Written by Rasputin on 15.04.2013 at 03:33

I think it should be obvious by now why the union between the two opposites is wrong and unnatural. If it is natural, a lesbian and a lesbian or a homosexual and a homosexual would be able to have an offspring, yet they shockingly cannot, unless they adopt of artificially inseminate. I said it before, I could not care less for them getting married, that does not concern me, as much as them pushing for everyone to accept is normal. Well, animals do it. So what now, just because animals do it, we should do it? Animals eat their young, commit incest, lick their own ass and have no reasoning capability like humans do (sadly a lot of humans do not use it when they should but...another topic again). So we either elevate the animal to the level of man, or we bring man to the level of animal.

Now, I want some reasoning why it should be accepted as normal, since I cannot get that from anyone, except from the usual "animal/scientific" standpoint.

Spare me of the analogies and let's speak of the subject itself.

"sanctions, embargo" sounds very worthy to me according to my values - values which you are failing to change and even failing harder to justify your own.
"Respecting minorities" It is am matter of values, which we hope to shape in according to reality. It isn't "logic" you are talking of; you are abusing the poor word - you mean rational. "Normal" is an ambiguous word. It can either mean what "what ought to be", "what is acceptable" or "what's the statistical majority" - in any case it doesn't get you anywhere with your line of reasoning.

No, not always - in fact I don't. I think people who don't point out problems with minorities are harmful to society and to those minorities. The problem is with certain people who point out problems with minorities is because they are motivated to slander them and imply that it is their "essence". That's racism in the meaningful sense to me (or so I will argue if needed).

"just because animals do it, we should do it?" so is it natural or not? It seems you are verging on uttering incoherent thoughts. And who are you speaking to exactly? Did I utter that? No.

Animals? So what if they or we do things like certain animlas? Bonobbo monkeys tend to walk-upright (and have tons of sex BTW) - maybe you should crawl - but of course you should not - it's another textbook fallacy; the association fallacy.
Even if you know what is "natural" (which you didn't convince me you do) -
I don't care if it's natural or not; another textbook fallacy - seem you are fond of them, and given your wrong use of the word "logic" is doesn't come as a surprise. So when you were speaking of "sadly a lot of humans do not use it when they should" are you speaking out of personal experience? Everyone have an error rate, I would try and be more humble.
And yeah, in general going down that reasoning line- most probably won't get you anywhere if that isn't clear by now.

Well fuck, I really was trying to avoid getting involved in this discussion because I don't necessarily want to be dragged into this kind of back and forth debate in which nobody is going to change their views no matter how many "valid" or "invalid" points either side makes. But I couldn't help myself as I am straight and I do feel homosexuality is a perfectly natural occurrence in the brain and therefore does not deserve the level of rabid societal disdain that it has garnered. Also I have yet to see anybody ask, what appears to me, to be a relatively common sense question to combat the anti-homosexual side...

If homosexuality (same sex intercourse) is so unnatural, then how and why does it occur in nature?

I don't feel it is a mental disorder at all because that would mean that you are saying that animals (who operate on hormones and instinct) eventually develop a mental disorder that tells them it's okay to have sex with a member of the same sex and I don't feel it's a lifestyle choice (at least in the case of nature/animals) because then you're saying the animal woke up one day and all of a sudden decided it felt a certain level of sexual attraction to members of the same sex. Did these animals catch a glimpse of gay porn or 2 homosexual humans fornicating and thought it looked like fun?

Homosexuality exists in nature because it is a perfectly natural occurrence in the brain. Taking a page from your book Rasputin, certain members of society view homosexuality as an unnatural mental disorder because they are conditioned to by society.

And now let's look at some of the definitions of natural and unnatural:

nat·u·ral (nchr-l, nchrl)
adj.
1. Present in or produced by nature.
2. Of, relating to, or concerning nature.
3. Conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature.
4.
a. Not acquired; inherent.
b. Having a particular character by nature.
c. Biology Not produced or changed artificially.
5. Characterized by spontaneity and freedom from artificiality, affectation, or inhibitions.
6. Not altered, treated, or disguised.
7. Faithfully representing nature or life.
8. Being in a state regarded as primitive, uncivilized, or unregenerate.

un·nat·u·ral (n-nchr-l)
adj.
1. In violation of a natural law.
2. Inconsistent with an individual pattern or custom.
3. Deviating from a behavioral norm.
4. Contrived or constrained; artificial.
5. In violation of natural feelings.

