| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Kyanzes
Amarr
Utopian Research I.E.L.
The ENTITY.
   |
Posted - 2008.05.07 17:02:00 -
[31]
Why would I be upset? A lot of these people will never have their own children, so the question partly solves itself.
Homosexual people basically got everything they wanted - in western countries - and look what the outcome is: they want others' children now.
Religion should not be forced on anyone in my very personal opinion. It should be an optional choice for any adults. Adult is the keyword here.
You just basically called fascists all people in such countries in the world that don't allow homosexual individuals to adpot children.  How lame is that?
---------------------------------------------
GET TO THE CHOPPA!!!
The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese. |
Patch86
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.05.07 17:04:00 -
[32]
Discussing politics - especially politics as sensitive as this - is a definite recipe for a lock.
Still, I've never seen the big fuss over the homosexual thing.
1: Adoption is judged on merit of the potential parents. If the family is leading an unsuitable lifestyle, they won't get a kid, homosexual or not. All that law change will mean is that homosexual couples will have to be judged on merit, instead of prevented from adopting purely on principle.
2: Theres no reason why a *** woman shouldn't receive IVF treatment, if single women are. Single women are allowed to visit a sperm bank and have a child, so why not a *** one?
3: Common sense really that, if 2 people raise a child from birth, they should have their parental rights protected by law (DNA matching or not). The same right should be extended to non-biological heterosexual fathers, too.
4: All *** marriage means is that a *** couple can have the same inheritance tax exemptions as a straight couple. If we accept that *** people are allowed to have relationships and live with each other, why should they be penalised in terms of joint-ownership or inheritance tax? Surely rules should be consistent for all long term couples who wish to sign up...
------
 Originally by: Dark Shikari
The problem with killing Jesus is he always just respawns 3 days later anyways.
|
annoing
Amarr
MisFunk Inc.
Daisho Syndicate
|
Posted - 2008.05.07 17:15:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Kyanzes
Why would I be upset? A lot of these people will never have their own children, so the question partly solves itself.
For a few dollars and they can go to the third-world country of their choice and buy the baby. Just like straights really. Oh, and adopting unwanted children and offering them a loving home with a well rounded enviroment ... oh again, just like straights. Failing to notice a difference here so far, how about you?
Quote:
Homosexual people basically got everything they wanted - in western countries - and look what the outcome is: they want others' children now.
Really? Everything they want? You mean they have managed to find true equality in a society that doesnt judge a person on their race, colour, creed and sexuality/ They have done well havent they? The 'others' children they want are the ones that no one else seems to want .. maybe you have room at your house for all these poor unfortunate, unwanted children?
[quoteReligion should not be forced on anyone in my very personal opinion.
No as long as you can force your rancid sick little fascist ways on people thats enough to satisfy you isnt it?
Quote:
You just basically called fascists all people in such countries in the world that don't allow homosexual individuals to adpot children. How lame is that?
No, I basically called you a fascist because you are one. As for all those wonderful in-tolerant people in all of those wonderful in-tolerant countries, by showing them that tolerance is, in itself, a wonderful ideal maybe we can help them change their in-tolerant ways? When you show people something wonderful, like equality, they invariably want it for themselves.
Please stop your stupidity now, because I can assure you, you have lost this argument and all you can do is make yourself an even bigger target for ridicule.
Dwi Cymraig
|
Kyanzes
Amarr
Utopian Research I.E.L.
The ENTITY.
|
Posted - 2008.05.07 17:18:00 -
[34]
Edited by: Kyanzes on 07/05/2008 17:20:13
Originally by: Benco97
Originally by: Kyanzes
How could someone with distorted values raise children? I'm sorry but I for one cannot stand behind - - such people. I don't mind what they do until they start to raise children that will be part of a future society. There is a limit to tolerance.
I mean come on... let's not give such people the chance to affect the minds of younglings. They already do have an effect on others, I say we draw a line that shall not be passed.
Why would someone who has no inclination to breed want to have children anyways?
They can basically do *ANYTHING* they want, but this line should not be crossed. Don't let them adopt children.
You have just stated that I would not make a good parent and SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED to become a parent despite the fact that you do not know me or anything about me, well done.
If you're claiming that *** parents who adopt will turn the child *** then surely you should argue that Christian parents will turn the child Christian? HELL, Christian parents would probably FORCE Christianity on the child, nothing is said about that is there.
It's not me who claims that, it's all the countries in the world that currently don't allow that. There's a big difference there. It's very kind of you that you even consider that it was my personal idea, but that isn't the case. I was raised to have certain values that happen to differ from yours. You blame me? Blame the politicians. Blame history, blame the people. I stand beside those who cheris the conservative values. You stand where you belong. Liberalists. I believe they do have their political share in governments of the countires of the Free World. You will not change me, nor you can convince me to welcome your view of the world. Not going to happen.
---------------------------------------------
GET TO THE CHOPPA!!!
The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese. |
Kyanzes
Amarr
Utopian Research I.E.L.
The ENTITY.
|
Posted - 2008.05.07 17:25:00 -
[35]
Quote:
No, I basically called you a fascist because you are one. As for all those wonderful in-tolerant people in all of those wonderful in-tolerant countries, by showing them that tolerance is, in itself, a wonderful ideal maybe we can help them change their in-tolerant ways? When you show people something wonderful, like equality, they invariably want it for themselves.
Please stop your stupidity now, because I can assure you, you have lost this argument and all you can do is make yourself an even bigger target for ridicule.
Instead of ridiculing the majority, you should spend quality time demonstrating with transparents on the streets to gain even more rights.
You *TRY* to make me look as if I would be against homosexual people when I'm only against their child adoption rights. That's not very nice of you. 
---------------------------------------------
GET TO THE CHOPPA!!!
The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese. |
Devoras2
Amarr
KIA Corp
KIA Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.05.07 17:35:00 -
[36]
1. Stop flaming my thread with nonsense.
2. Its not a human right to have children.
Continue discussing ON TOPIC.
Yipeh KIA Mother Fecker!
|
Isiskhan
Gnostic Misanthropy
|
Posted - 2008.05.07 17:46:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Kyanzes
Look here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_adoption
From a related link:
"The American Psychological Association states in its Resolution on Sexual Orientation, Parents, and Children (adopted July 2004):
there is no scientific evidence that parenting effectiveness is related to parental sexual orientation: ******* and *** parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children"; and "research has shown that the adjustment, development, and psychological well-being of children is unrelated to parental sexual orientation and that the children of ******* and *** parents are as likely as those of heterosexual parents to flourish."
Similarly, Children's Development of Social Competence Across Family Types, a major report prepared by the Department of Justice (Canada) in July 2006 but not released by the government until forced to do so by a request under the Access to Information Act in May 2007,[4] reaches this conclusion:
The strongest conclusion that can be drawn from the empirical literature is that the vast majority of studies show that children living with two mothers and children living with a mother and father have the same levels of social competence. A few studies suggest that children with two ******* mothers may have marginally better social competence than children in traditional nuclear families, even fewer studies show the opposite, and most studies fail to find any differences. The very limited body of research on children with two *** fathers supports this same conclusion"
Originally by: Devoras2
2. Its not a human right to have children.
From the same link:
"In January 2008, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that homosexual people have the right to adopt a child"
|
Natsume Chidori
|
Posted - 2008.05.07 17:48:00 -
[38]
So far, I've yet to see any evidence to suggest that non-straight parents raise children that are any different than normal children.
Bullying isn't a valid issue because kids always get bullied regardless of what their background, appearance, or any other factor.
|
Kalahari Wayrest
Re-Awakened Technologies Inc
|
Posted - 2008.05.07 19:31:00 -
[39]
Quote:
im very skeptical to this social experiment
I wouldn't put it in those terms. To me, it seems like the law catching up with something long overdue. I see it as 'why shouldn't' homosexuals have equal rights rather than 'why should' they.
My stance is that *** people getting married doesn't affect straight people one way or the other - it is, in fact, none of their business. (the adoptive element seems to be a qualifier to a lot of people though.)
Quote:
Testing if over time children in homosexual couples has the same quality of life and the same good upbringing as they were in a straight couple.
A study approached with those definitions would be immediately biased as it presupposes a difference in quality of life and upbringing between homosexual and heterosexual couples. As if their choice of sexuality would affect their parenting skills one way or another. (i.e the parenting would depend on the person, and a person is not defined by their sexuality)
Quote:
they shouldnt be able to adopt as that adds a whole bunch of problems for the child.
Again, that's presupposing. Who's to say the child will automatically be in a worse situation than any other child? (a child with a set of caring same-sex parents is in a better position than a child with a set of abusive seperate-sex parents, regardless of what happens at school) And if they do suffer a unique set of problems, who's to say that won't make them a stronger and more enlightened invididual because of it?
Quote:
How could someone with distorted values raise children? ...I don't mind what they do until they start to raise children that will be part of a future society.
Not really sure how a sexual preference dictates an entire value system, or distortion thereof, or which value system you are referring to.
Why do you see *** rights as something to be tolerated, given it doesn't affect you personally? Your utopian future society seems entirely exclusive to me. Different != Bad
Quote:
let's not give such people the chance to affect the minds of younglings.
Every parent affects the minds of their child - even those who intentionally raise a child to think freely. While I agree that any kind of 'brainwashing' of children is wrong, religious indoctrination of children for example, there's nothing to suggest that same sex parents would 'brain wash' children anymore than fundementalists or anyone else.
Being *** parents is not the same as saying 'when you grow up you should be *** too.' (and many *** people revile the idea of sexuality being a 'choice', so even if that was suggested it wouldn't work)
Quote:
Homosexual people basically got everything they wanted - in western countries - and look what the outcome is: they want others' children now.
That's what adoption is, isn't it? Wanting other peoples children?
Regardless what sexual orientation you have.
Quote:
You just basically called fascists all people in such countries in the world that don't allow homosexual individuals to adpot children.
I wouldn't say fascist. But at worst fundamentalist and at best old fashioned.
Quote:
You *TRY* to make me look as if I would be against homosexual people when I'm only against their child adoption rights.
Not sure what the difference is. If you're denying them child adoptation rights, you're suggesting they'd be worse adoptive parents than straight people, which is against homosexual people.
Quote:
1. Stop flaming my thread with nonsense.
2. Its not a human right to have children.
Odd that you'd call points of view nonsense as the OP specifically requested
"other people opinions." Additionally, in a discussion about a) *** rights and b) parenthood and adoption, debates about what is and isn't a human right is inevitable.
__________________________
Indulge Me
Consider Yourself Indulged - Immy ♥
Wow immy scored  - Xorus
|
Griffen Hawk
Department of Defence
Hydra Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.05.07 20:06:00 -
[40]
As a Norwegian and an Adopted child, here are my opinions:
So same sex marriages will be allowed, GREAT! thats a big step in the right direction.
about being permitted to adopt tho, i dont know if the "world" is ready for that yet in a bigger scale, allthough i dont think about that too much, as they will have HUGE problems finding children to adopt.
even "normal" couples have problems adopting, especially if you have been divorced once, or there have been some rough patches in your past.
you need decent income, you need recommendations from family and friends, even after this there is a several year wait to find out if you are accepted. to be honest, i cant really think of any countries that would allow adoptive parents to be homosexual. unless the adoption is conducted privately that is.
|
Atomos Darksun
Infortunatus Eventus
|
Posted - 2008.05.07 20:40:00 -
[41]
You cannot even begin to compare the upbringing of a child by homo/heterosexual couples; the quality of it will ALWAYS be based on the parents, not on their orientation.
Originally by: Amoxin
My vent is talking to me in a devil voice...
Atomos' Guide to Forum Flaming |
Raymond Sterns
Utopian Research I.E.L.
The ENTITY.
|
Posted - 2008.05.07 21:29:00 -
[42]
Neither side is right, because human nature is never right.
There is an infinite number of sides, yours and everyone else's. The problem starts when certain individuals can't understand each other and so conclude they are right and any naysayers are wrong.
***s being ***s is wrong from a Biological/Scientific point of view because it leads to the end of humanity. Straights putting down ***s is wrong, because you're making a fellow human inferior because you do not agree with his pattern of thinking.
As it is right now, it won't matter. By the time this has an effect on mankind we'll be long dead.
_
|
Nicholas Barker
MASS
Ministry Of Amarrian Secret Service
|
Posted - 2008.05.07 22:05:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Sqalevon
last time was maybe a few years ago, bit I think the couple just went to a different church in a different village.
only aloud one *** in the village.
also, all these liberal laws will only lead to ruin.
---
|
Thanos Draicon
|
Posted - 2008.05.07 22:06:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Raymond Sterns
***s being ***s is wrong from a Biological/Scientific point of view because it leads to the end of humanity.
Actually, this isn't the case. Check this out:
Say that there's a gene or combination of genes that reliably lead to one being ***.
1. If this gene is expressed too little, competition between males for the female members of a population becomes too intense, leading to increased injury and death to the males without the "*** gene."
2. Slowly over time the "*** gene" becomes more popular in the population despite the fact that those with it barely reproduce because those with it are less likely to die from violent competition over females.
3. The gene cannot be over-expressed because those who posess it don't usually pass it on.
4. This "*** gene" reduces the amount of violent competition between males of the tribe leading to less deaths and an overall improved health of the tribe.
Besides, evolutionary biology only applies to the fitness of an organism to pass on it's genes, you can't use it as a moral compass.
--------------- Originally by: CCP Prism X
Hey I have an idea:
"Let's not endure any more of your spam for the weekend!"
Enjoy your time away from our forums.
|
Micheal Dietrich
Caldari
Cynical Cartel
|
Posted - 2008.05.07 22:11:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Thanos Draicon
Originally by: Raymond Sterns
***s being ***s is wrong from a Biological/Scientific point of view because it leads to the end of humanity.
Actually, this isn't the case. Check this out:
Say that there's a gene or combination of genes that reliably lead to one being ***.
1. If this gene is expressed too little, competition between males for the female members of a population becomes too intense, leading to increased injury and death to the males without the "*** gene."
2. Slowly over time the "*** gene" becomes more popular in the population despite the fact that those with it barely reproduce because those with it are less likely to die from violent competition over females.
3. The gene cannot be over-expressed because those who posess it don't usually pass it on.
4. This "*** gene" reduces the amount of violent competition between males of the tribe leading to less deaths and an overall improved health of the tribe.
Besides, evolutionary biology only applies to the fitness of an organism to pass on it's genes, you can't use it as a moral compass.
Yes, because I regularly beat people senseless for the attention of a lady.
____________________________________________
And yes I'll be gone soon. |
Thanos Draicon
|
Posted - 2008.05.07 22:18:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Micheal Dietrich
Originally by: Thanos Draicon
Originally by: Raymond Sterns
***s being ***s is wrong from a Biological/Scientific point of view because it leads to the end of humanity.
Actually, this isn't the case. Check this out:
Say that there's a gene or combination of genes that reliably lead to one being ***.
1. If this gene is expressed too little, competition between males for the female members of a population becomes too intense, leading to increased injury and death to the males without the "*** gene."
2. Slowly over time the "*** gene" becomes more popular in the population despite the fact that those with it barely reproduce because those with it are less likely to die from violent competition over females.
3. The gene cannot be over-expressed because those who posess it don't usually pass it on.
4. This "*** gene" reduces the amount of violent competition between males of the tribe leading to less deaths and an overall improved health of the tribe.
Besides, evolutionary biology only applies to the fitness of an organism to pass on it's genes, you can't use it as a moral compass.
Yes, because I regularly beat people senseless for the attention of a lady.
Two million years ago you might have.
Besides, it doesn't have to be regularly to have an effect. Even if once a year 1% of the male population did something harmful to prove their worth to a woman (the "hey y'all, watch this!" effect), it would still provide sufficient selective pressure over a thousand or a hundred thousand generations.
Obviously since societies evolved past the tribal stage the gene became irrelevent, but since homosexuals do occasionally reproduce due to attempting to fit in with a society it's entirely possible that this genetic combination survived through history.
--------------- Originally by: CCP Prism X
Hey I have an idea:
"Let's not endure any more of your spam for the weekend!"
Enjoy your time away from our forums.
|
Micheal Dietrich
Caldari
Cynical Cartel
|
Posted - 2008.05.07 22:21:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Thanos Draicon
Two million years ago you might have.
Besides, it doesn't have to be regularly to have an effect. Even if once a year 1% of the male population did something harmful to prove their worth to a woman (the "hey y'all, watch this!" effect), it would still provide sufficient selective pressure over a thousand or a hundred thousand generations.
Obviously since societies evolved past the tribal stage the gene became irrelevent, but since homosexuals do occasionally reproduce due to attempting to fit in with a society it's entirely possible that this genetic combination survived through history.
could explain the overcrowding of our jails.
____________________________________________
And yes I'll be gone soon. |
Kalahari Wayrest
Re-Awakened Technologies Inc
|
Posted - 2008.05.07 22:26:00 -
[48]
Quote:
***s being ***s is wrong from a Biological/Scientific point of view because it leads to the end of humanity.
Surely it could only lead to the end of humanity if the majority became *** rather than the minority? From a biological/scientific point of view couldn't homosexuality also be seen as a partial solution to overpopulation?
__________________________
Indulge Me
Consider Yourself Indulged - Immy ♥
Wow immy scored - Xorus
|
Thanos Draicon
|
Posted - 2008.05.07 22:29:00 -
[49]
Originally by: Kalahari Wayrest
Quote:
***s being ***s is wrong from a Biological/Scientific point of view because it leads to the end of humanity.
Surely it could only lead to the end of humanity if the majority became *** rather than the minority? From a biological/scientific point of view couldn't homosexuality also be seen as a partial solution to overpopulation?
Also possible - see my posts above. 
--------------- Originally by: CCP Prism X
Hey I have an idea:
"Let's not endure any more of your spam for the weekend!"
Enjoy your time away from our forums.
|
Alha Qmar
Caldari
Xenon Logistics
|
Posted - 2008.05.07 22:31:00 -
[50]
From a biological view homo's are a malfunctioning product of nature. A woman needs a man to make kids. 2 of the same can't. Infact I am totally against them, i also hate seeing 2 males kiss eachother. Whenever I discover someone I know who turns out to be a homo ins't going to be my friend for very much longer.
In china there are 1 billion people, 400 mill woman and 600 mill man, so they would need 200mill homo's?
|
Micheal Dietrich
Caldari
Cynical Cartel
|
Posted - 2008.05.07 22:35:00 -
[51]
Edited by: Micheal Dietrich on 07/05/2008 22:35:12
I noticed he didn't have a issue with 2 females kissing each other.....
Edit: Does 2 males kissing Harm you directly in any way shape or form?
____________________________________________
And yes I'll be gone soon. |
Thanos Draicon
|
Posted - 2008.05.07 22:37:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Alha Qmar
From a biological view homo's are a malfunctioning product of nature. A woman needs a man to make kids. 2 of the same can't. Infact I am totally against them, i also hate seeing 2 males kiss eachother. Whenever I discover someone I know who turns out to be a homo ins't going to be my friend for very much longer.
In china there are 1 billion people, 400 mill woman and 600 mill man, so they would need 200mill homo's?
Overpopulation would slowly begin to favor those who have less children because those populations would not produce more children than they could support (because when food gets low everyone starves and fighting increases. If this lesser number of children is due to a higher percentage of homosexuals in the population, then the combination of genetic characteristics that lead to homosexuality would be common. Remember that it's obviously not a single gene but an interaction of genes, so one could be a "carrier" without being homosexual oneself.
If a population suffers from 20% overpopulation and the environment doesn't change, eventually the homosexuality will express itself in 20% of the population. That population will generally have less children and as such won't suffer from starvation, meaning the children they DO have will be more likely to survive.
--------------- Originally by: CCP Prism X
Hey I have an idea:
"Let's not endure any more of your spam for the weekend!"
Enjoy your time away from our forums.
|
Kalahari Wayrest
Re-Awakened Technologies Inc
|
Posted - 2008.05.07 22:38:00 -
[53]
Quote:
i also hate seeing 2 males kiss eachother. Whenever I discover someone I know who turns out to be a homo ins't going to be my friend for very much longer.
From a psychological view...well, you probably know the rest 
__________________________
Indulge Me
Consider Yourself Indulged - Immy ♥
Wow immy scored - Xorus
|
Thanos Draicon
|
Posted - 2008.05.07 22:42:00 -
[54]
Edited by: Thanos Draicon on 07/05/2008 22:42:55
Originally by: Alha Qmar
From a biological view homo's are a malfunctioning product of nature. A woman needs a man to make kids. 2 of the same can't.
So are toes if you want to get technical. Why are you using biological fitness to govern morality?
Quote:
Infact I am totally against them, i also hate seeing 2 males kiss eachother. Whenever I discover someone I know who turns out to be a homo ins't going to be my friend for very much longer.
Why? Again, biological fitness does not equal morality. I'm guessing that this only applies to males and not females? 
--------------- Originally by: CCP Prism X
Hey I have an idea:
"Let's not endure any more of your spam for the weekend!"
Enjoy your time away from our forums.
|
The TX
Gallente
Earth Inc.
Zeta Tau Epsilon
|
Posted - 2008.05.07 23:56:00 -
[55]
Look ma, I'm in a thread about homosexuals!
In Before The Lock!
I don't see why this should be an issue - two mums would mean they can process my washing and ironing even faster!
--------------------
[Signature]
[/Signature]
|
Arvald
Caldari
The School 0f Fine Arts
|
Posted - 2008.05.08 00:09:00 -
[56]
Originally by: annoing
Edited by: annoing on 07/05/2008 16:52:09
Sorry, you seem to have left your Sw@stika by the door as you left the room. However, just to amuse myself I shall transpose your 'argument' to something else:
Originally by: Kyanzes
How could someone with distorted values raise children
I often ask myself that too. The church has alot to answer for.
Quote:
There is a limit to tolerance.
So true, just ask any of the organised Abrahamic religions ... nothing like a dose of Islam, Christianity or Judaism to teach tolerance is there? After all, with the tolerance taught by the big 3 we all live happy well rounded lives, in peace with our neighbours and with full equality regardless of race, colour and creed.
Quote:
I mean come on... let's not give such people the chance to affect the minds of younglings. They already do have an effect on others, I say we draw a line that shall not be passed.
I refer you to the answer I gave a few moments ago
Quote:
They can basically do *ANYTHING* they want, but this line should not be crossed. Don't let them adopt children.
Yes, stop them NOW, after all, would you want YOUR child adopted into a fascist right-wing religious household?
There is a limit to tolernece and you crossed it. Should I salute your uniform now or save it till later?
Yes, you may get upset that I liken your argument to F@scism and no I dont care if you are upset. Stupidity like yours is a special kind and should be treated with medicine as soon as possible
not gonay say anything else in this conversation because i cant say it better than you my friend 
Quote:
Shooting the hostage does usually remove a critical bargaining chip of the hostage takers
I don't think it mattered at that point, we were already bargaining with missile launchers |
nahtoh
Caldari
Bull Industries
|
Posted - 2008.05.08 00:17:00 -
[57]
Originally by: Antarus Lars
Fact
A child with same s3x parents will get bullied though his childhood.
Fact
Putting your own desire to have a child above your childs happness during its upbringing is immoral.
Fact
Im in no way homophobic, just brutally honest.
As would a ugly kid, fat kid, kid with glasses, unpopular kid etc.....kids are pretty cruel I don't see it being that big of a issue and may just make the people around them be less of a ******* TBFH.
as for your last point any kid thats treqated as a trophy or a right of passage is just as likley to be fecked up...
=========
"I am not saying there should be capital punishment for stupidity, but why can`t we just take the safety labels off everything and let the problem fix its self |
nahtoh
Caldari
Bull Industries
|
Posted - 2008.05.08 00:24:00 -
[58]
Originally by: Alha Qmar
From a biological view homo's are a malfunctioning product of nature. A woman needs a man to make kids. 2 of the same can't. Infact I am totally against them, i also hate seeing 2 males kiss eachother. Whenever I discover someone I know who turns out to be a homo ins't going to be my friend for very much longer.
In china there are 1 billion people, 400 mill woman and 600 mill man, so they would need 200mill homo's?
Man you have issues...seek help.
=========
"I am not saying there should be capital punishment for stupidity, but why can`t we just take the safety labels off everything and let the problem fix its self |
Davina Braben
|
Posted - 2008.05.08 00:28:00 -
[59]
Everyone knows that *** parents raise *** children... I mean where else do *** people come from? 
|
Thorliaron
Brutor tribe
|
Posted - 2008.05.08 00:43:00 -
[60]
Originally by: Alha Qmar
From a biological view homo's are a malfunctioning product of nature. A woman needs a man to make kids. 2 of the same can't. Infact I am totally against them, i also hate seeing 2 males kiss eachother. Whenever I discover someone I know who turns out to be a homo ins't going to be my friend for very much longer.
In china there are 1 billion people, 400 mill woman and 600 mill man, so they would need 200mill homo's?
i have a big suspicion that you are a repressed homo
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |