same-sex wedding across street from baptist church

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
ther is nothing amazing about it, its a fact, the number if times the secular liberality has resorted to pseudo scientific terms is outstanding, look at Egbert or Tygbert or whatever he is called, if you do not accept his morality you are a bigot, how will you explain it in any other way than hate speech?

its a fact is it???? so if i call the the thug who beats up your wife because she's indian a racist...............its because im a racist and forcing my morality on them???????

if i call the guy who planted a nail bomb in soho a raging homophobe.............its because i cant handle people disagreeing with my morality??????

Originally posted by stellspalfie
so when gareth thomas was having sex with his wife but was thinking of david beckham you are telling us that you think he was heterosexual. hilarious.

sexuality is defined by what you are sexually attracted to not what you practice.

im currently not having sex with anybody, how do i figure out if im gay or straight???

no once again you are unwilling, unable to discern the intent of my words, as I have explained now for about the fifth time, his apparent attraction to men does not compel him to have sex with them, because predetermination is not the same as causation, his sexuality is therefore not defined by what he is attracted to, but by what he practices, regardless of your insistence.

I am pretty sure that your poor unfortunate wife thinks of what she is having for dinner when making love, does that make her attracted to Yorkshire puddings and mashed potatoes, hilarious indeed.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
its a fact is it???? so if i call the the thug who beats up your wife because she's indian a racist...............its because im a racist and forcing my morality on them???????

if i call the guy who planted a nail bomb in soho a raging homophobe.............its because i cant handle people disagreeing with my morality??????

yup, you read it here, don't make me repeat it and your attempts to take my statement out of context is scurrilous, but thats haters for yah!

accept homosexuality or you are a bigot and homophobic, umm, actually i don't have any problems with homosexuals i simply don't accept the stance morally, well, you are a bigot and homophobic, but i don't have any problems with homosexuals themselves they are free to do what they like, you are still a bigot and homophobic, . . . . .hows that gain?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no once again you are unwilling, unable to discern the intent of my words, as I have explained now for about the fifth time, his apparent attraction to men does not compel him to have sex with them, because predetermination is not the same as causation, his sexuality is therefore not defined by what he is attracted to, but by what he practices, regar ...[text shortened]... love, does that make her attracted to Yorkshire puddings and mashed potatoes, hilarious indeed.

its not a case of been unwilling to discern the intent of your words. you are just flat out wrong. sexuality is defined by what you are sexually attracted to.

a man who goes through life and remains a virgin but is sexually attracted to women is a hetrosexual. sexuality is not the act of sex, sexuality is attraction. fact. its not a point you can argue.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yup, you read it here, don't make me repeat it and your attempts to take my statement out of context is scurrilous, but thats haters for yah!

accept homosexuality or you are a bigot and homophobic, umm, actually i don't have any problems with homosexuals i simply don't accept the stance morally, well, you are a bigot and homophobic, but i don't h ...[text shortened]... re free to do what they like, you are still a bigot and homophobic, . . . . .hows that gain?

"Homophobia encompasses a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT). It can be expressed as antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, or hatred, may be based on irrational fear, and is sometimes related to religious beliefs.[1][2][3][4][5][6]"

you are a homophobe. im not name calling, its just a fact. you fall under the description of a homophobe. due to your religious beliefs you have a negative attitude towards gays, you think they preform immoral acts, you level illogical arguments in their direction in order to pain negative images.

regardless if you like it or not. you are homophobic.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
its not a case of been unwilling to discern the intent of your words. you are just flat out wrong. sexuality is defined by what you are sexually attracted to.

a man who goes through life and remains a virgin but is sexually attracted to women is a hetrosexual. sexuality is not the act of sex, sexuality is attraction. fact. its not a point you can argue.

sorry but i don't accept your stance and I have shown with reference that what a person practices is a much better indicator of their sexuality, you need not accept it, but its brilliant in its conception. You can provide all the hypothetical scenarios you like, we are interested in empirics, not might bes, its possible that and it may be plausible that . . . . .

please fill in the blanks

a doctor is someone who is . . . . . .

a. attracted to medicine
b. practices medicine
c. dreams of being with other doctors

answers on a postcard to robbie carrobie, reality division, empirical land, the earth.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
[b]"Homophobia encompasses a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT). It can be expressed as antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, or hatred, may be based on irrational fear, and is sometimes related to religious beliefs.[1][2][3][4] on in order to pain negative images.

regardless if you like it or not. you are homophobic.

yeah yeah, that's correct, even if i harbor no animosity towards gays themselves, I am homophobic, talk about twisted logic and hate speech, the westbro baptists are calling you.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
his sexuality is defined by what he practices, as I have explained, with reference, what he is attracted to is irrelevant, because predetermination is not the same as causation, his apparent attraction for men does not compel him to have sex with them anymore than your attraction to pretty girls compels you to have sex with them. The matter is there ...[text shortened]... some who were previously practicing homosexuals gave up the practice when thy became Christians.

What a load of, quite frankly, muddled mumbo-jumbo. You are making up your own terms and definitions as per ursual. It's actually quite extraordinary. But alas, I don't have the time to deal with it now. It will have to wait till tomorrow.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
sorry but i don't accept your stance and I have shown with reference that what a person practices is a much better indicator of their sexuality, you need not accept it, but its brilliant in its conception. You can provide all the hypothetical scenarios you like, we are interested in empirics, not might bes, its possible that and it may be plausible ...[text shortened]... ctors

answers on a postcard to robbie carrobie, reality division, empirical land, the earth.

the answer is -

d. a person with a phd.

its irrelevant if they are a practicing doctor.

shove that up your reality division.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yeah yeah, that's correct, even if i harbor no animosity towards gays themselves, I am homophobic, talk about twisted logic and hate speech, the westbro baptists are calling you.

where is the hate speech? why dont you quote it so we can see what you mean? the only thing youve been called is homophobic. thats not hate speech. i dont hate you or your homophobia.

where is it twisted? i have given you a clear definition of homophobia and clearly stated why i think you fit into it. which parts have i twisted?

the westboro baptists are homophobic and anti-abortion. between you and me who has the most in common with them? i think its pretty clear that its you. the fact you have things in common with them should be a good indicator to you that your thinking is all wrong.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
sorry but i don't accept your stance and I have shown with reference that what a person practices is a much better indicator of their sexuality, you need not accept it, but its brilliant in its conception. You can provide all the hypothetical scenarios you like, we are interested in empirics, not might bes, its possible that and it may be plausible ...[text shortened]... ctors

answers on a postcard to robbie carrobie, reality division, empirical land, the earth.

"reference that what a person practices is a much better indicator of their sexuality"

strange little change in your wordings robbie. it seems now we are discussing the best method to figure out sexuality rather than what defines a persons sexuality. either way you are wrong.

take the example of gareth thomas. your thinking would dictate that when he was married he was hetrosexual, even though he wasnt sexually attracted to his wife or women and was attracted to men. in robbies world he was hetrosexual.

so answer me this. can people figure out what sexuality they are before they start having sex?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
the answer is -

d. a person with a phd.

its irrelevant if they are a practicing doctor.

shove that up your reality division.

wrong, you can have some phd in history, it does not make you a medical practitioner, you fail fantasy boy! (someone feel his bum and bring him back to reality)

Originally posted by Proper Knob
What a load of, quite frankly, muddled mumbo-jumbo. You are making up your own terms and definitions as per ursual. It's actually quite extraordinary. But alas, I don't have the time to deal with it now. It will have to wait till tomorrow.

I am using my own mind you Borg, it is you that has been assimilated and continue to spout the secular liberal mantras,

soooooo, I have to be dealt with, LOL, deal with it then spanklberger!

Originally posted by stellspalfie
[b]"reference that what a person practices is a much better indicator of their sexuality"

strange little change in your wordings robbie. it seems now we are discussing the best method to figure out sexuality rather than what defines a persons sexuality. either way you are wrong.

take the example of gareth thomas. your thinking would dictate th ...[text shortened]... so answer me this. can people figure out what sexuality they are before they start having sex?[/b]

he was presumably having sex with a woman, that made him a heterosexual, when he stopped and started rogering men, he became a homo, its not rocket science Einstein, its just pure empirics!

Originally posted by stellspalfie
where is the hate speech? why dont you quote it so we can see what you mean? the only thing youve been called is homophobic. thats not hate speech. i dont hate you or your homophobia.

where is it twisted? i have given you a clear definition of homophobia and clearly stated why i think you fit into it. which parts have i twisted?

the westboro bapt ...[text shortened]... ve things in common with them should be a good indicator to you that your thinking is all wrong.

yeah that will be shining bright.