Boy Scouts - Another Homosexual Victim

BOT

How will having pillow biters in the boy scouts help the boys scout or the pillow biters?  Also who is stopping pillow biters from joining the BS?  Do hetero's demand their normal sexuality be validated  / acknowledged when joining the BS or any other organization?

"I am heterosexual hear me roar!"  said no one ever.   I'm sick of this bull sh|t and the dumbed down lib who think they are the compassionate / hip / evolved ones.

RedWhiteBlue wrote: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.

First of all you keep posting "Homosexuals CANNOT reproduce. It is biologically impossible." in response to being asked repeatedly to prove why or how two same sex members and biologically incapable humans in a homosexual relationship are as nature intended to continue the human species.

In all honesty as far as I recall you never said it nor did anybody else and nobody ever claimed you did.

In other words do you really think nature intended for the continuance of any species with members of that species being biologically incapable?

If only 10,000 homosexual males were left on the planet how will the human species continue?

Try not equating anything nature does as "Natural" but equate "natural" with "Normal"

Skeptical wrote:

RedWhiteBlue wrote: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.

First of all you keep posting "Homosexuals CANNOT reproduce. It is biologically impossible." in response to being asked repeatedly to prove why or how two same sex members and biologically incapable humans in a homosexual relationship are as nature intended to continue the human species.

In all honesty as far as I recall you never said it nor did anybody else and nobody ever claimed you did.

In other words do you really think nature intended for the continuance of any species with members of that species being biologically incapable?

If only 10,000 homosexual males were left on the planet how will the human species continue?

Try not equating anything nature does as "Natural" but equate "natural" with "Normal"

You are going in circles, Skept.
Yes. I keep posting that ("Homosexuals CANNOT reproduce. It is biologically impossible.")

You even admit that I never said they could ("In all honesty as far as I recall you never said it nor did anybody else and nobody ever claimed you did"); so why do you continue to ask me to 'prove' it? No one can prove that, since it can't happen. Again, not biologically possible.

They cannot continue the species, and nature could not have intended that they do.

If only 10,000 males (hetero or homo or any combination) were left on the planet, the human species could not continue. Same goes for 10,000 females.

lol - on your last backpedal. What happens in nature IS natural. But, yes - "normal" and "natural" have different meanings. Throw in "average" if you like.
On earth, if you have white skin color, or green eyes, or are over 6'3" tall, you do fit into "average" - - that does not make you "unnatural". All those things occur in nature. So does homosexuality.

You are going in circles, Skept.
Yes. I keep posting that ("Homosexuals CANNOT reproduce. It is biologically impossible.")

You even admit that I never said they could ("In all honesty as far as I recall you never said it nor did anybody else and nobody ever claimed you did"); so why do you continue to ask me to 'prove' it? No one can prove that, since it can't happen. Again, not biologically possible.

They cannot continue the species, and nature could not have intended that they do.

If only 10,000 males (hetero or homo or any combination) were left on the planet, the human species could not continue. Same goes for 10,000 females.

lol - on your last backpedal. What happens in nature IS natural. But, yes - "normal" and "natural" have different meanings. Throw in "average" if you like.
On earth, if you have white skin color, or green eyes, or are over 6'3" tall, you do fit into "average" - - that does not make you "unnatural". All those things occur in nature. So does homosexuality.

I am done talking to a wall... continue to enjoy your butt sex and think it is normal as nature intended to continue the human species.

Skeptical wrote:

You are going in circles, Skept.
Yes. I keep posting that ("Homosexuals CANNOT reproduce. It is biologically impossible.")

You even admit that I never said they could ("In all honesty as far as I recall you never said it nor did anybody else and nobody ever claimed you did"); so why do you continue to ask me to 'prove' it? No one can prove that, since it can't happen. Again, not biologically possible.

They cannot continue the species, and nature could not have intended that they do.

If only 10,000 males (hetero or homo or any combination) were left on the planet, the human species could not continue. Same goes for 10,000 females.

lol - on your last backpedal. What happens in nature IS natural. But, yes - "normal" and "natural" have different meanings. Throw in "average" if you like.
On earth, if you have white skin color, or green eyes, or are over 6'3" tall, you do fit into "average" - - that does not make you "unnatural". All those things occur in nature. So does homosexuality.

