WTF: Rapper Murs kisses Guy In New Video

JeanLukPigheart said:
Who do you call ignorant? It's a fact that you can't read and/or comprehend a written message, ignoramus slaveoramus.

LOL, Rice was using the "argument ad Bible bullshit" to somehow "prove" his position. In a 2012 discussion about homosexuality in society, he was using the "authority" of a anonymous collection of stories written by Bronze Age imbecils, who knew nothing about nothing.

Including BIBLE PROPHECIES (ROFL-LOL-FACEPALM).

And you call other people IGNORANT, Uncle Tom For Jesus?
Click to expand...

I read and comprehend very well. Just because you have a closed mind on religion and want to defend homosexuality don't get mad at me. Don't you have a duck to sick? GTOH!
 
Last edited:
deRaNged 4 Phuk'dup said:
I'm still on the topic of sexual deviance.
.
.
.
.
.
The only thing that can blind you from that logic is emotion, in all fairness, alot of cats up here are being real "emotional' right now, lol.
Click to expand...

No, the only thing that can make this "logic" seem wrong, is if it's illogical..........and guess what, it's illogical. LOL

Nothing prevents you from marrying a 12 year old girl.
Become a Muslim, where f**king little girls is cool with their "moral authority" of a prophet, who by YOUR and MY standards, was a pedo and a rapist.

There you go, your "sexual deviance" goes away. Now you having sex with your neighbor. You and she have to be put to death by their standards. So if you want to have standards and norms, there you have them.

What am I saying? You speak about norms. I spoke about that too.
The norm is, that you are considered a human being.
There's a norm saying when you become an adult.
There's an age of consent when it comes to sexual contact.

So, since you are that convinced of your "logic", tell me what the difference is between the two:

a.) you run a store and someone comes in, buys something, pays, leaves.

b.) you run a store and someone comes in, buys something, you pull your gun, tell them to give you all their money, he leaves.

That's your logic. What prevents you from RIGHTFULLY banging the 12 year old is the same mechanism that prevents you from ROBBING THAT MAN THAT WANTED TO BUY SOMETHING.

Please don't tell me, you don't see that?
It's something agreed upon by society.
It has nothing to do with "objective morality" (read: a genocide, rape, stealing, killing is all good, when Jebus and Allah tell you to LMAO), it is a system of norms agreed upon in a society.

As morality changed, it was agreed upon, that slavery is bad.
It was agreed upon, that taking the women of the people you just killed in a war is wrong.
It was agreed upon, that raping little children is wrong (unless you are a Muslim, because then it's magically super-cool and "moral").

So that's your "logic". It's inconsistent with the easiest LOGICAL analogous example. Try again. I'll give you another example.

You go to a club and pick up a chick.

You both agree upon having sex. You are both "of age", so nothing illegal here.

case a.) you go to bed/on the floor/couch/shower/spacecraft and do the dirty..........all good.

case b.) you go into the room, you slip some sleeping pills into her drink and f**k the shit out of the unconscious girl.

In both cases, the prerequisite is, that both of you agreed to have sex with each other.

Don't tell me you don't understand why a.) is ok and b.) is rape.

---------- Post added at 01:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:59 PM ----------
FeloneusSupremeProd said:
I read and comprehend very well. Just because you have a closed mind on religion and want to defend homosexuality don't get mad at me. Don't you have a duck to sick? GTOH!
Click to expand...

And the Slave For Jesus responds with the obvious.
I don't have a closed mind of religion. I have a closed mind to Slaves For Jesus, who talk about race equality, while said Slaves For Jesus talk about being Slaves For Jesus. LOL
Obvious, isn't it? You are the rapist who goes to rape victim meetings 'cause you "feel with the victims". LOL
Your childish arguments based on your Slave For Jesus ideology have no place in a secular society, where rational arguments create policies.

You don't like that? Go back to the field and pick some cotton, slave.

And yeah, I have 3 billions dicks to suck (OH MY GAWD, YOU HAZ SFITCHED LETTAZ!!! U IZ SMAAART!!). But since I'm not a homosexual, that doesn't help, at all. Nice try though.......for someone of your intelligence that is. Here, look, a cookie. You did good.
 
lilro said:
Sexual deviance isn't a sub-culture. LOL.

And I'm not religious at all. Zero. Homosexuality has nothing to do with religion.

You can't just accept EVERYTHING in the name of progression. That's ass backwards. No pun intended.

And who wants to diminish their rights? You don't have a right to not be offended.
Click to expand...

Yes It is

Subculture:

a. the cultural values and behavioral patterns distinctive of a particular group in a society.


b. a group having social, economic, ethnic, or other traits distinctive enough to distinguish it from others within the same culture or society.


We're having a discussion based on homosexuality within a cultural context. religion is very much cultural and people who practice it base their moral compass on it. So to say that Homosexuality and religion have nothing in common in a country where 75 percent of It's citizens deny evolution, would be closed-minded.



The Beat Pharmacy said:
So should we teach the same about pedophiles? that's not normal but we should teach our children that its not a crime or a bad thing to have feelings that "deviate" from the norm.

F*ck that nonsense
Click to expand...

No, choices must be made based on common sense. Homosexuality is not interchangeable with Pedophilia, the consequences, if you act on your feelings, are totally different. And It's not only a dumb argument, It's also a logical fallacy called "Non Causa Pro Causa"
 
JeanLukPigheart said:
No, the only thing that can make this "logic" seem wrong, is if it's illogical..........and guess what, it's illogical. LOL

Nothing prevents you from marrying a 12 year old girl.
Become a Muslim, where f**king little girls is cool with their "moral authority" of a prophet, who by YOUR and MY standards, was a pedo and a rapist.

There you go, your "sexual deviance" goes away. Now you having sex with your neighbor. You and she have to be put to death by their standards. So if you want to have standards and norms, there you have them.

What am I saying? You speak about norms. I spoke about that too.
The norm is, that you are considered a human being.
There's a norm saying when you become an adult.
There's an age of consent when it comes to sexual contact.

So, since you are that convinced of your "logic", tell me what the difference is between the two:

a.) you run a store and someone comes in, buys something, pays, leaves.

b.) you run a store and someone comes in, buys something, you pull your gun, tell them to give you all their money, he leaves.

That's your logic. What prevents you from RIGHTFULLY banging the 12 year old is the same mechanism that prevents you from ROBBING THAT MAN THAT WANTED TO BUY SOMETHING.

Please don't tell me, you don't see that?
It's something agreed upon by society.
It has nothing to do with "objective morality" (read: a genocide, rape, stealing, killing is all good, when Jebus and Allah tell you to LMAO), it is a system of norms agreed upon in a society.

As morality changed, it was agreed upon, that slavery is bad.
It was agreed upon, that taking the women of the people you just killed in a war is wrong.
It was agreed upon, that raping little children is wrong (unless you are a Muslim, because then it's magically super-cool and "moral").

So that's your "logic". It's inconsistent with the easiest LOGICAL analogous example. Try again. I'll give you another example.

You go to a club and pick up a chick.

You both agree upon having sex. You are both "of age", so nothing illegal here.

case a.) you go to bed/on the floor/couch/shower/spacecraft and do the dirty..........all good.

case b.) you go into the room, you slip some sleeping pills into her drink and f**k the shit out of the unconscious girl.

In both cases, the prerequisite is, that both of you agreed to have sex with each other.

Don't tell me you don't understand why a.) is ok and b.) is rape.

---------- Post added at 01:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:59 PM ----------



And the Slave For Jesus responds with the obvious.
I don't have a closed mind of religion. I have a closed mind to Slaves For Jesus, who talk about race equality, while said Slaves For Jesus talk about being Slaves For Jesus. LOL
Obvious, isn't it? You are the rapist who goes to rape victim meetings 'cause you "feel with the victims". LOL
Your childish arguments based on your Slave For Jesus ideology have no place in a secular society, where rational arguments create policies.

You don't like that? Go back to the field and pick some cotton, slave.

And yeah, I have 3 billions dicks to suck (OH MY GAWD, YOU HAZ SFITCHED LETTAZ!!! U IZ SMAAART!!). But since I'm not a homosexual, that doesn't help, at all. Nice try though.......for someone of your intelligence that is. Here, look, a cookie. You did good.
Click to expand...

You just fell apart at the seams there. I can't even respond to that, it was just rambling. I kept "jeebis and alla" out my discussion so not sure why you think I'm pushing religion here.

All i've said is everyone has different morals and ways and that I'd appreciate mine being respected...but everyone else thinks it's more important to be able to do whatever the f**k they want. In the process they expect me to throw my morals out the window and not judge them.

I'm not religious at all, I just think it's disgusting for 2 men to be in a relationship. Some people freak out when interracial couples hold hands, some people would freak out if they went to japan and saw people eating dog meat, some people freak out when they see you in a fur coat or littering or whatever.

Everyone has different morals, but when moral is thrown out the door and we get into definitive SEXUAL DEVIANCE, again, that's everything from group sex to oral/anal to homo to animal to pedo to incest to who knows what. They all fall in the same realm beyond morality. Don't get so worked up defending 'your gay friends' that you lose track of LOGIC.

I may like eating cooch and be disgusted by gays no different than gays might get grossed out by pedos or dog f**kers, but beyond moral they're all examples of sexual deviance. So when it comes to rights, if we consider letting gays get away with gay shyt, why do we no let other wierd shyt fly(not saying we don't, we definetly do)?

As a hetero man, how can you defend homo relationships and not defend a pedo, incest, palligamist(sp), or animal relationship? Now if you're gay, then it makes sense, gay doesn't seem just as wierd as the others to you because you're gay.

---------- Post added at 02:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:30 PM ----------
hollandturbine said:
Regarding the reproductive anatomy of humans and animals as a design would imply that a calculated plan for reproduction was put into place by a designer as opposed to sexual reproduction being the result of evolution. The creationist point of view is that a perfect God creates things to work according to a plan and so any deviation that undermines those expectations is viewed as an abomination, whereas in the real world deviation is the reason why humans don't lay eggs. Sexual deviance is behavior that is considered to be socially unacceptable as opposed to behavior that does not result in reproduction. Your sexual deviancy argument is based on a false analogy that does not take into account that sexual orientation is already a component of the deviant behavior you are drawing a comparison to.
Click to expand...

You guys are losing to logic now. What if your 'sexual orientation" targets Monkeys? Children? Holes in trees? That's just as DEVIANT as same gender. What if you feel that animal or child is perfectly able to "consent"? I was sleeping with 12 year old girls when I was 12. 16 year old girls when I was 16(had a long dry spell, lol). They "consented" there's 40 year old men that would take a green light from a 12-16 year old because they don't uphold the same morals as myself. There's some guys that just convince themself the girl wanted it even if she's kicking and screaming. Can I call them wrong, absolutely, but that's the point, I have the right to call it wrong for 2 grown men to interact the same way. It's the same free will that gives them the right to want to do gay shyt that gives me the right to not want that shyt around me.

#Logic.
 
Last edited:
Ill Rocka said:
We're having a discussion based on homosexuality within a cultural context. religion is very much cultural and people who practice it base their moral compass on it. So to say that Homosexuality and religion have nothing in common in a country where 75 percent of It's citizens deny evolution, would be closed-minded.
Click to expand...

