Re: Is Homosexuality Genetic? Ask the Ancient Greeks
Poetic Justice
> On Jan 2, 3:00 pm, Poetic Justice <PoeticJustice@talk-n-dog...com>
> wrote:
>> On 1/2/2010 2:36 PM, Enos Penvy wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jan 2, 11:55 am, Poetic Justice <PoeticJustice@talk-n-dog...com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 1/2/2010 1:56 AM, Enos Penvy wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Jan 1, 11:00 pm, Poetic Justice <PoeticJustice@talk-n-dog...com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/1/2010 10:27 PM, Enos Penvy wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On Dec 31 2009, 3:03 pm, Geode <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 31 dic, 03:56, anonymous <anonym...@anonymous.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>> Info Junkie wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> That poster corrected me for responding about homosexual marriages. I
>>>>>>>>>> agreed, which left his comment wrt "homsexuals causing problems", of
>>>>>>>>>> which I don't care what they do in private, but in the public area the
>>>>>>>>>> majoruity fo society makes those rules and there is no long term data
>>>>>>>>>> that claism if society does accept and recognize the validity of
>>>>>>>>>> homosexual as "normal" that it will not "cause problems" to society
>>>>>>>>>> long term. Period.
>>
>>>>>>>>> You are absolute correct. Homosexuals cause problems by their very
>>>>>>>>> existence. They homosexuals ever get the righ to marry is immaterial.
>>>>>>>>> What is important to realize is that homosexuals cause problems because
>>>>>>>>> those that don't get married and produce or adopt babies have a lesser
>>>>>>>>> debt load. Children are cost about $35 dollars a day for an 18 year
>>>>>>>>> period. Homosexuals cause problems by escaping such a huge expense by
>>>>>>>>> traveling, supporting the arts, enjoying fine dining and participating
>>>>>>>>> in sports such as sailing, swimming, and surfing the south seas. While
>>>>>>>>> many heterosexual couples produce offspirng and rent accommodations,
>>>>>>>>> homosexuals by and renovate houses and usually sell them at a good
>>>>>>>>> profit while their neighbouring heterosexuals struggle to feed their
>>>>>>>>> babies.
>>
>>>>>>>> you are talking of homosexuals not having babies, and by such do not
>>>>>>>> share the burden of raising babies.
>>
>>>>>>> The truth is that homosexuals DO have babies, and do raise them.
>>
>>>>>>>> The trouble I found with your
>>>>>>>> argument is that many heterosexual couples, do not have babies
>>>>>>>> either.
>>
>>>>>>> Correct.
>>
>>>>>>>> And many women don't want to get pregnant.
>>
>>>>>>> Correct. And not all men want to be fathers.
>>
>>>>>>>> So, to be fare,
>>>>>>>> you have to compute all groups of humans that do not raise babies, or
>>>>>>>> those that produce less than 2.
>>
>>>>>>> It's a good starting point, but the fact remains that procreation or
>>>>>>> desire to procreate is not and never has been a legal point in the
>>>>>>> marriage contract.
>>
>>>>>> But it is a point for Divorce.
>>
>>>>> Is it still? Oh well. That kinda shows the individuality involved in
>>>>> the contract, though. I should think that inability to bear children
>>>>> would be a rather uncommon reason for divorce these days, but of
>>>>> course, sometimes the stated reason isn't the REAL reason for divorce,
>>>>> and of course, we weren't actually talking about divorce...
>>
>>>> Divorce is the ending of a marriage. Children are a main point on the
>>>> Dating Boards on the internet, they generally use that as criteria, do
>>>> you want children and do you have children.
>>
>>>> Marriage and Dating is all about children.
>>
>>>> My niece and her hubby had a big brew-ha-ha over having a kid. It's a
>>>> problem of when and how many and maybe when you have one and remarry and
>>>> want no more, but your spouse does. In short, people change.
>>
>>>> Remember the past what a stink was raised when an unwed mother had a
>>>> baby... Marriage and babies has been linked for a long time.
>>
>>>>> My grandmother had friends who were married and didn't (apparently
>>>>> couldn't) have children. Ya know, they were the coolest people, they
>>>>> had this amusement park. My father worked for them when he was a kid,
>>
>>>> I also know people that have no kids. I don't promote that everyone
>>>> should be single and have no children. But these days I think kids are
>>>> a problem with government telling you how to and what you have to do,
>>>> government intrusion into the family is a problem, the family is the
>>>> center of society not the government...
>>
>>>> I didn't say I wanted the Gays herded up and disposed of, simply that
>>>> there is no great use for them in society to elevate society and help
>>>> society. Society needs more people, the way to do that is to reproduce,
>>>> beyond that we need "evolution" and genetic enhancement. Gays do none
>>>> of that... but as you say they do the same that others do that no
>>>> longer have kids or never did have kids. But then the elderly are also
>>>> considered "what" by society? NO LONGER PRODUCTIVE? What to do with
>>>> people past child bearing age, how do we house them and do we allow them
>>>> to die or spend money on them to save them. In Obama-topia we are going
>>>> to weigh their value and "just give them a pill" rather than fight to
>>>> save them because.... because Obama-topia has decided that they are of
>>>> less value than a middle aged person that the money(Societies money
>>>> according to Obama) could have been spent on.
>>
>>>> If we will be measuring values of people, Gays will be less productive
>>>> and Obama-topia will drop them behind heterosexuals that are more
>>>> productive.
>>
>>>> *REMEMBER THAT IT IS PROGRESSIVES THAT STARTED DOWN THIS ROAD*
>>>> I'm simply extrapolating out where Obama-topia is heading using the
>>>> rules and past plans of the Progressives.
>>
>>>>> and it was still going when I was a little kid. These people didn't
>>>>> divorce, and we kept in touch. They sent me a gift on my high school
>>>>> graduation, and I visited them when I went to Spokane.
>>
>>>> Great, for you.
>>
>>>>> While I believe they were sad that they couldn't have kids, and while
>>>>> I know whole-heartedly that they would have if they could have, these
>>>>> people gave joy to kids. I remember being able to go back into the
>>
>>>> Which is nice.
>>
>>>> But if your parents were gay, you wouldn't have been there to enjoy it.
>>
>>>>> cotton-candy-making machine as a young child and being able to make my
>>>>> own cotton candy... I loved the little roller coaster and rode it as
>>>>> much as possible... again, it isn't only those who procreate who
>>>>> enhance live here on earth.
>>
>>>> All great stuff and yes they were part of society, just not a necessary
>>>> part.
>>
>>> Neither Jesus nor George Washington had children.
>>
>>> So, they might not have been "necessary", by your definition of
>>> "necessary", but we haven't come to agreement that only those who
>>> procreate are "necessary" (though that appears to be your definition).
>>
>> Wasn't George Washington accused of making slave babies?
>
> Not that I know of. You might be thinking of Jefferson.
>
>> Liberals love
>> that story.
>>
>> Jesus is of no importance
>> to gays or others that have no belief in
>> Christianity, in fact Liberals and Progressives claim Christians are
>> evil and created more death and mayhem than the great Socialists like
>> Mao and Stalin and Pol Pot.
>
> I have to give you credit for creating fallacies that are hard to
> name.
>
>> Are you saying the birth of a Pol Pot/Stalin/Mao, negate the birth of a
>> Christ?
>
> What I said is that Jesus had no children. You have consistently
> stated that those who have no children serve no purpose in society. I
You Liberals say Christ had no value, he is a myth. You even block
Christ from our government. So try again, so far you got zip.
Besides I say Gays are of no value to society.... Not that they are of
no value. True that 99.9% have no value at all in the grand scheme of
things but there is that one in trillion that might do something of
value which is still different from being of value to society.
> proved you wrong. Instead of admitting that you were wrong, you have
When I'm wrong I'll tell you.
> now gone into some kind of territory that nobody recognizes. Pol Pot,
> Stalin and Mao. I'd call this a non seq or red herring, but it seems
> to go beyond even that. It's so ridiculous that I am willing to bet
> this fallacy has no name.
too bad.
>> Genetically speaking there have been many great men/women that have not
>> passed on their genes
>
> "passed"
>
Yes passed, I was wrong.
>> and their greatness was lost in the sands of time,
>
> Incorrect. Their greatness exists beyond their genes. That's the
> wonderful thing about greatness.
Well since they are dead, never heard of and nameless.....
>> their genetic greatness was lost to society along with their deeds.
>
> Yet we continue to revere them, even hundreds or thousands of years
> later. Go figure, eh?
You don't know who they are or what they did and they left nothing.
Tell me who you are speaking of?
Besides neither George or Christ are said to be Gay.
Free Lunch
<PoeticJustice@talk-n-dog...com> wrote in alt.atheism:
>On 1/2/2010 4:15 PM, Enos Penvy wrote:
>> On Jan 2, 3:00 pm, Poetic Justice <PoeticJustice@talk-n-dog...com>
>> wrote:
...
>>> Are you saying the birth of a Pol Pot/Stalin/Mao, negate the birth of a
>>> Christ?
>>
>> What I said is that Jesus had no children. You have consistently
>> stated that those who have no children serve no purpose in society. I
>
>You Liberals say Christ had no value, he is a myth. You even block
>Christ from our government.
You are confused. Jesus was not blocked from government. Religions are
not allowed to use government in the US, though they do anyway.
...
Anlatt the Builder
wrote:
>
> >> Jesus is of no importance
> >> to gays or others that have no belief in
> >> Christianity, in fact Liberals and Progressives claim Christians are
> >> evil
You are clearly confusing Jesus and Christians. Most of the so-called
"conservative, family-value Christians" in this country ignore 90% of
what Jesus had to say.
>
> You Liberals say Christ had no value, he is a myth. You even block
> Christ from our government. So try again, so far you got zip.
>
Actually, many liberals I know have a number of positive things to say
about Jesus. If only his so-called followers would actually read what
he said.
> Besides I say Gays are of no value to society.... Not that they are of
> no value.
This looks like a sentence or a paragraph or SOMETHING, but it doesn't
seem to mean a whole lot.
Ray Fischer
>x-no-archive: yes
>On Jan 3, 12:53 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> Info Junkie <bondr...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>> >On Jan 2, 2:30 pm, Enos Penvy <enospe...@null.net> wrote:
>> >> On Jan 2, 8:56 am, Info Junkie <bondr...@att.net> wrote:
>> >> > On Jan 1, 10:22 pm, Enos Penvy <enospe...@null.net> wrote:
>> >> > > On Dec 31 2009, 7:51 pm, Info Junkie <bondr...@att.net> wrote:
>> >> > > > None of which provide long term benefits or stability to society.
>>
>> >> > > It is not a truth that "only those things that benefit society are
>> >> > > legal".-
>>
>> >> > That's not what I said.
>>
>> >> It's what you implied. So re-word it and we'll go from there
>>
>> >Marriages between homosexuals provide no long term benefits or
>> >stability to society.
>>
>> Ditto marriage between infertile couples. But that doesn't matter.
>> A fundamental principle of American justice is that all people get
>> treated equally under the law.
>
>Homosexuals are sexual deviants.
Says who?
> Why should they be rewarded for
>being sexual deviants?
WHy should you be rewarded for being a murderous bigot?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>Ray Fischer wrote:
>> Usenet Legends bobandcarole $$$ <usenetle...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> >x-no-archive: yes
>> >On Jan 3, 12:53 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> >> Info Junkie <bondr...@att.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Jan 2, 2:30 pm, Enos Penvy <enospe...@null.net> wrote:
>> >> >> On Jan 2, 8:56 am, Info Junkie <bondr...@att.net> wrote:
>> >> >> > On Jan 1, 10:22 pm, Enos Penvy <enospe...@null.net> wrote:
>> >> >> > > On Dec 31 2009, 7:51 pm, Info Junkie <bondr...@att.net> wrote:
>> >> >> > > > None of which provide long term benefits or stability to society.
>> >>
>> >> >> > > It is not a truth that "only those things that benefit society are
>> >> >> > > legal".-
>> >>
>> >> >> > That's not what I said.
