alexi
New Member
Posts: 1
|
Post by alexi on Sept 20, 2008 16:54:25 GMT -5
Well, I can't help myself to posting a message on this thread, but I assure you, this will be my first and only post here, as I do not wish to engage in a cyclical argument with an irrational individual. If, however, it is shown that Skot can react and discuss with me reasonably, I will respond.
That being said, I'm an eighteen-year-old straight male from Canada, and I've been in a relationship with and individual of the opposite sex for a year and a half now.
I would never, however, pretend that my girlfriend is "mine" or that she has a god-given duty to be in a relationship with me. There is absolutely nothing, except for our love, that binds her to me, and I'm sure you agree. If I see my relationship with her like this, then it follows that I could not impose this "penis-duty" on any other woman, as it would be illogical to single her out and give her the choice while not giving the choice to another woman.
What this means, Skot, is that if you accept my earlier statement about not having the right to force my girlfriend to remain with me, you must also accept the fact that I cannot force *any* woman to be with me. If no woman wants to be with me, that is not "womanhood's" problem for not doing its duty, it is my own problem for driving women away.
Furthermore, as there are roughly the same amount of gay men as there are gay woman, which is roughly 10% of any given population, it is false to claim that homosexuality interferes with the "balance" of human society. Thus, even if homosexuality were somehow nonexistent, there would be the same proportion of straight men and straight women in society. And thus, it would be quite a stretch to claim that lonely individuals are caused by homosexuals being selfish.
To illustrate this point, think of this situation: let's say you have a hundred attractive straight people, fifty males and fifty females, who have no previous knowledge of each other. Now put all of these people in some kind of village where they are removed from the rest of society and all their needs are met (bear with me). Given time, the individuals will begin to get acquainted, and it would not be surprising in the least to see many of them form couples and start having sexual relations. But it would be just as easy to imagine that not all of the hundred people will find suitable partners. Some people will surely be left alone as personalities are not always compatible. Now take the same situation, but with 10% of the males and 10% of the females who are homosexual. This addition does not change the equation in the least bit, as there are still 90 straight individuals that can form straight couples, much like there were 100 individuals before. Thus, the same thing will happen, more or less, with this new situation, and there will still be just as many lonely individuals as in the first situation.
What my example is trying to illustrate can thus be summarized in a single sentence: that there is no correlation between the amount of homosexuals and the amount of lonely individuals in a given population. It is just an unimportant variable in this equation.
So, then, what is it that causes these lonely individuals, who do not have partners within my example? This question can be abstracted to the much larger question of why people don't always like each other, but for the purposes of this argument, we'll just aggregate the reasons for this in the category of "personal disagreement".
Thus, this leads me to my conclusion. Contrarily to what you state in this thread, it is not because of lesbians that you have not found a suitable partner, because as I've demonstrated, the addition of homosexuals does not change the way heterosexuals react and couple themselves together.
In my personal analysis, then, the real reason why women reject you is not that they are lesbians, it is that they are merely at a personal disagreement with you on many things, or that your personalities are just not compatible. And thus, from what I've heard you say in this thread, what with the "duty" or women to the pleasure of men, and the possession of women by men, I will go so far as to say that you're not an anti-lesbian, you're an anti-feminist, which means, in other words, that you're sexist. This aspect of you is thus repulsive to any self-respecting woman, who will see a relationship with you as undesirable.
In reality, then, all the women that you've deemed as being lesbians were probably not all lesbians, you've just associated feminism and lesbianism together, which is a common fallacy. I do hope that you read my post carefully and that you understand what I'm trying to convey to you, because I am sure that if you change your attitude towards women, they will like you better.
However, some things just cannot be changed. I will be waiting with semi-disinterest at your reply, which will no doubt be unintelligible and irrational. That being said, I do hope you prove this last statement of mine wrong.
|
|
|
Post by SKOT on Sept 20, 2008 17:38:47 GMT -5
I have always presumed that people understand things, grasp things, have an ability to comprehend subtlety, nuance and implication.
I'm starting to fear though, that all too many people, simply don't....or, aren't.
Is stupidity a disease? Can you catch it?
Or, as is more likely the case, is it wilful ignorance here.....is it the ply of being deliberately obtuse, that elicits such patently....dumb....responses?
I'll start with you Samantha, then get to Colin.
As I've started with here, I assume that other people can savvy what I am alluding to when I write certain things.
And I think now that you're jusy treying to mess around, feign misundersatnding of my words, and generally attempt to tire me out. Won't work.
Now, with the way I have written about this phrase "homosexuality", it should be....it is....clearly obvious what is being said.
Yes, there are people committing acts of "homosexuality" and "bisexuality", and all manner of other perversions.
And, obviously, the people committing "homosexuality" and "lesbianism" are more than maliciously eager to show it all off, splash it all around, on websites, on blogsites, in nightclubs, on the street ! And you're now one of them, sadly, Samantha.
However, the act, does not make the person.
Get it?!
This inversion of natural sexuality, this "homosexuality", is NOT an inherent identity. "homosexuality" is NOT akin to race, ehtnicity, or gender.
You were born a female, Samantha, you were born your race and ethnicity. NO-ONE is 'born' to indulge in a diverted, biased, barren, "comfortable" "same sex" "lifestyle".
There can be an ex-"homosexual", but never an "ex-Negro", for example.
Is it clear now? I am having to spell it out for you, am I coming in loud and clear?
This behaviour, though prettied up with an official sounding title, is not inherent, is most definitely not natural, is never, ever, right, is not the way anyone is "meant to be", and is not the aloof, superior, achievement, beyond all approach, reproach, or consequence, that so many smugly consider it to be.
So, as I always stress in inverted coma's. Though so many people commit "homosexuality", are being "homosexuals" and "lesbians".... NO-ONE "is" "homosexual" !
Your "happiness" , your grossly self involved, misunderstanding of "happiness" is not actually the be all and end all, Samantha. Though that will come as a shock to you.
And, though you smugly, spitefully, spit out that threat about getting "married" (married?), "start a family"(?) with your "said" "partner"........it is wrong, and awful. And, yet again, you ignore implications. You are implying that your family lines may end, that no male will ever be able to touch you and love you, that society must still carry you, that , in the end....wrong doesn't "matter".
Marriage is ONLY between a man and woman. That's what marriage IS. That's what the word is for. That's what the union is.....and it is physical, emotional, psychological, mystical, and spiritual.
The Yin and Yang.
AsGod says in the Qu'ran .."He created the two spuses, the male and the female".
ALL culture and society, in EVERY corner of the globe, is centered on the crux nucleus of the core union of husband and wife.
And, I'm assuming you mean to start a family, through the 'miracle' of ARTIFICIAL insemination?
What arrogance!
What an insult.
And, as a little girl, you would never have even thought about such corruption.
It shows how wildly "free", how lacking in direction or focus, how lost, how meaningless, this "society" has become, that people entertain such fancies.
And you'll marry your "said" partner? What, so you're maybe saying that with the notoriously rampant 'promiscuity' of the vapid "lesbian scene", you're not sure which of, possibly many, "partners" you might one day "marry", and "start a family" with ?
Or, and please let this be the case, you are hinting, that once you've grown out of this garbage, you may well marry a man and start a proper family?
If you persist with your current behaviour, and "partnerships"m though, you are still expecting a productive society, which you also undermine, to keep going, and you expect males, even the guys around you, to work hard, to keep things going....just so you can persist with your "comfortable", selfish, ways.
And, what, you may be deemd wrong once you're dead? But, 'til then, all bets are off, you're out of touch, and still get to indulge in this vain, perversity?
NO.
That's wrong, NOW.
It's always wrong.
It's wrong now, it will be worse then.
Please, stop it now !
SKOT
|
|
|
Post by Me on Sept 20, 2008 18:35:47 GMT -5
Okay, I had a whole long post written up about this but honestly, it can be summed up to this: Don't quote the Qur'an or any other religious book, just don't. It makes you look like a religious idiot rather than just an idiot. Stick to more-easily defended sources than that because honestly, these books were not written by God (and I dare you to show me proof otherwise WITHOUT pointing to the book itself) and historically were found to have been edited, rewritten, and worked over to fit the politics at the time.
Now as for your definition of marriage, the ONLY reason it says man and woman is because the word is from the Middle Ages. Back then, people went around dueling each other and killing and whatnot. I'd like to think that our society's moved a little bit past that point, don't you?
Awaiting better sources here, Skot
|
|
|
Post by SKOT on Sept 20, 2008 18:44:16 GMT -5
Alexi,
Here's a new one!
And, 'congratulations', you seem to have graduated with flying colours from Poli-Cor-U.
Nicely brainwashed, and ready to fit in as a good little cog in this new status quo.
Did they let you keep that little piece of brain they removed, and your balls, in a jar? Did they allow you to keep a sliver of your soul?
You're 18? And have grown up in the last 18 years of this "society"....well, you're definitely at a loss then. It's been a heck of a time. And, young males, devoid of any heart, strength, sensitivity, integrity, or security, are the tragic outcome.
Don't fret though, your real character, real morality, real understanding, real soul, are still there.
As yet, you'd know very little about real suffering, or worry. Which, in itself, is not a bad thing, but then when you start doleing out ill-informed 'wisdom', that's when things take aturn for the worse.
I'll will get to the crux of what is wrong with what you're saying. Either you have, utterly, mis-read my words....or you are tellinga lie about me. Which is it?
I have never. Never. Said that men "own" women.
Men, and women, though, DO have a duty, and an obligation, to one another. It's called humanity, Alexi, it's called society. It's called reliability, responsibility, and harmony.
Please, don't try and play me off, as what I am not.
Sadly, Alexi, your current attitude, is the dividends of a fractured, reversed, pointless deconstruction of society.
You've been in a relationship with an individual of the opposite sex for a year and a half now..........well, thanks for that clinical prognosis, Dr Alexi. You've had a girlfriend for a year and a half, Alexi. You've been loving, and being loved, by someone of your complimentary gender, for a year and a half....that's the way to think of it.......and good for both of you.
That does not make anything else right....what, you're "ok", and to heck with anyone else?
And, what though Alexi.......are you saying that you may next be (steely mechanical voice) "in a relationship with an individual of the same sex" next?
Funny, Alexi, we often here loving couples referring to each other as mine. Remember? 'She's mine', 'He's mine', 'your's mine and our's'!
And, Alexi, don't think for a second that all the "homosexuals" and "lesbians" don't get into very bitter, twisted, extreme areas of who's "mine" !
The fact is, Alexi, men and women DO have a God given duty to be in relationship with each other.
Did I say anything about "penis duty"? No. Having said that.....the male sex drive is an extremely powerful thing, you must know that, and male sexual frustration is a terrible problem!
Did I say anything about "force", Alexi? No.
And yet, people, particularly men, are "forced" now, to always "accept" whatever 'choice' women make. And it is not good. "lesbianism" is being forced on society. And an unnatural, anti-social, self absorbed thing can only ever be forced!
Are you saying, Alexi, that of your girlfriend leaves, either for another guy, or, God forbid, for a 'girl'...................you'll entertain no heartache, no pain, no ill feeling at all.......because she's not 'yours', you can't 'force' her, she has "no" duty to you?
Very awful.
And yet you, and I, and every other male, Alexi, have an encumbent duty on us, a responsibility, are forced, because we have that penis......to do the bulk of the hard work in society. Yet, now some elite of women, the "lesbians", while still benefitting from those labours, have "no" duty to us?
Awful.
See, Alexi, what you are expected to stomach.
And, like so many males today Alexi......you've been duped into believing that women can do no wrong, and any and every problem you might have with them, is because you are "driving them away" !
Alexi, what gives this 'chosen' 10%(and it's likely much more) pf the society the right to this priveleged, indulgent, "comfortable" "lifestyle".....without duty, or responsibility???
Nothing does. It doesn't matter how many people are doing something wrong, it's still wrong. And knowing about, burns me up. As it would, any sensitive person.
Your callous "mathematics" about people, relationships, loneliness, and why those so vain as to become "homosexuals" and "lesbians" should still just be able to "get away" with it, are just atrocious Alexi.
Through everything I have ever written Alexi, I have stressed the big picture, the overwhelming reasons, WHY "homosexuality" and "lesbianism" are wrong.....AND... I've illustrated HOW it hurts and affects people.....with me as a most painfully key example.
The cosmic, and the intimate, Alexi. The why, and the how.
The social, and the personal.
"Funny", to, that you critique me for being personal, for being 'irrational', about this.............yet the SOLE "argument" for "homosexuality" has been, people can 'choose' to do "whatever they want", people can "love" whoever they "want", there is "no right and wrong", 'no-one has any duty to anyone'(!), that, basically...."whatever goes" !,??
There is a major difference Alexi, between a man and woman not having chemistry as individuals......and the callous rejection of an entire gender! Yes, many men will be rejected by 'straight' women, however, he did still stdand a chance, he could take the blocks.
It's a whole other thing, to be cruelly, maliciously, rejected, from the get-go, because of your gender! And I believe you mentioned something about, sexism? "homosexuality", and "lesbianism"....are no different, actually worse then, racism and sexism...................they are actually the Everest of sexism.
But, because it's so "hot", it is all glossed over, and people are frced to 'accept' it, and guys like you Alexi, are fooled into debasing yourself before it.
Alexi, men and women are, in fact, the 'possession' of each other, and that is because we are all the possession of God. And God's will on this is absolute, and God's meaning of, and for, men and woman, is absolute and true.
Alexi, I have always, naturally and inherently, cared deeply for women. And , at one time, was quite the 'male feminist'. However, I learned better. Feminism, is actually one of the worst disaster in human history. And, don't be fooled, there are a great many women, including some "feminists" who know that.
"feminism", which had some key points to make, very early on, dissolved long ago into gender supremacism....and has, for too long, been a great disservice to humanity.
Tragically, the feminine element of "feminism" has been thrown away.
Man and Woman are two parts to a whole.....one without the other is useless, meaningless......no matter how "trendy' any "lifestyles" may appear.
I am, in a manner of speaking, somewhat of a masculinist, Alexi. Far to many men have been stripped of all dignity, reduced to uncertain, insecure, slump shouldered, serfs........pawns in a "new" female supremacist "utopia". Walking on eggshells, sitting on their hands, biting their tongues. Held back from fulfilling their true, and vital , role in society.
Well, not this little black duck.
Men and Women do have expectations that we have a right to expect from each other Alexi.
Knowing that, expecting that, does not make me "sexist".
Au contraire.........the older generations, whereupon men and women knew, and were secure in their roles, where dynamic, progressive, focused and strong. And , the men, who were stronger, secure, were also more gentle.
Being truly respectful of women, being a 'feminist', does not mean being keen to lay down and be walked over, Alexi.
I despise "lesbianism", that does not make me "sexist", and being anti-feminism, does not make me sexist!
With everything you've written, you actually have the nerve to use phrases like "fallacy", and "irrational"?
There is a true, respectful, obligatory, wholesome, creative, soulful, interconnected, harmonious union meant for all men and women, Alexi.
There IS a need betwen men and women.
There, I have reminded you of it, it is intelligable, rational, and passionate and true.
I have proven your statements wrong, and they were patently wring to begin with.
Now, start remembering more.....
SKOT
|
|
|
Post by SKOT on Sept 20, 2008 19:48:13 GMT -5
Why, ME, should people try to ignore the Divine gifts and blessings, that have been given us?
The scriptures are the scriptures, yes, the earlier books have been, to some degree, tampered with, that is what necessitated the Qu'ran, which is unaltered, which is True.
And, all concerns, discussions, and arguments wind up with God. There is nothing outside the Divine concern, nothing unencompassed by Divinity.
If you spurn Divine guidance, ME, you only invite Satanic. There is no limbo zone.
God is the source, the religious books ARE the religious books......why should anyone be forced to ignore the greatest gifts of all, in the fight against arrogance and depravity.....just to appease irresponsible troublemakers?
It's shocking, that you seek to spurn Divinity, revelation, meaning...soul.........just to go along with a vain trend.
AND while attempting to snub the best that was given to humanity, ignoring the higher potential of humanity.......you're liable to go along with Pam's theory about "love" between 'human beings'. Where is this love, whether proper, or misused, coming from??
Don't think hip 'atheism' is going to cover anything over. Communism is responsible for more deaths than anything else!
You're all talking about people having "no rights" to demand anything of each other, yet you arrogantly demand I ignore the greatest source of all, the Divine source, via the Holy Qu'ran !?
We must quote the religious books, everything goes back to them. They are a gift, and a mercy !
'Funny' to, that those who with one breathe say, "don't quote religious books", with the very next, to excuse their vulgar behaviour, will quote "judge not lest ye be judged", "ye who is without sin.......", and "love thy neighbour".
'Tis a very shifty gane you're getting into, Me.
And, just for "arguments" sake.....better to be a religious "idiot", and "idiot" with for a reason, than just a plain idiot, like yourself Me, and idiot for no reason.
Oh, and, dabbling with some junior 'psychic' intuition, Me?
Sensed what I may have been writing soon, in regards some of Pam's "facts" and "sources"?
You're trite misreading of what I wrote about the truth of marriage, and you allusions to duelling and killing and "whatnot", is awful.
I was going to write about the discrepancies in Pam's "arguments". Yes, there was 'bisexuality' amongst jaded ancient elites.........and in Greece and Rome this usually meant "bi/homosexuality" between men and young boys........should we mimic that? Or "lesbianism" between women and younger girls........must we mimic that as well?
And this "bi/homosexuality" always went in tandem with all manner of other depravities as well.
And, the animals.....ahh, the animals. NO animal chooses "homosexuality" as a "lifestyle".
And, some animals eat their young......should we do that, because some animals do? Some animals eat their own vomit and excrement...should we do that to? You know, seeing as how there is "no right and wrong", "no duty".....and "who can judge, anyway"??
See, the tangled web, Me, the awful mess, made by this vulgar tampering with everything?!
This mess caused by attempting to make things up now, as you go?
And by conceitedly ignoring Divine guidance !
SKOT
|
|
|
Post by Pam on Sept 21, 2008 0:50:26 GMT -5
Firstly, I'd like to inform SKOT that Alexi won't be coming back on this forum. He did mention that if he doesn't have any rational answer, he won't even bother. I am assured that he will find your Alexi-bashing plenty annoying. Congratulations! You have turned away a possible male sympathiser who happens to be logical due to you being unable to counter HIS very well constructed essay with one of your own.
Guess who's the more learned/poetic/etc etc etc one now ^^.
Secondly, as SKOT isn't able to answer my rebuttal. I'll keep my nose out until he addresses me directly. He just keeps rehashing his points, so technically, I'll probably just copy-paste my posts.
Finally, I'd like to say that SKOT, has quite possibly, taken what he wants from Alexi's well constructed post, and have turned it against him, by portraying Alexi in an emotion-less and brainwashed character. Like he's been doing to everybody. While ignoring the abundant of logic Alexi has tried to prove.
Yes, Stupidity is a disease. SKOT is the main supplier, he is the ultimate origin, and is currently trying to infect us all in his current rampage. There's no other reason he has, for insulting STRAIGHT MEN who has a higher chance of seeing things his way. Everybody, please take a healthy dose of common sense, logic, reasoning and compassion to keep the SKOT Stupidity away!
(BTW, Please take note of how utterly polite/compassionate/learned/cultured/[insert another synonym here] SKOT's post are, just like he claims but never shows.)
Have a LOVELY SKOT-stupidity-free day!
Lots of LOVE,
Pammy
|
|
|
Post by Pam on Sept 21, 2008 1:00:37 GMT -5
I'll will get to the crux of what is wrong with what you're saying. Either you have, utterly, mis-read my words....or you are tellinga lie about me. Which is it? [....] Please, don't try and play me off, as what I am not.
(Quoted from SKOT)
Great! He understands how ANNOYING it is when others do it to him. Kindly take that into your stride, and stop doing it to us. That includes generalisation and your skewed ideas that we believe that we can "get away with anything" given our gender, ethnic group and age, as repeated over and over again.
Thank you very muchly.
Regards,
Pam
|
|
|
Post by SKOT on Sept 21, 2008 1:16:48 GMT -5
Why do y'all keep taking what's said, ignoring most of it, twisting the rest, and really just trying to paint an entirely wrong picture?
Malcolm X once spoke about how some people will, "take one little thing that you've said, ignore all the rest, change it around, and try to make you look like that which you actually are not".
Alexi "bashing"?
"bashing"?....where'd you get that from?
Not bashing.....no, not bashing....answering, confronting, imploring.....and, if anything, trying to help him!
Alexi was not sympathising with anything. His, is a glaring example of what has happened to young males. Metaphoric eunuch's, intellectually straightjacketed, imprisoned by dehumanising political correctness. Unsure now, about themselves, but damned sure made to be sure that all the cards now are stacked in women's favour !
I put your trite examples of certain behaviour, seemingly supposed to "allow" contemporary perversity, right in their place, Pam. Just as I took Alexi's way off allegation that my hating "lesbianism", indicates being anti-feminism, which then leads to sexism.....and nailed it firmly in it' s coffin , and buried it.
It's frightful that you imagine my being sensitive, is supposed to be expressed via playing the role of a human doormat, or that gentleness should be conveyed by insipid weakness.
And, you feel no qualms about casually handing out this insult , and that, and act all put out when someone shows any spine, any guts, any soul.
The comments, the statments, the replies must be repetitive, this forum was set up in the vain attempt to promote/defend/push "homosexuality", which is wrong. If anyone is still either indulging in it, or supporting it, then the fight against it must be repeated.
And, Pam, you say nothing of what I write about your ludicrous, Googled, "sources", which in the minds of the hoi poloi, pass conveniently for a "logical and reasonable""argument". Which, they don't.
Pam, you make a grave error in thinking that I will jump at the 'support' of 'straight man', solely on that account.
There is NOT some war, some schism, between the sexes, as much as those becoming "gay" like to play it off like that.
The truth is the truth.
Anyone, who is misguided, is exactly that, and I'll let them know.
I talk about stupidity, and then you call me stupid.....very smart Pam. It's like once, I was 'debating' an issue with some people, and I said 'don't be so narrow minded'.....and for the rest of the faltering 'discussion', all they could say was "you're narrow minded, you're narrow minded".
Just parrotting things won't erase the truth Pam.
It is clearly not a stupidity-free day, this stuff is still going on. Point is though, what you're up to, and supporting, isn't actually stupidity, though it sure looks like it.....no, it is ignorance, which actually requires wilful, malicious, intelligence.
Arrogant and dismissive......................ignorance is far worse.
SKOT
|
|
|
Post by Pam on Sept 21, 2008 2:34:04 GMT -5
ROFL.
He-who-has-no-proper-source is mocking my hastily put together source. My source was in CONTEXT to what I was writing at that time. Wikipedia was to prove that animals engage in homosexual behaviour. Askmen was to prove that the prostate gland is, indeed, up the male's anus.
I didn't attempt to use both sources to justify why homosexuality is to be allowed. I used both of them to PROVE that what I'm saying is correct. But hey, if you can't see that....
I mentioned Alexi-bashing since it seems like you, being unable to contradict his logical post, resort to trying to dehumanise his character. Since you're oh so educated, do try to read your own posts in depth ^^. After all, its human communication, supposedly, your forte. Wait, that's what you did to me too! Unable to counter my logical post, you attack it at the source! ME! So you tried to portray me as a spoilt, pampered, ignorant, emotion-less chinese female that breeze through life.
That's really really mature of you.
Actually, I think the ignorant one is you. Unwilling to see logic and reasoning.
You counter my points, with your trademark "I say so because I just do" manner. Its not working. You're not convincing ANYBODY. Kindly do not come back until you are able to counter our points with a shred of logic and reasoning.
|
|
|
Post by SKOT on Sept 21, 2008 3:26:51 GMT -5
Yes, some animals engage in sexual behaviour, in isolated instances, with others of their same gender..........and this provides an excuse for human beings to vainly choose "homosexual" "lifestyles", in what way ? ...............
The male prostate gland is situated a little ways up inside past the anus.................and this provides an excuse for Samantha, and any other girls to become "lesbians", how ?......................
You 'proved', that what you are saying is correct........ Yes, and so what? You claimed to be posing evidence as to why "homosexuality" happens, in an attempt to "justify" it.
You couldn't, you haven't, you can't.
So, you proved what you were saying was correct.......so? That does not make it right, conclusive, or in any way a viable reason or excuse.
We could all find something somewhere, quote it....and, what ? Correctly quoting something, makes something else, which is horrendous, suddenly "acceptable"?!
For God's sake Pam.....I was trying to REhumanise Alexi's character !
Revive his huMAN character !
It's "funny", a few comments back I was criticised for being too personal, for expressing too personal a view.....for being too subjective.
And you're demanding I be more logical, and reasonable, which, ironically, I was criticised for being too much of originally.
Your SOLE "defence" is that people should be able to "love" whoever they want..............and yet you also demand logic and reason from me ?!
I give it all.......soul, love, passion, intellect, logic and reason.
SKOT
|
|
|
Post by Pam on Sept 21, 2008 5:54:57 GMT -5
The male prostate gland is situated a little ways up inside past the anus.................and this provides an excuse for Samantha, and any other girls to become "lesbians", how ?
Answer: Simple, I wasn;t referring only to Samantha and other girls. I was actually proving that there's a biological reason why men become gays. I was heading more of the general Homosexuality track then, before I realised that you're only focused on Lesbians.
I think that if by attempting to "rehuMANise" Alexi's character, you're actually taking a logical, rational man, who is confident in his own sexuality and shows RESPECT for females, and attempting to turn him into a raging, emotional, crazed man. Not too sure if he'll like that. He might end up single for the rest of his life for being a male chauvinsitic pig.
"You 'proved', that what you are saying is correct........ Yes, and so what? You claimed to be posing evidence as to why "homosexuality" happens, in an attempt to "justify" it.
You couldn't, you haven't, you can't."
Says the guy who is unable to provide proof or evidence of his own points, and yet pokes fun at somebody else's proof and points. Wow.
I'm just saying, we should have the freedom to love who we want to. But apparently, that sounds just a wee bit weird to little SKOT-y boy here. Maybe its just me, but I seriously doubt that applying your life's experience to every person will endear you to anybody.
If you want to deal with me, you deal with my way of discussion. Others want you to be more emotional. I want you to be Logical, Rational, Reasonable AND compassionate enough to understand the situation here.
The Rational Mind and the Emotional Mind Makes the Wise Mind. Try to combine both together. I'm finding it easy enough, maybe its harder for you.
BTW, you still haven't addressed concerns a few posts back, and you haven't given me that essay yet. Still waiting.
I'd like to end this post off with a reminder, that I'm simply asking for people to accept and understand homosexuals (not just lesbians, or gays, but homosexuals). They aren't doing society any harm (as proven by Alexi's Post) and they aren't trying to 'promote' their lifestyle beyond that of their blogs and websites (which you can easily not visit). They do not barge into YOUR blogspace and demand that you turn lesbian. It is hard for a non-lesbian to convert, I'd know. Any lesbian establishment does the same amount of advertising than usual establishments. Should I go on a rage against bikini parties now?
If it is so hard for you to understand the concept that lesbians and gays love each other, then at least accept that they're not a type of cancer spreading through society. 10% is a relatively small number, as compared to the world's population.
But understand that they are people too. They are people with feelings, and emotions. Not what you portray us to be. Robotic, selfish bitches from the depths of hell. If it is too complex a notion for you to grasp, I ask again, for you to leave and not impose your presence and your baseless words against them.
|
|
|
Post by Colin on Sept 21, 2008 12:40:46 GMT -5
Funny, even though he said he was going to say something about my post, I still haven’t seen anything which even slightly refers to what I said. To be perfectly honest SKOT, to me, you just seem like a single minded idiot that doesn’t know when to give up.. Or even make any valid point's to defend himself. It seems to me like all you can do is reply with things that aren’t entirely true or are obviously personal opinion... well... I would say that, but then my post was entirely opinionated and you still haven’t even tried to pick that one apart... is it that all you can do is argue with woman... which kinda makes me think you have something against Sammy and/or Pam in particular. Well... just because I’m a nice guy I actually held a poll on a website I run. This poll was done under complete privacy, so not even I know who posted what. The site has on average, 3000 hits a day and considering the topic of the poll I’m actually surprised that after one day there are enough votes to make it a valid piece of evidence. The results of the poll stated that the majority of people don’t care if someone’s homosexual or not, with only 2 votes(at the time of this post) saying its not right. (here’s a link to the poll: Click Here ) Now I’m just going to have fun with what you’ve been saying. "There can be an ex-"homosexual", but never an "ex-Negro", for example." Hmmm... So Michael Jackson’s still black is he?... are you blind? Or just stupid? "Marriage is ONLY between a man and woman." - SKOT Funny... Sir Elton John is married to a man.... "I'm assuming you mean to start a family, through the 'miracle' of ARTIFICIAL insemination?" - SKOT I should let you know that the majority of orphaned children around the world are adopted by homosexual couples. Which from your point of view is apparently entirely wrong... so what... are all those orphaned children supposed to stay in a home without the comforts of a family? You’re either an idiot or an arsehole... take your pick. "AsGod says in the Qu'ran .."He created the two spuses, the male and the female"." - SKOT You know... this quote is wrongly used. For instance if you were to keep up in your English classes (which you obviously don’t since you can’t actually structure what you say), you would realise that using a word as plural and THEN giving the 2 variations implies that there are more than just the one couple. So in reality, this quote, interpreted into proper English would mean that there were Male spouses, Separate female spouses and the possibility of there being a male and female couple.... Go back to school you fool. "As yet, you'd know very little about real suffering, or worry." - SKOT And neither do you... Do you actually read what you’re typing? It’s obvious you’ve lived a very privileged life. Don’t even dare talk about suffering. Since you’re completely incapable of logical thinking, here’s a little piece of wisdom for you: "Beneath the web-thin simulacrum, inundating and fecund. Live myth and manifold truths. Not one point of view can embrace them at a glance." - Yin Man-Wei Basically, your 1 point of view is NOTHING compared the majority, which, based of FACT, is that homosexuality is acceptable in EVERY!! Culture and EVERY!! Society. You know. This was supposed to be Sammy's personal blog so she can talk to her friends and/or post her own points of view on certain things yet you came in here and started bashing her for being a lesbian? Yet you dare call other people arrogant and ignorant. You need to grow up and take a good look at yourself. Your lucky Sammy's a nice lassy and hasn’t just banned you from this blog for being an arse to her and her friends... hell I even got pulled into this just because you were being such a nob. Either accept other peoples points of view as they are, or do us all a favour and keep your trap shut.
|
|
|
Post by Ada on Sept 21, 2008 19:44:18 GMT -5
Do not. Fucking. Call my friend stupid.
You're a waste of life, Skot.
You post a lot of shit without any scientific backing, without any SOLID, STATISTICAL PROOF, without a single solitary iota of logic either. You climb on your fucking high horse with your painfully typed out letters and guess what? It's all in your fucking head. None of the hypotheses you have written are PROOF.
There is a difference between a person's sex and gender. The Encyclopedia fucking Britannica says that gender is "an individual's self-conception as being male or female, as distinguished from actual biological sex." Your sex is nothing but a set of organs. Wrap your fucking head around that.
And please don't give me that fuckcrap about marriage. Marriage is an artificial convention that varies from culture to culture, that was meant to suit the circumstances of an era, a culture, and the environment. Polygyny is practised in cultures that have men who can support more than one wife. Polyandry is practised in cultures that are based around a single solitary matriarch.
As cultures evolve from their base roots, cultural conventions evolve. There are no solid definitions of these cultural conventions because culture in itself is arbitrary. Cultures are merely "systems of symbols and meanings that even their creators contest, that lack fixed boundaries, that are constantly in flux, and that interact and compete with one another." [Findley, Carther Vaughn and John Alexander Rothney (2006). Twentieth-century World. Sixth edition, p. 14.]
So your little, close-minded idea of marriage being ONLY between men and women? Good luck with that. Culture is a means to an end, to achieve what humanity needs and wants, and if Sam wants to marry Cara, then for fuck's sake, that's her prerogative.
|
|
|
Post by SKOT on Sept 22, 2008 0:32:22 GMT -5
Do you know what Colin? I was going to provide a disclaimer regarding Michael Jackson, but I thought it too obvious.
I really didn't think anyone would bethat plum ridiculous as to mention it.
Michael Jackson's appearance now is the result of drastic, and damaging, plastic surgery and chemical procedures.
Here's the fact, when Michael dies, the coroner is going to put a tag on his toe, and it's going to say "Negro".
Colin, no-one "is" a "lesbian". Samantha "is" not a "lesbian". Vain, unnatural "same sex" behaviour is NOT an inherent identity.
I am 'bashing' this behaviour, because it bashes me.
This forum was NOT set up for Samantha to discuss her exciting new "lifestyle" with her friends. It was set up in response to my confronting their "lesbianism" on her blog, where the comment board was becoming filled up.
All your alluding to other things is woefully misguided.
"homosexuality" and "lesbianism" is being forcefully "accepted" by societies. These behaviours are NOT inherently "accepted". On the contrary, ALL cultures revile this stuff, which deforms, and then destroys, real culture.
Funny Colin, that you dismiss my one voice, as being swamped by this new 'majority'. And, I'm sure that if it was the "one voice" of a "gay activist", the shoes would change, right?
Majority doesn't always make for right, Colin.
My one voice of truth will echo louder and longer than all of your cacophony of p.c. dogma, and trite liberal harping.
Like Bob Marley sang......I'm the small axe.
Ada, I never called anyone stupid. I spoke about the 'stupidity'. And I actually spoke of the ignorance on show here. And ignorance actually takes, actually requires, intelligence.
How spoiled of you to say that culture is a "means to an end".
Culture IS the means, and IS the end. Humanity, and culture, go in tandem.
I don't care a damn for "f**k's sake", Ada. I'm here for God's sake. And the for the sake of real culture, real humanity.
There is a MAJOR difference between want's , and needs.
Marriage IS marriage, because marriage is what marriage is. And it is the full spectrum, from proper physical union, through emotional, psychological and spiritual harmony.
Pam, the place where the prostate gland is situated is NOT a 'biological' reason that men become "gays". What 'biology' class did you attend? Or miss!
Pam, the corrupting rise of "homosexuality" is doing society TOTAL harm. And Alexi's blase "acceptance" of it is a staggering example of how!
If you'll actually start listening Pam, you'll see I say that all people are people. People make bad choices like committing "homosexuality" or "lesbianism". This behaviour does not make the person.
And, as a person, as people, I expect better from them. This behaviour does not put them at arms length. Does not make them beyond concern, compassion, or indeed reproach!
Ada , NO-ONE is a 'waste of life' !
SKOT
|
|
|
Post by Pam on Sept 22, 2008 2:37:53 GMT -5
Is stupidity a disease? Can you catch it?
Ada, I never called anyone stupid. I spoke about the 'stupidity'.
Quoted from SKOT.
BEHOLD! The CONTRADICTION!. Of course, he didn't SAY we were stupid, but see, we know english. We infer from the tone, and the word placement. The Sarcasm! The Mockery! Oh My Goodness, How could you?!
I merely meant that the prostate gland COULD be a reason why some guys are gay. After all, its a more intense orgasm! Who won't want that if they're comfortable with it?
Oh, and SKOT, if you'll actually start READING MY POSTS PROPERLY, you'll see that I'm still waiting for that really long post of yours to contradict mine. Oh, and didn't I mention to stop acting like you know us? Great, if you can remember me parroting that point, you can now apologise to Ada for calling her spoilt.
She quoted OMG! PROOF! EVIDENCE! Which you are unable to do so. So, please, do stop trying to foul up the personality of myself, Alexi, Colin, Ada, or ANYBODY, just because you are not able to counter our points with anything more than a feeble "it is correct because I say it is".. An example "Marriage IS marriage, because marriage is what marriage is.", Quoted by SKOT.
There's many more aspects to successful and failed marriages that you don't even bother to take into consideration.
Nevertheless, SKOT has yet to proving any proof, or is unable to name any accepted proof. And as such, it is pointless to argue with a being who CLAIMS to be smart, and yet, keeps repeating himself. I seriously don't see why I need to keep writing new posts, when all the parrots about, I can just form a collage of copy paste >.<.
No point in wasting my time on this silly excuse of a debate any longer. I'll go off to continue my studies, while being very assured of myself that I will NEVER EVER sound like the illogical, unreasonable and totally comical SKOT here.
~Pammy
P/S:
This forum was NOT set up for Samantha to discuss her exciting new "lifestyle" with her friends. It was set up in response to my confronting their "lesbianism" on her blog, where the comment board was becoming filled up.
Actually, yes, that's right. This forum was set up because of YOU, and she can easily shut it down again, without ever giving you an avenue to express yourself anywhere near us ever again. This forum is NOT for us to promote homosexuality or to go against men. Its simply a forum where its Everybody Else, Vrs SKOT. Where even middlemen like Alexi are casted by SKOT into a weak, sorry excuse of an Man, simply for showing tolerance, understanding and logic.
|
|