Homosexuality has nothing to do with religion. Just because there are religious people who shun homos doesn't mean it's ok in the eyes of an atheist or agnostic. There are people like me, who accept evolution, who believe there MAY be a god, and also believe homosexuality is wrong. It's like saying marijuana prohibition has something to do with religion just because religious people say it's bad, when really marijuana is illegal because of corporate greed. And where did you get this 75% from? That's not believable at all.
 
deRaNged 4 Phuk'dup said:
You just fell apart at the seams there. I can't even respond to that, it was just rambling. I kept "jeebis and alla" out my discussion so not sure why you think I'm pushing religion here.
Click to expand...

The point is that on one side you talk about societal norms, on the other hand you talk about subjective "feelings".

There's no objective morality, there's no book that tells you what to do or not, if that was the case (as some suggest in the thread), then YOU and I and 99% of us would still be slaves, here, there and everywhere.

So if I speak about separation of church and state, then that's exactly the point; you don't establish majority vote decisions based on some religious doctrines.

You don't "push" religion, you align with people who do and think their argument is valid.

deRaNged 4 Phuk'dup said:
I'm not religious at all, I just think it's disgusting for 2 men to be in a relationship. Some people freak out when interracial couples hold hands, some people would freak out if they went to japan and saw people eating dog meat, some people freak out when they see you in a fur coat or littering or whatever.
Click to expand...

I can't stand looking at two men kissing each other. So?
You talk about "morals" as if they didn't change over time. I don't get that.

South Koreans eat wild dogs, many Hungarians eat salami made of horse meat. I like dogs and I don't care about horses. So?

How do you think did it happened that YOU and I mean YOU personally are not on the field picking cotton today? Was it always the case and white people simply forgot, or did something CHANGE?

A PERSPECTIVE on things? I don't get you.
What does protecting the rights of two GROWN UPS have to do with bestiality, pedophilia and such?

Of course you can live with several women.
In fact, how many mofu do you know who have children from different women? Or women who have three children from three different dudes?

It's just that TAX BENEFITS and the MATRIMONIAL RIGHTS do not extend to polygamy.

What the **** is your point? Either you defend the rights secured by the constitution, or you don't.

What has me and you being grossed out by two gay dudes have to do with their rights to live together if they want to? They already do and have done for decades. It's about their rights as citizens to have their matrimonial rights granted, that's all.

It has nothing to do with gay orgies in a Catholic Church during a gay wedding (?????).

deRaNged 4 Phuk'dup said:
Everyone has different morals, but when moral is thrown out the door and we get into definitive SEXUAL DEVIANCE, again, that's everything from group sex to oral/anal to homo to animal to pedo to incest to who knows what. They all fall in the same realm beyond morality. Don't get so worked up defending 'your gay friends' that you lose track of LOGIC. .
Click to expand...

LOL and another veiled attempt at associating me with gays or calling me gay.
I'm so embarrassed now. Act like a grown up.
You may score some points with some low IQ morons here, but that simply looks childish to me. What are you, 12? 34, right? Act like that in a discussion or go and tell your mom that I said bad things to you. Do we agree on that? Cool.

Look up how many states still prohibit oral sex or anal sex among heterosexuals. Where you can send your wife to jail for giving you head (?????).

That's TWO ADULTS AGREEING UPON A SEXUAL PRACTICE. Wtf?

And yes, then there's DEFINITIVE DEVIANCE.
Everything that involves sentient beings being forced to sexual intercourse without their consent, or without being able to make these decisions by themselves do to the AGE OF CONSENT.

Don't play the dumb mofu. You are not good at it. Leave it to others who are obviously way more "talented".

What's deviance? Forcing people to sex. Forcing minors to sex. Sex with animals (look above@ "sentient beings"). Practices involving hurting people (amputation, stabbing people during sex, penetration with sharp objects, etc...).

That's clearly sick, right? WHY? Because we agreed upon it. It's the subject of decision in a secular state.
So it doesn't matter if a pedo wants to rape a 8 year old girl. That girl is not an OBJECT and doesn't have the right to decide whom she wants to have sex with. Agreed? Cool.

So in a secular society, it doesn't matter if your neighbor is a Muslim, where polygamy is allowed and having sex with children is cool. There's not "objective" morality part that can get him out of trouble with the law in the US.
Understood? THAT'S the difference.

deRaNged 4 Phuk'dup said:
I may like eating cooch and be disgusted by gays no different than gays might get grossed out by pedos or dog f**kers, but beyond moral they're all examples of sexual deviance. So when it comes to rights, if we consider letting gays get away with gay shyt, why do we no let other wierd shyt fly(not saying we don't, we definetly do)?
Click to expand...

"Weird shit"? What is "weird shit" in your mind? Allowing people to dress up like Disney cartoon figures and **** in their bedrooms? They already do that. Allowing people to eat food off of each other while having sex? They already do that. Role-playing (where your Jewish girlfriend wants you to play a Nazi death camp officer who rapes her? They already do that).

LOL, yeah, that's "weird shit", but let them have a go at it. I don't care. As long as daddy and mommy don't bring their 12 year old daughter into the game? I don't care. I really don't.

deRaNged 4 Phuk'dup said:
As a hetero man, how can you defend homo relationships and not defend a pedo, incest, palligamist(sp), or animal relationship? Now if you're gay, then it makes sense, gay doesn't seem just as wierd as the others to you because you're gay.
Click to expand...

I explained that to you at least ten times, with "crayon picture"-analogies and such.
You are like a white supremacist who simply can't consider, that a Black man having sex with a White woman ain't beastality, 'cause a Black man ain't an animal. That's the whole problem. You consider gays "Untermenschen" (sub-humans), just as the Nazis did with the Jews and the racists did with the slaves in the US. There's not a bit of a difference, really.

Accent needs to be put on "two adults doing what two adults want to do.........leave me out of it and I'm ok with that. You not hurting other people or animals? Good! You do it in your own privacy? Great! **** off now!"

Don't you get that position?

Don't you know that Jewish lawyers sometimes defend the rights of Nazis? It's as simple as that.

The difference is, that said Nazi can say "nigger" in his own house as much as he wants, it doesn't OBJECTIVELY hurt ANYBODY.

The moment he goes out and kills black people, that's different, right?

Gays don't HURT anybody just because they are gay. And they are not sub-humans because they are gay. Same goes for Jews, Blacks, Latinos or blind people. Not a bit of a difference.


 
lilro said:
Homosexuality has nothing to do with religion. Just because there are religious people who shun homos doesn't mean it's ok in the eyes of an atheist or agnostic. There are people like me, who accept evolution, who believe there MAY be a god, and also believe homosexuality is wrong. It's like saying marijuana prohibition has something to do with religion just because religious people say it's bad, when really marijuana is illegal because of corporate greed. And where did you get this 75% from? That's not believable at all.
Click to expand...

I'm saying there's an undeniable link between gay rights in America and the belief system It has been founded on.

You keep questioning what I say, which in order I have to prove you wrong on. You were saying what about sub-cultures again? lol

CBS:

Most Americans do not accept the theory of evolution. Instead, 51 percent of Americans say God created humans in their present form, and another three in 10 say that while humans evolved, God guided the process. Just 15 percent say humans evolved, and that God was not involved.

These views are similar to what they were in November 2004 shortly after the presidential election.

VIEWS ON EVOLUTION/CREATIONISM

Now
God created humans in present form
blue.gif
51%
Humans evolved, God guided the process
blue.gif
30%
Humans evolved, God did not guide process
blue.gif
15%

Nov. 2004
God created humans in present form
blue.gif
55%
Humans evolved, God guided the process
blue.gif
27%
Humans evolved, God did not guide process
blue.gif
13

So... 51 percent believes in creationism, and another 30 percent thinks "God" guided the process (lol) that makes a total of 81%



But here I am, "defending" gays, which Isn't even what I want in the first place. I'm just baffled by the straight doodoo that comes out of some of these "civilized" grown ups mouths.

Far as I'm concerned:

-Don't act like a girl
-I preferably don't want to see you kiss another guy
-And don't bother me with phukking pink parades and shit

The rest is gravy by me, go get phukking married like I give shit...I just don't understand why yall are giving a shit?
 
Reason's why you are failing JeanLukePigHeart.

1. I didn't call you gay, I suggested you may be, I honestly didn't know. How does someone so for gay rights come to the conclusion that by me suggesting you may see gay shyt as "normal" if you're gay that i'm trying to disrespect you? If you're gay, you're gay, I'm not 5 we're not calling each other poo poo heads in here. We've now established you're not, fair enough. If you were gay, how would calling you gay be insulting? Don't confuse me with other guys in here throwing around "fag" and "queer" for insulting purposes. Recheck my posts.

2. I'm not aligned with anyone in here. There's no teams to my knowledge in this thread. I honestly thought everyone in here was against my view except a few guys who haven't said much I agree with because I have no religious foundation for my beliefs. I thread lightly on the subject because people hold religion to heart and I'm not DISRESPECTFUL, so I simply stated like 20 times "I'm leaving religion out of my discussion". I did mention that my kids can pray in school because my 4 year old daughter actually got a note sent home for discussing "the lord" in school. I know it couldn't be a very in depth discussion, because the MOST we do in my house is pray before dinner and before bed she does her "magic trick so she won't get bad dreams"(she's 4, best I could explain it). As much as you evade admitting it, you know I'm too logical to build a discussion founded on religious views of what's wrong and right.

3. For the millionth time, someone being segregated or treated differently for skin color/race/appearance is not the same as being treated different for sexual preference. I show no type of hypocracy "because i could still be a slave"(lame defence btw, because if we were in slavery days, 2 guys kissing would be shot on sight like i'd be if I tried to run off, lol). If I wanted rights for myself but didn't want the same for jews or hispanics, that would be a discussion, this however is not.

Sexual deviance is sexual deviance 2 of the same sex, a human and a dog, polygamists, underage kids, ect. are not(until recently)pronounced man and wife. If 2 men have the right to, why shouldn't a man and his dog have the right to? Why not be allowed to marry more than 1 woman? There ridiculousness to all these scenarios according to MY personal moral values.

There are others with personal opinions that I'm less of a man because of my skintone. I don't deserve the rights they have because of it. Fair enough, but my skintone has nothing to do with THIS DISCUSSION. This discussion is about rights based on sexual preference, all I'm saying is, if gays get a pass because of their sexual preference, why don't polygamists, dog f**kers, Pedos get the same. That is the equivalent to in a discussion about race saying "if blacks and whites get blah why don't mexicans get the same?" Quit playing dumb like that's not LOGICAL thinking.

Racial rights is a stretch when talking about rights based on preference. I can prefer to be white all I want, my black azz still ain't getting approved for that loan, lol. If we were talking about an interracial wedding between male and female being illegal, all this "we could still be in the field" talk may fly. It's a sad cheap skapegoat to try to convince me I'm closeminded when I'm the guy in the thread open-minded enough to say "dogf**kers and polygamists should have the same rights as gays". I won't say pedos should have any rights, they should be castrated. Only problem is, I feel like dogf**kers, polygamists, and gays should all keep that shyt behind closed doors and out of everyones face like I have to do with my weedsmoke, gambling(bets on sports, playing poker, ect), and whoopin my kids when they really deserve it(almost never). All things I feel are morally fine but could get my azz thrown in jail if I'm in people's face with my views. :cheers:
 
deRaNged 4 Phuk'dup said:

You guys are losing to logic now. What if your 'sexual orientation" targets Monkeys? Children? Holes in trees? That's just as DEVIANT as same gender. What if you feel that animal or child is perfectly able to "consent"? I was sleeping with 12 year old girls when I was 12. 16 year old girls when I was 16(had a long dry spell, lol). They "consented" there's 40 year old men that would take a green light from a 12-16 year old because they don't uphold the same morals as myself. There's some guys that just convince themself the girl wanted it even if she's kicking and screaming. Can I call them wrong, absolutely, but that's the point, I have the right to call it wrong for 2 grown men to interact the same way. It's the same free will that gives them the right to want to do gay shyt that gives me the right to not want that shyt around me.

#Logic.
Click to expand...

It would defy logic to assert that sexual orientation targets anything other than gender, like would the gender of the tree somehow be relevant to how we judge the behavior of the monkey humming the hole?

Sexual orientation is not comparable to paraphilia because sexual orientation is independent to sexually deviant mental conditions, in other words a heterosexual pedophile is not any more acceptable than homosexual pedophile based on the criteria of sexual orientation.
 
deRaNged 4 Phuk'dup said:
Sexual deviance is sexual deviance 2 of the same sex, a human and a dog, polygamists, underage kids, ect. are not(until recently)pronounced man and wife. If 2 men have the right to, why shouldn't a man and his dog have the right to? Why not be allowed to marry more than 1 woman? There ridiculousness to all these scenarios according to MY personal moral values.
Click to expand...

Do you seriously not see the difference between two consenting adult males and a male with a dog or child?

It's just one big pot of "sexual deviance" to you?

wow

Let me get this straight (lol had to do it), in a world where you reign supreme, a male who's in a relationship with another male gets the same sentence as a male who molested a little girl?
 
deRaNged 4 Phuk'dup said:
It's a sad cheap skapegoat to try to convince me I'm closeminded when I'm the guy in the thread open-minded enough to say "dogf**kers and polygamists should have the same rights as gays". I won't say pedos should have any rights, they should be castrated.
Click to expand...

^^^You, sir cannot read. I said no such thing, even in the sake of the theories being argued I specified i couldn't bring myself to put pedos amongst other sexual deviants.

Still nothing makes me feel that way but MY MORALS, that shyt you guys want me to forget I have. So in your perfect world, I'd be as ignorant as you're trying to make me out to be. :cheers:

---------- Post added at 02:52 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:49 AM ----------
hollandturbine said:
It would defy logic to assert that sexual orientation targets anything other than gender, like would the gender of the tree somehow be relevant to how we judge the behavior of the monkey humming the hole?

Sexual orientation is not comparable to paraphilia because sexual orientation is independent to sexually deviant mental conditions, in other words a heterosexual pedophile is not any more acceptable than homosexual pedophile based on the criteria of sexual orientation.
Click to expand...

By your own logic and arguements, this scenario is the equivalent of saying all the light skinned blacks can go free, but the dark slinned ones stay. You made the playing field, how do you not abide by your rules to the game?
 
deRaNged 4 Phuk'dup said:
By your own logic and arguements, this scenario is the equivalent of saying all the light skinned blacks can go free, but the dark slinned ones stay. You made the playing field, how do you not abide by your rules to the game?
Click to expand...

There is nothing about the darkness of your skin that makes you more dangerous to society. Some people don't like very-dark-skin, but that's their personal hang up. Likewise, two adult men together are not particularly dangerous to society. Some people have religious problems, but again that's on them.

Though, I can see what you're saying. In a philosophical sense, it is ****ed up that non-pedophile gays get rights and liberation, but pedophiles (gay AND straight) are also "born that way" and yet no one wants to liberate them. But the key is that gays are not asking to do anything but be with each other, as adults. Frankly, whatever two adults want to do should be their business—gay rights or not.

But I guess that is the sense of morality some of us have that YOU don't see: children, animals—people and creatures that cannot consent—get special protection; that's the ONLY rule. Girl-on-girl? Sure. Guy-on-guy? You bet! Girl-on-guy-on-guy-on-girl? Why not! Maybe it's not "fair" to the pedophiles, but "liberating" them really will hurt people. Liberating gays will just offend people.

Edit: I thought about your point some more. You wouldn't tell someone who wears glasses that he has "deviant vision" and because SOME people are fully blind, HE has to be blind too. So why tell gay people that, because pedophiles can't have rights, they can't have rights too? Sexual deviance IS a disability, but like any disability there are different degrees. Is that fair? No. Life isn't fair...
 
Last edited:
deRaNged 4 Phuk'dup said:
^^^You, sir cannot read. I said no such thing, even in the sake of the theories being argued I specified i couldn't bring myself to put pedos amongst other sexual deviants.

Still nothing makes me feel that way but MY MORALS, that shyt you guys want me to forget I have. So in your perfect world, I'd be as ignorant as you're trying to make me out to be. :cheers:
Click to expand...

I'm really not trying to pin you down on anything, and I'm not trying to make you look ignorant at all, I know you're not ignorant because I've read your posts on here for years. I'm just trying to figure out why you'd look at sexual deviance as one thing. Like there aren't variables to consider with each one.

I think the key-word here is consent. A dog can't give consent to have sex or be in a "relationship" with a human, there's no way of telling a dog wants/likes to be with a human. That's why they can't get married. But what's wrong with two grown people deciding they want to be together?

Why do you even care?


Because It's disgusting? I agree, I feel sick If I see two dudes kiss, then again, I also feel sick If I see someone in a Burqa or a head-scarf. But I know in a civilized world we have to put aside our own views sometimes so others can breathe and vice versa.
 
It's sad that people don't really listen and get what people are saying even when it's plain as day. smh. People will even debate the rights of "two straight parents" to defend gay rights. WOW! Man this thread is wild. And then the words Jesus or Christianity or Bible really throws a loop.....like a Christian family (husband and wife with children) are NOT parents. Nobody asked for your views or to go deep into religion. Right now it's two straight parents vs the government.....WHO SHOULD TEACH THE CHILDREN ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY BETWEEN THE TWO. I'm not in the schools. If my child was born with a vagina and a penis and looks like a male yet acts like a female....or was mentally gay..I would then like for him to have it DEALT WITH IN PRIVATE....one on one with somebody trained for that type of job. I.......or me and my wife...(since I do have a right to marry the kind of woman I want) should have a right to HAVE SOMEONE personally help my child...not FORCED by the government because some people want to express being gay as being NORMAL.. and want to get married as a gay couple. Has nothing to do with religion at all....but religion may be a reason a person opposes it. AND THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO.....NOT BY THE BIBLE BUT BY LAW. Twist it all you want. NOW my child is having problems out of a teacher because of what THE TEACHER BELIEVES.....whether it's religion based or gay rights based. I need to listen to my child when he says he doesn't like the teacher....especially today.

Like I said many of times, I don't hate gay people...I've been around them during school and have seen some sexy woman turn gay or bi...heard of straight dudes getting caught in gay acts. Did it affect me? No.......I was kissing girls when I was six. Knew nothing about what gay was. Didn't care. So I saw a gay dude in high school and thought nothing of them. He step on my shoes and don't say sorry like any straight person.....I'mma let all kinds of faggot and sissy and whatever out my mouth....(never happened). You look at me a certain way (gay or straight) I'll say "WTF you looking at......if you say something back smart and you act or look gay I'mma let your gay ass have it..NOT BECAUSE YOU GAY. I'm not cool with that gay shit....you can't hang with me...just like that straight dude over there can't hang with me. DON'T TRY TO GET TO KNOW ME....I'm going to look like a homophobic. You need help with something then I got you like I would a straight man...I see you drowning then I got you.....I see somebody messing with you for no reason then I got you........but I ain't your buddy or pal...we don't kick it the same. I'm looking at women's asses like damn.....you looking at men's asses like wow....now I'm forced to get from around you.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top