So what you're basically saying is that homosexuality was manufactured by humans who decided they wanted to be different one day and partake in same sex intercourse, then those homosexuals began converting other members of society and animals to spread some kind of homosexual agenda...?

Written by Candlemass on 27.03.2013 at 15:37

I think it totally missed the point. In many cases, their is no such thing as live and let live.
Homosexuals are discriminated against and hated by many just for being homosexuals . "[R]eligion doesn't approve of you" religion sentences homosexuals to death, is there any way of making it dislike Homosexuals any further in their eyes? and religion is not convinced that what happens in your bed room is your business only. There is no such thing as "group butting" - their is a society, it's rules and groups that compete to convince other people what those rules should be.
You better voice your opinions loud in public discourse and combat for them without being docile to sham manners - or else you will find yourself combating with more than your tongue for your life and it's quality.

Religion butts into everyone's life. Religion (at least of the monotheistic variety) hates metal music, uncovered women, feminism, pork, any and all sexual freedoms and many more things. Yet despite all that, here I am. Yes I get that its tough especially in the more conservative regions but such is no excuse for having an offensive position. 'Live and let live' is not the argument. 'Don't be the aggressor' however, is. I live in one of the most sexually liberal cities. Anything and everything can be found here and the common garden variety "gay" is nothing special or obscene here. Despite that, I see them protesting on the steps of religious institutions that do not get involved in any political banter on the topic. Their only offense being that their religion forbids it. In turn, this provokes the more proactive members of Christianity to act up. This does no favors to anyone.
Is it fair that religion doesn't accept homosexuals? It is their private business in what they believe in as much as it is the private business of the gay community regarding who they sleep with. Acceptance should be won with example setting, common sense and vigilance - not violence. Don't appease the stupid in behaving like them, otherwise you're no better.

And as far as life and limb are concerned, unless you are in the middle east or west Asia, the majority of the community, though might frown upon the lifestyle, do not go around killing gay people. Yes there are gangs and fascist groups, but that's a whole other problem to deal with as they seem to target anyone not part of their agenda.

Written by Sinnercist on 15.04.2013 at 21:19

Religion butts into everyone's life. Religion (at least of the monotheistic variety) hates metal music, uncovered women, feminism, pork, any and all sexual freedoms and many more things. Yet despite all that, here I am. Yes I get that its tough especially in the more conservative regions but such is no excuse for having an offensive position. 'Live and let live' is not the argument. 'Don't be the aggressor' however, is. I live in one of the most sexually liberal cities. Anything and everything can be found here and the common garden variety "gay" is nothing special or obscene here....

I beg to differ; 'don't be the aggressor' is another cliche (you have to determine who is the aggresor in the first place).
Privacy has it's (justified) place in political theory - yet in practice and in principle it is no one's own private matter what he believes; especially when the subject of that belief is someone else. Beliefs are guides to our actions; actions have consequences; they ought to be scrutinized.

Offending religion isn't "violence", I don't believe I did promote violence - and their is nothing wrong with "having an offence position" (which renders your position incoherent by the way - Orthodox religions tend to hold offensive positions).
We need good beliefs; reliable beliefs; if they are offensive or not - is irrelevant to the question if we should have them or not.
Concerning the voicing of such offensive beliefs; yeah, you can use tact - but it has nothing to do with having them - and manners is not an excuse to not voice them at all' especially in front of the relevant people that need to hear it.
(By the way; you could argue certain people lost the right to be approach with manners).

"Is it fair that religion doesn't accept homosexuals?" No. Privacy is not a merit that makes holding a certain belief a good idea - it sounds more like an excuse to not scrutinize it or shutting up other people (while gaining power if possible) scrutinizing it.

So...my conclusion still stands: voice your opinion, even if it offensive - voice it or you will pay the price eventually. That's the essence of an open democratic society. Functional one at least

Written by Candlemass on 15.04.2013 at 21:54

So...my conclusion still stands: voice your opinion, even if it offensive - voice it or you will pay the price eventually. That's the essence of an open democratic society. Functional one at least

Well, even in democratic societies, voice it and you pay the price regardless. It's a catch-22, but at least when you do, no one can say you didn't bother to do anything. That's my opinion, at least.

Written by Candlemass on 15.04.2013 at 10:21

Written by Rasputin on 15.04.2013 at 03:33

I think it should be obvious by now why the union between the two opposites is wrong and unnatural. If it is natural, a lesbian and a lesbian or a homosexual and a homosexual would be able to have an offspring, yet they shockingly cannot, unless they adopt of artificially inseminate. I said it before, I could not care less for them getting married, that does not concern me, as much as them pushing for everyone to accept is normal. Well, animals do it. So what now, just because animals do it, we should do it? Animals eat their young, commit incest, lick their own ass and have no reasoning capability like humans do (sadly a lot of humans do not use it when they should but...another topic again). So we either elevate the animal to the level of man, or we bring man to the level of animal.

Now, I want some reasoning why it should be accepted as normal, since I cannot get that from anyone, except from the usual "animal/scientific" standpoint.

Spare me of the analogies and let's speak of the subject itself.

"sanctions, embargo" sounds very worthy to me according to my values - values which you are failing to change and even failing harder to justify your own.
"Respecting minorities" It is am matter of values, which we hope to shape in according to reality. It isn't "logic" you are talking of; you are abusing the poor word - you mean rational. "Normal" is an ambiguous word. It can either mean what "what ought to be", "what is acceptable" or "what's the statistical majority" - in any case it doesn't get you anywhere with your line of reasoning.

No, not always - in fact I don't. I think people who don't point out problems with minorities are harmful to society and to those minorities. The problem is with certain people who point out problems with minorities is because they are motivated to slander them and imply that it is their "essence". That's racism in the meaningful sense to me (or so I will argue if needed).

"just because animals do it, we should do it?" so is it natural or not? It seems you are verging on uttering incoherent thoughts. And who are you speaking to exactly? Did I utter that? No.

Animals? So what if they or we do things like certain animlas? Bonobbo monkeys tend to walk-upright (and have tons of sex BTW) - maybe you should crawl - but of course you should not - it's another textbook fallacy; the association fallacy.
Even if you know what is "natural" (which you didn't convince me you do) -
I don't care if it's natural or not; another textbook fallacy - seem you are fond of them, and given your wrong use of the word "logic" is doesn't come as a surprise. So when you were speaking of "sadly a lot of humans do not use it when they should" are you speaking out of personal experience? Everyone have an error rate, I would try and be more humble.
And yeah, in general going down that reasoning line- most probably won't get you anywhere if that isn't clear by now.

Whole lot of writing to say nothing. Great.

Written by psykometal on 15.04.2013 at 17:58

Well fuck, I really was trying to avoid getting involved in this discussion because I don't necessarily want to be dragged into this kind of back and forth debate in which nobody is going to change their views no matter how many "valid" or "invalid" points either side makes. But I couldn't help myself as I am straight and I do feel homosexuality is a perfectly natural occurrence in the brain and therefore does not deserve the level of rabid societal disdain that it has garnered. Also I have yet to see anybody ask, what appears to me, to be a relatively common sense question to combat the anti-homosexual side...

If homosexuality (same sex intercourse) is so unnatural, then how and why does it occur in nature?

I don't feel it is a mental disorder at all because that would mean that you are saying that animals (who operate on hormones and instinct) eventually develop a mental disorder that tells them it's okay to have sex with a member of the same sex and I don't feel it's a lifestyle choice (at least in the case of nature/animals) because then you're saying the animal woke up one day and all of a sudden decided it felt a certain level of sexual attraction to members of the same sex. Did these animals catch a glimpse of gay porn or 2 homosexual humans fornicating and thought it looked like fun?

Homosexuality exists in nature because it is a perfectly natural occurrence in the brain. Taking a page from your book Rasputin, certain members of society view homosexuality as an unnatural mental disorder because they are conditioned to by society.

