Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 5/9/12 09:09 PM, bgraybr wrote:

At 5/9/12 08:43 PM, ILoveToGrok wrote: Because you are unsure of these feelings while heterosexuals know what that sense of attraction is.

You just made that up, you have absolutely no basis for it. Love is just an emotion, even between a man and a woman. There is no emotional difference in romantically loving a man or loving a woman.

I did not. Nature made it up before your inclination to bend your sexuality. Love is definately there, but it is much more than a 4 letter word. Again, it is how we refer to it as. That love is natural. Your love is not the same as that love, and it derives from the roots of your distorted sensuality If you don't want to fucking believe this. That isn't my problem. You are the one who wants to dream your sexuality into something that its not so you can become one experimental fuck that thinks that being normal is living a lie.

You are encouraging that, hey, I can live and what I want with my life even though I am a dumbass who can't fucking put 2 and 2 together in the first place. Then having to be stubborn because people make more sense than my poorly illustrated sexual orientation!

A truly frightening reality, having stupid people around.

Your entire idea is stupid until you SUPPORT it PROPERLY.

I cite my disconcordance off of natural grounds. You. Do. Not. You are fucking basing EVERYTHING off of your faith in your subjective experience. You have absolutely NO conjecture.

Do you have a woman in your life? Give a logical reason why you should love her.

Yes, and I love her because there is a wall of chemistry between us that doesn't rest on the backdrop of my retarded assumptions of my subjective experiences. I can feel my mind creating a grande disposition for her, and only her. Where I am not able to fall in love with anyone like I did for her, nor see anyone in the intimate light I see her in. Not because I just feel an 'attraction'. An attraction that derives from a SYSTEM of other attractions for inanimate objects, kids, pain, guns, explosions, storms, etc. The attraction I have is fundamental, and simply there. Homosexuality on the other hand is one ball of mess that you keep trying to validate, and this ball of mess is the SAME exact atmosphere you feel while dealing with religious dumbasses who argue faith with faith. Oh! The enlightenment! God! Is that you?! I can't see you. I can't hear you. I can't touch you. I just KNOW that it is YOU. Yep. Totally!

At 5/9/12 09:12 PM, Ilssm wrote:

Running out of answers.

Good job avoiding my question.

What question? Where in the fuck did you ask a question?

First you stated that animals do gay acts.

I explained that we are nothing compared to them.

You responded with some statement that appeared to be you agreeing by disagreeing - I don't know what the fuck you were on about, then.

At 5/9/12 09:09 PM, shinobody wrote: ILove2Grok, I have a question to you.
Are you homosexual, straight, asexual?
I don't want to know the answer, I don't care.
But ask yourself - how do you know who you are?

Shinobody, I have a question for you.
Are you dumb, a dumbass, or both?
I don't want to know the answer, because I already know.
But ask yourself - how do you know who you are?

At 5/9/12 09:08 PM, ILove2Grok wrote:

At 5/9/12 09:03 PM, II2none wrote:

Do these people who understand you also feel the need to collaborate with you and change how society thinks one "open minded" person at a time? I'm not stupid sir I understand how you think the brain works which is exactly right. Just skeptical on your objective and why shouldn't I be when you have nothing to but you're frustration and everything else is still a blueprint, if even that.

Since they see the broad picture of our reality's unhealthy interface and all of its underlying influences - yes. They know exactly what I want to fix. Why we should fix. I'll be honest though, I have never once stated that I have a solution for everything. I'm only tearing down the walls for people to see the lies, and that means I will tend to tear down the walls people build themselves if I fucking have to.

Ya know you could've summed your entire stance up as STOP GOING BY YOUR EMOTIONS! Emotions are an important part of being human but IMO that's not to say you should let them run you rampant.I'm pretty reserved so I have a stronger level of self control then most people. But being the realist that I am I also know people are going to do what they want how they want till the death. You're telling me you and the few friends that think like you can stop humanity? Cause thats pretty much what you're trying to do.

It is not a blueprint. I have nearly everything I need.

Okay so spill it, whats your plan of action then?

At 5/9/12 09:19 PM, ILove2Grok wrote: I did not. Nature made it up before your inclination to bend your sexuality. Love is definately there, but it is much more than a 4 letter word. Again, it is how we refer to it as. That love is natural. Your love is not the same as that love, and it derives from the roots of your distorted sensuality If you don't want to fucking believe this. That isn't my problem. You are the one who wants to dream your sexuality into something that its not so you can become one experimental fuck that thinks that being normal is living a lie.

You just keep saying that it's "natural" without any evidence to support it. Even so, who cares? We damn rivers to build lakes, we make clothes to cover our naked bodies, none of that is "natural". It was all invented by humans.

You might as well say that it's "not normal". Okay, explain further.

Your entire idea is stupid until you SUPPORT it PROPERLY.
I can feel my mind creating a grande disposition for her, and only her. Where I am not able to fall in love with anyone like I did for her, nor see anyone in the intimate light I see her in.

You realize that you just described your feelings, right? Those aren't facts either.

I've had those exact same feelings for a guy once. He was one of my closest friends I've honestly never felt closer to another person. I'll find someone else but it won't be the same, will it? This is sappy emotional shit but I'm trying to make a point here.

Not because I just feel an 'attraction'.

Again, implying that we're just "kinda attracted" to other men and can't fall in love with them. When in fact you can't read out minds and have no way of knowing that.

At 5/9/12 09:22 PM, Ilssm wrote:

If you haven't gotten it by now,you probably never will. So I'll just leave it at that.

If you do not fucking clarify yourself. Then I guess that is a manner of dodging the question - hypocrite?

what is the fucking question

At 5/9/12 09:23 PM, II2none wrote:

At 5/9/12 09:08 PM, ILove2Grok wrote:

At 5/9/12 09:03 PM, II2none wrote:

Do these people who understand you also feel the need to collaborate with you and change how society thinks one "open minded" person at a time? I'm not stupid sir I understand how you think the brain works which is exactly right. Just skeptical on your objective and why shouldn't I be when you have nothing to but you're frustration and everything else is still a blueprint, if even that.

Since they see the broad picture of our reality's unhealthy interface and all of its underlying influences - yes. They know exactly what I want to fix. Why we should fix. I'll be honest though, I have never once stated that I have a solution for everything. I'm only tearing down the walls for people to see the lies, and that means I will tend to tear down the walls people build themselves if I fucking have to.

Ya know you could've summed your entire stance up as STOP GOING BY YOUR EMOTIONS! Emotions are an important part of being human but IMO that's not to say you should let them run you rampant.I'm pretty reserved so I have a stronger level of self control then most people. But being the realist that I am I also know people are going to do what they want how they want till the death. You're telling me you and the few friends that think like you can stop humanity? Cause thats pretty much what you're trying to do.

Not trying to stop 'humanity' since you put it is so fucking vaguely. There is so much to it that I can not cover in a single wall of text. I go along with my intuition, and I use my experiences and virtues to encompass the metaphorical path ahead of me. So do those who see what I'm saying. You are right though. I'm being a jackass, and will continue being one for a long time. So people better watch their fucking ignorance. : )

It is not a blueprint. I have nearly everything I need.

Okay so spill it, whats your plan of action then?

I do not plan. I situate myself for any upcoming event that LIFE set forth - not myself. I do not set forth myself. I let life play its own roles. What I DO is question the people of our world. I KNOW we are better than this. People just are too fucking pussy to stand up for, well, the lack of what the world has to offer - not having any answers to our wordly questions and all. So people just say, fuck it. Life is short, so lets do everything like a chicken without a head and encourage corruption or let it sit there and roar louder than ever! Also, the part where we are being irresponsible and pushing this shit on people in the future.

At 5/9/12 09:22 PM, ILoveToGrok wrote: Shinobody, I have a question for you.
Are you dumb, a dumbass, or both?
I don't want to know the answer, because I already know.
But ask yourself - how do you know who you are?

I'll let you answer that one.

At 5/2/12 01:43 PM, ILove2Grok wrote: Interesting. I can feel the cracks in your responses. Why else would you resort to mirroring my response with petty satire?

...Yes I'm quoting you. Because it fits.
How it feels to be a hypocrite?
My question still stands.

At 5/9/12 09:31 PM, ILoveToGrok wrote:

At 5/9/12 09:23 PM, II2none wrote:

At 5/9/12 09:08 PM, ILove2Grok wrote:

At 5/9/12 09:03 PM, II2none wrote:

Do these people who understand you also feel the need to collaborate with you and change how society thinks one "open minded" person at a time? I'm not stupid sir I understand how you think the brain works which is exactly right. Just skeptical on your objective and why shouldn't I be when you have nothing to but you're frustration and everything else is still a blueprint, if even that.

Since they see the broad picture of our reality's unhealthy interface and all of its underlying influences - yes. They know exactly what I want to fix. Why we should fix. I'll be honest though, I have never once stated that I have a solution for everything. I'm only tearing down the walls for people to see the lies, and that means I will tend to tear down the walls people build themselves if I fucking have to.

Ya know you could've summed your entire stance up as STOP GOING BY YOUR EMOTIONS! Emotions are an important part of being human but IMO that's not to say you should let them run you rampant.I'm pretty reserved so I have a stronger level of self control then most people. But being the realist that I am I also know people are going to do what they want how they want till the death. You're telling me you and the few friends that think like you can stop humanity? Cause thats pretty much what you're trying to do.

Not trying to stop 'humanity' since you put it is so fucking vaguely. There is so much to it that I can not cover in a single wall of text. I go along with my intuition, and I use my experiences and virtues to encompass the metaphorical path ahead of me. So do those who see what I'm saying. You are right though. I'm being a jackass, and will continue being one for a long time. So people better watch their fucking ignorance. : )

Stop the current mentality, save people from themselves advance humanity, it's all the same and all I can go by if your not willing to inquire about the HOW one of the most important questions when working towards a goal. We have a PM system, and if no one else I'm very curious about this plan and it's chances of success.

Okay so spill it, whats your plan of action then?

I do not plan. I situate myself for any upcoming event that LIFE set forth - not myself. I do not set forth myself. I let life play its own roles. What I DO is question the people of our world. I KNOW we are better than this. People just are too fucking pussy to stand up for, well, the lack of what the world has to offer - not having any answers to our wordly questions and all. So people just say, fuck it. Life is short, so lets do everything like a chicken without a head and encourage corruption or let it sit there and roar louder than ever! Also, the part where we are being irresponsible and pushing this shit on people in the future.

How do you know if life will "give" you that opportunity, it doesn't just happen, you have to situate yourself in a position to take action. Oh and you never answered my question about "what you do think of scientific labels?"

At 5/9/12 09:25 PM, bgraybr wrote:

At 5/9/12 09:19 PM, ILove2Grok wrote: I did not. Nature made it up before your inclination to bend your sexuality. Love is definately there, but it is much more than a 4 letter word. Again, it is how we refer to it as. That love is natural. Your love is not the same as that love, and it derives from the roots of your distorted sensuality If you don't want to fucking believe this. That isn't my problem. You are the one who wants to dream your sexuality into something that its not so you can become one experimental fuck that thinks that being normal is living a lie.

You just keep saying that it's "natural" without any evidence to support it. Even so, who cares? We damn rivers to build lakes, we make clothes to cover our naked bodies, none of that is "natural". It was all invented by humans.

It is NATURAL. When you eat chocolate you experience that same emotional value. Love is just a word, but what the word defines is what I'm referring it to. This sense of love is INTRINSIC. Your love is not INTRINSIC, and that is why it is a pile of vague fluff you try to build into somethign tangible or NOTEWORTHY. While everyone else has NO fucking problem express their NATURAL love for each other, being opposite sex and all. I'm going to tell you again. You are lost in your own ignorance of your own assumption of your own god damn subjective experience that can be connected to every other thing people can be attracted to, but not fully understand why, until you realize, hey, it doesn't add up, and I'm no different than people on Youtube believing in that back-masking bullshit. you are only seeing what you WANT to see! You are only feeling what you WANT to feel. Not what is NATURALLY THERE.

You might as well say that it's "not normal". Okay, explain further.

Your entire idea is stupid until you SUPPORT it PROPERLY.
I can feel my mind creating a grande disposition for her, and only her. Where I am not able to fall in love with anyone like I did for her, nor see anyone in the intimate light I see her in.

You realize that you just described your feelings, right? Those aren't facts either.

They are naturally there. Emotion maybe be an illusion upon itself, but it is no different than a fucking animal that expresses happiness. It is there in its own voided way, per se. Although, it stems from the NATURAL side of our mind's functions - while yours stems from a QUESTIONABLE side.

I've had those exact same feelings for a guy once. He was one of my closest friends I've honestly never felt closer to another person. I'll find someone else but it won't be the same, will it? This is sappy emotional shit but I'm trying to make a point here.

I understand. You are intertwined with these feelings you have, but you need to realise that your MIND does not SEE what YOU see. So what if this guy made you feel amazing. You aren't dating the guy because he has a dick. It is because of the guy's character, and you looked up to him at a high level of positive disposition as well as your twisted illusion of attraction. You liked the guy for what was WITHIN and this collided with the natural way for the mind to be aroused by more than one thing.

Not because I just feel an 'attraction'.

Again, implying that we're just "kinda attracted" to other men and can't fall in love with them. When in fact you can't read out minds and have no way of knowing that.

Never said KINDA attracted. You are being aroused by an ILLUSION. Being aroused does not mean you are going to forever always fall for only the same sex. My god. You just haven't found the right girl yet.

At 5/9/12 09:37 PM, shinobody wrote:

At 5/9/12 09:22 PM, ILoveToGrok wrote: Shinobody, I have a question for you.
Are you dumb, a dumbass, or both?
I don't want to know the answer, because I already know.
But ask yourself - how do you know who you are?

I'll let you answer that one.

I want you to answer it : )

At 5/2/12 01:43 PM, ILove2Grok wrote:

Interesting. I can feel the cracks in your responses. Why else would you resort to mirroring my response with petty satire?

...Yes I'm quoting you. Because it fits.
How it feels to be a hypocrite?
My question still stands.

Why did you forget the part where I said you need conjecture! I have conjecture! You DO NOT.

At 5/9/12 09:41 PM, ILove2Grok wrote: This sense of love is INTRINSIC. Your love is not INTRINSIC

Of course it is. That's just something that you're conveniently ignoring for the sake of your argument.

I deleted the rest because it was redundant as fuck, do you need a paragraph to explain anything that you can explain in three sentences?

They are naturally there. Emotion maybe be an illusion upon itself, but it is no different than a fucking animal that expresses happiness. It is there in its own voided way, per se. Although, it stems from the NATURAL side of our mind's functions - while yours stems from a QUESTIONABLE side.

You haven't explained the difference between the natural and questionable side, you're just applying those labels by themselves without any reasoning.

You liked the guy for what was WITHIN and this collided with the natural way for the mind to be aroused by more than one thing.

Exactly, that's the same reason why I'd love anyone else. Did I ever say otherwise?

Of course I didn't love him because he had a dick, and you don't love a girl because she has a pussy.

...and who said that I've never been in love with a girl before? Why do you insist that I find a girl over a guy when I don't distinguish?

Grok's logical fallacies

1: Ad hominem
2: Reduction of options
3: using mulitple word definitions.

Rebuttal:

Homsexuality is a preference, not a permanent state. Many people change sexual orientation as they age, generally tending away from bisexuality towards a preference for one gender or another as they become monogamous. Gay and straight are polar ends of a sliding scale; most people fall somewhere in the middle and then drift a bit before settling on a single place. Many heterosexual women are attracted to feminine characteristics in men and vice versa. Feminine and masculine traits are not strictly assigned purely by genitalia

Sex as defined scientifically is an act of procreation. Sex as defined socially is an act that pursues an orgasm. You cannot apply the scientific definition of the word in order to make some look stupid when they are clearly using the social definition of the word.

Finally, you are using an catch-all argument against empiricism based upon the inherent limitation in the human mind. That in short, in order to experience something you must categorize first, and there by make it a purely subjective opinion as opposed to objective fact. You could use this argument against any accepted fact.

The problem here is the concept of marriage for love as opposed to TRADITIONAL marriage, which is a financial institution designed to create a resource support system for a dependent child.

I believe marriage for love has destroyed the nuclear family, and resulted in the divorce epidemic we currently suffer under today.

Now stop it Grok. You're not fooling anyone with these simple rhetorical tricks except simpletons.

I'm starting to think the United States is just a satire of a country that other countries use to make themselves feel better. Because if we're so primitive that we need to debate and vote on whether a major group of people in our country deserve FUCKING CIVIL RIGHTS, then we're completely hopeless.

It's funny because I used to be a big fucking patriot.

Canada, ahoyyyy

At 5/9/12 09:40 PM, II2none wrote:

At 5/9/12 09:31 PM, ILoveToGrok wrote:

At 5/9/12 09:23 PM, II2none wrote:

At 5/9/12 09:08 PM, ILove2Grok wrote:

At 5/9/12 09:03 PM, II2none wrote:

Do these people who understand you also feel the need to collaborate with you and change how society thinks one "open minded" person at a time? I'm not stupid sir I understand how you think the brain works which is exactly right. Just skeptical on your objective and why shouldn't I be when you have nothing to but you're frustration and everything else is still a blueprint, if even that.

Since they see the broad picture of our reality's unhealthy interface and all of its underlying influences - yes. They know exactly what I want to fix. Why we should fix. I'll be honest though, I have never once stated that I have a solution for everything. I'm only tearing down the walls for people to see the lies, and that means I will tend to tear down the walls people build themselves if I fucking have to.

Stop the current mentality, save people from themselves advance humanity, it's all the same and all I can go by if your not willing to inquire about the HOW one of the most important questions when working towards a goal. We have a PM system, and if no one else I'm very curious about this plan and it's chances of success.

I probably will stop being a jackass and return back to my noble self one of these days. Right now, I am one evil sponge. Soaking up all of the ignorance and stupidity of people.

Okay so spill it, whats your plan of action then?

I do not plan. I situate myself for any upcoming event that LIFE set forth - not myself. I do not set forth myself. I let life play its own roles. What I DO is question the people of our world. I KNOW we are better than this. People just are too fucking pussy to stand up for, well, the lack of what the world has to offer - not having any answers to our wordly questions and all. So people just say, fuck it. Life is short, so lets do everything like a chicken without a head and encourage corruption or let it sit there and roar louder than ever! Also, the part where we are being irresponsible and pushing this shit on people in the future.

How do you know if life will "give" you that opportunity, it doesn't just happen, you have to situate yourself in a position to take action. Oh and you never answered my question about "what you do think of scientific labels?"

Because life is not about giving or receiving. Life is is about mutual experience. I've disciplined my mind and body - so to speak - and I am able to handle anything that comes my way. My will as a being is the greatest strength. I will always be on top of the situation (not people). I will always be on common grounds. I'm just waiting for people to stop being wannabe bunnies and climb out of their rabbit holes once and for fucking all.

At 5/9/12 09:46 PM, bgraybr wrote:

At 5/9/12 09:41 PM, ILove2Grok wrote: This sense of love is INTRINSIC. Your love is not INTRINSIC

You want to be redundant? Fine then.

You can not - in any way - back up your POV with a vague interpretation of your personal experiences!

How the fuck can you go on in life believing what you do when you have a hole in your entire theory?

At 5/9/12 09:55 PM, ILove2Grok wrote: You can not - in any way - back up your POV with a vague interpretation of your personal experiences!

How the fuck can you go on in life believing what you do when you have a hole in your entire theory?

Oh, for FUCKS SAKE!
Where's that hole? Point it out. Destroy this worthless theory if it's so lame. Tell us how homosexuality is different form heterosexuality.
Please. Tell us how can you "back up" straight love, but can't "back up" gay love.

At 5/9/12 09:58 PM, shinobody wrote: Please. Tell us how can you "back up" straight love, but can't "back up" gay love.

He's just going to type another 200+ word paragraph that can be paraphrased to "it's not natural".
Then he's going to tell us all about how straight love is real but nothing else is because it's not natural.

You were right earlier, we could talk him in circles for an eternity and he'd never actually answer that question. Fuck it, I'm out.

At 5/9/12 09:52 PM, ILove2Grok wrote:

I probably will stop being a jackass and return back to my noble self one of these days. Right now, I am one evil sponge. Soaking up all of the ignorance and stupidity of people.

Why the hell do you keep switching accounts, replying too fast?

"

Because life is not about giving or receiving. Life is is about mutual experience.

Well yeah thats why people have their individuality because of there own experiences and affiliate with those that have mutual experience. That's how our social life works and experiences is the reason why I think your objective is nothing short of impossible.

To be honest I think its stupid. Just because you ban gay marriage, its not going to stop gay and lesbian relationships.

At 5/9/12 09:47 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: Grok's logical fallacies

1: Ad hominem
2: Reduction of options
3: using mulitple word definitions.

True.
False.
False.

Rebuttal:

Homsexuality is a preference, not a permanent state. Many people change sexual orientation as they age, generally tending away from bisexuality towards a preference for one gender or another as they become monogamous. Gay and straight are polar ends of a sliding scale; most people fall somewhere in the middle and then drift a bit before settling on a single place. Many heterosexual women are attracted to feminine characteristics in men and vice versa. Feminine and masculine traits are not strictly assigned purely by genitalia

While heterosexual love is not a preference. Thank you for fucking making my argument stronger! If that wasn't what you were implying - I'd suggest you to rephrase it!

Sex as defined scientifically is an act of procreation. Sex as defined socially is an act that pursues an orgasm. You cannot apply the scientific definition of the word in order to make some look stupid when they are clearly using the social definition of the word.

What the fuck are you on about? Oh, wait. Accusations that I wasn't using the right definition! Yea! If you weren't such an idiot, you'd see that I CLEARLY stated sex in a non-procreational manner.

Finally, you are using an catch-all argument against empiricism based upon the inherent limitation in the human mind. That in short, in order to experience something you must categorize first, and there by make it a purely subjective opinion as opposed to objective fact. You could use this argument against any accepted fact.

No. When you CLEARLY see that their ENTIRE sexual orientation rests on that retarded interpretation of their subjective experiences. You know SOMETHING is off. It is the EXACT same problem with enlightened wannabes.

The problem here is the concept of marriage for love as opposed to TRADITIONAL marriage, which is a financial institution designed to create a resource support system for a dependent child.

If it makes you feel better. I think MARRIAGES are a man-made system that needs to fuck off. Love is not limited to a system, and if people weren't so god damned vague about their special feelings, I would support. I can't support somebody who is filling their holes with JARGON and more subjective bullshit.

I believe marriage for love has destroyed the nuclear family, and resulted in the divorce epidemic we currently suffer under today.

Now stop it Grok. You're not fooling anyone with these simple rhetorical tricks except simpletons.

Stop what? Stop with your ignorance of my conjecture.

> thought I used wrong definitions
> made my argument stronger
> told me to stop after having total ignorance of the situation (which is the EXACT same problem the person you are defending has.) Oh boy!

At 5/9/12 09:58 PM, shinobody wrote:
Please. Tell us how can you "back up" straight love, but can't "back up" gay love.

How are you 100% sure that your attraction represents homosexuality/bisexuality?

I dare you to answer this.

I love how America is living in the past with these issues. No free healthcare, guns for everyone, gays are banned.

ONLY IN 'MURRICA.

At 5/9/12 10:06 PM, ILoveToGrok wrote:

At 5/9/12 09:58 PM, shinobody wrote:
Please. Tell us how can you "back up" straight love, but can't "back up" gay love.

How are you 100% sure that your attraction represents homosexuality/bisexuality?

I dare you to answer this.

FUCKING DAMMIT.

Tell us how can you "back up" straight love, but can't "back up" gay love.

Tell us now. Just answer that one little fucking question and it will all be over.

At 5/9/12 10:10 PM, bgraybr wrote: Tell us now. Just answer that one little fucking question and it will all be over.

He avoids answering questions he can't answer by using roundabout circular logic and pseudo-philosophical nonsense, all the time.

At 5/9/12 10:06 PM, ILoveToGrok wrote:

At 5/9/12 09:58 PM, shinobody wrote:
Please. Tell us how can you "back up" straight love, but can't "back up" gay love.

How are you 100% sure that your attraction represents homosexuality/bisexuality?

I dare you to answer this.

Yes. I am 100% sure, ffs. I feel aroused by attractive girls, just as I feel aroused by guys. I feel EXACTLY. THE. SAME. Towards guys I "should" be attracted to, and by girls I "shouldn't". Since we assume heterosexuality is "default", and homosexuality is not different from it, feels exactly the same, therefore, it's not different from heterosexuality, by experiment.
You can still undermine gayness, but you'd need to undermine straight sexuality at the same time.
If there were no bisexual people in this world, you'd get away with this shitty argument.

At 5/9/12 10:10 PM, bgraybr wrote:

Tell us now. Just answer that one little fucking question and it will all be over.

If you answer my god damned question. It will always answer why heterosexual love is more natural than homosexual and bisexual love.

I did a report on gay rights movement in which I compared it to the civil rights movement.

All I have to say it is only a matter of time before the whole nation has legalized same-sex marriage. They are going through the same hurdles that the civil rights movement went through. Case and point serving in the military. In fact if I remember right, same sex marriage is going through a similar pattern of legalization that interracial marriage went through.

At 5/9/12 10:14 PM, shinobody wrote:

Yes. I am 100% sure, ffs. I feel aroused by attractive girls, just as I feel aroused by guys. I feel EXACTLY. THE. SAME. Towards guys I "should" be attracted to, and by girls I "shouldn't". Since we assume heterosexuality is "default", and homosexuality is not different from it, feels exactly the same, therefore, it's not different from heterosexuality, by experiment.
You can still undermine gayness, but you'd need to undermine straight sexuality at the same time.
If there were no bisexual people in this world, you'd get away with this shitty argument.

Saying you are attracted to the same sex and/or aroused by them does not validate your theory of sexual orientation.

What about people attracted to little kids? Attracted to killing? Attracted to cars? Attracted to guns? Do you see how fucking horrible your argument is? It falls apart.

At 5/9/12 10:12 PM, yurgenburgen wrote: He avoids answering questions he can't answer by using roundabout circular logic and pseudo-philosophical nonsense, all the time.

I said I was going to quit so why am I still trying?

I figured that if he was backed into a corner and beat on the head with a virtual brick he'd answer that one question eventually, or at the very least have the dignity to admit that he doesn't have a reason.

At 5/9/12 10:15 PM, ILoveToGrok wrote: If you answer my god damned question. It will always answer why heterosexual love is more natural than homosexual and bisexual love.

I don't like riddles man. Just stop playing games and answer it directly. I'm going to keep asking it until you do so.
I bet that you don't even have an answer.