Jesus was a Normal Homosexual Man

...it just proves that one can be sexually stimulated by anyone and anything as long as the thought of it doesn't plague them.

bingo!

mother fucking bingo.

and tiassa, i'm not responding to your last post because the poor horse is dead, but THIS quote sums up my point and perspective perfectly. imo, NO ONE...gay, straight, whatever the fuck...should be plagued by an inherent physical trait of another human being. period.

and ps...the smell of chiozo is NOT inherent, so drop that analogy. my pussy smells like a freshly baked pastry. heh.
 
Last edited:
Evolution is a fact. Weeding = natural selection

If one doesn't have any offspring then its the end of the line for the genes of that individual.

http://www.physorg.com/news84720662.html

http://www.skeptictank.org/gaygene.htm

Religion is pitifully ignorant.

In the future there will most likely be gene treatments for homosexuality and it will be thought of as a disease.

and you call religion ignorant? listen, i'm not a big fan of religion but...

if said gene is passed by straight women, then the children of gay people aren't the subject matter. and, as i pointed out previously, plenty of gay people have children...:confused:
 
and descriptions arent evidence.
Correct.
What's that got to do with anything?
Or are you assuming that the named book simply describes, on the basis of no actual research/ evidence whatsoever?
It wouldn't be possible, for example, for the book to be based on written records that are still extant?
 
Actually, study shows that homosexuality is of benefit to a species, (obviously at a relatively small percentage which - in human terms equates to about 3%, although some try to claim 10%).

Studies have revolved around when a homosexual individual is born, (typically a later child), and why it has benefit. If, for instance, you've had three - dare I say -"normal" children and then give birth to a homosexual, he or she actually provides benefit to the aunt and her children. You'll have go to New Scientist to check it, I have no relevant links to hand.

P.S I've just read Tiassas post that makes mention of this. For relevant details I would suggest New Scientist.

As for Jesus being gay - I frankly have very little, sorry - no, reason to believe that such individual existed in the first place. I know some individuals would argue that a person - not named Jesus obviously but something like Yeshua existed and was a rabbi or something. If we go to that level, we're not talking about "Jesus" anymore to even really bother caring. When someone asks: "did Jesus exist", they mean something very specific when saying "Jesus". If on the other hand we accept the existence of Jesus and christian claims, (he's god), then we know he hates - sorry no, detests - homosexuality. Some would submit that it then makes it unlikely that he was homosexual.

Having said that... I can think of something else that the biblical god stated was disgraceful. Yes.. long hair on a man.

Yet this very same entity had long hair.

So hey, he probably was gay.


according to the styles of jewish men at the time, he probably didn't have long hair. that's just the european depiction. jesus wasn't european though. funny.
 
Being with a man is 100% unnatural for me and to try to go against what is natural, for me, is unhealthy. It's more than just body parts though, Lori and as much as I love ya... I'm not sure that you'll ever understand it because it seems that you are still hung up with what you feel is the "proper" way to have sex and how that should dictate who we should be with.
 
Being with a man is 100% unnatural for me and to try to go against what is natural, for me, is unhealthy. It's more than just body parts though, Lori and as much as I love ya... I'm not sure that you'll ever understand it because it seems that you are still hung up with what you feel is the "proper" way to have sex and how that should dictate who we should be with.

yes, i'm so proper. lol. but what you say is true. and i love you too. :)
 
its amazing how a book comes out about something secret from over 2000 years ago. personally i never believed all the hyped up stories not about any culture for that matter that was supposedly only know 'until recently'...
 
John99 said:
its amazing how a book comes out about something secret from over 2000 years ago. personally i never believed all the hyped up stories not about any culture for that matter that was supposedly only know 'until recently'...
No what's really amazing is that you can be so ignorant of history to think that it was a "secret" or that it's only just come to light.
 
Run away! Run away!

Lori 7 said:

and tiassa, i'm not responding to your last post because the poor horse is dead, but THIS quote sums up my point and perspective perfectly

And if it plagues them, they're a bigot.

Nice try, though.

imo, NO ONE...gay, straight, whatever the fuck...should be plagued by an inherent physical trait of another human being. period.

Lori, we're already aware that comfort and security—two basic psychological needs of human beings—are non-issues to you.

and ps...the smell of chiozo is NOT inherent, so drop that analogy. my pussy smells like a freshly baked pastry. heh.

Mmm. Yeasty.

Make you a deal, m'lady: Demonstrate that you have a clue what the chorizo bit was about and I'll consider it.

Actually, I won't. Because if you demonstrate you have a clue what it was about, that will pretty much put the issue to rest.
 
And if it plagues them, they're a bigot.

Nice try, though.

some people are plagued by black skin, and they wouldn't want to use the same drinking fountains or bathrooms as people with black skin would.

i'm plagued by people who have noses, so you know, i don't want to have sex with anyone who has a nose.



Lori, we're already aware that comfort and security—two basic psychological needs of human beings—are non-issues to you.

i know for a fact that a person's perceptions have a lot to do with their comfort and security levels.



Mmm. Yeasty.

:p

Make you a deal, m'lady: Demonstrate that you have a clue what the chorizo bit was about and I'll consider it.

Actually, I won't. Because if you demonstrate you have a clue what it was about, that will pretty much put the issue to rest.

you said that she ate chiozo for breakfast every morning so her pussy smelled like it. eating or smelling of chiozo isn't an inherent trait.
 
This and that

Sniffy said:

First off thanks Mister for telling me what my pussy is and what it isn't to me.

You're so very welcome.

You need to read that thread and my comments there and here again if you think it was just about gay men finding women 'repulsive' sexually; that it was just me (Lori has other issues don't lump me in with those) who had a problem with the word usage and that it was just about some of us missing the point. I certainly don't want to have peope hanged (as some would have me) but I do want to look a little more closely. So here goes attempt number umpty kazillion.

At least one man who identified himselve as gay in that thread said he found women, blacks, asians and dogs equally repulsive/repugnant. Now I find that sort of sentiment worrysome. Don't you? Not because I'm so stupid or at all homophobic or because I equate my pussy as my worth but because I find the sentiment expressed in the particular way it was worrying. You get it? Worrying. I do realise, and pretty much always have, that gay men don't want the pussy and I don't worrying about it.

Now try very, very hard to understand why some folks might find the words repulsive, repugnant in association with women, blacks and asians worrying.

Try the contextual analysis, madam. Watch where the reassignment takes place.

The original exchange that started the whole thing was:

Crunchy Cat: Maybe you're bi? Go date a few girls. They even come with their own built-in lube.

MZ3Boy84: Nope, I'm definately gay. You know how I know? You just made me nausiated with that comment.

And the leap? Lori:

"what the fuck is so repulsive about girls?! i hate that shit. genderist! :mad:"​

And it was Lori who introduced race to the equation. MZ3's initial response was that maybe some people just aren't attracted to black men. And who focused that point to skin color alone? Lori.

Now, I can't protect people from their own poor expression, especially given how many people there are who cannot be saved from their own poor perception; however, even I disdain MZ3's further statements on the issue. While you might be worried that he doesn't like women, blacks, Asians, or dogs, my concern was the comparison of human beings to pets, wild animals, and beasts of burden. I might be able to care less if black people don't get him up, but it's not something I've spent a lot of time thinking about.

However, I can also understand why some people aren't attracted to certain ethnicities. And it's not just skin color. Among blacks, I find Nigerian features attractive; some find Nubian features hot. But there are some pug-ugly black lineages, just like there are frog-ugly white people. Among Asians, I'm not as big on Viet and Laotian aesthetics as I am Japanese, Chinese, or Korean. And it has to do with common bone structures of the face. Don't get me wrong; a friend of mine married a smokin' hot Laotian woman, but, truth told, I much preferred the aesthetics of her departure to her approach. She was a nice girl, and not what I would call stupid. But I still couldn't be him. I couldn't wake up next to her every day. And it's not even the bone structure, as I have less exacting standards for physical aesthetics. In this case, while the words she spoke were more than adequate, the pitch and resonance of her voice, combined with her specific accent (even compared to other Laotian-Americans) drove me nuts.

It's entirely possible that various factors associated with the lineage are the source of the turn-off. Is it skin color or bone structure? Does the texture of a person's hair feel weird?

And there are cultural factors, too. You know, when you're close to someone and share a bond of genuine trust, you can say all sorts of things to one another. And you know the phrase, "Say it with a smile"? I mean, most people do.

To use String as a theoretic example: his lack of attraction to black men is emotional. It could be something as simple as the tone of one's voice when the lover calls him a dirty little bitch. The problem there, of course, is that not all black people sound like gangsta thugs. Generally speaking, of course, there is also the problem of saying or implying never. However, in terms of Sciforums, I'm long unsettled by a strange but widespread phenomenon by which people retreat into insanely exacting standards in order to keep an argument alive. Hell, I just had a discussion in the religion forum where someone thought the "separation of church and state" was about specific churches like Episcopalian or Lutheran, despite the fact that the Constitution and the judicial history of the issue speak to religion generally, and not specific churches. My first thought, of course, was to wonder if he was just dicking around. The end result is that in order to satisfy every inquiry by one's opposition, one must write in a way that utterly stunts communication. Perhaps it would have behooved MZ3—or anyone else of similar mind—to raise the issue of aesthetics beyond mere skin color (oh, that's right, he did), but the fact remains that it was Lori who reduced the issue as such.

You might suggest that I need to read the thread and your comments again, but I would suggest that you need to acquire a grasp of context.

For instance, it's becoming more and more clear to me how Lori blew the chorizo thing. Look at the exchange between Crunchy Cat and MZ3. And then look at Lori's entry and ask yourself at what point we went from vaginal lubrication nauseating someone to condemning the whole person based on genitalia.

Really? Got a citation? :D

It's buried in Freud somewhere. It'll take a while to dig up.

No shit sherlock?

Your point being?

So now you are eqauting female genetalia with dirt? Nice one.

As you're an honest person, Sniffy, I'm sure you can explain how you came to that one.

You know some people who are not deeply religious keep their genetalia clean without the need for a message from god....males and females.

Try again. That was almost funny.

Oh yeah I get it. Eleven year old boys. When I hear thirty something men expressing the same sentiments using the same sort of language I start to think.....

Well, at least something starts you thinking.

Where his money is?

See? Now that is funny. Admittedly in a "Be Sharp" fashion. But, still, it's a start.

I don't equate my pussy with my worth.

Then why are you taking up the argument?

Context, m'lady. Context.

But then I wouldn't call yours or string's cock repulsive or repugnant either because I realise that when I utter repugnant any where near a gay, bisexual, asian, black or mixed ethnicity man my words might get misconstrued and cause hurt or trouble.

Paranoia will destroy ya.

But then I gots some empathy for the struggles of others.

No, dear, you don't. At least not in this issue. Quit lying.

Seems that some gay (hmm is that term an example of equating oneself with a sexual measure of worth) men don't have similar levels of empathy.

I would ask you to demonstrate that assertion based on the relevant threads.

You get it? Yet?

Yep. Let me know when your return flight to reality arrives.

You have no idea what impulses I have and whom I want to act on them.

Oh, get the fuck over yourself. I'm damn sure you're smarter than that.

however I would expect lust, desire, passion, the need to replicate one's genes might have something to do with it.

Um ... Sniffy?

:facepalm:

Never mind.

I don't think any discussion should be forbidden on sci.

The laws of various countries would disagree with you.

Not sure what you mean by 'over ripe bigotry'. There is either bigotry or there isn't.

Well, sometimes it would be nice to encounter a new bigotry, or at least some innovation on classic bigotry. Otherwise it gets ... stale. Overripe. Moldy.

I'm not one for ignoring issues. I'm one for facing them.

And inventing them, it seems.

What? I'm making the point that quite often on sci the only conversation about women is about rape, what a woman should or shouldn't say, what a woman should or shouldn't wear or have an opinion on. How a woman should or shouldn't behave.

Yeah. It's kind of disturbing, isn't it?

A woman certainly shouldn't criticise a gay man, it seems.

Generally speaking, we prefer that people's criticisms be grounded in reality, not some moronic fantasy devised specifically to complain about.

Or be petulant (petulant ohh silly, silly girl).

I just don't think the rude, childish, pouting caprice helps your argument.

It's ok to be angry is it?

As far as I know. But, again, it's one of those things we prefer to reflect reality, and not some stupid construct designed specifically to foster pointless, dishonest complaint.

What about those who are discriminated against because of the non white colour of their skin or their 'asianness' or that of their sex partner? Oh brush that one under the carpet quickly......

Not at all. It's just that I find it rather a different issue.

But, as you suggested I review the discussion, I would reiterate the question arising from that review:

How, exactly—at least, as you see it—did we go from vaginal fluid to the whole of someone's character and worth?​

I am very much interested in your genuine answer to that question.

• • •​

Lori 7 said:

some people are plagued by black skin, and they wouldn't want to use the same drinking fountains or bathrooms as people with black skin would.

Are you seriously equating having sex with someone to using a public restroom?

i know for a fact that a person's perceptions have a lot to do with their comfort and security levels.

And?

Don't get me wrong here; it's a start. But where are you going with that?

you said that she ate chiozo for breakfast every morning so her pussy smelled like it. eating or smelling of chiozo isn't an inherent trait.

You're still missing the point.

So I'll try the same question with you as I asked Sniffy:

How, exactly—at least, as you see it—did we go from vaginal fluid to the whole of someone's character and worth?​

And yes, I am very much interested in your genuine answer to that question.
 
You're so very welcome.



Try the contextual analysis, madam. Watch where the reassignment takes place.

The original exchange that started the whole thing was:

Crunchy Cat: Maybe you're bi? Go date a few girls. They even come with their own built-in lube.

MZ3Boy84: Nope, I'm definately gay. You know how I know? You just made me nausiated with that comment.

And the leap? Lori:

"what the fuck is so repulsive about girls?! i hate that shit. genderist! :mad:"​

And it was Lori who introduced race to the equation. MZ3's initial response was that maybe some people just aren't attracted to black men. And who focused that point to skin color alone? Lori.

Now, I can't protect people from their own poor expression, especially given how many people there are who cannot be saved from their own poor perception; however, even I disdain MZ3's further statements on the issue. While you might be worried that he doesn't like women, blacks, Asians, or dogs, my concern was the comparison of human beings to pets, wild animals, and beasts of burden. I might be able to care less if black people don't get him up, but it's not something I've spent a lot of time thinking about.

However, I can also understand why some people aren't attracted to certain ethnicities. And it's not just skin color. Among blacks, I find Nigerian features attractive; some find Nubian features hot. But there are some pug-ugly black lineages, just like there are frog-ugly white people. Among Asians, I'm not as big on Viet and Laotian aesthetics as I am Japanese, Chinese, or Korean. And it has to do with common bone structures of the face. Don't get me wrong; a friend of mine married a smokin' hot Laotian woman, but, truth told, I much preferred the aesthetics of her departure to her approach. She was a nice girl, and not what I would call stupid. But I still couldn't be him. I couldn't wake up next to her every day. And it's not even the bone structure, as I have less exacting standards for physical aesthetics. In this case, while the words she spoke were more than adequate, the pitch and resonance of her voice, combined with her specific accent (even compared to other Laotian-Americans) drove me nuts.

It's entirely possible that various factors associated with the lineage are the source of the turn-off. Is it skin color or bone structure? Does the texture of a person's hair feel weird?

And there are cultural factors, too. You know, when you're close to someone and share a bond of genuine trust, you can say all sorts of things to one another. And you know the phrase, "Say it with a smile"? I mean, most people do.

To use String as a theoretic example: his lack of attraction to black men is emotional. It could be something as simple as the tone of one's voice when the lover calls him a dirty little bitch. The problem there, of course, is that not all black people sound like gangsta thugs. Generally speaking, of course, there is also the problem of saying or implying never. However, in terms of Sciforums, I'm long unsettled by a strange but widespread phenomenon by which people retreat into insanely exacting standards in order to keep an argument alive. Hell, I just had a discussion in the religion forum where someone thought the "separation of church and state" was about specific churches like Episcopalian or Lutheran, despite the fact that the Constitution and the judicial history of the issue speak to religion generally, and not specific churches. My first thought, of course, was to wonder if he was just dicking around. The end result is that in order to satisfy every inquiry by one's opposition, one must write in a way that utterly stunts communication. Perhaps it would have behooved MZ3—or anyone else of similar mind—to raise the issue of aesthetics beyond mere skin color (oh, that's right, he did), but the fact remains that it was Lori who reduced the issue as such.

You might suggest that I need to read the thread and your comments again, but I would suggest that you need to acquire a grasp of context.

For instance, it's becoming more and more clear to me how Lori blew the chorizo thing. Look at the exchange between Crunchy Cat and MZ3. And then look at Lori's entry and ask yourself at what point we went from vaginal lubrication nauseating someone to condemning the whole person based on genitalia.



It's buried in Freud somewhere. It'll take a while to dig up.



Your point being?



As you're an honest person, Sniffy, I'm sure you can explain how you came to that one.



Try again. That was almost funny.



Well, at least something starts you thinking.



See? Now that is funny. Admittedly in a "Be Sharp" fashion. But, still, it's a start.



Then why are you taking up the argument?

Context, m'lady. Context.



Paranoia will destroy ya.



No, dear, you don't. At least not in this issue. Quit lying.



I would ask you to demonstrate that assertion based on the relevant threads.



Yep. Let me know when your return flight to reality arrives.



Oh, get the fuck over yourself. I'm damn sure you're smarter than that.



Um ... Sniffy?

:facepalm:

Never mind.



The laws of various countries would disagree with you.



Well, sometimes it would be nice to encounter a new bigotry, or at least some innovation on classic bigotry. Otherwise it gets ... stale. Overripe. Moldy.



And inventing them, it seems.



Yeah. It's kind of disturbing, isn't it?



Generally speaking, we prefer that people's criticisms be grounded in reality, not some moronic fantasy devised specifically to complain about.



I just don't think the rude, childish, pouting caprice helps your argument.



As far as I know. But, again, it's one of those things we prefer to reflect reality, and not some stupid construct designed specifically to foster pointless, dishonest complaint.



Not at all. It's just that I find it rather a different issue.

But, as you suggested I review the discussion, I would reiterate the question arising from that review:

How, exactly—at least, as you see it—did we go from vaginal fluid to the whole of someone's character and worth?​

I am very much interested in your genuine answer to that question.

• • •​



Are you seriously equating having sex with someone to using a public restroom?



And?

Don't get me wrong here; it's a start. But where are you going with that?



You're still missing the point.

So I'll try the same question with you as I asked Sniffy:

How, exactly—at least, as you see it—did we go from vaginal fluid to the whole of someone's character and worth?​

And yes, I am very much interested in your genuine answer to that question.

:facepalm:
 
Back
Top