[Zipperfish]

Smacle wrote:

Zipperfish wrote:

A physiological difference does not equate to a biological error.
.

Error: An act, assertion, or belief that unintentionally deviates from what is correct, right, or true.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/error

If the cells or what ever (dimorphic nuclei possibly) are meant to make men want to reproduce with women and woman want to reproduce with men(which is a reasonable assumption).. an error would occure if the result deviates. The question then would be, is homosexuality biologically intentional?

Just thought I'd throw this out there.

Again with the assumptions. If men naturally want to reproduce with women and women want to reprdocue wiht men, why doesn't everyone have twenty kids? PUH-LEEZE read the past few pageds. We've already been over this.

[DerbyX]

Zipperfish wrote:

So your final post is, what?, a congratualtions to yourself. OK. You're a star.

Ya know Zip. Your Avatar can be taken in a very gay way!

[Pseudonym]

This was quite an entertaining read until just a few pages ago.

[Scape]

Murray_Smith wrote:

If you try to silence your opposition, then what makes you different from thought police? What makes you different from those who try to silence other kinds of speech?

Your country actively practices extreme rendition, water boarding and warrantless wiretapping and yet you come on this board talking about a police state. You don't have a leg to stand on. You do not allow children to play with matches and you do not allow the rhetoric of hatemongers to pollute public airwaves under the guise of professional medical recommendations and moral authority.

[Zipperfish]

DerbyX wrote:

Zipperfish wrote:

So your final post is, what?, a congratualtions to yourself. OK. You're a star.

Ya know Zip. Your Avatar can be taken in a very gay way!

Maybe I'm gay! I certianly do seem to post a lot of smiley faces.

[Zipperfish]

Pseudonym wrote:

This was quite an entertaining read until just a few pages ago.

It went over your head at that point?

[Mustang1]

Zipperfish wrote:

Murray_Smith wrote:

I have given you, my fellow liberals, a lot more patience than you deserve.

Scape, I considered adding the "fire in crowded theater" exception, but I thought, "No one could possibly be so stupid as to use that as a 'gotcha.'" Congratulations, you have finally proven me wrong.

Dayseed, it is appropriate that you have Ozymandias as your avatar, because you think the laws of logic don't apply to you, and have immaturely stated as much.

Zipperfish, I showed you, clearly, how a biological error could be something that did not happen at the genetic level. I said that a misdirection of the growth of interconnections in the brain, which can have either genetic or environmental causes.

And none of you even listen to her show. If you did, you could have taken the opportunity to find any anti-gay comments that I might have missed.

If you were getting graded on this, all of you would likely have failed miserably.


Now, I shall sing my swan song of opinions:

I think homosexuality:
a) is a biological error,
b) is not a choice,
c) poses an insignificant-at-best threat to humanity in general,
d) poses zero threat to my fellow humans,
e) is virtually irrelevant to my life, and
f) does not need to be controlled in any sense of the word.

I think any liberal who disagrees with the above opinion needs to read it more carefully.

I think that homosexuals are identical to heterosexuals, save sexual orientation, and should be treated identically.

I think that if two adults want to spend the rest of their life together, then whether their genitals fit together is irrelevant to whether they should be able to get a binding legal contract that declares their mutual commitment.

I think that Scape argues with far too much emotion, and that his arguments suffer as a result.

I think people who try to silence hateful speech by force are well-meaning but misguided. I compare it to sewing up a wound without sterilizing it first: It will superficially solve the problem, but will cause an even worse problem in the future.

I think that silencing anyone for almost any reason (except stuff like purposefully and directly inciting chaos) is fascism.

Exit logic stage right.

So your final post is, what?, a congratualtions to yourself. OK. You're a star.

Ya' gotta love the self-indulgent suicide posts.

[Zipperfish]

Mustang1 wrote:

Ya' gotta love the self-indulgent suicide posts.

My favourite line is:

Quote:

I think any liberal who disagrees with [my] opinion needs to read it more carefully.

That one got me laughing.

[Biblesmasher]

Why is this topic even on CKA?

[Murray_Smith]

Reports of my demise have been greatly exaggerated. With my respect for all of you gone, and me high as a kite, I shall dispense with civility and murder you all.

With science.

Scape wrote:

Your country actively practices extreme rendition, water boarding and warrantless wiretapping and yet you come on this board talking about a police state.

My country is rife with hypocrisy? No shit, Sherlock! The difference is people who protest the government peacefully are not tortured, or arrested, or even so much as yanked off the air! I see disciples of Lyndon LaRouche passing out pamphlets with prominent guys in the Bush administration calling them, quite literally, "Children of Satan." Neither Mr. LaRouche nor his followers have ever been arrested for speaking their mind, because they do so peacefully, despite their hateful rhetoric.

Call me when I can say, "I disapprove of homosexuality," on the air in Canada without repercussion. To call a person hateful for stating only that shows vast assumptions on your part.

Quote:

You don't have a leg to stand on.

And I have long since decapitated you.

Quote:

You do not allow children to play with matches and you do not allow the rhetoric of hatemongers to pollute public airwaves under the guise of professional medical recommendations and moral authority.

I am listening to Dr. Laura right now. I would not be able to do that if she were half as hateful as you make her out to be. I have heard some very heavy support for traditional gender roles-- she stops about nineteen meters short of "steak and a blowjob"-- but I have yet to hear any hateful rhetoric at all.

He first caller was living with her fiance and had a toddler with him. Her question was when they should get married, and the doc replied that if she is committed to her fiance and child, then it won't make a difference.

She literally presented marriage as conditionally unnecessary.
...
She just told a woman to let her boy be a normal boy, and that boys sometimes get dirty and hurt.
...
Another woman just called and said that her two-year-old daughter had told her, without coercion, that she was molested. Her question was what to do, as it is the woman's mother's husband. Laura said, clearly, to call Child Protective Services and the police, and to tell the mother as much if asked.

Hm.

[Murray_Smith]

Zipperfish wrote:

Again with the assumptions. If men naturally want to reproduce with women and women want to reprdocue wiht men, why doesn't everyone have twenty kids?

1. I didn't call it "natural;" I called it "normal."
2. I didn't say "reproduce;" I said, "copulate."

See, class? By changing only two words he had changed my point:
"It is a normal feeling to want to copulate with the opposite sex."
into his point:
"It is a natural feeling to want to reproduce with the opposite sex."

There is a subtle but very important difference between the two.

Quote:

PUH-LEEZE read the past few pageds. We've already been over this.

Irony.

[Murray_Smith]

Zipperfish wrote:

My favourite line is:

Quote:

I think any liberal who disagrees with [my] opinion needs to read it more carefully.

That one got me laughing.

I infer that you disagree with at least one point from the following statement.

Murray_Smith wrote:

I think homosexuality:
a) is a biological error,
b) is not a choice,
c) poses an insignificant-at-best threat to humanity in general,
d) poses zero threat to my fellow humans,
e) is virtually irrelevant to my life, and
f) does not need to be controlled in any sense of the word.

Where do you disagree? I will rape your argument.

[Murray_Smith]

Pseudonym wrote:

This was quite an entertaining read until just a few pages ago.

Get ready,
'cause this shit's about to get heavy.

I just settled all my lawsuits. F**K YOU DERBY

Now this looks like a job for me,
So everybody just follow me,
'cause we need a little consistency
'cause it feels so empty without me.

[Zipperfish]

Murray_Smith wrote:

1. I didn't call it "natural;" I called it "normal."
2. I didn't say "reproduce;" I said, "copulate."

See, class? By changing only two words he had changed my point:
"It is a normal feeling to want to copulate with the opposite sex."
into his point:
"It is a natural feeling to want to reproduce with the opposite sex."

There is a subtle but very important difference between the two.

You might have had a point had I actually been addressing you.

[Murray_Smith]

Zipperfish wrote:

You might have had a point had I actually been addressing you.

I apologize for that, but that is a very important clarification.