Have we any right to be offended all the time?

by eddie Fri Jun 20, 2014 10:19 pm

First topic message reminder :

We hear it all the time:

"I find that offensive"

What right do we have to be offended? What gives us the right to find so many things offensive? Who are we, some superior being who has to bang on all the time about what other people are allowed to say?
What is an offensive word or phrase anyway? What offends me may not offend you so who is right?
Sticks and stones may break your bones and words seem to absolutely floor you!

They are but words: lumps of shaped air that fall from your open mouth and drop into the atmosphere for someone to pick up. What we do with them is up to us.

We can choose to hold them inside of us and allow the shapes to mess around with our nerves or we can toss them back into the world to fall and fade into invisible shapes.

Why would you think you may be offended by someone else's choice of shaped air? Why would you deem yourself judge and jury to condemn someone's words when you can choose to drop them and allow them to free fall into oblivion?

Stop being offended. Stop the offender from invading your ear-shaped orifice and say:

"I find your mouth-shapes to be lacking in any solid and pretty formation, so I will hand them back to you for now, yet I won't take offence as the offence is not mine to take, only yours to give and I don't want it"

Just a thought.

by Guest Sat Jun 21, 2014 10:31 am

Eilzel wrote:
BigAndy9 wrote:

No Eli.

Unfortunately some modern "cool kids" see any policy to do with immigration as making a political Party right wing - UKIP - one policy, immigration - right wing.

Every other policy is left wing - much moreso than Liebour.

I've never heard of a LW UKIP policy Andy. The BNP are, incredibly Left Wing on economic issues. But UKIP, with their pro-privatizing, lower tax rates for the rich etc, they are the most RW party with a chance of sniffing a seat at Westminster next year.

Yes Lez, UKIP are right wing - they want to free us of the demonically controlling superstate EU - pretty much proves the point I'm trying to make here - the more left-wing, the more bureacratic and censorial they get, expanding their powers until you can't say good morning without offending someone...

by Ben Reilly Sat Jun 21, 2014 10:31 am

Smelly, Eilzel was right to say that. Bullshit religious beliefs from some dusty old book preached by some dusty old man should indeed take a back seat to what free people do in their pursuit of happiness, you dusty old fossil.

by Ben Reilly Sat Jun 21, 2014 10:33 am

Tesstacious wrote:
Eilzel wrote:
BigAndy9 wrote:

No Eli.

Unfortunately some modern "cool kids" see any policy to do with immigration as making a political Party right wing - UKIP - one policy, immigration - right wing.

Every other policy is left wing - much moreso than Liebour.

I've never heard of a LW UKIP policy Andy. The BNP are, incredibly Left Wing on economic issues. But UKIP, with their pro-privatizing, lower tax rates for the rich etc, they are the most RW party with a chance of sniffing a seat at Westminster next year.
Yes Lez, UKIP are right wing - they want to free us of the demonically controlling superstate EU - pretty much proves the point I'm trying to make here - the more left-wing, the more bureacratic and censorial they get, expanding their powers until you can't say good morning without offending someone...

Yeah, just abandon the EU already and see what a backwater your country turns into. Maybe your lot is the type that has to commit a major screw-up before you realize how mislead you have been ...

by Guest Sat Jun 21, 2014 10:33 am

smelly_bandit wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:

Point to one concrete example of homosexual supremacy, or else stop bleating like a stupid animal ...

elizel

elziel expressed the view that religious beliefs are subordinate to sexual preference
his words were to the effect of "religious views and beliefs need to take a back seat"
ironically he was making this declaration in between patting himself on the back for being such a champion of equality
the greater irony is of course that he claims to champion equality and yet calls for religious people to suffer the same alienation and suppression that gays once suffered
in the case of the B&B owners refuse to allow to unmarried gays to share a room, he was in full support of their persecution, citing the fact that they didn't recognize gays as being married for a reason to accuse them of bigotry and persecute them
once again the irony is that gay marriage has only just been recognized legally, so yeah good one
of course ben im sure you wont care, because like most lefties you have an enormous amount of tolerance for hatred and bigotry , but only the right kind of hatred and bigotry, the kind you approve of, the kind that is only directed at groups you disprove of
any other kind of hatred and bigoty is simply not acceptable to you

think im wrong??
i doubt you will call for a compromise between religious views and sexual preferences, no you will simply defend elizel, condemn religion, call me a homophobe and run away thinking you have the moral high ground

That is not an example of militant homosexuality.

://?roflmao?/:

Religious views should not supersede equality views, any idiot with an ounce of common sense knows that and this couple got what they deserved for thinking they could supersede equality laws with religion. Which is odd really when by that logic you must view then that Muslims should be able to supersede equality laws also in this country then.
You see you always walk into making yourself look incredibly stupid.

I do not and religious views should take a back seat, they are personal beliefs, which should not deny people equal rights

by Guest Sat Jun 21, 2014 10:45 am

Ben_Reilly wrote:Smelly, Eilzel was right to say that. Bullshit religious beliefs from some dusty old book preached by some dusty old man should indeed take a back seat to what free people do in their pursuit of happiness, you dusty old fossil.

presumably when you're talking about free people pursuing their happiness you are not including religious peoples right to freely pursue their own happiness

what a champion of equal rights you are

ben, you and elizel should consider teaching irony on a university level

by Guest Sat Jun 21, 2014 10:47 am

smelly_bandit wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:Smelly, Eilzel was right to say that. Bullshit religious beliefs from some dusty old book preached by some dusty old man should indeed take a back seat to what free people do in their pursuit of happiness, you dusty old fossil.

presumably when you're talking about free people pursuing their happiness you are not including religious peoples right to freely pursue their own happiness

what a champion of equal rights you are

ben, you and elizel should consider teaching irony on a university level

So you champion religious rights over equal rights?

Wow, Christian extremism at its best

by Eilzel Sat Jun 21, 2014 10:49 am

Tesstacious wrote:
Eilzel wrote:

I've never heard of a LW UKIP policy Andy. The BNP are, incredibly Left Wing on economic issues. But UKIP, with their pro-privatizing, lower tax rates for the rich etc, they are the most RW party with a chance of sniffing a seat at Westminster next year.
Yes Lez, UKIP are right wing - they want to free us of the demonically controlling superstate EU - pretty much proves the point I'm trying to make here - the more left-wing, the more bureacratic and censorial they get, expanding their powers until you can't say good morning without offending someone...

It only proves your point if you are actually gullible enough to believe that the EU really is a 'demonically controlling superstate'. Otherwise it proves no such thing.

Listen to the things said by so many UKIP members, they do us all the favours we need in showing what a vile path RW conservative thinking is to take.

by Guest Sat Jun 21, 2014 10:50 am

Didge wrote:
smelly_bandit wrote:

elizel

elziel expressed the view that religious beliefs are subordinate to sexual preference
his words were to the effect of "religious views and beliefs need to take a back seat"
ironically he was making this declaration in between patting himself on the back for being such a champion of equality
the greater irony is of course that he claims to champion equality and yet calls for religious people to suffer the same alienation and suppression that gays once suffered
in the case of the B&B owners refuse to allow to unmarried gays to share a room, he was in full support of their persecution, citing the fact that they didn't recognize gays as being married for a reason to accuse them of bigotry and persecute them
once again the irony is that gay marriage has only just been recognized legally, so yeah good one
of course ben im sure you wont care, because like most lefties you have an enormous amount of tolerance for hatred and bigotry , but only the right kind of hatred and bigotry, the kind you approve of, the kind that is only directed at groups you disprove of
any other kind of hatred and bigoty is simply not acceptable to you

think im wrong??
i doubt you will call for a compromise between religious views and sexual preferences, no you will simply defend elizel, condemn religion, call me a homophobe and run away thinking you have the moral high ground

That is not an example of militant homosexuality.

://?roflmao?/:

Religious views should not supersede equality views, any idiot with an ounce of common sense knows that and this couple got what they deserved for thinking they could supersede equality laws with religion. Which is odd really when by that logic you must view then that Muslims should be able to supersede equality laws also in this country then.
You see you always walk into making yourself look incredibly stupid.

I do not and religious views should take a back seat, they are personal beliefs, which should not deny people equal rights

my name is didge :-:bravo:-: :-:bravo:-:

by Guest Sat Jun 21, 2014 10:52 am

smelly_bandit wrote:
Didge wrote:

That is not an example of militant homosexuality.

://?roflmao?/:

Religious views should not supersede equality views, any idiot with an ounce of common sense knows that and this couple got what they deserved for thinking they could supersede equality laws with religion. Which is odd really when by that logic you must view then that Muslims should be able to supersede equality laws also in this country then.
You see you always walk into making yourself look incredibly stupid.

I do not and religious views should take a back seat, they are personal beliefs, which should not deny people equal rights

my name is didge :-:bravo:-: :-:bravo:-:

No your name is smelly, and we all know you stink up the joint when you debate

::D::

by Guest Sat Jun 21, 2014 10:52 am

Eilzel wrote:
Tesstacious wrote:
Yes Lez, UKIP are right wing - they want to free us of the demonically controlling superstate EU - pretty much proves the point I'm trying to make here - the more left-wing, the more bureacratic and censorial they get, expanding their powers until you can't say good morning without offending someone...

It only proves your point if you are actually gullible enough to believe that the EU really is a 'demonically controlling superstate'. Otherwise it proves no such thing.

Listen to the things said by so many UKIP members, they do us all the favours we need in showing what a vile path RW conservative thinking is to take.

That's your viewpoint and I defend your right to say it - because I'm not a leftie... Cool

by Ben Reilly Sat Jun 21, 2014 10:55 am

smelly_bandit wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:Smelly, Eilzel was right to say that. Bullshit religious beliefs from some dusty old book preached by some dusty old man should indeed take a back seat to what free people do in their pursuit of happiness, you dusty old fossil.

presumably when you're talking about free people pursuing their happiness you are not including religious peoples right to freely pursue their own happiness

what a champion of equal rights you are

ben, you and elizel should consider teaching irony on a university level

Two people getting gay with each other doesn't mean you can't have a Bible study or a Wiccan rite the next house down. I don't know if that's enough to fill a college course; do you understand it? You could be the test subject.

by Eilzel Sat Jun 21, 2014 11:01 am

Tesstacious wrote:
Eilzel wrote:

It only proves your point if you are actually gullible enough to believe that the EU really is a 'demonically controlling superstate'. Otherwise it proves no such thing.

Listen to the things said by so many UKIP members, they do us all the favours we need in showing what a vile path RW conservative thinking is to take.
That's your viewpoint and I defend your right to say it - because I'm not a leftie...

Have I ever tried to stop you saying anything? Has Ben? No. It appears your paranoia of LWers trying to censor you is a misplaced as your paranoia of the 'demonic EU superstate' Laughing

by Eilzel Sat Jun 21, 2014 11:03 am

Ben_Reilly wrote:
smelly_bandit wrote:

presumably when you're talking about free people pursuing their happiness you are not including religious peoples right to freely pursue their own happiness

what a champion of equal rights you are

ben, you and elizel should consider teaching irony on a university level

Two people getting gay with each other doesn't mean you can't have a Bible study or a Wiccan rite the next house down. I don't know if that's enough to fill a college course; do you understand it? You could be the test subject.

Smelly will never understand that, because smelly has difficulty understanding (don't be offended smelly!). Of course the only time I ever called into question how people 'live out' their religious belief is when it impedes on the lives of others. Because it shouldn't. And in every way people want to live a religious life that doesn't warrant infringing negatively on others they should absolutely be free to do so Smile

by Guest Sat Jun 21, 2014 11:08 am

Ben_Reilly wrote:
smelly_bandit wrote:

presumably when you're talking about free people pursuing their happiness you are not including religious peoples right to freely pursue their own happiness

what a champion of equal rights you are

ben, you and elizel should consider teaching irony on a university level

Two people getting gay with each other doesn't mean you can't have a Bible study or a Wiccan rite the next house down. I don't know if that's enough to fill a college course; do you understand it? You could be the test subject.

drastic U turn there ben

suddenly now its ok to have a religious belief?? earlier you agreed that religious should should take a back seat

what exactly do you mean by "take a back seat"

a back seat to what exactly??

come on ben, you're man enough to have an opinion now be man enough to own it

by Guest Sat Jun 21, 2014 11:10 am

smelly_bandit wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:

Two people getting gay with each other doesn't mean you can't have a Bible study or a Wiccan rite the next house down. I don't know if that's enough to fill a college course; do you understand it? You could be the test subject.

drastic U turn there ben

suddenly now its ok to have a religious belief?? earlier you agreed that religious should should take a back seat

what exactly do you mean by "take a back seat"

a back seat to what exactly??

come on ben, you're man enough to have an opinion now be man enough to own it

That religious views should not supersede equal rights.

How many more times does it has to be said to get into that melon of yours?

by Guest Sat Jun 21, 2014 11:10 am

Eilzel wrote:
Tesstacious wrote:
That's your viewpoint and I defend your right to say it - because I'm not a leftie...

Have I ever tried to stop you saying anything? Has Ben? No. It appears your paranoia of LWers trying to censor you is a misplaced as your paranoia of the 'demonic EU superstate'

I was being flippant. You lefties wouldn't get that...

Neutral

by Eilzel Sat Jun 21, 2014 11:14 am

Tesstacious wrote:
Eilzel wrote:

Have I ever tried to stop you saying anything? Has Ben? No. It appears your paranoia of LWers trying to censor you is a misplaced as your paranoia of the 'demonic EU superstate'
I was being flippant. You lefties wouldn't get that...

Ah yes, you always get flippant and funny when you realize the actual point you tried to make doesn't stand up to much Razz

by Guest Sat Jun 21, 2014 11:15 am

Didge wrote:
smelly_bandit wrote:

drastic U turn there ben

suddenly now its ok to have a religious belief?? earlier you agreed that religious should should take a back seat

what exactly do you mean by "take a back seat"

a back seat to what exactly??

come on ben, you're man enough to have an opinion now be man enough to own it

That religious views should not supersede equal rights.

How many more times does it has to be said to get into that melon of yours?

equal rights eh??

do you think equal rights means that sexual preference should supersede religious beliefs??

by Guest Sat Jun 21, 2014 11:18 am

smelly_bandit wrote:
Didge wrote:

That religious views should not supersede equal rights.

How many more times does it has to be said to get into that melon of yours?

equal rights eh??

do you think equal rights means that sexual preference should supersede religious beliefs??

Sexual preference ://?roflmao?/: ?

Are you able to change your sexual preference to fancy men now smelly?

by Guest Sat Jun 21, 2014 11:25 am

Eilzel wrote:
Tesstacious wrote:
I was being flippant. You lefties wouldn't get that...

Ah yes, you always get flippant and funny when you realize the actual point you tried to make doesn't stand up to much

No, miseryman, my point was perfectly valid. The flippant post was just a throw-away remark... then again humour's another thing the left don't do well....

by Guest Sat Jun 21, 2014 12:18 pm

Didge wrote:
smelly_bandit wrote:

equal rights eh??

do you think equal rights means that sexual preference should supersede religious beliefs??

Sexual preference ://?roflmao?/: ?

Are you able to change your sexual preference to fancy men now smelly?

too scared to answer the question eh??

by Guest Sat Jun 21, 2014 12:26 pm

smelly_bandit wrote:
Didge wrote:

Sexual preference ://?roflmao?/: ?

Are you able to change your sexual preference to fancy men now smelly?

too scared to answer the question eh??

What question, I am asking you, how can a man have a preference to be homosexual?

Can you fancy men and want to have sex with them?

by Guest Sat Jun 21, 2014 12:47 pm

Didge wrote:
smelly_bandit wrote:

too scared to answer the question eh??

What question, I am asking you, how can a man have a preference to be homosexual?

Can you fancy men and want to have sex with them?

this question which i asked you first

do you think equal rights means that sexual preference should supersede religious beliefs??

by Guest Sat Jun 21, 2014 12:50 pm

smelly_bandit wrote:
Didge wrote:

What question, I am asking you, how can a man have a preference to be homosexual?

Can you fancy men and want to have sex with them?

this question which i asked you first

do you think equal rights means that sexual preference should supersede religious beliefs??

But to answer this question which is in regards to homosexuality requires clarification does it not?

Are you claiming homosexuality is a preference?

by Guest Sat Jun 21, 2014 1:05 pm

Didge wrote:
smelly_bandit wrote:

this question which i asked you first

do you think equal rights means that sexual preference should supersede religious beliefs??

But to answer this question which is in regards to homosexuality requires clarification does it not?

Are you claiming homosexuality is a preference?

im asking you if you think that a persons sexuality supersedes another persons religious beliefs

by Guest Sat Jun 21, 2014 1:08 pm

smelly_bandit wrote:
Didge wrote:

But to answer this question which is in regards to homosexuality requires clarification does it not?

