View Full Version : Has anyone noticed that women nowadays...
BacktoBasics
07-05-2012, 05:13 PM
Shit all over this forum? :lmao:lmao:lmao
Please, STFU. You can't discuss or argue for shit because you think what you believe to be true is universal.There's nothing to argue. You haven't offered anything to respond to. Your initial garbage was refuted long ago and you came back with...wait for it...nothing.
Is there anyone that has come to your defense in this thread? With anything even remotely debatable? You asked me to list right or wrong...that doesn't even make sense. You're so fucked you're just grabbing for anything at this point.
You really don't realize how stupid you look. It would be one thing if you actually brought something to the table but you've got nothing here. You need to come to terms with the fact that you're essentially all alone on this. Its a losing situation and its only going to get worse from here.
I know one things for sure the more you post the worse it gets for you.
You need to take your shit and just take it away. Don't go away mad...just go away.
No one has to. It simply exists. Naturally.
How does it exist naturally? Are you basing this on the current scientific literature? From what I've been able to find and read, I've found the notion of being gay and it being a natural thing to be inconclusive. In other words, it's not an absolute certain that it's natural... a lot of people on this forum automatically jump to that conclusion.
There's nothing to argue. You haven't offered anything to respond to. Your initial garbage was refuted long ago and you came back with...wait for it...nothing.
Is there anyone that has come to your defense in this thread? With anything even remotely debatable? You asked me to list right or wrong...that doesn't even make sense. You're so fucked you're just grabbing for anything at this point.
You really don't realize how stupid you look. It would be one thing if you actually brought something to the table but you've got nothing here. You need to come to terms with the fact that you're essentially all alone on this. Its a losing situation and its only going to get worse from here.
I know one things for sure the more you post the worse it gets for you.
You need to take your shit and just take it away. Don't go away mad...just go away.
lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lolololololololololololololol
BacktoBasics
07-05-2012, 05:17 PM
No one has to. It simply exists. Naturally.
He truly doesn't understand. Even worse he thinks if he hurls some insults and fights back a few board trolls will pile on and have his back redeeming him for this garbage of a thread.
He's sunk, the fights over and he's swinging at air.
BacktoBasics
07-05-2012, 05:18 PM
You haven't offered anything to respond to. Your initial garbage was refuted long ago and you came back with...wait for it...nothing.
lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lolololololololololololololol
Case in point.
lol at these posters who automatically assume being gay is natural. I'm not even an anti-gay activist, but the stupidity and synchronous ability for these bigots to process that association in this thread is am:lolzing.
BacktoBasics
07-05-2012, 05:27 PM
How does it exist naturally? Are you basing this on the current scientific literature? From what I've been able to find and read, I've found the notion of being gay and it being a natural thing to be inconclusive. In other words, it's not an absolute certain that it's natural... a lot of people on this forum automatically jump to that conclusion.You're beyond clueless. Let me clear this up...but not that it would register.
Define Natural
1. Present in or produced by nature
Gay people have been occurring throughout history since history was recorded.
Approx 5-10% (conservatively) of the worlds population is homosexual. That is occurring "naturally". Again not counting all the silenced voices and people living private lives. That number could greatly increase.
Furthermore this doesn't take into account naturally occurring gender transformation and/or asexual species. The list is enormous.
The very fact that you attempted to make this a point fully exposes what you are because the only people regurgitating this absurd claim are the ones who parrot the anti-gay advocates. All you're doing is reiterating common hate rhetoric and strawmen arguments made by even more pronounced bigots than yourself.
Again this was refuted pages ago.
BacktoBasics
07-05-2012, 05:30 PM
lol at these posters who automatically assume being gay is natural. I'm not even an anti-gay activist, but the stupidity and synchronous ability for these bigots to process that association in this thread is am:lolzing.lol at this poster who doesn't even know what the word "natural" means.
I love that you made this post because it only serves to make you look like an even bigger fool.
You clearly don't know the difference between natural/common/deviate and the list goes on. Then you want to put yourself on a pedestal with posts like this.
You are beyond stupid.
You're beyond clueless. Let me clear this up...but not that it would register.
Define Natural
1. Present in or produced by nature
Gay people have been occurring throughout history since history was recorded.
Approx 5-10% (conservatively) of the worlds population is homosexual. That is occurring "naturally". Again not counting all the silenced voices and people living private lives. That number could greatly increase.
Furthermore this doesn't take into account naturally occurring gender transformation and/or asexual species. The list is enormous.
The very fact that you attempted to make this a point fully exposes what you are because the only people regurgitating this absurd claim are the ones who parrot the anti-gay advocates. All you're doing is reiterating common hate rhetoric and strawmen arguments made by even more pronounced bigots than yourself.
Again this was refuted pages ago.
Where was it refuted exactly? I never saw anything scientifically supporting gay as a natural thing. Increase your reading comprehension before you fucking reply, dumbass.
I got to go run errands, when I get back I'm gonna post everything I've found on online (while I also give some of my own commentary) that sheds some light on the inconclusivity you seem to want to ignore to save yourself from the ignorance and stupidity you've shown to me in your replies.
ChumpDumper
07-05-2012, 05:31 PM
How does it exist naturally? Are you basing this on the current scientific literature? From what I've been able to find and read, I've found the notion of being gay and it being a natural thing to be inconclusive. In other words, it's not an absolute certain that it's natural... a lot of people on this forum automatically jump to that conclusion.You need to keep reading. You're pretty ignorant about all this.
lol at this poster who doesn't even know what the word "natural" means.
I love that you made this post because it only serves to make you look like an even bigger fool.
You clearly don't know the difference between natural/common/deviate and the list goes on. Then you want to put yourself on a pedestal with posts like this.
You are beyond stupid.
Being in the medical field (as a medical assistant while in undergrad) for multiple years (culminating with me currently enrolled in medical school and looking into seeking a psychiatry residency) and shadowing a family member who works as a psychiatrist...I think I have a better idea of what a natural/common/deviant* is. I'm not even putting myself in any type of pedestal. I'm just looking at the hot debate between gay and it's propensity to be listed as natural. Your comments towards me reek immensely from an ethical standpoint...ethics aside, you don't know nor do I think you would understand shit about shit.
Just stop replying, it's obvious you aren't gonna offer any credible and legit takes on this topic.
You need to keep reading. You're pretty ignorant about all this.
:lol
BacktoBasics
07-05-2012, 05:43 PM
Where was it refuted exactly? I never saw anything scientifically supporting gay as a natural thing. Increase your reading comprehension before you fucking reply, dumbass.
You are beyond stupid. It doesn't need to be refuted. There doesn't need to be a scientific study.
You just need to understand what the definition of natural is.
Are you now disputing the definition of "natural" or are you just refusing to acknowledge it.
Hilarious that you...the guy who doesn't understand what the word "natural" means...the guy who refused to look at the definition, suggests I need to increase my reading comprehension.
You obviously don't realize what a moron this makes you look like.
Its only going to get worse for you.
Blake
07-05-2012, 05:44 PM
Smh
Okay, so what's natural to all you people? Let's hear it.
BacktoBasics
07-05-2012, 05:47 PM
Okay, so what's natural to all you people? Let's hear it.It already has a definition dumbass. Its not up for interpretation.
Could you be any more dense.
It already has a definition dumbass. Its not up for interpretation.
Could you be anymore dense.
What definition? The one you google or the one you find in the dictionary of your bookcase? So how does this definition of natural relate to humans and this topic? Let's hear it.
BacktoBasics
07-05-2012, 05:53 PM
What definition? The one you google or the one you find in the dictionary of your bookcase? So how does this definition of natural relate to humans and this topic? Let's hear it.The definition of "natural". Its not up for debate. It either is or isn't. If it occurs in nature its natural. If it doesn't it doesn't...this isn't up for interpretation.
You need to read the dictionary. Any of them.
Gay people exist = natural
Human body with a moose head doesn't exist = unnatural.
Figure it out already. You can't possibly be this ignorant.
The definition of "natural". Its not up for debate. It either is or isn't. If it occurs in nature its natural. If it doesn't it doesn't...this isn't up for interpretation.
You need to read the dictionary. Any of them.
Gay people exist = natural
Human body with a moose head doesn't exist = unnatural.
Figure it out already. You can't possibly be this ignorant.
And I'm the dense one? :lmao:lmao:lmao
BacktoBasics
07-05-2012, 05:59 PM
And I'm the dense one? :lmao:lmao:lmao
Yes you are. You're refusing to recognize the definition of "natural". I even posted it and you still don't get it.
You're attempting to debate "deviance" or commonality by redefining "natural". Its what makes you come across as a total moron.
ChumpDumper
07-05-2012, 05:59 PM
If it occurs in nature its natural.Do you have a different definition you read somewhere?
BacktoBasics
07-05-2012, 06:03 PM
Do you have a different definition you read somewhere?No.
Natural.
1. existing in or formed by nature ( opposed to artificial)
even
2. based on the state of things in nature; constituted by nature:
applies.
He's attempting to debate the relevance of deviancy by redefining "natural".
Gay people naturally occur 5-10% of the time. There isn't a gay factory.
ChumpDumper
07-05-2012, 06:05 PM
No.
Natural.
1. existing in or formed by nature ( opposed to artificial)
even
2. based on the state of things in nature; constituted by nature:
applies.
He's attempting to debate the relevance of deviancy by redefining "natural".Right. There may be a couple of the 15 or so definitions he could try to apply, but he'd still be wrong.
BacktoBasics
07-05-2012, 06:08 PM
Right. There may be a couple of the 15 or so definitions he could try to apply, but he'd still be wrong....and he's too stupid to debate the merits of sex resulting in something man made vs. naturally occurring.
But yeah he's wrong all the way around.
You know you're debating on spurstalk when posters circle jerk each other and semantics eventually becomes a component within a long thread.
ChumpDumper
07-05-2012, 06:21 PM
You know you're debating on spurstalk when posters circle jerk each other and semantics eventually becomes a component within a long thread.lol stalling
Do you have a different definition or not?
:lol replying with a semantic-attacking take
:lol not knowing how the definition of natural expands in it's application to medicine
Wow at this thread still going..
BacktoBack dominated in this thread.
lol stalling
Do you have a different definition or not?
semantiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiics
ChumpDumper
07-05-2012, 06:27 PM
:lol replying with a semantic-attacking take
:lol not knowing how the definition of natural expands in it's application to medicine:lol playing the victim
:lol still stalling
:lol setting up your own semantic argument
Wow at this thread still going..
BacktoBack dominated in this thread.
:lol
Dominated as in the period which she posted takes reeking of hormonal problems?
She's done nothing but bitch about me being a bigot, hater, and supremacist.
ChumpDumper
07-05-2012, 06:31 PM
all I ask is for is a civil discourse.:lol
:lol playing the victim
:lol still stalling
:lol setting up your own semantic argument
tbh, it really is my fault. I did set myself up for that one.
:lol at me discussing an issue from a medical standpoint when this is predominately an ethically dense discussion
:lol
Hey look she didn't give me that.
ChumpDumper
07-05-2012, 06:34 PM
tbh, it really is my fault. I did set myself up for that one.
:lol at me discussing an issue from a medical standpoint when this is predominately an ethically dense discussion:lol Our definition had nothing at all to do with ethics.
Shastafarian
07-05-2012, 06:35 PM
:lol
Dominated as in the period which she posted takes reeking of hormonal problems?
She's done nothing but bitch about me being a bigot, hater, and supremacist.
You didn't know what "natural" meant. You're no Ginobilly but come on.
:lol Our definition had nothing at all to do with ethics.
It has every bit to do with the lack of knowing how natural applies to medicine.
ChumpDumper
07-05-2012, 06:39 PM
It has every bit to do with the lack of knowing how natural applies to medicine.
semantiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiics:lol
You didn't know what "natural" meant. You're no Ginobilly but come on.
I do know what it means tbh. Just spurstalk posters jumping on the circle jerk wagon and wittingly attacking my takes semantically. I'm use to seeing it happen to other posters, I guess it's happening to me now.
ChumpDumper
07-05-2012, 06:40 PM
I do know what it means tbh. Just spurstalk posters jumping on the circle jerk wagon and wittingly attacking my takes semantically. I'm use to seeing it happen to other posters, I guess it's happening to me know.:lol victimhood
:lol still stalling
:lol nowhere to go but semantics
Shastafarian
07-05-2012, 06:42 PM
I do know what it means tbh. Just spurstalk posters jumping on the circle jerk wagon and wittingly attacking my takes semantically. I'm use to seeing it happen to other posters, I guess it's happening to me now.
You don't. Your "medical" definition is not of the word natural. I believe the closest thing you're probably thinking of is physiologic. Not the same thing and you're still dumb.
Which med school are you enrolled in btw?
:lol victimhood
:lol still stalling
:lol nowhere to go but semantics
:lol not playing the victim
:lol semantic attack
:lol stalling where?
Shastafarian
07-05-2012, 06:43 PM
lol I had to get in on the circle jerk! lololllllllllolollllll
You don't. Your "medical" definition is not of the word natural. I believe the closest thing you're probably thinking of is physiologic. Not the same thing and you're still dumb.
Physiologic? No way off.
:lol @ the dumb comment
Which med school are you enrolled in btw?
UTMB
ChumpDumper
07-05-2012, 06:47 PM
:lol not playing the victim
:lol semantic attack
:lol stalling where?:lol totally playing the victim
:lol semantic victim
:lol stalling by asking about stalling
:lol goddam you Chump, get off my case man.
Shastafarian
07-05-2012, 06:48 PM
Physiologic? No way off.
:lol @ the dumb commentOk then provide a close definition for me. Because I think you see it as "Penises are 'medically' meant to go into vaginas and not buttholes. Semen isn't meant to impregnate butts."
UTMB
That's a lot of letters
gotta run, be back on later...
Blake
07-05-2012, 07:18 PM
It has every bit to do with the lack of knowing how natural applies to medicine.
how does gay animal sex in "nature" apply to medicine?
leemajors
07-05-2012, 07:56 PM
how does gay animal sex in "nature" apply to medicine?
tbh that begs a definition of "medicine" as much as anything else.
CuckingFunt
07-05-2012, 10:58 PM
I already said I have a gay friend and a gay cousin that I'm close with. I'm not homophobic at all. I just like to have fun with you. You get riled up so easy that I bet you look cute when you get mad. :hat
You think I'm riled up?
CuckingFunt
07-05-2012, 11:03 PM
I have made fun equally of all three races.
Well, as long as you got to all three of 'em.
ALVAREZ6
07-05-2012, 11:16 PM
Anal sex is not practiced by homosexual male couples at significantly higher rates than it is by heterosexual couples or by lesbian couples.
I'm quite surprised tbh.
and :lmao @ natural episode
CuckingFunt
07-05-2012, 11:44 PM
Being in the medical field (as a medical assistant while in undergrad) for multiple years (culminating with me currently enrolled in medical school and looking into seeking a psychiatry residency) and shadowing a family member who works as a psychiatrist...
God, save us all.
I think I have a better idea of what a natural/common/deviant* is. I'm not even putting myself in any type of pedestal. I'm just looking at the hot debate between gay and it's propensity to be listed as natural. Your comments towards me reek immensely from an ethical standpoint...ethics aside, you don't know nor do I think you would understand shit about shit.
Just stop replying, it's obvious you aren't gonna offer any credible and legit takes on this topic.
Your use of the terms "common" and "deviant" above make me think you're arguing against homosexuality being "natural" when you mean to be arguing against it being "normal."
"Natural" implies neither "frequent" nor "typical." Anything that occurs in nature is natural, even if it only ever happens once. It is true that only a small percentage of the population identifies as homosexual or bisexual, making a queer identity something that exists in opposition to biological and social norms, but that's completely different from it being unnatural.
Unless, of course, you're using "nature" in its definition as the opposite of "nurture." Suggesting, therefore, that homosexuality is a choice. If that's the case, based on your comments thus far you're even more confused than I initially thought. Largely because the implication then is that you're confusing/conflating what people do with what people are.
In other words, defining male homosexuality (because, as is usually the case with the homophobes, lesbians are completely unimportant to the conversation/outrage) as a collection of behaviors, mannerisms, and sexual practices rather than as a collection of underlying motivations, desires, and attractions. Such a definitional error makes the nature/nurture argument difficult because one side is suggesting that people are born gay (and meaning that people are unable to control or determine their attractions), while the other side says that being gay is a choice (and meaning that people with homosexual desires are making the conscious choice to act on them). In such an argument, both sides are correct but neither side is responding to the other's position. People who are homosexual do consciously choose the degree to which they will act on their homosexual desires, just as straight people consciously choose how they will act on their attraction to the opposite sex. Conversely, people who are attracted to the same sex are no more in control of that attraction than you are of your attraction to women.
You didn't make a choice to be attracted to women. You did make a choice to pursue a sex life with the people to whom you are attracted.
Gay male #356 didn't make a choice to be attracted to other men. He did make a choice to pursue a sex life with the people to whom he is attracted.
Ok then provide a close definition for me. Because I think you see it as "Penises are 'medically' meant to go into vaginas and not buttholes. Semen isn't meant to impregnate butts."
Sexual orientation is commonly discussed as if it were solely a characteristic of an individual, like biological sex, gender identity, or age. This perspective is incomplete because sexual orientation is defined in terms of relationships with others.
http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx
I had to be out of the house for some time, but with the little time I had to do a little research on the topic, I found this rather lengthy article on sexual orientation and homosexuality. I quoted the above from the article.......
So sexual orientation (associated with homosexuality, of course) is not considered a natural (natural as in innate, this word is used rather loosely and may overlap with the term normal, CF is somewhat right in her post) trait like a person's gender, age, or even race if you want to enter that word into this topic. Thus, homosexuality is not a natural characteristic trait of a human being.
By the same token, however.
No, lesbian, gay, and bisexual orientations are not disorders. Research has found no inherent association between any of these sexual orientations and psychopathology. Both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Both have been documented in many different cultures and historical eras. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual relationships are normal forms of human bonding. Therefore, these mainstream organizations long ago abandoned classifications of homosexuality as a mental disorder.
http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx
While this is a direct quote from the APA website, I would take this with a grain of salt (perhaps the entire article can be taken lightly, even the post I quoted in my other response). The APA has been widely mentioned to be pro-gay going for the past 20 or so years...so much so that they advocated the existence of a gay gene -- fueling gay activism towards the promotion of the "gay" and genetically "natural" association of terms by the mainstream media. This effort, in a nutshell, was to prove homosexuality was a biological trait.
Before 2009, the APA website had a brochure on it's front page, much like the article I've provided and it read:
"There is considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including
genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person’s sexuality."
In 2009, there was a change in tone:
"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles...."
That's a lot of letters
University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston
how does gay animal sex in "nature" apply to medicine?
Medically, not sure.
Biologically, it goes against the very essence of genetic diversity.
DeadlyDynasty
07-06-2012, 01:46 AM
I'm pretty sure I may have posted in this thread already, but can I please get the Cliffs Notes version of the goings-on here.
Danke
CuckingFunt
07-06-2012, 01:46 AM
http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx
I had to be out of the house for some time, but with the little time I had to do a little research on the topic, I found this rather lengthy article on sexual orientation and homosexuality. I quoted the above from the article.......
So sexual orientation (associated with homosexuality, of course) is not considered a natural (natural as in innate, this word is used rather loosely and may overlap with the term normal, CF is somewhat right in her post) trait like a person's gender, age, or even race if you want to enter that word into this topic. Thus, homosexuality is not a natural characteristic trait of a human being.
From the very article you linked:
"What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation?
There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation."
You still don't seem to have a very clear grasp on what you mean by "natural." If you mean it as a substitute for "innate," that doesn't at all overlap with "normal." Nor is it in any way refuted by your own article. Or any other extant reliable study.
CuckingFunt
07-06-2012, 01:59 AM
I'm pretty sure I may have posted in this thread already, but can I please get the Cliffs Notes version of the goings-on here.
Danke
It's going in a couple of different directions, currently, but I'll try.
triggeredexcellence: Ever noticed how women are less homophobic than homophobic men? S'up with dat?
most everyone else: What a queer way to go about creating a homophobe thread. Ya damned homophobe.
triggeredexcellence: I'm not homophobic. I just am creeped out when gay people decide to act all gay.
most everyone else: Why?
triggeredexcellence: Because teh gayness is unnatural.
most everyone else: 'Cept it occurs in nature.
triggeredexcellence: But that doesn't make it natural. You guys must be a bunch of queer fags or queer fag apologists to think otherwise.
most everyone else: What do you think the word "natural" means?
Answer TBD.
Somewhat tangentially...
Ginobilly: Gay men are icky because they have scary penises. Straight men are inherently threatened by what other men are doing with their penises because something something pit bull analogy. Lesbians are less icky because they don't have scary penises.
most everyone else: You're a fucking idiot.
Ginobilly: Just kidding, y'all. I gots gay cousins.
most everyone else: That's pretty obviously bullshit, but thanks for giving us definitive reason to stop giving a shit what you say in here.
And also B2B.
God, save us all.
Uh, okay?
Your use of the terms "common" and "deviant" above make me think you're arguing against homosexuality being "natural" when you mean to be arguing against it being "normal."
Natural, and normal...while you have a point, these two words expand in application in the different venues of biology and humanity.
It's natural for a human to be in love... being in love to the opposite sex enables the spreading of genes and blah blah blah (pretty sure you've heard that argument before and you'll brush it off). If you really think about it, at the very fundamental reality of man and women, this argument holds biological credibility.
"Natural" implies neither "frequent" nor "typical." Anything that occurs in nature is natural, even if it only ever happens once. It is true that only a small percentage of the population identifies as homosexual or bisexual, making a queer identity something that exists in opposition to biological and social norms, but that's completely different from it being unnatural.
So you would say homosexuality and bisexuality is abnormal?
Unless, of course, you're using "nature" in its definition as the opposite of "nurture." Suggesting, therefore, that homosexuality is a choice. If that's the case, based on your comments thus far you're even more confused than I initially thought. Largely because the implication then is that you're confusing/conflating what people do with what people are.
Firstly:
Read my first reply to Shasta...
Secondly:
So I'm confusing the category of what a homosexual person does with the category of what a homosexual person is?
Nice try, tbh. You are witty.
In other words, defining male homosexuality (because, as is usually the case with the homophobes, lesbians are completely unimportant to the conversation/outrage) as a collection of behaviors, mannerisms, and sexual practices rather than as a collection of underlying motivations, desires, and attractions. Such a definitional error makes the nature/nurture argument difficult because one side is suggesting that people are born gay (and meaning that people are unable to control or determine their attractions), while the other side says that being gay is a choice (and meaning that people with homosexual desires are making the conscious choice to act on them).
So you're gay by choice or do you think you were born gay?
In such an argument, both sides are correct but neither side is responding to the other's position.
You got that right...some posters on here like backtobasics are too stupid and hormonally affected to process this.
People who are homosexual do consciously choose the degree to which they will act on their homosexual desires, just as straight people consciously choose how they will act on their attraction to the opposite sex. Conversely, people who are attracted to the same sex are no more in control of that attraction than you are of your attraction to women.
You didn't make a choice to be attracted to women. You did make a choice to pursue a sex life with the people to whom you are attracted.
No, I consciously chose to be attracted to women, not to the having sex part (although I don't mind that, let me tell you). You've basically argued that the degree of sexual attraction determines what type of relationships me and you have engaged in... while that does hold some truth, it's not entirely correct in it's saliency. This is more of matter of opinion than it is fact, tbh.
Jacob1983
07-06-2012, 02:05 AM
Doesn't the word "deviant" basically just mean that something deviates away from the norms of society? Why do gay people get so bent out of shape and pissy when someone says that homosexuality is deviant behavior? Deviant does not mean bad, dumbasses. In America and around the world, most people are straight and being straight is considered the norm.
From the very article you linked:
"What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation?
There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation."
You still don't seem to have a very clear grasp on what you mean by "natural." If you mean it as a substitute for "innate," that doesn't at all overlap with "normal." Nor is it in any way refuted by your own article. Or any other extant reliable study.
Natural, as it's applied in the field of biology (more so in genetics).
It's natural for a human being to want to hold a heterosexual relation with the opposite gender, in doing so, conceive offspring containing genetically different DNA.
DeadlyDynasty
07-06-2012, 02:10 AM
It's going in a couple of different directions, currently, but I'll try.
triggeredexcellence: Ever noticed how women are less homophobic than homophobic men? S'up with dat?
most everyone else: What a queer way to go about creating a homophobe thread. Ya damned homophobe.
triggeredexcellence: I'm not homophobic. I just am creeped out when gay people decide to act all gay.
most everyone else: Why?
triggeredexcellence: Because teh gayness is unnatural.
most everyone else: 'Cept it occurs in nature.
triggeredexcellence: But that doesn't make it natural. You guys must be a bunch of queer fags or queer fag apologists to think otherwise.
most everyone else: What do you think the word "natural" means?
Answer TBD.
Somewhat tangentially...
Ginobilly: Gay men are icky because they have scary penises. Straight men are inherently threatened by what other men are doing with their penises because something something pit bull analogy. Lesbians are less icky because they don't have scary penises.
most everyone else: You're a fucking idiot.
Ginobilly: Just kidding, y'all. I gots gay cousins.
most everyone else: That's pretty obviously bullshit, but thanks for giving us definitive reason to stop giving a shit what you say in here.
And also B2B.
Ahh, I see...thanks for saving me 13 pages:tu, although morbid curiosity might have me check out Ginobily's takes--b/c he's been to known to have special opinions.
