• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

What is your take on gays?

battleax86 said:
Of course, buddy... :cool:
Yes, an all-encompassing view that refuses to accept information contrary to your views.
Smugness? No, I'm happy that your false arguments have been shown for what they are. I take joy in the truth, not "winning."
:lol:
I just might start calling him that. After all, it was the moderator's idea...

As I said, smugness that Jesus must be oh so proud of. :mrgreen: You have shown nothing to be false and frankly, I dont have the energy to put to trying to change the mind of a stone. Enjoy your "victory" and just know I and others sit back and laugh at the pride and arrogance shown from one who claims to be such a devout follower of a humble and loving Christ. :rofl

Be well.
 
Kelzie said:
Look at all the good that came out of it though! You found your rapper/gansta name: gay dog. :mrgreen:

That would be Gay Dawg :mrgreen:
 
jallman said:
As I said, smugness that Jesus must be oh so proud of. :mrgreen: You have shown nothing to be false and frankly, I dont have the energy to put to trying to change the mind of a stone. Enjoy your "victory" and just know I and others sit back and laugh at the pride and arrogance shown from one who claims to be such a devout follower of a humble and loving Christ. :rofl
From the Jallman Book of Debating:

CHAPTER 6 - LOSING A DEBATE
When the facts get you down and you can't spin your way out of them, don't worry.

Just:
1. Accuse the other guy of smugness, arrogance, pride, and hardheadedness.
2. Assure him that you and others are laughing at him.
3. Go look for a better argument.

jallman said:
You too.
 
battleax86 said:
From the Jallman Book of Debating:

CHAPTER 6 - LOSING A DEBATE
When the facts get you down and you can't spin your way out of them, don't worry.

Just:
1. Accuse the other guy of smugness, arrogance, pride, and hardheadedness.
2. Assure him that you and others are laughing at him.
3. Go look for a better argument.


You too.

God forbid you dont get that last smug word in, huh? Like I said, Jesus must be so proud of you. :rofl
 
jallman said:
God forbid you dont get that last smug word in, huh? Like I said, Jesus must be so proud of you. :rofl
I don't really care about having the last word. If I see something that I think is worth responding to, then I'll respond. If not, then I won't. And yes, I hope Jesus is proud that I defended His Word against someone who tries to discard it. Have a good evening. :cool:
 
battleax86 said:
I don't really care about having the last word. If I see something that I think is worth responding to, then I'll respond. If not, then I won't. And yes, I hope Jesus is proud that I defended His Word against someone who tries to discard it. Have a good evening. :cool:

I was really trying to be as kind as I could considering the circumstances. I told you in the beginning that when my contempt for your rhetoric overshadowed my amusement at your devotion to it, then I would be done.

The fact is, debating a person, even when they hold views in diametric opposition to my own, is intellectually stimulating. However, debating a rhetoric is not the least bit fruitful nor is it interesting. In all of our exchanges, I see nothing but a rhetoric and nothing of the person. I feel like I am debating some religious pamphlet that tries to pawn itself off as a genuine reflection of God's Word. Frankly, I find nothing you have said stimulating, thoughtful, profound, innovative, nor even interesting. It's the common yadda yadda you would expect to hear from any crazed street preacher off his meds or on some tract literature that everyone just laughs at and throws away because they know it is utter bullshit.

Further, your smugness betrays a certain intellectual immaturity which leads me to the conclusion that you can't possibly understand the subject matter you try so hard to claim mastery of. Your thoughts are sophomoric at best and less than thorough. I am left with the remarkable feeling that you merely take what is told you from the pulpit, praise Jesus, and then flap your gums with an air of scholarship to anyone who will capitulate easily. Sorry, but just not interested in that.

In fact, it has become more amusing to pick apart the character flaws I find glaring at me in your posts than it is interesting for me to debate the topic. When this happens, I usually find that there is nothing left to be gleened from the conversation and that it will inevitably turn into an argument that leaves both sides lacking in satisfaction. When you can approach this conversation with a level of intellectual integrity and something other than rhetoric, I would really like to hear your thoughts. Until then, I am not interested in your spiritually sadistic assertions, nor am I inclined to lend you any credibility anywhere else on this forum. Now you have a good evening.
 
jallman said:
I was really trying to be as kind as I could considering the circumstances. I told you in the beginning that when my contempt for your rhetoric overshadowed my amusement at your devotion to it, then I would be done.

The fact is, debating a person, even when they hold views in diametric opposition to my own, is intellectually stimulating. However, debating a rhetoric is not the least bit fruitful nor is it interesting. In all of our exchanges, I see nothing but a rhetoric and nothing of the person. I feel like I am debating some religious pamphlet that tries to pawn itself off as a genuine reflection of God's Word. Frankly, I find nothing you have said stimulating, thoughtful, profound, innovative, nor even interesting. It's the common yadda yadda you would expect to hear from any crazed street preacher off his meds or on some tract literature that everyone just laughs at and throws away because they know it is utter bullshit.