Are you claiming homosexuality is a preference?

im asking you if you think that a persons sexuality supersedes another persons religious beliefs

Ah so you have now changed your question to sexuality.

Neither supersedes the other, each cannot discriminate against the other based on their views on homosexuality for example of if they are a Christian

by Guest Sat Jun 21, 2014 1:47 pm

Didge wrote:
smelly_bandit wrote:

im asking you if you think that a persons sexuality supersedes another persons religious beliefs

Ah so you have now changed your question to sexuality.

Neither supersedes the other, each cannot discriminate against the other based on their views on homosexuality for example of if they are a Christian

so if a Christian sex therapist thinks his religious views are being violated by having to give therapy to homosexuals do you agree that he has the right to refer the case to another therapist or do you think the christian should have his beliefs violated and be forced to give advice against his religious wishes??

by Guest Sat Jun 21, 2014 1:54 pm

smelly_bandit wrote:
Didge wrote:

Ah so you have now changed your question to sexuality.

Neither supersedes the other, each cannot discriminate against the other based on their views on homosexuality for example of if they are a Christian

so if a Christian sex therapist thinks his religious views are being violated by having to give therapy to homosexuals do you agree that he has the right to refer the case to another therapist or do you think the christian should have his beliefs violated and be forced to give advice against his religious wishes??

My personal view is why is he doing a Job which will have conflict with his faith and would be better suited to another career.
Second how is he being violated by giving sexual advice to someone when a sex therapist is taught about all sexual preferences.
Third if it is in his contract to give advice to homosexuals, then again clearly he is in the wrong job and he is contractually obligated to give advice.

by Lone Wolf Sat Jun 21, 2014 1:58 pm

smelly_bandit wrote:
Didge wrote:
But to answer this question which is in regards to homosexuality requires clarification does it not?

Are you claiming homosexuality is a preference?

im asking you if you think that a persons sexuality supersedes another persons religious beliefs

SMELLY'S question is both irrelevant and irrational ~ much like the smellybumbandit itself !!!

Smellybum' is attempting to compare a natural and given characteristic in an individuals natural makeup, against a personal belief system that is basically a matter of one's personal choice (whether free or enforced..) and upbringing (i.e. 'nurture').

Smelly' has only managed to demonstrate beyond any last doubts, the true depths of his stupidity..

Anyone foolish enough to answer smelly's idiotic ramblings would only be showing that they don't understand his cupidity...

IT IS the equivalent of "comparing apples with oranges" ! farao

by Tommy Monk Sat Jun 21, 2014 2:52 pm

There is nothing natural about homosexuality.

It is natural for us to be attracted to The opposite sex.

by Guest Sat Jun 21, 2014 2:54 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:There is nothing natural about homosexuality.

It is natural for us to be attracted to The opposite sex.

Then you thus claim who you can control who you are physically attracted to then?

Can you?

by Tommy Monk Sat Jun 21, 2014 3:04 pm

I think I was quite clear in what I said....

by Guest Sat Jun 21, 2014 3:06 pm

Lone Wolf wrote:
smelly_bandit wrote:

im asking you if you think that a persons sexuality supersedes another persons religious beliefs

SMELLY'S question is both irrelevant and irrational ~ much like the smellybumbandit itself !!!

Smellybum' is attempting to compare a natural and given characteristic in an individuals natural makeup, against a personal belief system that is basically a matter of one's personal choice (whether free or enforced..) and upbringing (i.e. 'nurture').

Smelly' has only managed to demonstrate beyond any last doubts, the true depths of his stupidity..

Anyone foolish enough to answer smelly's idiotic ramblings would only be showing that they don't understand his cupidity...

IT IS the equivalent of "comparing apples with oranges" !

alright dave

been walking around the bush in the nude recently??

by Eilzel Sat Jun 21, 2014 3:07 pm

Shit someone switched on the stuck record again 'homosexuality is not normal or natural' blah blah blah, fuck Tommy how long is it since you got any Wink

by Guest Sat Jun 21, 2014 3:08 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:I think I was quite clear in what I said....

No answer, try again:

Then you thus claim who you can control who you are physically attracted to then?

Can you?

by Tommy Monk Sat Jun 21, 2014 3:18 pm

It is natural to be attracted to The opposite sex.

by Guest Sat Jun 21, 2014 3:19 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:It is natural to be attracted to The opposite sex.

No answer, try again:

Then you thus claim who you can control who you are physically attracted to then?

Can you?

by Tommy Monk Sat Jun 21, 2014 3:34 pm

It is natural to be attracted to The opposite sex.

That is our biological design.

No amount of waffle will get around this simple fact.

by Guest Sat Jun 21, 2014 3:39 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:It is natural to be attracted to The opposite sex.

That is our biological design.

No amount of waffle will get around this simple fact.

No answer, try again:

Then you thus claim who you can control who you are physically attracted to then?

Can you?

by Tommy Monk Sat Jun 21, 2014 3:45 pm

It is natural to be attracted to The opposite sex.

That is our biological design.

No amount of waffle will get around this simple fact.

by Guest Sat Jun 21, 2014 3:48 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:It is natural to be attracted to The opposite sex.

That is our biological design.

No amount of waffle will get around this simple fact.

So many times I prove you are incapable of answering points raised to you, what are you so afraid of?
Being wrong by answering?

So again

Then you thus claim who you can control who you are physically attracted to then?

Can you?

by Tommy Monk Sat Jun 21, 2014 3:53 pm

This is my answer.....

It is natural to be attracted to The opposite sex.

That is our biological design.

No amount of waffle will get around this simple fact.

Don't know why you have such problems reading it.....

by Guest Sat Jun 21, 2014 3:54 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:This is my answer.....
It is natural to be attracted to The opposite sex.
That is our biological design.
No amount of waffle will get around this simple fact.
Don't know why you have such problems reading it.....

That is not an answer to my question

Try again.

Can you control who you are physically attracted too?

by Tommy Monk Sat Jun 21, 2014 3:59 pm

It is natural to be attracted to The opposite sex.

That is our biological design.

No amount of waffle will get around this simple fact.

by Guest Sat Jun 21, 2014 4:03 pm

Unbelievable, I am not asking you a question on what you think is natural, I am asking the following:

Can you control who you are physically attracted too?

by Tommy Monk Sat Jun 21, 2014 4:05 pm

It is natural to be attracted to The opposite sex.

That is our biological design.

No amount of waffle will get around this simple fact.

by Guest Sat Jun 21, 2014 4:10 pm

Oh dear, guess I will have to help the poor chap.

Nobody can control who they are physically attracted to, we just know we are attracted to someone. Thus if a homosexual male cannot control who he is attracted to, it is thus a very natural.

by Tommy Monk Sat Jun 21, 2014 4:13 pm

It is not natural to be attracted to The same sex.

This goes against our biological design and The mechanics of our reproductive organs which the process of attraction is based on.

by Guest Sat Jun 21, 2014 4:16 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:It is not natural to be attracted to The same sex.

This goes against our biological design and The mechanics of our reproductive organs which the process of attraction is based on.

But it is, as seen "nobody" can control who they are attracted to, thus all people are the same in this and if homosexual men are only attracted to some men, then it is very natural.

It does not go against anything:

While female sexuality appears to be more fluid, research suggests that male gayness is an inborn, unalterable, strongly genetically influenced trait. But considering that the trait discourages the type of sex that leads to procreation — that is, sex with women — and would therefore seem to thwart its own chances of being genetically passed on to the next generation, why are there gay men at all?

Put differently, why haven't gay man genes driven themselves extinct?

This longstanding question is finally being answered by new and ongoing research. For several years, studies led by Andrea Camperio Ciani at the University of Padova in Italy and others have found that mothers and maternal aunts of gay men tend to have significantly more offspring than the maternal relatives of straight men. The results show strong support for the "balancing selection hypothesis," which is fast becoming the accepted theory of the genetic basis of male homosexuality.

The theory holds that the same genetic factors that induce gayness in males also promote fecundity (high reproductive success) in those males' female maternal relatives. Through this trade-off, the maternal relatives' "gay man genes," though they aren't expressed as such, tend to get passed to future generations in spite of their tendency to make their male inheritors gay.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/12/why-are-there-gay-men_n_1590501.html

So on all counts you are wrong.

by Tommy Monk Sat Jun 21, 2014 4:21 pm

Huff and puff.....

It is natural to be attracted to The opposite sex.

That is our biological design.

No amount of waffle will get around this simple fact.

by Sponsored content