Re: Boy Scouts - Another Homosexual Victim

RedWhiteBlue Wed Jun 19, 2013 11:46 am

sodaknomad wrote:
Gomezz Adddams wrote:Wow your knowledge of history is beyond pathetic. How ironic that your attempt at sarcasm demonstrates that you aren't even aware that Jefferson had written a diatribe in the Declaration against slavery which was later removed by Congress in the final draft. In actuality Jefferson was against slavery and wrote laws preventing further importation of slaves and greatly influenced the writing of the Northwest Ordinance and it's ban on slavery in the new territories.

Instead you prefer to engage in presentism. But hey, continuing cherry picking your history, you'll make your eighth grade teachers proud that you can regurgitate the pablum they fed you.

Hell, If I ever quoted history like RWB did, my teacher would have thrown me out of class. I'm old enough to remember teachers instead of indoctrinators.

I see that you fell for Gomezz's attempted diversion, sodaknomad. Here was my response:

I laughed right out loud on that post, Gomezz.
lol. So, your first bait didn't work, and then you have the gall to try another one. Funny. Sorry, but I'm not biting on that one either.

Back on topic, as I said: "My Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, did not condemn homosexuality. Neither do I.
I believe in the U.S. Constitution and that the individual freedoms of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness belong to all."

I don't "have to believe" in whatever Locke (or whoever else used those words) believes in. Lame try at baiting and lame try at attempted diversion to history (start a topic on that if you like - Jefferson did own slaves even though he was against it - yes & it could be an interesting topic).

Perhaps you could start such a thread, sodaknomad. It's really off-topic here.

RedWhiteBlue Wed Jun 19, 2013 11:49 am

Skeptical wrote:
RedWhiteBlue wrote:
Skeptical wrote:
Shortie's Lover wrote:
Skeptical wrote:
As soon as I see a baby coming out of some guys ass, I'll reconsider.

I am still waiting for one of the gays/lesbians, or homosexuality supporter, who visit this forum to explain how one male can make another male pregnant or one female to make another female pregnant without either having any contribution from the opposite gender.
You have confounded a biological process (reproduction/pregnancy) with a loving act of sharing and intimacy.

Not really, I understand fully your support of the homosexual thing for your own personal reason and happiness and desire to keep heterosexuals around as breeding stock for future use.

Glad you agree it is impossible for two women or two men in a homosexual relationship to create another human WITHOUT the participation/contribution of a member of the opposite sex.

Yet you still maintain homosexual relationships are as nature and appropriate evolution of the human species intended.

Homosexual behavior has been observed in all species in nature, and documented in about 500.
It's actually a lower percentage in humans. But that's probably because some societies have a stigma against it. Instead of being true to their natural urges, some human homosexuals try to force themselves into unnatural (for them) behavior in order to be accepted by society.

So, which one, homosexual or heterosexual is what nature prefers since continuance of the species is involved?

It looks like "nature" prefers both. It includes both in all it's species.

nightlight88 Wed Jun 19, 2013 12:29 pm

RedWhiteBlue wrote:
Skeptical wrote:
RedWhiteBlue wrote:
Skeptical wrote:
Shortie's Lover wrote:
Skeptical wrote:
As soon as I see a baby coming out of some guys ass, I'll reconsider.

I am still waiting for one of the gays/lesbians, or homosexuality supporter, who visit this forum to explain how one male can make another male pregnant or one female to make another female pregnant without either having any contribution from the opposite gender.
You have confounded a biological process (reproduction/pregnancy) with a loving act of sharing and intimacy.

Not really, I understand fully your support of the homosexual thing for your own personal reason and happiness and desire to keep heterosexuals around as breeding stock for future use.

Glad you agree it is impossible for two women or two men in a homosexual relationship to create another human WITHOUT the participation/contribution of a member of the opposite sex.

Yet you still maintain homosexual relationships are as nature and appropriate evolution of the human species intended.

Homosexual behavior has been observed in all species in nature, and documented in about 500.
It's actually a lower percentage in humans. But that's probably because some societies have a stigma against it. Instead of being true to their natural urges, some human homosexuals try to force themselves into unnatural (for them) behavior in order to be accepted by society.

So, which one, homosexual or heterosexual is what nature prefers since continuance of the species is involved?

It looks like "nature" prefers both. It includes both in all it's species.

NL's reply:

If I remember correctly the Egyptian lezbo nicci was a big proponent of queers in nature being a "natural" thing. When you can show me two male pooches buttblasting each other until one of them becomes preggo, then come and talk to me.

RedWhiteBlue Wed Jun 19, 2013 12:45 pm

nightlight88 wrote:
RedWhiteBlue wrote:
Skeptical wrote:
RedWhiteBlue wrote:
Skeptical wrote:
Shortie's Lover wrote:
Skeptical wrote:
As soon as I see a baby coming out of some guys ass, I'll reconsider.

I am still waiting for one of the gays/lesbians, or homosexuality supporter, who visit this forum to explain how one male can make another male pregnant or one female to make another female pregnant without either having any contribution from the opposite gender.
You have confounded a biological process (reproduction/pregnancy) with a loving act of sharing and intimacy.

Not really, I understand fully your support of the homosexual thing for your own personal reason and happiness and desire to keep heterosexuals around as breeding stock for future use.

Glad you agree it is impossible for two women or two men in a homosexual relationship to create another human WITHOUT the participation/contribution of a member of the opposite sex.

Yet you still maintain homosexual relationships are as nature and appropriate evolution of the human species intended.

Homosexual behavior has been observed in all species in nature, and documented in about 500.
It's actually a lower percentage in humans. But that's probably because some societies have a stigma against it. Instead of being true to their natural urges, some human homosexuals try to force themselves into unnatural (for them) behavior in order to be accepted by society.

So, which one, homosexual or heterosexual is what nature prefers since continuance of the species is involved?

It looks like "nature" prefers both. It includes both in all it's species.

NL's reply:

If I remember correctly the Egyptian lezbo nicci was a big proponent of queers in nature being a "natural" thing. When you can show me two male pooches buttblasting each other until one of them becomes preggo, then come and talk to me.

Biologically impossible, nightlight. You know that. Don't play dumb.
Do you really think God/nature intended for every incidence of copulation to result in pregnancy?

Darth Cheney Wed Jun 19, 2013 1:20 pm

Anal sex isn't copulation but rather perversion or sexual deviancy.

Skeptical Wed Jun 19, 2013 1:48 pm

RedWhiteBlue wrote: It looks like "nature" prefers both. It includes both in all it's species.

I reckon it will be quite easy for you to post the links to the peer reviewed scientific articles citing the instances of the

"Homosexual behavior has been observed in all species in nature, and documented in about 500"

continuing their respective species entirely between the homosexual partners without any participation/contribution of a member of the opposite gender of the species.

It will be interesting reading how nature intends any species to propagate itself through homosexual partners.

RedWhiteBlue Wed Jun 19, 2013 2:13 pm

re: "It will be interesting reading how nature intends any species to propagate itself through homosexual partners."

Why would you think that nature intends such a thing, skeptical? That is biologically impossible. I think you know that.

Skeptical Wed Jun 19, 2013 3:13 pm

RedWhiteBlue wrote:re: "It will be interesting reading how nature intends any species to propagate itself through homosexual partners."

Why would you think that nature intends such a thing, skeptical? That is biologically impossible. I think you know that.

Let's take a look shall we?

I asked you, "
So, which one, homosexual or heterosexual is what nature prefers since continuance of the species is involved?"

To which you responded, "It looks like "nature" prefers both. It includes both in all it's species.

It is you who maintains it is natural for homosexuals to continue the species.

It is up to you to provide the peer reviewed articles explaining how it is natural for homosexuals to procreate entirely without the participation/contribution of a member of the opposite gender.

RedWhiteBlue Wed Jun 19, 2013 3:52 pm

Skeptical wrote:
RedWhiteBlue wrote:re: "It will be interesting reading how nature intends any species to propagate itself through homosexual partners."

Why would you think that nature intends such a thing, skeptical? That is biologically impossible. I think you know that.

Let's take a look shall we?

I asked you, "
So, which one, homosexual or heterosexual is what nature prefers since continuance of the species is involved?"

To which you responded, "It looks like "nature" prefers both. It includes both in all it's species.

It is you who maintains it is natural for homosexuals to continue the species.

It is up to you to provide the peer reviewed articles explaining how it is natural for homosexuals to procreate entirely without the participation/contribution of a member of the opposite gender.

Sorry if you misunderstood skeptical. I'll try to clarify for you. I do NOT maintain that homosexuals could continue the species. Simply not possible. Basic biology.
When I answered that nature prefers both (hetero & homo), it was to indicate that all of nature's species include both. Both are natural (in nature).

Homosexual sex cannot result in reproduction. Not all heterosexual intercourse results in procreation, either. Nor does the highly sexual act of french kissing. Sexual acts can strengthen the bond between 2 people. I don't think God/nature intended for every sexual/sensual act to result in a pregnancy. Have all of yours resulted in a baby?

BTW Darth, are all of your sexual/sensual acts that failed to produce a baby, considered a "perversion or sexual deviancy"?

Skeptical Wed Jun 19, 2013 6:26 pm

RedWhiteBlue wrote:re: "It will be interesting reading how nature intends any species to propagate itself through homosexual partners."

Why would you think that nature intends such a thing, skeptical? That is biologically impossible. I think you know that.

If procreation among homosexuals is biologically impossible why do you say homosexuality is natural?

Why would nature create something biologically impossible to procreate?

Skeptical Wed Jun 19, 2013 6:33 pm

Sorry if you misunderstood skeptical. I'll try to clarify for you. I do NOT maintain that homosexuals could continue the species. Simply not possible. Basic biology.
When I answered that nature prefers both (hetero & homo), it was to indicate that all of nature's species include both. Both are natural (in nature).

Homosexual sex cannot result in reproduction. Not all heterosexual intercourse results in procreation, either. Nor does the highly sexual act of french kissing. Sexual acts can strengthen the bond between 2 people. I don't think God/nature intended for every sexual/sensual act to result in a pregnancy. Have all of yours resulted in a baby?

So now you are claiming God made homosexuals in spite of all the instructions in the Old Testament against such behavior?

BTW, it is not revelant whether there are heterosexual relationships that do not produce offspring. The fact remains it is impossible, as you also admit, for homosexuals to procreate yet you insist it is "natural".

Still waiting for the peer reveiwed scientific articles veryfiying homosexualality to be natural .. as nature intended.

sodaknomad Wed Jun 19, 2013 6:45 pm

RedWhiteBlue wrote:It looks like "nature" prefers both. It includes both in all it's species.

Boy Scouts - Another Homosexual Victim - Page 5 3218178747

Dayem, but theat was a good one. You fell for the leftist claptrap of "homosexuality appears in every pecies. No. Homosexuality is SATANIC in nature. It only appears in human beigs. Homosexuals are demons, not angels. Remember what Paul wrote to the Corinthians about the effeminate not appearing in the Kingdom of God. That one verse alone is the Christian tenent against homosexuality and supports everything written in the Old Testament aginst the satanic practice.

What's the next thing, are you going to try and prove that God is a communist?

Freedom Forever Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:21 am

sodaknomad wrote:
RedWhiteBlue wrote:It looks like "nature" prefers both. It includes both in all it's species.

Dayem, but theat was a good one. You fell for the leftist claptrap of "homosexuality appears in every pecies. No. Homosexuality is SATANIC in nature. It only appears in human beigs. Homosexuals are demons, not angels. Remember what Paul wrote to the Corinthians about the effeminate not appearing in the Kingdom of God. That one verse alone is the Christian tenent against homosexuality and supports everything written in the Old Testament aginst the satanic practice.

What's the next thing, are you going to try and prove that God is a communist?

Well according to JT Jesus was all in for "Social Justice" Don't doubt him! As for the rest of your post, boy are you going to get it now. ATTACK! cheers

sodaknomad Thu Jun 20, 2013 2:06 pm

Freedom Forever wrote:
sodaknomad wrote:
RedWhiteBlue wrote:It looks like "nature" prefers both. It includes both in all it's species.

Dayem, but theat was a good one. You fell for the leftist claptrap of "homosexuality appears in every pecies. No. Homosexuality is SATANIC in nature. It only appears in human beigs. Homosexuals are demons, not angels. Remember what Paul wrote to the Corinthians about the effeminate not appearing in the Kingdom of God. That one verse alone is the Christian tenent against homosexuality and supports everything written in the Old Testament aginst the satanic practice.

What's the next thing, are you going to try and prove that God is a communist?

Well according to JT Jesus was all in for "Social Justice" Don't doubt him! As for the rest of your post, boy are you going to get it now. ATTACK!

You didn't see that little note I wrote to Nicci yesterday, then.

RedWhiteBlue Thu Jun 20, 2013 2:16 pm

Skeptical/sodaknomad - FYI :
("Still waiting for the peer reveiwed scientific articles veryfiying homosexualality to be natural .. as nature intended." by Skept)

"Homosexual behavior has been observed in close to 1,500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, and is well documented for 500 of them. - - - No species has been found in which homosexual behaviour has not been shown to exist, with the exception of species that never have sex at all - - - "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

"One fundamental premise in social debates has been that homosexuality is unnatural. This premise is wrong. Homosexuality is both common and highly essential in the lives of a number of species," explains Petter Boeckman - - -"
http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx

" - - discoveries of homosexual behavior in more than 10% of prevailing species throughout the world. - - - Currently, homosexual behavior has been documented in over 450 different animal species worldwide. - - - not only do animals exhibit homosexuality, but the existence of this behavior is quite prevalent and may also confer certain evolutionary advantages."
http://www.yalescientific.org/2012/03/do-animals-exhibit-homosexuality/

" - - in the latest study the authors claim the phenomenon is not only widespread but part of a necessary biological adaptation for the survival of the species.

They found that on the Hawaiian island of Oahu, almost a third of the Laysan albatross population is raised by pairs of two females because of the shortage of males. Through these 'lesbian' unions, Laysan albatross are flourishing. Their existence had been dwindling before the adaptation was noticed.

Other species form same-sex bonds for other reasons, they found. Dolphins have been known engage in same-sex interactions to facilitate group bonding while male-male pairings in locusts killed off the weaker males.

A pair of "gay" penguins recently hatched an egg at a German zoo after being given the egg that had been rejected by its biological parents by keepers."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/5550488/Homosexual-behaviour-widespread

"20% of All Bird and Mammal Sexual Interactions are Homosexual Homosexuality is thoroughly natural. - - - It occurs in a massive range of animal species, including humans, so appears to be part of the genetic makeup of life in general. - - - All this points to the fact that homosexuality is a part of the design of nature - - "
http://www.humantruth.info/homosexuality.html

Other sites you might like:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/200906
/gay-animals
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/15750604/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/gay-animals-out-
http://www.livescience.com/1125-homosexual-animals-closet.html

There are also an additional 99 links/references included in the first link, which provide further scientific evidence.

Darth Cheney Thu Jun 20, 2013 3:05 pm

Boy Scouts - Another Homosexual Victim - Page 5 1106906410

Homosexuality is both common and highly essential in the lives of a number of species," explains Petter Boeckman - - -"
http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx

Freedom Forever Thu Jun 20, 2013 3:51 pm

Darth Cheney wrote:

Homosexuality is both common and highly essential in the lives of a number of species," explains Petter Boeckman - - -"
http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx

What is with RWB obsession with butt sex. For him, it just has to be legit. Boy Scouts - Another Homosexual Victim - Page 5 1398734447

Freedom Forever Thu Jun 20, 2013 3:56 pm

sodaknomad wrote:
Freedom Forever wrote:
sodaknomad wrote:
RedWhiteBlue wrote:It looks like "nature" prefers both. It includes both in all it's species.

Dayem, but theat was a good one. You fell for the leftist claptrap of "homosexuality appears in every pecies. No. Homosexuality is SATANIC in nature. It only appears in human beigs. Homosexuals are demons, not angels. Remember what Paul wrote to the Corinthians about the effeminate not appearing in the Kingdom of God. That one verse alone is the Christian tenent against homosexuality and supports everything written in the Old Testament aginst the satanic practice.

What's the next thing, are you going to try and prove that God is a communist?

Well according to JT Jesus was all in for "Social Justice" Don't doubt him! As for the rest of your post, boy are you going to get it now. ATTACK!

You didn't see that little note I wrote to Nicci yesterday, then.

Oh no you didin!!!! Boy Scouts - Another Homosexual Victim - Page 5 1106906410

RedWhiteBlue Thu Jun 20, 2013 4:03 pm

Freedom - just common courtesy in replying to Skeptical's inquiry: "Still waiting for the peer reveiwed scientific articles veryfiying homosexualality to be natural .. as nature intended."

- - - maybe you could learn from that procedure

Skeptical Thu Jun 20, 2013 4:13 pm

Freedom Forever wrote:
Darth Cheney wrote:

Homosexuality is both common and highly essential in the lives of a number of species," explains Petter Boeckman - - -"
http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx

What is with RWB obsession with butt sex. For him, it just has to be legit.

He/she/it should feel fortunate the human species still has heterosexuals producing offspring to keep the species alive and continuing. I will admit I did not read every article because over the years I have noticed the LGBT use these "instances of same sex relationships" among penguins and other animals to justify their deviant behavior.

What is lacking from RWB is the articles specifically explaining how this butt sex practice RWB so admires produces offspring and is continuing the species. I doubt converting offspring born of heterosexual couples to homosexuals can be considered procreation of the human species.

Just wonder if RWB can tell us how many babies will be produced by the butt sex practice of 100 gay males living on a deserted remote area of earth completely isolated from any other human.

Freedom Forever Thu Jun 20, 2013 4:14 pm

RedWhiteBlue wrote:Freedom - just common courtesy in replying to Skeptical's inquiry: "Still waiting for the peer reveiwed scientific articles veryfiying homosexualality to be natural .. as nature intended."

- - - maybe you could learn from that procedure

What is with you obsession with the gays. You some kind of pillow biter? I've learned nothing from you btw

RedWhiteBlue Thu Jun 20, 2013 4:23 pm

Freedom Forever wrote:
RedWhiteBlue wrote:Freedom - just common courtesy in replying to Skeptical's inquiry: "Still waiting for the peer reveiwed scientific articles veryfiying homosexualality to be natural .. as nature intended."

- - - maybe you could learn from that procedure

What is with you obsession with the gays. You some kind of pillow biter? I've learned nothing from you btw

Just answering Skeptical's inquiry. Still patiently waiting for yours on another thread (welfare fraud). Common courtesy.

RedWhiteBlue Thu Jun 20, 2013 4:29 pm

From my prior posts here, Skeptical"

"Why would you think that nature intends such a thing, skeptical? That is biologically impossible. I think you know that."

"I do NOT maintain that homosexuals could continue the species. Simply not possible. Basic biology."

"Homosexual sex cannot result in reproduction."

How did you miss those? Don't you read the posts?
Perhaps a class in basic reading comprehension would help you.

Skeptical Thu Jun 20, 2013 5:34 pm

RedWhiteBlue wrote:From my prior posts here, Skeptical"

"Why would you think that nature intends such a thing, skeptical? That is biologically impossible. I think you know that."

"I do NOT maintain that homosexuals could continue the species. Simply not possible. Basic biology."

"Homosexual sex cannot result in reproduction."

How did you miss those? Don't you read the posts?
Perhaps a class in basic reading comprehension would help you.

Hey, I can play the "from my prior posts here" game too!

Not really, I understand fully your support of the homosexual thing for your own personal reason and happiness and desire to keep heterosexuals around as breeding stock for future use.

Glad you agree it is impossible for two women or two men in a homosexual relationship to create another human WITHOUT the participation/contribution of a member of the opposite sex.

Yet you still maintain homosexual relationships are as nature and appropriate evolution of the human species intended.

I am still waiting for you to prove how two human beings incapable of producing an offspring between just the two of them ..two males or two females is as nature intended to be "natural" to insure the species will continue.

You have been asked to do this at least twice and in particular to NOT use the instances of homosexual relationships of zoo penguins or other animals unless you have documented evidence those two homosexual penguins in a zoo produced more penguins among the two of them.

Over the years two headed cattle, and other oddities of a particular species within the animal world have been reported but just because these things happen in nature does not prove they are "natural".

Perhaps you need to take another look in that mirror to find out who had a reading comprehension shortcoming.

RedWhiteBlue Thu Jun 20, 2013 5:43 pm

One more time Skept:
Homosexuals CANNOT reproduce. It is biologically impossible.

(please show where I ever said they could)

My posts:

"Why would you think that nature intends such a thing, skeptical? That is biologically impossible. I think you know that."

"I do NOT maintain that homosexuals could continue the species. Simply not possible. Basic biology."

"Homosexual sex cannot result in reproduction."

Are you confusing my posts with someone else's? I never indicated, nor ever suggested that homosexuals could procreate. Never.