Jesus was a Normal Homosexual Man
- Thread starter ripleofdeath
- Start date
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:
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...
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?
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.
so you are a lesbian?
Hey, we have something in common.
than you can both hook up. Less problems, both of you happy.
yes, i'm so proper. lol. but what you say is true. and i love you too.
hmm You proper? You're right, wtf was I saying?
I am
Run away! Run away!
And if it plagues them, they're a bigot.
Nice try, though.
Lori, we're already aware that comfort and security—two basic psychological needs of human beings—are non-issues to you.
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.
Lori 7 said:
And if it plagues them, they're a bigot.
Nice try, though.
Lori, we're already aware that comfort and security—two basic psychological needs of human beings—are non-issues to you.
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.
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.
i know for a fact that a person's perceptions have a lot to do with their comfort and security levels.
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
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:
And the leap? Lori:
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:
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:
And yes, I am very much interested in your genuine answer to that question.
Sniffy said:
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.
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! "
"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?
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.
• • •
Lori 7 said:
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.
when did it come to light? was it 1972?
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!
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: