1 2
#150020
Osiris
According to the Declaration of Indepedance and the Consitution, no one in America has the right to be prejudiced against. Seriously, if you hate the idea of giving other people equal freedom, go to Saudia Arabia.
1/31/2007 4:52:50 PM
#150059
Captain Janeway
Again, someone should point out to this mental midget the long list of animals that engage in homosexual behaviour.
Are they being biologically unnatural too?
Stupid, stupid, stupid.
1/31/2007 5:07:16 PM
#150061
yarps
\"Denying people rights isn't prejudice! Honest!\"
1/31/2007 5:07:30 PM
#150101
The Watcher
So, you think it's not prejudice because homosexuals are bad people based on the selective terminology you employ?
1/31/2007 5:21:22 PM
#150110
whitewater55
I'm in my 50's, my wife is too. We enjoy sex A LOT! We're both well past the \"procreation\" age, so we're \"sinning\", too? Wow, should add a little zip to our next debauchery!
1/31/2007 5:24:26 PM
#150147
Brain_In_A_Jar
Paying lip service to tolerance in your first sentence is hardly going to cut it when you then proceed to spew a load of bigoted shit.
1/31/2007 5:36:23 PM
#150182
lytefoot
Well, okay, if you want to define 'deviant' and 'unnatural' in that way... okay, there are two tacks against that argument.
The obvious one is that, by that definition, neither of those words is a synonym for wrong, so you've just re-defined yourself out of an argument. But I like the second one better.
The second one goes, as long as we're redefining terms, let's redefine \"procreation\". Most of what makes a person who he is is a function of his upbringing, rather than his parentage; so let's define \"procreation,\" for humans and other animals that indulge in primarily learned behavior, as rearing and educating a child, rather than merely contributing zygotes to it. In that case, gay couples who are capable of adopting children are, by your definition, behaving \"naturally\"... why are you forcing these people to be deviants?
1/31/2007 5:59:10 PM
#150243
CrowdingHell
What about the infertile or sterile? Are they no longer allowed to have sex now? Come on, now, \"Dr\" Mike, don't expect us to believe you don't have \"deviant sexual acts\" of your own. I think somebody's projecting.
1/31/2007 6:29:55 PM
#150254
Blue Lithium
\"Homosexuals shouldn't be prejudiced agaisnt, but they should be prejudiced against!\"
That's what this guy's sayin'.
1/31/2007 6:36:11 PM
#150411
Sandman
Before anyone protests about these comments any sexual act not directed towards procreation (or strengthening the natural bond between couples capable of procreation) is by biological definition 'deviant' and 'unnatural'.
So according to this guy, since my wife and I are medically incapable of having children, then all of our sexual activity, activity I may add, that is between two deeply loving, committed, married, Christian adults, is \"deviant\" and \"unnatural?\"
You are an idiot.
1/31/2007 8:40:48 PM
#150420
cheapthrills
\"any sexual act not directed towards procreation...
Damn! Masturbation is one of my favorite pastimes.
1/31/2007 8:44:12 PM
#150527
Matilde
I find particularly offensive, because you´re calling unnatural the relationship of my neighbour, a widow in her sixties who married last year a widower in a similar fashion. They are adorable grandparents and I would willingly leave my kids to them, believe me. Besides, you´re tearing the whole adoption process down, because you´re not allowing sterile couples to adopt, you know, they can´t have kids. By the way, before I married, I adopted my godson and we lived in a monoparental family for 5 years, wrong again?
1/31/2007 10:15:11 PM
#150543
DarthFurious
\"It seems to me the [Catholic] church is right, children have a right to be protected from such things until they are capable of making their own decisions.\"
Unless, of course, it's a catholic priest, then children have a right to slurp on priest cock and take one in the ass for Jesus.
Where the fuck does any fucktard apologist for the catholic church get the nuts to breathe even one word about child abuse?!
1/31/2007 10:25:58 PM
#150572
Old Viking
Most homosexuals will accept your explanation that your prejudice is non-prejudicial.
1/31/2007 10:47:34 PM
#150583
Niali
Explain to me why adption agencies will allow gay couples to adopt only HIV-positive children.
1/31/2007 11:06:26 PM
#150588
Rahab
Fine. I think children also have a right to be protected from bigotry, though.
1/31/2007 11:10:45 PM
#150589
Rahab
It's also somewhat entertaining to me that the Catholic church would take such a stance. Can we focus on protecting kids from sexual predator priests first?
1/31/2007 11:11:54 PM
#150711
Napoleon the Clown
Originally posted by Legendary Dr Mike
Before anyone protests about these comments any sexual act not directed towards procreation (or strengthening the natural bond between couples capable of procreation) is by biological definition 'deviant' and 'unnatural'.
So what about couples where one or both of the people are sterile?
2/1/2007 1:27:22 AM
#151063
Redhunter
Since I wasn't paying attention to the crap mike has to say, I found some interesting anagrams of his name...
ADDLE MY REEK RING
DEADLY GERM RE-INK
DAMNED GIRLY REEK
EMERALD DYKE GRIN
MY GRINDER LEAKED
RID MY AGED KERNEL
DERANGED RYE MILK
2/1/2007 7:56:50 AM
#153796
so chilfreen should be protected from religion till they are capable of making their own decisions.\"
2/5/2007 3:08:41 AM
#165007
tempest1380
Yeay, deviant sexual acts!
Right--gotta be sure we only do it in the missionary style too! Can't have them bitches on top like a man!
Your crap makes me want to go worship the Porceilan God!
2/19/2007 11:10:32 PM
#290059
Robbie
I'm bisexual. I don't go into details about what I do with my partners (male or female) with my kids. Like, not ever. I'm really sorry that you do.
9/19/2007 5:30:29 AM
#290064
Annabella
"...children have a right to be protected from such things..."
So the child waiting to be adopt have the right to either have two paths in life.
One is to be lucky enough to be adopted by the PERFECT family of your standards and the PERFECT childhood of your standards. Even if it mean shrinking the pool of parental candidates down to an outright trickle more so then it already is.
Or the child NEVER getting adopted at all and stays in foster care which is suppose to be TEMPORALLY since the gov't most times can't really afford to take care of such children until they're forced to work at the age of eighteen.
WOW! Nice to know the welfare of children is such a priority for you!!
9/19/2007 5:57:28 AM
#290238
Frank
@Darth Fury: I'm pretty sure the clergy has one of the lowest incidence of child abuse. Don't be so quick with the generalisations.
I'd go further than Mike. I think kids should be protected from religion until they are capable of making their own decisions.
9/19/2007 12:17:09 PM
#422600
GigaGuess
Lovely! Who cares if scads of children never find a loving homes, so long as they're kept away from TEH GHEYS!!!1!
3/3/2008 7:23:45 PM
1 2