And now let's look at some of the definitions of natural and unnatural:

nat·u·ral (nchr-l, nchrl)
adj.
1. Present in or produced by nature.
2. Of, relating to, or concerning nature.
3. Conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature.
4.
a. Not acquired; inherent.
b. Having a particular character by nature.
c. Biology Not produced or changed artificially.
5. Characterized by spontaneity and freedom from artificiality, affectation, or inhibitions.
6. Not altered, treated, or disguised.
7. Faithfully representing nature or life.
8. Being in a state regarded as primitive, uncivilized, or unregenerate.

un·nat·u·ral (n-nchr-l)
adj.
1. In violation of a natural law.
2. Inconsistent with an individual pattern or custom.
3. Deviating from a behavioral norm.
4. Contrived or constrained; artificial.
5. In violation of natural feelings.

So what you're basically saying is that homosexuality was manufactured by humans who decided they wanted to be different one day and partake in same sex intercourse, then those homosexuals began converting other members of society and animals to spread some kind of homosexual agenda...?

I did not say that homosexual intercourse does not occur in nature. The intercourse does, but I am yet to find a species that remains in a homosexual relationship for the duration of their life. Homosexuality is counterproductive, like many other destructive things that I do not agree with, like drugs, illicit sex, wars...All these things play into the collapse of a family unit, and complete destruction of the social structure that we need to have in place in order to have a society.
Now, what animals do is natural for them, it is not natural for us, simply because we are a higher level creatures (one can only hope) and knows what should be done or not done. Animals act on instincts and hormones. By your logic, if I feel the urge to go fuck a child, an animal, another man or go kill someone, it should be permissible, simply because we see it in animal kingdom and it is natural. And that is incorrect. You are either a human or you are an animal.

You do not feel that it is a mental disorder, I do think that it is. And like you said in your post, no one will convince anyone to change their mind. We are just here to present our reasoning, even if we do not agree with each others views.

Homosexuality can be a byproduct of the human environment, I explained the possible manipulations/influences of the chemicals on the human body/hormones. It can also be product of conditioning to an extent. For instance, look at USA, more homo/bisexuals than ever, and why? Well, because the TV tells you that is alright. So while these people may not necessarily belong to the LGBT community, they are influenced by it to go and try, and that opens the door for more problems, and more issues.

Bottom line, if you accept homosexuality as normal, you have to accept everything else that comes with it. I don't think I can spell it out better. Agree or disagree, I respect your position, even if I may not necessarily agree with it.

What you are presenting is not reasoning. You have not managed to convince anyone it's "destructive", yet your repeating yourself one-to-one while ignoring clear criticism.
"we are a higher level creatures"; you posses a mentality from the 4th century BCE; Aristotle's hierarchy of being which has nothing to do with modern biology. I guess your orthodox religious; it's the same thing here with religious orthodox Jews - they study and study all day, and for them 12th century thought is cutting edge, to them the world has stood silence since then.

"Homosexuality is counterproductive"
According to what ends? The end of living a happy and fulfilling life seems very productive to me.
And why do you think Homosexuality is the collapse of the family unit? I know homos with kids. A great couple really. They suffer needlessly because of people with your opinion (if I can call it like an opinion rather then a conditioning).

Written by Candlemass on 17.04.2013 at 00:44

What you are presenting is not reasoning. You have not managed to convince anyone it's "destructive", yet your repeating yourself one-to-one while ignoring clear criticism.
"we are a higher level creatures"; you posses a mentality from the 4th century BCE; Aristotle's hierarchy of being which has nothing to do with modern biology. I guess your orthodox religious; it's the same thing here with religious orthodox Jews - they study and study all day, and for them 12th century thought is cutting edge, to them the world has stood silence since then.

"Homosexuality is counterproductive"
According to what ends? The end of living a happy and fulfilling life seems very productive to me.
And why do you think Homosexuality is the collapse of the family unit? I know homos with kids. A great couple really. They suffer needlessly because of people with your opinion (if I can call it like an opinion rather then a conditioning).

I'm not here to convince anyone of anything. I am just here to debate. You have not convinced me of anything either. So we agree to disagree.

We are not higher level creatures, that posses logic and reason? Interesting...

Like I said again, homosexuality is not productive, they cannot procreate. I am against them adopting, because they treatment, not endorsement for their malady. It's not their fault they are that way. And like I said before, the reason it got removed from the list of disorders, was political, not scientific.
And those people you mention would not have to suffer, if they sought treatment, they could then start a family of their own, continue their genes and be productive.
There are three kinds of conquering, through war, through culture and through natality. Homosexuals are wining this fight, because they are influencing culture to be more accepting of them.
I am happy I at least have some standards and morals unlike most of the world that will bathe in its own sewer.

In what do people do in debates you think? Maybe it's a fashion show? CONVINCING.

I don't know if there is a point continuing this, but; When did I say not "posses logic and reason"? It has nothing in itself to do with a hierarchy of being. There is no conjunction between them (as you suddenly added). Your going in circles.

As long as you stay on the beaten path, its all good

Well, I think we can all mutually agree on one aspect of this long and aneurysm-inducing argument: Rasputin is a homophobic little prick.

...And yes, that was an ad hominem.

Written by Guest on 17.04.2013 at 22:58

Well, I think we can all mutually agree on one aspect of this long and aneurysm-inducing argument: Rasputin is a homophobic little prick.

...And yes, that was an ad hominem.

I'm also a White Supremacist too

Yup, and you are a homo, I'm so glad you came out of the closet, now open wide and start sucking. That was an ad hominem as well

Quote:

Written by Rasputin on 18.04.2013 at 00:56

I'm also a White Supremacist too

There was never a doubt in my mind.

Alright you two, let's stop with the immature middle school insults and keep things G-rated.

Written by Rasputin on 17.04.2013 at 01:44

I am happy I at least have some standards and morals unlike most of the world that will bathe in its own sewer.

You know I'd say sexual depravity within society stems far more from heterosexual desires and lust than that of a homosexual nature, not only by the sheer proportion of hetero to homo ratio but also the fact that it's obviously considered the "normal" state of sexual relation, as you confidently protest, and therefore it's social normalcy grants the opportunity for more avenues of depravity.

Written by R'Vannith on 18.04.2013 at 07:23

Written by Rasputin on 17.04.2013 at 01:44

I am happy I at least have some standards and morals unlike most of the world that will bathe in its own sewer.

You know I'd say sexual depravity within society stems far more from heterosexual desires and lust than that of a homosexual nature, not only by the sheer proportion of hetero to homo ratio but also the fact that it's obviously considered the "normal" state of sexual relation, as you confidently protest, and therefore it's social normalcy grants the opportunity for more avenues of depravity.

I wouldn't go so far at saying that. While the ratio is for right now in favor of the hetero population, how is it granting opportunity, when almost every outbreak of sexual perversion, violation of the social contract, etc. is being judged by the rest. Could you clarify your stance a little bit better, I do not think I completely comprehend your point.

Written by Rasputin on 18.04.2013 at 18:59

Written by R'Vannith on 18.04.2013 at 07:23

Written by Rasputin on 17.04.2013 at 01:44

I am happy I at least have some standards and morals unlike most of the world that will bathe in its own sewer.

You know I'd say sexual depravity within society stems far more from heterosexual desires and lust than that of a homosexual nature, not only by the sheer proportion of hetero to homo ratio but also the fact that it's obviously considered the "normal" state of sexual relation, as you confidently protest, and therefore it's social normalcy grants the opportunity for more avenues of depravity.

I wouldn't go so far at saying that. While the ratio is for right now in favor of the hetero population, how is it granting opportunity, when almost every outbreak of sexual perversion, violation of the social contract, etc. is being judged by the rest. Could you clarify your stance a little bit better, I do not think I completely comprehend your point.

What I'm getting at is that it if you have a majority of hetero minds then you have more depraved thoughts, numerically speaking, stemming from those minds. I think that's the simplest way of expressing what I mean.

No doubt you would argue that the homosexual mind is inherently more depraved than that of a depraved heterosexual. Which would of course require you to have some understanding of the psychology of a homosexual individual, which you clearly do not and cannot.

Written by R'Vannith on 18.04.2013 at 19:26

Written by Rasputin on 18.04.2013 at 18:59

Written by R'Vannith on 18.04.2013 at 07:23

Written by Rasputin on 17.04.2013 at 01:44

I am happy I at least have some standards and morals unlike most of the world that will bathe in its own sewer.

You know I'd say sexual depravity within society stems far more from heterosexual desires and lust than that of a homosexual nature, not only by the sheer proportion of hetero to homo ratio but also the fact that it's obviously considered the "normal" state of sexual relation, as you confidently protest, and therefore it's social normalcy grants the opportunity for more avenues of depravity.

I wouldn't go so far at saying that. While the ratio is for right now in favor of the hetero population, how is it granting opportunity, when almost every outbreak of sexual perversion, violation of the social contract, etc. is being judged by the rest. Could you clarify your stance a little bit better, I do not think I completely comprehend your point.

What I'm getting at is that it if you have a majority of hetero minds then you have more depraved thoughts, numerically speaking, stemming from those minds. I think that's the simplest way of expressing what I mean.

No doubt you would argue that the homosexual mind is inherently more depraved than that of a depraved heterosexual. Which would of course require you to have some understanding of the psychology of a homosexual individual, which you clearly do not and cannot.

A mind is a mind, however one is wired right and the other is wired wrong. Now, I have no idea, nor do I care about what someones thoughts are. You can have all kinds of thoughts, as long as you do not act up on them it is fine by me.

Written by Rasputin on 19.04.2013 at 20:14

A mind is a mind, however one is wired right and the other is wired wrong. Now, I have no idea, nor do I care about what someones thoughts are. You can have all kinds of thoughts, as long as you do not act up on them it is fine by me.

That's counterintuitive. You claim heterosexual minds are wired correctly and homosexual minds are wired incorrectly. You then say that you are indifferent to how someone thinks.
How then can you pass a value judgement on the nature of a homosexual mind or a heterosexual mind without caring about their thoughts? No one mind is like that of another, so your argument that, uniformly, the homosexual mind is "wrong" is baseless.

Written by R'Vannith on 20.04.2013 at 16:03

Written by Rasputin on 19.04.2013 at 20:14

A mind is a mind, however one is wired right and the other is wired wrong. Now, I have no idea, nor do I care about what someones thoughts are. You can have all kinds of thoughts, as long as you do not act up on them it is fine by me.

That's counterintuitive. You claim heterosexual minds are wired correctly and homosexual minds are wired incorrectly. You then say that you are indifferent to how someone thinks.
How then can you pass a value judgement on the nature of a homosexual mind or a heterosexual mind without caring about their thoughts? No one mind is like that of another, so your argument that, uniformly, the homosexual mind is "wrong" is baseless.

Heterosexual minds are wired correctly, homosexual minds are not, in the sense that hetero are doing what they were supposed to, procreate, while the others regress. Now, when it comes to thoughts, that is an unregulated field. It is not the thoughts that are necessarily the problem, but the actions following those thoughts. Get it?

Something tells me I missed out on lots of circular arguments and logical fallacies. The fact that it's 2013 and there's still people who believe that homosexuality is a mental illness that one catches from being exposed to homosexual content and that sex is meant purely for procreation which is the sole purpose of human existence makes me concerned for the future of humanity. It's been what, almost 40 years since homosexuality was recognized by America as a mental illness?
And really, if people are so opposed to that which is "unnatural" (not that I actually believe homosexuality is), why not strip naked and go live in the jungle away from technology or something?

Written by Rasputin on 20.04.2013 at 19:51

Heterosexual minds are wired correctly, homosexual minds are not, in the sense that hetero are doing what they were supposed to, procreate, while the others regress. Now, when it comes to thoughts, that is an unregulated field. It is not the thoughts that are necessarily the problem, but the actions following those thoughts. Get it?

Your logic is flawed as your judgement of the homosexual mind being incorrectly wired depends upon actions which prevent procreation. To that effect a heterosexual who takes contraceptives is equally as qualified for your definition of incorrect wiring. Or those who are sterile. Or men with erectile disfunction. Or women post-menopause. Or those who simply can't "get any." Or those heterosexual couples who prefer alternative sexual practices for reasons of pleasure or with the purpose to avoid procreation.

You must be a big fan of condoms.

It probably doesn't help that he's obviously a homophobic bigot, so there's really no point in continuing this circular discussion with him because nothing you say is going to have even a remotely profound impact on him to the point of "winning the argument"; it's like trying to convince a Klansman that Caucasians are not the Master Race.

Quote:

"And really, if people are so opposed to that which is "unnatural" (not that I actually believe homosexuality is), why not strip naked and go live in the jungle away from technology or something?"

"You must be a big fan of condoms."

Epic rhetoric.

Written by Thrashette on 21.04.2013 at 00:59

It's been what, almost 40 years since homosexuality was recognized by America as a mental illness?

It's been almost 40 years since people stopped recognizing homosexuality as a mental illness.

Written by Guest on 22.04.2013 at 00:37

I take back what I said about Serbia being ahead of the curb, because if this guy's any indication

Well you can't hold an entire country accountable for one single bigot, otherwise you better damn that shit out of America. And Milena (from MS Staff) is Serbian and she's really kool and open-minded.

Written by psykometal on 22.04.2013 at 01:00

Written by Guest on 22.04.2013 at 00:37

I take back what I said about Serbia being ahead of the curb, because if this guy's any indication

Well you can't hold an entire country accountable for one single bigot, otherwise you better damn that shit out of America. And Milena (from MS Staff) is Serbian and she's really kool and open-minded.

I was gonna delete that line. Still going to actually.
But I got preoccupied looking up quotes of Isaac Newton for another counter-argument against Rasputin...

Written by Rasputin on 20.04.2013 at 19:51

Heterosexual minds are wired correctly, homosexual minds are not, in the sense that hetero are doing what they were supposed to, procreate, while the others regress. Now, when it comes to thoughts, that is an unregulated field. It is not the thoughts that are necessarily the problem, but the actions following those thoughts. Get it?

...And now you're comparing a lifestyle choice to computer hardware. You really are running out of arguments, are you?
"The real danger is not that computers will begin to think like men, but that men will begin to think like computers."

Written by Rasputin on 19.04.2013 at 20:14

A mind is a mind, however one is wired right and the other is wired wrong. Now, I have no idea, nor do I care about what someones thoughts are. You can have all kinds of thoughts, as long as you do not act up on them it is fine by me.

Maybe you should try taking your own advice, because your thoughts are really making you look like a fool right now.

Written by Guest on 22.04.2013 at 00:37

Written by Thrashette on 21.04.2013 at 00:59

It's been what, almost 40 years since homosexuality was recognized by America as a mental illness?

It's been almost 40 years since people stopped recognizing homosexuality as a mental illness.

Fuck... worded that badly

@Thrashette
Hmm, I guess you have not researched how and why it got removed. Brush up on that. All-wise Americans with 300 odd years of existence in the world decided that the rest of the world is wrong and they are right (as usual) so they marshaled that great idea on top of many great ideas that just keep on giving. That's why diseases are running rampant, the marriages are falling apart, there are no standards anymore. But US knows best LOL
@Psyko
You sound like a typical libtard by calling me a bigot. If you guys like getting fucked in the ass, and feeling warm shit on the tip of your dick, that is your choice, but that does not make me a bigot, just like it does not make me a racist for commenting on the fuck ups of your beloved President.
@Rvannath
I guess you are again twisting my words and drawing conclusions that I have not stated. It is one thing to use contraceptives (which I am not really a fan off since i am old fashioned, but I guess I am the sick pervert for having morals, shame on me) and it is another thing to engage in a homosexual relationship that cannot result in an offspring. I think like my buddy Psyko has stated, there is no point discussing, you guys and support homosexuals, I do not, and no argument or evidence can change our opinions and beliefs. And yeah, I'm very big fan of condoms, so was your dad, since the best part of you remained inside of it when it broke
@Lit
As long as I am not an American genius like you, it's all good. Btw, does your boyfriend like your pretty mouth?

Love you all