It's going in a couple of different directions, currently, but I'll try.
triggeredexcellence: Ever noticed how women are less homophobic than homophobic men? S'up with dat?
most everyone else: What a queer way to go about creating a homophobe thread. Ya damned homophobe.
triggeredexcellence: I'm not homophobic. I just am creeped out when gay people decide to act all gay.
most everyone else: Why?
triggeredexcellence: Because teh gayness is unnatural.
most everyone else: 'Cept it occurs in nature.
triggeredexcellence: But that doesn't make it natural. You guys must be a bunch of queer fags or queer fag apologists to think otherwise.
most everyone else: What do you think the word "natural" means?
Answer TBD.
Somewhat tangentially...
Ginobilly: Gay men are icky because they have scary penises. Straight men are inherently threatened by what other men are doing with their penises because something something pit bull analogy. Lesbians are less icky because they don't have scary penises.
most everyone else: You're a fucking idiot.
Ginobilly: Just kidding, y'all. I gots gay cousins.
most everyone else: That's pretty obviously bullshit, but thanks for giving us definitive reason to stop giving a shit what you say in here.
And also B2B.
Don't even pay attention to this DD, you can clearly tell CF is somewhat pist off because I'm questioning the authenticity of being gay and how it relates to the natural order of things.
According to her, it's natural to be gay because it occurs naturally (in nature, semantics much :lmao).
Jacob1983
07-06-2012, 02:16 AM
Can a man and a man have a baby? Can a woman and a woman have a baby? Can a man and a woman have a baby?
It's funny to see the circle jerking in here with more popular posters. Pretty much details the entirety of how ST functions when one poster holds a differing opinion or ever so slightly questions the norm.
When it comes to this topic, we've learned a couple of things regarding this topic and spurstalk: If you don't agree and accept all of homosexuality you are outed as a homophobe, hater, bigot.
This topic is very touchy and quite the controversial. If I've offended any posters here for questioning homosexuality and it's acceptance, I'm sorry.
DeadlyDynasty
07-06-2012, 02:34 AM
It's funny to see the circle jerking in here with more popular posters. Pretty much details the entirety of how ST functions when one poster holds a differing opinion or ever so slightly questions the norm.
When it comes to this topic, we've learned a couple of things regarding this topic and spurstalk: If you don't agree and accept all of homosexuality you are outed as a homophobe, hater, bigot.
This topic is very touchy and quite the controversial. If I've offended any posters here for questioning homosexuality and it's acceptance, I'm sorry.
Like I said man, I haven't read through this thread but I don't look at homosexuality in such black and white terms. I grew up most of my life around Miami and South Beach so it was always accepted and understood when you saw it. The usually inherent prejudices towards the subject weren't present down there and i never really gave much thought to it.
That is, until I started living in other parts of the country--particularly, Phoenix, Boise, and NW Louisiana--where it was viewed as unnatural and hedonistic.
To tell you the truth broski, I just don't give a shit.
Can a man and a man have a baby? Can a woman and a woman have a baby? Can a man and a woman have a baby?
What's the point of these questions? Where you trying to get at with this?
CuckingFunt
07-06-2012, 02:43 AM
Natural, and normal...while you have a point, these two words expand in application in the different venues of biology and humanity.
To mean what? You still haven't provided a coherent and/or consistent definition for how you are using "natural."
It's natural for a human to be in love... being in love to the opposite sex enables the spreading of genes and blah blah blah (pretty sure you've heard that argument before and you'll brush it off). If you really think about it, at the very fundamental reality of man and women, this argument holds biological credibility.
As does the argument that, being one of the few animal species in the world that has sex for pleasure, we may be naturally motivated to fuck for reasons other than procreation.
And if you are hitching your argument to the procreation/spreading our seed wagon, is it similarly unnatural for straight men and women to continue to have a sex drive after they've lost the ability to reproduce?
So you would say homosexuality and bisexuality is abnormal?
In the sense that they are a deviation from the norm, yes. Gays, lesbians, and bisexuals still make up a very small percentage of the population.
Firstly:
Read my first reply to Shasta...
I've read this entire thread as it's gone along. If it didn't make an impression on me the first time, it ain't going to grab me as brilliant on a second pass. Reassert your argument if you think it's valid or important to the discussion.
Secondly:
So I'm confusing the category of what a homosexual person does with the category of what a homosexual person is?
Yes. It's the only part of your argument that has been consistent.
You are witty.
Non sequitur, but props for getting something right. Broken clock, and all that.
So you're gay by choice or do you think you were born gay?
I was born bisexual. I made a conscious choice to pursue relationships with both men and women, but I've had no control over the fact I'm physically/sexually attracted to both. Didn't wake up one morning and decide to start liking pussy.
No, I consciously chose to be attracted to women, not to the having sex part (although I don't mind that, let me tell you).
So, then, if you were so motivated, you could wake up tomorrow and choose to be attracted to men instead?
You've basically argued that the degree of sexual attraction determines what type of relationships me and you have engaged in... while that does hold some truth, it's not entirely correct in it's saliency. This is more of matter of opinion than it is fact, tbh.
No, I haven't argued that.
You're still operating under the assumption that a certain sexuality automatically leads to certain behaviors. That men choose to be attracted to other men, choose to be gay, but then once they make that choice they've got no options other than to start getting rammed in the ass and to act like swishy queens. Which is ridiculous. Sexual proclivities, practices, and preferences are every bit as varied amongst gays, lesbians, and bisexual people as they are amongst straight people. Not all heterosexuals are into the same stuff sexually, so why would all GLBTQ folks be turned on by the same things?
Don't even pay attention to this DD, you can clearly tell CF is somewhat pist off because I'm questioning the authenticity of being gay and how it relates to the natural order of things.
I'm not pist off by anything you've said. I just think it a bit asinine.
According to her, it's natural to be gay because it occurs naturally
Fucking crazy, I must be.
Jacob1983
07-06-2012, 02:54 AM
Aren't bisexual people basically "double dippers"?
ChumpDumper
07-06-2012, 03:12 AM
No, I consciously chose to be attracted to womenWhen did you do that?
ChumpDumper
07-06-2012, 03:13 AM
pissylol ur ghey
ChumpDumper
07-06-2012, 03:16 AM
It's funny to see the circle jerking in here with more popular posters. Pretty much details the entirety of how ST functions when one poster holds a differing opinion or ever so slightly questions the norm. It's funny to see you constantly playing the victim.
When it comes to this topic, we've learned a couple of things regarding this topic and spurstalk: If you don't agree and accept all of homosexuality you are outed as a homophobe, hater, bigot.Nah, you did much more to prove your bigotry.
This topic is very touchy and quite the controversial. If I've offended any posters here for questioning homosexuality and it's acceptance, I'm sorry.And a non-apology apology to top it off.
Bravo.
lol natural
lol semantics
To mean what? You still haven't provided a coherent and/or consistent definition for how you are using "natural."
Yes, I have, go back and read some of my more recent posts.
As does the argument that, being one of the few animal species in the world that has sex for pleasure, we may be naturally motivated to fuck for reasons other than procreation.
And if you are hitching your argument to the procreation/spreading our seed wagon, is it similarly unnatural for straight men and women to continue to have a sex drive after they've lost the ability to reproduce?
So I would want to fuck a tree because I like fucking trees? That's a pretty dense argument. If I'm fucking something, I'm doing it for a reason (love, having children, becoming a father, raising my kids to be good citizens of society).
It's natural (endocrinologically, that is) for straight men and women to stop fucking after they've fucked each other neons of times... Hell, I've experience that before with my prior relationships. Does that make me want to drop that relationship and start another? No. Don't know what you're trying to get at here.
In the sense that they are a deviation from the norm, yes. Gays, lesbians, and bisexuals still make up a very small percentage of the population.
Yeah, I anticipated this response.
I've read this entire thread as it's gone along. If it didn't make an impression on me the first time, it ain't going to grab me as brilliant on a second pass. Reassert your argument if you think it's valid or important to the discussion.
It's not natural to fuck my fellow man, and it's not natural for you to fuck your fellow woman. Reasons being spreading the seed and shit like that. This is a personal opinion of mine, you have your own. It's expected for you, or anyone for that matter, to think something opposite of your perspective is initially stupid.
Yes. It's the only part of your argument that has been consistent.
If it's too hard for you to understand, let me state it specifically, and add a little to that: It's unnatural for a human being to fuck another human being of the same sex. To tie in what you think I'm confused of: Because a man fucks another man, they conduct homosexual activity (does), therefore this makes them equivocally (hate that word, but it has to be used here) unnatural.
Non sequitur, but props for getting something right. Broken clock, and all that.
I tend to be right about a lot of things, I tend to be wrong about things...not a big deal, I'm human. I'm bound to make mistakes. Pretty sure you are in the same ballpark.
@ the topic of you being witty
This is not meant to be offending, but what do you do for a living? You should try writing plots for shows...
I was born bisexual. I made a conscious choice to pursue relationships with both men and women, but I've had no control over the fact I'm physically/sexually attracted to both. Didn't wake up one morning and decide to start liking pussy.
:tu fair enough.
I was born heterosexual, I made a conscious choice to pursue relationships with women not on the basis of physical/sexual attraction, but of basis on her character/personality. I woke up one morning, and decided I wanted to be a father sometime in the near future (after all my schooling).
So, then, if you were so motivated, you could wake up tomorrow and choose to be attracted to men instead?
No. I would never get myself motivated for such a thing.
No, I haven't argued that.
You did make a choice to pursue a sex life with the people to whom you are attracted.
?
You're still operating under the assumption that a certain sexuality automatically leads to certain behaviors. That men choose to be attracted to other men, choose to be gay, but then once they make that choice they've got no options other than to start getting rammed in the ass and to act like swishy queens. Which is ridiculous. Sexual proclivities, practices, and preferences are every bit as varied amongst gays, lesbians, and bisexual people as they are amongst straight people. Not all heterosexuals are into the same stuff sexually, so why would all GLBTQ folks be turned on by the same things?
So it's not behavior? It is behavior (activity). A homosexual man has sex with another homosexual man = they engage in homosexual activity. It is a behavior. It's a behavior just like the thought of me fucking my girlfriend.
I'm not pist off by anything you've said. I just think it a bit asinine.
To each his/her own.
Fucking crazy, I must be.
Fucking crazy of me to think otherwise.
When did you do that?
Probably when I realized I wanted to be with a women, rather than the same sex.
ChumpDumper
07-06-2012, 03:28 AM
This is a personal opinion of mineJesus, that could have saved a lot of time.
ChumpDumper
07-06-2012, 03:28 AM
Probably when I realized I wanted to be with a women, rather than the same sex.When did you realize this?
It's funny to see you constantly playing the victim.
Victim of a circle jerk effort? C'mon chump.
Nah, you did much more to prove your bigotry.
Wow, I must be a bigot for giving into the belief that it's okay for men to wed other men. Gosh, how unethical of me.
And a non-apology apology to top it off.
Non-apology? It's an apology for ticking off whoever engages in homosexual relations. Take it for what it's worth chump. If I offended you in any way, I'm sorry.
Bravo.
lol natural
lol semantics
Ignored, filler material for a typical chump attack post.
ChumpDumper
07-06-2012, 03:37 AM
Victim of a circle jerk effort? C'mon chump.Yes, you're whining about being a victim.
Wow, I must be a bigot for giving into the belief that it's okay for men to wed other men. Gosh, how unethical of me.Were that the only thing you said.
Non-apology? It's an apology for ticking off whoever engages in homosexual relations. Take it for what it's worth chump. If I offended you in any way, I'm sorry.As a non-apology apology, it's worth nothing.
Ignored, filler material for a typical chump attack post.It wasn't ignored since you responded to it with another victimhood claim.
Jesus, that could have saved a lot of time.
Personal opinion of mine backed by basic scientific thought. Gosh, I kept you and all the other witty people up.
ChumpDumper
07-06-2012, 03:38 AM
Personal opinion of mine backed by basic scientific thought. Gosh, I kept you and all the other witty people up.lol basic
lol thought
lol semantics
lol ad hominem
When did you realize this?
When I decided to create a family, participate in the conception of my own offspring, you know those kinds of things.
ChumpDumper
07-06-2012, 03:39 AM
When I decided to create a family, participate in the conception of my own offspring, you know those kinds of things.When did you decide this?
Yes, you're whining about being a victim.
You say I'm whining about it? Fair enough, I'm whining about something that actually occurred and happened. Does that make me less of a man, or does that satisfy my being of a realist in what my eyes detect on this computer screen?
Were that the only thing you said.
From a pro-gay point of view, take it as you may, then yeah.
As a non-apology apology, it's worth nothing.
I must have done more than pinch a sentimental nerve then, how horrible of me to apologize to those who feel like they were attacked for their sexuality.
It wasn't ignored since you responded to it with another victimhood claim.
Trust me, chump, it was ignored for what it's worth. If I wanted to, I would've responded by playing your game of lol this and lol that but it's kinda late and I'm sleepy man.
