jspadeofficial
New member
That's Bravery. Damn glad I'm not gay, that shit look F'd up. Most gays can't be gay by choice, why the hell would anyone wanna go thru that?
WTF: Rapper Murs kisses Guy In New Video
- Thread starter Kendall143
- Start date
FeloneusSupremeProd
FP Official Threadkiller
Its the "I want to do what I want to do" attitude of today's society. Less and less God fearing people. They believe if there is no God then there is no consequence for evil actions. Now, most people won't take it there but there are people who will. Batman boy of Aurora Colorado and your boy over in Europe the Norway killer are just a couple good examples. The more rights to do what ever crosses your mind however disgusting or heinous the worse the world will get. When most of the laws that held society together are no longer in existence...then it's every man for himself. Build a compound, stock pile weapons, ammo, food and water. Weapons and ammo are the most important because with them you can take other peoples (the anti-gun folks) water and food.
As for pedofilia...look no further than FLDS and their leader Warren Jeffs. Warren Jeffs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The people that follow him have no problem with marrying and having sex with children. Now most of us will say he's needs to be locked up, castrated and/ or killed but he does have plenty of people who believe he is being persecuted for no reason at all.
By the way in my search I found that Rozay is righting blogs (LOL)...The polygamist women of Colorado City
deRaNged 4 Phuk'dup
Moderator
Not sure if you followed the entire discussion, and I'm beginning to thing you guys have convient comprehension issues. I'm told that my views on homosexuality can be related to a redneck's views on race. I say "no race is race, sexual deviance is sexual deviance." Others introduced the idea of intertwining the 2.
So if Race and sexual preference are the same "struggle" and are attacked by the same "ignorant people", the breaking down of differentials in sexual deviance is the equivalent of breaking down the differentials in Race and skin tone. Examples "hispanics are cool, but blacks should still be slaves" or "Light Skinned blacks are smart, but dark skinned ones are dumb" is the equivalent to saying "gays should be allowed to do what they want, but not pedos and dog f**kers".
I'm not in agreeance that there's logic to that...people are inadvertantly agreeing without understanding by saying light vs. dark is dumb, they're own logic that race is comparible to sexuality becomes flawed. Because by the structure of their argument race relates to sexual preference, so pedos have to subcategorize from the overall sexual deviant structure as a race or skintone would.
Not sure where I'm losing you guys, I'm speaking general theory based on others comments and stances, not saying I believe this bullshyt.
I've repeatedly stressed my morals do not allow me personally to put pedos and dog f**kers on the same platform as homosexuals, yet, they are all 100% factually sexual deviants, no different than men who like having sex with multiple women at once, who are nothing like any of these guys in my mind based on my morals, but on paper are definitively sexaul deviants as well.
I've said this 20 times, y'all keep talking like ya so smart but can't comprehend a theoretical debate supported by definitive labels?
So lemme clarify.
All i've said is, in my opinon, minorities in this country are not isolated and segregated on the same grounds as sexual deviants I don't appreciate us being compared when IMO we have nothing in common.
If you are a sexual deviant IMO you should keep that shyt to yourself. Not run around acting like you're being discrimnated against for shyt that's really no one's business until you blab too much about yourself. I feel like gays have gotten comfortable enough to say "I'm queer, I'm here" and reap benefits when they're no different definitively than a polygamist with 4 wives who has to keep it secret or will go to jail. I think polygamists deserve the right to live their lifestyles before gays, all my opinion. Everything else I listed(animal lovers, pedos, people who participate in incest, ect.), IMO are a lil wierder, but just a lil', lol. So theoretically why wouldn't they be able to argue for the same rights 2 men can share?
But you can't tell me theoretically(morals have no place in this arguement)2 men have the right to be married, but a man shouldn't have the right to marry his cousin, or marry 2 women, or marry a dog that shows responsiveness and affection to him, or even LEGALLY date a 16 year old when he's 18-19. Hell, it's even worse when at the same time a 50 year old can legally date a 17 year old who's birthday is around the corner(actually, there i go with my morals again, in all fairness, that 17 year old is considered a "consenting adult" even though they haven't lived enough to be prepared to deal with a 50 year old that preys on CHILDREN).
All I'm saying is, you can't poke a straw through a dam because you want a quick sip of water unless you're prepared for the flood that comes behind it.
Last edited:
DjPolair
New member
we need self justice groups, a bunch of men with good protection, assault riffles and grenates, and find these mother****ers and execute them, all the openly pedophiles, all the extremist christians and republican radio hosts, just execute them and the problem is done, words are useless these days
deRaNged 4 Phuk'dup
Moderator
Can't agree, because I don't know the name of it, but that would categorize you as "someone who targets and murders a specific group of people". Might as well put a swaztica(sp)on your arm. Categories are real. If you're allowed to do what you're saying, who's to say hilter didn't have the right? Who's to say people in other groups shouldn't be targeted? Someone out there just hates soccer moms, they get enough people with them and we got grenades flying into minivans full of kids on their way out for pizza after winning the game.
I'm just cutting jokes now.
Last edited:
DjPolair
New member
Can't agree, because I don't know the name of it, but that would categorize you as "someone who targets and murders a specific group of people". Might as well put a swaztica(sp)on your arm. Categories are real. If you're allowed to do what you're saying, who's to say hilter didn't have the right? Who's to say people in other groups shouldn't be targeted? Someone out there just hates soccer moms, they get enough people with them and we got grenades flying into minivans full of kids on their way out for pizza after winning the game. I'm just cutting jokes now.
haha, you feel me though on the subject ? words is useless these days..
J
JeanLukPigheart
Guest
Yeah, the struggle is the same. As long as it deals with ADULTS who DON'T HURT ANYBODY else.
Then the logic is valid.
Something is logical, when it's premises are comparable, valid as well, otherwise it is NOT.
Two kids boxing (as a sport) is comparable to two adults drinking alcohol.
An adult drinking with a minor is comparable to a kid shooting an adult.
The first and second category are NOT comparable FOR OBVIOUS REASONS which were discussed here a hundred times.
Just in case you care, your "reasoning" above was used by the Catholic Church when approaching people in the "New World" or China.
Coincidentally, the Christian missionaries started to penetrate Asia and South-America at the same time. The Blacks were considered "animals", "sub-humans" at best, but in the case of the South Americans and Chinese, the Church representatives pointed out that they see them as "children, who we need to raise" (....to their level so to speak).
So there were animals and there were "the ignorant ones".
The Polish or Eastern Europeans were sub-humans or "children" who would end up being "raised by the Nazis", while the Jews were just "animals". See how that works?
It's pure psychology.
Blacks are still to this day often portrayed as "funny", "childish" entertainers (get the comparison to the South Americans or the Asians back then? ).........unless Blacks want to portray themselves as animals (read: I'm 50 cent and I'm a rapping gorilla).
Back to the point: A black male and a white women? Ok. A white female and an asian female? Ok. A black man and a latino male. Ok.
Whatever adult and a child. Nope.
Whatever adult and an animal. Nope.
The reason why your day of birth is your birthday, is the reason why you don't say "oh yeah, today is my birthday too.......in two weeks I want to turn 21 (from 20), 'cause I want to".
Societal norm. That's about the "age of consent".
Limits agreed upon by society. There's no "objective morality". It was agreed upon an age where the male/female can form their own independent opinion........cool.
Without using "morals"?
I don't see the problem with a woman and two men living together, just as much as I don't see a problem with three women and a men living together. They are adults? Ok with me.
Many do it anyway.
Some do it simultanously (in a "community"), some do it sequentially ("daddy will be back in a week or two"). Some probably know these kind of "relationships" and "families".
What was that film again about that cop from LA who lives together with the two mothers of his children and his children? Mind you, the mothers of the daughters are sisters. lol
And one of the girls even asks him, if that's considered "incest". LOL
Cousins? For scientific reasons (more genetic disease), no. Without "morality"? Why not.
Animals are sentient beings which can't give their consent. Nope.
Same for children. Nope.
A 18 year old guy wants to **** a 40 year old MILF? Why not. A 40 year old wants to **** an 18 year old? Ohhhhh, right, no morals. Why not? LOL
Two lesbians or gay dudes living with each other? Who cares.
Two lesbians/gays having sex with a 10 year old girl/boy? Nope.
A pedophile can not form a relationship with a little girl (no matter if the mother says "yes"), because said girl is below the age of consent.
And the same goes for animals, because they never can give their consent.
So it's obvious, without applying "religious" morality, that some forms of sex are not harmful, while others are. 'Cause nobody would argue that slapping your wife's ass is the same as cutting off her hand during sex.
hollandturbine
New member
My argument has 4 outcomes because a person can be a....
Heterosexual
Heterosexual pedophile
Homosexual
Homosexual pedophile
Your skin tone analogy has just 2 outcomes because a person can only be....
Free due to light skin
Not free due to dark skin
Skin tone is the determining factor in your analogy, whereas sexual orientation is not a determining factor as to whether or not a person is a pedophile, your comparison between skin tone and sexual deviancy is just as irrelevant as making a comparison between sexual orientation and pedophilia because sexual orientation is independent to whatever deviant sexual behavior occurs in addition to it.
DjPolair
New member
people who say your gay by choice are gay themselves
saying being gay is a choice assumes that you have attraction to men but deicded not to pursue them
i don't see being gay as a choice because i could never decide to do something i have no interest in doing AT ALL
there are some closet homosexuals on fp for sure, they're everywhere actually
and the ones that aggresively call others guys gay are on top of that list
saying being gay is a choice assumes that you have attraction to men but deicded not to pursue them
i don't see being gay as a choice because i could never decide to do something i have no interest in doing AT ALL
there are some closet homosexuals on fp for sure, they're everywhere actually
and the ones that aggresively call others guys gay are on top of that list
deRaNged 4 Phuk'dup
Moderator
Semantics, let's just exchange "light/dark" for "white/black/hispanic/asian". now it's 4 to 4, WTF was your point? You want me to be "wrong' that bad? Waste of a post, no content of any worth whatsoever.
@JeanLuke age of consent differs from country to country, so as fine as it is for an 18 year old to f**k a 40 year old in the US, you don't see a prob with a 40 year old f**kin a 12 year old in Pakistan? Yet by your own logic used in your prior post an 18 year old in the US is wrong to f**k with a 16 year old as well? All i'm doing is directing what you guys are saying beack at you.
I'm confused to the emphasis on animals too. I'd rather protect 12 year olds in any country than worry about some dog getting f**ked, a dog is food some places why to I care if my steak was sexually abused especially when it doesn't have the mindframe to be traumatized by the violation?
The point I've repeatedly made that you guys keep evading that the range of this discussion even proves is....WE ARE OPENING THEW DOOR FOR LOTS OF WIERD SHYT. Y'all's arguements are on repeat rinse without understanding my debate is more supportive of theory than my own personal belief. You guys don't agree because of your personal beliefs.
Some people do think dogs have free will, some people believe in god, some people believe in the toothfairy. That's the reason for morals and personal belief being removed from the discussion. Without the morals telling us a kid is too young, they think they love an adult and an adult thinks they love the kid, why not? Biologically they're more compatable than 2 grown men.
Y'all keep pretending to be smart missing that on purpose.
Last edited:
J
JeanLukPigheart
Guest
No, you are not "directing it back". You are weaseling your way out of the point being made with every post. Read your last post.
It was actually rational and logical (the way you presented your argument). I answered likewise.
Nobody set the age of consent for females in Pakistan or Mullahstan to 12 years, because some scientists (be it psychologists or doctors) determined that that's the age when a young female or a male can form their own opinion.
That's why you can say "ok, age of consent is 18 here, 19 here, 16 here.......hmmm", but you won't turn around and compare secular societies again vs. religiously dictated "objective morals". Where you can "marry" a 9 year old, 'cause their prophet was a pedo.
It's about the SUBJECT vs. SUBJECT relation, not the SUBJECT vs. OBJECT relation. So if you are 18 and drill a whole in a bark of a tree.......yeah, some mullahs or priests will kill you for that, but if your mom catches you doing that in the garden, she will probably send you to a psychiatrist. LOL
And it's not just "semantix". It is OBVIOUS (biologically, psychologically, based on the role of children, teenagers and young adults in ANY society), that 16 is ROUGHLY 18 and 17 is ROUGHLY 19, but 18 is not 12. The variation is NOT that big. The reasons why that is so are not somehow "mysterious" or "secrets", they are clear.
The reasons are not "divinely" invented, they are actually researched and decided upon via "peer review". Yeah, that's why 1 out of 1000 scientists may even say "**** that, age of consent for men should be 18, but for women, 4 years" and another one says "no, boys come out of puberty at the age of 25 and girls at 30"...........it will LEVEL itself out. At the end, you get 18,17,16, but you don't get secular states, where the same research "looks like" 10 for one state and 23 for another. It's a consensus. And I'm not talking down at you, as if you were dumb, I'm confused myself, that you don't see that as a standard procedure for almost everything in society. (accent on SECULAR society)
It's a sentient being which IS traumatized by the violation. It SUFFERS because of the violation.
Stab your dog "for fun" and see how it will change reacting to you. It's not like it's gonna forget tomorrow LOL. Animals (at least mammals, from cats, through dogs to elephants) are super intelligent, especially those trained and even though they can't express it in love songs or letters, they have an emotional life.
Your dog LOVES you and has a emotional feedback chain with you. Some animals are so freaking adjusted to their owners that they can feel their moods (that's amazing, but obvious), but some even go out of their way to "cheer you up", because they can subconsciously analyze your mindstate based on body language, tone, etc.... Nevermind Dad arguing with Mom over bullshit and the dog realizing that Dad is in the wrong. Guess who he will probably "like" more after the argument.
That's that.
As far as suffering of animals. First, we kill too many. We make them suffer more than they need to.
If you were a farmer (so someone, who makes money by being a "slave master" of animals), you'd still want to kill the animals without causing them unnecessary pain.
I wrote about it before. The DNA is a virus. And you ARE living on an island planet where the DNA virus cannibalizes itself. It eats itself (different forms of animals and plants), because that's the only form of survival for it. It didn't find other ways to transform energy other than to eat other "DNA club members".
That's how this shit works. It's a slaughterhouse and we feed off each other. Like that mofu in Miami nibbling away on that hobos face.
And I cite that example, 'cause that's the instances, when we realize that.
Cannibalism. But that's the whole "nature" of that thing. You don't like it? Neither do I. But that's nevertheless the truth.
Why do you think these religious nuts are so keen on Jebus coming back and FINALLY life being exterminated here on Earth.
'Cause even through the bullshit they try to sell people, at the core they understand the nature of this thing: SLAUGHTERHOUSE.
And the least you can do is to not 'cause unnecessary suffering and pain.
And who said I don't want to protect little children, but go out of my way to put the emphasis on animal suffering (???).
Where did I write that?
But it's related. "Hey, so you want me to be a vegetarian who looks for ants, not to trample them?". Nah, but at least don't become one of those stupid fat ****s who end up throwing away half of their food and eat till they die or break the 400 pounds barrier.
No, the complete OPPOSITE is the case and that's what I'm trying to make your see.
When we set the boundaries and don't put all people into one basket, then we are gonna keep the doors closed for pedophiles, beastality or cannibals.
But like I said, if you think that slapping your wife's ass is the same thing as cutting her hand off during sex, then it's your lack of rationality and YOUR accent on "God-given morality" and "feelings", instead of logical, rational conclusions.
I gave you the framework. Harm vs. no-harm. No consent vs. consent. Suffering vs. easing the suffering.
And you pretend to actually read my posts, while I keep on giving your different angles on that whole topic. So that you don't get caught up in personal beliefs (or "divinely mandated" beliefs, or even "majority rules").
So that you know that that friendly looking grandpa in the park who wants to buy your daughter candy is the danger and not the two gay dudes discussing with each other where they gonna eat for dinner today.
Read my last post. Actually all my posts are pretty factual, when directed at you. I treat religtards the way they deserve to be treated, people with REAL, OWN opinions? I have no problems discussing that shit with them in a civil manner..........as you see in your case.
Same goes for people who think the world is gonna end soon 'cause their fairy tale book says so vs. people who really want to discuss the danger of infiltration of western governments by fundamentalists and what that means for our future.
As long as it's rational.
deRaNged 4 Phuk'dup
Moderator
^^^And I get it, I'm confusing you because you keep adding your own opinion to your foundation arguements and can't seperate it from the discussion. Yes, it's an opinionated discussion, but notice I continuously seperate my opinions for the theories being discussed and make note when I do.
So you just said if a dog owner puts peanut butter on their crotch when the dog licks it off he's being "traumatized" while saying scientists should have final say on age of consent...so that 50 year old who preys on lil 16-18 year old girls who know nothing of the world isn't bad because scientists say that's fine, but someone better go save that dog?
And quit throwing religion at me, i have said nothing of it other than I'M NOT RELIGIOUS(making me think you're confusing me with another poster), the only thing worse than an extreme religious freak is an exteme atheist. Cause they're the only people on earth who think they got more answers than the religious coo coos. Quit indirectly throwing darts at dudes who aren't even responding. I get it, you think religion is worse than men f**king each other and pedos who stay within the lines of the judicial system. But nothings worse than a dog dry humping your leg and you allowing him to finish, lol.
What you're missing is what I'll call "The Maury Effect" for sake of end game. Once upon a time, the Maury Show could throw cross dressers on and let you try to figure out if it was girl or guy for shock value. Got old. Next he put men who beat the crap out their women on...got old. 50 year olds that dated teenagers...old. Men with 8 babymamas...old. Women testing 8 men to find the babydaddy...old. After pass after pass is given things lose their shock value. By giving homosexuals the rights of a REGULAR(just used the word to be an azz) married couple. You're giving validation to every other oddball relationship under the sun. Polygamists(that we both agree aren't hurting each other)to pedos(that we both stand against). But don't act like people don't punch you in the face, sue for breaking their hand and win every once in a while. If we let homo rights slip thru the crack who's to stop polygamists, pedos, incesters(?), ect. from slipping thru the same crack? I'ts all losing shock value. Teachers stay f**kin students in 2012, it's lost the shock it had in the 80s when it was just 1 here and 1 there. How do you not comprehend what I'm saying?
No reason to go any further. You know you smarter than me, I can't tell you nothing different.
FYI, all this was debated in theory. I personally think gays are wierd, but not as wierd as people who f**k dogs, lol. Point is, people who f**k dogs are gonna disagree and the only foundation they have is the same you do...personal belief.
So you just said if a dog owner puts peanut butter on their crotch when the dog licks it off he's being "traumatized" while saying scientists should have final say on age of consent...so that 50 year old who preys on lil 16-18 year old girls who know nothing of the world isn't bad because scientists say that's fine, but someone better go save that dog?
And quit throwing religion at me, i have said nothing of it other than I'M NOT RELIGIOUS(making me think you're confusing me with another poster), the only thing worse than an extreme religious freak is an exteme atheist. Cause they're the only people on earth who think they got more answers than the religious coo coos. Quit indirectly throwing darts at dudes who aren't even responding. I get it, you think religion is worse than men f**king each other and pedos who stay within the lines of the judicial system. But nothings worse than a dog dry humping your leg and you allowing him to finish, lol.
What you're missing is what I'll call "The Maury Effect" for sake of end game. Once upon a time, the Maury Show could throw cross dressers on and let you try to figure out if it was girl or guy for shock value. Got old. Next he put men who beat the crap out their women on...got old. 50 year olds that dated teenagers...old. Men with 8 babymamas...old. Women testing 8 men to find the babydaddy...old. After pass after pass is given things lose their shock value. By giving homosexuals the rights of a REGULAR(just used the word to be an azz) married couple. You're giving validation to every other oddball relationship under the sun. Polygamists(that we both agree aren't hurting each other)to pedos(that we both stand against). But don't act like people don't punch you in the face, sue for breaking their hand and win every once in a while. If we let homo rights slip thru the crack who's to stop polygamists, pedos, incesters(?), ect. from slipping thru the same crack? I'ts all losing shock value. Teachers stay f**kin students in 2012, it's lost the shock it had in the 80s when it was just 1 here and 1 there. How do you not comprehend what I'm saying?
No reason to go any further. You know you smarter than me, I can't tell you nothing different.
FYI, all this was debated in theory. I personally think gays are wierd, but not as wierd as people who f**k dogs, lol. Point is, people who f**k dogs are gonna disagree and the only foundation they have is the same you do...personal belief.
Last edited:
If people have been doing the exact same shit yall are debating about since the beginning of time, what makes it "weird"? It's taboo in our society, and we're a pretty oppressed, bias, judgmental, and hypocritical society. In a nutshell, we were brought up to be stupid.
That's the judgmental part I'm talking about. If we got rid of laws, that doesn't mean that we're all going to kill each other, start f--king all types of things, and doing bath salts.
Little kids won't start "loving" adults any more than they do now if we didn't have pedophile laws. There will still be folks who think it's disgusting along with folks who don't or just don't care and there will still be pedophiles and traumatized kids... sex laws are bull. They don't prevent anything. Pedophiles don't go "I'm not gonna try to f--k kids cuz it's illegal".
Last edited:
FeloneusSupremeProd
FP Official Threadkiller
I disagree. I think the fear of God and/ or laws keep people from acting out. Remove the laws that will cause people to go to prison and more people are likely to act on the things they may be curious about. Remove God from a persons life and they can justify anything they want. Example...Simply remove the laws against smoking weed and watch how many more people try it for the first time in their lives.
Last edited:
deRaNged 4 Phuk'dup
Moderator
If I couldn't go to jail for murder, I'd shoot people in the face for cutting me off in traffic. No law against theft? I'd just walk in the store and take shyt. True story.
I'm sure I'm not the only person with "morals" so f**ked up I think this way. Seems to me like logic get's thrown out the door to defend certain "lifestyles", but Rpalos that post....just dumb.
I'm sure I'm not the only person with "morals" so f**ked up I think this way. Seems to me like logic get's thrown out the door to defend certain "lifestyles", but Rpalos that post....just dumb.
DjPolair
New member
god and religion killed more people than anything else
901_Rice_Street
Rice AKA Clyde Drexler
smh. Thanks to freedom and misunderstandings that lead to your opinion... you can "mentally think" that way. You have no "facts" that proves your "see through" points. You are just full of talk and blah blah blah. Tell a half truth to get people to believe a whole lie like I said before. I'm done with the gay topic. Keep that Jeebus thing going. Tell me more about these TRUTHS that you have spoken about. Let's go way off topic. All out with it. Let it all out. Make a thread about it. I want to hear more than the loops that you are stuck saying. It's entertaining.
---------- Post added at 02:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:49 PM ----------
Where is your proof? Not the misunderstanding but the proof.
J
JeanLukPigheart
Guest
No, you are AGAIN making simple mistakes.
Yes, your premises are wrong again.
Because you leave out the other side out of the equation. It's not balanced. Five, six times did I tell you not to do it, because it makes your "logic" invalid.
You should've said "if there were no laws, I'd go into a store and steal shit..........but then the owner would pull the gun and shoot me in the back"................"if there were no laws, I would grab that 10 year old and rape her............but then the father would simply cut off my balls and "massage" me with a baseball bat".
THAT'S how it works, because YOU and I don't somehow form a "closed system". We are in an interactive settings.
Since it's interactive and you say "all clear", then the EXACT SAME response has to be expected.
Some store owner will say "**** you!", another one will pull out his gun and take the can of Coke away from you, the third one will rob you and the last one will simply shoot you in the back and steal your wallet and dump your body in the gutter LOL
I know what you are saying, but there are TWO sides to the medal and I feel like you are being incapable to see it from the other side, "just for fun"/hypothetically.
---------- Post added at 07:59 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:50 AM ----------
I've told you before, I have absolutely never had any "beef" with you. I like you. But the moment "religion" is being mentioned, your brain goes out the proverbial window.
Never have I stepped on your constitutional rights to express yourself or practice your religion.
Said right is LIMITED by MY rights or the rights of Muslims or Hindus.
That's why a 6 foot tall cross in your living room is cool, that's why singing songs about Jebus in your church is cool, but that's also why you coming into a Mosque and screaming at Muslims that they are wrong is NOT cool.
Do you see that? Yes, you do, because I asked you to think rationally. So keep being RATIONAL into a discussion that requires rationality, or prepare for your opinion to be ridiculed (because that's what it deserves to be).
If I ask you how Miami played in the play offs and if LeBron overcame his problems, you won't begin the sentence with "....I as a Christian think....". Got it?
When rationality is the topic, leave fairytales, "supernatural world" and shit like that OUT.
And I made harsh remarks about slavery and Uncle Tom mentality, because that's EXACTLY what happens, when you turn off your "rational center" and just act like a parroting Borg drone.
hollandturbine
New member
My point was that your analogy of my original argument did not contain the same "interchangeable" variables as my argument therefore your analogy was an invalid strawman argument.
You already had 4 attributes, light/dark/free/not free, however what you did wrong was you framed those 4 attributes in such a way as to prevent them from being interchangeable like the attributes of my argument......you took 4 attributes and created 2 statements.
The basic premise of my argument is that sexual orientation is a component of any sexual activity so it can't be likened to a sexual activity, for example if a heterosexual man rapes a woman you can't compare the act of rape to the sexual orientation of a gay person.
Noah's Ark, Book of Job, Christian Crusades, etc....LOL Don't turn this into a religion thread, all the death in the bible is common knowledge by now.