I KNEW ya would crack me up!
Posted on 12/23/2004 3:55:48 AM PST by dzzrtrock
Hispanic male voice-over: Rimley! Brown! y BEE-LOW-ME!
DOS - SIETE - TRES! CINCO - CINCO - CINCO - HOMO!!
I'd bet there's a lot of hair pulling and scratching in Gay Guy fights. Could be pretty funny.
food consumption does not compare to the use of reproductive organs. Kidneys, livers, spleens, nasal passages are designed to filter stuff out. The human brain is designed to discriminate good things to eat from bad.
The human body is not designed to encourage recreational sex with the same gender. Homosexuals can do what they want inside their bedroom as long as it stays in their bedroom. There is zero reason for society to reward their recreational orgasms just because they decided to prance their orgasm methods outside the bedroom.
I personally have nothing against gays except their bodies. If they would remove their bodies from the USA I would be ok, France maybe.
Au contraire', my delusional friend. The human genome is mapped. There is no "homo" segement. there is no biological difference between a guy who chooses to be a twinkie and a guy who follows his biological design. The ONE study that showed a alleged "genetic" marker was as done by a homo (big surprise) and used a flawed premise and no control group. He studied the brains of a very few homos who died from AIDS & decided that since SOME of their hypothalmus'(as I recall) were different than those of other dead people, homo's brains were structured differently. He completely ignored the AIDS aspect & didn't bother to check the hypothalmus of STRAIGHTS who had also died of AIDS nor against those of homos who'd died from other causes. Needless to say, nobody has been able to duplicate this study using proper research procedures. There IS a psychological difference but that abberation is treatable. Unlike gender, hair and skin color, "homo" can be cured. NOBODY has ever had their skin or hair color changed by therapy. We don't have to "prove" our point. You're the one arguing that "homo" is biolgical even though contrary to your design, to common sense, to science (genome mapping and reproductive design) theology and societal mores. Make your case. You can't use the argument "I am one and I am normal". If that is the case, then Hitler is normal.
I beg to differ.
Michael Jackson is--well, paler--than he used to be.
And he (apparently) is attracted to little boys.
As for hair color, remember the old commercial--
"Does she or doesn't she? Only her hairdresser knows for sure."
Whoa--Michael Jackson and hairdressers, showing up in a discussion of homosexuality!
The irony is just amazing.
your post sounds violent.
What? The 'prancing' you are talking about is probably done by less than one half of one percent of the homosexual population, a significantly lower number than the number of straight couples who make out in public places. Are we gonna tell them to keep it in the bedroom, too?
Of course homosexuals are going to attack each other more often than heterosexuals. They start out with mental problems - and a do whatever to get off attitude - so they have a head start towards the anything goes lifestyle...
Another argument for NOT changing the definition of marriage to include homosexual deviants.
Calm down dizzy. Being born a homosexual does not kill. Bad behavior and poor choices can kill you. Being a homosexual does not mean having sex with 57 other people. Perhaps you should slow down the number of partners you are with. Eating doritos and other processed junk food is turning this nation into a bunch of fat cows with coronary problems. It is a much bigger threat to this country than abhorent homosexual behavior. And yes, all of these things have scientific evidence to back it up. So chill.
True. Add to that:
- epidemic suicide rate
- highest percentage per population of STDs in the nation
So our government school system encourages children to become homosexuals... Liberals are such hateful people...
You may in fact be right, but your adamance is a problem. As far as mapping the genome, sure we have identified what genes do when they perform a single function...but we are just in the first inning with the genome. Its like being adamant about science in the 1870's when some folks said, "Science has now discovered all there is to discover." We have no idea how genes work together in tandem. If a combination of two can create a certain predisposition, then what of three, or four. To say the genes have been identified and the answers are all in, is very simplistic. There is just too much left to discover.
Like I said, you may ultimately be right. But usually, prognostication in the first inning, ends up looking silly in retrospect.
Oh now THIS is SOOOOO typical of twinkieDUMB. I am honest about, and have the GUTS to disagree with your lifestyle so I am "violent" @¿@ <--(rolls eyes) Next thing you know I'll be "bashing". Tell me oh jimmyhat, how do written words "sound violent" and exactly to which of same would you be referring? (this should be amsuing, if he can give a straight answer)
Go look up domestic violence in the penal code (in CA, you can start at 273.5) before you embarass yourself any further.
Because the Gays are like the Italians, or the British...a country unto themselves. Havent you heard about Gay-Americans???
Of course "being born a homosexual doesn't kill". That is like stating "being born santa claus and having 8 flying reindeer doesn't kill" Both are just fantasies. You're still touting the LIE that you're "born" a homo, yet I can find no records anyplace of an anal or oral births with one of two men being fertilized by the other. I have never seen a record of a woman fertilizing another woman, either. I guess that means that it can't happen, dear. Homos don't reproduce among themselves: PERIOD! In the events that a homo reproduces a child through NORMAL means, even through the use of a lesbian brood sow, (meaning both parents are homos) some STILL turn out straight, especially if taken from the homo environment. If homos get hold of straight kids from hetero households, the likelyhood of homosexual identity of that straight child so sacrificed, jumps way up as they are inculcated in the perverse lifestyle (hence the big push by homos for homos to adopt or become foster parents: "target-rich environment"). Same with twins and identical twins. Twins raised in the same enviroment share the same odds of both being homos. Identical twins should ALWAYS BOTH be either straight or homos, but the rate is only like 50%. When one is removed from the homo household, that homo identification rate drops. IF it was genetic, they'd BOTH be homos and the rate wouldn't vary. http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/_PDFArchives/streams-of-life/SL2W0803.pdf~~~~ I guess that leaves recruiting, huh? You mention "bad behavior" being unhealthy. I agree. "Bad behavior" like choosing to be a homo & having indiscriminate sex with thousands of other homos DOES kill.
(johnny hat writes)Being a homosexual does not mean having sex with 57 other people.
No, usually the number is higher...MUCH higher, often running into the thousands. Either you don't know much about your lifestyle or you're hoping the rest of us don't. There are plethoric credible sources out to defeat your self-serving argument here. I don't blame you for not reading up on it though. You'd end up with a pretty big case of self-loathing if you did and might make a choice to go straight. That would disassemble your whole identity and make you realize that you've been living a lie all these years.
Eating doritos and other processed junk food is turning this nation into a bunch of fat cows with coronary problems. It is a much bigger threat to this country than abhorent homosexual behavior.
To hte populace as a hole, yes. Unhealthy eating is problematic. I am sure that your 1.5-1.7% has that same problem PLUS your own grotesquely unhealthy lifestyle on top of that. Minds much greater than your's & mind support my propsition. In a study published in Oxford University's International Journal of Epidemiology, researchers found that, at age 20, the life expectancy of homosexual and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men. The Medical Institute of Sexual Health reports [ Executive Summary, "Health Implications Associated with Homosexuality," 1999]: - "Homosexual men are at significantly increased risk of HIV/AIDS, hepatitis, anal cancer, gonorrhea and gastrointestinal infections as a result of their sexual practices." - "Women who have sex with women are at significantly increased risk of bacterial vaginosis, breast cancer and ovarian cancer than are heterosexual women." - "Domestic violence is...probably more common among homosexuals than among heterosexuals." - "Significantly higher percentages of homosexual men and women abuse drugs, alcohol and tobacco than do heterosexuals."
(cut to the next of over 15,000 studies)Since longevity is commonly considered indicative of health of a population, the study examined how long did homosexuals lived before the AIDS epidemic and how long do they live today? The authors examined 6,737 obituaries/death notices from eighteen U.S. homosexual journals over a period of thirteen years and compared them to obituaries from two conventional newspapers and reported: "The obituaries from the non-homosexual newspapers were similar to U.S. averages for longevity: the median age of death of married men was seventy-five, 80 percent died old (65 or older); for unmarried men it was fifty-seven, 32 percent died old; for married women it was seventy-nine, 85 percent died old; for unmarried women it was seventy-one, 60 percent died old. "For the 6,574 homosexual deaths, the median age of death if AIDS was the cause was 39 irrespective of whether or not the individual had a Long Time Sexual Partner (LTSP], 1 percent died old. For those 829 who died of non-AIDS causes the median age of death was 42 (41 for those 315 with a LTSP and 43 for those 514 without) and less than 9% died old. Homosexuals more frequently met a violent end from accidental death, traffic death, suicide, and murder than men in general. The 163 lesbians registered a median age of death of forty-four (20% died old) and exhibited high rates of violent death and cancer as compared to women in general. "Old homosexuals appear to have been proportionately less numerous than their nonhomosexual counterparts in the scientific literature from 1858 to 1993. The pattern of early death evident in the homosexual obituaries is consistent with the pattern exhibited in the published surveys of homosexuals and intravenous drug abusers. Homosexuals may have experienced a short lifespan for the last 140 years; AIDS has apparently reduced it about 10 percent."
(and yet another) The Centers for Disease Control & Prevention report that men who engage in homosexual behavior are 860% more likely to contract a sexually transmitted disease (STD), increasing up to 500% their risk of contracting HIV/AIDS. Men who have sex with men "have large numbers of anonymous partners, which can result in rapid, extensive transmission of STDs," the CDC warns. "Control of STDs is a central component of HIV infection prevention in the United States; resurgence of bacterial STD threatens national HIV infection prevention efforts."Gay Health reports that men who have sex with men are 320% more likely than heterosexuals to have unprotected sex without telling their partners they're HIV-positive. According to a study titled, "The Longevity of Homosexuals," in the Omega Journal of Death and Dying in 1994, the median age of death from AIDS is 37 and death from other causes 42. In another study, "Does Homosexual Activity Shorten Life?" in Psychological Reports in 1998, the average life expectancy of homosexuals is 20 to 30 years less than heterosexuals. Young persons who describe themselves as lesbian, gay, or bisexual (LGB) are at least twice as likely than their heterosexual peers to report a history of suicidal behavior (Russell & Joyner, 2001). It has been estimated that one in three LGB youths has engaged in suicidal behavior (D'Augelli, Hershberger, & Pilkington, 2001; Remafedi, Farrow, & Deisher, 1991; Safren & Heimberg, 1999). http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2294/is_9-10_49/ai_110813271
(johnnycat wrties)And yes, all of these things have scientific evidence to back it up. So chill.
No you don't. If you did you would have provided it. I'll "chill out" right after you can disprove ANY of what I just gave you. lets see....Johnnycat vs. The CDC and over 14,000 other surces. Oh, one more thing. It needs to have withstood peer review and/or have been duplicated by at least one non-homo. Good luck!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.