# Pope Francis Admits That A 'Gay Lobby' Influences The Vatican



## SHOTGUN420 (Jun 11, 2013)

Pope Francis has caused a stir in the religious world after comments that appeared to admit the influence of the "gay lobby" in the Vatican were picked up by a Catholic news website. The comments were allegedly made last Thursday when the pope was talking at the Latin American and Caribbean Confederation of Religious Men and Women and were first reported by Chilean website Reflection and Liberation.


&#8220;In the Curia,&#8221; Francis reportedly told his audience, referring to the Vatican's famously opaque bureaucracy, &#8220;there are holy people, but there is also a stream of corruption.&#8221;

&#8220;The 'gay lobby' is mentioned, and it is true, it is there,&#8221; Francis continued. &#8220;We need to see what we can do.&#8221;
A Vatican spokesperson later refused to comment on the report to CNN, arguing that the meeting was private.


Earlier this year Italian newspaper La Repubblica newspaper alleged that Pope Benedict's resignation was prompted by a report prepared by three Cardinals on conflict and corruption in the Vatican, including what it says is the "inappropriate influence" of a "gay lobby" within the Holy See.

The report inferred that this group was the subject of blackmail attempts, detailing an "external influence" from those with a "worldly nature."
Reports of homosexuality in the Vatican are very common &#8212; the Vatican became embroiled in a gay prostitution scandal in 2010, for example, and rumors dogged Pope Benedict himself.


Pope Francis has made reforming the Curia a key part of his reforms, AFP reports, and the inefficient bureaucracy is widely believed to be a problem in the modern church.

*Source*: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/pope-francis-admits-gay-lobby-225700512.html


----------



## GOD HERE (Jun 11, 2013)

So are you a religious nutcase, a bigot, or both?


----------



## cannabineer (Jun 11, 2013)

A backdoor to reform?? cn


----------



## tyler.durden (Jun 12, 2013)

They don't seem to get the evil in raping young boys lies in the pedophilia, not the homosexuality...


----------



## Nevaeh420 (Jun 12, 2013)

I'm not gay and I dont approve of it but the homosexuals are not the problem, its the pedophiles!

And the Catholic church is full of pedophiles, as everyone knows.

So much for representing God! They would rather rape little children.

It disgusts Me. How could the/a church get away with it?








~PEACE~


----------



## SHOTGUN420 (Jun 13, 2013)

GOD HERE said:


> So are you a religious nutcase, a bigot, or both?


I posted a topic for discussion what are you offended about now? 


If your asking me about my personal belief I don't care if someone wants to be gay. That is their own business and I don't feel I need to know about it. Tho for some reason tons of gays feel the need to announce it. Seems like a cry for attention and then they wonder why they get picked on for being different. The only time I have a problem with gays is when they march naked in front of children or name call people who don't agree with their lifestyle while trying to promote it.


----------



## Omgwtfbbq Indicaman (Jun 13, 2013)

aren't Catholics fighting reform for statute of limitations in the US by lobbying against victims?

at least in new jersey they are... http://www.newsworks.org/index.php/component/flexicontent/item/55969-new-jersey-catholic-church-spending-big-to-keep-abuse-victims-silent?Itemid=248


----------



## kpmarine (Jun 13, 2013)

SHOTGUN420 said:


> I posted a topic for discussion what are you offended about now?
> 
> 
> If your asking me about my personal belief I don't care if someone wants to be gay. That is their own business and I don't feel I need to know about it. Tho for some reason tons of gays feel the need to announce it. Seems like a cry for attention and then they wonder why they get picked on for being different. The only time I have a problem with gays is when they march naked in front of children or name call people who don't agree with their lifestyle while trying to promote it.


Never seen a gay man marching naked in front of a bunch of kids; sounds to me like you're fabricating issues that don't exist. Yes, a lot of their actions are cries for attention, and highly justifiable ones at that. The only way to draw attention to their cause is by making you aware of it. It seems to me that gay people make you uncomfortable; there's really no good reason for that. If someone says they don't agree with something that is as immutable as race or sexual preference, then it is fully within that groups rights to call you a bigot. You do know that implying it's a gay person's fault for getting harassed just because they are openly gay is blaming the victim, right?


----------



## SHOTGUN420 (Jun 13, 2013)

kpmarine said:


> You do know that implying it's a gay person's fault for getting harassed just because they are openly gay is blaming the victim, right?


Not when they are declaring it for attention. Difference will always be a reason to fight and no one would pick on them for being gay if they kept it to themselves.


----------



## kpmarine (Jun 13, 2013)

SHOTGUN420 said:


> Not when they are declaring it for attention. Difference will always be a reason to fight and no one would pick on them for being gay if they kept it to themselves.


Just like women wouldn't get raped so much if they dressed less provocatively?


----------



## cannabineer (Jun 13, 2013)

SHOTGUN420 said:


> Not when they are declaring it for attention. Difference will always be a reason to fight and no one would pick on them for being gay if they kept it to themselves.


So at what point do they get to be themselves and not under mandate to hide it from the "decent folk"? cn


----------



## Xrangex (Jun 13, 2013)

kpmarine said:


> Just like women wouldn't get raped so much if they dressed less provocatively?


Thats probably true though


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 13, 2013)

SHOTGUN420 said:


> Not when they are declaring it for attention. Difference will always be a reason to fight and no one would pick on them for being gay if they kept it to themselves.


and no one would pick on your for being a white supremacist, holocaust denier, and now apparent homophobic bigot if you just kept all that to yourself.


----------



## kpmarine (Jun 13, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> and no one would pick on your for being a white supremacist, holocaust denier, and now apparent homophobic bigot if you just kept all that to yourself.


The 1st amendment only applies to pride parades he would attend.


----------



## GOD HERE (Jun 14, 2013)

SHOTGUN420 said:


> I posted a topic for discussion what are you offended about now?
> 
> 
> If your asking me about my personal belief I don't care if someone wants to be gay. That is their own business and I don't feel I need to know about it. Tho for some reason tons of gays feel the need to announce it. Seems like a cry for attention and then they wonder why they get picked on for being different. The only time I have a problem with gays is when they march naked in front of children or name call people who don't agree with their lifestyle while trying to promote it.


Based on what you've said in other threads I'm floored. I didn't know white supremacists were pro-gay rights.


----------



## SHOTGUN420 (Jun 14, 2013)

kpmarine said:


> *Never seen a gay man marching naked in front of a bunch of kids*; sounds to me like you're fabricating issues that don't exist.


A quick google search and you could of seen for yourself, but I got the feeling you already know. If grown men try to march like that in my town. I will be the first one there splitting their skulls wide open.

*example 1*: http://www.blogwrath.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/2.jpg

*example 2*: http://www.blogwrath.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/3.jpg



cannabineer said:


> So at what point do they get to be themselves and not under mandate to hide it from the "decent folk"? cn


Is it really that hard to not shove your sex life down someones throat? Is life that shitty that you need to tell the world who you fuck?



GOD HERE said:


> Based on what you've said in other threads I'm floored. I didn't know white supremacists were pro-gay rights.


I don't care what someone does in there personal life. But its wrong when gays feel they need to teach their sexual orientation to children . Let kids be kids.


----------



## Hazydat620 (Jun 14, 2013)

SHOTGUN420 said:


> I don't care what someone does in there personal life. But its wrong when gays feel they need to teach their sexual orientation to children . Let kids be kids.


So your one of those that believe that homosexuality is something taught. If your 8-9 year old son or daughter started to show their homosexuality at a young age, what would that say about you? Would you tell them " you better hide who you are around me or I'm gonna bust your skull?" Do you not believe that women should have the right to vote or equal pay ? The only way those rights were given were from open demonstration, could mention the civil rights movement and the struggles there, but I have a feeling your daddy was wearing a white hood around that time. You are not fit to walk in society and your way of thinking is a disease that should warrant locking up.


----------



## SHOTGUN420 (Jun 14, 2013)

Hazydat620 said:


> So your one of those that believe that homosexuality is something taught. If your 8-9 year old son or daughter started to show their homosexuality at a young age, what would that say about you? Would you tell them " you better hide who you are around me or I'm gonna bust your skull?" Do you not believe that women should have the right to vote or equal pay ? The only way those rights were given were from open demonstration, could mention the civil rights movement and the struggles there, but I have a feeling your daddy was wearing a white hood around that time. You are not fit to walk in society and your way of thinking is a disease that should warrant locking up.


Seems you do have an agenda trying to label people and put words in there mouth. *Where on this forum did I state I was against women or their rights? *

Maybe you should ask buck about women's rights since he feels sharia law is a good thing. 

I don't believe yout agenda that people are born that way. I believe there is always a cause and effect behind it. 

So whats your story? daddy beat the man outta you so you turned fem? or maybe your more of a butch were mommy wasn't around and daddy raised you like the son he always wanted? 

We can go back and fourth all day but the original topic was about the pope and a gay priest lobby so unless your a priest this news article isn't about you. Why do you take your entitled to all the attention ? Seems like you just like crying for attention just like the gay community.


----------



## kpmarine (Jun 14, 2013)

SHOTGUN420 said:


> A quick google search and you could of seen for yourself, but I got the feeling you already know. If grown men try to march like that in my town. I will be the first one there splitting their skulls wide open.
> 
> *example 1*: http://www.blogwrath.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/2.jpg
> 
> ...


Well, your links were to blogs that had nothing to do with gay men dancing naked in front of your children. However, after I looked around a bit; I found the "gay issues" section and did some reading. I shall now include some choice quotes from your source (With my summary, of course.).

Almost all lesbians are ugly dykes:
"Does that mean that the lesbians have free access to the men&#8217;s locker room? If so, the guys wouldn&#8217;t mind a visitor, who resembles Jessica Alba. However, the most common type looks like the sweaty, stocky, and hairy butches who run the Dykes on Bikes segment of the gay parade. Those would cause irreparable mental damage, if they show up in the locker room."

Goddamit! Transexual people can't have days that Christians already have! It's offensive!:
"Fallout from that case is the proclamation by Calgary&#8217;s Muslim mayor Naheed Nenshi of a &#8220;Trans Day of Visibility&#8221;. And out of all 365 days available in a year, he chose for it last Sunday, when the Christians celebrated their most important holiday. It was a humiliating decision, which showed everybody that in the new Canadian reality the Christians should shut up and take quietly every humiliation or else face very unpleasant consequences."

Teaching kids about being gay or transgendered will make our kids easier for pedophiles to rape!:
"Their extensive knowledge of gay sex and gender confusion would desensitize them when a pedophile approaches them. And the parents are not allowed to question that monstrosity&#8230;"

If you're a gay couple, you're ruining your kids. A gay couple can't REALLY be parents. Furthermore, you're likely damaging their minds!:
"Apparently, they have two children and are trying very hard to look like a happy homosexual family. Unfortunately, within a few years, we would most likely have two messed up and confused kids, who will need years of therapy to sort out the damage to their minds. Despite the fact that &#8220;progressive educators&#8221; try very hard to convince us that gay families are perfectly fine (in Ontario, Canada, those policies are imposed aggressively), it is very hard to prove that two lesbians can successfully replace the roles of a father and a mother."

