USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Women were allowed to go to battle and wear armore?
God moves in mysterious ways.
Women were allowed to go to battle and wear armore?
When have I condemned gays as a group? I condemn those who lie. I have exposed the truth that gay isn't normal moral natural or healthy, period. If they want to be queer, let them be queer.No, it is you that missed the point. Your proclamations and defense of the article are equivalent to DY's non-stop condemnations of gays. You are basing your accusations on your desire for them to be true. They are not based on any sort of evidence. At least none that I have seen you produce thus far.
Women were allowed to go to battle and wear armore?
Right. And given the dismissal of women, even today, rabble and countrymen were going to follow around a girl, in whom they saw femininity, not strength, conviction and the fearlessness of a male warrior.
No, it is you that missed the point. Your proclamations and defense of the article are equivalent to DY's non-stop condemnations of gays. You are basing your accusations on your desire for them to be true. They are not based on any sort of evidence. At least none that I have seen you produce thus far.
When have I condemned gays as a group? I condemn those who lie. I have exposed the truth that gay isn't normal moral natural or healthy, period. If they want to be queer, let them be queer.
You've lost all credibility (as if you once had it) by comparing me to DY, on any level. It's not "my accusations". I reposted an article, I thought significant and interesting from Huff Post...and you've accused me short of authorship, in your zeal. Don't fucking believe it...I don't give a shit.
Um... right there ass munch.
Time and again you make that unbelievably stupid comment and like Poet above, you have NOTHING to back it up.
1) Show us where Gay people are any more/less healthy than straight people
2) It is natural as it occurs in nature in numerous species. Not only do you lack any evidence to support your position there are numerous studies showing you are wrong.
3) Morality is a personal and subjective issue. While it may not fit your religions moral code, we are not required to follow YOUR personal BELIEFS.
Right. But since I validate me...I'm in good stead. Impotency is your waterloo. You probably have family members that are gay, and you're the last to know.You have lost all credibility by posting such nonsense and then defending it.
Um... right there ass munch.
Time and again you make that unbelievably stupid comment and like Poet above, you have NOTHING to back it up.
1) Show us where Gay people are any more/less healthy than straight people
2) It is natural as it occurs in nature in numerous species. Not only do you lack any evidence to support your position there are numerous studies showing you are wrong.
3) Morality is a personal and subjective issue. While it may not fit your religions moral code, we are not required to follow YOUR personal BELIEFS.
Homosexuality is regarded as being unnatural, but that's a paradox: nature abounds in examples of homosexual behavior in animals.
Various explanations have attempted to explain homosexuality in both humans and animals. Some researches point that genes conferring homosexuality in men could deliver more fertile female offspring and the genes that confer high masculinity can produce lesbian female offspring. Vice versa, genes of high femininity can render homosexual male offspring.
One hypothesis suggests that males can sometimes gain support in a pack by having homosexual contact, increasing their chances
of copulating females. When a species is mostly bisexual, homosexual relationships allow an easier way to join a pack. Homosexual sex can sometimes train infants for adult sexual roles.
It appears clearly now that for many species, like in humans, mating may not have a necessarily reproductive role. And observations made on our closest relatives, monkeys and apes, could explain the homosexual behavior in humans. This seems to be a basic primate pattern not exclusive to man.
In the case of Bonobo, the dwarf chimpanzee, the closest living species to humans, the community model is based on female solidarity and good relationships between the two sexes. Sex is at the basis of their social relationships and the weakest conflict is solved through sex, no matter if the other is male or female, as part of social bonding. This ape actually mates from each possible position.
From time to time, there are real orgies in the bonobo groups, with individuals of any sex and age (offspring included!) taking part, with both heterosexual and homosexual behavior. Bonobos frequently masturbate and females do it, too, which is very unusual.
The only taboo is sex between mother and son and almost all bonobos are bisexual. They copulate frenetically and often express sexual pleasure by screaming, especially females, in 66 % of the cases. The females form alliances, hardened by lesbian sex, and this way they detain a dominant position inside the group (but a peaceful one).
"In bonobos for instance, strict heterosexual individuals would not be able to make friends in the flock and thus never be able to breed," said Petter Bockman from University of Oslo.
But homosexuality is also common with the Japanese macaques. Here, females form strong bounds with one another and temporary lesbian pairs during the mating season, ruling several partners during the whole period. They stimulate genitally each other and express their pleasure by cackling. That's why the links amongst females are extremely strong in a group.
In each group, there is an older dominant male that will have priority in copulating the females. The other male macaques practice homosexuality, but they do not form pairs, preferring a one-night stand.
In stumptail macaques too there is a frequent prolonged, intensive genital stimulation between individuals of the same sex, both males and females, adults and infants. Homosexual activities were accompanied by positive emotional facial expressions.
During the first copulations of the young they are helped by adults of the same or opposite sex.
Right. But since I validate me...I'm in good stead. Impotency is your waterloo. You probably have family members that are gay, and you're the last to know.
You are obviously a clever chap, which is why I can't understand why you mostly seem to post about matters that concern you personally.
I am surprised even DY would continue with the "its not normal, moral, natural or healthy" nonsense. It has been debunked so many times.
Right. But since I validate me...I'm in good stead. Impotency is your waterloo. You probably have family members that are gay, and you're the last to know.
You are absolutely right to point out that homosexuality occurs widely in nature.
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Homosexuality-a-Basic-Behavior-in-the-Human-Ancestors-71153.shtml
What the fuck are you rambling about now? The above seems to imply I have some beef with gay people or some lack of awareness. I know for a fact my cousin is gay. I know for a fact several of my friends are gay. So what the fuck is your point? Is this your pathetic attempt to deflect from the stupidity of your OP article that you keep defending? Is that how you 'validate' yourself? ROFLMAO
We are all entitled to our beliefs. I believe the article, because, in my life I have experienced too many instances where a male friend was married and had children, and either was leading a "double life" or came to the conclusion that he was living a lie, and decided to move to rectify the situation, usually at great cost. I've known women, who had children, and later became involved in lesbian relationship. You're suggesting that circumstantial evidence is way too flimsy to certify whether or not a religious figure, in this case, canonized saints, were celibate, and/or gay or bi-sexual. Reality renders it plausible, to say the least. Now, that obviously doesn't sit well with you. I'm sorry, but this isn't about you. This isn't about me. You want to make it personal. It's not. Don't accept it? You don't have to...some would call it "wild speculation"....others, "gospel". Whatever. Take a chill pill and sit your ass down somewhere.
We are all entitled to our beliefs. I believe the article, because, in my life I have experienced too many instances where a male friend was married and had children, and either was leading a "double life" or came to the conclusion that he was living a lie, and decided to move to rectify the situation, usually at great cost. I've known women, who had children, and later became involved in lesbian relationship. You're suggesting that circumstantial evidence is way too flimsy to certify whether or not a religious figure, in this case, canonized saints, were celibate, and/or gay or bi-sexual. Reality renders it plausible, to say the least. Now, that obviously doesn't sit well with you. I'm sorry, but this isn't about you. This isn't about me. You want to make it personal. It's not. Don't accept it? You don't have to...some would call it "wild speculation"....others, "gospel". Whatever. Take a chill pill and sit your ass down somewhere.