Should Homosexuals Recieve A Tax Deduction?

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by Wiglaf

Link, book, fast. Lean towards the Fox side as opposed to the Discovery Channel manner of reporting if you can.

Somehow, I imagine searching for A FOX LINK!!! with the keywords "orangutan" and "rape" will turn up an awful lot of articles about Bill Clinton.



Wiggums--you are one pathetic troll. Whose DL are you?

[Wiglaf]

I can always look forward to you adding a good deal of sauce and spice to each thread you elect to spread your amazingly unyielding joy in, Guynemer. Chalk me up as forever changed and my soul eternally uplifted by your remarkable contribution to this discussion.

The fact of the matter is, Guynie, you can't (and no one can, really) say that homosexuality isn't a problem. Saying it's on the same level as obesity on the public health crisis scale is being rather generous after all.

Unless you think being gay (the biolgical equal of cutting your balls off) isn't a big deal?

[Giancarlo]

At first this was sorta funny, wiggy... but now it is getting damn annoying... would you care to back up any of your statements at all, instead of pulling assumptions out of your ass?

[Wiglaf]

You want me to prove that sex with another guy ain't reproduction, or what?

[-=Vagrant=-]

Speaking of human civilization: according to nature, girls under 18 year old _should_ be making babies, from the very first "that time of the month" onward. Why doesn't Wiggy demand that 11-18 girls to be sexually active as they should be by all nature's laws?
And, all little boys able to ejaculate MUST be having sex everyday, without condoms! Natural instinct gives those "stiffies" so that we may use them. Keep those babies coming or we might perish!

If they bleed they can breed! We must keep the species going on!

It makes perfect sense according to Wiglaf.

"When did ignorance become a point of view?" -Dilbert

[red_jon]

Anyway gay people can and do reproduce. Hardly being castrated.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
You want me to prove that sex with another guy ain't reproduction, or what?

That is not what is at question here... what is at question here is that you are calling homosexuality a disease.

[Wiglaf]

Ok. How about this?

Humans intend to evolve in such a way that will further the species (basic fact). It makes no sense for the body to evolve into a being not willed to reproduce..it is a very negative trait (common sense)...on the same level as obesity and, generally speaking, on the same level as having one ear, no legs, etc.

Where do you disagree, Gianny?

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
Ok. How about this?

Humans intend to evolve in such a way that will further the species (basic fact). It makes no sense for the body to evolve into a being not willed to reproduce..it is a very negative trait (common sense)...on the same level as obesity and, generally speaking, on the same level as having one ear, no legs, etc.

Where do you disagree, Gianny?

That you denounce homosexuality as a disease, that is where I disagree. It is not a negative trait, and you talking about common sense...? You lack common sense.

You are sick.

[MrFun]

Homosexuals have found ways to produce their own biological children if they want to have their own children.

Homosexual individuals can be as productive and professional in their jobs or careers as heterosexuals.

Homosexuals can develop and maintain the same relationships of intimacy, trust, and love that heterosexuals have.

So I do not see homosexuality and bisexuality as being a disorder, since they can function the same way as heterosexuals --- only with a partner of the same gender.

And I still believe that the organizations that manipulate people into thinking they can change their sexual orientation is based on the hate-filled motivation to eradicate a PART of a person's identity.

The people that claim to have changed, have changed their behavior, but I still believe that they will also be gay or bisexual --- no matter how well they deny that part of themselves.

[Solly]

Originally posted by MrFun
Homosexuals have found ways to produce their own biological children if they want to have their own children.

Homosexual individuals can be as productive and professional in their jobs or careers as heterosexuals.

Homosexuals can develop and maintain the same relationships of intimacy, trust, and love that heterosexuals have.

So I do not see homosexuality and bisexuality as being a disorder, since they can function the same way as heterosexuals --- only with a partner of the same gender.

And I still believe that the organizations that manipulate people into thinking they can change their sexual orientation is based on the hate-filled motivation to eradicate a PART of a person's identity.

The people that claim to have changed, have changed their behavior, but I still believe that they will also be gay or bisexual --- no matter how well they deny that part of themselves.

Would you prefer to be straight?

[Wiglaf]

That you denounce homosexuality as a disease, that is where I disagree. It is not a negative trait,

Homosexuality isn't a negative trait!? WTF? Erasing the built-in will/urge/drive to reproduce with a female and have kids is positive? You do realize that if that "wonderful trait" gets out of hand, there is no species left at all, right?

We evolve to improve the species. An evolution to eliminate or lessen the event of reproduction in no way improves the species. It kills it. Therefore it is a serious screwup, otherwise known as a disorder or a negative trait.

[Solly]

So they should show more responsibility and thought towards society, Wiglaf?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Boddington's


Would you prefer to be straight?

Actually, no I would not prefer to be straight for several reasons:

1) My partner will never have PMS.

2) My partner can never get mistakenly or unexpectedly pregnant.

3) We never have to worry about household duties being divided based on sexist gender division.



But even seriously --- I have never had any attraction towards any woman -- Crawford and Pamela never aroused me in the least.

I prefer being gay, since that is part of what I am.

[Wiglaf]

So they should show more responsibility and thought towards society, Wiglaf?

Explain.

I prefer being gay, since that is part of what I am.

I doubt you're being serious.

1) My partner will never have PMS.

2) My partner can never get mistakenly or unexpectedly pregnant.

3) We never have to worry about household duties being divided based on sexist gender division.

You don't seem to be worried about AIDS all that much. Really, MrFun, you could probably talk yourself into anything.