about 10% of everyone you know is gay, do you think they would tell you knowing what your attitude is towards them?
about 10% of everyone you know is gay, do you think they would tell you knowing what your attitude is towards them?
Mmmmmm what next...ah yes, polygamy...where shall we start?
Personally I dont like the way it is implemented already in the UK, where you have some "refugees" claiming BENEFITS for 5 or 6 wives, some of whom only exist on false papers...my gripe with that is that it is MY taxes that are paying these benefits!
I'm not sure how this strayed off topic so far. We're supposed to be talking about polygamy.
-1 for polygamy
-1 for polygamy
Oooh interesting thing I just found on teh forumz..maybe JTbo should see it too:
oops cruisers and gays are in the same boat
Before having ago at the "refugees" what about our own lazy arsed council scum native population, that only life for plopping out more sprogs, and claiming more money so they can go out on the piss on a saturday night. The main problem with the welfare system is that to many "natives" are sponging off the system for it not to work. Sure refugees/asylum seekers put strain on it, but its pretty much down to the bone idle feckless wonders who'd rather sit at home watchin The Jeremy kyle show, then get any sort of work. But then it proberly pays more to sit on your arse then working 40 hours a week.
I have my own opinions, mainly to leave others alone unless they're causing you problems. How are gay people causing you problems exactly? Or is your irrational hatred/fear of them blinkering your views to be the same as the other "guys" down the pub who like pints, and male bonding? think of all your friends... 10% of them are proberly gay.
Yep, them too, but I had a rant about them in another post some time back
I was only trying to keep it on-topic by having a pop at the ones with many wives that are (stupidly IMHO) allowed to claim for ALL the extended family.....jtbo please tell me that you dont have kids
homosexuality is not genetic... at least not in the sense that there is a homosexual gene in ~10% of the human population
homosexuality is not genetic... at least not in the sense that there is a homosexual gene in ~10% of the human population
Recent technology (including the development of antibiotics, somewhat reliable contraception and abortifacient drugs and surgical abortion), has mitigated, but not eliminated, some causes for concerns that seem likely to have informed traditional articles of sexual morality.
Also, marriage is a societal institution. Societal institutions are established, maintained and supported, because they are regarded as being beneficial to all citizens, generally. Marriage essentially represents a formal, certified and recorded, public promise, between a man and a woman - in front of witnesses and a magistrate - to stay together (a "marriage" also represents the execution of that promise, the actual staying together). Such an established permanence of association, between man and woman, is societally beneficial, because it provides reason for confidence that their children (which are a naturally expected consequence of intimate associations, generally, between the sexes) will be provided, by their parents (so that others don't have to bear that burden) with sustenance (in accordance with the characteristic necessity of human children, to receive such sustenance, in order to survive), and with moral education (in accordance with the characteristic tendency of children, to grow up and become the neighbors of other citizens, who would like assurance that their new neighbor will not be a threat, or even a nuisance).
Since children are not a generally expected consequence of intimate association between homosexuals, therefore establishing and supporting permanence of these associations, would not represent the same societal benefit that is the case with traditional "marriage," notwithstanding that it may please the participating individuals, to engage in such associations and even to make public declarations of love and commitment to their relationships.
Some heterosexual marriages do not result in children. Presumably, they are granted in accordance with the traditional standard, without intrusive inquiry into the intent or reproductive capabilities of the applicants.
I don't know the reasons for prohibitions of polygamy; they may include concerns about jealousy among marital partners, and implied lack of available sexual partners for others, and perhaps societal stresses that may result from this. I have read some stuff about China's "one-child law," and the apparent preference for a male child, and concern about the resulting consequences of such an imbalance among the sexes, such that there will likely be a lot of male children who grow up to find a lack of available women.
BTW, it has been asserted that an alleged 10% homosexual fraction of a population, is exaggerated, and that 1-3% would, instead, be accurate.
Also, marriage is a societal institution. Societal institutions are established, maintained and supported, because they are regarded as being beneficial to all citizens, generally. Marriage essentially represents a formal, certified and recorded, public promise, between a man and a woman - in front of witnesses and a magistrate - to stay together (a "marriage" also represents the execution of that promise, the actual staying together). Such an established permanence of association, between man and woman, is societally beneficial, because it provides reason for confidence that their children (which are a naturally expected consequence of intimate associations, generally, between the sexes) will be provided, by their parents (so that others don't have to bear that burden) with sustenance (in accordance with the characteristic necessity of human children, to receive such sustenance, in order to survive), and with moral education (in accordance with the characteristic tendency of children, to grow up and become the neighbors of other citizens, who would like assurance that their new neighbor will not be a threat, or even a nuisance).
Since children are not a generally expected consequence of intimate association between homosexuals, therefore establishing and supporting permanence of these associations, would not represent the same societal benefit that is the case with traditional "marriage," notwithstanding that it may please the participating individuals, to engage in such associations and even to make public declarations of love and commitment to their relationships.
Some heterosexual marriages do not result in children. Presumably, they are granted in accordance with the traditional standard, without intrusive inquiry into the intent or reproductive capabilities of the applicants.
I don't know the reasons for prohibitions of polygamy; they may include concerns about jealousy among marital partners, and implied lack of available sexual partners for others, and perhaps societal stresses that may result from this. I have read some stuff about China's "one-child law," and the apparent preference for a male child, and concern about the resulting consequences of such an imbalance among the sexes, such that there will likely be a lot of male children who grow up to find a lack of available women.
BTW, it has been asserted that an alleged 10% homosexual fraction of a population, is exaggerated, and that 1-3% would, instead, be accurate.
this is why we don't like polygamy here. This isn't even a rare occurance within secrative (key word) fundamantalist mormon sects.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/04/05/2208823.htm
the last sentence is the most important, the part about underage girls
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/04/05/2208823.htm
the last sentence is the most important, the part about underage girls
They abused underage girls in name of their religion or in name of polygamy?
From my opinion, which seem to matter none here, reason why young girls got abused was because few sick bastards twisted rules of their religion and they happened to have several wifes too.
It is similar when news tell car accidents, they tell how car was speeding, but they let out that driver was drunk so badly that he barely could stand or that driver did not had even basic skills of driving a car.
In Finland 0.5% are gay, hope to stay that way and preferably even lower, polygamy won't be even considered for sure
Yeah, to be honest I know nothing of what the cause is, and logically if it was a genetic mutation, it would have dissapeared long ago and we would not even have a word for it.
And as David33 pointed out, I think the figure of 10% is high, but it is the last official figure I read some years ago.
Gay movement has always used Kinsey's claims that 10% of population are gay, but for example there is study from uk that says 1.1% have had gay sex during last year whenever study was made and 3.6% have had gay sex experience at least once in life.
It is minority that are tried to make big, probably feminism behind all of that, it has undermined foundations of classic good mens since 1846 or so.
Certainly nothing to do with genes, it is just personal preference, nothing more than if guy prefers blondes or brunettes. You don't born gay, it could be that one learns to like, imo, wrong things when baby/child, but certainly it is impossible to born gay.
We have still chance to save men race, but if this world continues to evolve much more to direction it has gone, soon we are facing doom of western world.
The percentage is more like 4-6%.
Tbh, there is something wrong with you. Speaking about certain groups of people and throwing in stuff like chopping off body parts and beating them like curing them or as = doing good for them. What a load of a biggotry hypocrite bs. You seriously have some issues. Homophobic is the right word for you, it just fits so perfectly.
How can you critisise anything about twisted rules when your own are something so awful and as evil. There's no benefit of doubt for you, you just destroyed all your moral and ethics credibility.
I'm not soft fluffy person, violence does not make me sick you know, it should not made anyone sick, of course it is situation one should avoid.
What are you telling me evil or with any other names?
And how it is so hard to understand what I write? MAYBE I wrote from how I feel when someone comes and says such things not related to situation at all? Impossible to understand such I see, also seem to be impossible to understand that some comments are purposely expressed in stronger tone....
What was so hard to understand when I'm telling what here commonly happens to gays? Now you are expressing it so that I would beat up people right away? I would like to sure, but it has very little to do what I will do.
Hold everyone else from hands and hug real soft hug, but don't except everyone joining to you, there still are those who prefer world being raw and even how everyone is trying to push us down, we will fight.
4-6% has teenage onetime experiments also counted in and probably also lesbians too.
Kids, bleh.
I'm wondering if anyone noticed....
This thread is a little off topic anyway lol
so far the most convincing explanation has been that the development of the brain swerves off into the "wrong" direction some time in the womb supposedly due to a hormone imbalance... although apparently from slicing up dead brains the case is a lot more clear cut for transsexuals than for homosexuals
either way even if it is certainly abnormal (in the literal sense of being far away from the peak of the gaussian) the percentage is high enough to be absolutely natural
its quite funny how even this forum can spawn the usual topics of discussion from chauvinistic singles that someone into pickup would refer to as an average frustrated chump
yeah the world has certainly got morally corrupt when feminism started and it hasnt been the same ever since stunning women with a swift club swing to the head and pulling them back to your cave by their hair became socially inacceptable
-1
for polygamy
for polygamy
what difference does their gender make?
This part:
homosexuality is not genetic... at least not in the sense that there is a homosexual gene in ~10% of the human population
You know I really could care less about homosexuals one way or the other.
But I've read some pretty far fetched research on the subject.
I've seen everything from genetics, to chromosone screw-ups to even childhood head injuries as reasons for this phenomenon.
Like I said about homosexuality, I don't care if someone is that way. What I hate though is when you're nice and respectful to some of these morons, they take it that you're a closet queer wanting to come out. And more than a few of them seem to think that violent homophobes are just trying to suppress their own urges.
I dunno, that's just wrong thinking. It might be true if some cases, but c'mon...just cause I hold a door open for a woman in a burkha at the store, doesn't mean I want to convert to Islam.
Oh wait a minute... someone needs to get back on topic here...
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5695879.html
And just HOW did this go from polygamy to homosexuality?
Yup, just as soon as the gays infiltrate the Pentagon
Here is a small video JUST for JTbo...the link was originally sent to me by one of my GAY mates (the one who nicked all the pink paint FYI! ) during a particularly fun p!$$-take week....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epUIRJiYEWo
As for being BUTCH and HARD and loving violence JT, you don't have to be a wimp to have tolerance, a REAL man is usually so comfortable in his own life that he knows he has nothing to worry about, and can quite easily say "No Thx, not my style" if a gay guy DOES misread 'the signals' and comes on to him: in fact, I would say that in your case the opposite is true; that you are so SCARED of your inadequacies that you HIDE behind all your tough talk.
) during a particularly fun p!$$-take week....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epUIRJiYEWo
As for being BUTCH and HARD and loving violence JT, you don't have to be a wimp to have tolerance, a REAL man is usually so comfortable in his own life that he knows he has nothing to worry about, and can quite easily say "No Thx, not my style" if a gay guy DOES misread 'the signals' and comes on to him: in fact, I would say that in your case the opposite is true; that you are so SCARED of your inadequacies that you HIDE behind all your tough talk.
Can a "-1 for polygamy" be considered as a talk?
Deja
vu
Yep, we heard you before
Im trying to get the thread back on topic. I'd appreciate if you didn't undermine and belittle everything I say.
Bingo. It's a simple numbers game. Polygamy=higher number of frustrated males that are considered unworthy by the females that all want the same guy and become potential trouble makers. To take an extreme view I believe that modern day sexual openness (frequent change of partners) is one of the reasons for the rise of loonies shooting up schools.
Should US allow polygamy for Islam & Mormonism?
(194 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG