Does This "Disprove" Homosexuality?

[Asher]

Homosexuality is fun. I highly recommend it.

4/4 stars.

[MrFun]

Re: Does This "Disprove" Homosexuality?

Originally posted by Wiglaf
Scenario: a gay male couple and a woman (a total of THREE people) are on an island at the same time. Suddenly everyone else in the world disappears, leaving only the three island-goers.

Question - if you are one of the gay guys, and you are really attracted to your gay partner, and don't really like or feel anything for the girl, what do you do?

A - Stay true and gay, and only "date", WINK WINK, your male friend, and sexually avoid the female,

--OR--

B - Have "relations" WINK WINK with the female, even though you don't want to, in the interests of preserving the species.

The dilemma here for homosexuals and their activists is this -

If you pick A, you are terminating the species through your homosexuality, a clearly immoral and illegal act a la the guy who killed Harrison Ford's wife in The Fugitive. In a more theoretical sense, you are discouraging a culture of life and reducing the evolutionary potential of the species significantly.

If you pick B, you are essentially arguing that homosexuality is a sexual luxury and not a biological requirement, in essence reducing the practice to deviance.

Yahtzee! I think my analysis holds water.

Your "analysis" was something you pulled out of your ass.

[Urban Ranger]

Wiggie

Still not as funny as Fezzie, though

[Wiglaf]

This reminds me of that time I had a girlfriend, yesterday last night, and she said something like,

"Let's have kids."

Now I DUMPED HER but that is not the point. She was thinking ahead. How can homosexual/gay couples think ahead? They cannot. Now when I put toast in my toaster I am not thinking ahead in that way, I admit. But YOU must admit that there IS some difference between putting in TOAST in a toaster and MARRYING someone.

That analysis is pulled out of no one's ass but my own, Mr. Fun, and that is the way it should be, obviously.

[Ramo]

This reminds me of that time I had a girlfriend, yesterday last night, and she said something like,

"Let's have kids."

Now I DUMPED HER but that is not the point.

At which point, you deflated her.

[Kingof the Apes]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
This reminds me of that time I had a girlfriend, yesterday last night, and she said something like,

"Let's have kids."

Now I DUMPED HER but that is not the point. She was thinking ahead. How can homosexual/gay couples think ahead? They cannot. Now when I put toast in my toaster I am not thinking ahead in that way, I admit. But YOU must admit that there IS some difference between putting in TOAST in a toaster and MARRYING someone.

That analysis is pulled out of no one's ass but my own, Mr. Fun, and that is the way it should be, obviously.

In all my time lurking, this has to be one of the most bizzare responses I have ever seen

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
Now I DUMPED HER but that is not the point. She was thinking ahead. How can homosexual/gay couples think ahead? They cannot.

You dumped a woman who was thinking ahead.

Does that mean you are homosexual, by your own logic?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Kingof the Apes
In all my time lurking, this has to be one of the most bizzare responses I have ever seen

You obviously have not read a single post by CBH.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
You dumped a woman who was thinking ahead.

Does that mean you are homosexual, by your own logic?

IIRC, Wiglaf is an Apple advocate.

[Wiglaf]

I love it how no one sticks to the analysis, and I am over here like butter to its bread - INSEPARABLE

Urban Ranger, No I am not a homosexual because that girl was indeed like toast in a toaster - SHORT-TERM and NOT MY TYPE and NOT THAT HOT. I plan to have kids later, or at least am as open to it as possible. Gay people are not, making me not gay, therefore maybe you should check your facts.

Asher - I am not an Apple "advocate," I am an Apple " consumer," Apple is not oppressed or violated, it is a thriving corporate entity, all you need to check your facts.

Anyone care to explain to me how homosexuality can exist if , as proven in initial analysis , it is a luxury like caviar?

[Kuciwalker]

Caviar exists. QED.

EDIT: and Wiglaf has an interesting definition of "thriving"

[Wiglaf]

No one gets married over caviar.

[Kuciwalker]

Love is a luxury too - you can make babies without love. Therefore no one gets married over love.

[Wiglaf]

Therefore no one gets married over love.

What the hell? This is incorrect, is all I know. I am not playing Minesweeper, I do not need to be frustrated by the bizarre rules of the game.

[Kuciwalker]

Your argument: homosexuality is a luxury, therefore it does not exist, like caviar

Mine: caviar DOES exist

You change your argument: no one gets married over caviar (hence no one gets married over homosexuality)

Me: well, love is a luxury too, therefore by your logic, no one gets married over love