Heterosexuality is unnatural

[c20H25N3o]

Oh! you've met John Smith, have you! I can prove he is a wimp, but then you have to stick to the discussion and stop ignoring everything I say.

He is a wimp who thought I'm a fag and he could easily run me down with his fake social powers. That's so typical of wimps!

Calling people 'wimps' really doesn't help your assertions. In the UK this is a term of abuse so Watch It!

But really, you have gone down in my eyes by supporting him. So you're birds of the same flock! :bugeye:

I am not here to live up to your expectations or to have you be 'proud of me'

I had just complained to you about your abnoxious way of putting arguments. I'm not used to this kind of discussion. When have I claimed that you have a sexual attraction for men. Can you show me!

I cannot be arsed to find your exact quote but you said 95% of men have strong sexual desire for other men. That's a pretty large percentage! I happen to think that you cannot back that up. You have not been able to back that up and you never will be able to back that up because it is baseless.

Nothing I say is baseless. I am giving evidence for everything. You don't want to look at the truth. And that is not my problem. That is your problem.

Saying 95% of men have a strong sexual desire for other men is baseless and you have not been able to prove that nor will you.

And let me tell you another harsh fact. If were not speaking the truth. You and John and others of your ilk would have easily left me alone as a rambling nut. But no you are scared stiff because I'm talking about the truth.

Soothe thyself. But you are wrong. I think your assertions are bs because you said this ... 95% of men have a strong sexual desire for other men. That is bs.

If I put a post saying American have blue coloured skins. Would you pay me attention. No!

Your claim that 95% of men have strong sexual desire for other men is as baseless as saying American's have blue skins. With this in mind I would very likely come to the thread to see you try and prove it.

C20, I'VE HAD A LOT OF RESPECT FOR YOU! BUT RESPECT HAS TO BE EARNED. I HAVE TOLD YOU A HUNDRED TIMES, STOP WHINING AND COMPLAINING. IF YOU DON'T AGREE PROVE ME WRONG! THAT'S ALL YOU'VE GOT TO DO.STOP ACCUSING ME OF BEING WRONG! SHOW ME HOW I AM WRONG! IS THAT AN UNREASONABLE THING TO EXPECT!

No need to shout. I am not deaf. All your shouty shouts suggest you are the one complaining that the thread is not going the way you want it to. Prove you wrong? Why dont you just do a quick poll asking men on this forum if they have strong sexual desires for other men but feel that those desires are suppressed by society?

AND STOP SUPPORTING WIMPS!

Stop calling people wimps. I shall also support whomever I chose.

peace

c20

 

[Buddha1]

Please please please will some gay forum members respond to this assertion by Bhuddah1 :

See gay guys never mind the stereotypes of homosexuality being characterised as femininine

Is that true? Or are you sick of the stereotypes as well? I think that is pretty important to establish before anything else Bhuddah1 says can be considered. Where is Mystech when we need him? c20

I think I'm from now on going to ignore your posts that don't deal with the issue on hand, or the assertions/ evidences I have given and avoid all those posts that just complain, accuse and divert!

 

[c20H25N3o]

I think I'm from now on going to ignore your posts that don't deal with the issue on hand, or the assertions/ evidences I have given and avoid all those posts that just complain, accuse and divert!

Then you are not going to be posting anymore? I do not agree with your baseless assertions and you do not like that so you accuse me of diversion.
Whatever I was one of those humouring your baseless assertions too!

Meh

c20

 

[Buddha1]

I cannot be arsed to find your exact quote but you said 95% of men have strong sexual desire for other men. That's a pretty large percentage! I happen to think that you cannot back that up. You have not been able to back that up and you never will be able to back that up because it is baseless.

Your cunning ways designed to mislead.

I have mentioned quite clearly that I will come with proofs later. I want to take things up one by one. (I plan to create a thread for it, like it or leave it!)

That's one assertion I have not provided evidences for, (though I have given one or two strong evidences here and there), but there are hundreds of other evidences that I have provided for the following:
- heterosexuality is non-existing in nature
- heterosexuality is queer

You have not been able to disband any of them, and yet you keep claiming heterosexuality to be natural and hate it when I challenge a rogue element's manhood that he has recieved on a platter because he sucks up to a woman.

I want to get down to give evidences for other threads that I have started but you and others try to keep the discussion away from the issue, entangling me in windy, useless and disruptive discussions. When all we need to do is look at my evidences and then accept or reject them. You are too busy taking offence.

 

[Buddha1]

Calling people 'wimps' really doesn't help your assertions. In the UK this is a term of abuse so Watch It!

Stop calling people wimps. I shall also support whomever I chose.peace

c20

Yeah, and calling people 'fag' is not! and using the word 'fuck' and 'arse' are not!

I have never abused people unless they have abused me. I have a right to protect my honour.

You have no right to admonish me unless you admonish John_smith.

 

[Avatar]

I do not agree with your baseless assertions and you do not like that so you accuse me of diversion.

Buddha1 reminds me of the poet Ivan in the fantastic book by M. Bulgakov "Master and Margareth" where Ivan, a man living in Russia in the 1920s met the Devil in a park and in a discussion with him tried to prove to the Devil that a Devil doesn't exist. Ivan was later taken to a psychiatric clinic when he started to realise that the Devil (or an Evil Spirit) did indeed exist.

 

[c20H25N3o]

Your cunning ways designed to mislead.

I have mentioned quite clearly that I will come with proofs later. I want to take things up one by one. (I plan to create a thread for it, like it or leave it!)

Can I suggest that instead of starting five million threads and stating that you will come with proofs later, that you state your proofs right up front very succinctly in a single thread to avoid confusion.

That's one assertion I have not provided evidences for, (though I have given one or two strong evidences here and there), but there are hundreds of other evidences that I have provided for the following:
- heterosexuality is non-existing in nature
- heterosexuality is queer

But if one of your assertions appears completely bogus yet that assertion is yolked to every other point you make, then one may, rightly or wrongly, ask you to justify the apparently completely bogus statement first before even considering any other point. I think the 95% thing is total bs. Provide evidence here and now. Stop wasting time.

You have not been able to disband any of them, and yet you keep claiming heterosexuality to be natural and hate it when I challenge a rogue element's manhood that he has recieved on a platter because he sucks up to a woman.

I think it is sweet if a guy seeks affirmation of his masculinity from his girlfriend. Girls like that stuff too in moderation, its the maternal instinct in them.

I want to get down to give evidences for other threads that I have started but you and others try to keep the discussion away from the issue, entangling me in windy, useless and disruptive discussions. When all we need to do is look at my evidences and then accept or reject them. You are too busy taking offence.

Deal with the 95% thing. It is my position that if you believe that against seemingly overwhelming evidence from the way society is generally structured to the contrary, then all of your assertions must be just as baseless because you are evidently clutching at false straws to prop up and skew the results of your study to suit your prejudices.

peace

c20

 

[Buddha1]

Then you are not going to be posting anymore? I do not agree with your baseless assertions and you do not like that so you accuse me of diversion.
Whatever I was one of those humouring your baseless assertions too!

Meh

c20

You are just plain incapable of an intelligent discussion, unlike what you have claimed in your first few posts. Not unlike Avatar.

 

[c20H25N3o]

Yeah, and calling people 'fag' is not! and using the word 'fuck' and 'arse' are not!

I have never abused people unless they have abused me. I have a right to protect my honour.

You have no right to admonish me unless you admonish John_smith.

But you provoked him to defend his heterosexual instincts when you claimed that an overwhelming majority of men have strong but suppressed sexual desire for other men? That is offensive to us in the UK.

peace

c20

 

[Buddha1]

Have you seen my thread claiming 95% of men have a sexual need for men?

Can I suggest that instead of starting five million threads and stating that you will come with proofs later, that you state your proofs right up front very succinctly in a single thread to avoid confusion.

What are you, nuts!

I have not yet started a thread on that. It is because I have no time to prove that now. I just mentioned it in a post (the thread was not about this topic). But since you are here just to disrupt you chose to discuss just that topic.

 

[Buddha1]

But you provoked him to defend his heterosexual instincts when you claimed that an overwhelming majority of men have strong but suppressed sexual desire for other men? That is offensive to us in the UK.

peace

c20

Then why do people from Americal and UK come to my country and tell us that we have to be heterosexuals. Accept it, this is globalisation in reverse.

I can also take offense when you say a majority of men do not have a sexual interest in men. to many men in my society this is offensive. Does that stop the U.K. from saying it.

I'm attacking the heterosexual idenitity because I have learned that it is a lie (apart from some people). Now, if you guys can claim the majority to be heterosexual, I can do the opposite. The correct solution will be to look atl the evidences and facts.

And not to abuse, threaten or ridicule in a personal manner.

 

[Buddha1]

But if one of your assertions appears completely bogus yet that assertion is yolked to every other point you make, then one may, rightly or wrongly, ask you to justify the apparently completely bogus statement first before even considering any other point. I think the 95% thing is total bs. Provide evidence here and now. Stop wasting time.c20

You will have to wait. I've not used it as a basis for any of my contentions, so I'm not morally obliged. And it will take weeks if not month to present the various evidences. It's not like a survey I can show .

I have only added this statment as an added information. And even if you believe it as my personal opinion I have a right to my personal opinion. You can't ask for a proof unless I claim it as the basis of any of my contentions. For that matter there is no proof that sexual identity is a biological identity yet you guys use it like it is real.

Deal with the 95% thing. It is my position that if you believe that against seemingly overwhelming evidence from the way society is generally structured to the contrary, then all of your assertions must be just as baseless because you are evidently clutching at false straws to prop up and skew the results of your study to suit your prejudices.

And you have no right to ask me for proofs unless you consider the ones I have already given. We can only get ahead when we deal with the ones we already have on hand.

 

[Buddha1]

I think it is sweet if a guy seeks affirmation of his masculinity from his girlfriend. Girls like that stuff too in moderation, its the maternal instinct in them.

I don't give a hoot to what you think. That's pretty demeaning for a man, and it is one of the basic reasons for man's oppression. I don't mind queer men doing it they like, but women should never be the 'granting authority' of manhood to men. That makes men slaves of women and empower the true heterosexuals.

 

[Avatar]

So, why are you so worried about men? Have you been abused by a woman?

 

[c20H25N3o]

Then why do people from Americal and UK come to my country and tell us that we have to be heterosexuals. Accept it, this is globalisation in reverse.

Who are these people? What group do they belong to? What is their motive?

I can also take offense when you say a majority of men do not have a sexual interest in men. to many men in my society this is offensive. Does that stop the U.K. from saying it.

Ok, so perhaps you have not based your assertions correctly then? I.e you havn't looked at a wide enough set of cultures to come up with an all encompassing view on men's sexuality.

I'm attacking the heterosexual idenitity because I have learned that it is a lie (apart from some people).

It isnt a lie. Not here where I live. And who are you to attack it? Prove first that it is a lie everywhere or take your argument to the cultures where you have proof that it is a lie.

Now, if you guys can claim the majority to be heterosexual, I can do the opposite. The correct solution will be to look atl the evidences and facts.

And not to abuse, threaten or ridicule in a personal manner.

Then accept that here in the UK society is based around supporting the family structure. Same sex relationships conducted outside of the marital home would totally destroy the wives of the men conducting them and would lead to divorce and broken homes which ultimately affect the children born inside the heterosexual relationship.

A stable family home for the children of Mr Smith is much more important to Mr Smith than having sex with Mr Brown.

peace

c20

 

[Buddha1]

Buddha1 reminds me of the poet Ivan in the fantastic book by M. Bulgakov "Master and Margareth" where Ivan, a man living in Russia in the 1920s met the Devil in a park and in a discussion with him tried to prove to the Devil that a Devil doesn't exist. Ivan was later taken to a psychiatric clinic when he started to realise that the Devil (or an Evil Spirit) did indeed exist.

I've no time for stories. I have do deal with reality.

I can't close my eyes to the realities like you can.

 

[c20H25N3o]

As a side note, I am enjoying this

 

[john smith]

Im not bruised, but im definatly going to sit on her lap, round.............about........................now, By the way, she thinks your a joke

 

[Buddha1]

Who are these people? What group do they belong to? What is their motive?

They are multinationals --- out to make money. And media barons imposing their sickening lifestyles on us. They are donor agencies that give thousands of dollars to their puppets to 'heterosexualise' us in the guise of working on gender or development.

Ok, so perhaps you have not based your assertions correctly then? I.e you havn't looked at a wide enough set of cultures to come up with an all encompassing view on men's sexuality.

No time for stupid speculations in the air.I maintain I have studied western society deep enough. Not so much the U.K. as the U.S. I agree. But basic nature of people is the same everywhere.

But why are we discussing things in the air. I only want to discuss if you take up one of my thread's main contentions and are willing to give your own arguments against it or show how the evidences I have given are wrong.

It isnt a lie. Not here where I live. And who are you to attack it? Prove first that it is a lie everywhere or take your argument to the cultures where you have proof that it is a lie.

I've proved two important lies:
1. It is non-existent in nature.
2. It is queer.
I'm working on the others. You'll have to wait.

Then accept that here in the UK society is based around supporting the family structure. Same sex relationships conducted outside of the marital home would totally destroy the wives of the men conducting them and would lead to divorce and broken homes which ultimately affect the children born inside the heterosexual relationship.

No comments. Off topic.

A stable family home for the children of Mr Smith is much more important to Mr Smith than having sex with Mr Brown.

Who cares about Mr. Smith unless he meddles with real men , then he's gonna get burned

 

[Buddha1]

Then accept that here in the UK society is based around supporting the family structure. Same sex relationships conducted outside of the marital home would totally destroy the wives of the men conducting them and would lead to divorce and broken homes which ultimately affect the children born inside the heterosexual relationship.

A stable family home for the children of Mr Smith is much more important to Mr Smith than having sex with Mr Brown.c20

O.K., so now I know what its all about. I had mistakenly taken you to be a sincere person trying to discuss this issue. But the above statement clearly shows your bias, and refusal to look at any logic because it's about religous or semi-religious values.

I think I have allowed you to waste this thread space. enough. But did you think you will for ever get away with it.