“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#27125 Jul 1, 2013
Ss couples are not in any way 'married' like diverse gendered couples.

Ss couples violate the design of physical union.

Ss couples are still only ever a duplicate half of marriage.

Ss couples are mutually fruitless, a defect of mating behavior.

Ss couples infringe on the most distinct, unique and critical relationship of society. Imposing an imposter relationship by every measure of history and universal culture.

The assertion would be laughable if it was not so idiotic.
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>That's sweet of you to feel that way bunny, but as living proof to the contrary, you still are one of the last heterosexuals to be arguing for the inherent natural superiority of those of your orientation. Just so you know, not even all the heterosexuals have been needed to participate in reproduction for us to still be here. Paul taught that Christians should just keep their legs crossed. Jesus was coming back soon, you really shouldn't be doing that while you're waiting. Think about it.
There are reasons why you censored my post.

1. Because you could not disprove one single point it makes.

2. Because then you could divert from the points to make a twisted ad homoan attack.

In so many ways the signs of a deep denial.

Think about it.
Angered American

Rochester, MN

#27126 Jul 1, 2013
prove that homosexuality is wrong

well apes out in the wild do not B-TT F_ck one another, or S-ck each others C-ck

It certainly isnt natural or normal behaivor

and if Homosexuals had been the first peoples the world wouldnt have ever gotten populated

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#27127 Jul 1, 2013
KiMare wrote:
There are reasons why you censored my post.
You say censored, I say deleted because I wasn't going to play in your fantasy and it was just above my reply for anyone to read anyways, but go on...
KiMare wrote:
1. Because you could not disprove one single point it makes.
It had a point? Sorry, didn't notice. If I had I would have said something. My bad. Would you like me to go back and look for it? If you say there was a point there, you know that I will be more than happy to go back and poke fun at it at least. You might want to give me a hint though. I actually read it first, that's why I deleted it. I was embarrassed for you.
KiMare wrote:
2. Because then you could divert from the points to make a twisted ad homoan attack.
No intent to divert attention away from a point that I hadn't been made aware even existed until after I posted. You can't put a stop sign after I've gone through the intersection and then claim I ran it. I've gone back and looked now, I still don't see ANY point you were trying to make that your mere existence as a heterosexual doesn't nullify. My intent was only to bring your attention to the reality that the superiority of the heterosexual argument should never be voiced by inferior heterosexuals. Silly, silly, silly.
KiMare wrote:
In so many ways the signs of a deep denial.
Think about it.
How is it denial that I find it impossible to feel inferior to you just because you are heterosexual? Your continued presence among them is proof that I shouldn't. None of us should feel inferior to heterosexuals, you be living proof we aren't.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#27128 Jul 1, 2013
Angered American wrote:
(nothing worth repeating)
Interesting timing on your part, I was just discussing heterosexuals ill-equipped to be arguing for the superiority of their orientation. Thanks for helping.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#27129 Jul 1, 2013
Ss couples are not in any way 'married' like diverse gendered couples.

Ss couples violate the design of physical union.

Ss couples are still only ever a duplicate half of marriage.

Ss couples are mutually fruitless, a defect of mating behavior.

Ss couples infringe on the most distinct, unique and critical relationship of society. Imposing an imposter relationship by every measure of history and universal culture.

The assertion would be laughable if it was not so idiotic.
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>You say censored, I say deleted because I wasn't going to play in your fantasy and it was just above my reply for anyone to read anyways, but go on...
<quoted text>It had a point? Sorry, didn't notice. If I had I would have said something. My bad. Would you like me to go back and look for it? If you say there was a point there, you know that I will be more than happy to go back and poke fun at it at least. You might want to give me a hint though. I actually read it first, that's why I deleted it. I was embarrassed for you.
<quoted text>No intent to divert attention away from a point that I hadn't been made aware even existed until after I posted. You can't put a stop sign after I've gone through the intersection and then claim I ran it. I've gone back and looked now, I still don't see ANY point you were trying to make that your mere existence as a heterosexual doesn't nullify. My intent was only to bring your attention to the reality that the superiority of the heterosexual argument should never be voiced by inferior heterosexuals. Silly, silly, silly.
<quoted text>How is it denial that I find it impossible to feel inferior to you just because you are heterosexual? Your continued presence among them is proof that I shouldn't. None of us should feel inferior to heterosexuals, you be living proof we aren't.
Facing reality make you feel inferior.

You have serious problems honey.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#27130 Jul 1, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Interesting timing on your part, I was just discussing heterosexuals ill-equipped to be arguing for the superiority of their orientation. Thanks for helping.
How will imposing a imposter relationship help your gay inferiority complex?

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#27131 Jul 1, 2013
KiMare wrote:
Facing reality make you feel inferior.
You have serious problems honey.
Now you know why I don't like to play with your nonsense sweetie, you're not up to the challenge. Buh-bye.
Truth

Livonia, MI

#27132 Jul 1, 2013
kuda wrote:
<quoted text>
What are your “scientific objections” to homosexuality? Just curious.
Well, based on the several studies that I have read, male to male sexual behavior specifically leads to a substantially elevated risks of diseases and infections. There are also studies that underscore the unique impact that a Father and Mother have on the development of a child. Raising a child without one or the other risks the ideal development of the child. Those are the basic objections that I find concerning homosexuality. To be clear, I do not judge people based on this, I simply have objections to the behavior.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#27133 Jul 1, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Now you know why I don't like to play with your nonsense sweetie, you're not up to the challenge. Buh-bye.
Your whole response was about 'not feeling inferior'.

My post had nothing to do with 'inferior'.

It had to do with distinctions.

You have a problem you are covering with denial and now running.
Angered American

Rochester, MN

#27134 Jul 1, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Interesting timing on your part, I was just discussing heterosexuals ill-equipped to be arguing for the superiority of their orientation. Thanks for helping.
No matter how you blather on...Gay sex is always going to be wrong

Since: Jul 13

Ogdensburg, NY

#27135 Jul 1, 2013
jst ad the bible it tells you it's wrong but thats all you sicko's

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#27136 Jul 1, 2013
Truth wrote:
Well, based on the several studies that I have read, male to male sexual behavior specifically leads to a substantially elevated risks of diseases and infections.
I'm sure you have sweetie, there are those who routinely churn out such anti-gay propaganda disguised as science. Such "studies" don't appear in legitimate scientific journals, if they are published at all. They are usually filled with factual errors and misinterpreted data based on unrepresentative populations. All sexual behaviors carry risks including infectious diseases. The risk isn't increased because it is male on male dear, but the act they are engaging in which carries a higher risk.
Truth wrote:
There are also studies that underscore the unique impact that a Father and Mother have on the development of a child. Raising a child without one or the other risks the ideal development of the child.
When children raised by same sex parents are compared to those raised by the opposite sex, no significant difference in outcome has been found by any legitimate study. The studies you are citing AREN'T of the effect of same sex parents, but the differences between a two parent and a single parent home. The only one fooled by that would be you.
Truth wrote:
Those are the basic objections that I find concerning homosexuality. To be clear, I do not judge people based on this, I simply have objections to the behavior.
You are badly informed and yet you have made up your mind. So much for "Truth".

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#27137 Jul 1, 2013
Angered American wrote:
No matter how you blather on...Gay sex is always going to be wrong
Your problem, not mine pumpkin. The best way for you to live with your problem, don't have gay sex and quit fantasizing about it. Is there anything else you might need?

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#27138 Jul 1, 2013
Angered American wrote:
<quoted text>
No matter how you blather on...Gay sex is always going to be wrong
Why so angry, dude? Let it go. Stop thinking about it. Take up knitting or mahjong.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#27140 Jul 1, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
BS being spouted by the twirling fairy.
Says the three-nippled vagina-man. ROTFLMAO

How ironic is that?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#27141 Jul 1, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Your whole response was about 'not feeling inferior'.
My post had nothing to do with 'inferior'.
It had to do with distinctions.
You have a problem you are covering with denial and now running.
Projection. Normal people don't try to build themselves at other people's expense. It is clear you have an inferiority complex.

Get therapy.
thehumanhighligh treel

Woonsocket, RI

#27142 Jul 1, 2013
Don't worry my fellow warriors of freedom and equality. The times are changing and soon all the bigots will be crushed by the homosexual steamroller of this great generation.(Credit to Jerry Falwell for the Homosexual steamroller comment)
Here's a wonderful picture.(Credit to The Oatmeal)
http://www.samanther.com/pictotd/Win7%20Backg...
Joe Citizen

Martin, TN

#27143 Jul 1, 2013
skeleton christ wrote:
That's right; prove it. Keep your religion out of it. I want scientific proof that it is wrong to be gay, and wrong to commit gay acts. If you can't come up with a better reason than "well, it's in the Bible" Then don't even bother trying to convince me.
If we were meant to be with our same sex, there wouldn't be two sexes. One fits the other. It's morally wrong - religion or not.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#27144 Jul 2, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>I'm sure you have sweetie, there are those who routinely churn out such anti-gay propaganda disguised as science. Such "studies" don't appear in legitimate scientific journals, if they are published at all. They are usually filled with factual errors and misinterpreted data based on unrepresentative populations. All sexual behaviors carry risks including infectious diseases. The risk isn't increased because it is male on male dear, but the act they are engaging in which carries a higher risk. <quoted text>When children raised by same sex parents are compared to those raised by the opposite sex, no significant difference in outcome has been found by any legitimate study. The studies you are citing AREN'T of the effect of same sex parents, but the differences between a two parent and a single parent home. The only one fooled by that would be you. <quoted text>You are badly informed and yet you have made up your mind. So much for "Truth".
There is no legitimate study that equates ss couples with biological parents, LET ALONE CLAIMS THEY ARE BETTER.

Please explain how ANY default hetero parent is rated less than birth parent situations, but ss couples (ALWAYS deficient one gender) rate better than all?

So unbelievable stupid, it's diabolical.

The latest, largest and most scientific study to date rates lesbian couples LAST, after single parents.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#27145 Jul 2, 2013
You are not in any way 'married' like diverse gendered couples.
Ss couples violate the design of physical union.
Ss couples are still only ever a duplicate half of marriage.
Ss couples are mutually fruitless, a defect of mating behavior.
Ss couples infringe on the most distinct, unique and critical relationship of society. Imposing an imposter relationship by every measure of history and universal culture.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 2 min Christina La Vey 578,722
No one should blaspheme Prophet Mohammad, peace... 5 min MUQ2 102
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 7 min River Tam 817,316
Which is the Oldest Indian Language? Sanskrit V... (Jul '08) 11 min Neelakaran 5,912
Animal Cruelty That You Can Stop 55 min A Merican 2
avandia 2014 (Jan '14) 1 hr AlmostDied 283
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 1 hr onemale 270,001
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 2 hr Rosa_Winkel 609,761
Sims 4 Key Generator (Oct '13) 22 hr IWANNAPLAY 187
More from around the web