-S.

What can be done about millions of middle-aged brats and losers? IDK, but I highly recommend we don't make the same fucking mistakes with future generations.

69g97s.jpg
 
Well, I said I would come back and comment here but after painstakingly reading through this thread there is no use wasting my time. Carry on.
 
AProudLefty said:
Abnormal is a combination of the Latin prefix ab which means “away from,” and the English word normal. It essentially means “not normal,” or "unusual.” Abnormal implies that whatever is “not normal” is also undesirable. However, abnormal is sometimes used in a positive context. The phrase “abnormal intelligence,” for instance, usually refers to someone with especially high intelligence.

It means deviating from what is normal. Like IQs. IQs below 70 is abnormal.



I never said you did that. I was merely expressing my opinion about artificial insemination, regardless of sexual orientations.



Correct. It goes without saying. So why state the obvious?



Correct. Again it is my opinion that artificial insemination is unnatural and without love.



I understand. It doesn't change the fact that homosexual people CAN reproduce the natural way, no artificial insemination.
Click to expand...

1. Jeezus, now you're just being stubborn to the point of insipidness! No matter how many dance moves you put out, there is NOTHING normal about a neurological, emotional drive that belies the physical, biological reality, and no social label, movement, surgical or cosmetic effort will change that. Period. What I stated is a matter of fact and biology. That you refuse to flatly acknowledge that and concede the point is irrelevant.

2. Yes you did, and the chronology of the posts proves that in no uncertain terms. Come on, don't start pulling this right wing wonk-type crap now. Denying reality on your part, much less trying to BS around it, is just playing silly.

3. GMAFB! We already did this dance as to why I KEEP "stating the obvious". Maybe if you'd stop trying to avoid acknowledging a reality that doesn't fit into your support of ALL LGBTQ propaganda, I wouldn't have to keep repeating myself. The chronology of the posts backs me up, your denial non-withstanding.

4. Again, your opinion is essentially irrelevant, because the medical procedure was initially designed for married straight couples to conceive because of some biological defect in one or both to conceive through sexual intercourse. His sperm, her womb. The difference with gay couples is that the sperm is from either an ex-husband/wife or anonymous (sometimes known) sperm donation or through surrogacy. What you infer is some type of "Brave New World" scenario that is inaccurate.


5. See #1 - 4. You're just :bdh: because you don't have the courage to accept what I originally put forth, and hence YOU KEEP LYING ABOUT WHAT I WROTE despite explanations and clarifications to the contrary. The objective reader will see your folly in the chronology of the posts. We're done on this, and I'm moving on. You may repeat your last words/insinuations/accusations.
 
Taichiliberal said:
1. Jeezus, now you're just being stubborn to the point of insipidness! No matter how many dance moves you put out, there is NOTHING normal about a neurological, emotional drive that belies the physical, biological reality, and no social label, movement, surgical or cosmetic effort will change that. Period. What I stated is a matter of fact and biology. That you refuse to flatly acknowledge that and concede the point is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Again, the terms "normal" and "abnormal" are statistical terms. Nothing more. Nothing less. Homosexuality is abnormal. So is high IQ.

What neurological, emotional drive? Are you saying homosexual people cannot reproduce the natural way?

2. Yes you did, and the chronology of the posts proves that in no uncertain terms. Come on, don't start pulling this right wing wonk-type crap now. Denying reality on your part, much less trying to BS around it, is just playing silly.
Click to expand...

No I did not.

3. GMAFB! We already did this dance as to why I KEEP "stating the obvious". Maybe if you'd stop trying to avoid acknowledging a reality that doesn't fit into your support of ALL LGBTQ propaganda, I wouldn't have to keep repeating myself. The chronology of the posts backs me up, your denial non-withstanding.
Click to expand...

What reality? And what LGBTQ propaganda?

4. Again, your opinion is essentially irrelevant, because the medical procedure was initially designed for married straight couples to conceive because of some biological defect in one or both to conceive through sexual intercourse. His sperm, her womb. The difference with gay couples is that the sperm is from either an ex-husband/wife or anonymous (sometimes known) sperm donation or through surrogacy. What you infer is some type of "Brave New World" scenario that is inaccurate.
Click to expand...

Again, it is my opinion that artificial insemination is not natural. If you don't like my opinion, oh well.

5. See #1 - 4. You're just :bdh: because you don't have the courage to accept what I originally put forth, and hence YOU KEEP LYING ABOUT WHAT I WROTE despite explanations and clarifications to the contrary. The objective reader will see your folly in the chronology of the posts. We're done on this, and I'm moving on. You may repeat your last words/insinuations/accusations.
Click to expand...

I understand your opinions. But they are not based on reality.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top