When did you decide this?
When I wanted to be a father and have a family of my own?
In hindsight, growing up and being a part of a great and supporting family kickstarted the appeal. After learning more about the type of wife I want to have, it was game-set-match there.
ChumpDumper
07-06-2012, 03:49 AM
You say I'm whining about it? Fair enough, I'm whining about something that actually occurred and happened. Does that make me less of a man, or does that satisfy my being of a realist in what my eyes detect on this computer screen?It makes you a victim in your own mind. If that's the way you like it and believe it scores points in your favor, knock yourself out.
From a pro-gay point of view, take it as you may, then yeah.No, from the point of view that I read everything else you posted.
I must have done more than pinch a sentimental nerve then, how horrible of me to apologize to those who feel like they were attacked for their sexuality. It wasn't an apology.
Trust me, chump, it was ignored for what it's worth. If I wanted to, I would've responded by playing your game of lol this and lol that but it's kinda late and I'm sleepy man.So it wasn't ignored at all for what it's worth.
ChumpDumper
07-06-2012, 03:49 AM
When I wanted to be a father and have a family of my own?When did you want that?
It makes you a victim in your own mind. If that's the way you like it and believe it scores points in your favor, knock yourself out.
I don't care if it were to be raining points in my favor, it is what it is. You categorized me as a victim, I ran with the opposition. I'll surely knock myself out, it's been a long day tbh.
No, from the point of view that I read everything else you posted.
So that belief is shrouded in a mist of other takes questioning the authenticity of homosexuality? In hindsight, I should have just added an "I don't mind for gay marriage" sentence in each of my posts since that part is being ignored and I'm subsequently being outed as a supremacist.
It wasn't an apology.
Yes it was. It has the word apology in it, and I'm being sincere about it. What do you want me to do to prove it? Post a youtube video and cry for the sake of being forgiven? :lol
So it wasn't ignored at all for what it's worth.
It was ignored, tbh. Just because I respond to something, doesn't mean it wasn't ignored for what it's worth.
When did you want that?
Growing up, and later parts of my life.
ChumpDumper
07-06-2012, 04:08 AM
I don't care if it were to be raining points in my favor, it is what it is. You categorized me as a victim, I ran with the opposition. I'll surely knock myself out, it's been a long day tbh.You categorized yourself as a victim. I pointed out what you were doing.
So that belief is shrouded in a mist of other takes questioning the authenticity of homosexuality? In hindsight, I should have just added an "I don't mind for gay marriage" sentence in each of my posts since that part is being ignored and I'm subsequently being outed as a supremacist.More victimhood.
Yes it was. It has the word apology in it, and I'm being sincere about it. What do you want me to do to prove it? Post a youtube video and cry for the sake of being forgiven? :lolIt's conditional and disingenuous.
It was ignored, tbh. Just because I respond to something, doesn't mean it wasn't ignored for what it's worth.Of course it wasn't ignored. You just knew there wasn't really much you could do about it.
ChumpDumper
07-06-2012, 04:09 AM
Growing up, and later parts of my life.So you wavered back and forth until later parts of your life?
You categorized yourself as a victim. I pointed out what you were doing.
If I did, I'm sure other people would agree that I was victim of a circle jerking. Go back and read more, if that doesn't prove to you of the attack you're just being an asshole...but you are Chump so that's to be expected, no offense.
More victimhood.
So all of backtobasic's posts that claim me to be a bigot and supremacist don't ring a bell?
It's conditional and disingenuous.
It's none of that.
Of course it wasn't ignored. You just knew there wasn't really much you could do about it.
It was ignored because it's contains nothing of quality and it lacks the deserving to be taken seriously.
So you wavered back and forth until later parts of your life?
No I didn't waver back and forth.
I found out at an earlier age I wanted to engage in relations with women (at that early of an age, girls). Growing up, I was reassured that that's the path I wanted to take.
ChumpDumper
07-06-2012, 04:23 AM
If I did, I'm sure other people would agree that I was victim of a circle jerking. Go back and read more, if that doesn't prove to you of the attack you're just being an asshole...but you are Chump so that's to be expected, no offense.Being the victim is very important to you.
So all of backtobasic's posts that claim me to be a bigot and supremacist don't ring a bell?Shoes and fitting and all that.
It's none of that.Now you want to get into a semantic argument over the definition of conditional, I suppose. You put a condition on it. It's conditional.
It was ignored because it's contains nothing of quality and it lacks the deserving to be taken seriously.Except it wasn't ignored.
ChumpDumper
07-06-2012, 04:26 AM
No I didn't waver back and forth.
I found out at an earlier age I wanted to engage in relations with women (at that early of an age, girls). Growing up, I was reassured that that's the path I wanted to take.At what age did you find that out?
You said you consciously made the decision, so at some point you were undecided. I'm interested in this period and your decision-making process because I never had any such experience or need to make a conscious decision.
Being the victim is very important to you.
Not really. It's not that important. It's just something to consider for all those bystanders that stop by on this thread.
Shoes and fitting and all that.
Yeah, when one is outed for being a supremacist, a bigot, and a hater all the same post... it sure does look like that person is being victimized.
Now you want to get into a semantic argument over the definition of conditional, I suppose. You put a condition on it. It's conditional.
Semantics, tbh.
It's unconditional to me because I plan on not posting anything that goes against or questions homosexuality.
You think it's a conditional apology because I suddenly realized a lot of people were offended by my questioning of homosexuality. Going into this thread, I knew this would potentially spark a heated argument/debate, so I was aware of it's consequences. I don't apologize a lot in general...for me to apologize means I'm being sincere about it.
At what age did you find that out?
You said you consciously made the decision, so at some point you were undecided. I'm interested in this period and your decision-making process because I never had any such experience or need to make a conscious decision.
I found out that I wanted to have a girlfriend when I was in 4th grade, if I can remember correctly.
If I was undecided it was because I had not educated myself with the in's and out's of relationships. It was when I started dating that I determined what type of woman appealed to me.
What's so interesting about all that?
ChumpDumper
07-06-2012, 04:44 AM
Not really. It's not that important. It's just something to consider for all those bystanders that stop by on this thread.Why can't they decide your victimhood for themselves?
Yeah, when one is outed for being a supremacist, a bigot, and a hater all the same post... it sure does look like that person is being victimized.Not if he is, in fact, all of those things. Outed is an interesting choice of words, semantically speaking. You continue to hang yourself with your own words.
Semantics, tbh.
It's unconditional to me because I plan on not posting anything that goes against or questions homosexuality.
You think it's a conditional apology because I suddenly realized a lot of people were offended by my questioning of homosexuality. Going into this thread, I knew this would potentially spark a heated argument/debate, so I was aware of it's consequences. I don't apologize a lot in general...for me to apologize means I'm being sincere about it.It's a conditional apology because you put a condition on it. You can't get out of that with a semantic argument.
ChumpDumper
07-06-2012, 04:47 AM
I found out that I wanted to have a girlfriend when I was in 4th grade, if I can remember correctly.
If I was undecided it was because I had not educated myself with the in's and out's of relationships. It was when I started dating that I determined what type of woman appealed to me.
What's so interesting about all that?Because I never had to think about or make a decision about what gender to which I was going to allow myself to be attracted. Your process seems pretty unnatural tbh.
Why can't they decide your victimhood for themselves?
They can't at least be informed about it?
Not if he is, in fact, all of those things. Outed is an interesting choice of words, semantically speaking. You continue to hang yourself with your own words.
You know what I mean by outed chump. It means calling someone out. If it means anything more than that, you're too smart to believe I mean what it shouldn't.
It's a conditional apology because you put a condition on it. You can't get out of that with a semantic argument.
Oh god, here we go again.
Because I never had to think about or make a decision about what gender to which I was going to allow myself to be attracted. Your process seems pretty unnatural tbh.
That's you.
Everyone has their own story.
ChumpDumper
07-06-2012, 04:56 AM
They can't at least be informed about it?If their opinion of your victimhood is that important to you....
You know what I mean by outed chump. It means calling someone out. If it means anything more than that, you're too smart to believe I mean what it shouldn't.You really don't know the definition of a lot of words.
Oh god, here we go again.I'll allow that you really don't know what you're doing most of the time in these posts. Explains a whole lot.
ChumpDumper
07-06-2012, 04:58 AM
That's you.
Everyone has their own story.I'd be very surprised if many posters here had the same experience you did.
If their opinion of your victimhood is that important to you....
:lol What does it matter to you?
You really don't know the definition of a lot of words.
Because the definition of natural as applied to other venues gets a little murky I don't know the basic definition as put out in basic dictionaries? Okay, I got that point (semantic), you should have got that point a long time ago, move on.
I use outed a lot, I didn't know what it's precise definition was. Learn something new everyday, tbh.
I'll allow that you really don't know what you're doing most of the time in these posts. Explains a whole lot.
You're arguing semantics. We're not going anywhere with that unless you choose to understand how I'm not conditionally apologizing.
I'd be very surprised if many posters here had the same experience you did.
That's your opinion and anticipation.
To each his own.
ChumpDumper
07-06-2012, 05:06 AM
:lol What does it matter to you?Pointing out posters' playing the victim is fun for me.
Because the definition of natural as applied to other venues gets a little murky I don't know the basic definition as put out in basic dictionaries? Okay, I got that point (semantic), you should have got that point a long time ago, move on.Nah, you don't get to claim ignorance on that one. We explicitly spelled out the definition we were using for you.
I use outed a lot, I didn't know what it's precise definition was. Learn something new everyday, tbh.You're welcome.
You're arguing semantics. We're not going anywhere with that unless you choose to understand how I'm not conditionally apologizing.I would understand that, had you not placed a condition on your apology. There is no way you can argue you didn't.
ChumpDumper
07-06-2012, 05:08 AM
That's your opinion and anticipation.
To each his own.In all my years I have never heard of someone who decided to be straight in the fourth grade. If you have seen some other examples in your research, I'd be keen to read them.
Pointing out poster's playing the victim is fun for me.
I can tell. :lol
Nah, you don't get to claim ignorance on that one. We explicitly spelled out the definition we were using for you.
And I was continually posting on a different definition of it. You guys explicitly put out the definition of natural when I was generating posts with a different definition of natural. It was only until I put out what I meant by natural that you and all other posters understood.
You're welcome.
:toast
I would understand that, had you not placed a condition on your apology. There is no way you can argue you didn't.
So it's conditional because I somehow (in your assumptions) suddenly felt bad about my opinions? Get the fuck out of here man. :lol
In all my years I have never heard of someone who decided to be straight in the fourth grade. If you have seen some other examples in your research, I'd be keen to read them.
There are a lot of people currently living on this earth, currently 300,000,000+ actually. You'll tend to get a variety of stories if you seek. I don't see how mine is any special. I knowingly and consciously decided to be with a women (making me straight).
My research doesn't involve homosexuality and the like. My research involves BT and it's promising anti-cancer possibilities, boring shit after a few years tbh.
ChumpDumper
07-06-2012, 05:24 AM
And I was continually posting on a different definition of it. You guys explicitly put out the definition of natural when I was generating posts with a different definition of natural. It was only until I put out what I meant by natural that you and all other posters understood.I predicted your semantic argument. You never did anything to refute our argument, however. That's a big strike against you.
So it's conditional because I somehow (in your assumptions) suddenly felt bad about my opinions? Get the fuck out of here man. :lolNo, as I plainly stated before, it's conditional because you put a condition on it. No one has to assume anything -- your condition is clear and explicit. I'm not going to help you with any more definitions because a doctor should be able to figure stuff like that on his own tbh.
ChumpDumper
07-06-2012, 05:25 AM
There are a lot of people currently living on this earth, currently 300,000,000+ actually. You'll tend to get a variety of stories if you seek. I don't see how mine is any special. I knowingly and consciously decided to be with a women (making me straight).Just say you don't know of anyone else with the same story. I sure don't.
I predicted your semantic argument. You never did anything to refute our argument, however. That's a big strike against you.
I never did anything initially to refute the semantic argument because I was investing my time in warding off a constant verbal outcry from backstobasics. In hindsight, I should have just ignored her and refuted you, we would have saved a lot of time.
I've refuted the argument already by elaborating on what I meant by the word natural I was using. CF was the only one out of all you posters to offer a reply somewhat devoid of personal attacks.
No, as I plainly stated before, it's conditional because you put a condition on it. No one has to assume anything -- your condition is clear and explicit. I'm not going to help you with any more definitions because a doctor should be able to figure stuff like that on his own tbh.
It's conditional to you because you want to keep this thing going. I've already apologized. Move on.
Just say you don't know of anyone else with the same story. I sure don't.
Check the world population number, and think again. There has to be someone who has a similar story.
Shastafarian
07-06-2012, 08:07 AM
http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx
I had to be out of the house for some time, but with the little time I had to do a little research on the topic,Do you usually talk out of your ass and then do research on the subject? Why not do the second thing first!
I found this rather lengthy article on sexual orientation and homosexuality. I quoted the above from the article.......
So sexual orientation (associated with homosexuality, of course) is not considered a natural (natural as in innate, this word is used rather loosely and may overlap with the term normal, CF is somewhat right in her post) trait like a person's gender, age, or even race if you want to enter that word into this topic. Thus, homosexuality is not a natural characteristic trait of a human being.
:rollin So your definition of natural is basically innate then? You sound Amish. Are any of the following "natural" as defined by you:
Driving a car
Cooking food
Using tools
Using money as currency
Here's one. Is oral sex natural?
Natural, as it's applied in the field of biology (more so in genetics). So...physiologic.
It's natural for a human being to want to hold a heterosexual relation with the opposite gender, in doing so, conceive offspring containing genetically different DNA.
It's also natural for a human being to want to hold a homosexual relation. Why? BECAUSE IT HAPPENS IN NATURE.
Blake
07-06-2012, 09:09 AM
Medically, not sure.
Biologically, it goes against the very essence of genetic diversity.
it's still a bit abnormal for people of different skin color to marry each other...
...which would, in essence, go against the very essence of genetic diversity.
man on wire
07-06-2012, 09:45 AM
it's still abnormal for people to think that it is abnormal for people of different skin color to marry each other...
fify
mrsmaalox
07-06-2012, 09:54 AM
When I decided to create a family, participate in the conception of my own offspring, you know those kinds of things.
Are you not aware of gay people all around you making the exact decision for themselves? Many carry it out very successfully and yet, they are still gay.
Blake
07-06-2012, 10:11 AM
fify
No you didn't.
ChumpDumper
07-06-2012, 10:44 AM
I never did anything initially to refute the semantic argument because I was investing my time in warding off a constant verbal outcry from backstobasics. In hindsight, I should have just ignored her and refuted you, we would have saved a lot of time.
I've refuted the argument already by elaborating on what I meant by the word natural I was using. CF was the only one out of all you posters to offer a reply somewhat devoid of personal attacks.You don't magically refute an argument by trying to ignore the perfectly valid definition of natural that we used. Our argument stands, blissfully unrefuted.
It's conditional to you because you want to keep this thing going. I've already apologized. Move on.Not until you realize and admit its conditional and therefore disingenuous. For all your whining about semantics, its all you really rely upon in a discussion -- which is sad because you are so ill-informed about the simple, broad definitions being used here. You're trying to use your ignorance as a shield and it's an abject failure.
CuckingFunt
07-06-2012, 11:50 AM
So I would want to fuck a tree because I like fucking trees? That's a pretty dense argument.
An unnecessarily strained hypothetical, but, sure. If you were sexually turned on by trees, you might want to fuck them. But that wasn't really my argument. My argument was that we are a species who naturally has sex for pleasure (and for countless other reasons besides procreation) and that it is therefore pointless to argue that homosexual sex is unnatural simply because it cannot lead to procreation. On a purely biological level, procreation is not our species' only motivation for sexual activity, so its lack alone is not enough to make something unnatural.
If I'm fucking something, I'm doing it for a reason (love, having children, becoming a father, raising my kids to be good citizens of society).
Every time you've ever had sex in your entire life it's been related to fathering? EVERY time?
It's natural (endocrinologically, that is) for straight men and women to stop fucking after they've fucked each other neons of times... Hell, I've experience that before with my prior relationships. Does that make me want to drop that relationship and start another? No. Don't know what you're trying to get at here.
When did neon become a unit of measurement?
It's not natural to fuck my fellow man, and it's not natural for you to fuck your fellow woman.
Except that it occurs in nature. A lot.
You still haven't given a concrete/consistent definition of natural as you're using it in this thread. When you say it's not natural, do you mean that it is artificial? Or do you mean that it is contrary to our biological need to reproduce?
If the former, you're just wrong. Because homosexuality occurs in nature, often, and all on its own. If the latter, you're assuming that reproduction is the sole motivator for human sexual interaction AND natural is not the word you should be using for that argument.
Reasons being spreading the seed and shit like that. This is a personal opinion of mine, you have your own. It's expected for you, or anyone for that matter, to think something opposite of your perspective is initially stupid.
Sorry, but no. You don't get to throw this shit out as fact for 13 pages and then pull the double whammy of calling it opinion and bemoaning your persecution for said.
I don't doubt that it is your opinion. Since its first post, this thread has pretty much existed to showcase your homophobia and the fact you personally find homosexuality to be icky and unnatural. But at some point you switched away from opinion and toward an argument that homosexuality was unnatural according to human biology. You can at this point admit you haven't a clue what you're talking about and that your medical mumbo jumbo was intended as nothing other than a subject change away from your own homophobia, but it's too late to pretend you didn't make this an argument of fact.
If it's too hard for you to understand, let me state it specifically, and add a little to that: It's unnatural for a human being to fuck another human being of the same sex. To tie in what you think I'm confused of: Because a man fucks another man, they conduct homosexual activity (does), therefore this makes them equivocally (hate that word, but it has to be used here) unnatural.
You're still confused. The homosexual bit is the attraction, not the activity.
I was born heterosexual, I made a conscious choice to pursue relationships with women
So, then, you didn't choose to be heterosexual.
So it's not behavior? It is behavior (activity). A homosexual man has sex with another homosexual man = they engage in homosexual activity. It is a behavior. It's a behavior just like the thought of me fucking my girlfriend.
Being attracted to other men is what makes a man homosexual.
DisAsTerBot
07-06-2012, 11:56 AM
what kind of med student doesnt know the definition of natural?
I'm calling bs, this guy has had plenty of retarded opinions in multiple threads iirc tbh imho
CuckingFunt
07-06-2012, 11:59 AM
It's conditional to you because you want to keep this thing going. I've already apologized. Move on.
If I've offended any posters here for questioning homosexuality and it's acceptance, I'm sorry.
It's conditional to everyone because "if I've offended any posters here for questioning homosexuality and its acceptance" is a condition.
Shastafarian
07-06-2012, 12:34 PM
what kind of med student doesnt know the definition of natural?
A med student going into Psychiatry :lol
Do you usually talk out of your ass and then do research on the subject? Why not do the second thing first!
No, take it as you will.
:rollin So your definition of natural is basically innate then? You sound Amish. Are any of the following "natural" as defined by you:
Driving a car
Cooking food
Using tools
Using money as currency
Here's one. Is oral sex natural?
My definition of natural relates to the order of things in biology, more so in genetics. You give examples of things that exist in nature (reality), and that function as they do in nature.
So...physiologic.
Physiologic does not equal genetics man.
It's also natural for a human being to want to hold a homosexual relation. Why? BECAUSE IT HAPPENS IN NATURE.
That's already been posted, the whole it happens in nature part. Is it the natural order of things? No. It isn't.
it's still a bit abnormal for people of different skin color to marry each other...
...which would, in essence, go against the very essence of genetic diversity.
Abnormal? That's a matter of your opinion tbh.
It doesn't go against the essence of genetic diversity.
Are you not aware of gay people all around you making the exact decision for themselves? Many carry it out very successfully and yet, they are still gay.
Yeah, I'm aware of that. Do they conceive naturally? No. They adopt.
You don't magically refute an argument by trying to ignore the perfectly valid definition of natural that we used. Our argument stands, blissfully unrefuted.
Take it as you will, chump. This ain't going anywhere, you're gonna continue to give me shit when you knew I wasn't posting on that definition (or expanded definition if you will) of natural.
Not until you realize and admit its conditional and therefore disingenuous. For all your whining about semantics, its all you really rely upon in a discussion -- which is sad because you are so ill-informed about the simple, broad definitions being used here. You're trying to use your ignorance as a shield and it's an abject failure.
:lol It was an apology, move on.
Blake
07-06-2012, 12:46 PM
Abnormal? That's a matter of your opinion tbh.
It's a matter of definition.
Same race marriage is easily the norm.
It doesn't go against the essence of genetic diversity.
Define the essence of genetic diversity so that we are on the same semantics page.
mrsmaalox
07-06-2012, 12:48 PM
Yeah, I'm aware of that. Do they conceive naturally? No. They adopt.
Not all of them adopt :lol Through surrogates, insemination, in vitro fertilization, gay people participate in the conception of their offspring all the time. I guess they haven't covered that stuff in med school yet.
Blake
07-06-2012, 12:48 PM
Yeah, I'm aware of that. Do they conceive naturally? No. They adopt.
Is it detrimental to society that they adopt?
Shastafarian
07-06-2012, 12:52 PM
My definition of natural relates to the order of things in biology, more so in genetics.I don't know what you're talking about.
You give examples of things that exist in nature (reality), and that function as they do in nature. Oral sex. Natural or not. If you say it is, explain how that act is different from gay sex as it relates to your definition of "natural".
Physiologic does not equal genetics man. Genetics drive physiology. They are as intertwined as two things can be.
That's already been posted, the whole it happens in nature part. Is it the natural order of things? No. It isn't.
Natural order? What order?
An unnecessarily strained hypothetical, but, sure. If you were sexually turned on by trees, you might want to fuck them. But that wasn't really my argument. My argument was that we are a species who naturally has sex for pleasure (and for countless other reasons besides procreation) and that it is therefore pointless to argue that homosexual sex is unnatural simply because it cannot lead to procreation. On a purely biological level, procreation is not our species' only motivation for sexual activity, so its lack alone is not enough to make something unnatural.
Yeah, there are other things. You're using the word naturally in your own way, and I'm using it in another. We're aren't going anywhere with this.
Every time you've ever had sex in your entire life it's been related to fathering? EVERY time?
Everytime I had sex in life, it has to deal with love. The fathering part surfaced when I decided to be in serious relationships that could potentially spawn a longer relationship...leading to marriage
When did neon become a unit of measurement?
Term is used a lot in science, just thought it sounded cool.
Except that it occurs in nature. A lot.
You still haven't given a concrete/consistent definition of natural as you're using it in this thread. When you say it's not natural, do you mean that it is artificial? Or do you mean that it is contrary to our biological need to reproduce?
If the former, you're just wrong. Because homosexuality occurs in nature, often, and all on its own. If the latter, you're assuming that reproduction is the sole motivator for human sexual interaction AND natural is not the word you should be using for that argument.
Does it have to be concrete? You can't figure it out for yourself what I mean by natural? You're smarter than that CF. I believe natural is the appropriate word to be used.
Sorry, but no. You don't get to throw this shit out as fact for 13 pages and then pull the double whammy of calling it opinion and bemoaning your persecution for said.
I don't doubt that it is your opinion. Since its first post, this thread has pretty much existed to showcase your homophobia and the fact you personally find homosexuality to be icky and unnatural. But at some point you switched away from opinion and toward an argument that homosexuality was unnatural according to human biology. You can at this point admit you haven't a clue what you're talking about and that your medical mumbo jumbo was intended as nothing other than a subject change away from your own homophobia, but it's too late to pretend you didn't make this an argument of fact.
:lol No I do get to dance around in my own thread. Just because I say it's an opinion of mine doesn't discredit anything, you're picking up that football and running to the opposite endzone if you know what I mean.
So it's homophobia to think being gay is fundamentally not natural to what humans evolved to do? Okay.
You're still confused. The homosexual bit is the attraction, not the activity.
Can it be both?
So, then, you didn't choose to be heterosexual.
So I can't proclaim I'm born a heterosexual, only for that to be fully understood at the surface as I riped in age and experience?
Being attracted to other men is what makes a man homosexual.
Which makes them do homosexual activity.
what kind of med student doesnt know the definition of natural?
I'm calling bs, this guy has had plenty of retarded opinions in multiple threads iirc tbh imho
What kind of bystander whiffs through threads, doesn't participate at all in the discussion, and joins other posters in a circle jerk?
You're an idiot.
It's conditional to everyone because "if I've offended any posters here for questioning homosexuality and its acceptance" is a condition.
So because I used the word "if", it's a condition?! Holy shit, take it as you all will.
A med student going into Psychiatry :lol
You didn't know that was possible did you? After all, it's not the most common of specialties to choose out of med school...
DisAsTerBot
07-06-2012, 01:03 PM
lol homophobe
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=170492
Shastafarian
07-06-2012, 01:07 PM
You didn't know that was possible did you? After all, it's not the most common of specialties to choose out of med school...
I did know it's possible. That's why I laughed. Why not just be a Psychologist and save the $200,000 in loans? :lol
It's a matter of definition.
Same race marriage is easily the norm.
Can a big black man and white woman still conceive?
Define the essence of genetic diversity so that we are on the same semantics page.
What is genetic diversity?
Genetic diversity refers to the diversity
(or genetic variability) within species.
Each individual species possesses genes which are the source of its own unique features: In human beings, for example, the huge variety of people's faces reflects each person's genetic individuality. The term genetic diversity also covers distinct populations of a single species, such as the thousands of breeds of different dogs or the numerous variety of roses.
http://www.coastlearn.org/biodiversity/boxes/geneticdiv.html
If a man engages in a relationship with the same sex, he doesn't get to contribute any genetic diversity to the human gene pool.
BacktoBasics
07-06-2012, 01:09 PM
It's going in a couple of different directions, currently, but I'll try.
triggeredexcellence: Ever noticed how women are less homophobic than homophobic men? S'up with dat?
most everyone else: What a queer way to go about creating a homophobe thread. Ya damned homophobe.
triggeredexcellence: I'm not homophobic. I just am creeped out when gay people decide to act all gay.
most everyone else: Why?
triggeredexcellence: Because teh gayness is unnatural.
most everyone else: 'Cept it occurs in nature.
triggeredexcellence: But that doesn't make it natural. You guys must be a bunch of queer fags or queer fag apologists to think otherwise.
most everyone else: What do you think the word "natural" means?
Answer TBD.
Somewhat tangentially...
Ginobilly: Gay men are icky because they have scary penises. Straight men are inherently threatened by what other men are doing with their penises because something something pit bull analogy. Lesbians are less icky because they don't have scary penises.
most everyone else: You're a fucking idiot.
Ginobilly: Just kidding, y'all. I gots gay cousins.
most everyone else: That's pretty obviously bullshit, but thanks for giving us definitive reason to stop giving a shit what you say in here.
And also B2B.:lol so fucking awesome!
Not all of them adopt :lol Through surrogates, insemination, in vitro fertilization, gay people participate in the conception of their offspring all the time. I guess they haven't covered that stuff in med school yet.
You people sure are pretty stupid if you don't know what I mean by conceiving naturally.
Yeah, while alternative methods to conceive exist, it's artificial and not natural.
BacktoBasics
07-06-2012, 01:12 PM
According to her, it's natural to be gay because it occurs naturally (in nature, semantics much :lmao).Again this is what makes you so incredibly stupid. Its not according to her its according to the definition of "natural".
You're attempting to argue against a definition. Its not word games its the definition of the word which isn't up for debate with the exception of your world and your world only.
I don't know what you're talking about.
Oral sex. Natural or not. If you say it is, explain how that act is different from gay sex as it relates to your definition of "natural".
Why has everybody decided to be ignorant of what I meant by natural? Goddamn.
Genetics drive physiology. They are as intertwined as two things can be.
You're right. But you're wrong in bringing up physiology, since I wasn't arguing on that sub-topic of human biology. Sure I could have argued that genetics drives the anatomical formation of a penis, as does the formation of a vagina. I could have argued that both organs connect like two pieces in a puzzle anatomically, and further subsequent physiological factors offer the ability to conceive. These are things we all know.
If you didn't understand my usage of genetics in this topic already, I feel really sorry for you man.
Natural order? What order?
The order in which another human being is conceived and simultaneously given a genetic make-up of it's own.
BacktoBasics
07-06-2012, 01:20 PM
I see trigger sure took a beating all night long over this. Embarrassed himself repeatedly and resorted to furthering the insult olive branch by exhibiting even more homophobia with his circle jerk references. Dude really knows how to drive home his own stake.
I can't tell if he's attempting Esuicide or actually thinks he can dig his way out of this mess.
Again this is what makes you so incredibly stupid. Its not according to her its according to the definition of "natural".
Arguing? I'd say it was more directing a discussion toward an expanded application of the word natural. Process that and if you can't I can dumb it down for you.
You're attempting to argue against a definition. Its not word games its the definition of the word which isn't up for debate with the exception of your world and your world only.
I'm attempting to engage in discussions with an expanded definition of the word natural as it relates to humanity and sex, not the broad generality of mother nature. Damn, it can't get any easier than that.
BacktoBasics
07-06-2012, 01:23 PM
Why has everybody decided to be ignorant of what I meant by natural? Goddamn.
:lmao I mean really :lmao is this guy for real.
What next? Why not just call a basketball a football and then bitch and moan about how ignorant we are for not agreeing with you every time you talk about how awesome SJax shoots that football.
Shastafarian
07-06-2012, 01:25 PM
He's trying to make his own definition, saying because homosexuality can't diversify the genetic pool, it must be an unnatural (his definition) occurrence in relation to modern genetics. It's not an expected occurrence because it won't spread genes. And what else are we here for except to reproduce aimiright? It's detrimental to their genetic progeny (or lack thereof) but that certainly doesn't equate to "natural". He's been taken in by the colloquial use of the term "natural" as it's used by bible thumpers, rednecks, and homophobes.
"Excuse me ma'am, how do you feel about homosexuals?"
[We hear the characteristic *cling* of a spittoon]
"Them gays? I tells ya, it ain't natural. Naw."
BacktoBasics
07-06-2012, 01:26 PM
Arguing? I'd say it was more directing a discussion toward an expanded application of the word natural. Process that and if you can't I can dumb it down for you.
I'm attempting to engage in discussions with an expanded definition of the word natural as it relates to humanity and sex, not the broad generality of mother nature. Damn, it can't get any easier than that.No you're not. You're attempting to redefine "natural" to fit into your delusional misinformed bigoted perspective.
How many people need to tell you that you're wrong for you to wake up and fucking get it?
I see trigger sure took a beating all night long over this. Embarrassed himself repeatedly and resorted to furthering the insult olive branch by exhibiting even more homophobia with his circle jerk references. Dude really knows how to drive home his own stake.
I can't tell if he's attempting Esuicide or actually thinks he can dig his way out of this mess.
Nah, as long as I'm continuing to live and enjoy life, I don't feel offended on a personal level when others oppose my opinion in topics... especially not this controversial one.
CuckingFunt
07-06-2012, 01:26 PM
Yeah, there are other things. You're using the word naturally in your own way, and I'm using it in another. We're aren't going anywhere with this.
I have made very clear how I am using the word "natural" in the context of this argument. As has everyone else in this thread. If you were to do the same (coherently and consistently) we actually possibly could go somewhere with this. Getting somewhere, however, has never been your goal in this thread.
Everytime I had sex in life, it has to deal with love. The fathering part surfaced when I decided to be in serious relationships that could potentially spawn a longer relationship...leading to marriage
So, then, you have sex with women because you love women. The people you love determines the type of sex that you have. Your attraction to women is not, then, a choice you made based on the desire to be a parent.
Does it have to be concrete? You can't figure it out for yourself what I mean by natural? You're smarter than that CF. I believe natural is the appropriate word to be used.
If you're attempting to build an argument around a particular term -- in this case your argument against homosexuality is based upon it being unnatural -- then, yes, you need to have a definition of that term that is clear and concrete. It is impossible to figure out what you mean by "natural" because the way you have used the term has been unclear and inconsistent.
:lol No I do get to dance around in my own thread.
Okay. And we get to call you out for doing so.
So it's homophobia to think being gay is fundamentally not natural to what humans evolved to do? Okay.
It's homophobia to dislike and/or be bothered by gay people and their assumed behaviors/activities for no reason other than its difference. It's homophobia to be as preoccupied as you clearly are with what gay people do in the bedroom. Further, it is also homophobia to jump through such extensive hoops as you have in order to manufacture a medical/biological argument against homosexuality in order to justify your personal discomfort.
So I can't proclaim I'm born a heterosexual, only for that to be fully understood at the surface as I riped in age and experience?
You can't proclaim you were born a heterosexual when trying to argue that you made a conscious choice to be attracted to women.
Which makes them do homosexual activity.
Not always. There are plenty of homosexuals who deny their own attractions and who therefore do not participate in "homosexual activity." There are also plenty of people who engage in "homosexual activity" (which I assume based on your previous posts you're defining in terms of sex acts) but who aren't gay. I'm thinking prisons and porn here, for example.
He's trying to make his own definition, saying because homosexuality can't diversify the genetic pool, it must be an unnatural (his definition) occurrence in relation to modern genetics. It's not an expected occurrence because it won't spread genes. And what else are we here for except to reproduce aimiright? It's detrimental to their genetic progeny (or lack thereof) but that certainly doesn't equate to "natural". He's been taken in by the colloquial use of the term "natural" as it's used by bible thumpers, rednecks, and homophobes.
"Excuse me ma'am, how do you feel about homosexuals?"
[We hear the characteristic *cling* of a spittoon]
"Them gays? I tells ya, it ain't natural. Naw."
:lmao:lmao:lmao
So I'm a bible thumper because I used natural as it relates to humans and genetics as a way to direct my opinions?
:lmao:lmao:lmao
No you're not. You're attempting to redefine "natural" to fit into your delusional misinformed bigoted perspective.
How many people need to tell you that you're wrong for you to wake up and fucking get it?
Stop posting.
Blake
07-06-2012, 01:29 PM
Can a big black man and white woman still conceive?
Not if he's naturally impotent.
http://www.coastlearn.org/biodiversity/boxes/geneticdiv.html
If a man engages in a relationship with the same sex, he doesn't get to contribute any genetic diversity to the human gene pool.
why are you requiring humans to contribute to the gene pool before they can get married? Is there a real possibility that our species will die out?
Shastafarian
07-06-2012, 01:29 PM
:lmao:lmao:lmao
So I'm a bible thumper because I used natural as it relates to humans and genetics as a way to direct my opinions?
:lmao:lmao:lmao
"He's been taken in by the colloquial use of the term "natural" as it's used by bible thumpers, rednecks, and homophobes."
BacktoBasics
07-06-2012, 01:32 PM
He's trying to make his own definition, saying because homosexuality can't diversify the genetic pool, it must be an unnatural (his definition) occurrence in relation to modern genetics. It's not an expected occurrence because it won't spread genes. And what else are we here for except to reproduce aimiright? It's detrimental to their genetic progeny (or lack thereof) but that certainly doesn't equate to "natural". He's been taken in by the colloquial use of the term "natural" as it's used by bible thumpers, rednecks, and homophobes.
"Excuse me ma'am, how do you feel about homosexuals?"
[We hear the characteristic *cling* of a spittoon]
"Them gays? I tells ya, it ain't natural. Naw."And if he was accurate by definition which he isn't it still wouldn't matter.
Nowhere is it defined that humans sexuality be contingent on reproduction. Its a byproduct not an absolute. By the shear existence of homosexuality it answers for itself that it has a place in society. Even the thumpers cannot deny that if God made everything he/she/it also made homosexuals. They love dancing around that.
If the ability to procreate was the only defining variable for equality and equal peer treatment then why isn't he discriminating against people with impotence or baron women? Hermaphrodites and all asexual species?
There is no code book for man. Sexuality doesn't define the value of a human being. There's is no excuse for discrimination and intolerance. No excuse.
DisAsTerBot
07-06-2012, 01:32 PM
dumbest med student ever
Shastafarian
07-06-2012, 01:33 PM
You're right. But you're wrong in bringing up physiology, since I wasn't arguing on that sub-topic of human biology. Sure I could have argued that genetics drives the anatomical formation of a penis, as does the formation of a vagina. I could have argued that both organs connect like two pieces in a puzzle anatomically, and further subsequent physiological factors offer the ability to conceive. These are things we all know.
If you didn't understand my usage of genetics in this topic already, I feel really sorry for you man.Like a puzzle :lol
The order in which another human being is conceived and simultaneously given a genetic make-up of it's own.Why have you determined that to be a "natural" order?
DisAsTerBot
07-06-2012, 01:34 PM
lol homophobe
one of homophobes other insightful threads
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=170492
how does one look like a queefer? real question.
BacktoBasics
07-06-2012, 01:36 PM
Stop posting.Not until you're run from the board. Then I might take another break.
Shastafarian
07-06-2012, 01:39 PM
"One fundamental premise in social debates has been that homosexuality is unnatural. This premise is wrong. Homosexuality is both common and highly essential in the lives of a number of species,"
http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx
CuckingFunt
07-06-2012, 01:40 PM
So because I used the word "if", it's a condition?! Holy shit, take it as you all will.
Yes. Because it means your apology only applies on the condition that we were offended by what you said.
"If I offended you, I apologize" implies that if you didn't offend us, you don't apologize.
BacktoBasics
07-06-2012, 01:42 PM
Yes. Because it means your apology only applies on the condition that we were offended by what you said.
"If I offended you, I apologize" implies that if you didn't offend us, you don't apologize.OMFG semantics :rolleyes
I have made very clear how I am using the word "natural" in the context of this argument. As has everyone else in this thread. If you were to do the same (coherently and consistently) we actually possibly could go somewhere with this. Getting somewhere, however, has never been your goal in this thread, though.
I have also made it clear on how I'm using natural in this context. Only everyone chooses to continue to believe it's incoherent and inconsistent.
So, then, you have sex with women because you love women. The people you love determines the type of sex that you have. Your attraction to women is not, then, a choice you made based on the desire to be a parent.
Way to twist those words in there. You do a good job.
If you're attempting to build an argument around a particular term -- in this case that homosexuality is unnatural -- then, yes, you need to have a definition of that term that is clear and concrete. It is impossible to figure out what you mean by "natural" because the way you have used the term has been unclear and inconsistent.
:rollin
Have I not made it clear what I mean by natural?
Okay. And we get to call you out for doing so.
So I get to call everyone out at this moment, including yourself? You guys seem to continue to want to engage in a discussion with me regarding how I'm using natural in this context. I've already stated how it's being used, let's proceed.
It's homophobia to dislike and/or be bothered by gay people and their assumed behaviors/activities for no reason other than its difference. It's homophobia to be as preoccupied as you clearly are with what gay people do in the bedroom. Further, it is also homophobia to jump through such extensive hoops as you have in order to manufacture a medical/biological argument against homosexuality in order to justify your personal discomfort.
The classic argument I was waiting for someone to give me.
:::I look for reasons in medicine/biology to argue against homosexuality:::
:::I do these things because I find it discomforting of homosexuality, since I'm questioning why I'm so discomforted it makes me a bigot, supremacist, and homophove:::
Like I alluded to before, this is an all or none thing to you people.
You can't proclaim you were born a heterosexual when trying to argue that you made a conscious choice to be attracted to women.
You keep twisting my words to your personal preference. Quit reaching.
Not always. There are plenty of homosexuals who deny their own attractions and who therefore do not participate in "homosexual activity." There are also plenty of people who engage in "homosexual activity" (which I assume based on your previous posts you're defining in terms of sex acts) but who aren't gay. I'm thinking prisons and porn here, for example.
No. If one willingly engages in a homosexual activity they are gay. This doesn't apply to cases like rape, for example.
BacktoBasics
07-06-2012, 01:44 PM
Candyman Candyman Semantics
BOO!
Triggered Failure's appeal to Nature is a logical fallacy, anyhow. Wikipedia:
"An appeal to nature is considered to have committed a logical fallacy in stating that something is good or right because it is natural, or that something is bad or wrong because it is unnatural or artificial; This is a fallacy of relevance in that the natural origins of a phenomenon are presumed irrelevant to their desirability, and possibly an informal fallacy if it states that because some natural things are good, therefore all natural things are good. In this type of informal fallacy,[7] nature implies an ideal or desired state of being,[8] a state of how things were, or how they should be: in this sense an appeal to nature may resemble an appeal to tradition."
Second it is actually, like ^ says, an appeal to tradition in almost every way. The majority of humans traditionally practice hetero sex, therefore hetero sex must be natural.
BacktoBasics
07-06-2012, 01:49 PM
I have also made it clear on how I'm using natural in this context. Only everyone chooses to continue to believe it's incoherent and inconsistent. No its just wrong. You do not get to redefine a word to win an argument or worse to avoid looking like a bigot.
Have I not made it clear what I mean by natural?
Yes and its wrong.
So I get to call everyone out at this moment, including yourself? You guys seem to continue to want to engage in a discussion with me regarding how I'm using natural in this context. I've already stated how it's being used, let's proceed. Not context. You are using the word incorrectly.
You keep twisting my words to your personal preference. Quit reaching.We aren't twisting your words we are providing you with the proper definitions of the words you misuse. The only one reaching is the guy who can't figure out the proper definitions of the words he uses. Do you know who that guy is? Its you.
CuckingFunt
07-06-2012, 01:52 PM
how does one look like a queefer? real question.
And wouldn't a queefer necessarily be a woman, rather than a gay male?
"One fundamental premise in social debates has been that homosexuality is unnatural. This premise is wrong. Homosexuality is both common and highly essential in the lives of a number of species,"
http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx
This isn't relevant to how the word natural was used.
:lol people opposing my opinion will read what you provided and automatically say because it's not unnatural, homosexuality in nature is therefore natural.
I would agree that homosexuality exists in nature, and is therefore natural in mother nature...other species in addition to ours engages in homosexual behavior. But in terms of how humans conceive and procreate it deviates from the natural order of things.
No its just wrong. You do not get to redefine a word to win an argument or worse to avoid looking like a bigot.
Yes and its wrong.
Not context. You are using the word incorrectly.
We aren't twisting your words we are providing you with the proper definitions of the words you misuse. The only one reaching is the guy who can't figure out the proper definitions of the words he uses. Do you know who that guy is? Its you.
hey, the life coach gave me a nickname!
DisAsTerBot
07-06-2012, 01:58 PM
I would agree that homosexuality exists in nature, and is therefore natural in mother nature...other species in addition to ours engages in homosexual behavior. But in terms of how humans conceive and procreate it deviates from the natural order of things.
and this applies to women nowadays.....what now?
Triggered Failure's appeal to Nature is a logical fallacy, anyhow. Wikipedia:
"An appeal to nature is considered to have committed a logical fallacy in stating that something is good or right because it is natural, or that something is bad or wrong because it is unnatural or artificial; This is a fallacy of relevance in that the natural origins of a phenomenon are presumed irrelevant to their desirability, and possibly an informal fallacy if it states that because some natural things are good, therefore all natural things are good. In this type of informal fallacy,[7] nature implies an ideal or desired state of being,[8] a state of how things were, or how they should be: in this sense an appeal to nature may resemble an appeal to tradition."
Second it is actually, like ^ says, an appeal to tradition in almost every way. The majority of humans traditionally practice hetero sex, therefore hetero sex must be natural.
You always rely on this type of shit man. :lol
CuckingFunt
07-06-2012, 02:03 PM
This isn't relevant to how the word natural was used.
:lol people opposing my opinion will read what you provided and automatically say because it's not unnatural, homosexuality in nature is therefore natural.
I would agree that homosexuality exists in nature, and is therefore natural in mother nature...other species in addition to ours engages in homosexual behavior. But in terms of how humans conceive and procreate it deviates from the natural order of things.
Humans having sex solely for the purpose of reproduction is a concept that also deviates from the natural order of things.
and this applies to women nowadays.....what now?
Can you elaborate on what you mean?
BacktoBasics
07-06-2012, 02:05 PM
This isn't relevant to how the word natural was used.
There is no end to your stupidity. Its not a matter of its relevance to your misuse of the word. Its relevant to its actual definition. The one everyone recognizes but you.
Your incessant need to misuse and misrepresent "natural" only serves to make you look more and more foolish the longer you carry on.
You're wrong. About 10 people in a few different ways have tried to clue you in to the fact that you're wrong but you refuse to comprehend it.
This is why no one here is interested in engaging in a real debate with you. Who's going to argue with the fucktard who redefines words to make a point?
You're not even abandoning rationality so much as you're abandoning actual defined words. You are officially the dumbest person this board has ever seen.
...and I don't throw that out lightly.
BacktoBasics
07-06-2012, 02:07 PM
You always rely on this type of shit man. :lolDid you even read it? Do you know what it means? Explain it to us? I want to know what you think his post means.
Humans having sex solely for the purpose of reproduction is a concept that also deviates from the natural order of things.
What, in your opinion, is the natural order of things then?
leemajors
07-06-2012, 02:10 PM
What, in your opinion, is the natural order of things then?
putting stuff in holes
BacktoBasics
07-06-2012, 02:10 PM
Triggered Failure's appeal to Nature is a logical fallacy, anyhow. Wikipedia:
"An appeal to nature is considered to have committed a logical fallacy in stating that something is good or right because it is natural, or that something is bad or wrong because it is unnatural or artificial; This is a fallacy of relevance in that the natural origins of a phenomenon are presumed irrelevant to their desirability, and possibly an informal fallacy if it states that because some natural things are good, therefore all natural things are good. In this type of informal fallacy,[7] nature implies an ideal or desired state of being,[8] a state of how things were, or how they should be: in this sense an appeal to nature may resemble an appeal to tradition."
Second it is actually, like ^ says, an appeal to tradition in almost every way. The majority of humans traditionally practice hetero sex, therefore hetero sex must be natural.
You always rely on this type of shit man. :lol
Go on and explain what his post means. Prove to me that you understand what his post means and why it was directed to you.
Shastafarian
07-06-2012, 02:10 PM
Protected sex is just as unnatural as gay sex.
There is no end to your stupidity. Its not a matter of its relevance to your misuse of the word. Its relevant to its actual definition. The one everyone recognizes but you.
Your incessant need to misuse and misrepresent "natural" only serves to make you look more and more foolish the longer you carry on.
You're wrong. About 10 people in a few different ways have tried to clue you in to the fact that you're wrong but you refuse to comprehend it.
This is why no one here is interested in engaging in a real debate with you. Who's going to argue with the fucktard who redefines words to make a point?
You're not even abandoning rationality so much as you're abandoning actual defined words. You are officially the dumbest person this board has ever seen.
...and I don't throw that out lightly.
:lmao
Here's the typical life coach take when someone opposes her beliefs.
Go on and explain what his post means. Prove to me that you understand what his post means and why it was directed to you.
Don't have to. I understood what it meant, I don't have to prove anything to you tbh.
ploto
07-06-2012, 02:12 PM
But in terms of how humans conceive and procreate it deviates from the natural order of things.
I would say that in vitro fertilization deviates from the natural order when it comes to how human beings conceive and procreate.
But how they have sex is a topic altogether different.
putting stuff in holes
:lol
BacktoBasics
07-06-2012, 02:13 PM
putting stuff in holesDon't confuse him any further
http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m163/Gulrik/man-placing-square-peg-in-round-hol.jpg
DisAsTerBot
07-06-2012, 02:14 PM
Don't have to. I understood what it meant, I don't have to prove anything to you tbh.
so why did you just disregard it? Because it refutes what you believe?
BacktoBasics
07-06-2012, 02:14 PM
Don't have to. I understood what it meant, I don't have to prove anything to you tbh.You don't get it. I didn't think you did.
Protected sex is just as unnatural as gay sex.
So those engaged in a heterosexual activity would be committing an unnatural act...
BacktoBasics
07-06-2012, 02:16 PM
:lmao
Here's the typical life coach take when someone opposes her beliefs.Its been the same take from pretty much all of us. It has nothing to do with opposing opinions as it does you complete and utter stupidity and inability to comprehend simple definitions.
BacktoBasics
07-06-2012, 02:17 PM
so why did you just disregard it? Because it refutes what you believe?
You shouldn't have said that :lol. He didn't know it refutes what he believes. He didn't know at all what it meant. It was just jibber jabber to him.
But even with your clue he still doesn't get it.
He probably thought fallacy meant fellatio. Even that might have been too big a word for him.
so why did you just disregard it? Because it refutes what you believe?
Logically...according to this, perhaps?
Everyone has to remember this is more of a matter of opinion. The opinions held are fueled with their own ammunition of facts that relate to reality.
silverblk mystix
07-06-2012, 02:18 PM
Lol at this witch hunt...
Page 1 & 2 consisted of communication.
From page 3 it turned into condescension, righteousness, insults and the same club m.o. that is as bad as anything everyone jumping on the sheeple wagon accused the OP of.
SMH.
DisAsTerBot
07-06-2012, 02:18 PM
Its been the same take from pretty much all of us. It has nothing to do with opposing opinions as it does you complete and utter stupidity and inability to comprehend simple definitions.
:tu
BacktoBasics
07-06-2012, 02:18 PM
Logically...according to this, perhaps?
Everyone has to remember this is more of a matter of opinion. The opinions held are fueled with their own ammunition of facts that relate to reality.Or in your case the opinion is fueled by creating new definitions of words.
DisAsTerBot
07-06-2012, 02:19 PM
Logically...according to this, perhaps?
Everyone has to remember this is more of a matter of opinion. The opinions held are fueled with their own ammunition of facts that relate to reality.
the definition of "natural" is not an opinion. You've got to remember that.
:lol @ backtobasics, don't ever argue against or oppose her beliefs or you'll get a plethora of personal attacks in almost every post she directs towards you.
the definition of "natural" is not an opinion. You've got to remember that.
How it relates to what I believe to be true and how it's relevant to conception and the like, it's a word to use. I should have used a much less sexier word like "normal" but people would have found a way to give me shit for that too.
BacktoBasics
07-06-2012, 02:23 PM
:lol @ backtobasics, don't ever argue against or oppose her beliefs or you'll get a plethora of personal attacks in almost every post she directs towards you.Only once again you're clueless. I've had hundreds if not thousands of debates on this forum and you're the first moron who's attempted to create new definitions of words in order to make a point.
This isn't a debate its a lesson in the english language.
This would have gone a lot differently if you actually contributed something worth discussing.
DisAsTerBot
07-06-2012, 02:23 PM
How it relates to what I believe to be true and how it's relevant to conception and the like, it's a word to use. I should have used a much less sexier word like "normal" but people would have found a way to give me shit for that too.
yeah, because either way you'd be wrong
Shastafarian
07-06-2012, 02:23 PM
So those engaged in a heterosexual activity would be committing an unnatural act...
According to you yes.
BacktoBasics
07-06-2012, 02:24 PM
How it relates to what I believe to be true and how it's relevant to conception and the like, it's a word to use. I should have used a much less sexier word like "normal" but people would have found a way to give me shit for that too.No. You should have just not redefined the word. Then you shouldn't have taken on everyone in this thread who tried to correct you.
Only once again you're clueless. I've had hundreds if not thousands of debates on this forum and you're the first moron who's attempted to create new definitions of words in order to make a point.
This isn't a debate its a lesson in the english language.
This would have gone a lot differently if you actually contributed something worth discussing.
:lol
here's another
Damn, my post count went way up these last couple of days. Thanks people! :lol
BacktoBasics
07-06-2012, 02:26 PM
Triggered Failure's appeal to Nature is a logical fallacy, anyhow. Wikipedia:
"An appeal to nature is considered to have committed a logical fallacy in stating that something is good or right because it is natural, or that something is bad or wrong because it is unnatural or artificial; This is a fallacy of relevance in that the natural origins of a phenomenon are presumed irrelevant to their desirability, and possibly an informal fallacy if it states that because some natural things are good, therefore all natural things are good. In this type of informal fallacy,[7] nature implies an ideal or desired state of being,[8] a state of how things were, or how they should be: in this sense an appeal to nature may resemble an appeal to tradition."
Second it is actually, like ^ says, an appeal to tradition in almost every way. The majority of humans traditionally practice hetero sex, therefore hetero sex must be natural.
You always rely on this type of shit man. :lol
Care to take a stab at what this means? I still don't believe you know what z0sa's post meant.
DisAsTerBot
07-06-2012, 02:27 PM
at this rate, this homophobe is definitely failing out of med school
BacktoBasics
07-06-2012, 02:27 PM
Damn, my post count went way up these last couple of days. Thanks people! :lolAt least you have your priorities right.
1.bigotry
2.intolerance
3.playing victim
4.redefining words
5.crying
BacktoBasics
07-06-2012, 02:29 PM
I forgot failing out of med school
Aight, I'm out. This wasn't going anywhere to begin with...aside from voicing my opinion on the subject -> getting called a bigot -> and subsequently apologizing those who were offended, this thread is filled with personal attacks and criticisms on the usage of the word "natural" in this context, this thread doesn't have much to offer.
As I've stated previously, If I offended anyone, I apologize.
Shastafarian
07-06-2012, 02:34 PM
Good luck in med school :toast
BacktoBasics
07-06-2012, 02:35 PM
Aight, I'm out. This wasn't going anywhere to begin with...aside from voicing my opinion on the subject -> getting called a bigot -> and subsequently apologizing those who were offended, this thread is filled with personal attacks and criticisms on the usage of the word "natural" in this context, this thread doesn't have much to offer.
As I've stated previously, If I offended anyone, I apologize.All this because you couldn't figure out what z0sa's post meant? That was easy.
...and hey don't come back until you understand what the definition of "natural" is.
PS
:lol personal attacks of me failing in medical school lolololololololol
:lol if I respond with any sort of slander remark towards one of the contributors from the circle jerk effort, I get shit on for being hater, acting superior, bigot...classic spurstalk
Anyway, i'm out.
BacktoBasics
07-06-2012, 02:38 PM
Great job gang. We might have to revive the ole poster of the week awards after the strong showing in here.
A special thanks to z0sa for a job well done. I'd also like to thank Chump for carrying the load last night. We couldn't have done it without you. CF strong showing as usual.
Overall I give this effort 10 jalapeno's.
Good luck in med school :toast
Already in my third year. Looking forward to didactics.
Thanks anyway. :)
Shastafarian
07-06-2012, 02:39 PM
:lol if I respond with any sort of slander remark towards one of the contributors from the circle jerk effort, I get shit on for being hater, acting superior, bigot...classic spurstalk
Anyway, i'm out.
Psychiatry school not needed! You can already read minds. Congrats triggeredexcellence, M.D.
DisAsTerBot
07-06-2012, 02:39 PM
Great job gang. We might have to revive the ole poster of the week awards after the strong showing in here.
A special thanks to z0sa for a job well done. I'd also like to thank Chump for carrying the load last night. We couldn't have done it without you. CF strong showing as usual.
Overall I give this effort 10 jalapeno's.
:lol
mrsmaalox
07-06-2012, 02:41 PM
Overall I give this effort 10 jalapeno's.
:lol Welcome back!
ChumpDumper
07-06-2012, 02:46 PM
PS
:lol personal attacks of me failing in medical school lolololololololol
:lol if I respond with any sort of slander remark towards one of the contributors from the circle jerk effort, I get shit on for being hater, acting superior, bigot...classic spurstalk
Anyway, i'm out.:lol doesn't know the definition of slander either
ploto
07-06-2012, 02:51 PM
Already in my third year. Looking forward to didactics.
Didactics usually refers to the first two years of traditional medical school curriculum. Are you sure you are in medical school?
Venti Quattro
07-06-2012, 02:59 PM
This thread reached 10+ pages? Slow clap.
Didactics usually refers to the first two years of traditional medical school curriculum. Are you sure you are in medical school?
I meant clinicals, I don't know why i said didactics must of slipped my mind...I haven't had much sleep the past couple of days :lol
Blake
07-06-2012, 03:04 PM
Lol at this witch hunt...
Page 1 & 2 consisted of communication.
From page 3 it turned into condescension, righteousness, insults and the same club m.o. that is as bad as anything everyone jumping on the sheeple wagon accused the OP of.
SMH.
SM jumping in with his own righteous, condescending insult. :tu
BacktoBasics
07-06-2012, 03:05 PM
I meant clinicals, I don't know why i said didactics must of slipped my mind...I haven't had much sleep the past couple of days :lolNo big deal what's a few redefined terms amongst friends. I know I often confuse baseball with swimming. When you say "med school" you probably mean "community college". You know context and stuff.
No big deal what's a few redefined terms amongst friends. I know I often confuse baseball with swimming. When you say "med school" you probably mean "community college". You know context and stuff.
B2B going ham. :lol
19 pages and going. Lets just call it a thread peeps.
MsMcGillyCutty
07-06-2012, 03:54 PM
Most of my male friends are gay. What is the big deal?
ChumpDumper
07-06-2012, 04:44 PM
SM jumping in with his own righteous, condescending insult. :tuHe's looking for a new member of his clique tbh.
silverblk mystix
07-06-2012, 04:51 PM
He's looking for a new member of his clique tbh.
Why so offended with the OP chumpie?
Hit close to home, maybe?
ChumpDumper
07-06-2012, 04:55 PM
Why so offended with the OP chumpie?
Hit close to home, maybe?:lol same ol' butthurt SBM, same ol' weak smack.
silverblk mystix
07-06-2012, 04:57 PM
:lol same ol' butthurt SBM, same ol' weak smack.
So what is your sexual orientation Chumpie?
redzero
07-06-2012, 05:04 PM
B2B going ham. :lol
19 pages and going. Lets just call it a thread peeps.
Hell no. Let's keep going.
ChumpDumper
07-06-2012, 05:07 PM
So what is your sexual orientation Chumpie?Somehow I just knew you would be very curious about that. I'm not interested in joining that kind of clique with you either.
silverblk mystix
07-06-2012, 05:08 PM
Somehow I just knew you would be very curious about that. I'm not interested in joining that kind of clique with you either.
Simple question, really.
Why are you deflecting?
What is your sexual orientation?
silverblk mystix
07-06-2012, 05:12 PM
Having trouble finding an answer chumpie?
ChumpDumper
07-06-2012, 05:14 PM
Simple question, really.I know.
Why are you deflecting?I'm deliberately not answering because you will inevitably make a big deal out of my not answering. Like pulling a string tbh.
What is your sexual orientation?Regardless of my orientation, I'm not interested in dating you -- so it doesn't matter at all.
silverblk mystix
07-06-2012, 05:17 PM
I know.
I'm deliberately not answering because you will inevitably make a big deal out of my not answering. Like pulling a string tbh.
Regardless of my orientation, I'm not interested in dating you -- so it doesn't matter at all.
It was a simple question. You seem to be having trouble and/or avoiding it.
Why?
This thread is relevant. You seemed to take great joy in circling around an outnumbered poster and seemed to be like a pit bull.
All of a sudden, you cannot answer a simple, direct question.
Why?
Are you ashamed?
Are you not sure of your orientation?
Which is it?
ChumpDumper
07-06-2012, 05:21 PM
It was a simple question. You seem to be having trouble and/or avoiding it.
Why?I told you precisely why.
This thread is relevant. You seemed to take great joy in circling around an outnumbered poster and seemed to be like a pit bull.That's your characterization. I was having fun pointing out the obvious flaws in his arguments. You take these things way too seriously -- which is why I'm not answering.
All of a sudden, you cannot answer a simple, direct question.
Why?Because look at you go!
Are you ashamed?Nope.
Are you not sure of your orientation?Quite sure. You would have known that had you actually read the thread. Thanks for confirming you didn't.
Which is it?Neither of those.
silverblk mystix
07-06-2012, 05:22 PM
I told you precisely why.
That's your characterization. I was having fun pointing out the obvious flaws in his arguments. You take these things way too seriously -- which is why I'm not answering.
Because look at you go!
Nope.
Quite sure. You would have known that had you actually read the thread. Thanks for confirming you didn't.
Neither of those.
What is your sexual orientation chump?
Would you like it worded differently?
Do you understand the question?
Why won't you answer?
ChumpDumper
07-06-2012, 05:25 PM
What is your sexual orientation chump?Not telling you; for the aforementioned reason.
Would you like it worded differently?Wouldn't make a difference.
Do you understand the question?Yes.
Why won't you answer?Because look at you go!
silverblk mystix
07-06-2012, 05:25 PM
69000 fuckin posts, chumpie and you are stumped on this question?
What is your sexual orientation chumpie?
ChumpDumper
07-06-2012, 05:28 PM
69000 fuckin posts, chumpie and you are stumped on this question?I've actually discussed it before in earlier posts. I chose not to here in order to troll you. Working quite well tbh. Thought it might not since I explicitly told you I'd be doing it; I should have had more faith.
What is your sexual orientation chumpie?Wouldn't you like to know?
silverblk mystix
07-06-2012, 05:29 PM
I've actually discussed it before in earlier posts. I chose not to here to troll you. Working quite well tbh. Thought it might not since I explicitly told you I'd be doing it; I should have had more faith.
Wouldn't you like to know?
Didn't realize you were ashamed.
Sorry.
ChumpDumper
07-06-2012, 05:31 PM
Didn't realize you were ashamed.
Sorry.:lol too late.
I told you twice you were being trolled. It finally sunk in and you tried changing course.
Feel free to search my posts to find your answer. You really want to know that badly.
silverblk mystix
07-06-2012, 05:33 PM
:lol too late.
I told you twice you were being trolled. It finally sunk in and you tried changing course.
Feel free to search my posts to find your answer. You really want to know that badly.
It makes sense now - how you viciously attacked the OP.
Didn't mean to expose you.
mrsmaalox
07-06-2012, 05:33 PM
It's unbelievable how concerned some people are with others' sexuality.
ChumpDumper
07-06-2012, 05:34 PM
It makes sense now - how you viciously attacked the OP.
Didn't mean to expose you.lol vicious
lol expose
lol trolled again
lol butthurt again
lol impotent ghey smack
ChumpDumper
07-06-2012, 05:35 PM
It's unbelievable how concerned some people are with others' sexuality.SBM is going to start a thread about it or work it into his butthurt thread dedicated to me.
leemajors
07-06-2012, 05:35 PM
I was a little disappointed WC didn't step in. He, trig, and Ginobilly could have authored the world's first (to my knowledge) Gay Left Circumcisionist plot conspiracy theory :depressed
silverblk mystix
07-06-2012, 05:36 PM
It's unbelievable how concerned some people are with others' sexuality.
19 pages and almost everyone was attacking the OP.
You didn't think anything of the condescension, righteousness, rudeness, character insults to the OP.
Now, you notice this?
Why?
ChumpDumper
07-06-2012, 05:38 PM
19 pages and almost everyone was attacking the OP.He kept saying stupid things like you do.
You didn't think anything of the condescension, righteousness, rudeness, character insults to the OP.Forget it, Jake. It's SpursTalk.
Now, you notice this?
Why?Because you kept badgering me about my sexuality after I told you I wasn't going to tell you to piss you off.
Blake
07-06-2012, 05:39 PM
This is hard to watch on it's own.
What makes it brutal is knowing SM is male massage therapistophobic.
silverblk mystix
07-06-2012, 05:40 PM
He kept saying stupid things like you do.
It's SpursTalk, Jake.
Because you kept badgering me about my sexuality after I told you I wasn't going to tell you to piss you off.
I wasn't talking to you, but since you responded- what is your sexual orientation chumpie?
silverblk mystix
07-06-2012, 05:41 PM
This is hard to watch on it's own.
What makes it brutal is knowing SM is male massage therapistophobic.
Blake, remove yourself from chumpies nutz- it is disgusting to watch what a little suck up you are.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.