Are *** men better singers?

[krischan]

Re: Are *** men better singers?

I believe everyone is "predispositioned" for different things. (For example, kelptomaniacs, nymphomaniacs, pyromaniacs, ect.) I don't, however, believe this gives them an excuse to participate in whatever they want just because they "feel" like doing it.

As long as people don't do things at the expense of others, you cannot simply disallow it. The US declaration of independency grants everybody the right to pursuit happiness, so if homosexuals and nymphomanics are happy with it, the only problem are those people who are looking for excuses do disallow it. It's different with arson and theft, of course, that's usually at the expense of others.

BTW, it's not "nymphomaniac", but "nymphomanic", just as it is Christian and not Christianiac

 

[Tanooki]

Re: Are *** men better singers?

According to the internets, it is "nymphomaniac".

For example, wiktionary's definition of nymphomanic is simply nymphomaniac. You have to follow the link to nymphomaniac to get an actual definition.

As far as not hurting anyone else, tell me how exactly AIDS would have spread without the *** community?

I'm reminded of Romans 1:24-27, particularly the last line. Notice it was written a good 2,000 years before AIDS was discovered.

 

[lAmebAdger]

Re: Are *** men better singers?

As far as not hurting anyone else, tell me how exactly AIDS would have spread without the *** community?

Alas, all things come with a price, ***ness maybe more so than other things...

it looks like we are willing to pay up, though

 

[krischan]

Re: Are *** men better singers?

According to the internets, it is "nymphomaniac".

For example, wiktionary's definition of nymphomanic is simply nymphomaniac. You have to follow the link to nymphomaniac to get an actual definition.

As far as not hurting anyone else, tell me how exactly AIDS would have spread without the *** community?

I'm reminded of Romans 1:24-27, particularly the last line. Notice it was written a good 2,000 years before AIDS was discovered.

Come on, you know that AIDS ist spread through regular sexual intercourseas well, don't you ? The problem isn't homoseaxuality, but changing sexual partners a lot while not taking care and diseases. Apart from that, diseases are spread in all kinds of ways, e.g. by skin contact or even through the air, so that's no justification anyway, except you think that shaking hands or just being in the same room with somebody else should be condemned as well or that sex gets abolished in general and all children are produced by artificial insemination.

I don't mean to belittle your Christian faith, but I don't consider the bible as a competent source on many things, in particular not on homosexuality. Believing that AIDS is god's punishment for homosexuals is so silly in my eyes that I'm not willing to debate it. You are free to believe any nonsense you want, however.

You are right regarding manic and maniac. Christianiac is still an improper term, of course :smug:

 

[Tanooki]

Re: Are *** men better singers?

AIDS is most easily transmitted through *** sex - less so through hetero-sex. AIDS has spread through needle use, blood transfusions and *** sex - almost exclusively. There are exceptions, but there have been very few substantiated cases of transmitting to someone through 100% straight sex. (i.e. sharing a needle and having sex doesn't count.) *edit* I forgot birth - that's one way to pass the disease.

The other problem is the *** culture itself. Anonymous sex and seeing diseases as badges of honor... I don't see why anyone outside of the *** community would want to "save" the culture just for the sake of saving a culture. (It's like saving spoken languages that only one person speaks. Who cares? If one day there's only one person who speaks English left alive, I'm not going to weep over it.)

I have no problem with someone believing they're ***. I also have no problem with people giving into their desires. Everyone gives in to something. And everyone will have to suffer consequences for their actions. We all reap what we sew.

But it pisses me off when I'm told we have to a. respect the *** culture and b. do our damnedest to help people avoid the natural consequences for their actions.

I don't believe in sex before marriage. I certainly do not "respect" the decision people make for abortions because they want to avoid the natural consequences for having sex.

 

[krischan]

Re: Are *** men better singers?

I don't know why you believe that AIDS doesn't spread significantly through straight sex. In fact it's the most common way of getting infected. AIDS is transferred through exchange of body fluids.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS#Sexual_contact:

"The majority of HIV infections are acquired through unprotected sexual relations between partners, one of whom has HIV. The primary mode of HIV infection worldwide is through sexual contact between members of the opposite sex."

I don't think that there's anything wrong with sex before marriage. I don't even think that people should marry in general before having children, although I agree that it's a stabilizing element for families and that's always a good thing for children.

 

[Tanooki]

Re: Are *** men better singers?

I read an article a while back about attempts to substantiate (in America) heterosexual contact that spread the virus. What the researchers found was that in two main groups, one being black men and I forget the other, (and google isn't forthcoming) tended to report a much lower incidence of homosexuality. However, years later, they interviewed the same men and found the majority of them were now openly ***. It was believed the stigma of being known to be *** caused them to lie when they first contracted it.

Also, according to the page you linked, anal sex is 5 times as likely to spread the virus. 50 incidents out of 10,000 exposures compared to 10 out of 10,000.

Then considering that the average white straight male has between 5-9 sexual encounters over his lifetime, and a white *** male will have (on average) close to 1,000, which do you think is more likely to contract, and spread the disease?

I tried typing and retyping a paragraph about Africa skewing the world numbers, but I came off sounding racist each time, so I'll just leave that out.

 

[Johnny]

Re: Are *** men better singers?

The other problem is the *** culture itself. Anonymous sex

Hardly exclusive to the *** culture. That's on a personal level and not based on orientation

seeing diseases as badges of honor

Thats bull****. The whole bug catching thing has been revealed to only be on a fantasy level like the furrie culture

I don't believe in sex before marriage

No but you have to respect that it's purely an opinion like what ice cream flavor you like. It's not some moral high ground. Not having sex before marriage is not "superior" or better. It's just a choice. Not that you will accept that though.

I certainly do not "respect" the decision people make for abortions because they want to avoid the natural consequences for having sex.

Your problem is that all you know about the *** culture comes from 70's stereotypes that didn't represent the *** community then and it doesn't represent the *** community now.


*** people catch hiv more because the colon is very susceptible to hiv. It's not that god cursed them with hiv. It's medical. If a man with hiv has unprotected sex with a woman she is much less likely to catch it than another man. At the same time if she does catch it then her chance of infecting a man is even less likely then.

Straight people have as much unprotected sex as *** people but the nature of sex between 2 men make the infection rate higher. What do you think the infection rate between lesbians are?

 

[krischan]

Re: Are *** men better singers?

I read an article a while back about attempts to substantiate (in America) heterosexual contact that spread the virus. What the researchers found was that in two main groups, one being black men and I forget the other, (and google isn't forthcoming) tended to report a much lower incidence of homosexuality. However, years later, they interviewed the same men and found the majority of them were now openly ***. It was believed the stigma of being known to be *** caused them to lie when they first contracted it.

If you want to know how many homowexuals have AIDS and how many heterosexuals, why not simply making a survey with two questions: 1. Do you have AIDS ? 2. Are you homosexual ? Your study is probably trying to make a different point.

Also, according to the page you linked, anal sex is 5 times as likely to spread the virus. 50 incidents out of 10,000 exposures compared to 10 out of 10,000.

Yes, so what ? Straight sex is still the most common way to get infected, probably because straight sex is performed far more than 5 times as often. BTW, anal sex is not that uncommon among heterosexuals as well.

Then considering that the average white straight male has between 5-9 sexual encounters over his lifetime, and a white *** male will have (on average) close to 1,000, which do you think is more likely to contract, and spread the disease?

You are confusing sexual orientation and the number of sexual contacts. I agree that homosexuals usually have more sexual relationships than straight people and anal sex might be more risky, but that doesn't mean that AIDS is mainly spread through homosexuals. It's through heterosexuals. Not changing sex partners too often and not having unprotected sex before your partner made an AIDS test (and vice versa) is the way to avoid getting AIDS.

 

[Rashiminos]

Re: Are *** men better singers?

In short, no. You just haven't heard a good tenor.

 

[stillman]

Re: Are *** men better singers?

Tanooki, are you saying that the masses of AIDS victims in Africa right now are mostly homosexual? There's a lot of them. I heard in some areas there's predicted to be something like 50% of women who have the disease. There just aren't that many homosexuals to account for these huge numbers.

 

[Stoutwood]

Re: Are *** men better singers?

I normally side with Christians on the internet because they're under-represented and I have a weak spot for the underdog. Tanooki makes it really difficult to do that though.

 

[stillman]

Re: Are *** men better singers?

It might not be Tanooki's fault, if he was brainwashed by his caregivers. Every child soon learns they are better off having parents who like them. Some people's parents don't like them unless they exhibit the same belief system that the parents have. If upholding an agenda against homosexuals is what the parents are doing, and you want to get the most out of your Christmas presents, then you better support their agenda against the homosexuals. You better say grace if you want desert, and you better say prayers if you want to play hockey tomorrow.

After a few years of this, the parents' values and beliefs are passed on to their young. The effects are irreversable. If Tanooki was told the sky is red when he was younger, then no amount of reasoning can ever break through to convince him otherwise. I'll say it again: it's the parents' fault. Always.

 

[Stoutwood]

Re: Are *** men better singers?

Nah. Athiests still beat all other belief systems in the douchiness category. Take that last post of yours for example. You couldn't just attack Tanooki. You had to haul out the soap box and attack not only everyone who believes in any religion, but the parents of the person you disagree with. Generalizing and attacking people you know nothing about doesn't exactly make you look more enlightened.

And I would be willing to bet money that Tanooki is born-again.

 

[lAmebAdger]

Re: Are *** men better singers?

@stillman:

using words like "irreversible" and "always" may come off strong, but by doing that you also raise the inaccuracy of your post a lot higher than what is fair (to those attacked).

a person who was brain washed by his parents will still have a big part of life that doesn't directly have much to do with them. he/she will be under the influence of a lot more than his parents when he reaches his/her teens and the teens are usually the phase for make it or break it in everything including the issue of developping into exactly the same as the parents or taking a different view... so yes, parenting will be one of the biggest influences ever on your life, and no, those effects are not "irreversible"

Also, saying that it's "always" the parents' fault just comes off wrong. It's "often" "partly" the parents' fault, if you please.

 

[BobCox2]

Re: Are *** men better singers?

A white Girl? from Holland?
Can She Blow?

 

[lAmebAdger]

Re: Are *** men better singers?

@bobcox: is that a picture or clip?, it appears to me as white screen... a big square one
repost the link maybe?

 

[BobCox2]

Re: Are *** men better singers?

Grr Tiger attack you tube clip candy duffer - pick up the pieces
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRpZb3XPrXw&eurl=http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=RRpZb3XPrXw&hl=en&emb=0&aq=f

 

[lAmebAdger]

Re: Are *** men better singers?

kk thx

10chars

 

[BobCox2]

Re: Are *** men better singers?

Well I can't really comment on the other part - I know too many dead *** guys,
and thier wives and childern.
Sad what a person with no self respect can do to others.

Like you get one Life - be yourself at least.