DO YOU "ACCEPT" PEOPLE COMING OUT? WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON THAT LIFE?
Options
Comments
-
GeminiRose wrote: »GeminiRose wrote: »GeminiRose wrote: »RodrigueZz wrote: »Also it is perfectly normal to be ? . Most animal species exhibit homosexual tendencies. And Kinsey proved that people are rarely ever 100% straight or 100% ? , they fall somewhere in between the two. Sword
i was just going to speak on kinsey's degrees of sexuality. thanks for touching on it.
Sexuality is not black and white, it is a complex grey area that only a person can define for themselves.
Hypothetically speaking, on surface level, I am straight but I can be into women's bodies only. I could be extremely attracted to the shape of a woman but completely identify with being a heterosexual woman.
Or, I could be a heterosexual woman, who is interested in men who are ? females. On the surface, I may seem like I am a lesbian. But because the ? I am dating is biologically a male with their ? & testicles attached and who identifies himself to be a male but psychically sees himself as a woman. That would make me a heterosexual woman because the man believes he is a male biologically and attracted to women. ( Note: Not all transsexuals are homosexuals).
Now, if I am dating a man who believes deep down inside he is a woman. He may look like a man, and act like a man but identifies as a woman ( which is considered transgender). I could be considered lesbian based on how my partner identifies himself as a person by gender.
See there are degrees of sexuality, and for simple-minded people who rely heavily on a religious book that does not deal with modern time complexities, is silly for an adult to use as a logical response in a "rebuttal".
On topic: I have no issue with people coming out of the closet. They should be able to be out and proud in this country.
That sounds like a bunch of mess!
-______- Obviously you havent taking a sexual psychology course. Because if you did, then you would understand everything I had spoken about.
No I haven't and I don't want to listen to some sexual scale or theory someone made up.
science is not made up. Kinsey did this study on thousand of people based on his sample population that he had. Then,Masters and Johnson modernized Kinsey degrees of sexuality to what we go by today.
facts >>>>> ignorance
Those are your facts not mine! A thousand of people isn't everyone. A lot of those people were probably ? anyway.
girl,bye.
I aint got no time to debate anyone that is blatantly ignorant about a subject they do not have any sort of knowledge about.
That's like me trying to debate Kai about molecular biology and how ? it is. Thus, I am just forming a personal opinion by not bringing thought provoking conversation onto why I believe it is ? , but being bias because I am ignorant on the subject.
So, if you decided to give a better rebuttal than, Those are your facts not mine! A thousand of people isn't everyone. A lot of those people were probably ? anyway., then I might entertain your thoughts.
However, at this moment, you are wasting my time, and most importantly yours.
toodles. -
? _i_look_like wrote: »I think its ? ridiculous and a desperate cry for media attention when celebs feel the need to come out. U don't see straight ? making a big commotion bout being straight. ? need to ? and keep their orientation to themselves.
Because being straight is more common, idiot. -
HOLD ON..
SO, YALL CAN USE THE TRUTHS BROUGHT TO YOU BY MAN, SO CALLED STUDIES OR WHATEVER
BUT I USE THE TRUTH BROUGHT TO ME BY ? AND U SAYING I CANT?
? OR NOT, U AINT BOUT TO TELL ME THAT BEING ? IN NATURAL -
GeminiRose wrote: »Everybody praising these ? gonna learn. Especially the women who keep taking up for them. Why would you want to stand up for a dude that's trying to be like you?
lol oh lawd -
GeminiRose wrote: »GeminiRose wrote: »GeminiRose wrote: »RodrigueZz wrote: »Also it is perfectly normal to be ? . Most animal species exhibit homosexual tendencies. And Kinsey proved that people are rarely ever 100% straight or 100% ? , they fall somewhere in between the two. Sword
i was just going to speak on kinsey's degrees of sexuality. thanks for touching on it.
Sexuality is not black and white, it is a complex grey area that only a person can define for themselves.
Hypothetically speaking, on surface level, I am straight but I can be into women's bodies only. I could be extremely attracted to the shape of a woman but completely identify with being a heterosexual woman.
Or, I could be a heterosexual woman, who is interested in men who are ? females. On the surface, I may seem like I am a lesbian. But because the ? I am dating is biologically a male with their ? & testicles attached and who identifies himself to be a male but psychically sees himself as a woman. That would make me a heterosexual woman because the man believes he is a male biologically and attracted to women. ( Note: Not all transsexuals are homosexuals).
Now, if I am dating a man who believes deep down inside he is a woman. He may look like a man, and act like a man but identifies as a woman ( which is considered transgender). I could be considered lesbian based on how my partner identifies himself as a person by gender.
See there are degrees of sexuality, and for simple-minded people who rely heavily on a religious book that does not deal with modern time complexities, is silly for an adult to use as a logical response in a "rebuttal".
On topic: I have no issue with people coming out of the closet. They should be able to be out and proud in this country.
That sounds like a bunch of mess!
-______- Obviously you havent taking a sexual psychology course. Because if you did, then you would understand everything I had spoken about.
No I haven't and I don't want to listen to some sexual scale or theory someone made up.
science is not made up. Kinsey did this study on thousand of people based on his sample population that he had. Then,Masters and Johnson modernized Kinsey degrees of sexuality to what we go by today.
facts >>>>> ignorance
Those are your facts not mine! A thousand of people isn't everyone. A lot of those people were probably ? anyway.
girl,bye.
I aint got no time to debate anyone that is blatantly ignorant about a subject they do not have any sort of knowledge about.
That's like me trying to debate Kai about molecular biology and how ? it is. Thus, I am just forming a personal opinion by not bringing thought provoking conversation onto why I believe it is ? , but being bias because I am ignorant on the subject.
So, if you decided to give a better rebuttal than, Those are your facts not mine! A thousand of people isn't everyone. A lot of those people were probably ? anyway., then I might entertain your thoughts.
However, at this moment, you are wasting my time, and most importantly yours.
Well bye then and have a goodnight!
toodles.
-
for those bringing up religion, christianity in particular, don't know if you know, but your religious beliefs can not be used to restricts other people's freedoms. this is a secular country after all (even tho we don't always act like it)
you can personally believe homosexuality is wrong, but that's something you need to keep to yourself by not being ? yourself. but you can't use that kind of thinking to keep ? people from getting married for example. i also think you shouldn't be able to discriminate for things like jobs and stuff using sexual orientation.
if ? gave us all free will, shouldn't someone have the right to sin as they please with their free will as long as it's not infringing on someone else's autonomy? if you think it's a sin, refrain from doing it, and that's it, you're not all of a sudden the morality police for everyone else
IM NOT USED MY BELIEFS ON ANYBODY.. THEY CAN DO WHAT THEY PLEASE..
? GIVES US ALL A CHOICE, RIGHT LEFT, UP DOWN..... U CHOOSE TO DO WRONG, U HAVE TO PAY FOR IT.. PLAIN AND SIMPLE..
WAS DOES THE QURAN SAY ABOUT THIS ISSUE? -
GeminiRose wrote: »Humans were placed over animals. And animals were made for our use.
Can you explain why Humans are still ape today?? -
Disciplined InSight wrote: »Raging Raven wrote: »Tebow was never bashed for being a Christian he was bashed for always throwing that useless religion around. The ? player is not talking about ? and praising reach arounds NO ? ...so this is not at all comparable, plus Christians are excepted anyway. As far as I am concerned Christians are worst than ? NO ? .
That's pretty much the essential reason for being bashed as a Christian.
No it isn't. Steven A and even Skip are Christians and they were tired of the Tebow religion talk. Religion has nothing to do with sports and needs to stop being attached to it. That is the one thing I hated about Ray. I could be the biggest Christian on the planet and I would still feel the same. No has a problem with what religion someone follows,but people still to this day do not want ? 's in sports or on this planet period as with this thread. I am quick to clown ? 's, but when we are having a serious discussion I tell it like it is and not how I want it to be. -
Drew Ali is still mad because we're still apes and that will never change.
Get over it and accept reality. -
GeminiRose wrote: »GeminiRose wrote: »GeminiRose wrote: »RodrigueZz wrote: »Also it is perfectly normal to be ? . Most animal species exhibit homosexual tendencies. And Kinsey proved that people are rarely ever 100% straight or 100% ? , they fall somewhere in between the two. Sword
i was just going to speak on kinsey's degrees of sexuality. thanks for touching on it.
Sexuality is not black and white, it is a complex grey area that only a person can define for themselves.
Hypothetically speaking, on surface level, I am straight but I can be into women's bodies only. I could be extremely attracted to the shape of a woman but completely identify with being a heterosexual woman.
Or, I could be a heterosexual woman, who is interested in men who are ? females. On the surface, I may seem like I am a lesbian. But because the ? I am dating is biologically a male with their ? & testicles attached and who identifies himself to be a male but psychically sees himself as a woman. That would make me a heterosexual woman because the man believes he is a male biologically and attracted to women. ( Note: Not all transsexuals are homosexuals).
Now, if I am dating a man who believes deep down inside he is a woman. He may look like a man, and act like a man but identifies as a woman ( which is considered transgender). I could be considered lesbian based on how my partner identifies himself as a person by gender.
See there are degrees of sexuality, and for simple-minded people who rely heavily on a religious book that does not deal with modern time complexities, is silly for an adult to use as a logical response in a "rebuttal".
On topic: I have no issue with people coming out of the closet. They should be able to be out and proud in this country.
That sounds like a bunch of mess!
-______- Obviously you havent taking a sexual psychology course. Because if you did, then you would understand everything I had spoken about.
No I haven't and I don't want to listen to some sexual scale or theory someone made up.
science is not made up. Kinsey did this study on thousand of people based on his sample population that he had. Then,Masters and Johnson modernized Kinsey degrees of sexuality to what we go by today.
facts >>>>> ignorance
Those are your facts not mine! A thousand of people isn't everyone. A lot of those people were probably ? anyway.
I don't know about or care about this ? ? , but science is how facts are drawn.If you don't believe in science then you must lack intelligence or live in a fantasy world where unicorns and elves exist lol. -
? ? is a mythical creature with hooves and a bow and arrow
-
John_Blazini wrote: »? ? is a mythical creature with hooves and a bow and arrow
OK... -
man ? it lets call it what it is.. if we have this long drawn out ? .. if u have a problem with people being ? . cool, if u against because u dont think its right, then cool, but dont beat that same religious drum ESPECIALLY if u aint living that holy life... ? in here quoting the bible like they aint ? out of wedlock, drinking, smoking and fornicating them damn selfs.. oh i can ? , do ? / sin all i want.... but being ? is wrong .. FOH,, if that ? aint hypocritical thing, then i dont know what the ? is. if u are really so religious and believe in ? .. u think he aint gon judge you for that ? in the same manner he does a ? person?!?!? oh no wait your exempt because your staight.. once again FOH
if u dont like the ? issue because of religion cool, but ur "truth" doesnt apply to anyone who doesnt believe in your same faith.
and i f u notice not ONCE did i bash rreligion. im bashing these all of a sudden newfound christians when the topic of ? get brought up.. it was ? thousands of years ago in your bible times and there are ? now and ? will keep being ? .. get over it -
GeminiRose wrote: »Humans were placed over animals. And animals were made for our use.
Can you explain why Humans are still ape today??[img]http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/gallery/haters-gonna-hate/haters-gonna-hate-monkey-big-? .jpg[/img]
-
People use religion when its convenient ...
-
John_Blazini wrote: »People use religion when its convenient ...
? stay cherrypicking the ? to death.
Everyone should be killed if they don't joined the right group according to the holy books.
But they want to sweep it under the rug.
-
-
GeminiRose wrote: »GeminiRose wrote: »RodrigueZz wrote: »Also it is perfectly normal to be ? . Most animal species exhibit homosexual tendencies. And Kinsey proved that people are rarely ever 100% straight or 100% ? , they fall somewhere in between the two. Sword
i was just going to speak on kinsey's degrees of sexuality. thanks for touching on it.
Sexuality is not black and white, it is a complex grey area that only a person can define for themselves.
Hypothetically speaking, on surface level, I am straight but I can be into women's bodies only. I could be extremely attracted to the shape of a woman but completely identify with being a heterosexual woman.
Or, I could be a heterosexual woman, who is interested in men who are ? females. On the surface, I may seem like I am a lesbian. But because the ? I am dating is biologically a male with their ? & testicles attached and who identifies himself to be a male but psychically sees himself as a woman. That would make me a heterosexual woman because the man believes he is a male biologically and attracted to women. ( Note: Not all transsexuals are homosexuals).
Now, if I am dating a man who believes deep down inside he is a woman. He may look like a man, and act like a man but identifies as a woman ( which is considered transgender). I could be considered lesbian based on how my partner identifies himself as a person by gender.
See there are degrees of sexuality, and for simple-minded people who rely heavily on a religious book that does not deal with modern time complexities, is silly for an adult to use as a logical response in a "rebuttal".
On topic: I have no issue with people coming out of the closet. They should be able to be out and proud in this country.
That sounds like a bunch of mess!
-______- Obviously you havent taking a sexual psychology course. Because if you did, then you would understand everything I had spoken about.
No I haven't and I don't want to listen to some sexual scale or theory someone made up.
science is not made up. Kinsey did this study on thousand of people based on his sample population that he had. Then,Masters and Johnson modernized Kinsey degrees of sexuality to what we go by today.
facts >>>>> ignorance
Science might not be "made up" but things in science contradict itself all the time... Same wit religion...
The problem is wit both science and religion is people try and say 1 side is rite n 1 is wrong but if they had a mutual understanding of each other they would get way father.... Smh.... Thats Jus ignorance on both sides tho... -
Raging Raven wrote: »GeminiRose wrote: »GeminiRose wrote: »GeminiRose wrote: »RodrigueZz wrote: »Also it is perfectly normal to be ? . Most animal species exhibit homosexual tendencies. And Kinsey proved that people are rarely ever 100% straight or 100% ? , they fall somewhere in between the two. Sword
i was just going to speak on kinsey's degrees of sexuality. thanks for touching on it.
Sexuality is not black and white, it is a complex grey area that only a person can define for themselves.
Hypothetically speaking, on surface level, I am straight but I can be into women's bodies only. I could be extremely attracted to the shape of a woman but completely identify with being a heterosexual woman.
Or, I could be a heterosexual woman, who is interested in men who are ? females. On the surface, I may seem like I am a lesbian. But because the ? I am dating is biologically a male with their ? & testicles attached and who identifies himself to be a male but psychically sees himself as a woman. That would make me a heterosexual woman because the man believes he is a male biologically and attracted to women. ( Note: Not all transsexuals are homosexuals).
Now, if I am dating a man who believes deep down inside he is a woman. He may look like a man, and act like a man but identifies as a woman ( which is considered transgender). I could be considered lesbian based on how my partner identifies himself as a person by gender.
See there are degrees of sexuality, and for simple-minded people who rely heavily on a religious book that does not deal with modern time complexities, is silly for an adult to use as a logical response in a "rebuttal".
On topic: I have no issue with people coming out of the closet. They should be able to be out and proud in this country.
That sounds like a bunch of mess!
-______- Obviously you havent taking a sexual psychology course. Because if you did, then you would understand everything I had spoken about.
No I haven't and I don't want to listen to some sexual scale or theory someone made up.
science is not made up. Kinsey did this study on thousand of people based on his sample population that he had. Then,Masters and Johnson modernized Kinsey degrees of sexuality to what we go by today.
facts >>>>> ignorance
Those are your facts not mine! A thousand of people isn't everyone. A lot of those people were probably ? anyway.
I don't know about or care about this ? ? , but science is how facts are drawn.If you don't believe in science then you must lack intelligence or live in a fantasy world where unicorns and elves exist lol.
I'm in a very realistic world. I go by everything but especially by experience. Like I stated before, religion is not the only reason why I don't agree with the gheys.
-
damobb2deep wrote: »GeminiRose wrote: »GeminiRose wrote: »RodrigueZz wrote: »Also it is perfectly normal to be ? . Most animal species exhibit homosexual tendencies. And Kinsey proved that people are rarely ever 100% straight or 100% ? , they fall somewhere in between the two. Sword
i was just going to speak on kinsey's degrees of sexuality. thanks for touching on it.
Sexuality is not black and white, it is a complex grey area that only a person can define for themselves.
Hypothetically speaking, on surface level, I am straight but I can be into women's bodies only. I could be extremely attracted to the shape of a woman but completely identify with being a heterosexual woman.
Or, I could be a heterosexual woman, who is interested in men who are ? females. On the surface, I may seem like I am a lesbian. But because the ? I am dating is biologically a male with their ? & testicles attached and who identifies himself to be a male but psychically sees himself as a woman. That would make me a heterosexual woman because the man believes he is a male biologically and attracted to women. ( Note: Not all transsexuals are homosexuals).
Now, if I am dating a man who believes deep down inside he is a woman. He may look like a man, and act like a man but identifies as a woman ( which is considered transgender). I could be considered lesbian based on how my partner identifies himself as a person by gender.
See there are degrees of sexuality, and for simple-minded people who rely heavily on a religious book that does not deal with modern time complexities, is silly for an adult to use as a logical response in a "rebuttal".
On topic: I have no issue with people coming out of the closet. They should be able to be out and proud in this country.
That sounds like a bunch of mess!
-______- Obviously you havent taking a sexual psychology course. Because if you did, then you would understand everything I had spoken about.
No I haven't and I don't want to listen to some sexual scale or theory someone made up.
science is not made up. Kinsey did this study on thousand of people based on his sample population that he had. Then,Masters and Johnson modernized Kinsey degrees of sexuality to what we go by today.
facts >>>>> ignorance
Science might not be "made up" but things in science contradict itself all the time... Same wit religion...
The problem is wit both science and religion is people try and say 1 side is rite n 1 is wrong but if they had a mutual understanding of each other they would get way father.... Smh.... Thats Jus ignorance on both sides tho...
No, it doesn't.
You're making ? up.
Subjecting to change =/= ? always be the same ? from the old to the new with modern humans changes the ? around.
FOH. -
GeminiRose wrote: »Humans were placed over animals. And animals were made for our use.
Can you explain why Humans are still ape today??
I can't entertain you tonight.
-
HOLD ON..
SO, YALL CAN USE THE TRUTHS BROUGHT TO YOU BY MAN, SO CALLED STUDIES OR WHATEVER
BUT I USE THE TRUTH BROUGHT TO ME BY ? AND U SAYING I CANT?
? OR NOT, U AINT BOUT TO TELL ME THAT BEING ? IN NATURAL
Dog you can actually do math and use science to prove how things work. Where do you think the laws of physics come from?
That is how meteorologists predict the weather.
Besides ? has not been proven to exist, but science does and is a method of figuring out how things work whether it is biology, chemistry or astronomy.
So you saying science is wrong? rofl. Then gravity and oxygen does not exist. How we reproduce is also explained through biology as well as hormones and how DNA works. Yeah, let's just ignore those facts in favor of religion. -
GeminiRose wrote: »GeminiRose wrote: »Humans were placed over animals. And animals were made for our use.
Can you explain why Humans are still ape today??
I can't entertain you tonight.
I was being serious.
Any organism that eats and ? are animals.
Oh, yea and ? . -
Raging Raven wrote: »Disciplined InSight wrote: »Raging Raven wrote: »Tebow was never bashed for being a Christian he was bashed for always throwing that useless religion around. The ? player is not talking about ? and praising reach arounds NO ? ...so this is not at all comparable, plus Christians are excepted anyway. As far as I am concerned Christians are worst than ? NO ? .
That's pretty much the essential reason for being bashed as a Christian.
No it isn't. Steven A and even Skip are Christians and they were tired of the Tebow religion talk. Religion has nothing to do with sports and needs to stop being attached to it. That is the one thing I hated about Ray. I could be the biggest Christian on the planet and I would still feel the same. No has a problem with what religion someone follows,but people still to this day do not want ? 's in sports or on this planet period as with this thread. I am quick to clown ? 's, but when we are having a serious discussion I tell it like it is and not how I want it to be.
I feel u 2 a point... But thats what keeps discrimination on all levels alive... If u tend 2 not like somthing it stands out 2 you... People who dont agree wit ? coming out like they do will take note everytime they hear or see them come out... Jus like if a person who dont like rap will take note 2 everytime a rapper says somthing about "money,sex,drugs ect" or every time a teacher has sex with a student there is a thread about it lol... -
Lol u really need 2 read up on yo historydamobb2deep wrote: »GeminiRose wrote: »GeminiRose wrote: »RodrigueZz wrote: »Also it is perfectly normal to be ? . Most animal species exhibit homosexual tendencies. And Kinsey proved that people are rarely ever 100% straight or 100% ? , they fall somewhere in between the two. Sword
i was just going to speak on kinsey's degrees of sexuality. thanks for touching on it.
Sexuality is not black and white, it is a complex grey area that only a person can define for themselves.
Hypothetically speaking, on surface level, I am straight but I can be into women's bodies only. I could be extremely attracted to the shape of a woman but completely identify with being a heterosexual woman.
Or, I could be a heterosexual woman, who is interested in men who are ? females. On the surface, I may seem like I am a lesbian. But because the ? I am dating is biologically a male with their ? & testicles attached and who identifies himself to be a male but psychically sees himself as a woman. That would make me a heterosexual woman because the man believes he is a male biologically and attracted to women. ( Note: Not all transsexuals are homosexuals).
Now, if I am dating a man who believes deep down inside he is a woman. He may look like a man, and act like a man but identifies as a woman ( which is considered transgender). I could be considered lesbian based on how my partner identifies himself as a person by gender.
See there are degrees of sexuality, and for simple-minded people who rely heavily on a religious book that does not deal with modern time complexities, is silly for an adult to use as a logical response in a "rebuttal".
On topic: I have no issue with people coming out of the closet. They should be able to be out and proud in this country.
That sounds like a bunch of mess!
-______- Obviously you havent taking a sexual psychology course. Because if you did, then you would understand everything I had spoken about.
No I haven't and I don't want to listen to some sexual scale or theory someone made up.
science is not made up. Kinsey did this study on thousand of people based on his sample population that he had. Then,Masters and Johnson modernized Kinsey degrees of sexuality to what we go by today.
facts >>>>> ignorance
Science might not be "made up" but things in science contradict itself all the time... Same wit religion...
The problem is wit both science and religion is people try and say 1 side is rite n 1 is wrong but if they had a mutual understanding of each other they would get way father.... Smh.... Thats Jus ignorance on both sides tho...
No, it doesn't.
You're making ? up.
Subjecting to change =/= ? always be the same ? from the old to the new with modern humans changes the ? around.
FOH.