Oh, I finally got to what you talked about. Yep, there's a few dicks there. I can see why you may be opposed to that. However, it is not the dick waving epidemic you portrayed it as. Since this blog dealt primarily in Canada; I can't even say if public nudity is illegal. I know going topless is legal though. 

All I can say is that you have some issues if this is your go-to source. That author is an individual with a persecution complex. No wonder you get mad about those uppity gays demanding they get the same rights as others.


----------



## kpmarine (Jun 14, 2013)

SHOTGUN420 said:


> Seems you do have an agenda trying to label people and put words in there mouth. *Where on this forum did I state I was against women or their rights? *
> 
> Maybe you should ask buck about women's rights since he feels sharia law is a good thing.
> 
> ...


He was making a point, and I'm sure you got it. You know how women got the right to vote? Do you know how civil rights laws were enacted and Jim Crowe was done away with? It was all through drawing attention to their causes while everyone else bitched about how it would undo the moral fabric of our society.


----------



## SHOTGUN420 (Jun 14, 2013)

Your talking about the images I posted as If I run the website are you to stupid to read? I said a quick google search turned these up.
And how are they not from gay pride rallies? you see the rainbows they are ruining? 

But after reading your quotes I have to ask. Why is it that all the ones who choose to march naked are normally weirdos? Is it a ugly contest or something? Or is that the only way they can get someone to see them naked?


----------



## SHOTGUN420 (Jun 14, 2013)

Hazydat620 said:


> You are not fit to walk in society and your way of thinking is a disease that should warrant locking up.


Gotta love those thought crimes. Lock anyone up who disagrees .


----------



## SlaveNoMore (Jun 14, 2013)

Hazydat620 said:


> So your one of those that believe that homosexuality is something taught. If your 8-9 year old son or daughter started to show their homosexuality at a young age, what would that say about you? Would you tell them " you better hide who you are around me or I'm gonna bust your skull?" Do you not believe that women should have the right to vote or equal pay ? The only way those rights were given were from open demonstration, could mention the civil rights movement and the struggles there, but I have a feeling your daddy was wearing a white hood around that time. _*You are not fit to walk in society and your way of thinking is a disease that should warrant locking up.*_


Sounds like something Hitler would have said.


----------



## SlaveNoMore (Jun 14, 2013)

SHOTGUN420 said:


> Gotta love those thought crimes. Lock anyone up who disagrees .


Imagine what would happen if you had said that?


----------



## SlaveNoMore (Jun 14, 2013)

Hazydat620 said:


> So your one of those that believe that homosexuality is something taught. If your 8-9 year old son or daughter started to show their homosexuality at a young age, what would that say about you? Would you tell them " you better hide who you are around me or I'm gonna bust your skull?" Do you not believe that women should have the right to vote or equal pay ? The only way those rights were given were from open demonstration, could mention the civil rights movement and the struggles there, but I have a feeling _*your daddy was wearing a white hood around that time*_. You are not fit to walk in society and your way of thinking is a disease that should warrant locking up.


uh, Uncle Buck calls us neo-nazis and neo-nazis don't wear white hoods silly goose. The two groups don't really get along, sheesh everyone knows this. Klansmen hate nazis FYI. Even Uncle Buck knows this so get hip with the times homeslice.


----------



## SlaveNoMore (Jun 14, 2013)

kpmarine said:


> Well, your links were to blogs that had nothing to do with gay men dancing naked in front of your children. However, after I looked around a bit; I found the "gay issues" section and did some reading. I shall now include some choice quotes from your source (With my summary, of course.).
> 
> _*Almost all lesbians are ugly dykes*_:
> "Does that mean that the lesbians have free access to the mens locker room? If so, the guys wouldnt mind a visitor, who resembles Jessica Alba. However, the most common type looks like the sweaty, stocky, and hairy butches who run the Dykes on Bikes segment of the gay parade. Those would cause irreparable mental damage, if they show up in the locker room."
> ...


*
Lipstick lesbians don't standout So I would have to agree with this statement. The "ugly dykes" are a poor representation of a male. They try too hard to be a guy and fail terribly.

Pick anyday you want. Who cares, you guys can fight over which day you want to be recognized or you can pick everyday to be recognized. If homosexuals need validation from the state that is their problem, not mine.

I don't agree with the pedophile thing. I would say that teaching a child to accept somebody based on sexuality rather than character is dangerous. 

I think homosexuals make fine parents as long as they teach their kids not to force mommy and mommy's beliefs down other's throats. Although, sex education could get kinda strange when they get older. "See kids the penis goes into the vagina, or rectum, or sometimes the two mommies just rub their vaginas together." Yeah, I wouldn't want to be that teacher.



*


----------



## tyler.durden (Jun 14, 2013)

SlaveNoMore said:


> *
> Lipstick lesbians don't standout So I would have to agree with this statement. The "ugly dykes" are a poor representation of a male. They try too hard to be a guy and fail terribly.
> 
> Pick anyday you want. Who cares, you guys can fight over which day you want to be recognized or you can pick everyday to be recognized. If homosexuals need validation from the state that is their problem, not mine.**
> *


I agree that if you're not homosexual, it's not directly your problem. I don't happen to be gay, but I have friends and relatives who are (most people do, since 1 out of 10 humans are born homosexual). I don't like seeing them suffer inequalities or injustices, and I feel we need to recognize that we should not let the gov't violate the rights of any minority group. Because if we do, tomorrow we may find ourselves belonging to such a group (like folks that prefer to smoke marijuana for recreation). "Suffering anywhere concerns people everywhere" -Kofi Annan (Thanks, Pad)...


> *
> I don't agree with the pedophile thing. I would say that teaching a child to accept somebody based on sexuality rather than character is dangerous.
> *


Totally. We can't help our sexuality anymore than our skin color. If any guys think otherwise, they just need to ask themselves when they chose to like pussy and be attracted to women...


> *
> I think homosexuals make fine parents as long as they teach their kids not to force mommy and mommy's beliefs down other's throats. Although, sex education could get kinda strange when they get older. "See kids the penis goes into the vagina, or rectum, or sometimes the two mommies just rub their vaginas together." Yeah, I wouldn't want to be that teacher.
> **
> *


I don't think it would strike them as much/any stranger than the penis going into the vagina, that's pretty weird for most kids to internalize. Also, that class cannon seems to only incorporate one type of heterosexual sex, it doesn't mention fellatio or cunnilingus, or fucking women in the ass. I assume these actions, if consensual, are okay with you?


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 14, 2013)

SHOTGUN420 said:


> Gotta love those thought crimes. Lock anyone up who disagrees .





SlaveNoMore said:


> Sounds like something Hitler would have said.


in many countries, your hate speech is not protected in any way and you would be locked up.

in this country, we simply have to wait until your warped racism causes actual harm before we do something about it.

good to see the white supremacists sticking together though. strength in bigoted numbers, eh!


----------



## SHOTGUN420 (Jun 14, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> in many countries, your hate speech is not protected in any way and you would be locked up.
> 
> in this country, we simply have to wait until your warped racism causes actual harm before we do something about it.
> 
> good to see the white supremacists sticking together though. strength in bigoted numbers, eh!


Buck you in here to defend the rights of your "wife"?


----------



## GOD HERE (Jun 14, 2013)

Hazydat620 said:


> So your one of those that believe that homosexuality is something taught. If your 8-9 year old son or daughter started to show their homosexuality at a young age, what would that say about you? Would you tell them " you better hide who you are around me or I'm gonna bust your skull?" Do you not believe that women should have the right to vote or equal pay ? The only way those rights were given were from open demonstration, could mention the civil rights movement and the struggles there, but I have a feeling your daddy was wearing a white hood around that time. You are not fit to walk in society and your way of thinking is a disease that should warrant locking up.


If it's taught then they learned it from their closet case dad.


----------



## kpmarine (Jun 15, 2013)

SHOTGUN420 said:


> Buck you in here to defend the rights of your "wife"?


Now we're using homosexuality in a pejorative way? You sir, have class out the ass.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 15, 2013)

kpmarine said:


> Now we're using homosexuality in a pejorative way? You sir, have class out the ass.


check out their group for "like minded individuals"

https://www.rollitup.org/groups/taco-burrito-conversation-nachos.html


----------



## kpmarine (Jun 15, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> check out their group for "like minded individuals"
> 
> https://www.rollitup.org/groups/taco-burrito-conversation-nachos.html


I like how it's a white supremacy group, yet their group name is all Mexican food.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 15, 2013)

kpmarine said:


> I like how it's a white supremacy group, yet their group name is all Mexican food.


it would at least be half understandable if spaniards weren't so olive in complexion.


----------



## tyler.durden (Jun 15, 2013)

Don't be a Dwight...

[video=youtube;h8QPOsLBeXM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8QPOsLBeXM[/video]


----------



## tyler.durden (Jun 15, 2013)

[video=youtube;yYvDXIxqEw8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYvDXIxqEw8[/video]


----------



## SHOTGUN420 (Jun 15, 2013)

kpmarine said:


> Now we're using homosexuality in a pejorative way? You sir, have class out the ass.


It was transgendered but you were close. is truth a pejorative way? I can't help how his wife looks no one can.


----------



## SHOTGUN420 (Jun 15, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> in many countries, your hate speech is not protected in any way and you would be locked up.


well I'm not so go cry about it to someone who cares. Law abiding when it fits your agenda. 
So did ratting on that grower fit your political agenda too?


----------



## kpmarine (Jun 15, 2013)

SHOTGUN420 said:


> is truth a pejorative way?


Look up pejorative and find out. You may add some new words to your vocabulary.


----------



## SHOTGUN420 (Jun 15, 2013)

I would but I'm busy creating a new thread for "the group". lawl cupcake


----------



## kpmarine (Jun 15, 2013)

SHOTGUN420 said:


> I would but I'm busy creating a new thread for "the group". lawl cupcake


Ah, enjoy your circle jerk then.


----------



## SHOTGUN420 (Jun 15, 2013)

I clearly see where your preference lies with your way of thinking but I don't swing that way buddy. I wish you the best and hope you don't get syphilis.


----------



## NietzscheKeen (Jun 15, 2013)

It's been proven that homosexuality is not a choice. You can look at a humans brain (the amygdala) and determine he or her sexual preference. I don't care if a person is gay or bi or pan or whatever. Sexuality is a spectrum anyway. As far as a gay lobby, I think that is fine. The Bible is a horrible book and the policies towards homosexuality need to be changed and Catholicism is the only Christian denomination that can change their rules; the leaders such as the pope are the only ones that can make those changes.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 15, 2013)

SHOTGUN420 said:


> I clearly see where your preference lies with your way of thinking but I don't swing that way buddy. I wish you the best and hope you don't get syphilis.


i'd probably be an angry little neo-nazi like you if i had to smoke the crap that you do.







i could probably give a retarded child a seed and a pile of my dog's shit and they'd come up with something better than you did!


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 15, 2013)

NietzscheKeen said:


> It's been proven that homosexuality is not a choice.


ladies and gentlemen, i now present to you the incontrovertible proof that getting a 3.7 at berkeley does not make you smart.

in fact, it seems quite the opposite.


----------



## New Age United (Jun 15, 2013)

NietzscheKeen said:


> It's been proven that homosexuality is not a choice. You can look at a humans brain (the amygdala) and determine he or her sexual preference. I don't care if a person is gay or bi or pan or whatever. Sexuality is a spectrum anyway. As far as a gay lobby, I think that is fine. The Bible is a horrible book and the policies towards homosexuality need to be changed and Catholicism is the only Christian denomination that can change their rules; the leaders such as the pope are the only ones that can make those changes.


Does that mean that pedophilia, sadism and psychopathy are also inherintlly a part of a persons brain function, if so does that not leave us with the question of free will, and if a person can not possibly resist their true nature are they actually to blame for being what society would view as evil. Would definately appreciate your honest opinion.


----------



## New Age United (Jun 15, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> ladies and gentlemen, i now present to you the incontrovertible proof that getting a 3.7 at berkeley does not make you smart.
> 
> in fact, it seems quite the opposite.


The fact that you give no reason whatsover for your assumption makes your opinion moot, incontrovertible hardly, you have no basis of intellect at all. Sorry but I'm just pointing out the obvious.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 15, 2013)

New Age United said:


> The fact that you give no reason whatsover for your assumption makes your opinion moot, incontrovertible hardly, you have no basis of intellect at all. Sorry but I'm just pointing out the obvious.


that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

not only did neo-nazi-nietzsche make his assertion without evidence, his assertion flies in the face of what billions of people, both homo and hetero, assert about their sexuality as well as what science has discovered about the issue so far.

i invite him to post any "evidence" that he has for his idiotic assertion.


----------



## New Age United (Jun 15, 2013)

"Idiotic" Neo-nazi-nietzsche 

Yet he is proclaiming that he has no problem with a persons sexual orientation, please explain your irrational view.


----------



## kpmarine (Jun 15, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
> 
> not only did neo-nazi-nietzsche make his assertion without evidence, his assertion flies in the face of what billions of people, both homo and hetero, assert about their sexuality as well as what science has discovered about the issue so far.
> 
> i invite him to post any "evidence" that he has for his idiotic assertion.


I think you misread his post this time or there was some editing after. He said sexual preference isn't a choice.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 15, 2013)

New Age United said:


> "Idiotic" Neo-nazi-nietzsche
> 
> Yet he is proclaiming that he has no problem with a persons sexual orientation, please explain your irrational view.


he is spreading lies about homosexuality, i am correcting him and pointing out that he is a lying idiot.

nothing irrational about that.


----------



## NietzscheKeen (Jun 15, 2013)

New Age United said:


> Does that mean that pedophilia, sadism and psychopathy are also inherintlly a part of a persons brain function,...


Yes. There are many documented cases that prove this. I will give you the one that is the most famous and that I am most familiar with as an example. John (not real name obviously) was a good family man. Never did anything wrong. No history of abuse or anything like that. He was in his late 40's, I believe, when he started becoming attracted to children. He thought this was very odd and new it wasn't normal for him. Anyway, years go by and he is eventually arrested for lewd conduct with a minor or something like that. While in jail, the discover he has a brain tumor. They do surgery to remove it and instantly, when he wakes up... no more sexual attraction to children. A few years go by and he is just like his old self until one day he starts having those desires again. Well, the doctors didn't remove all of the tumor and it eventually grew back. This time when they removed it, they got it all and he hasn't had any more uncharacteristic attractions to children. 

The brain is an amazing organ. It controls everything you do and have ever experienced. It is as vast as the universe and just as unfamiliar to us. I personally do NOT believe in free will. Most neuroscientists do not believe in free will. There is a lot of evidence that supports this as well. Do a youtube search for Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris. Both of these guys have some great presentations on the brain and free will. 

I do not believe there are evil people. I'm a moral nihilist and an emotivist, but there are things that society deems acceptable. One example I like to give when asked this question is Jeffrey Dahmer. I thought he was just a sick bastard, but when I watched a documentary on him I started to feel bad for him. He started having all these strange desires; homosexuality, to kill, to eat people, etc. He knew they weren't what society deemed normal. He knew it wasn't right to kill people, he knew it wasn't normal to want to eat people. He tried to fight it, but it was a compulsion just like you and I have to eat. He was a victim of his brain. I know he wasn't a bad person because he knew what he was doing was wrong and had a desire to not do them.

If I haven't answered something or explained clearly enough, let me know.


----------



## NietzscheKeen (Jun 15, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> he is spreading lies about homosexuality, i am correcting him and pointing out that he is a lying idiot.
> 
> nothing irrational about that.


OMG, what lies? It's documented scientific proof. If you've got nothing to back it up, then shut up, because I can cite dozens and dozens of scientific studies to back up every single claim that I make. If I am unsure of something... I say so. If it is just my opinion... I say so. If I am proven wrong... I correct myself and admit that what I said was inaccurate. 

I think you're just trying to derail another conversation.


----------



## NietzscheKeen (Jun 15, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
> 
> not only did neo-nazi-nietzsche make his assertion without evidence, his assertion flies in the face of what billions of people, both homo and hetero, assert about their sexuality as well as what science has discovered about the issue so far.
> 
> i invite him to post any "evidence" that he has for his idiotic assertion.


http://www.pnas.org/content/105/30/10273.full

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex.html#.Ub0BFywo42o

http://www.shaktitechnology.com/gaybrain.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080617151845.htm

http://thepathtochange.org/2011/08/does-amygdala-size-matter/

http://academic.reed.edu/biology/courses/BIO342/2012_syllabus/2012_readings/bass_1996_shipmen.pdf

http://www.pnas.org/content/89/15/7199.short

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01541882#page-1

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/253/5023/956.short

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J082v28n03_07#.Ub0C6ywo42o

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002251939690315X

http://endo.endojournals.org/content/145/2/475.short

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01542052#page-1

http://fap.sagepub.com/content/7/3/355.abstract

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J082v06n04_03#.Ub0C4Swo42o

http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09513590400018231

http://www.trinity.edu/tmurphy/trinity/3420_files/Levay and Hammer_1994.pdf

https://www.thieme-connect.com/ejournals/abstract/10.1055/s-0029-1211110

http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy.optionToBuy&uid=1987-18692-001

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1521690X07000334


----------



## New Age United (Jun 15, 2013)

NietzscheKeen said:


> Yes. There are many documented cases that prove this. I will give you the one that is the most famous and that I am most familiar with as an example. John (not real name obviously) was a good family man. Never did anything wrong. No history of abuse or anything like that. He was in his late 40's, I believe, when he started becoming attracted to children. He thought this was very odd and new it wasn't normal for him. Anyway, years go by and he is eventually arrested for lewd conduct with a minor or something like that. While in jail, the discover he has a brain tumor. They do surgery to remove it and instantly, when he wakes up... no more sexual attraction to children. A few years go by and he is just like his old self until one day he starts having those desires again. Well, the doctors didn't remove all of the tumor and it eventually grew back. This time when they removed it, they got it all and he hasn't had any more uncharacteristic attractions to children.
> 
> The brain is an amazing organ. It controls everything you do and have ever experienced. It is as vast as the universe and just as unfamiliar to us. I personally do NOT believe in free will. Most neuroscientists do not believe in free will. There is a lot of evidence that supports this as well. Do a youtube search for Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris. Both of these guys have some great presentations on the brain and free will.
> 
> ...


No that is great Nietzsche, very honest nothing held back. I agree completely with what you are saying, it is my experience aswell that these people have no control over their thoughts and emotions, it is impulsive, the question in my mind is why, why do these impulses exist, it is a question of reason, what makes a person want to do these things. I do not believe in free will either. Any opinions you may have on why a person may want to do these things would be appreciated. Is it power, control, a sense of superiority, what makes a person want to do evil, why is that drive to cause evil and suffering there?


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 15, 2013)

kpmarine said:


> I think you misread his post this time or there was some editing after. He said sexual preference isn't a choice.


well, it seems that way.

my bad.


----------



## NietzscheKeen (Jun 15, 2013)

New Age United said:


> No that is great Nietzsche, very honest nothing held back. I agree completely with what you are saying, it is my experience aswell that these people have no control over their thoughts and emotions, it is impulsive, the question in my mind is why, why do these impulses exist, it is a question of reason, what makes a person want to do these things. I do not believe in free will either. Any opinions you may have on why a person may want to do these things would be appreciated. Is it power, control, a sense of superiority, what makes a person want to do evil, why is that drive to cause evil and suffering there?


It's just a malfunction in the brain. There is no reason behind it. We have a compulsion to eat, we can look at it afterwards and say I need to eat so that I can get calories and vitamins and live. Why do people with Parkinson's disease shake? Why do people with Tourette's Syndrome jerk around and yell sometimes? Is there a reason behind these actions?

We can look back at our impulses for sex, food, breathing, fellowship and can see a benefit to them. But just because our brain tells us to do something doesn't mean there is necessarily a reason for it. It's a malfunction. Now their impulses exist for many reasons, I mentioned a tumor. Sometimes things are just wired differently. Nature makes mistakes all the time. When it comes to the brain, the tiniest little change can make a HUGE difference. There is a lot of interesting... and sometimes f'd up brain research that goes on. Scientists can open up your skull, touch a certain part of your brain with an electrode and you might "taste" apples, raise your arm, or even sense someone is next to you. The list goes on and on. Have you ever heard of Broca's Aphasia? It's a very interesting disorder when people literally forget how to talk. Broca's Area affects outgoing language (if I remember correctly) and Wernicke's Area affects incoming and written language. When someone has an injury that affects their Broca's area, they cannot use language at all, but if you talk to them they can understand you just fine. Usually they can write what they want to say, they just can't make sense of it to say it. Strange how that works isn't it? 

Anyway, just something so small as a pin prick into your brain can make someone unable to use language, do math, etc. 
I got off topic, lol. I don't think there is any real desire to be evil by those people. If you could rewire their brain to the way that most people's brains are wired, I bet they would be a perfect neighbor. 

Now, when it comes to justice and prison, I have to go with John Mill more or less. I will paraphrase his beliefs to fit this situation. It is better for everyone else that the dangerous person be locked up, even though that person is not necessarily evil.


----------



## cannabineer (Jun 15, 2013)

SHOTGUN420 said:


> Is it really that hard to not shove your sex life down someones throat? Is life that shitty that you need to tell the world who you fuck?


That is not what I asked. In another forum you complained (without substantiating) that I put words in your mouth. Now here you are guilty of that with which you charge me. How about not substituting your unfair reformulation for my question, and answering _mine_? cn


----------



## cannabineer (Jun 15, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> ladies and gentlemen, i now present to you the incontrovertible proof that getting a 3.7 at berkeley does not make you smart.
> 
> in fact, it seems quite the opposite.


Tell me how you disagree with what you quoted. cn



NietzscheKeen said:


> It's been proven that homosexuality is not a choice.


----------



## cannabineer (Jun 15, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
> 
> not only did neo-nazi-nietzsche make his assertion without evidence, his assertion flies in the face of what billions of people, both homo and hetero, assert about their sexuality as well as what science has discovered about the issue so far.
> 
> i invite him to post any "evidence" that he has for his idiotic assertion.


I had no idea you were a Choicer. cn



UncleBuck said:


> well, it seems that way.
> 
> my bad.


Considering the vigor with which you prosecute those with whom you disagree, this is remarkably weak. You might wish to apply comparable vitriol to your own whoopsies. My opinion.


----------



## NietzscheKeen (Jun 15, 2013)

GOD HERE said:


> Based on what you've said in other threads I'm floored. I didn't know white supremacists were pro-gay rights.


I know this post wasn't targeted at me, but I wanted to respond. Maybe the names people get called by Uncle Buck really don't fit. Maybe those he calls Neo-Nazis and White Supremacists aren't really Neo-Nazis or White Supremacists. I'm neither, but he has called me both numerous times. It's called making unfair generalizations when you see that someone has ONE view that White Supremacists also agree with and you label that person a White Supremacist. Christians believe in Satan; so do Satanists therefore Christians are Satanists.... see how that logic doesn't work? 
I can converse with people that I don't necessarily agree with. We are talking, but we don't necessarily agree on everything as evidenced by our discussions in the Spirituality, Philosophy, and Sexuality section.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 15, 2013)

cannabineer said:


> Considering the vigor with which you prosecute those with whom you disagree, this is remarkably weak. You might wish to apply comparable vitriol to your own whoopsies. My opinion.


i misread, i am a dumbass, i am sorry, and i apologize.

any closer?


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 15, 2013)

NietzscheKeen said:


> I know this post wasn't targeted at me, but I wanted to respond. Maybe the names people get called by Uncle Buck really don't fit. Maybe those he calls Neo-Nazis and White Supremacists aren't really Neo-Nazis or White Supremacists. I'm neither, but he has called me both numerous times. It's called making unfair generalizations when you see that someone has ONE view that White Supremacists also agree with and you label that person a White Supremacist. Christians believe in Satan; so do Satanists therefore Christians are Satanists.... see how that logic doesn't work?
> I can converse with people that I don't necessarily agree with. We are talking, but we don't necessarily agree on everything as evidenced by our discussions in the Spirituality, Philosophy, and Sexuality section.


OMFG are you still trying to convince people that you wish to escape an entire race because you feel they are your equals?


----------



## cannabineer (Jun 15, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> i misread, i am a dumbass, i am sorry, and i apologize.
> 
> any closer?


That last question sort of throws it ... makes it look like "you happy now??" Jmo. cn


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 15, 2013)

cannabineer said:


> That last question sort of throws it ... makes it look like "you happy now??" Jmo. cn


i can never make you happy, dad!


----------



## cannabineer (Jun 15, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> i can never make you happy, dad!


Not since the Camaro Incident, young man. I mean just _look _at that quarter panel!! cn


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 15, 2013)

cannabineer said:


> Not since the Camaro Incident, young man. I mean just _look _at that quarter panel!! cn


are you suggesting that i look at it, just look at it?


----------



## cannabineer (Jun 15, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> are you suggesting that i look at it, just look at it?


I'm stuck with doing that. You get to woo the honeys in the beige Oldsmobile Diesel. cn


----------



## SHOTGUN420 (Jun 15, 2013)

cannabineer said:


> So at what point do they get to be themselves and not under mandate to hide it from the "decent folk"? cn


I don't care if someone is gay bi lez ect. but I don't see it as news worthy everyday I see this high school kid comes out this this sport player is that. I honestly don't care and I think its a cry for attention. 

Now to answer your question someone can be gay all they want I draw the line at teaching sex to young children they will know by high school so why not let kids be kids? If 50 gay males wanted to have a gang bang on a nude beach you won't see me trying to stop them because I just don't care. I care when I see videos or photos of grown naked men marching past children. If a gay couple wants to own a house and live in peace more power to them.

I don't believe gays should be able to adopt children ask me for sources or whatever you will get none I just think its unnatural my personal belief. 
I don't care about gay rights. If gays want to marry or have civil unions or whatever I don't care I'm not religious this isn't the stone age let the people vote on it. Now you may ask why I posted this thread then I seen this is spirituality & sexuality section so I figured it may be a hot topic for some I like to share information.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 15, 2013)

SHOTGUN420 said:


> I don't care if someone is gay bi lez ect. but I don't see it as news worthy everyday I see this high school kid comes out this this sport player is that. I honestly don't care and I think its a cry for attention.
> 
> Now to answer your question someone can be gay all they want I draw the line at teaching sex to young children they will know by high school so why not let kids be kids? If 50 gay males wanted to have a gang bang on a nude beach you won't see me trying to stop them because I just don't care. I care when I see videos or photos of grown naked men marching past children. If a gay couple wants to own a house and live in peace more power to them.
> 
> ...


the bolded is heavily negated by the rest of what you've posted.


----------



## cannabineer (Jun 15, 2013)

Well, if it is your personal belief, i recommend practicing what you preach and keeping it zipped, so to speak. cn


----------



## SHOTGUN420 (Jun 15, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> the bolded is heavily negated by the rest of what you've posted.


nit picking again? Do I have to care about everyone and everything like you claim to?


----------



## mindphuk (Jun 16, 2013)

cannabineer said:


> Well, if it is your personal belief, i recommend practicing what you preach and keeping it zipped, so to speak. cn


+1



SHOTGUN420 said:


> I don't care if someone is gay bi lez ect. but I don't see it as news worthy everyday I see this high school kid comes out this this sport player is that. I honestly don't care and I think its a cry for attention.
> 
> Now to answer your question someone can be gay all they want I draw the line at teaching sex to young children they will know by high school so why not let kids be kids? If 50 gay males wanted to have a gang bang on a nude beach you won't see me trying to stop them because I just don't care. I care when I see videos or photos of grown naked men marching past children. If a gay couple wants to own a house and live in peace more power to them.
> 
> ...


For someone that is so indifferent, uninterested, you sure do spend an inordinate amount of posts discussing it. 
IMO, not caring about rights of groups I'm not a part of is selfish and uncompassionate. Oppression of people that we don't like is morally wrong. This is one reason I find most religion morally bankrupt. Your words and attitude is not something you should be proud of. There are things that are objectively good for people in general and things that are bad. Persecution gays and attacks or even indifference on gay rights is just as wrong as not caring about the abuses going on in other parts of the world, like children soldiers and genocidal warlords. It's okay to put those things at a reasonable emotional distance but to have no compassion or concern for you fellow human beings makes me think you are a sociopath.


----------



## SHOTGUN420 (Jun 16, 2013)

Sad attempt at putting someone on a guilt trip. forced acceptance is bullshit. If you enjoy the same sex good for you but don't put people down just because they don't care about your rallies. Their are a lot bigger issues out their in world then people butt fucking each other.


----------



## SHOTGUN420 (Jun 16, 2013)

cannabineer said:


> Well, if it is your personal belief, i recommend practicing what you preach and keeping it zipped, so to speak. cn


Way to keep a level head mod. I guess everyone else can say what they want right?


----------



## kpmarine (Jun 16, 2013)

SHOTGUN420 said:


> Sad attempt at putting someone on a guilt trip. forced acceptance is bullshit. If you enjoy the same sex good for you but don't put people down just because they don't care about your rallies. Their are a lot bigger issues out their in world then people butt fucking each other.


There's a difference between indifference and animosity; which you have blurred with most of what you've said. Yeah, there's tons of issues in the world. However, it's not like legalizing gay marriage will prevent those from being solved. Stop acting like you're just too busy with solving the bigger issues in the world to take a moment to consider equal rights for the LGBT movement. 

You get put down not because you don't care, it's stuff like this:


SHOTGUN420 said:


> I don't believe gays should be able to adopt children ask me for sources or whatever you will get none I just think its unnatural my personal belief.


. You can have all the personal beliefs you want, but expect to have them questioned when they're something like that. When you say you'd rather have kids rotting in the foster care system instead of with loving parents, just based on what they do with their genitals, then that bears justification. Otherwise it's fair to assume you're somewhat prejudiced. If you had some proof that this was somehow detrimental, and not just some personal disapproval; then it might be received as something not so concerning.


----------



## kpmarine (Jun 16, 2013)

SHOTGUN420 said:


> Way to keep a level head mod. I guess everyone else can say what they want right?


Except the gays, according to you. They should just "keep it to themselves", right?


----------



## NietzscheKeen (Jun 16, 2013)

I'm sure there is some documented proof somewhere stating one way or another, but I've seen the outcome with my own eyes. And kids raised by same sex partners are just as functional as kids raised by a "traditional" couple. I'd be willing to bet that the children raised by same sex partners are more likely to grow up to become Democrats though and that might be something worth preventing 

But I think it is better for a child to have two adults that love him or her and are their for him or her rather than one that shows love and one that isn't around. It really doesn't matter to me what sex the parents are because sexuality isn't taught. I was a really big homophobe till I moved to San Francisco. Then I realized, they are just people; not pedophiles, not perverts, not HIV carriers; those exist in ALL sexual preferences. 

Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs and opinions and I will totally respect that. I won't even call people out on them most of the time unless I'm just in a mood to debate. I just want to be correct; intellectual honesty is important to me and so is civil discourse. If I'm wrong, I'd want to know. I don't choose what I believe, I believe what appears to be the truth to me at that moment even if it is inconvenient. 

What's the saying? Don't knock it till you try it? Butt sex that is, lol.


----------



## mindphuk (Jun 16, 2013)

SHOTGUN420 said:


> Sad attempt at putting someone on a guilt trip. forced acceptance is bullshit. If you enjoy the same sex good for you but don't put people down just because they don't care about your rallies. Their are a lot bigger issues out their in world then people butt fucking each other.


You seem hung up on how people have sex. This isn't about sex or the right to have sex the way they want. This is about persecuting and marginalizing other human beings because they are different. There are many issues in the world. Many of them could be mitigated if people weren't so destructive to other people and form institutions and governments of oppression. In my mind, liberty is one of the most important driving forces behind a high quality of life. Governments should not interfere with people doing what they want if they are not harming others. They are only necessary when there is a conflict of rights. There should be no laws against putting substances derived from a plant into my body and there should be no laws preventing two people from having a normal life, marriage and family even if they are fucking each other's assholes. The sex is inconsequential. The fact that you continue to emphasize it just demonstrates that you are not indifferent but are actively hostile.


----------



## SHOTGUN420 (Jun 16, 2013)

NietzscheKeen said:


> It really doesn't matter to me what sex the parents are because sexuality isn't taught.


Time to debate my friend I'm going to ignore most of the other retards here they are way to pushy with their agenda.

Kids are thought in grade school in some places about sexuality. It's always in the news....

Plus I'm sure little johnny or jane is going to wonder and ask why he or she has 2 daddys or 2 mommies and not a mommy and daddy like other kids.

Can you prove to me its natural.


----------



## cannabineer (Jun 16, 2013)

SHOTGUN420 said:


> Way to keep a level head mod. I guess everyone else can say what they want right?


I do not mod this section. In my own, I remove posts for being offensive andor an assault. I don't restrict folks' inalienable right to reveal their stupidity. That would be a truly thankless task. cn


----------



## NietzscheKeen (Jun 16, 2013)

I will try, but will you first define "natural" for me; just to make sure we are on the same page.


----------



## cannabineer (Jun 16, 2013)

SHOTGUN420 said:


> Time to debate my friend I'm going to ignore most of the other retards here they are way to pushy with their agenda.
> 
> Kids are thought in grade school in some places about sexuality. It's always in the news....
> 
> ...


Does the fact that it's been naturally selected to have a significant, stable minority expression in humans since earliest history (and almost certainly before) do? From a biologist's standpoint, that argues not only for "natural" but even more strongly: "conveys a survival benefit". The "unnatural" overlay comes entirely from those who would have you believe that a horribly-edited book is a) unnatural, and b) good nonetheless. Now there is a mind-boggler if I ever saw one. cn


----------



## SHOTGUN420 (Jun 16, 2013)

You know what I think is natural. 

A male and a Female. 2 men together cannot make a baby. The same for 2 women. Its not possible for them to have kids themselves without science , modification or third party .


----------



## cannabineer (Jun 16, 2013)

SHOTGUN420 said:


> You know what I think is natural.
> 
> A male and a Female. 2 men together cannot make a baby. The same for 2 women. Its not possible for them to have kids themselves without science , modification or third party .


 That requires as a premise the broken argument that sex is strictly for procreation. No modern biologist will hear that without loling messily. That idea comes from the evil fools in black robes. cn


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 16, 2013)

these bumps on my ass are not natural.


----------



## cannabineer (Jun 16, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> these bumps on my ass are not natural.


You need to shift in your chair. cn


----------



## SHOTGUN420 (Jun 16, 2013)

cannabineer said:


> That requires as a premise the broken argument that sex is strictly for procreation. No modern biologist will hear that without loling messily. That idea comes from the evil fools in black robes. cn


I wasn't gonna respond but you like putting words in my mouth. I never said sex is just for procreation. In fact love fucking my wife whenever not just baby making. 

I just pointed out a fact 2 people of the same sex cannot create life alone and you came back with nonsense. 

Show me 2 people of the same sex who have had a baby without any help from the outside or technology. It's not natural.


----------



## cannabineer (Jun 16, 2013)

SHOTGUN420 said:


> I wasn't gonna respond but you like putting words in my mouth. I never said sex is just for procreation. In fact love fucking my wife whenever not for baby making. I just pointed out a fact 2 people of the same sex cannot create life alone and you came back with nonsense. So me 2 people of the same sex who have had a baby without any help from the outside or technology. It's not natural.


making a baby = procreation, so yes you did. Here is the post in question, should there be any doubt ... rendered verbatim, to protect against edits. cn



SHOTGUN420 said:


> You know what I think is natural.
> 
> A male and a Female. 2 men together cannot make a baby. The same for 2 women. Its not possible for them to have kids themselves without science , modification or third party .


----------



## SHOTGUN420 (Jun 16, 2013)

I think you misread it I like fucking my wife whenever NOT JUST FOR BABY MAKING. Maybe that was just a sad attempt at trolling? 

I stand by what I said 2 people of the same sex cannot make a child alone. It's truth. It's unnatural. How can you dispute that?


----------



## NietzscheKeen (Jun 16, 2013)

_Kids are thought in grade school in some places about sexuality. It's always in the news....
Plus I'm sure little johnny or jane is going to wonder and ask why he or she has 2 daddys or 2 mommies and not a mommy and daddy like other kids.
Can you prove to me its natural. 
You know what I think is natural. 
A male and a Female. 2 men together cannot make a baby. The same for 2 women. Its not possible for them to have kids themselves without science , modification or third party . _

I see you've given me the burden of proof here. 
As for your definition, fair enough; I just didn't want to be uncharitable or for us to wind up debating two different things.

Yes, children are taught ABOUT sexuality in school. There is no point in debating this statement since we agree. 

I'm sure Johnny or Jane will notice that they have two fathers or two mothers or two mothers and a father or two mothers and two father ad infinitum, but the answer to "why" will be the same for Johnny as it will be for Jack whom has one mother and one father; they love each other. 

_... I never said sex is just for procreation. In fact love fucking my wife whenever not just baby making. I just pointed out a fact 2 people of the same sex cannot create life alone and you came back with nonsense. So me 2 people of the same sex who have had a baby without any help from the outside or technology. It's not natural._

I'm a little confused, so maybe you can clarify your stance for me. 
Sex is not only for procreation. Sex without the intention of having a child is normal/natural?


----------



## NietzscheKeen (Jun 16, 2013)

cannabineer said:


> making a baby = procreation, so yes you did. Here is the post in question, should there be any doubt ... rendered verbatim, to protect against edits. cn


I think you may have misunderstood him Cannabineer. I don't recall him saying that sex if only for procreation and even if he did, he is allowed to change his stance within the parameters of this debate.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 16, 2013)

SHOTGUN420 said:


> ...your stupid...




stay in school, child.


----------



## kpmarine (Jun 16, 2013)

SHOTGUN420 said:


> You know what I think is natural.
> 
> A male and a Female. 2 men together cannot make a baby. The same for 2 women. Its not possible for them to have kids themselves without science , modification or third party .


So what does it being "natural" benefit? My two front teeth are prosthetic. I know a few guys with prosthetic limbs too. These people wouldn't be able to walk without science, modification, or a third party. What about people who are infertile? They can't have children on their own either. You know what's really not natural? Leaving your kids in a foster home. 

I would like to pose a couple situations to you. Of these two situations; which do you think is more likely to be the better option, and why? 
Situation #1: Little Sally is placed in the foster system at birth and never adopted. Due to this, she receives very little guidance and lives with the constant frustration of not having a stable household. She spends her entire childhood feeling like nobody wants her. 
Situation #2: Little Sally is placed in foster care at the same age as #1. However, a gay couple adopts her and provides her with a stable, loving, and affectionate upbringing; coupled with a good moral grounding. She spends her childhood being loved and wanted by a couple that cares about her.


----------



## kpmarine (Jun 16, 2013)

SHOTGUN420 said:


> I wasn't gonna respond but you like putting words in my mouth. I never said sex is just for procreation. In fact love fucking my wife whenever not just baby making.
> 
> I just pointed out a fact 2 people of the same sex cannot create life alone and you came back with nonsense.
> 
> Show me 2 people of the same sex who have had a baby without any help from the outside or technology. It's not natural.


So would you be opposed to an infertile straight couple adopting? They also cannot have a child through means that are "natural".


----------



## NietzscheKeen (Jun 16, 2013)

I think a distinction needs to be made between "natural" and "normal". The language we are using can be a bit ambiguous. I foresee a great deal of equivocation, whether intentional or not, in the near future.

Normal: 
conforming to the standard

Natural:
existing in or formed by nature ( opposed to artificial )

Do we agree upon these terms?


----------



## kpmarine (Jun 16, 2013)

NietzscheKeen said:


> I think you may have misunderstood him Cannabineer. I don't recall him saying that sex if only for procreation and even if he did, he is allowed to change his stance within the parameters of this debate.


Part of Shotgun's argument seemed to be that because a gay couple cannot conceive through "natural" means (i.e. intercourse), he is opposed to the idea of them adopting. I think that was what Neer was addressing.


----------



## cannabineer (Jun 16, 2013)

SHOTGUN420 said:


> I think you misread it I like fucking my wife whenever NOT JUST FOR BABY MAKING. Maybe that was just a sad attempt at trolling?
> 
> I stand by what I said 2 people of the same sex cannot make a child alone. It's truth. It's unnatural. How can you dispute that?


Well if you're a admitting a non-procreative role for sex, your argument self-destructs, no? cn


----------



## SHOTGUN420 (Jun 16, 2013)

NietzscheKeen said:


> _Kids are thought in grade school in some places about sexuality. It's always in the news....
> Plus I'm sure little johnny or jane is going to wonder and ask why he or she has 2 daddys or 2 mommies and not a mommy and daddy like other kids.
> Can you prove to me its natural.
> You know what I think is natural.
> ...


Yes sex without the intent of procreation is natural . He bought a whole different thing into the subject. That's why I said I was going to debate with you and ignore most of them. You know how it is we couldn't even have a small group to have debates and disagreements without the name calling and word twisting.


----------



## cannabineer (Jun 16, 2013)

NietzscheKeen said:


> I think you may have misunderstood him Cannabineer. I don't recall him saying that sex if only for procreation and even if he did, he is allowed to change his stance within the parameters of this debate.


"Unnatural" in this context generally means "wrong", and that becomes a moral argument.
S420 admitted a non-procreative role for sex, so that guts his "unnatural" argument imo. Both men and women are wired to get full physical and emotional pleasure from homosex, so trying to extend the "unnatural" argument away from procreation doesn't work either.
So i cannot find any non-doctrinal argument that homosex isn't natural. Nature itself saw to it that it stays in our gene pool, even though it shouldn't propagate by the simplistic premise that only heterosexuals breed. cn


----------



## NietzscheKeen (Jun 16, 2013)

kpmarine said:


> Part of Shotgun's argument seemed to be that because a gay couple cannot conceive through "natural" means (i.e. intercourse), he is opposed to the idea of them adopting. I think that was what Neer was addressing.


I asked him to clarify. Give him a chance to respond.


----------



## cannabineer (Jun 16, 2013)

SHOTGUN420 said:


> Yes sex without the intent of procreation is natural . He bought a whole different thing into the subject. That's why I said I was going to debate with you and ignore most of them. You know how it is we couldn't even have a small group to have debates and disagreements without the name calling and word twisting.


Are you suggesting that sex without intent to procreate is in any way different from sex without the capacity to procreate? That one might need some explaining ... and i am diffident it can be done without recourse to a moral argument. cn


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 16, 2013)

SHOTGUN420 said:


> You know how it is we couldn't even have a small group to have debates and disagreements without the name calling and word twisting.


it's difficult when everyone thinks they have the superior argument.


----------



## NietzscheKeen (Jun 16, 2013)

SHOTGUN420 said:


> Yes sex without the intent of procreation is natural...


I'm sure we can agree it is both natural AND normal. 

So you don't have an issue with people having sex for reasons other than procreation; this would include homosexual sex as well?


----------



## SHOTGUN420 (Jun 16, 2013)

NietzscheKeen said:


> I think a distinction needs to be made between "natural" and "normal". The language we are using can be a bit ambiguous. I foresee a great deal of equivocation, whether intentional or not, in the near future.
> 
> Normal:
> conforming to the standard
> ...


Natural is the way of nature the way it was intended. 

Normal: in my mind is still a man and woman raising a kid. Some of the public is slowly conforming to the their standard. but also what is normal to me may differ from what is normal to someone else. 


So I'd say we some what agree on the terms .


----------



## SHOTGUN420 (Jun 16, 2013)

NietzscheKeen said:


> I'm sure we can agree it is both natural AND normal.
> 
> So you don't have an issue with people having sex for reasons other than procreation; this would include homosexual sex as well?


Not one bit . As long as its not in front of kids.


----------



## SHOTGUN420 (Jun 16, 2013)

But how would 2 males doing the role of "mom and dad" talk to their pubescent daughter about her period , breasts developing , and female things in general? Shes going to need a lot of answers. google?


----------



## sunni (Jun 16, 2013)

SHOTGUN420 said:


> But how would 2 males doing the role of "mom and dad" talk to their pubescent daughter about her period , breasts developing , and female things in general? Shes going to need a lot of answers. google?


the same way a single father with a dead wife or a wife thats left would talk to his daughter.


----------



## cannabineer (Jun 16, 2013)

SHOTGUN420 said:


> Natural is the way of nature the way it was intended.
> 
> Normal: in my mind is still a man and woman raising a kid. Some of the public is slowly conforming to the their standard. but also what is normal to me may differ from what is normal to someone else.
> 
> ...


Assigning _intent _to nature tips your hand. This is about religion. cn


----------



## NietzscheKeen (Jun 16, 2013)

SHOTGUN420 said:


> Natural is the way of nature the way it was intended.
> 
> Normal: in my mind is still a man and woman raising a kid. Some of the public is slowly conforming to the their standard. but also what is normal to me may differ from what is normal to someone else.
> 
> ...


That raises the question of "what did nature intend". Does nature HAVE intentions? 
I've cited 20 different journal articles which suggest that homosexuality is biologically determined i.e. by nature.
Either nature makes mistakes or nature intended for people to want to have sex with people of the same sex. Which is it? 



SHOTGUN420 said:


> Not one bit . As long as its not in front of kids.


Ok, I think we may be getting to the heart of the issue here.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 16, 2013)

SHOTGUN420 said:


> But how would 2 males doing the role of "mom and dad" talk to their pubescent daughter about her period , breasts developing , and female things in general? Shes going to need a lot of answers. google?


it's a good thing that we have someone like you to worry about things that are not a problem for anyone with two brain cells to rub together.


----------



## SHOTGUN420 (Jun 16, 2013)

sunni said:


> the same way a single father with a dead wife or a wife thats left would talk to his daughter.


Normally in a scenario like that a grandmother , aunt , sister would be their stepping in as a helping hand. 

But in this case jane has 2 male parents. 

We can also go on this level your a female correct? when you got your first period who did you look too? did you go to your father your mother your or motherfather? Naturally a daughter would want her mother right? A women needs female guidance .


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 16, 2013)

SHOTGUN420 said:


> Normally in a scenario like that a grandmother , aunt , sister would be their stepping in as a helping hand. But in this case jane has 2 male parents. We can also go on this level your a female correct? when you got your first period who did you look too? did you go to your father your mother your or motherfather? Naturally a daughter would want her mother right? A women needs female guidance .


are you unable to explain how a vagina works or something?


----------



## sunni (Jun 16, 2013)

SHOTGUN420 said:


> Normally in a scenario like that a grandmother , aunt , sister would be their stepping in as a helping hand.
> 
> But in this case jane has 2 male parents.
> 
> We can also go on this level your a female correct? when you got your first period who did you look too? did you go to your father your mother your or motherfather? Naturally a daughter would want her mother right? A women needs female guidance .


so what about a girl who has a father, and the rest of her family is dead, gone or not in touch (meaning aunt , sister, grandmother) im pretty sure jane can put on a maxi pad and speak to her father. parenting is parenting doesnt matter male or female, the subject is not ever comfortable from a female or a male. all that matters is that someone who loves you , teaches you. 

and "normally" NOT ALWAYS will a grandmother, aunt ,sister would step in as a helping hand, there are PLENTY of single fathers who work with their female daughters and have a good relationship and are STILL able to help with female issues.


----------



## sunni (Jun 16, 2013)

no point in even discussing with you, ignorance never changes, your mind will never change, youll never think any different.
pretty sad but thats how it works with people like you. you bolt doors shut because youre afraid to open up and deal with the fact that YOURE wrong, the fact that you need to change your views. but you never will, sad sad. thats okay though but theres no point in my wasting my time


----------



## NietzscheKeen (Jun 16, 2013)

_Normally in a scenario like that a grandmother , aunt , sister would be their stepping in as a helping hand. _

I know this post wasn't intended for me, but allow me to respond. 
It's called being a father; being a man. It doesn't just stop with cars, steaks, and lawnmowers. If you are a single parent you do what you have to do regardless of gender roles. I'm sure the two male parents would have a lot of female friends around that would be more than willing to teach the girl how to properly use a tampon.


----------



## NietzscheKeen (Jun 16, 2013)

Since we got interrupted, I'll repeat my last post: 

_Quote Originally Posted by SHOTGUN420 View Post 

Natural is the way of nature the way it was intended. 

Normal: in my mind is still a man and woman raising a kid. Some of the public is slowly conforming to the their standard. but also what is normal to me may differ from what is normal to someone else. 

So I'd say we some what agree on the terms ._
That raises the question of "what did nature intend". Does nature HAVE intentions? 
I've cited 20 different journal articles which suggest that homosexuality is biologically determined i.e. by nature.
Either nature makes mistakes or nature intended for people to want to have sex with people of the same sex. Which is it? 

_Quote Originally Posted by SHOTGUN420 View Post 

Not one bit . As long as its not in front of kids._
Ok, I think we may be getting to the heart of the issue here.


----------



## sunni (Jun 16, 2013)

NietzscheKeen said:


> _Normally in a scenario like that a grandmother , aunt , sister would be their stepping in as a helping hand. _
> 
> I know this post wasn't intended for me, but allow me to respond.
> It's called being a father; being a man. It doesn't just stop with cars, steaks, and lawnmowers. If you are a single parent you do what you have to do regardless of gender roles. I'm sure the two male parents would have a lot of female friends around that would be more than willing to teach the girl how to properly use a tampon.


Theres steps further than that, each type of feminine hygiene has detailed descriptions including photos, faq's on the package. on how to use their products, and what happens with them
even questions like
"if i use a tampon am i still a virgin"
They even have help phone lines where you can speak to women if you feel more comfortable, theres also websites from the ALWAYS brand company for young girls to go on, and there they get a lot of information on their products, how to use them, again FAQ's and information on proper hygiene.


----------



## SHOTGUN420 (Jun 16, 2013)

NietzscheKeen said:


> That raises the question of "what did nature intend". Does nature HAVE intentions?
> I've cited 20 different journal articles which suggest that homosexuality is biologically determined i.e. by nature.
> Either nature makes mistakes or nature intended for people to want to have sex with people of the same sex. Which is it?


How about some people are just horny and choose to have sex with the same sex. Why does the reason have to be birth ?



NietzscheKeen said:


> Ok, I think we may be getting to the heart of the issue here.


I said it a few times already in this thread I have no issues with what gay , lez ect. do in their personal life. Only when adults feel march naked in front of kids in the name of rights. Or when kids are used as an agenda for rights . We should be letting kids be kids. Not pushing sex on them at an early age.


----------



## NietzscheKeen (Jun 16, 2013)

sunni said:


> Theres steps further than that, each type of feminine hygiene has detailed descriptions including photos, faq's on the package. on how to use their products, and what happens with them
> even questions like
> "if i use a tampon am i still a virgin"
> They even have help phone lines where you can speak to women if you feel more comfortable, theres also websites from the ALWAYS brand company for young girls to go on, and there they get a lot of information on their products, how to use them, again FAQ's and information on proper hygiene.


That's how I learned how to use the Diva cup.


----------



## cannabineer (Jun 16, 2013)

sunni said:


> no point in even discussing with you, ignorance never changes, your mind will never change, youll never think any different.
> pretty sad but thats how it works with people like you. you bolt doors shut because youre afraid to open up and deal with the fact that YOURE wrong, the fact that you need to change your views. but you never will, sad sad. thats okay though but theres no point in my wasting my time


The invocation of the word _intend _told the whole story. cn


----------



## sunni (Jun 16, 2013)

SHOTGUN420 said:


> How about some people are just horny and choose to have sex with the same sex. Why does the reason have to be birth ?
> 
> 
> 
> I said it a few times already in this thread I have no issues with what gay , lez ect. do in their personal life. Only when adults feel march naked in front of kids in the name of rights. Or when kids are used as an agenda for rights . *We should be letting kids be kids. Not pushing sex on them at an early age*.


so what about pushing your views that being gay is wrong ?
is that not wrong?

children do not see the difference. I know this. first hand, my cousins see no difference between auntie jenny and zia allie, and their parents who are male and female. all they see is love . ONLY once they grow up and hear people like you bashing their LOVE will they ever have to make the opinion on whats "right " and "wrong".
The problem with you homophobics is that you say its wrong to push the views on children yet you do it yourselves.


----------



## NietzscheKeen (Jun 16, 2013)

SHOTGUN420 said:


> I said it a few times already in this thread I have no issues with what gay , lez ect. do in their personal life. Only when adults feel march naked in front of kids in the name of rights. Or when kids are used as an agenda for rights . We should be letting kids be kids. Not pushing sex on them at an early age.


What are we debating again?


----------



## SHOTGUN420 (Jun 16, 2013)

sunni said:


> Theres steps further than that, each type of feminine hygiene has detailed descriptions including photos, faq's on the package. on how to use their products, and what happens with them
> even questions like
> "if i use a tampon am i still a virgin"
> They even have help phone lines where you can speak to women if you feel more comfortable, theres also websites from the ALWAYS brand company for young girls to go on, and there they get a lot of information on their products, how to use them, again FAQ's and information on proper hygiene.


How is that better then a natural mother?


----------



## NietzscheKeen (Jun 16, 2013)

SHOTGUN420 said:


> How is that better then a natural mother?


That's not what we were debating... 
If THAT was what we were debating I would have opted for a simple pro and con list since we would be making an objective value judgment. 

