the worlds second transracial

First topic message reminder :

it really was only a matter of time.

cant wait for the collective explosion of libtard heads and melting of snowflakes over this one

White flight attendant turned glamour model with 32S breasts says she now identifies as black after injecting her skin with melanin

A white glamour model who spent £50,000 on surgery in a bid to transform herself into an 'exotic Barbie' appeared on TV to tell the world she now 'identifies as black woman'.

Former air hostess Martina Big, who claims she is 28 and a size 6, has boosted her breasts to a size 32S, and used tanning injections and her own powerful 50-tube sunbed to achieve her 'dark, crispy brown' complexion.

The German tanning addict, who claims her breasts are 'Europe's biggest', appeared on The Maury Show where she told the host: 'I am black. That is my race. I can't wait to go to Africa because I hear the food is tasty.

'It's better to be black, the feeling inside is just better.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-4906206/White-flight-attendant-says-identifies-black.html

I'm just being honest... and backing up my opinion with sound biological reasoning/logic...!


Why don't you just agree but say 'well that's just the way we are' and just get on with it, instead of trying to argue that it is somehow the right way of doing things as nature intended, and that it is 'equal' in normality and deserving of the same status and respect as hetrosexual couples etc...?

Tommy Monk wrote:I'm just being honest... and backing up my opinion with sound biological reasoning/logic...!


Why don't you just agree but say 'well that's just the way we are' and just get on with it, instead of trying to argue that it is somehow the right way of doing things as nature intended, and that it is 'equal' in normality and deserving of the same status and respect as hetrosexual couples etc...?

But it IS their right way. It IS their normal. What fucking status and respect? The respect people give the sanctity of marriage then get divorced a few months later, or cheat on each other? That sanctity?

Tommy, because for absolutely no reason at all you insist on constantly bringing up how wrong and unnatural it is. Regardless of your conviction in your 'reasoning', there is no reason at all to endlessly harp on about how me and people like me are abnormal.

What do you gain from it?

Maybe you should aim your last comments at homosexuals who have 'married' here in uk... have a look at the stats on marriage/divorce rates for homosexuals...

Tommy Monk wrote:Maybe you should aim your last comments at homosexuals who have 'married' here in uk... have a look at the stats on marriage/divorce rates for homosexuals...

You're missing the point...or choosing to.

Tommy Monk wrote:Maybe you should aim your last comments at homosexuals who have 'married' here in uk... have a look at the stats on marriage/divorce rates for homosexuals...

Current trends in divorce

Two-thirds (65%) of divorces between heterosexual couples are initiated by the wife. In same sex couple, female couples were slightly more likely to get divorced than male couples, but the numbers of same sex divorces in the UK (22 in 2015) was so low that this difference is likely not statistically significant.

http://www.crispandco.com/site/divorce-statistics/

Thorin wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

1. If we tried to have sexual relations with someone we had no sexual desires for, don't you think that would be rather weird and unnatural?

2. We don't choose our parters thinking they would make a good birthing partner, we choose them because we love them and are attracted to them, don't you?

1. Errrrrr No, haven't you ever snapped up a hippocroncapig at the last chance  saloon that left you disgusted and unable to look at yourself in the mirror for days afterwards??

I have, several times, that's how great a humanitarian I am, to sacrifice myself like that for the fat and the ugly.

But I bet you're all about the looks eh?? How fine a moustache he has or how thick and bushy his eyebrows are.

2. Subconsciously we do choose partners that would make good "birthing partners" the love and true attraction comes after that.

So couples who want no children and have no desire to have any, choose each other based on birthing partners?



Best laugh I have had in ages.

True Love happens unconsciously from the beginning, when two people connect more than the physical. Showing physical attraction is not the biggest draw, but certainly important for many people, but not for everyone. Can you think why?

Good post

Eilzel wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Do whatever you think is right... just don't expect everyone else to agree with your actions or to value your relationship as much as you do...

I don't think anyone values anyone's relationship as much as they do, tommy.

The people who don't agree with my relationship are cnuts, simple as that.

What I don't get, is why YOU have to make such a song and dance of how abnormal YOU think it is?

Because he doesn't understand love. That's why.

Ben Reilly wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

eddie wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

transgender people eddie

pay attention

I was answering Tommy, Smelly. Pay attention.

Maybe if you weren't Sooooooooooo boring

I remember when I was a very young child, I thought the world of grown-ups was boring, too.

It was nap time. He missed your post.

eddie wrote:

Thorin wrote:

So couples who want no children and have no desire to have any, choose each other based on birthing partners?