I am done talking to a wall... continue to enjoy your butt sex and think it is normal [i]as nature intended to continue the human species.[/i]

I don't think that. Never did. See bolded above. My words. Read them.

RedWhiteBlue wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

I am done talking to a wall... continue to enjoy your butt sex and think it is normal [i]as nature intended to continue the human species.[/i]

I don't think that. Never did. See bolded above. My words. Read them.

Perhaps you should take your advice and read your posts!

You were asked this question;

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

And you responded thusly;

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

Do you now deny you meant nature intended homosexuals to continue the species.

In case you insist nature intended for homosexuals to continue the human species all you need to do is explain how two males will continue the human species by engaging in butt sex with each other.

Wed. June 19:
https://justsayingit.forumotion.com/t606p105-boy-scouts-another-homosexual-victim#5382

An excerpt: "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)."

RedWhiteBlue wrote:Wed. June 19:
https://justsayingit.forumotion.com/t606p105-boy-scouts-another-homosexual-victim#5382

An excerpt: "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)."

Nope, your answer to the specific question was clear, your original response is your accurate thought as an attempt to justify homosexuality.

You now are trying to deny homosexuals were preferred along with heterosexuals to continue the human species.

Since we all know homosexuals cannot continue the species WITHOUT some participation/contribution of a member of the opposite gender what exactly is the purpose of homosexuals within the human species and more importantly how do they aid the species?

Skeptical wrote:

RedWhiteBlue wrote:Wed. June 19:
https://justsayingit.forumotion.com/t606p105-boy-scouts-another-homosexual-victim#5382

An excerpt: "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)."

Nope, your answer to the specific question was clear, your original response is your accurate thought as an attempt to justify homosexuality.

You now are trying to deny homosexuals were preferred along with heterosexuals to continue the human species.

Since we all know homosexuals cannot continue the species WITHOUT some participation/contribution of a member of the opposite gender what exactly is the purpose of homosexuals within the human species and more importantly how do they aid the species?

I am not justifying, promoting, nor condemning homosexuality. It just IS. Interesting that you think they "aid" in the species (see link)

Obviously, you didn't read the links either. Please do. That will answer those questions, if you are really interested. Then we could discuss further.

RedWhiteBlue wrote: I am not justifying, promoting, nor condemning homosexuality. It just IS. Interesting that you think they "aid" in the species (see link)

Obviously, you didn't read the links either. Please do. That will answer those questions, if you are really interested. Then we could discuss further.

Sure could fool this person ... seems all you are doing is trying to justify the practice of homosexuality!

You had better hone your reading skills ... at no time was there a declaration by me of any thought homosexuals aid the human species.  Did you notice this little thing (?) at the end of the comment?  If you recall your English classes in school that little thing indicates a question!

I was curious how you think homosexuals may aid the human species, thereby the question to you, since there is agreement nature sure doesn't intend two members of the same sex to continue the species even though earlier you said nature did prefer homosexuals along with heterosexuals to continue the human species.

Skeptical wrote:

RedWhiteBlue wrote: I am not justifying, promoting, nor condemning homosexuality. It just IS. Interesting that you think they "aid" in the species (see link)

Obviously, you didn't read the links either. Please do. That will answer those questions, if you are really interested. Then we could discuss further.

Sure could fool this person ... seems all you are doing is trying to justify the practice of homosexuality!

You had better hone your reading skills ... at no time was there a declaration by me of any thought homosexuals aid the human species.  Did you notice this little thing (?) at the end of the comment?  If you recall your English classes in school that little thing indicates a question!

I was curious how you think homosexuals may aid the human species, thereby the question to you, since there is agreement nature sure doesn't intend two members of the same sex to continue the species even though earlier you said nature did prefer homosexuals along with heterosexuals to continue the human species.

 
So this is the homophobe Alamo now. The last stand. How retarded.

Liberal wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

RedWhiteBlue wrote: I am not justifying, promoting, nor condemning homosexuality. It just IS. Interesting that you think they "aid" in the species (see link)

Obviously, you didn't read the links either. Please do. That will answer those questions, if you are really interested. Then we could discuss further.

Sure could fool this person ... seems all you are doing is trying to justify the practice of homosexuality!

You had better hone your reading skills ... at no time was there a declaration by me of any thought homosexuals aid the human species.  Did you notice this little thing (?) at the end of the comment?  If you recall your English classes in school that little thing indicates a question!

I was curious how you think homosexuals may aid the human species, thereby the question to you, since there is agreement nature sure doesn't intend two members of the same sex to continue the species even though earlier you said nature did prefer homosexuals along with heterosexuals to continue the human species.

 
So this is the homophobe Alamo now. The last stand. How retarded.

In all my years the only people who defended/justified the homosexual lifestyle so vigorously and as preferred by nature to continue the human species as RWB has been doing were homosexual.

Liberal wrote:So this is the homophobe Alamo now. The last stand. How retarded.

The homophobe Alamo !  LOL, Liberal !



From this thread, I've got Gomezz pegged in the role of frontiersman, Davy Crockett:

https://justsayingit.forumotion.com/t443-hell-froze-over

Which one of you boys plays the role of Colonel James Bowie in your re-enactments ?  Or do you take turns ?

And, do you own your coon skin caps ?  Or rent them from a costume company ?

Skeptical wrote:

RedWhiteBlue wrote: I am not justifying, promoting, nor condemning homosexuality. It just IS. Interesting that you think they "aid" in the species (see link)

Obviously, you didn't read the links either. Please do. That will answer those questions, if you are really interested. Then we could discuss further.

Sure could fool this person ... seems all you are doing is trying to justify the practice of homosexuality!

You had better hone your reading skills ... at no time was there a declaration by me of any thought homosexuals aid the human species.  Did you notice this little thing (?) at the end of the comment?  If you recall your English classes in school that little thing indicates a question!

I was curious how you think homosexuals may aid the human species, thereby the question to you, since there is agreement nature sure doesn't intend two members of the same sex to continue the species even though earlier you said nature did prefer homosexuals along with heterosexuals to continue the human species.

See above (in bold).

RedWhiteBlue wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

RedWhiteBlue wrote: I am not justifying, promoting, nor condemning homosexuality. It just IS. Interesting that you think they "aid" in the species (see link)

Obviously, you didn't read the links either. Please do. That will answer those questions, if you are really interested. Then we could discuss further.

Sure could fool this person ... seems all you are doing is trying to justify the practice of homosexuality!

You had better hone your reading skills ... at no time was there a declaration by me of any thought homosexuals aid the human species.  Did you notice this little thing (?) at the end of the comment?  If you recall your English classes in school that little thing indicates a question!

I was curious how you think homosexuals may aid the human species, thereby the question to you, since there is agreement nature sure doesn't intend two members of the same sex to continue the species even though earlier you said nature did prefer homosexuals along with heterosexuals to continue the human species.

See above (in bold).

It walks like a pig, looks like a pig, sounds like a pig, and smells like a pig and now you cover it with lipstick and declare it no longer a pig?  Got it!!

Skeptical wrote:
In all my years the only people who defended/justified the homosexual lifestyle so vigorously and as preferred by nature to continue the human species as RWB has been doing were homosexual.

Again - I am neither justifying, defending, nor condemning homosexuality.
(do you think that because I provided evidence of homosexuality existing in all species, that is somehow "justification"? It's simply a fact, Skept. Live with it.)

Those of us who are heterosexuals in the U.S. today, should count our blessings. Being gay carries an array of social, emotional, and psychological burdens and challenges. Although it is not as difficult in some cultures, it is far far worse in others.

RedWhiteBlue wrote:

Skeptical wrote:
In all my years the only people who defended/justified the homosexual lifestyle so vigorously and as preferred by nature to continue the human species as RWB has been doing were homosexual.

Again - I am neither justifying, defending, nor condemning homosexuality.
(do you think that because I provided evidence of homosexuality existing in all species, that is somehow "justification"? It's simply a fact, Skept. Live with it.)

Those of us who are heterosexuals in the U.S. today, should count our blessings. Being gay carries an array of social, emotional, and psychological burdens and challenges. Although it is not as difficult in some cultures, it is far far worse in others.

ALL species?

Really?

It can also be very difficult for homophobes:
(in all my years, I have known or known of many who were latent homosexuals)

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=homophobes-might-be-hidden-homosexuals :

"A new analysis of implicit bias and explicit sexual orientation statements may help to explain the underpinnings of anti-gay bullying and hate crimes.
- - - those individuals who are most hostile toward gays and hold strong anti-gay views may themselves have same-sex desires - - -
Sometimes people are threatened by gays and lesbians because they are fearing their own impulses, in a sense they 'doth protest too much, - - - they may be unaccepting of others because they cannot be accepting of themselves.
In a predominately heterosexual society, 'know thyself' can be a challenge for many gay individuals, - - - But in controlling and homophobic homes, embracing a minority sexual orientation can be terrifying.

Those participants who reported their heterosexuality despite having hidden same-sex desires were also the most likely to show hostility toward gay individuals, including self-reported anti-gay attitudes, endorsement of anti-gay policies and discrimination such as supporting harsher punishments for homosexuals.
People in denial about their own sexual orientation,  - - may feel a threat from other gay and lesbian individuals. Lashing out may ultimately be an indicator of the person's own internal conflict with sexual orientation."

*******
"This inner conflict can be seen in some high-profile cases in which anti-gay public figures are caught engaging in same-sex acts, the researchers say. For instance, evangelical preacher and anti-gay-marriage advocate Ted Haggard was caught in a gay sex scandal in 2006. And in 2010, prominent anti-gay activist and co-founder of conservative Family Research Council George Rekers was reportedly spotted in 2010 with a male escort rented from Rentboy.com.

**** Yes Blade - read the earlier posts and all the various documentation.

Gay promoting liberals never get old...yep, we are all secret pillow biters.

Because it is perfectly natural to have a "strange" guy shove his penis up your bu...wait, what???

We laugh at or make fun of such blatant hypocrisy, but in a real way, these people may often themselves be victims of repression and experience exaggerated feelings of threat," Ryan said. "Homophobia is not a laughing matter. It can sometimes have tragic consequences, as was the case in the 1998 murder of Matthew Shepard, a gay man."

Laughed right out loud on that one, RWB

(and you should be careful where you get your "facts")

Gays sure like to bring up the Shepard case to support their lifestyle.

We were told that this University of Wyoming student was murdered simply because he was a homosexual.  The truth is that he was the victim of a robbery gone bad by two drug addicts.  What’s more, Shepard was also a heavy drug user who was HIV-positive.  Not only were the perpetrators of this brutal crime not “homophobes,” but one of them knew Shepherd and was allegedly bisexual.  The real story of the Matthew Shepard case, as the prosecutor says on “20/20,” concerns the dangers of methamphetamine.  The two killers and Shepard were big meth users.

http://www.aim.org/media-monitor/exploiting-matthew-shepard/

Skeptical wrote:

We laugh at or make fun of such blatant hypocrisy, but in a real way, these people may often themselves be victims of repression and experience exaggerated feelings of threat," Ryan said. "Homophobia is not a laughing matter. It can sometimes have tragic consequences, as was the case in the 1998 murder of Matthew Shepard, a gay man."

Laughed right out loud on that one, RWB

(and you should be careful where you get your "facts")

Gays sure like to bring up the Shepard case to support their lifestyle.

We were told that this University of Wyoming student was murdered simply because he was a homosexual.  The truth is that he was the victim of a robbery gone bad by two drug addicts.  What’s more, Shepard was also a heavy drug user who was HIV-positive.  Not only were the perpetrators of this brutal crime not “homophobes,” but one of them knew Shepherd and was allegedly bisexual.  The real story of the Matthew Shepard case, as the prosecutor says on “20/20,” concerns the dangers of methamphetamine.  The two killers and Shepard were big meth users.

http://www.aim.org/media-monitor/exploiting-matthew-shepard/

Thanks for the info. I didn't know that (Darth probably did). I've edited that particular interviewee's remark about Shepard out of my post. There are many other cases where homophobes have physically abused (and even killed) homosexuals, though. Did you read the rest of the link? I would assume that you are aware of that (I'm sure Darth is).

RedWhiteBlue wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

We laugh at or make fun of such blatant hypocrisy, but in a real way, these people may often themselves be victims of
repression and experience exaggerated feelings of threat," Ryan said. "Homophobia is not a laughing matter. It can sometimes have tragic consequences, as was the case in the 1998 murder of Matthew Shepard, a gay man."
Laughed right out loud on that one, RWB

(and you should be careful where you get your "facts")

Gays sure like to bring up the Shepard case to support their lifestyle.

We were told that this University of Wyoming student was murdered simply because he was a homosexual.  The truth is that he was the victim of a robbery gone bad by two drug addicts.  What’s more, Shepard was also a heavy drug user who was HIV-positive.  Not only were the perpetrators of this brutal crime not “homophobes,” but one of them knew Shepherd and was allegedly bisexual.  The real story of the Matthew Shepard case, as the prosecutor says on “20/20,” concerns the dangers of methamphetamine.  The two killers and Shepard were big meth users.

http://www.aim.org/media-monitor/exploiting-matthew-shepard/

Thanks for the info. I didn't know that (Darth probably did). I've edited that particular interviewee's remark about Shepard out of my post. There are many other cases where homophobes have physically abused (and even killed) homosexuals, though. Did you read the rest of the link? I would assume that you are aware of that (I'm sure Darth is).

No problem, glad to keep those who go out of their way to defend/justify the homosexual lifestyle, who believe homosexuals are preferred by nature to continue the human species, and cling to the notion that Mr. Shepard was killed because he was gay aware of the truth.

Skeptical wrote:

RedWhiteBlue wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

We laugh at or make fun of such blatant hypocrisy, but in a real way, these people may often themselves be victims of
repression and experience exaggerated feelings of threat," Ryan said. "Homophobia is not a laughing matter. It can sometimes have tragic consequences, as was the case in the 1998 murder of Matthew Shepard, a gay man."
Laughed right out loud on that one, RWB

(and you should be careful where you get your "facts")

Gays sure like to bring up the Shepard case to support their lifestyle.

We were told that this University of Wyoming student was murdered simply because he was a homosexual.  The truth is that he was the victim of a robbery gone bad by two drug addicts.  What’s more, Shepard was also a heavy drug user who was HIV-positive.  Not only were the perpetrators of this brutal crime not “homophobes,” but one of them knew Shepherd and was allegedly bisexual.  The real story of the Matthew Shepard case, as the prosecutor says on “20/20,” concerns the dangers of methamphetamine.  The two killers and Shepard were big meth users.

http://www.aim.org/media-monitor/exploiting-matthew-shepard/

Thanks for the info. I didn't know that (Darth probably did). I've edited that particular interviewee's remark about Shepard out of my post. There are many other cases where homophobes have physically abused (and even killed) homosexuals, though. Did you read the rest of the link? I would assume that you are aware of that (I'm sure Darth is).

No problem, glad to keep those who go out of their way to defend/justify the homosexual lifestyle, who believe homosexuals are preferred by nature to continue the human species, and cling to the notion that Mr. Shepard was killed because he was gay aware of the truth.

I do not, nor do I know anyone who believes that homosexuals can continue the species via reproduction. That was established multiple times in prior posts. Didn't you read them? (still having that comprehension problem?)
Before today, I didn't know anything about Shepard's death, so I had no notion to cling to. I accept your link on that.

Again (since you continue to miss it - "comprehension - comprehension"): I neither defend, justify, nor condemn homosexuality.

RedWhiteBlue wrote:

Skeptical wrote:
In all my years the only people who defended/justified the homosexual lifestyle so vigorously and as preferred by nature to continue the human species as RWB has been doing were homosexual.

Again - I am neither justifying, defending, nor condemning homosexuality.
(do you think that because I provided evidence of homosexuality existing in all species, that is somehow "justification"? It's simply a fact, Skept. Live with it.)

Those of us who are heterosexuals in the U.S. today, should count our blessings. Being gay carries an array of social, emotional, and psychological burdens and challenges. Although it is not as difficult in some cultures, it is far far worse in others.

ALL species?

Really?

BladeRunner wrote:

RedWhiteBlue wrote:

Skeptical wrote:
In all my years the only people who defended/justified the homosexual lifestyle so vigorously and as preferred by nature to continue the human species as RWB has been doing were homosexual.

Again - I am neither justifying, defending, nor condemning homosexuality.
(do you think that because I provided evidence of homosexuality existing in all species, that is somehow "justification"? It's simply a fact, Skept. Live with it.)

Those of us who are heterosexuals in the U.S. today, should count our blessings. Being gay carries an array of social, emotional, and psychological burdens and challenges. Although it is not as difficult in some cultures, it is far far worse in others.

ALL species?

Really?

Answered earlier today right here:
https://justsayingit.forumotion.com/t606p135-boy-scouts-another-homosexual-victim#5587
(see last line of post - or simply read the prior posts regarding this. There were several with much documentation/links)