>> >>
>> >> >> It's what you implied. So re-word it and we'll go from there
>> >>
>> >> >Marriages between homosexuals provide no long term benefits or
>> >> >stability to society.
>> >>
>> >> Ditto marriage between infertile couples. But that doesn't matter.
>> >> A fundamental principle of American justice is that all people get
>> >> treated equally under the law.
>> >
>> >Homosexuals are sexual deviants.
>>
>> Says who?
>
The Bible says that eating lobster is deviant. A book of 2000-year-od
superstitions doesn't count for much.
>Secondly a shithole isn't made for sex.
Says who, pervert? What makes you think that you get to make the
rules?
>> > Why should they be rewarded for
>> >being sexual deviants?
>>
>> WHy should you be rewarded for being a murderous bigot?
>
>I'm not a murderer OR a bigot, ray.
And homosexuals aren't deviants, bigot.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
The Chief Instigator
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> Ray Fischer wrote:
>> Usenet Legends bobandcarole $$$ <usenetle...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> >x-no-archive: yes
>> >On Jan 3, 12:53 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> >> Info Junkie <bondr...@att.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Jan 2, 2:30 pm, Enos Penvy <enospe...@null.net> wrote:
>> >> >> On Jan 2, 8:56 am, Info Junkie <bondr...@att.net> wrote:
>> >> >> > On Jan 1, 10:22 pm, Enos Penvy <enospe...@null.net> wrote:
>> >> >> > > On Dec 31 2009, 7:51 pm, Info Junkie <bondr...@att.net> wrote:
>> >> >> > > > None of which provide long term benefits or stability to society.
>> >>
>> >> >> > > It is not a truth that "only those things that benefit society are
>> >> >> > > legal".-
>> >>
>> >> >> > That's not what I said.
>> >>
>> >> >> It's what you implied. So re-word it and we'll go from there
>> >>
>> >> >Marriages between homosexuals provide no long term benefits or
>> >> >stability to society.
>> >>
>> >> Ditto marriage between infertile couples. But that doesn't matter.
>> >> A fundamental principle of American justice is that all people get
>> >> treated equally under the law.
>> >
>> >Homosexuals are sexual deviants.
>>
>> Says who?
>
Too bad for you that the bible isn't the basis of our constitution. Read
that first amendment, and have someone more literate than you explain what
it means.
> Secondly a shithole isn't made for sex.
...never mind a few hundred million, if not more, humans who don't pay
attention to your "reality".
>> > Why should they be rewarded for being sexual deviants?
>>
>> WHy should you be rewarded for being a murderous bigot?
>
> I'm not a murderer OR a bigot, ray. And, as usual you can't provide
> proof of your insane blathering.
You might could address YOUR refusal to conclusively establish that your
"Bible" has any authority over anyone not belonging to that ostensible cult.
--
Patrick L. "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.io.com/~patrick/aeros.php (TCI's 2009-10 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: Abbotsford 4, Houston 3 (OT, January 3)
NEXT GAME: Wednesday, January 6 at Texas, 7:35
Mad as a Box of Frogs
But he sure is a pervert. Check his verified authentic personal ad below.
Newsgroups: alt.personals.big-folks
From: bobandc...@webtv.net
Subject: SOUTHERN INDIANA COUPLE SEEKS.......
Date: 2000/03/15
Message-ID: <16150-38CFF923...@storefull-155.iap.bryant.webtv.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 597971835
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Organization: WebTV Subscriber
Content-Type: Text/Plain; Charset=US-ASCII
Mime-Version: 1.0 (WebTV)
X-WebTV-Signature: 1
ETAtAhR2SkL1wrRFHUycTObIdbiDles6xAIVALFK3FZBTgD7zo+rTuS69JTfKwbp
Content-Disposition: Inline
we are a white cpl, 40s, looking for bi female, or cpl w/bi female for
hot times. she is 5/7 fullfigured, 44dd tits, and a juicy shaved pussy
that squirts when she cums. he is 6/1 225, hairy chest, short beard,
and 7 inches. we seek people in the louisville, southern indiana area.
we can exchange pics. if interested, email us...bobandcarole812@webtv.net
--
Master of Puppets Direct line and fax: 206-339-7561
DENSA Life Achievement � Am I the only one with half a brain?
Anlatt the Builder
> > >x-no-archive: yes
> > >On Jan 3, 12:53 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> > >> Info Junkie <bondr...@att.net> wrote:
>
> > >> >On Jan 2, 2:30 pm, Enos Penvy <enospe...@null.net> wrote:
> > >> >> On Jan 2, 8:56 am, Info Junkie <bondr...@att.net> wrote:
> > >> >> > On Jan 1, 10:22 pm, Enos Penvy <enospe...@null.net> wrote:
> > >> >> > > On Dec 31 2009, 7:51 pm, Info Junkie <bondr...@att.net> wrote:
> > >> >> > > > None of which provide long term benefits or stability to society.
>
> > >> >> > > It is not a truth that "only those things that benefit society are
> > >> >> > > legal".-
>
> > >> >> > That's not what I said.
>
> > >> >> It's what you implied. So re-word it and we'll go from there
>
> > >> >Marriages between homosexuals provide no long term benefits or
> > >> >stability to society.
>
> > >> Ditto marriage between infertile couples. But that doesn't matter.
> > >> A fundamental principle of American justice is that all people get
> > >> treated equally under the law.
>
> > >Homosexuals are sexual deviants.
>
> > Says who?
>
> Secondly a shithole isn't made for sex.
>
Lips are made for eating and speaking. Therefore anybody who uses lips
for kissing - much less FRENCH kissing, much less oral sex - is a
devaint.
Whee, this is fun! Can we make up some more?
(It may suprise you to discover that: (a) many heterosexuals have anal
sex, and (b) many homosexuals don't. It may suprise you because you
are ignorant.)
anonymous
>
> On Jan 3, 12:42 pm, Usenet Legends bobandcarole ♥
> <usenetlegends0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > x-no-archive: yes
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Ray Fischer wrote:
> > > Usenet Legends bobandcarole $$$ <usenetlegends...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > >x-no-archive: yes
> > > >On Jan 3, 12:53 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> >
> > > >> >On Jan 2, 2:30 pm, Enos Penvy <enospe...@null.net> wrote:
> > > >> >> On Jan 2, 8:56 am, Info Junkie <bondr...@att.net> wrote:
> > > >> >> > On Jan 1, 10:22 pm, Enos Penvy <enospe...@null.net> wrote:
> > > >> >> > > On Dec 31 2009, 7:51 pm, Info Junkie <bondr...@att.net> wrote:
> > > >> >> > > > None of which provide long term benefits or stability to society.
> >
> > > >> >> > > It is not a truth that "only those things that benefit society are
> > > >> >> > > legal".-
> >
> > > >> >> > That's not what I said.
> >
> >
> > > >> >Marriages between homosexuals provide no long term benefits or
> > > >> >stability to society.
Sure it does. It shows that homosexuals can remain married for along
time and perhaps heterosexuals should think about reducing their
heterosexual divorce rate of 45 percent.
> >
> > > >> Ditto marriage between infertile couples. Â But that doesn't matter.
> > > >> A fundamental principle of American justice is that all people get
> > > >> treated equally under the law.
> >
> > > >Homosexuals are sexual deviants.
> >
Well, you obviously haven't seen porn by typing in at google "free porn
vidoes where sqirting in women's faces the love juice while aiming for
the eyes the whole time and shoving a penis in the vagina, mouths and
anuses of other people.
> > > Says who?
> >
> > The Bible for one.
> > Secondly a shithole isn't made for sex.
Tell that to the heterosexual porn stars.
> >
>
> Lips are made for eating and speaking. Therefore anybody who uses lips
> for kissing - much less FRENCH kissing, much less oral sex - is a
> devaint.
Tell that to your children.
>
> Whee, this is fun! Can we make up some more?
>
> (It may suprise you to discover that: (a) many heterosexuals have anal
> sex, and (b) many homosexuals don't. It may suprise you because you
> are ignorant.)
Well, he must be the only guy who never watched free porn on the net.