Poop gate has been overpooped

[FuLLBLeeD]

I am hardly a conservative and I never went anywhere.

Wooo insults let me try that.

The location of your head is inside your rectum. While your up there look for your remote. And if it's not to much trouble say hi to bush, he gets lonely without people on par with his intellect to talk to.

Let me make this clearer for you:

You said homosexuality was the same as zoophilia or necrophilia.

You think that two people of the same sex having sex is the same as someone having sex with a corpse.


YOU THINK THAT TWO HUMAN BEINGS HAVING SEX IS THE SAME THING AS A HUMAN BEING HAVING SEX WITH A HORSE

You're a ****ing retard.

 

[Adelheid]

+1
__________

Hetero, Homo, and Transsexuality have and actual physical root in the brain.
This has been proven by medical science.

 

[shadow_dragon]

I actually think that is precisely what kills his argument.

He makes a point of mentioning how humans naturally will have sex with just about anything given half a chance and then says it can't be natural to want to do it with anything but the same sex.

IMO, heterosexuality is abnormal, it suggests a biological wit that pre- determines what you should be attracted(we've established that attraction is a base state now), a physical knowledge that the thing you are meant to pummel your libido into has to have an alternative set of equipment to your own on their person.

I would understand if Elmur's argument was that "anal sex isn't the best method of making babies" and suggest it wasn't natural in an evolutionary sense but bearing in mind that anal sex can be had between opposite sex couples?... Instead he suggests homosexuality is unnatural because of a base-urge? Ignoring the fact that many people can pop a hard-on when glancing at some suggestively shaped fruit or veg or more precisely when using their imagination.

I would also kinda understand if Elmur's argument was that the concept of life-long partnership were unnatural when seed spreading and semen wars would potentially be the best evolutionary course of action but alas no, he suggests it's okay between opposites but less so with samies?

P.s/ Vaginal sex is no more natural than anal or oral sex to a species that just wants to get it's rocks off 90% of the time in spite of wombs and sperm desperately trying to couple-up... It's just potentialy more comfortable. Males will always find something to stick their bits in and women will always eventually find something worth doing whilst he's distracted.

 

[[GU]elmur_fud]

Awe did we get our wittle feelings hurt by my insults? How fun do you think it is to be the only one 1/2 the time to voice a difference of a opinion around you forum thugs for more then a post or 2? One might think I like being tortured for being different. I don't. I just refuse to cower and/or compromise.
Don't like my opinion deal with it.

That is the last insult you'll recieve out of me btw so feel free to get in all the free shots you want. I just wanted point out how rude it is that people here do that over and over again anytime somebody is a little different. And you people complain about conservatives and neocons intolerance. gah... off my soapbox now I have probably done it once or twice myself.

As to what you said. I drew a comparison that they were all 3 attractions and in my opinion unnatural ones. I don't think "THAT TWO HUMAN BEINGS HAVING SEX IS THE SAME THING AS A HUMAN BEING HAVING SEX WITH A HORSE" I never made such an assertion. I asserted that they all attractions and rooted in the same place in the brain.

Yes people have observed gay animals, but guess what there also animals that go outside there species. Dog ever hump your leg? A simple google search reveals animals engage in necrophilia.

I never said the actions were the same. I spake only of the primitive root.

 

[shadow_dragon]

As to what you said. I drew a comparison that they were all 3 attractions and in my opinion unnatural ones. I don't think "THAT TWO HUMAN BEINGS HAVING SEX IS THE SAME THING AS A HUMAN BEING HAVING SEX WITH A HORSE" I never made such an assertion. I asserted that they all attractions and rooted in the same place in the brain.

Same sex people are still human beings so when you compare homosexuality to zooaphilia you are actually making such an assertion and attraction as base urge is natural in general.

Even so, who cares, why are you so obssessed with the sex part of homosexuality? These guys want to get married and spend their lives together, in the end the sex will most likely become a minor component in their partnership.

 

[Adelheid]

1) You are not the only person on here with an opinion that differs from others opinion, so stop whining about how you're not having any fun.

2) You may say to yourself that you are simply refusing to cower or compromise, and feel contented that through that you are a man, but what you are actually doing is refuse to listen and consider, and that makes you a coward, a coward who is incapable of accepting the mere possibility of being wrong.

3) It is not your opinion that is the problem here, it is your presenting of your personal opinions like they are based on hard fact, and your refusal to listen to posts that are clearly based on hard fact. You have posted nothing but baseless person prejudice and bigotry

4) Necrophilia, paedophillia, and zoophillia do come from the "sexuality" part of the brain, however medical science has proven that, unlike with hetero, homo and transsexuality, these are caused by damage, malformation, and simple lack of development.

