(August 12, 2015 at 1:58 pm)Yeauxleaux Wrote: If it is genetic, it's more than likely a gene people can carry without actually exhibiting the trait

But trait's is not genetic. And we have already maped the shit out of the human gene. Homosexuality is not found. Even if it is dorment we can still see the dorment gens's and give a percentage of the gene re-occurring in the next offspring, and the next.

Come to think of it we can not see any sexual attraction gene's. I could be wrong, I have never looked sexual orin. gene.

(August 12, 2015 at 4:48 pm)Ace Wrote:

(August 12, 2015 at 1:58 pm)Yeauxleaux Wrote: Lord knows Christianity and Islam have.

They have? What genocid, ( the name of it) was this one? And what year?
The question is for both religions, if you can.

You gotta be fucking kidding me.

bat the sickness of depression.
[/quote]

(August 12, 2015 at 5:06 pm)Iroscato Wrote:

(August 12, 2015 at 4:48 pm)Ace Wrote: They have? What genocid, ( the name of it) was this one? And what year?
The question is for both religions, if you can.

You gotta be fucking kidding me.

Ummm noooo I am not kidding you. I am asking an actual question and seeking actual information, if possible,

(August 12, 2015 at 2:05 pm)Neimenovic Wrote:

(August 12, 2015 at 12:56 pm)Anima Wrote: I apologize.  What was your question?

If the question is state recognition of bisexuals it may be said, in like manner to homosexuals, the state appreciates your heterosexual inclinations and activities from which it derives a benefit and has no need of your homosexual inclination and activities where no benefit is derived by the state.

So....

exterminate only half of me? ._.

CONFUZZED.

So as previously answered so re-posted for you:

(August 11, 2015 at 5:22 pm)Anima Wrote: Response to number one was given long ago in this thread.  It is recognized that laws are not perfectly defined and thus may be overinclusive.  Upon endeavoring to define the law objectively it may be said the procreative definition is utilized.  By which the state stipulates it shall incur a burden and recognize couples that meet the minimum criterion for procreative benefit to the state.  This is to say the union of two persons, of the opposite gender, of at least pubescent age.  Needless to say this definition will encompass 100% of the group the state desires and a few the state does not desire.  Just as you use the term "roughly" because you recognize it is extremely difficult to define something to such absolute specificity, so to does the state go with the most specific ambiguous (oxymoron I know) definition.  So that it may make sure to include the desired group, though it may include a few of undesired in that definition.  (For what it is worth do not be surprised if the states change the criterion for benefits as there is no need for them to be attached to marriage.  That was just convenient, but it is not essential.  This is something Chief Justice John Robert's discusses as well.)

Response to your second point, which is not a refutation of the procreative benefit; the state desires heterosexual activities and is not concerned with the orientation of the parties as hetero, homo, bi, tri, or any given mix of orientations.  Lest you forget opposite biological genders could marry regardless of orientation or gender identity.  It was permitted by means of the overinclusivity of the procreative criterion, which once again is sufficient to include 100% of the targeted group and with only a few who are not part of the target group.  With that said it is recognized the relationships and activity the state derives a benefit from are heterosexual and it is for these relationships the state is willing to incur addition burden/cost.  Thus, the state is not opposed to any orientation having heterosexual relationship and intercourse, and is even willing to give State recognition of those relationships.

Less confused?

(August 12, 2015 at 5:31 pm)Ace Wrote: bat the sickness of depression.

(August 12, 2015 at 5:06 pm)Iroscato Wrote: You gotta be fucking kidding me.

Ummm noooo I am not kidding you. I am asking an actual question and  seeking actual information, if possible,
[/quote]

The internet is right in front of you and you know damn well about the "genocide", it's been going on 2000 years. I'm not wasting any more of my time, patience or energy trying to educate you when you are being deliberately stubborn. You're also both (Ace and Anima, not you Iroscato) far too interested in this conversation for me to be convinced you are comfortably straight. You talk about gay stuff more than I do and I'm a very gay man.



The closing of this thread is long overdue.

Ciao.

O

The internet is right in front of you and you know damn well about the "genocide", it's been going on 2000 years. I'm not wasting any more of my time, patience or energy trying to educate you when you are being deliberately stubborn. You're also both (Ace and Anima, not you Iroscato) far too interested in this conversation for me to be convinced you are comfortably straight. You talk about gay stuff more than I do and I'm a very gay man.

The closing of this thread is long overdue.

Ciao.

_______________________________________________________________________________________
Ha WHAT !!??

Yes, you are excused . Yeaux you, (and other) have asked me over and over to you with my citation and I have. Because it seems that I am always ask to site my post when other have not, even when asked to please do so. Yeaux informed me that if I should ever ask for citation I would receive it. Or am I to assume you gave a hollow promise in that it was never your intention to ever do so? I personal always want to give people the benefit of doubt and hope that one is true to their word.

Second there's has never been in history of a Christian or Muslim  Gay Genocide!!!  SO WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT!!!!!!!

Now if Yeaux, says that there is, and you do to, I ask again what are your sources for such a clam and then what is the name Of this "gay genocide" and when did it occurs. All genocides have this basic information.

Also historically NO GENOCIDE HAS EVER LASTED 2000 YEARS!!!!!!  . . . THE HOLOCAUST,( depending when you count that beginning) ALONE was NOT EVEN 5 YEARS!!!!! So please, what gay genocide conducted by Christians and Muslims are you talking about. It is in no scholarly history book, as in no such genocide has ever mentioned. So please my I see you citations ? Or can it be said the Yeaux might have over exaggerated his/ her statement to begin with? Hey say so and we move on. If not the cite.

:jerkoff:
Yes , yes, yes, yes ,yes I am a big gay, have my blow ups and hoes in my bedroom now as we speak ...... Now back to the topic please, I am still requesting citation, please.

Hmm wondering

Haha you know it funny I always wanted to discuss homosexuality with someone from the community but would never do so.
I was asked one time why " and I said because " you will get offended and mad in the end and I want full and free space to talk or ask about anything in regards to homosexuality"

Them " I will never get mad, you will but I will never get mad. No matter what you say or what you want to talk about gays"

I : " hmmm tempering because I truly want to but no, you will get hurt and mad.

We would go on like this for a good 30 min and I would finally give in and ask my questions and make my comments. HAHAHA AND WHAT DO YOU KNOW.... "This conversation is over, your just gay, your just a bigot, I hope you die, may your family burn, I hope someone kills you . . And so on .... And so on ... And so on....
I would say " hey I warned you and you swore that you would not get mad and that I can ask and say anything.

But as luck will have it. . . So .. . You reaction and name calling is not at all surprising, of course I do wish to say some times at you guys, "again can't the gay please get off their holy cross and stop crying." Pleas just a little.  Hell you guys name call us in about 99% of your post. And we are laughing, will I am, not to sure about Anima.

But it is nothing new. I think if people really know that you truly would not flip out in conversation many more people would ask you question and talk about homosexuality with you. But you getting huffy all the time, yea, most people just don't want to be bothered with that.

hmm

(August 12, 2015 at 6:20 pm)Yeauxleaux Wrote: I'm not wasting any more of my time, patience or energy trying to educate you when you are being deliberately stubborn.
Ciao.

Wow??

Really over asking about a citation??!! Some very interesting things have been said on this thread, to which the words bigot, homophobia, ass, stupid, idiot, and so on. Yet, none of that is what have gotten you mad but because I mad is a request for citation, you are outrage??? Really?