Originally posted by Tygertits a misrepresentation and anyone who reads the original, that is anyone one with even a modicum of sense and two brain cells to rub together will be able to discern that.
A stupid tongue out emoticon does not change hate speech unfortunately and that is not an argument. "Oh dear, poor little old me! An emoticon wasn't shown, it made what I said seem a whole lot better."
Originally posted by Tygertid say it would be doing me a favour, you think i have nothing better to do than remonstrate with a reprobate like you, plueeeeez, I am an artist, I transcend this website!
Whatever keep fooling yourself. I'd say you're the one gonna get the forum ban.
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou make comments so silly they are worthy of an ignoramus. Oh no, Robbie says I'm destined for damnation! Let's all go and worry about the end of the world like the JW's!
id say it would be doing me a favour, you think i have nothing better to do than remonstrate with a reprobate like you, plueeeeez, I am an artist, I transcend this website!
Originally posted by Tygertsigh, well id like to say its been pleasant wrappin with you young man, but well, simply put, its not, goodbye and have a very pleasant evening.
You make comments so silly they are worthy of an ignoramus. Oh no, Robbie says I'm destined for damnation! Let's all go and worry about the end of the world like the JW's!
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIt's been an 'interesting' discussion, but I think your definitions and terms are quite frankly ridiculous (I wouldn't expect anything less from you to be honest). Your statement that sexual orientation is irrelevant in a discussion about 'sexuality' has to be one of the daftest claims I've read. And trust me, I've read some extremely daft claims from you on this forum over the years. But I understand why you wish for it to be that way. A homosexual man/woman who becomes a Christian and gives up their 'homosexual ways' can no longer be termed a homosexual under your system of classification. If a person's sexuality is defined by their sexual orientation, or sexual preference (as everyone else on the planet does), a non practicing homosexual who becomes a Christian would still be homosexual. But of course you can't have that, so it's the act which defines their sexuality and not their orientation or preference. It's cute, but absurd. The fact that you think 'virgin' is a type is sexuality backs that up.
If they no longer are sexually active then they are celibate, so clear, so defined, so practical and soooo real!
Originally posted by Proper Knobdude, you know its true!
It's been an 'interesting' discussion, but I think your definitions and terms are quite frankly ridiculous (I wouldn't expect anything less from you to be honest). Your statement that sexual orientation is irrelevant in a discussion about 'sexuality' has to be one of the daftest claims I've read. And trust me, I've read some extremely daft claims from yo ...[text shortened]... t absurd. The fact that you think 'virgin' is a type is sexuality backs that up.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
Originally posted by robbie carrobiethey stop having sex inbetween having sex are they celibate then?
at the point they stop having sex, yah think!
most couples dont decide to stop having sex it just happens. so at what point are they celibate? the only time they know they are never going to have sex again is when they are dead.
if my wife becomes disabled from the neck down and unable to have sex. do we both automatically stop being hetrosexual?
Originally posted by stellspalfieyou need to look up the definition of celibate, if your wife was unable to have sexual relations she would certainly have celibacy forced upon her due to circumstance.
they stop having sex inbetween having sex are they celibate then?
most couples dont decide to stop having sex it just happens. so at what point are they celibate? the only time they know they are never going to have sex again is when they are dead.
if my wife becomes disabled from the neck down and unable to have sex. do we both automatically stop being hetrosexual?
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
Originally posted by robbie carrobieand does the definition of celibacy also state that its a form of sexuality?
you need to look up the definition of celibate, if your wife was unable to have sexual relations she would certainly have celibacy forced upon her due to circumstance.
so lets get this straight, you are saying a disabled from the neck down married woman is not hetrosexual and if her husband remains faithful he isnt hetrosexual either?????
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI guess I am celibate too, since I can't get a good hard-on without taking Viagra. Viagra might not even do me any good.
you need to look up the definition of celibate, if your wife was unable to have sexual relations she would certainly have celibacy forced upon her due to circumstance.
The Instructor