Jump to content

Should We Support Lgbt Community?


Recommended Posts

The ACT is gay, the prisoners may or may not be gay. Is the one being raped gay too since he is involved? There are literally guys out there who will perform a gay act out there if large sums of money are involved, they don't care if they will be called gay as long as they get their money, but they are not gay. Homosexuality is being attracted to a fellow males, you dont need to have attraction to engage in a homosexual act. Come on guys, this is common sense. Also, Im not even going to bother with that ridiculous incest comparison.

So if I robbed a bank or committed rape out of 'desperation' I'm not a bank robber or a rapist? You're contradicting yourself. How can you not see that???? LOL!

We are talking about prisoners here so don't change the goalposts and talk about money. No money involved in prisons. At best we can argue that prisoners who indulge in homosexual acts in prison are bisexual.

So you don't have to be attracted to have homosexual sex? Wow! I mean you could mastubate but noooo, it's more fun to have some man on man love. LOL!!!! Ok, If you were horny and desperate in prison, would you indulge in homosexual sex? Why don't you answer the question?? Why are you deflecting? I'm challenging you to answer the question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you a creationist? How do you explain the abundant diversity of creatures?

Why does it matter who am I? If a creationist told you 1+1=2, will it be wrong? Why the 'us vs them' ethos? I'm not gonna play your stupid libtard games. LOL!

The proof is in there in the fossil record. The organisms whose remains litter the lower, older strata of the earth are much simpler than those whose may be found further up in the newer strata. Study of the genetic composition of Homo sapiens has shown that it is extremely similar to that of the great apes, quite similar to other less advanced mammals, and much less so to reptiles and organisms more distantly related to us in the evolutionary tree. This all points to a common ancestor. Also, notice how strains of bacteria become resistant to antibiotics over time? That there is natural selection in practice. Bacteria with mutations which render them immune survive and pass on their genes, those that aren't immune are killed off.

Sorry, fossil record is not 'proof'. It may be evidence but it's not proof. Proof is when you're able to recreate the hypothesis in a laboratory setting. Bacteria becoming resistance to antibiotics is not evolution but adaptation. The original contention of evolutionists is that the organism that evolved changed from one form to another eg. monkey to human, involving 2 separate species. The bacteria becoming resistance to antibiotics is still a bacteria and not a different species. OTOH a monkey and a human being are 2 separate species. Did I not tell you earlier that you loons always confuse adaptation with evolution?

I get the feeling that this evidence, which seems to be of enough magnitude to sway all the greatest scientific luminaries of the world (people far smarter than you), still won't be able to penetrate the nutty enigma that is your mind. Just what sort of proof would convince you? A monkey being turned into a human being? I've already explained that that is not at all how evolution works and by making such a stupid request you've shown yourself to be wholly ignorant of the process. You're impermeable mate.

Sorry but evidence is not proof. Evidence suggests, proof confirms. It's irrelevant what you believe as to how the Toe works. Can you prove it? Can you recreate it? The answer, a big fat no. So give it a rest.

The term theory, deployed in scientific circles, doesn't mean exactly the same thing as its equivalent used in every day parlance. When you and I conceive a 'theory', it's more of a hunch. When a scientist develops a 'theory' it is thoroughly well substantiated with studies and with hard evidence. You're confusing it with the term hypothesis, which is to the scientist what theory is to the layman. Gravity is just a theory too you know. Come to think, I hope that means gravity might not be true either, because then there's a slight chance that you'll float the hell away from your computer and this earth, and I won't have to continue to subject myself to the torture of dignifying your gibbering madness with a response.

Once again you're wrong. The term theory of gravity relates to how gravity WORKS whereas gravity being a fact is that it is fact and exists and can be proven by jumping off a ten story building. Just jump off a high rise and you'll find out first hand that gravity is a fact. OTOH you can't prove the ToE like how you can prove gravity. We know gravity exists and is a fact however we do not understand how it works hence the term Theory of Gravity.

I have schooled you so don't repeat your liberal nonsense again.

Not with any ordinary bloke, no. However if I was locked up with YOU Quantavius, I'd seriously consider it and perhaps even follow through, just so I could annoy you.

Sorry but you're not my type. LOL!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, there are quite a lot of imbeciles who mar this forum with their benighted presence. Seasoned veterans of the art of stupidity. The fact that you've managed not only to surpass all these people, but have established yourself as their chieftain after just 13 POSTS is a breathtaking testament to the potency of your craziness.

I'm done trying to reason with you. If you wish to continue to believe that you 'schooled' me, go ahead. Your sense of pride is obviously low enough that it desperately needs the boost. I'm content just knowing that a century from now you and your anti-evolution ilk will have disappeared into the gaping maw of history and become the subject of universal ridicule. Rather like you already are.

Did I piss you off? Looks like I hit a raw nerve. Good. I'm trying to get you to think beyond your current set of 'dogmas' and may have succeeded. My posts to leftist are like what kyptonite is to Superman. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I already addressed these questions right above...And there is PLENTY of money involved in prisons, bud.

No, I personally wouldnt, but unlike me, many others will throw their morals out of the window for whatever they desire. If you REALLY think there is no way a man can commit a homosexual act without actually being gay, you're just dense. If a gay man can sleep with a woman, despite zero attraction, the reverse can happen too.

And don't think for a second I feel like "wow hes really got me there! I need to deflect" or that your "challenges" mean anything to me. :biggrin2:

You don't have to have sex to live. It's not like food, money or shelter. I have many friends who are single and not sexually active and are quite happy. I'm not even talking about those religious types (yogis, buddhist monks...). Some lost their partners and live out their lives celibates. So I fail to understand how 'desperate' one gets that one has to have sex with their own kind. Seriously, how sexxed up or horny do you have to be until you consider having sex with someone of your own gender?

If homosexuality is not a choice, there is NO way a homosexual can have sex with members of the opposite sex. Again you're contradicting yourself.

Anyway lets agree to disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am well aware of the ill health effects of homosexual acts, just as I am well aware of health effects associated to straight sex if not done safely and in moderation. My use on harmfulness was that there would be a victim from the result of an incestuous relationship i.e. the child.

Yes, I can say there was an attack towards homosexuals because their behaviour was likened towards criminals. Either members here do not understand the seriousness of paedophilic crimes or they think homosexuals should be locked up. Either way, they should stay away from young children because their moral judgment is messed up.

I would defend anyone if I see someone being unnecessarily attacked. I am still on the topic of homosexuality so there is nothing wrong with stating my opinion on this matter.

Regarding those that indulge in homosexual acts while in prison, I am surprised that some people here cannot understand this. If those that indulge in homosexual acts become heterosexual when they come out, it is likely that they were never attracted to men but making the best out of a bad situation like someone here has already stated. They were performing homosexual acts because they were trying to get the closest sexual experience and pleasure, in other words they were masturbating or using a sex-toy and were most probably having thoughts of a woman.

Making the best out of a bad situation??? LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Sorry, too funny.

Lets agree to disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't have to have sex to live. It's not like food, money or shelter. I have many friends who are single and not sexually active and are quite happy. I'm not even talking about those religious types (yogis, buddhist monks...). Some lost their partners and live out their lives celibates. So I fail to understand how 'desperate' one gets that one has to have sex with their own kind. Seriously, how sexxed up or horny do you have to be until you consider having sex with someone of your own gender?

If homosexuality is not a choice, there is NO way a homosexual can have sex with members of the opposite sex. Again you're contradicting yourself.

Anyway lets agree to disagree.

You're first paragraph is just ridiculous, just because your "friends" are apparently not horny at all, doesn't mean everyone is like them. Plus you don't know what your friends get upto in their spare time ;)

There is NO WAY a homosexual can have sex with a female? What about the men who can't come out of the closet and marry a woman to conform? or the teens who sleep with girls prior to coming out? Your thinking is similar to a unedcuated villager.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • yeh it's true, we shouldn't be lazy and need to learn jhatka shikaar. It doesn't help some of grew up in surrounding areas like Slough and Southall where everyone thought it was super bad for amrit dharis to eat meat, and they were following Sant babas and jathas, and instead the Singhs should have been normalising jhatka just like the recent world war soldiers did. We are trying to rectifiy this and khalsa should learn jhatka.  But I am just writing about bhog for those that are still learning rehit. As I explained, there are all these negative influences in the panth that talk against rehit, but this shouldn't deter us from taking khanda pahul, no matter what level of rehit we are!
    • How is it going to help? The link is of a Sikh hunter. Fine, but what good does that do the lazy Sikh who ate khulla maas in a restaurant? By the way, for the OP, yes, it's against rehit to eat khulla maas.
    • Yeah, Sikhs should do bhog of food they eat. But the point of bhog is to only do bhog of food which is fit to be presented to Maharaj. It's not maryada to do bhog of khulla maas and pretend it's OK to eat. It's not. Come on, bro, you should know better than to bring this Sakhi into it. Is this Sikh in the restaurant accompanied by Guru Gobind Singh ji? Is he fighting a dharam yudh? Or is he merely filling his belly with the nearest restaurant?  Please don't make a mockery of our puratan Singhs' sacrifices by comparing them to lazy Sikhs who eat khulla maas.
    • Seriously?? The Dhadi is trying to be cute. For those who didn't get it, he said: "Some say Maharaj killed bakras (goats). Some say he cut the heads of the Panj Piyaras. The truth is that they weren't goats. It was she-goats (ਬਕਰੀਆਂ). He jhatka'd she-goats. Not he-goats." Wow. This is possibly the stupidest thing I've ever heard in relation to Sikhi.
    • Instead of a 9 inch or larger kirpan, take a smaller kirpan and put it (without gatra) inside your smaller turban and tie the turban tightly. This keeps a kirpan on your person without interfering with the massage or alarming the masseuse. I'm not talking about a trinket but rather an actual small kirpan that fits in a sheath (you'll have to search to find one). As for ahem, "problems", you could get a male masseuse. I don't know where you are, but in most places there are professional masseuses who actually know what they are doing and can really relieve your muscle pains.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use