Best laugh I have had in ages.

True Love happens unconsciously from the beginning, when two people connect more than the physical. Showing physical attraction is not the biggest draw, but certainly important for many people, but not for everyone. Can you think why?

Good post

Down to complex subconscious attraction factors as well as conscious ones... one of the main ones being potential for offspring...

You're so wrong Tommy and I feel sorry for you that you can't see how wrong you are. No point in my arguing with you because I've said it all before.

I'm not wrong at all Eddie...!


And what I say is backed up by biology and psychology...

According to both sciences homosexuality is a natural part of the living world. Anything else is just your opinion, and a backward, prejudiced one at that.

Eilzel wrote:According to both sciences homosexuality is a natural part of the living world. Anything else is just your opinion, and a backward, prejudiced one at that.

Yep. Some monkeys are into "frotting".

Eilzel wrote:According to both sciences homosexuality is a natural part of the living world. Anything else is just your opinion, and a backward, prejudiced one at that.

Simply not true...!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:

Eilzel wrote:According to both sciences homosexuality is a natural part of the living world. Anything else is just your opinion, and a backward, prejudiced one at that.

Simply not true...!!!

Homosexuality is quite common in the animal kingdom, especially among herding animals. Many animals solve conflicts by practicing same gender sex.
From the middle of October until next summer the Norwegian Natural History Museum of the University of Oslo will host the first exhibition that focuses on homosexuality in the animal kingdom.

"One fundamental premise in social debates has been that homosexuality is unnatural. This premise is wrong. Homosexuality is both common and highly essential in the lives of a number of species," explains Petter Boeckman, who is the academic advisor for the "Against Nature's Order?" exhibition.

https://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/1500-animal-species-practice-homosexuality.aspx

Like I said, frotting.

Second time I've used that word. I feel well clever.

'...Frotting is described as rubbing one's crotch against unexpecting people , furniture or walls, and is apparently a favourite activity of sexstarved Japanese...'

Tommy Monk wrote:

'...Frotting is described as rubbing one's crotch against unexpecting people , furniture or walls, and is apparently a favourite activity of sexstarved Japanese...'

From the French, Frotter - Frottage.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


Simply not true...!!!

Homosexuality is quite common in the animal kingdom, especially among herding animals. Many animals solve conflicts by practicing same gender sex.
From the middle of October until next summer the Norwegian Natural History Museum of the University of Oslo will host the first exhibition that focuses on homosexuality in the animal kingdom.

"One fundamental premise in social debates has been that homosexuality is unnatural. This premise is wrong. Homosexuality is both common and highly essential in the lives of a number of species," explains Petter Boeckman, who is the academic advisor for the "Against Nature's Order?" exhibition.

https://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/1500-animal-species-practice-homosexuality.aspx

So that is just animal 'frotting' and/or just their way of asserting their position in the 'pecking order'...!?

Tommy, animals have sex with the same sex and to admit that will blow your argument out of the water. You still haven't answered many of didge's points either. But then you never do.

Have you had a really religious upbringing? What makes you so against gay relations?

We are not 'dumb animals'... and this claim of animals being 'homosexual' has been blown out of the water before... as it includes 'evidence' such as two male ducks being seen rubbing their bills together, and other male animals sitting close together for a while etc...


Some species of chimpanzee regularly indulge in whole family sex fest orgy's... with even the young offspring/siblings joining in on it all...!!!


But of course you wouldn't be saying that this particular animal behaviour was justification for a whole human family to be doing the same with all their relatives and children...!!!???


Didge doesn't have any unanswered points... but you are 'doing a didge' by claiming that there are...!


I have not had a religious upbringing... and I've already said many times that what two consenting adults choose to do behind closed doors is entirely a matter for them... just don't start trying to tell everyone else that they have to approve of it and/or accept it as normal/equal etc...!!!

Why can't you just shut the fuck up about it, then? You're a broken record!

People keep asking me what my opinion is, and for me to justify it...


Maybe it would be better all round if people stopped trying to force others to believe/accept that wrong is right...!?


And then getting annoyed when they lose the biological /rational/logical arguments about it...?

Tommy Monk wrote:We are not 'dumb animals'... and this claim of animals being 'homosexual' has been blown out of the water before... as it includes 'evidence' such as two male ducks being seen rubbing their bills together, and other male animals sitting close together for a while etc...


Some species of chimpanzee regularly indulge in whole family sex fest orgy's... with even the young offspring/siblings joining in on it all...!!!


But of course you wouldn't be saying that this particular animal behaviour was justification for a whole human family to be doing the same with all their relatives and children...!!!???


Didge doesn't have any unanswered points... but you are 'doing a didge' by claiming that there are...!


I have not had a religious upbringing... and I've already said many times that what two consenting adults choose to do behind closed doors is entirely a matter for them... just don't start trying to tell everyone else that they have to approve of it and/or accept it as normal/equal etc...!!!

"We are not dumb animals" - that's what you said, right? Yet you seem to want humans to act that way, by insisting that they only fuck to procreate and anything else is just "unnatural". Act like basic dumb animals and provide a functional orgasm by the male to make a baby.

You're acting like a dumb animal to be honest, because if you can't see that sometimes feelings can't be helped, that sexual preferences can't be helped, then you may as well be a sheep, who, by the way, are very homosexual dumb animals.

Tommy Monk wrote:People keep asking me what my opinion is, and for me to justify it...


Maybe it would be better all round if people stopped trying to force others to believe/accept that wrong is right...!?


And then getting annoyed when they lose the biological /rational/logical arguments about it...?

You're not right, you're not winning any arguments either. You're just coming across as uneducated.

All my points and arguments still stand...!


And deep down... you all know I'm right!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:

All my points and arguments still stand...!


And deep down... you all know I'm right!!!

You'd be hilarious if I didn't know you actually believe that.

No, Tommy -- I KNOW you're dead wrong.

Tommy Monk wrote:

All my points and arguments still stand...!


And deep down... you all know I'm right!!!

Okay I don't care for that last statement actually, don't presume to talk for me.

And, you still never answered some very good points on this thread.

Kinell
If she fell over she wouldn't break her nose.

Eilzel wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

Everything is about physical attraction.

No one goes into a bar thinking "now where's the fattest ugliest most unhealthy looking bird in here, yep that's the girl  for me"

You just contradicted your own point on snapping up hippocrocapigs...

You do that for sexual relief, and at the very least you saw something about them that made you think, "fuck it, why not". I guarantee you would not think the same of any man, nor would I a woman.

So again, wouldn't it be unnatural to have sex with someone if there mere thought of doing so made you sick?

How is that a contradiction

You think I look at what could be the offspring of bebop and rocksteady and think "mmmm sexy"???

In all of those misadventures there was zero attraction, nothing but Horniness and self loathing.

Tommy Monk wrote:I'm just being honest... and backing up my opinion with sound biological reasoning/logic...!


Why don't you just agree but say 'well that's just the way we are' and just get on with it, instead of trying to argue that it is somehow the right way of doing things as nature intended, and that it is 'equal' in normality and deserving of the same status and respect as hetrosexual couples etc...?

because it is NATRUAL although not the majority status (homo sapiens genetic makeup has NOT evolved to solely benefit the individual but to the benefit of the tribe)
and it is 100% deserving of the same status and respect as heterosexual couples

And NO you are not backing up your opinion with a simplistic logic (evidently lacking in real knowledge) that is proven fundamentally flawed by nature due to the complexity of not  only homo sapiens but all collective animals.

for the record the only vertebrates that has NOT had record of homosexuals is reptiles. Mammals, birds, fish and amphibians have all exhibited homosexual behavior in nature.

Tommy Monk wrote:We are not 'dumb animals'... and this claim of animals being 'homosexual' has been blown out of the water before... as it includes 'evidence' such as two male ducks being seen rubbing their bills together, and other male animals sitting close together for a while etc...


Some species of chimpanzee regularly indulge in whole family sex fest orgy's... with even the young offspring/siblings joining in on it all...!!!


But of course you wouldn't be saying that this particular animal behaviour was justification for a whole human family to be doing the same with all their relatives and children...!!!???


Didge doesn't have any unanswered points... but you are 'doing a didge' by claiming that there are...!


I have not had a religious upbringing... and I've already said many times that what two consenting adults choose to do behind closed doors is entirely a matter for them... just don't start trying to tell everyone else that they have to approve of it and/or accept it as normal/equal etc...!!!

Animals rape each other too. They also indulge in necrophilia.

Tommy Monk wrote:

All my points and arguments still stand...!

And deep down... you all know I'm right!!!

You really are full of shit, Tommy; constantly trying to pass off your opnions as "facts"...

"Opinions are like arseholes.." Tommy, "everyone has one !"

As with your idiotic climate-change-denial rants, you continually fail to produce any actual and creditable "science" to back your arrogant claims -- on the contrary, all that you keep on proving is just how little you understand about sciences, logic, statistics and rational thinking..

the only reason you all have issue with Tommy, is that he wont back down to your bullying.

Tommy Monk wrote:


I have not had a religious upbringing... and I've already said many times that what two consenting adults choose to do behind closed doors is entirely a matter for them... just don't start trying to tell everyone else that they have to approve of it and/or accept it as normal/equal etc...!!!

so should straight couples also only kiss or show any kind of affections behind close doors? or is it ok for straight couples to be open about it?

smelly-bandit wrote:the only reason you all have issue with Tommy, is that he wont back down to your bullying.

So now giving an alternate opinion is "bullying"?

smelly-bandit wrote:
the only reason you all have issue with Tommy, is that he wont back down to your bullying.

I don't see anyone "bullying" Tommy here...

Criticising his mistruths,  Correcting his mistakes,  Laughing at his arrogance,  Questioning his sanity,  certainly..

But "bullying" him  !   Perish the thought..

Tommy Monk wrote:We are not 'dumb animals'... and this claim of animals being 'homosexual' has been blown out of the water before... as it includes 'evidence' such as two male ducks being seen rubbing their bills together, and other male animals sitting close together for a while etc...


Some species of chimpanzee regularly indulge in whole family sex fest orgy's... with even the young offspring/siblings joining in on it all...!!!


But of course you wouldn't be saying that this particular animal behaviour was justification for a whole human family to be doing the same with all their relatives and children...!!!???


Didge doesn't have any unanswered points... but you are 'doing a didge' by claiming that there are...!


I have not had a religious upbringing... and I've already said many times that what two consenting adults choose to do behind closed doors is entirely a matter for them... just don't start trying to tell everyone else that they have to approve of it and/or accept it as normal/equal etc...!!!

Things is, monk, is that most people already do approve of it and accept it as normal and equal (a fact the ire you are stirring here should make abundantly clear...). The only places your view is the majority are places you almlst certainly wouldn't want to live.

eddie wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:the only reason you all have issue with Tommy, is that he wont back down to your bullying.

So now giving an alternate opinion is "bullying"?

if this was a workplace environment it would be considered bullying

multiple people singling out an individual and attacking that person continuously???

i don't think there is a more text book definition of your collective behavior

hands up dont shoot..............the messenger

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:
the only reason you all have issue with Tommy, is that he wont back down to your bullying.

I don't see anyone "bullying" Tommy here...

Criticising his mistruths,  Correcting his mistakes,  Laughing at his arrogance,  Questioning his sanity,  certainly..

But "bullying" him  !    Perish the thought..

bullies very seldom see themselves as bullies

smelly-bandit wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:
the only reason you all have issue with Tommy, is that he wont back down to your bullying.

I don't see anyone "bullying" Tommy here...

Criticising his mistruths,  Correcting his mistakes,  Laughing at his arrogance,  Questioning his sanity,  certainly..

But "bullying" him  !    Perish the thought..

bullies very seldom see themselves as bullies

You've made, and contributed to, several nasty threads about me on flap, joining in with others.

I guess you're a bully too.

eddie wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

bullies very seldom see themselves as bullies

You've made, and contributed to, several nasty threads about me on flap, joining in with others.

I guess you're a bully too.

I don't see anyone "bullying" eddie there...

Criticising your mistruths, Correcting your mistakes, Laughing at your arrogance, Questioning your sanity, certainly..

But "bullying" you?? perish the thought

Come off it. Your opening post here was pretty much gloating about you apparently pushing Eds to having you back here. No one is falling for your BS.

smelly-bandit wrote:

eddie wrote:

So now giving an alternate opinion is "bullying"?

if this was a workplace environment it would be considered bullying

multiple people singling out an individual and attacking that person continuously???

i don't think there is a more text book definition of your collective behavior

hands up dont shoot..............the messenger

If this was in the workplace, Tommy would have been sacked long ago. Nobody is 'attacking' him. He's the one making sweeping statements of an offensive nature, so why shouldn't he be challenged? Whether you like it or not, calling homosexuals abnormal is offensive. It implies they're not equal to heterosexuals, that they are somehow a sub-species not worthy of the things 'normal' people have. I like Tommy, I enjoy his posts mostly, but I don't agree with him on this. Just because I don't agree with him doesn't make me a bully.

gelico wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


I have not had a religious upbringing... and I've already said many times that what two consenting adults choose to do behind closed doors is entirely a matter for them... just don't start trying to tell everyone else that they have to approve of it and/or accept it as normal/equal etc...!!!

so should straight couples also only kiss or show any kind of affections behind close doors?  or is it ok for straight couples to be open about it?

It's just an expression Geli... if I saw a gay/lesbian couple being picked on in public for holding hands or having a quick kiss etc then I would most certainly jump to their defence...!


I may not agree that homosexuality is right, but I do think that it is up to them and they should not be persecuted or bullied/attacked for it...!


But at the same time, I believe that marriage is something that is between a man and a woman and something that should be reserved for male/female couples only...!!!

Eilzel wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:We are not 'dumb animals'... and this claim of animals being 'homosexual' has been blown out of the water before... as it includes 'evidence' such as two male ducks being seen rubbing their bills together, and other male animals sitting close together for a while etc...


Some species of chimpanzee regularly indulge in whole family sex fest orgy's... with even the young offspring/siblings joining in on it all...!!!


But of course you wouldn't be saying that this particular animal behaviour was justification for a whole human family to be doing the same with all their relatives and children...!!!???


Didge doesn't have any unanswered points... but you are 'doing a didge' by claiming that there are...!


I have not had a religious upbringing... and I've already said many times that what two consenting adults choose to do behind closed doors is entirely a matter for them... just don't start trying to tell everyone else that they have to approve of it and/or accept it as normal/equal etc...!!!

Things is, monk, is that most people already do approve of it and accept it as normal and equal (a fact the ire you are stirring here should make abundantly clear...). The only places your view is the majority are places you almlst certainly wouldn't want to live.

It's not that 'most people already do approve of it and accept it as normal and equal' at all... it's more the case that most people just accept that there are homosexuals about, and that they will do what they do regardless, and that they should be free from persecution/criminal charges/attack etc for it...!

HoratioTarr wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

if this was a workplace environment it would be considered bullying

multiple people singling out an individual and attacking that person continuously???

i don't think there is a more text book definition of your collective behavior

hands up dont shoot..............the messenger

If this was in the workplace, Tommy would have been sacked long ago.   Nobody is 'attacking' him.   He's the one making sweeping statements of an offensive nature, so why shouldn't he be challenged?   Whether you like it or not, calling homosexuals abnormal is offensive.   It implies they're not equal to heterosexuals, that they are somehow a sub-species not worthy of the things 'normal' people have.   I like Tommy, I enjoy his posts mostly, but I don't agree with him on this.   Just because I don't agree with him doesn't make me a bully.

Thanks for that (bit I highlighted) HT...!




But all I have said is that I think marriage should be between a man and a woman, and that sexual attration and interaction between male/female is undeniably the biologically/physically normal/natural intended way of things...!


There are vast numbers of people who agree with me on both these statements... the second one being completely undeniable...!


And I don't remember any MP's getting sacked for voting in support of first statement in the parliamentary vote on the issue a couple of years ago...!?

Tommy Monk wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

If this was in the workplace, Tommy would have been sacked long ago.   Nobody is 'attacking' him.   He's the one making sweeping statements of an offensive nature, so why shouldn't he be challenged?   Whether you like it or not, calling homosexuals abnormal is offensive.   It implies they're not equal to heterosexuals, that they are somehow a sub-species not worthy of the things 'normal' people have.   I like Tommy, I enjoy his posts mostly, but I don't agree with him on this.   Just because I don't agree with him doesn't make me a bully.

All I have said is that I think marriage should be between a man and a woman, and that sexual attration and interaction between male/female is undeniably the biologically/physically normal/natural intended way of things...!!!

Which as seen is a load of gibberish.

As what about those bilogically that are infertile?

By your reasoning they should not be able to marry, based on your warped way in how you claim something is intended.

You would also have to rule out any hetrosexuals which engage in anal sex, being that is wround 30% of couples.

You do also realise that only a third of homosexual men engage in anal sex?

I could go on the list is endless how your poor methodology would rule out people many hetrosexuals being allowed to marry.

HoratioTarr wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

if this was a workplace environment it would be considered bullying

multiple people singling out an individual and attacking that person continuously???

i don't think there is a more text book definition of your collective behavior

hands up dont shoot..............the messenger

If this was in the workplace, Tommy would have been sacked long ago.   Nobody is 'attacking' him.   He's the one making sweeping statements of an offensive nature, so why shouldn't he be challenged?   Whether you like it or not, calling homosexuals abnormal is offensive.   It implies they're not equal to heterosexuals, that they are somehow a sub-species not worthy of the things 'normal' people have.   I like Tommy, I enjoy his posts mostly, but I don't agree with him on this.   Just because I don't agree with him doesn't make me a bully.

You're right of course, Tommy would have been fired.

The wrong option will no longer tolerated by the hive mind