THIS is what we were debating... I had to go recheck because I honestly forgot, lol.



SHOTGUN420 said:


> Can you prove to me its natural.


Can I give YOU the burden of proof for a moment? 
Can you prove to me that marriage is natural?
Or that it is natural for there to be only two people in a relationship?


----------



## SHOTGUN420 (Jun 16, 2013)

sunni said:


> so what about pushing your views that being gay is wrong ?
> is that not wrong?
> 
> children do not see the difference. I know this. first hand, my cousins see no difference between auntie jenny and zia allie, and their parents who are male and female. all they see is love . ONLY once they grow up and hear people like you bashing their LOVE will they ever have to make the opinion on whats "right " and "wrong".
> The problem with you homophobics is that you say its wrong to push the views on children yet you do it yourselves.


I didn't say it was wrong I said 2 gay/lez parents adopting a child is unnatural post where I said its wrong and evil or whatever you claim I said. 

Once again with the sad label. To be a phobic you have to fear something lmao I don't fear any homosexuals.

You read what you wanna read see what you wanna see take the time to read what I write or you don't deserve my reply.


----------



## SlaveNoMore (Jun 16, 2013)

To me the whole nature/natural falls under the category of "people are born homosexuals."

I think the religious side would say that if people are born homosexual then it must be a birth defect because the gene for homosexuality could not be passed on in a "natural" way through procreation.

It's hard to tell whether or not homosexuality is genetic. Children aren't born with gender awareness and it's not until they are 6-9 that sexuality becomes apparent. I think at some point though there is an attraction to either the opposite or same sex depending on the type of upbringing they have had. Either they express their homosexuality or keep it hidden.

Is it possible that there is a gay gene? Yes, but I think there are also environmental factors involved as well. I don't think it will be a question that will be answered for a very long time.


----------



## NietzscheKeen (Jun 16, 2013)

cannabineer said:


> The invocation of the word _intend _told the whole story. cn


Intention is a debate I'm so not ready for today, lol.


----------



## sunni (Jun 16, 2013)

SHOTGUN420 said:


> I didn't say it was wrong I said 2 gay/lez parents adopting a child is unnatural post where I said its wrong and evil or whatever you claim I said.
> 
> Once again with the sad label. To be a phobic you have to fear something lmao I don't fear any homosexuals.
> 
> You read what you wanna read see what you wanna see take the time to read what I write or you don't deserve my reply.


its obvious youre a homophobic. you just deny it like you deny youre racist. if you just came out and said what you truly are i think i would accept it and leave you alone. but you deny , not sure why perhaps you feel ashamed of what you've grown up to become.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 16, 2013)

SHOTGUN420 said:


> To be a phobic you have to fear something lmao I don't fear any homosexuals.


you would look less dumb if you bothered to find out what words actually mean.


----------



## SHOTGUN420 (Jun 16, 2013)

NietzscheKeen said:


> That's not what we were debating...
> If THAT was what we were debating I would have opted for a simple pro and con list since we would be making an objective value judgment.
> 
> THIS is what we were debating... I had to go recheck because I honestly forgot, lol.
> ...


Marriage is healthy but I didn't bring it up. I said I don't care its up to the votes. Not my fight I don't care either way but I'm a bigot because I don't help their plan. A penis was made for a vagina is my opinion If that makes me a bigot then .


----------



## NietzscheKeen (Jun 16, 2013)

SlaveNoMore said:


> To me the whole nature/natural falls under the category of "people are born homosexuals."
> 
> I think the religious side would say that if people are born homosexual then it must be a birth defect because the gene for homosexuality could not be passed on in a "natural" way through procreation.
> 
> ...


I'm a biological determinist. I don't know if there is a gay gene. That has been debated and discussed by many people smarter than myself and I don't think they have come to any serious conclusions. It IS biologically determined and the question arises "is homosexuality adaptive or maladaptive"? We can think of reasons why homosexuality could be beneficial. It all comes down to passing your genes onto the next generation. That is our only purpose; our only reason for existence. We share many genes with our siblings. If one sibling is homosexual and never has children, that could give that individual the freedom to help support other children in the family or the family as a whole thus ensuring the passing on a genes albeit in a less traditional way.


----------



## NietzscheKeen (Jun 16, 2013)

sunni said:


> its obvious youre a homophobic. you just deny it like you deny youre racist. if you just came out and said what you truly are i think i would accept it and leave you alone. but you deny , not sure why perhaps you feel ashamed of what you've grown up to become.


I think it's fair to say that one can disapprove of the actions of a group and not necessarily hate or fear that group.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 16, 2013)

SHOTGUN420 said:


> Marriage is healthy but I didn't bring it up. I said I don't care its up to the votes. Not my fight I don't care either way but I'm a bigot because I don't help their plan. A penis was made for a vagina is my opinion If that makes me a bigot then .


there are far more compelling reasons as to why you're a bigot.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 16, 2013)

NietzscheKeen said:


> I think it's fair to say that one can disapprove of the actions of a group and not necessarily hate or fear that group.


thanks for making it clear that you as well do not know the definition of homophobia.


----------



## NietzscheKeen (Jun 16, 2013)

SHOTGUN420 said:


> Marriage is healthy but I didn't bring it up. I said I don't care its up to the votes. Not my fight I don't care either way but I'm a bigot because I don't help their plan. A penis was made for a vagina is my opinion If that makes me a bigot then .


Fair enough, you didn't mention marriage. My mistake. The debate was on whether it was natural for a homosexual couple to raise a child? Shit, this is confusing.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 16, 2013)

NietzscheKeen said:


> Fair enough, you didn't mention marriage. My mistake. The debate was on whether it was natural for a homosexual couple to raise a child? Shit, this is confusing.


actually, not really.


----------



## SlaveNoMore (Jun 16, 2013)

NietzscheKeen said:


> I'm a biological determinist. I don't know if there is a gay gene. That has been debated and discussed by many people smarter than myself and I don't think they have come to any serious conclusions. It IS biologically determined and the question arises "is homosexuality adaptive or maladaptive"? We can think of reasons why homosexuality could be beneficial. It all comes down to passing your genes onto the next generation. That is our only purpose; our only reason for existence. We share many genes with our siblings. If one sibling is homosexual and never has children, that could give that individual the freedom to help support other children in the family or the family as a whole thus ensuring the passing on a genes albeit in a less traditional way.


Yes, and homosexuality has been known and accepted for thousands of years and mostly among men, which is curious. You can look back to roman times or go into preliterate tribal cultures and it is always men that practice homosexuality or bisexuality to be exact. Of course these point to cultural conditioning or a way to control birth rates.

The fact that a member of a family is born homosexual in order to help support the children is interesting and makes sense. I have to think about it more.


----------



## SHOTGUN420 (Jun 16, 2013)

NietzscheKeen said:


> Fair enough, you didn't mention marriage. My mistake. The debate was on whether it was natural for a homosexual couple to raise a child? Shit, this is confusing.


It is when idiots keep filling the thread with nonsense. ready for the speak for yourself reply? Go figure buck is here.


----------



## NietzscheKeen (Jun 16, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> thanks for making it clear that you as well do not know the definition of homophobia.





NietzscheKeen said:


> I think it's fair to say that one can disapprove of the actions of a group and not necessarily hate or fear that group.


Homophobia-
World English Dictionary: intense hatred or fear of homosexuals or homosexuality. 
Random House Dictionary: unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality.
Merriam-Webster: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against. 
Oxford Dictionary: an extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people. 

You should know better than to challenge me Buck... especially in perspicacious company such as this.


----------



## NietzscheKeen (Jun 16, 2013)

SlaveNoMore said:


> The fact that a member of a family is born homosexual in order to help support the children is interesting and makes sense. I have to think about it more.


It's merely speculation.


----------



## SHOTGUN420 (Jun 16, 2013)

NietzscheKeen said:


> *If one sibling is homosexual and never has children, that could give that individual the freedom to help support other children in the family or the family as a whole* thus ensuring the passing on a genes albeit in a less traditional way.


The theory makes sense but since most gays want to marry, adopt and raise kids themselves. It defeats the theory.


----------



## kpmarine (Jun 16, 2013)

SHOTGUN420 said:


> The theory makes sense but since most gays want to marry, adopt and raise kids themselves. It defeats the theory.


They are still using resources saved from not having their own child to help someone else's baby. Still a net gain.


----------



## NietzscheKeen (Jun 16, 2013)

SHOTGUN420 said:


> The theory makes sense but since most gays want to marry, adopt and raise kids themselves. It defeats the theory.


Ok, perhaps it does. It was just an ad hoc theory I made up to illustrate a different point. 

From what I see, you're biggest concerns lie with the influence homosexuals may or may not have on children. 
Allow me to paraphrase a few of your posts from memory; if I paraphrase you unjustly, let me know and I will change it. 
If you haven't made these comments, perhaps you will at least agree with them. 

Homosexuality is not natural, so it doesn't occur in nature. Hence it must be taught or someone must be influenced etc in order for them to become homosexual. 

Homosexuality may or may not be real, it could be that people are just really horny; horny enough to have sex with someone of the same sex.

There would be no homosexuality if homosexuality was never taught. 

Please correct me if I've said anything you disagree with.


----------



## NietzscheKeen (Jun 16, 2013)

kpmarine said:


> They are still using resources saved from not having their own child to help someone else's baby. Still a net gain.


"No, but I would to save two brothers or eight cousins." 

Reply when asked if he would give his life to save a drowning brother, as quoted in Mathematical Models of Social Evolution : A Guide for the Perplexed (2007) by Richard McElreath and Robert Boyd, p. 82; as you share on average half your alleles with a brother and one-eighth with a cousin, Haldane was giving the number of relatives one would have to save to "break even".


----------



## SHOTGUN420 (Jun 16, 2013)

NietzscheKeen said:


> Ok, perhaps it does. It was just an ad hoc theory I made up to illustrate a different point.
> 
> From what I see, you're biggest concerns lie with the influence homosexuals may or may not have on children.
> Allow me to paraphrase a few of your posts from memory; if I paraphrase you unjustly, let me know and I will change it.
> ...



yes I agree with all that. Its taught and publicized making it seem like a cool new trend.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 16, 2013)

NietzscheKeen said:


> Homophobia-
> World English Dictionary: intense hatred or fear of homosexuals or homosexuality.
> Random House Dictionary: unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality.
> Merriam-Webster: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against.
> ...


now it just seems like you're not literate.


----------



## NietzscheKeen (Jun 16, 2013)

SHOTGUN420 said:


> yes I agree with all that.


1. Well, if I was able to convince you that homosexuality wasn't a choice, but that it was determined before birth, would you feel better about the situation? 

2. Is there anything anyone could do to make you attracted to another male or is your heterosexuality so deeply ingrained in your brain that nothing, short of brain surgery, could change your preference?

3. You do not believe homosexuality to be immoral, correct?

While I give you that it being more accepted today may make it more likely for people to experiment, I don't think it will change anyone's sexuality.


----------



## SHOTGUN420 (Jun 16, 2013)

NietzscheKeen said:


> 1. Well, if I was able to convince you that homosexuality wasn't a choice, but that it was determined before birth, would you feel better about the situation?
> 
> 2. Is there anything anyone could do to make you attracted to another male or is your heterosexuality so deeply ingrained in your brain that nothing, short of brain surgery, could change your preference?
> 
> ...


1. No it wouldn't change my mind that gays raising kids is unnatural. 

2. Nothing would ever change my mind . I love pussy. I don't think any brain surgery exists to change my mind. 

3. I'm not religious . I don't care with they do between themselves but they shouldn't bring a child into it.


----------



## NietzscheKeen (Jun 16, 2013)

SHOTGUN420 said:


> 2. Nothing would ever change my mind . I love pussy. I don't think any brain surgery exists to change my mind.


Why would it change anyone else's? 




SHOTGUN420 said:


> 1. No it wouldn't change my mind that gays raising kids is unnatural.


So you're saying that since two men can't have kids naturally, then it is therefore unnatural for them to raise children. Correct?

I fall back to the argument, what about women who can't have children naturally; is it unnatural for them to raise children?


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 16, 2013)

SHOTGUN420 said:


> ...gays raising kids is unnatural.


yet oddly enough, it happens in nature.

i might as well watch two dogs debate whose ass smells better. but you two are pretty entertaining too.


----------



## Hazydat620 (Jun 16, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> yet oddly enough, it happens in nature.
> 
> i might as well watch two dogs debate whose ass smells better. but you two are pretty entertaining too.


Why you getting so butt hurt Buck? Nietz is going about it the right way, making shotgun420 look like an ass, using logical thinking to show just how irrational Shotguns thinking is. Nietz is making himself seem educated, you are making yourself seem childish.


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 16, 2013)

Hazydat620 said:


> Why you getting so butt hurt Buck? Nietz is going about it the right way, making shotgun420 look like an ass, using logical thinking to show just how irrational Shotguns thinking is. Nietz is making himself seem educated, you are making yourself seem childish.


how educated did he seem when he botched the definition of homophobia?


----------



## Hazydat620 (Jun 16, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> how educated did he seem when he botched the definition of homophobia?


whats your definition of homophobia?


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 16, 2013)

Hazydat620 said:


> whats your definition of homophobia?


we don't get to just make up definitions for things, ya know. and the various definitions have already been posted.


----------



## Hazydat620 (Jun 16, 2013)

This Debate could be solved easily, stick 20 infants, 15 female and 5 male (yes I can add.) on a remote Island with no outside influences. Then we can really see what "nature" is really capable of, and see just how much of what you believe, is actually taught. . You'll probably see... no god worshiped, no marriage, probably no monogamous relationships and on and on.


----------



## Hazydat620 (Jun 16, 2013)

UncleBuck said:


> we don't get to just make up definitions for things, ya know. and the various definitions have already been posted.


weren't those posted by Nietz? and then you said he botched the definitions? or did I miss something?


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 16, 2013)

Hazydat620 said:


> This Debate could be solved easily, stick 20 infants, 15 female and 5 male (yes I can add.) on a remote Island with no outside influences. Then we can really see what "nature" is really capable of, and see just how much of what you believe, is actually taught. . You'll probably see... no god worshiped, no marriage, probably no monogamous relationships and on and on.


twin studies are better.



Hazydat620 said:


> weren't those posted by Nietz? and then you said he botched the definitions? or did I miss something?


yeah, he did post them. his botching up of things had to do with his claim that disapproval and aversion are not the same thing.


----------



## SHOTGUN420 (Jun 17, 2013)

waste of time trying to skim through the spam. Buck never brings anything to the table just talks shit. Then I see people posting shit about god . I never said a fucking thing about a god. Fuck your god. I don't care just like I don't care if gays fuck each other or marry or whatever. Just leave the children alone. 

I'm done debating here about a topic that I really don't care about. Cheers Nietz.


----------



## cannabineer (Jun 17, 2013)

SHOTGUN420 said:


> waste of time trying to skim through the spam. Buck never brings anything to the table just talks shit. Then I see people posting shit about god . *I never said a fucking thing about a god. *Fuck your god. I don't care just like I don't care if gays fuck each other or marry or whatever. Just leave the children alone.
> 
> I'm done debating here about a topic that I really don't care about. Cheers Nietz.


You did the moment you spoke of nature's _intent_. The only time "intent" comes up in discussions of nature is when the starting point is creationist. So not only a god, but an engaged one, Abrahamic-style. cn


----------



## NietzscheKeen (Jun 17, 2013)

Hazydat620 said:


> weren't those posted by Nietz? and then you said he botched the definitions? or did I miss something?





UncleBuck said:


> yeah, he did post them. his botching up of things had to do with his claim that disapproval and aversion are not the same thing.


Cheers Shotgun.

World English Dictionary-
Disapproval:
The act or a state or feeling of disapproving; censure; condemnation 

Random House Dictionary-
Disapprove:
To think (something) wrong or reprehensible; censure or condemn in opinion. 

American Heritage Medical Dictionary-
Aversion:
A feeling of extreme repugnance *accompanied by *avoidance or rejection.

World English Dictionary-
Repugnant:
Distasteful; offensive; disgusting 

You should know I work for a newspaper and am an essayist for a regional magazine. I've studied English and still devour philosophy of language books at bedtime. Saying I choose and use words incorrectly is like saying an experienced carpenter doesn't know how to swing a hammer properly. I may be tired and produce some sloppy work when no one is actually going to see it or care, but when a fine product is needed... I will deliver.


----------



## cannabineer (Jun 17, 2013)

This is strictly an amateur lexicographer's gig ... no pronouns! cn


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 17, 2013)

NietzscheKeen said:


> Cheers Shotgun.
> 
> World English Dictionary-
> Disapproval:
> ...


you're not doing yourself any favors.

a good golfer isn't going to tell you what a great player they are, they'll let the clubs do the talking.

that you are trying to boost your credibility by listing your (underwhelming) credentials just reeks of insecurity.

besides, any decent wordsmith should recognize that all definitions are circular and that this is a game that could go on forever. apparently, you didn't catch that memo. 

i'll drop the mic, turn around, and walk away now.


----------



## NietzscheKeen (Jun 17, 2013)

Common Sense Dictionary- 
Gibberish: 


UncleBuck said:


> you're not doing yourself any favors. a good golfer isn't going to tell you what a great player they are, they'll let the clubs do the talking. that you are trying to boost your credibility by listing your (underwhelming) credentials just reeks of insecurity. besides, any decent wordsmith should recognize that all definitions are circular and that this is a game that could go on forever. apparently, you didn't catch that memo.  i'll drop the mic, turn around, and walk away now.


I'm just nit picking now since I can't sleep, but a good golfer lets his or her scores do the talking; not the clubs. So far, you're way below par... All anyone has to do is look.
And since we are on the subject of golf... here is a nice birdie for you 



UncleBuck said:


> besides, any decent wordsmith should recognize that all definitions are circular and that this is a game that could go on forever.


Tell me, was that particular quote from Frege or Tarski?


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 17, 2013)

NietzscheKeen said:


> Common Sense Dictionary-
> Gibberish:
> 
> 
> ...


below par is a good thing.


----------



## NietzscheKeen (Jun 17, 2013)

In golf.... yes, UNDER par is good. Life is scored differently than golf though I'm afraid.

http://thesaurus.com/browse/below+par


----------



## UncleBuck (Jun 17, 2013)

NietzscheKeen said:


> In golf.... yes.
> 
> http://thesaurus.com/browse/below+par


were you trying to make a bowling analogy then?


----------



## cannabineer (Jun 17, 2013)

Spare us.  cn


----------



## kpmarine (Jun 18, 2013)

NietzscheKeen said:


> In golf.... yes, UNDER par is good. Life is scored differently than golf though I'm afraid.
> 
> http://thesaurus.com/browse/below+par


I think subpar is what you were looking for.


----------



## NietzscheKeen (Jun 18, 2013)

kpmarine said:


> I think subpar is what you were looking for.


Lol, is it? Maybe. Idk, lol. Thanks.


----------



## Hazydat620 (Jun 18, 2013)

SHOTGUN420 said:


> waste of time trying to skim through the spam. Buck never brings anything to the table just talks shit. Then I see people posting shit about god . I never said a fucking thing about a god. Fuck your god. I don't care just like I don't care if gays fuck each other or marry or whatever. Just leave the children alone.
> 
> I'm done debating here about a topic that I really don't care about. Cheers Nietz.


yet the title of the thread that YOU started, contains a reference to religion?


----------



## Heisenberg (Jun 19, 2013)

As usual, another thread about homosexuals has taught us that the only legitimate criticisms for gay sex are ones that also apply to any other type of sex. "It's icky" and "Don't do it in front of children", not exactly stunning insights.


----------



## New Age United (Dec 5, 2013)

NietzscheKeen said:


> It's just a malfunction in the brain. There is no reason behind it. We have a compulsion to eat, we can look at it afterwards and say I need to eat so that I can get calories and vitamins and live. Why do people with Parkinson's disease shake? Why do people with Tourette's Syndrome jerk around and yell sometimes? Is there a reason behind these actions?
> 
> We can look back at our impulses for sex, food, breathing, fellowship and can see a benefit to them. But just because our brain tells us to do something doesn't mean there is necessarily a reason for it. It's a malfunction. Now their impulses exist for many reasons, I mentioned a tumor. Sometimes things are just wired differently. Nature makes mistakes all the time. When it comes to the brain, the tiniest little change can make a HUGE difference. There is a lot of interesting... and sometimes f'd up brain research that goes on. Scientists can open up your skull, touch a certain part of your brain with an electrode and you might "taste" apples, raise your arm, or even sense someone is next to you. The list goes on and on. Have you ever heard of Broca's Aphasia? It's a very interesting disorder when people literally forget how to talk. Broca's Area affects outgoing language (if I remember correctly) and Wernicke's Area affects incoming and written language. When someone has an injury that affects their Broca's area, they cannot use language at all, but if you talk to them they can understand you just fine. Usually they can write what they want to say, they just can't make sense of it to say it. Strange how that works isn't it?
> 
> ...


Very objective, very absolute in your perception, no subjectivity involved, I like that, sometimes it is necessary to hold this perspective. I do not mean a higher reason, as in purpose, which is a whole nother ball game, I mean cause and effect, a person with parkinsons shakes because there nerves are shot, a person with tourettes yells complusively because there is an impulse to do so, something in them causes them to yell as if it fulfills a purpose, just as someone with OCD must be perfect in order to maintain order. I think pyschopathy is a trait that can be harnessed by anybody if necessary, but only for a moment, as you say, it is afterall a disease in the brain, an imbalance, as a wise man once said, "the mind is maya"


----------

