As applied to an observation of a 6 or 7 year old and in equal comparison to how this discussion evolved, that assumption would have been in the form of "a kid" instead of "the kid is gay." So probably not.
Have you seen the new Doritos?
- Thread starter KingOfBBN
- Start date
As applied to an observation of a 6 or 7 year old and in equal comparison to how this discussion evolved, that assumption would have been in the form of "a kid" instead of "the kid is gay." So probably not.
The kid is obviously a gay. There is nothing wrong with him being a gay; so what makes it wrong if I say that? I am a straight. He is a gay. You are a homophobe.
I would rather have Z attempt to be the resident erudite dickhead. He's much better at it.
No, I described that process as immoral, not as a method for determining sexuality. Nice reading comprehension fail on Jason's part. Always easy to tell which posters rarely read a serious work of literature. In Jason case, probably too busy taking interest over cartoon images of erect penises, the sexuality of little boys, laughing hysterically at the thought of the child's future sexual endeavors . . .and that's just his track record on this page alone. Indeed, a gold member in an anonymous forum.
Lot's of people do that after getting their *** kicked. Apparently when he wrote to me the words "Your opinion on anything doesn't mean diddly doody to me," he lied.
A child at the age of 6 or 7 does not have the capacity for intimate or sexual desire. To label a small child as gay is just wrong. Some might argue that it would be acceptable on the basis that to label them as "heterosexual" would be not be wrong. However, it must not be forgotten that humans are naturally designed for a specific reproductive purpose, and the label "heterosexual" would simply be no contradiction to the natural design. A child would not require a capacity for intimate or sexual desire in order to not contradict the natural design.
Jason has attempted to justify his labeling on the basis that he has "known" gays. Interesting. Well so have I. Most just fine people. But without describing the very, very small number of others, I'll just say that there is no such thing as protecting children too much, and certain patterns are recognizable.
I'm reminded of our discussion from a few weeks ago when you were on the side of an issue advocating the extreme sensitive approach. I was on cynicism's side for that one, and we were at odds. However, when innocent children are involved, you will never find me missing the opportunity for the type of sensitive virtue you were demanding for the newly declared adult transgender then.
When I was six, seven, I knew I liked girls. I didn't want to have sex with the them yet, but I knew I liked them. I didn't even want to hold their hand but I liked them. I liked talking with them, sharing my things with them, bringing them gifts. So you're saying that homosexuals don't have these feelings and that they only possess sexual desires for one another? Also if we are "designed" to reproduce then why can't everyone reproduce? Are they just flawed designs like homosexuals? You also went on the attack calling Jason gay as if that was supposed to insult him or shame him. Do you think being gay is shameful? Or calling someone gay is insulting?
Like I said, when Jason wrote to me the words "Your opinion on anything doesn't mean diddly doody to me," he lied.
Fail. Can't blame you for trying. Coming out is so often followed by a heavy shame, can't blame you for wanting to go back in. A faux persona is a predictable attempt to explain your position on the matter but it does not dovetail in the least with the outrage you exhibited, which is a perfect characteristic among those who have behaved and confessed and have attempted to justify their behavior in that manner. No, you were angry. Really, naturally angry. Uncontrolled anger under the condition of a controlled persona? No, nobody is going to buy that one. Particularly not a qualified behavioral analyst. Aint happening.
You have issues. The man who may say because I am gay I have the right to identify a gay child is also the man who may think because I am gay I have the right to help a gay adolescent realize himself. That is a predator profile.
Again, lot's of real, natural anger in this one. Likes to talk about the sexuality of small boys, enjoys laughing hysterically at the thought of their future, homosexual behavior, gets outraged whenever anybody challenges his behavior on the basis of morality, admits he is gay in an attempt to defend his right to do so, attempts to withdraw his admission on the basis of a controlled persona (and likely his embarrassment), and then gets angry all over again when it is explained to him why his withdrawal is logically flawed. Where is all this anger coming from in this guy? What happened to him in his own childhood that makes him reckless with the childhood of others? These are questions that a trained behavioral analyst would indeed ask.
You're the one who said it wasn't natural. I'm just trying to follow your logic.
You're right. I'm Facebook friends with a guy from high school who is gay. To find out he came out was as surprising as finding out that water is wet. This dude from west KY gets a Master's Degree from Yale after being undergrad at Murray State (I have both of my degrees from Murray, fine school, but still). Here's the thing - 90% of his posts are about being gay. If I had a master's from an Ivy League school, I'd be humble bragging about that all the touchin' time.
Another, magnificent example of reading comprehension fail. Specifically what I said is this: to label a child as heterosexual is to make no contradiction to the natural design. The discussion that was being had at that time was this: reproductive design. What shapes human personality may occur for a variety of other natural reasons. Please do not take this next comment as an insult, but there is such a thing as when a discussion exceeds the capacity for a participant.
Ok, so, just to be clear . . . If somebody needs to back-peddle on the statement that homosexuality is flawed and unnatural we know that is you and not me.
Look pal. Everyone that knows me on this board knows that I do not think homosexuality is flawed or unnatural. You can ask the guy who started this discussion. I'm the first to defend the LGBT community. It appeared to me that you were attacking them. If I was wrong then I'm sorry.
I too like to make the comment of , "you're gay" overly wordy.
everybody is just "looking" for a reason to be sensitive. "Reaching" for a way to react. The purpose of my previous post was to make distinct any future need to be responsible for those comments. To be precise, you were putting words in my mouth I did not say, and I think I responded in a fair manner, sans any "look pal" or any need to go reeling in "everybody who knows me" type support. Try standing on your own two feet during a debate. It's very liberating. Do so without any emotional ramp. It might be an achievement for you.
And you were very wrong. I was responding to Jason's challenge to turn this thread into 10 page thread via his technique of liberties with the 6-7 year old child's virtues and innocence. There was never anything else in play. You were very wrong. Apology accepted. Are we done?
If you ever want to confirm that homophobia (or at least, discomfort with gay people) exists, come to the Paddock. 99% of you are an embarrassment to the human race. And yes, I understand some posts are jokes.
Translation= someone doesn't agree with me or shares my enthusiasm for homosexuality therefor I will label them as something negative and claim they're an embarrassment for not sharing the same ideology.
So tolerant. Sounds like you took a page from the book After the Ball.