Nothing Queer About It

Re: # 103; nkg

so far no conclusive genetic link has been found (to the best of my knowledge)

Re: # 91
nb...
to the best of my knowledge, sex is kind of process which is neccessary for animal reproduction (the selfish gene-richard dawkins explained everything from genetic angle)...that may be the reason behind such prejudice ( against same sex marriage etc...) ...not treating it as diversity....

Re: # 88
AKC...
My doubt was, is it always congenital or sometimes environment induced?

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Urstruly re #73 (and others),

This 2-hour video is worth watching. I’ve watched the first hour … and so far it has made a very compelling argument; draw your own conclusions. If you ever take a break from the usual fire-and-brimstone anti-Qadiyyani khutba and watch this clip, you may actually learn something …

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7065205277695921912

It covers the federal reserve’s money printing policy, interest within the system, inescapable debt cycle, scarcity and drive for profits, confessions of an economic hit-man, political jackals, south american leaders, and more.

A lot if this is right up your SR’s alley and along the lines of what masadi has been saying (ok, screaming) for sometime now …

Sorry for the digression. Let’s get back to bashing them faggots and telling them how they should live their lives in order to please our invisible gods …

#99 I realise that this wasn't aimed directly at me but it might as well have been. If heteros earn respect by being and acting hetero, does that mean we homos earn respect by PRETENDING to be hetero? In other words, can we ever have respect by being ourselves? - or are you saying that it is better that we be totally sex-abstemious even if we don't see why we should? Okay, I myself am proud to be non-religious but there are even some of those who ARE religious and HETEROsexual who don't go that far. But I suppose they, like us, are all heretics whose souls (whatever that is) will also be condemned to burn in the flames of Hades for ever and ever, Amen, right? Truly knee-knocking, nail-biting, frightening stuff!

Re: # 84
everybody deserves respect- but it also must be earned it cannot be demanded! so in your fraternity's very intimate words- up yours!

Re: # 82
so not having food and living like animals you would agree that they have started behaving like animals as well??? :) you idiot! Noone will tell you this- but I will do you a huge favor- save your soul- you need help- you need to believe- study wisdom and look into yourself- then you will know why things are created in balance- till then sleep with a man!

In previous post, in penultimate line, rather than 'religious BIGOT' I had meant to write 'zealot'. A fine distinction. Apologies.

Re #94. Well, I had hoped that the subject was, for the moment at least, exhausted, but nomansiddiqui has kindly replied to my request for elaboration so I can't complain at that. Now let's see - "sick, **cking writer....mental illness....freak"? Wow, you don't mince your words do you? It's crystal clear where you are coming from. However, and unsurprisingly, I do in fact find the writer's using animals illustratively to be totally valid. I think that most (though not all) would agree that humanity is, at present, the final chain in an evolutionary continuum - notwithstanding that there may be some past 'links' missing, yet to be filled in, which is surely only a matter of time and research. Or are you seriously suggesting that man was 'divinely-created' as an already complete entity, in the way that Creationists insist - and that the Earth and the Universe (one or multi) are less than 10,000 years old? If so, can you supply the evidence, please? (I do hope that you won't refer to a religious source that so many of us don't believe in - or is it the case that we must be FORCED to register such a belief, albeit spurious?)
As to incest, I personally have never found my father, mother, brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts, nephews, nieces - or even in-laws - sexually attractive. I don't deny that some people are indeed attracted to a blood relative - and, particularly in M/F relationships where 'precautions' against possible consequences are taken, I think that, as long as it is between two consenting mature adults of either or both sexes it is none of our business to interfere, even despite society's taboo status of such relationships.
Hope that clarifies matters, but I somehow think that there is as much chance of your coming round to my way of thinking as I have of yours - though I must confess that when I was a religious bigot (I cringe at the memory) what you say was pretty well the same as I was spouting all those years ago. But, thankfully, I saw the 'light'. (Hallelujah!)

Nomansiddiqui, what yardstick tells you that incest occurs only in western societies?

Re # 83 khakiflash,
the elaboration, the sick **cking writer is giving examples of animals to defend his mental illness! he sure is a donkey, dog, hippo! coz he chooses to live like one. He is just another freak who fanticizes to live like a western. The westerns are also into incest, why doesnt the writer think about that? try your sister or mother, you loser. maybe the same goes for you too khaki, guess u like the elaboration

Shore, my admirable friend, I couldn't supress a smile as I read your post#92. The way the subject has been discussed has clearly raised your hackles - and I'm envious of the way you retain your lucid articultaion in expressing your point of view whereas anger usually renders me incoherent. No surprise that I largely concur with your views. I think this subject has run its course for now and let's hope that you're to be allowed the last word on it - but something makes me suspect that won't be the case so I'm not holding my breath. Cheers, pal.

Khakiflash, my dear!
I am really not concerned with what these heterosexuals consider homosexuality. They can call it perversion or deviance; it really matters not.
I am thoroughly done with giving explanations of why I am what I am, or why I do what I do, and whom with.
Its really inconsequential.
I don't think it bothers these people so much the sexual acts of homosexuality, but more so, what bothers them to the umpteen degree is how dare we announce it to the world and say that its part of our sexual orientation.

Its a question of their assumed moral superiority over homosexuals as if any act of heterosexual sex is somehow natural and all acts of homosexual sex completely unnatural.

Now some would give the retarded objection that heterosexual sex leads to procreation. True, it does but do most acts of heterosexual procreation lead to a baby. Is that why men get hard ons? They must be thinking, Oh yeah, I am going get this woman pregnant! Right! NOT.

Lets ask the question? Why do men get hardons whether they be straight or gay?

Or for that matter, why do men masturbate whether they are straight or gay?

Nb honey! you said it best!

These straight people want to get off all they want, but yet their prescription of homosexuals is, O dont give into your unnatural urges, and be celibate.

yeah RIght!

Here is my middle finger to all these straight people on this interact index,

"Dear Sirs and Ladies, Please go sell your idiotic BULLSHIT somewhere else, or perhaps in another past century".

ShoreSahib: absolutely, but people who suggest there is a choice in one's sexual orientation suggest that a gay person is being recalcitrant. I think there is a choice, which is what both gay and straight people have, which is abstinence. Straight people who can't practise abstinence for life have no right to recommend it to gay people.

Lesbians, gays, closet perverts, faithless mindless interactors prostrating to the god of unflinching (unf...ing dildoism since '69) idealism: CHOWK!

Enjoy the Eid, sacrifice your perversions or face what is already written for you.

PS for SR: couldn't you leave your 'ex' out of this? You could have, but did not.