5) Do not dare to take me on without proper backing, I will rip you apart like a rabid dobermann, and I strongly doubt that there is anyone of consequence on this forum who will be able to defend you.

 

[[GU]elmur_fud]

Same sex people are still human beings so when you compare homosexuality to zooaphilia you are actually making such an assertion and attraction as base urge is natural in general.

Even so, who cares, why are you so obssessed with the sex part of homosexuality? These guys want to get married and spend their lives together, in the end the sex will most likely become a minor component in their partnership.

I am not. I made a casual statement of my opinion and received a multi page barbecue for being different which is ironic considering it's in regards to my view of terminology as it effects scientific progress in awkward matters relating to quite probably the most harassed group of people in history simply because they are different. In my mind the comparison is not to the lifestyle it's to what formed thier mind-set into leading that lifestyle and I say it's psychologicly rooted.

1) You are not the only person on here with an opinion that differs from others opinion, so stop whining about how you're not having any fun.

Whining? Not hardly. "How fun do you think it is to be the only one 1/2 the time to voice a difference of a opinion around you forum thugs for more then a post or 2?" scratches chin Yup pretty sure that says I think I am the only one with a different opinion.

2) You may say to yourself that you are simply refusing to cower or compromise, and feel contented that through that you are a man, but what you are actually doing is refuse to listen and consider, and that makes you a coward, a coward who is incapable of accepting the mere possibility of being wrong.

I listened and considered. I have considered the subject often and at length and have adjusted my views were I believe that I have been wrong. I put allot of thought into most posts. I still think I am right.

3) It is not your opinion that is the problem here, it is your presenting of your personal opinions like they are based on hard fact, and your refusal to listen to posts that are clearly based on hard fact. You have posted nothing but baseless person prejudice and bigotry

I have never treated another human being with hatred or disdain. I generally put others first. Bigot no. Please re-share anything that was more factual then any of my posts.

4) Necrophilia, paedophillia, and zoophillia do come from the "sexuality" part of the brain, however medical science has proven that, unlike with hetero, homo and transsexuality, these are caused by damage, malformation, and simple lack of development.

The lack of evidence of damage, malformation, or simple lack of development on the part of homosexuality isn't proof to that it isn't caused by one of those. The observation was that they couldn't find any proof so we will rename. The decision to no longer call it as such was made on a lack of evidence not evidence to the contrary.

5) Do not dare to take me on without proper backing, I will rip you apart like a rabid dobermann, and I strongly doubt that there is anyone of consequence on this forum who will be able to defend you.

Is meant to scare me? Incite me to comment rashly? I don't know you in any capacity other then this forum and frankly even if I did it would change whether I would speak up or not. Such a threat hollow or no is difficult for me to understand so I just pay it no mind.

 

[Benfica]

1. Either for or against, having this as a law is a waste of taxpayer money

Homosexuals are also taxpayers, so I suspect they contribute with enough money to pay for a gay marriage law

 

[[GU]elmur_fud]

Homosexuals are also taxpayers, so I suspect they contribute with enough money to pay for a gay marriage law

True. But why fix one law when it's a system of sexist discrimination between males and females on all legal levels. With the one law at a time method it'll take forever and a fortune. I advocate a systemic overhaul that pulls gender bound descriptors from the law removing the ability to interpret it on a male vs. female basis. Thats all.

 

[KaL976]

Win.

 

[Adelheid]

1) You are not the only person on here with an opinion that differs from others opinion, so stop whining about how you're not having any fun.

Whining? Not hardly. "How fun do you think it is to be the only one 1/2 the time to voice a difference of a opinion around you forum thugs for more then a post or 2?" scratches chin Yup pretty sure that says I think I am the only one with a different opinion.

1) Re read this thread. You were not the only one in here with your point of view, the difference is the others had the sense to shut up and leave when it started getting to the point where people were clearly researching their posts.

2) Go read my posts in the Oil Spill threads, you arrogant little boy. You are not the only one on this forum with a largely unpopular opinion.

3) Notice how at no point do i comment (read: whine) about how I am almost alone in my position? That is because I don't need to point out to everyone that I am being "courageous" in my one-man all-or-nothing last-stand moment. I'm not that insecure.

2) You may say to yourself that you are simply refusing to cower or compromise, and feel contented that through that you are a man, but what you are actually doing is refuse to listen and consider, and that makes you a coward, a coward who is incapable of accepting the mere possibility of being wrong.

I listened and considered. I have considered the subject often and at length and have adjusted my views were I believe that I have been wrong. I put allot of thought into most posts. I still think I am right.

When you have already decided that you are not going to "cower and compromise" how can you listen? You heard, that is all. Also the fact that you are still in this thread, still typing the same unchanged, unaltered baseless opinion, is a clear indication that you have considered nothing of what has been posted.

It is my personal opinion that the only thing you have considered is what your preacher has told you to consider, in the way that he has told you to consider it.

3) It is not your opinion that is the problem here, it is your presenting of your personal opinions like they are based on hard fact, and your refusal to listen to posts that are clearly based on hard fact. You have posted nothing but baseless person prejudice and bigotry

I have never treated another human being with hatred or disdain. I generally put others first. Bigot no. Please re-share anything that was more factual then any of my posts.

My posts have already been ignored. If you want me to back up anything specific then please feel free to do so, but be warned, I am a dobermann when it comes to these things, so if you do not do likewise, if you do not back up your argument... well, let's just say that this is me growling.

4) Necrophilia, paedophillia, and zoophillia do come from the "sexuality" part of the brain, however medical science has proven that, unlike with hetero, homo and transsexuality, these are caused by damage, malformation, and simple lack of development.

The lack of evidence of damage, malformation, or simple lack of development on the part of homosexuality isn't proof to that it isn't caused by one of those. The observation was that they couldn't find any proof so we will rename. The decision to no longer call it as such was made on a lack of evidence not evidence to the contrary.

There is no lack of evidence; There is no damage. Do you honestly think researcherare that stupid? They'd lose their funding and their jobs if they made such a ridiculous mistake.
You just want there to be no evidence because you don't have the spine, guts, or balls to simply admit that "I just don't like queers, because I am xenophobe".

And just so you know, I am a xenophobe too: I fear anything I do not understand.

5) Do not dare to take me on without proper backing, I will rip you apart like a rabid dobermann, and I strongly doubt that there is anyone of consequence on this forum who will be able to defend you.

Is meant to scare me? Incite me to comment rashly? I don't know you in any capacity other then this forum and frankly even if I did it would change whether I would speak up or not. Such a threat hollow or no is difficult for me to understand so I just pay it no mind.

3 hours up, see you monday

**********
I am not. I made a casual statement of my opinion and received a multi page barbecue for being different which is ironic considering it's in regards to my view of terminology as it effects scientific progress in awkward matters relating to quite probably the most harassed group of people in history simply because they are different. In my mind the comparison is not to the lifestyle it's to what formed thier mind-set into leading that lifestyle and I say it's psychologicly rooted.

 

[xMurphyx]

The observation was that they couldn't find any proof so we will rename. The decision to no longer call it as such was made on a lack of evidence not evidence to the contrary.

elmur_fud dresses up in a pink elephant costume with a funny whig and listens to Wagner while he masturbates thinking about getting blueberries stuffed into his nostrils.
True or not? Is lack of evidence enough to discard the statement as false or do we need evidence to the contrary?

 

[Benfica]

[M]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BH5A4s25MR4[/M]

 

[Larkin]

1) Re read this thread. You were not the only one in here with your point of view, the difference is the others had the sense to shut up and leave when it started getting to the point where people were clearly researching their posts.

You've been reading the thread have you?

There is no lack of evidence; There is no damage. Do you honestly think researcherare that stupid? They'd lose their funding and their jobs if they made such a ridiculous mistake.
You just want there to be no evidence because you don't have the spine, guts, or balls to simply admit that "I just don't like queers, because I am xenophobe".

What in the **** is a researcherare?

 

[cooloola]

Dog ever hump your leg?

Actually dogs hump your leg to show dominance, it's kinda like prison rape.

 

[Lizard Of Oz]

You've been reading the thread have you?



What in the **** is a researcherare?

It's what researchers are without space.

 

[shadow_dragon]

...But why fix one law when it's a system of sexist discrimination between males and females on all legal levels. With the one law at a time method it'll take forever and a fortune. I advocate a systemic overhaul that pulls gender bound descriptors from the law removing the ability to interpret it on a male vs. female basis. Thats all.

On the face of it I see what you're saying here and don't disagree but realistically we all know it'll be the one law at a time route that is taken.

This PoV seems largely different from the one defining what is abnormal is all.

What in the **** is a researcherare?

[m]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8xr92FISzc[/m]

 

[Larkin]

It's what researchers are without space.

He didn't write an s after the r. Your making up stuff now.


Btw, I wonder if he realizes the research doesn't exactly say what he thinks it does.

 

[[GU]elmur_fud]

On the face of it I see what you're saying here and don't disagree but realistically we all know it'll be the one law at a time route that is taken.

This PoV seems largely different from the one defining what is abnormal is all.

...

Sadly most likely correct.

eh I still think I may be having trouble conveying my meaning. Trust me I am not slamming them in the slightest. I try and find a better way stating my opinion in the last 3 or so paragraphs of this post.

--------------------------------
@Dr Stephen Falken

1. I was being sarcastic, sorry that wasn't conveyed well. Carefully reading my self quote should show I don't think I am the only one. I did say however that I was the only one that stuck to my guns for very long, 50% of the time. But that is as close as it gets.

2. I have a family association with people at the highest level of Haliburton ( I don't have money they do just so were clear.) I have overheard things I don't know that I should legally repeat as such I have not entered that thread.

3.OK, sorry as per the above I can not notice anything about it.

Please if there are facts to the contrary of what I said post them. I maintain that I considered the positions of others when posting But almost every post counter mine was misinterpretation or misrepresentation of what I was saying. The fact that I am still here is that I am still being misunderstood IMO.

Yes I am a religious man but what my church has to say on the subject of gays is far flung from the position I hold. I have a mind of my own and I use it to decide for myself. My decision is to not to be a hater and to except and love my family and friends for what they are. Which is more biblical then being a hater anyway. Here are a few verses to throw at the haters.

Mark 12:31 Love your neighbor as yourself.
Matthew 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

These 2 themes are echoed all over the bible old and new testament in probably hundreds of verses. I only know of 2 that speak about homosexuality. They both refer to the act as being gross aka an abomination in old English to god. Not to the individuals themselves.

Since intermediaries (confessing to a priest) aren't biblical in my opinion that means what you do to whom is none of my business and I will treat you no differently then Any else.

Whether you believe it divinely inspired or not, and I realize most here do not, it is good advice. And good knowledge to rationally deal with bible thumping anti homosexuals.

First rule of war: Know thy enemy.

I am extremely curious. I don't fear what I do not understand. I seek to understand it. I have but 1 fear and that is needles. Which I will conquer.

And yes the lack of fear mixed with curiosity has nearly been the death of me on several occasions.

If you google 1973 apa homosexuality you will find allot of interesting reading sadly in the most reputable sources the credited parties writing the info are prominent members of either a pro or anti homosexual org. I trust neither to not put a biased spin on the events. As 1 one wishes to discredit the events and the other wishes to hide there lobbying/involvement and to build up prceeding as strictly scientificly motivated.


The facts as I glean them: This happened in 1973 and was pushed through by the Gay Activists Alliance but ultimately was needed as "mental illness" carries such a stigma

Kameny identified homosexuality's classification as a mental illness as the major stumbling block for gay rights because "an attribution of mental illness in our culture is devastating."

I can readily agree with that. I like to hope we have moved past the 'running about hands in the air dancing behavior' due to over reactions about classifications. Perhaps not though as so many went Nazi about it.
Moving on... [QUOTE = same as before]"sloppy, slovenly, slipshod, sleazy science-social and cultural and the theological value judgments, cloaked and camouflaged in the language of science, without the substance of science.[/QUOTE]
Meaning there was no good evidence to prove it such. Many reputable sources claim empirical evidence that supports homosexuality as normal But rarely did any site mention what this "empirical evidence" was. 1 site mentioned a study in conjunction with that statement about a study involving hetero and homosexual couples in which, though there were differences, they both scored in the normal range. Which I guess that's a closed case, your right I am wrong... unless homosexuality is a healing the brain goes through as a result of some psychological trauma as I have suggested previously.

What is so hard to except about my saying there is a reason they are gay other then 'there just gay'. I don't by the random queer effect concept it doesn't make sense on any level. In science everything has a cause and effect. We know the effect. Whats the cause?

I could be wrong that it could be a psychological trauma in the formative years and that is how they healed. It might not be that it all. a combination of things or something else entirely.

I suppose I could be wrong and it could random. But in my opinion due to my observations it's not.

Sorry for the missing words and letters in my last couple posts I got a throbbing headache from watching/listening to a bad youtube mashup my brother sent me a link to and it's messing with my already paltry typing skills.

@ xMurphyx

It's from a quote by carl sagan - absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Though I do like wagner's ride of the valkyries and Blueberries (in my oatmeal). The rest of your little fantasy is a no show.

 

[M.A.D.X.W]

I wouldn't worry to much about it.