Further, your smugness betrays a certain intellectual immaturity which leads me to the conclusion that you can't possibly understand the subject matter you try so hard to claim mastery of. Your thoughts are sophomoric at best and less than thorough. I am left with the remarkable feeling that you merely take what is told you from the pulpit, praise Jesus, and then flap your gums with an air of scholarship to anyone who will capitulate easily. Sorry, but just not interested in that.

In fact, it has become more amusing to pick apart the character flaws I find glaring at me in your posts than it is interesting for me to debate the topic. When this happens, I usually find that there is nothing left to be gleened from the conversation and that it will inevitably turn into an argument that leaves both sides lacking in satisfaction. When you can approach this conversation with a level of intellectual integrity and something other than rhetoric, I would really like to hear your thoughts. Until then, I am not interested in your spiritually sadistic assertions, nor am I inclined to lend you any credibility anywhere else on this forum. Now you have a good evening.
Yeah, OK...

I provide you with facts and logic and pick apart your assertions; in the end, all you can do is accuse me of being immature and lacking intellectual integrity. Based on my past debates with you, I should have known that this was coming, but I was still willing to entertain the idea that you were really interested in the truth and would see the light when your argument eventually ran out of gas, as it did a few posts back. I now see that this idea was naive.

You're right, this argument is fruitless because when you are presented with facts and logic and find yourself unable to attack the message without looking like a fool, you resort to attacking the messenger with whatever baseless slander you can come up with. You've lost any shred of credibility with anyone who has read our discussion on the topic of this thread.

Anyways, I've done all that I can do to warn you of the danger that you've placed yourself in. You have refused to listen. I hope that you will start listening before it's too late. Goodbye.
 
democrat17 said:
I am gay so I am a little biased when I say that there is nothing wrong with us. The Bible says it is wrong but really, who cares, the Bible is just a bunch of stories written by people.
What is your opinion, This should be good.

It's your choice not mine so feel free to keep it to yourself , LOL .

Can't wait for a response ,should be gooder ,LOL .

:roll:
 
iron butterfly said:
It's your choice not mine so feel free to keep it to yourself , LOL .

Can't wait for a response ,should be gooder ,LOL .

:roll:
Inna-gada-da-vida baby!

So, if I get this right, you're saying that as long as they keep their gayness to themselves then they have no fear of getting the **** beat out of them?

Did I miss something?
 
doughgirl said:
You positive? 100% positive? I guess you better pray there isn’t for your sake eh. Think you could prove it?



Jallman, you simply can’t and are afraid of defining NORMAL. Because if you do you will back yourself up into a corner.

I asked you one simple question……….HOW do you define NORMAL?

Homosexuality is not normal in my opinion. Obviously in your opinion it is.

Ok you avoided defining NORMAL……….see if you can handle this question?

Is bestiality normal? A simple yes or no will do. Surely you can tackle this one.


ok, I've read enough. Normal. Liking redheads is not normal, because the majority of people on this planet do not have red hair and red hair is an actual genetic anomaly. Liking people with Blue eyes is not normal, because being blue eyed is a minority on our beloved planet (.http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=160)

"Normal (Dictionary.com) nor·mal adj.
Conforming with, adhering to, or constituting a norm, standard, pattern, level, or type; typical: normal room temperature; one's normal weight; normal diplomatic relations.
Biology. Functioning or occurring in a natural way; lacking observable abnormalities or deficiencies."

So it is not normal to have blue eyes or red hair, it is "ABNORMAL" in biology. So all you redheads, and blue eyed people out there, us normal people will be attempting to outlaw your marriages next. You will be ridiculed, oppressed, beaten and told by religion that you are an abomination to GOD.

It isn't normal for you to drive a car. It isn't normal for you to have abortions. It isn't normal for you to fly in a plane. It isn't normal for you to promise one individual to remain faithful to them for the rest of your life. It isn't normal to demand monogamy.

Anyone else want to talk about how normal we humans are?

(Honestly, the site I pulled those ages of consent off of isn't acredited, but I just wanted to show the illogical way that state laws are made.)
 
Last edited:
People don't really want to know what is normal. They want to BELIVE they know what's normal. Dr. Alfred Kinsey took a lot of flack for his research because people couldn't handle the results. Homophobes do not want to accept that 10% of men are active homosexuals and over 30% are curious or have had a homosexual encounter. They don't want to know that it's normal for their grandma to poke her pud several times a week. They don't want to know their precious little princess is more than likely giving head in the backseat every weekend. They don't want to know their daddy screwed chickens. They don't wan't to know these things.

:notlook:
 
Captain America said:
Dr. Alfred Kinsey took a lot of flack for his research because people couldn't handle the results. Homophobes do not want to accept that 10% of men are active homosexuals and over 30% are curious or have had a homosexual encounter.
Dr. Alfred Kinsey took a lot of flack for the substandard methodology of his research, not just the results. Most of his claims (such as the idea that 10% of men are active homosexuals) do not survive scrutiny.

http://www.leaderu.com/marco/special/spc11b.html
 
Captain America said:
Inna-gada-da-vida baby!

So, if I get this right, you're saying that as long as they keep their gayness to themselves then they have no fear of getting the **** beat out of them?

Did I miss something?

Well I wouldn't beat them ,I would have the cops haul them away for trespassing and if they persist ,have them locked in a cage with rapest { people who can't or won't keep themselfs to themselfs !!!}

There are two sides to ever story ,but not when you wipe your ars on one of them !!!!

Be damned vulgar being ,be damned !!!! { not you C.A. }LOL

" I am the god of hells fire " also ,I'll burn you twice as bad as you try to burn me . Oh ya !!!



:roll:
 
Last edited:
iron butterfly said:
Well I wouldn't beat them ,I would have the cops haul them away for trespassing and if they persist ,have them locked in a cage with rapest { people who can't or won't keep themselfs to themselfs !!!}

There are two sides to ever story ,but not when you wipe your ars on one of them !!!!

Be damned vulgar being ,be damned !!!! { not you C.A. }LOL



:roll:

What a delightful little man you are. :roll:
 
battleax86 said:
I don't really care about having the last word. If I see something that I think is worth responding to, then I'll respond. If not, then I won't. And yes, I hope Jesus is proud that I defended His Word against someone who tries to discard it. Have a good evening. :cool:
But then, Jallman is right and you are wrong.

And no, as pointless it is for Jallman to try to deal with it, so is it also for the rest of us.
 
battleax86 said:
Anyways, I've done all that I can do to warn you of the danger that you've placed yourself in. You have refused to listen. I hope that you will start listening before it's too late. Goodbye.
Pascal's Wager is really and truly lame.
 
steen said:
But then, Jallman is right and you are wrong.
No, he's not. I've shown his illogic for what it is to the point where he tried to find his own version of "peace with honor" and his buddies have nothing but the old "he's right, you're wrong, so boo-ya" tripe.

steen said:
And no, as pointless it is for Jallman to try to deal with it, so is it also for the rest of us.
Yeah, OK, pal... :cool:

steen said:
Pascal's Wager is really and truly lame.
My faith is not based on a wager. It's based on my personal relationship with God. On the other hand, Pascal's wager does make sense. You have more to lose if you guess wrongly in favor of atheism.
 
battleax86 said:
My faith is not based on a wager. It's based on my personal relationship with God. On the other hand, Pascal's wager does make sense. You have more to lose if you guess wrongly in favor of atheism.
Pascal's wager erroneously assumes that there is only one God and to put all one's faith into that one. There are multiple religions with multiple gods which makes Pascal's wager faulty as it assumes a binary supposition.
 
shuamort said:
Pascal's wager erroneously assumes that there is only one God and to put all one's faith into that one. There are multiple religions with multiple gods which makes Pascal's wager faulty as it assumes a binary supposition.
Pascal's wager was made in 17th-century Europe, so it would only assume one God, but the logic behind his wager on theism vs. atheism, in general, is logical.
 
battleax86 said:
Pascal's wager was made in 17th-century Europe, so it would only assume one God, but the logic behind his wager on theism vs. atheism, in general, is logical.
17th century Europe was well aware of India and the history of its own where paganism was a staple.


There's also the inverse of the Pascal Gambit that states:

It is better to live your life as if there are no gods, and try to make the world a better place for your being in it. If there is no god, you have lost nothing and will be remembered fondly by those you left behind. If there is a benevolent god, he will judge you on your merits and not just on whether or not you believed in him.
 
shuamort said:
17th century Europe was well aware of India and the history of its own where paganism was a staple.
I was talking about the culture in general, not their knowledge.

shuamort said:
There's also the inverse of the Pascal Gambit that states:

It is better to live your life as if there are no gods, and try to make the world a better place for your being in it. If there is no god, you have lost nothing and will be remembered fondly by those you left behind. If there is a benevolent god, he will judge you on your merits and not just on whether or not you believed in him.
Your merits alone are not enough to be judged by holy and benevolent God because humanity is naturally corrupt. We are all guilty of doing some malevolent things at one time or another. If we assume that there is no God, we will not make any attempt to be forgiven, and no forgiveness will come.
 
battleax86 said:
I was talking about the culture in general, not their knowledge.


Your merits alone are not enough to be judged by holy and benevolent God because humanity is naturally corrupt. We are all guilty of doing some malevolent things at one time or another. If we assume that there is no God, we will not make any attempt to be forgiven, and no forgiveness will come.
Yes, but that's based on a lot of assumptions that somethings are or aren't "naturally corrupt" and that forgiveness means something.
 
shuamort said:
Yes, but that's based on a lot of assumptions that somethings are or aren't "naturally corrupt" and that forgiveness means something.
Every concept of human logic is based on an assumption of one sort or another. In its context, Pascal's wager does make logical sense.
 
battleax86 said:
Every concept of human logic is based on an assumption of one sort or another. In its context, Pascal's wager does make logical sense.
Sure, a lot of things make sense when you manipulate the facts. Due to the subject matter of the wager, it opens itself up to a broader context.
 
Back
Top Bottom