The whole gay thing.

Where is her opinion on the inability of male homosexuals to bond with females reflected in DOJ rulings? Find me an expert that agrees with her on that for me. You can't do it either.
 
Because it is an issue that does not lend itself to criminal behavior it is unlikely that there is such a ruling. Because something has not been ejudicated, does not mean it doesn't exist. For instance, I have not been ruled on, but I assure you I exist.

You are AGAIN asking for the EXPERT OPINION to find EXPERT OPINION. Last time... YOU ARE THE ONE REQUIRED TO FIND EXPERT OPINION THAT SUPPORTS YOUR CLAIM THAT THIS EXPERT OPINION IS "stupid".
 
Ctrl said:
You are AGAIN asking for the EXPERT OPINION to find EXPERT OPINION. Last time... YOU ARE THE ONE REQUIRED TO FIND EXPERT OPINION THAT SUPPORTS YOUR CLAIM THAT THIS EXPERT OPINION IS "stupid".
Click to expand...

I am gonna say that you are wrong. If I say I am an expert, I had better be prepared to back up what makes me an expert.

If one can't (or won't) back it up, then they should not be calling themselves an expert. That's just bad form.
 
I agree eddo. She wasn't being asked to back up that she is an expert. She was asked to find experts that agree with her expert opinion.

It must be presumed that she is an expert based on her word, or mine, or it must be challenged.

Like I said, I am open to ideas on how to substantiate that without full disclosure of personal information. If you want to cheat and say that her unwillingness to give out her name and address means she isn't an expert, you can. There is little that can be done to argue, but I think it is a weak tit way to handle it.
 
Let's just say that an "expert" declares that kangaroos prefer sexual activity with koala bears over their own species. It would be quite hard to find another expert to contradict this.
 
Ctrl said:
http://vger.rutgers.edu/~tempest/marsupia.htm
http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Macropus_rufus.html

I would accept rutgers university professors or the University of Michigan zoologists as experts in their field. They very clearly document the mating habits of Kangas and koalas. Those would be links that I threw up to contrast your expert... you know... for instance.
Click to expand...

Where in either of them links does it argue kangaroos do not prefer screwing koalas over their own kind?

Why can't you produce a link collaborating your sweetheart's opinion?
 
hugo said:
her lone wolf opinion that gays are incapable of emotional attachments to the opposite sex...
Click to expand...

I don't recall ever saying such a thing. I said "Homosexuality isn't simply having an attraction toward members of the same sex. It is also... and MORE IMPORTANTLY... LACKING the EMOTIONAL ABILITY to intimately and romantically bond with the opposite sex."

Homosexuals are perfectly capable of emotional attachments. Not all emotional attachments are of an intimate and/or romantic nature. In fact... the vast majority of our emotional attachments are neither intimate nor romantic. They are familial (grandparents, cousins, aunts, uncles, parents, siblings) and casual friends. Most of us only have a few people with whom we have intimate bonds and only one with whom we are bonded both romantically and intimately.



If you have some reason you disagree with the notion that "Homosexuality isn't simply having an attraction toward members of the same sex. It is also... and MORE IMPORTANTLY... LACKING the EMOTIONAL ABILITY to intimately and romantically bond with the opposite sex."... please submit it. Twisting my statement so that it appears to paint with a broader brush than it does... so that you may then argue with your twisted version of it is nothing more than intellectual dishonesty on your part. If you want to debate with your self, please do. It would go much better for you in this type of forum, because anyone here can look back over my posts and see what I did and didn't say.

If you do not have a specific reason you disagree with the statement.. then stop asserting that it is wrong. Making those protests in absence of a real reason is transparently PC...

"I don't know WHY it is wrong... but it says people are homosexual because they LACK something... and saying that could hurt someone's feelings... so it FEELS wrong."
 
hugo said:
Where is her opinion on the inability of male homosexuals to bond with females reflected in DOJ rulings? Find me an expert that agrees with her on that for me. You can't do it either.
Click to expand...

Again.. I never said that.

I said "Homosexuality isn't simply having an attraction toward members of the same sex. It is also... and MORE IMPORTANTLY... LACKING the EMOTIONAL ABILITY to intimately and romantically bond with the opposite sex."

Homosexuals can form bonds with anyone.

Again... Why do you disagree?
 
eddo said:
I am gonna say that you are wrong. If I say I am an expert, I had better be prepared to back up what makes me an expert.

If one can't (or won't) back it up, then they should not be calling themselves an expert. That's just bad form.
Click to expand...

ex•pert [
 
When describing the mating habits of kangaroos, both articles explain, in some detail, the practices and rituals. If "most" preferred koalas, it would have been mentioned. That is how you evidence something you do not believe exists, by pointing to leading experts unbiased omission of what is proported to be a majority of a given subject doing any thing. If you would like to NOW argue that those experts are biased, you will be asked to evidence this opinion as anything other than simple conjecture. Thank you as always for playing.

Now, for the last time, I challenge you to find an article, from experts in the field, who when detailing homosexuals interactions with the opposite sex are of conflicting opinion with Classy. If you are unable to do this, under the well established rules of debate, you concede.

I never said I could not provide a link supporting it. I said the onus is on you to attempt to discredit it first. You want me to defend something that, at the moment, needs no defence. It is an issue of protocal... you remember... you were arguing about it earlier before you gave up and started calling names and implying associations.

There is no shame in losing an argument. There is, however, shame in refusing to accept it.

Kisses.
 
Ctrl said:
Now, for the last time, I challenge you to find an article, from experts in the field, who when detailing homosexuals interactions with the opposite sex are of conflicting opinion with Classy. If you are unable to do this, under the well established rules of debate, you concede.
Click to expand...

His experts must meet the definition of "expert" that he used to decide I am not an expert... that is... they must also provide other experts who agree with them.

It's only fair.

I never said I could not provide a link supporting it. I said the onus is on you to attempt to discredit it first. You want me to defend something that, at the moment, needs no defence. It is an issue of protocal... you remember... you were arguing about it earlier before you gave up and started calling names and implying associations.

There is no shame in losing an argument. There is, however, shame in refusing to accept it.

Kisses.
Click to expand...

I already gave him a link. It apparently wasn't good enough. :D
 
I have to say that as a lesbian this topic really upsets me and hurts me that people would talk about homosexuals that way. I bet most of you have never even met or been close to someone who is gay.
 
The deal princess, is that alot of these people are not our generation, and the ones that are probably lived a sheltered lifestyle away from the masses of gay people that actually exist. They dont realize that most gay people are not the ass grabbing hornballs that they imagine. But they gay and lesbian topic is very close to you, so the smartest idea is to keep away from the threads about it.
 
Outlaw2747 said:
Most lesbians are attention whores or histrionic man haters.
Click to expand...

Can't forget dumbass alterna-twits who are trying to be rebellious/different/cool and forgetting that in this post-1950's era that no one gives a rats ass if they're gay or not
 
Komrade Vostok Hazard said:
Can't forget dumbass alterna-twits who are trying to be rebellious/different/cool and forgetting that in this post-1950's era that no one gives a rats ass if they're gay or not
Click to expand...

Yeah can't forget those. Oh and the trendy bisexuals and insta-lesbians (just add alcohol) as well.
 

Similar threads

A
Here is Practical Explanation about Next Life, Purpose of Human Life, philosophical/religious facts, theories etc.
Replies
0
Views
343
avyea
A
A
The Higher-Self Alignment 2024 Calendar
Replies
0
Views
63
Andrewimmix
A
A
The Higher-Self Alignment 2024 Calendar
Replies
0
Views
25
Andrewimmix
A
M
XEVIL 6: the best software for captcha solving is available !!
Replies
0
Views
125
MaryIntork0176
M
M
XEvil 6.0 [Beta-8]: the best application for ReCaptcha and hCaptcha solving is available !
Replies
0
Views
206
MaryIntork2556
M
Back
Top