Banner
Xtra Smileys
[Open]
We Unite Gaming
May 23, 2025, 07:56:56 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Welcome to We Unite Gaming!
Formerly Wii Unite/Wii Unite Gaming
 
  Home Help Search Arcade Gallery Youtube Channel Chatbox Staff List Login Register  

A Message to All the Homosexuals

Pages: 1 ... 22 23 [24] 25 26 ... 29   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: A Message to All the Homosexuals  (Read 6050 times)
Trent
modenator
WU Smash Yo Face
******

Karma: 2
Offline Offline

Xbox Live: I8URPIEHAG
Posts: 4683


I am teh modenat0r.


View Profile
« Reply #345 on: December 12, 2010, 04:47:21 pm »

Dude, I was 13...I had/have a lot of growing to do. He's 40+ and has no excuse.
Report Spam   Logged

1v1 me TurboWeasle
Termin8or
WU Pigskin Pick'em Champion
WU Guru
*

Karma: 524
Offline Offline

Clan: WtF
Posts: 10506


View Profile
« Reply #346 on: December 12, 2010, 04:57:17 pm »

^Your extensive use of profanity just goes to show how small your vocabulary is. Stop acting like an angry 12 year old who's mother isn't around and learn to speak like an adult...jesus christ...your posts are such an eyesore..

I'm exasperated by his stupidity and if you read the previous posts of his then you would understand.

Like DDD said, your posts leave a lot to be desired.

And by the way dummy, you look extremely stupid by saying the only two successful careers beyond being a lawyer are a neurologist and CEO. Are you kidding me? You do realize that all generalizations are false...I know plenty of yahoos that are lawyers. Success is not only defined by the money you make either. There are plenty of factors that define success, but I don't expect you to understand that.
Report Spam   Logged

Termin8or
WU Pigskin Pick'em Champion
WU Guru
*

Karma: 524
Offline Offline

Clan: WtF
Posts: 10506


View Profile
« Reply #347 on: December 12, 2010, 04:59:30 pm »

Dude, I was 13...I had/have a lot of growing to do. He's 40+ and has no excuse.

Not 40+ and like I said, read the thread. The person you have put on a pedestal has done nothing but insult me throughout this entire thread and has been contradicting himself. I simply showed the contradiction and he continued to insult me. It was his defense mechanism.
Report Spam   Logged

dudedudedude for Moderator
WU Smash Yo Face
****

Karma: 65535
Offline Offline

Posts: 4310



View Profile
« Reply #348 on: December 12, 2010, 05:04:05 pm »

Dude, I was 13...I had/have a lot of growing to do. He's 40+ and has no excuse.

You also need to learn a lot more before you start talking with us because you have no fucking clue what the hell you're talking about. Now go back to the MoH board.
Report Spam   Logged
OhioLawyer
Administrator
WU Master
*

Karma: 9003
Offline Offline

Clan: The Fatal Five
Posts: 8207


Romans 5:8


View Profile WWW
« Reply #349 on: December 12, 2010, 07:42:48 pm »

This whole conversation started because YOU stated that sexual orientation (homo- and hetero-sexuality) was not genetic.

and this is why this has lasted this long.  Because I NEVER said sexual orientation (hom- and hetero-sexuaity) was not genetic.  I said there was no sexual orientation gene.  Big difference.  No wonder you continue to argue, becuase you completely missed what I said.

LOL you are clueless man.  I stated male and female is genetic.  Do you deny that?  I sure hope not, it is called an x and y chromosome.  Since my argument that heterosexuality is the natural way, then there is no contradiction.  You make me laugh at your inability to reason this out.  I make the statement that there is no sexual orientation gene (and there is not) therefore homosexuality is not genetic.  Then you question whether or not heterosexuality is genetic.  I state that it is not, but that those things that show heterosexuality as natural/biological CAN be found in our genes.  Then now you are all confused thinking there is a contradiction when there is not.  I still contend that there is no gene for sexual orientation.  I also contend that heterosexuality is natural and biological.  I also contend that our makeup of male and female IS genetic.  There is no contradiction there.  Sorry you can't read.


And then to address you point on Leviticus 20.  I will give you a pass since you yourself stated you know very little about the bible.  But the book of leviticus is a book of law given by God, to the nation of Israel.  It is the establishment of national law.  Nowhere is leviticus 20 purporting that God is to carry out those punishments.  Those are laws given to the government of the nation to carry out.  Much like America's death penalty.  Those laws are for our system to carry out accordingly.  Not any individual, and not God.  God stated many times in the bible that vengeance belongs to him and that he is longsuffering with sin until the day of judgment.  None of the declarations of death penalty in the hebrew law were ever to be carried out by God in this life.  They were for establishing law and order within the nation of Israel.  God's judgment comes later.

um, right. Try again maybe.....This is just one example. Ready to agree on the contradiction yet?


