IGX

Seems there's some misunderstanding of "normal". Normal means it is present in a large majority of the population.

Brown eyes are normal, right-handedness is normal.

Gays, Schizophrenics, serial killers, blue-eyed babes, and left-handed quarterbacks are not normal. They are, however, naturally occurring variants, based on genes and environmental conditions.

The difference is the possible danger of these variants. I would lump gay with left-handedness. Kraj would lump gay with serial-killer.

There is no correlation between gay and pedophilia, which I would lump the latter with serial killers.

Turdacious wrote:

Jay wrote:It's safe to say kraj is a baseball bat away from committing a hate crime.

Oh please. He's a warning away from getting his PS3 privileges taken away for a week because he won't clean his room.

:teehee

BucketHead wrote:Seems there's some misunderstanding of "normal". Normal means it is present in a large majority of the population.

Brown eyes are normal, right-handedness is normal.

Gays, Schizophrenics, serial killers, blue-eyed babes, and left-handed quarterbacks are not normal. They are, however, naturally occurring variants, based on genes and environmental conditions.

The difference is the possible danger of these variants. I would lump gay with left-handedness. Kraj would lump gay with serial-killer.

There is no correlation between gay and pedophilia, which I would lump the latter with serial killers.

Very concise, accurate post.

Stop your dumbass.

1ho·mo·sex·u·al
adj
\ˌhō-mə-ˈsek-sh(ə-)wəl, -ˈsek-shəl\
Definition of HOMOSEXUAL
1
: of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex
2
: of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homosexual

Sandusky's actions were homosexual; Sandusky's desires are homosexual; Sandusky's actions were deviant by even generally accepted homosexual standards.

Turdacious wrote:Sandusky's actions were homosexual

That we know of. More importantly, though, is we're talking about pedophilia vs. homosexuality, in general.

The majority of pedophiles have no gender preference in prepubescent kids. Instead, their sexual attractions focus on children – boys, girls, or children of both sexes. Look it up, biatch.

So attraction to same-sex adults does not equal attraction to kids in any way, shape or form - except when you are forcing a rationalization to fit a viewpoint.

BucketHead wrote:

Turdacious wrote:Sandusky's actions were homosexual

That we know of. More importantly, though, is we're talking about pedophilia vs. homosexuality, in general.

The majority of pedophiles have no gender preference in prepubescent kids. Instead, their sexual attractions focus on children – boys, girls, or children of both sexes. Look it up, biatch.

So attraction to same-sex adults does not equal attraction to kids in any way, shape or form - except when you are forcing a rationalization to fit a viewpoint.

Your whole argument is nonsensical-- especially in the context of Sandusky.

do we really need a Venn diagram?

All homos like the same sex but only some homos like kids.

protobuilder wrote:do we really need a Venn diagram?

All homos like the same sex but only some homos like kids.

Stop it-- you're confusing the Academy grads.

Turdacious wrote: Your whole argument is nonsensical

If the bible says nonsensical means logically correct and accurate, then OK.

Turdacious wrote:

BucketHead wrote:

Turdacious wrote:Sandusky's actions were homosexual

That we know of. More importantly, though, is we're talking about pedophilia vs. homosexuality, in general.

The majority of pedophiles have no gender preference in prepubescent kids. Instead, their sexual attractions focus on children – boys, girls, or children of both sexes. Look it up, biatch.

So attraction to same-sex adults does not equal attraction to kids in any way, shape or form - except when you are forcing a rationalization to fit a viewpoint.

Your whole argument is nonsensical-- especially in the context of Sandusky.

His argument is bulletproof. Don't try to get Old Testament Rebound just because Jack is patrolling the skies for America.

Turdacious wrote:

BucketHead wrote:

Turdacious wrote:Sandusky's actions were homosexual

That we know of. More importantly, though, is we're talking about pedophilia vs. homosexuality, in general.

The majority of pedophiles have no gender preference in prepubescent kids. Instead, their sexual attractions focus on children – boys, girls, or children of both sexes. Look it up, biatch.

So attraction to same-sex adults does not equal attraction to kids in any way, shape or form - except when you are forcing a rationalization to fit a viewpoint.

Your whole argument is nonsensical-- especially in the context of Sandusky.

Your crazy talk is crazy.

Perhaps Turd is worried that Sandusky was also left handed.

Blaidd Drwg wrote:Perhaps Turd is worried that Sandusky was also left handed.

I'm equal opportunity-- I don't care which hand he drops the soap with.

Turd, the problem - aside from the fact that you are a colossal asshole - is that you obviously view being teh gay as "bad different" which is your fucked and bigoted *opinion*, not
A Fact. Heterosexuals do all sorts of fucked up shit too, deal with it.

It's worth noting: if Turd and PL54 can fuck up something as relatively clear as this, using twisted "logic" leaps and bullshit talking points to cloud the discussion despite being countered by plainly accepted and verified facts...

...imagine how fucked their views are when it comes to everything else.

Food for thought.

Stop your dumbass.

1ho·mo·sex·u·al
adj
\ˌhō-mə-ˈsek-sh(ə-)wəl, -ˈsek-shəl\
Definition of HOMOSEXUAL
1
: of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex
2
: of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homosexual

Sandusky's actions were homosexual; Sandusky's desires are homosexual; Sandusky's actions were deviant by even generally accepted homosexual standards.

Using the long established definition = fear of teh gay?

Wow. Y'all must be paid up on your NAMBLA dues.

So if Sandusky was raping little girls,you'd be just as busy pointing out what a filthy hetero he is, with no regard for the actual mentally disturbed deviancy? If he raped dogs, would it matter if they were male or female?

Fine, you don't like/fear fags...Kaz hates negroes..Sadly for y'all they are both naturally occurring.

Turdacious wrote:Stop your dumbass.

1ho·mo·sex·u·al
adj
\ˌhō-mə-ˈsek-sh(ə-)wəl, -ˈsek-shəl\
Definition of HOMOSEXUAL
1
: of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex
2
: of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homosexual

Sandusky's actions were homosexual; Sandusky's desires are homosexual; Sandusky's actions were deviant by even generally accepted homosexual standards.

Your conclusion is based on the assumption that children are in fact sexual beings. Most of us will disagree with you.

Sounds like there are Sandusky accusers claiming rape all the way back to the early 1970s. Nixon's America. Quite a different time.
Anyone know when the curriculum requiring all undergrads to take all those gay studies classes was put into effect?

Blaidd Drwg wrote:So if Sandusky was raping little girls,you'd be just as busy pointing out what a filthy hetero he is, with no regard for the actual mentally disturbed deviancy?

If he did it at the scale he did-- taking advantage of vulnerable kids and using his position of authority to do it? Hell yeah. No excuses for 'mentally disturbed deviancy' with either boys or girls-- you're the one making excuses for his behavior; I'm assuming he's an adult who should be held responsible for his actions.

Blaidd Drwg wrote:Fine, you don't like/fear fags...Kaz hates negroes..Sadly for y'all they are both naturally occurring.

What consenting adults do is something different entirely-- apparently you disagree.

I don't like men who abuse the trust of little boys/girls to gratify their sexual desires. Logically, if these particular desires (to find sexual pleasure at the expense of someone who can't consent) are naturally occurring, then there is nothing wrong with their behavior, and our laws should reflect that. You seem to be missing that critical point-- I hope you're smarter than that.

bigpeach wrote:

Turdacious wrote:Stop your dumbass.

1ho·mo·sex·u·al
adj
\ˌhō-mə-ˈsek-sh(ə-)wəl, -ˈsek-shəl\
Definition of HOMOSEXUAL
1
: of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex
2
: of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homosexual

Sandusky's actions were homosexual; Sandusky's desires are homosexual; Sandusky's actions were deviant by even generally accepted homosexual standards.

Your conclusion is based on the assumption that children are in fact sexual beings. Most of us will disagree with you.

To Sandusky, they were sexual beings. I would hope that most here would agree with me that: what Sandusky did was wrong; that children should not be used as sexual beings; and that he deserves to pay for his crimes.

Blaidd Drwg wrote:So if Sandusky was raping little girls,you'd be just as busy pointing out what a filthy hetero he is, with no regard for the actual mentally disturbed deviancy? If he raped dogs, would it matter if they were male or female?

Fine, you don't like/fear fags...Kaz hates negroes..Sadly for y'all they are both naturally occurring.

Male chi-moes are 47 times more likely to go after boys than girls. Coincidence, or is there an obvious link between chi-moing and being queer? Obviously the latter.

And if you're saying that queerness should be accepted and allowed because it's naturally occurring (despite any proof that it is, indeed, naturally occurring) then what about chi-moes? I'm sure they'll tell you they were born that way too. Should they be free to throw chi-mo pride parades on your streets and push to make chi-mo marriage a legal institution? They're "naturally occurring" as well, right?

Please tell me what good allowing queerness and other related perversions has ever done for mankind. Give me even one instance where giving gays and other sexual miscreants the freedom to indulge in their perversions has resulted in something positive for the human race.

Kraj 2.0 wrote:
Please tell me what good allowing queerness and other related perversions has ever done for mankind. Give me even one instance where giving gays and other sexual miscreants the freedom to indulge in their perversions has resulted in something positive for the human race.

TurkishAnalRapeBaby=Kraj

In short, through the miracle of non-consensual buttsex between a your father and a turk,you were born to troll. I know that argument is as soft as your tiny manroot,I find you a disease upon this forum but some find you humorous and I'm tolerant like that.

My second argument is Freddie Mercury, greatest voice in Rock. Fuck along now.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJ9rUzIMcZQ[/youtube]

Testiclaw wrote:It's worth noting: if Turd and PL54 can fuck up something as relatively clear as this, using twisted "logic" leaps and bullshit talking points to cloud the discussion despite being countered by plainly accepted and verified facts...

...imagine how fucked their views are when it comes to everything else.

Food for thought.

When your opponent makes a logical error, it doesn't help to make one of your own.

protobuilder wrote:When your opponent makes a logical error, it doesn't help to make one of your own.

How's your poops coming along?