^Correctamundo.


/thread?

And everybody already knows that you are an idiot  Afro

LOL, thanks for proving how dumb you are....and stubborn.

You are attempting to find out where I said, and I quote, "sexual orientation (homo- and hetero-sexuality is genetic"

And here is the quote you provided:

Quote
I make the statement that there is no sexual orientation gene (and there is not) therefore homosexuality is not genetic.  Then you question whether or not heterosexuality is genetic.  I state that it is not,

Are you really dumb enough to say those are equal statements? 

If so, this discussion is beyond over.  In fact, the statement you quoted to attempt to prove your point is the OPPOSITE of saying "sexual orientation is genetic".  This quote says it is NOT genetic. LOL

Way to go moron.

OMG you are stupid. Read the make sweet sensuous lovein quotes Ohio:

Your last quote:

"Because I NEVER said sexual orientation (hom- and hetero-sexuaity) was not genetic."

You state that YOU NEVER said that homo- and heterosexuality was NOT genetic. Right, can you understand your own statement? It's a double negative dummy.

Your previous quote:

"I make the statement that there is no sexual orientation gene (and there is not) therefore homosexuality is not genetic.  Then you question whether or not heterosexuality is genetic.  I state that it is not,"

You clearly state that homosexuality is NOT genetic. Then you state that heterosexuality is NOT genetic.


Are you make sweet sensuous loveing blind? I wasn't trying to show where you stated it WAS genetic because that would agree with your double negative. I showed where you stated that it WAS NOT genetic, which is the OPPOSITE of your double negative.

Can you follow that yet? Do you need a lesson on double negatives in a sentence?

So, clearly you contradicted your previous statement. You see, if were half the expert you contend to be on the matter you would not be contradicting yourself all over the place. Holy make sweet sensuous love, you can't read your own IRS, you can't understand a double negative, how the make sweet sensuous love are you gaining respect here when you IRS all over everyone else for their ability to understand what has been written. You are beyond make sweet sensuous loveing stupid. You have dug such a deep hole that you have no idea how to get out of it.

Do you see it yet? Huh? Do you? un-make sweet sensuous loveing-believeable!



lol your ignorance baffles me. 

the quote you used, "I NEVER said sexual orientation was not genetic" was a response to you saying that I said "sexual orientation was not genetic".  Go back and read the tread.  As such, all I said was that I never said that quote.  It is not a double negative, just a singe negative saying I didn't say what you claimed I said. 

Leave it to you to attempt such a lame argument to attempt to put words in my mouth.  But can I expect more from someone who has yet to put a quote in its context before analyzing it? 

So let me start over for you briefly so your brain can catch up to the context.

1.  I said there is no gene for sexual orientation.

2.  This massive argument took place because you're a douche.

3.  You then attempt to claim that I said "sexual orientation (homo- and hetero-sexuality) is not genetic."

4.  I respond by saying that I NEVER said what you claimed I said because stating "there is no gene for sexual orientation" and saying "sexual orientation is not genetic" are not the same thing.

5.  Now you try to take that quote out of context and act like YOUR quote that I had to respond to, is mine. 

See yet that you are an idiot?

The problem we have here is that you still don't understand #4 above.  I am convinced you think those two quotes mean the same thing.  And that is why this argument continues.  If you could grasp the fact that those two quotes mean two different things, you would be able to comprehend that there was no contradiction.

But I am done arguing with you about it.  If you aren't bright enough to get it yet, you never will be.  I have made it as simple as possible.  You just can't grasp the concept.  It is what it is. 
Report Spam   Logged

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
Cadillak
Global Moderator
WU Guru
******

Karma: 97
Offline Offline

PSN: lakkus
Posts: 20475



View Profile
« Reply #350 on: December 12, 2010, 10:03:00 pm »

lol, this is still happening in here?

awesome  Afro Afro
Report Spam   Logged
dudedudedude for Moderator
WU Smash Yo Face
****

Karma: 65535
Offline Offline

Posts: 4310



View Profile
« Reply #351 on: December 13, 2010, 01:01:33 am »

Quote
just an interesting tidbit.  US news and world report did a survey in 2007 using Harris Interactive to determine the public's view of most and least prestigious jobs (defined as basically respect).  While lawyer dropped out of the top 10, accountant is the number for LEAST prestigious job.

The fact that a teacher is near the top of the link your provided just voids it entirely. More than 50% of major companies across the world are run by CEO's with accounting or finance backgrounds. You can bet your ass that CFO's are generally people with accounting and finance backgrounds. Anyone with half a brain can tell you that accountants run the corporate world and the corporate world runs society.
Report Spam   Logged
Termin8or
WU Pigskin Pick'em Champion
WU Guru
*

Karma: 524
Offline Offline

Clan: WtF
Posts: 10506


View Profile
« Reply #352 on: December 13, 2010, 05:51:35 am »

OMG Ohio, you are pathetic (watch this):

Follow the previous quote trains. These are not my quotes, they are yours.

Because I NEVER said sexual orientation (homo- and hetero-sexuaity) was not genetic.

You stated:

"I make the statement that there is no sexual orientation gene (and there is not) therefore homosexuality is not genetic.  Then you question whether or not heterosexuality is genetic.  I state that it is not,"


You tell me, what did you say in the first quote I listed?

You NEVER said that homo- and hetero-sexuality was NOT genetic. Very clear. Right.

What did you say in the second post?

...therefore, homosexuality is NOT genetic.

Direct contradiction. You did say that homosexuality is NOT genetic. Very clear. So, your statement of I NEVER SAID THAT homosexuality is NOT GENETIC is false.

...Then you question whether or not heterosexuality is genetic.  I state that it is not,

Direct contradiction. You did say that heterosexuality is NOT genetic. Very clear. So, your statement of I NEVER SAID THAT heteroexuality is NOT GENETIC is false.

Very clear contradiction again. It's in black and white, not out of context, etc. That's exactly why you are saying the thread is over because it is extremely clear this time (we don't have to talk about how lame your deduction skills are). You are a moron, a hypocrite, and an ass hole. You are flat out wrong. If you can't see that contradiction then you are a lost cause. I have zero respect for you. I'm sure the majority of the people on this site can see that contradiction very clearly and context has nothing to do with it. Those are straight quotes from you and in those quotes you use "I" repeatedly, which means it's what you are saying, not what I am saying. Basic English.
« Last Edit: December 13, 2010, 06:30:25 am by Termin8or » Report Spam   Logged

Termin8or
WU Pigskin Pick'em Champion
WU Guru
*

Karma: 524
Offline Offline

Clan: WtF
Posts: 10506


View Profile
« Reply #353 on: December 13, 2010, 07:14:44 am »

I had to show this as well.

This whole conversation started because YOU stated that sexual orientation (homo- and hetero-sexuality) was not genetic.

and this is why this has lasted this long.  Because I NEVER said sexual orientation (hom- and hetero-sexuaity) was not genetic.  I said there was no sexual orientation gene.  Big difference.  No wonder you continue to argue, becuase you completely missed what I said.

You are stating that saying there is or isn't a gene for something does not imply that it is or is not genetic.

But:

um, not true.

they mapped the entire human gene.  you might be referring to the sequencing of the gene.  They completed 95% of the genetic sequence to 99.99% accuracy in 2003, but the mapping and identification of the genes was completed in 1994, early on in the project.

Obviously, genetic and biological are two very different terms.  There is NO gene for sexual orientation, so you can't call homosexuality genetic.  The human genome project has sparked many other research projects into biological effects of the genes, but that doesn't change the fact that homosexuality is not genetic, only leaves open the door for biological factors (which no one has still yet to make any connection to homosexuality).

This is way back on page 12. You state that because there is no gene for sexual orientation you can't call homosexuality genetic. You make a direct correlation between whether or not homosexuality is genetic and the sexual orientation gene. Now you are saying that there is a BIG DIFFERENCE between saying there is or isn't a gene and whether or not something is genetic. You can't make a direct correlation on one day and then on the next day state that the two aren't related.

"Sexual orientation is a social construct used to describe a pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to men, women, both genders, neither gender, or another gender. ..."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation

Let's be clear sexual orientation refers to homo- and hetero-sexuality. That's a fact.
Report Spam   Logged

OhioLawyer
Administrator
WU Master
*

Karma: 9003
Offline Offline

Clan: The Fatal Five
Posts: 8207


Romans 5:8


View Profile WWW
« Reply #354 on: December 13, 2010, 07:51:49 am »

I'll simply re-direct you to my last post.  You didn't get it.  You again tried to use a quote where I was quoting you.

And you still fail to understand my view that heterosexuality and homosexuality are fundamentally different and from different sources.  And you also seem to continuously lump them both together as "sexual orientations"  and assume that what I say about one therefore applies to the other.  That is not the case.  Even if you want to use your socially derived definition of sexual orientation, there is still nothing in that definition that necessitates both types of orientation are the exact same in origin and details.

Since you do not understand this, I have nothing more to say.  The debate is worthless since we are both coming from two completely different conceptual bases and therefore could never agree on contradictions since our definitions of the terms and concepts related here are so vastly different.

Good day.
Report Spam   Logged

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
Cadillak
Global Moderator
WU Guru
******

Karma: 97
Offline Offline

PSN: lakkus
Posts: 20475



View Profile
« Reply #355 on: December 13, 2010, 09:07:50 am »

you guys are kechua
Report Spam   Logged
Termin8or
WU Pigskin Pick'em Champion
WU Guru
*

Karma: 524
Offline Offline

Clan: WtF
Posts: 10506


View Profile
« Reply #356 on: December 13, 2010, 09:16:19 am »

I'll simply re-direct you to my last post.  You didn't get it.  You again tried to use a quote where I was quoting you.

And you still fail to understand my view that heterosexuality and homosexuality are fundamentally different and from different sources.  And you also seem to continuously lump them both together as "sexual orientations"  and assume that what I say about one therefore applies to the other.  That is not the case.  Even if you want to use your socially derived definition of sexual orientation, there is still nothing in that definition that necessitates both types of orientation are the exact same in origin and details.

Since you do not understand this, I have nothing more to say.  The debate is worthless since we are both coming from two completely different conceptual bases and therefore could never agree on contradictions since our definitions of the terms and concepts related here are so vastly different.

Good day.

I did get your last post. Here's what you aren't getting:

Forget about the discussion around sexual orientation, etc. and focus on the statements that you made. They are contradictory. End of story. You are not simply re-quoting me, you even stated "you ask the question...." and then you state "I state that it is not". So, don't say that you are re-quoting me. You are making those statements. You answered my question. That's not a re-quote. That's a response.

I have stated that sexual orientation includes both homo and heterosexuality. If you want to refer to heterosexuality only then please do. You had never stated that sexual orientation did not include both. The thing you are missing is during this entire discussion I haven't made any assertions around genes, genetics, biology. In fact, I agreed that there was no sexual orientation gene. I agreed that it had to be based on biology. I didn't agree with your logic using procreation and I stated that. You have made a number of contradictory statements and that's all that I've focused on. That's what you are missing.

I never claimed to know more about genes, genetics, biology, etc. You were the one making the assertions.
Report Spam   Logged

OhioLawyer
Administrator
WU Master
*

Karma: 9003
Offline Offline

Clan: The Fatal Five
Posts: 8207


Romans 5:8


View Profile WWW
« Reply #357 on: December 13, 2010, 09:20:51 am »

No, see that is where you missed it.  In order for you to judge whether or not a statement is contradictory, you MUST evaluate it contextually.  And you haven't done that.  You cannot judge my statements without also weighing in on the gene issue.  It is simple as that and you didn't get it.  How can you say "A=B" or A=/=B" without knowing what A and B are?  That is what you are trying to do with my statements.  And that is poor logic on your part.
Report Spam   Logged

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
Termin8or
WU Pigskin Pick'em Champion
WU Guru
*

Karma: 524
Offline Offline

Clan: WtF
Posts: 10506


View Profile
« Reply #358 on: December 13, 2010, 09:37:12 am »

No, see that is where you missed it.  In order for you to judge whether or not a statement is contradictory, you MUST evaluate it contextually.  And you haven't done that.  You cannot judge my statements without also weighing in on the gene issue.  It is simple as that and you didn't get it.  How can you say "A=B" or A=/=B" without knowing what A and B are?  That is what you are trying to do with my statements.  And that is poor logic on your part.

You're wrong. You flat out made contradictory statements that have nothing to do with context. You said that you did not say that homosexuality and heterosexuality was not genetic. But you did make those statements as I showed you. Sure we can use context there and the statements are still contradictory.

Not poor logic on my part. I can't believe that you've stooped to saying that you simply re-quoted me which is a complete and utter lie. The quotes prove it.
Report Spam   Logged

OhioLawyer
Administrator
WU Master
*

Karma: 9003
Offline Offline

Clan: The Fatal Five
Posts: 8207


Romans 5:8


View Profile WWW
« Reply #359 on: December 13, 2010, 09:48:49 am »

No, see that is where you missed it.  In order for you to judge whether or not a statement is contradictory, you MUST evaluate it contextually.  And you haven't done that.  You cannot judge my statements without also weighing in on the gene issue.  It is simple as that and you didn't get it.  How can you say "A=B" or A=/=B" without knowing what A and B are?  That is what you are trying to do with my statements.  And that is poor logic on your part.

You're wrong. You flat out made contradictory statements that have nothing to do with context. You said that you did not say that homosexuality and heterosexuality was not genetic. But you did make those statements as I showed you. Sure we can use context there and the statements are still contradictory.

Not poor logic on my part. I can't believe that you've stooped to saying that you simply re-quoted me which is a complete and utter lie. The quotes prove it.

Again, I did not say that I didn't say that.  The quote you used to contradict that statement used the term "sexual orientation".  You keep confusing the two.  And THAT is why context is key. 
Report Spam   Logged

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
Pages: 1 ... 22 23 [24] 25 26 ... 29   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
© 2008-2014 We Unite Gaming, Wii Unite Gaming, Wii Unite
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum

Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy