Jump to content

David Tyree is a moron


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 486
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Technically, and by definition, gay people don't reproduce. Gay people choose to reproduce the only way nature allows... basically contradicting the basis of homosexuality. As I said, they CHOOSE to sleep with someone of the opposite gender to reproduce... the same way they CHOOSE to sleep with someone of the same gender.

_CLEVELANDTHATILOVEIndians.jpg


SAINT IGNATIUS WILDCATS | CLEVELAND BROWNS | CLEVELAND CAVALIERS | CLEVELAND INDIANS | THE OHIO STATE BUCKEYES

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Technically, and by definition, gay people don't reproduce. Gay people choose to reproduce the only way nature allows... basically contradicting the basis of homosexuality. As I said, they CHOOSE to sleep with someone of the opposite gender to reproduce... the same way they CHOOSE to sleep with someone of the same gender.

IVF isn't "reproduction"? Sperm donors and surrogates aren't "reproduction"?

And as I said, there's the talking point in action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>Use your free speech to express an opinion that is smiled upon by the mainstream media

Yeah! Fight for them! Woohoo! You're awesome and a good person!

>Use your free speech to express an opinion that is unpopular in the media

You're a bigot! You hate gays! You should die! You're an idiot!

I agree with Tyree but I don't go around calling people of the opposite viewpoint morons or hateful.

What really gets me is the "great fan" stuff. It's sad to think of our country as a "Steeler Nation", because that would mean that we're a country of near-sighted inbreds from the mountains that can't speak competent English.

Let's go Brownies!

championships.png

You mad because the Tribe is stylin' on you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wasn't his point that other cultures had this same issue pop up? Also can you blame him for stumbling when he's trying to be tact so as to not become engulfed in the usual death threats and hate mail?

I heard blurbs about it on the radio, not his full interview. Sounded like that's what it was to me.

What really gets me is the "great fan" stuff. It's sad to think of our country as a "Steeler Nation", because that would mean that we're a country of near-sighted inbreds from the mountains that can't speak competent English.

Let's go Brownies!

championships.png

You mad because the Tribe is stylin' on you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Technically, and by definition, gay people don't reproduce. Gay people choose to reproduce the only way nature allows... basically contradicting the basis of homosexuality. As I said, they CHOOSE to sleep with someone of the opposite gender to reproduce... the same way they CHOOSE to sleep with someone of the same gender.

IVF isn't "reproduction"? Sperm donors and surrogates aren't "reproduction"?

And as I said, there's the talking point in action.

I think that what he was getting at is that in theory a man and woman can have sex and produce a child. However it is not possible for two men or two women to have sex and produce a child.

Belts.jpg
PotD May 11th, 2011
looooooogodud: June 7th 2010 - July 5th 2012

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Technically, and by definition, gay people don't reproduce. Gay people choose to reproduce the only way nature allows... basically contradicting the basis of homosexuality. As I said, they CHOOSE to sleep with someone of the opposite gender to reproduce... the same way they CHOOSE to sleep with someone of the same gender.

IVF isn't "reproduction"? Sperm donors and surrogates aren't "reproduction"?

And as I said, there's the talking point in action.

I think that what he was getting at is that in theory a man and woman can have sex and produce a child. However it is not possible for two men or two women to have sex and produce a child.

Correct... therefore disproving the Nature argument for pro-homosexual supporters.

I mean... it really is a tricky topic, and the more I reflect on it, the more I agree with keeping marriage between man and woman. The more I compare and contrast, the more I look at simple logic as opposed to indepth science, and then indepth science as opposed to logic, I keep finding myself leaning toward anti-homosexuality. By no means do I think homosexuals should be treated as second rate citizens, or that they should be called names and have their human dignity disrespected, but I have a hard time saying its Natural or should be given special privileges. Anti-homosexuality in the sense that I don't think it should be recognized as marriage, or even as a civil union.

_CLEVELANDTHATILOVEIndians.jpg


SAINT IGNATIUS WILDCATS | CLEVELAND BROWNS | CLEVELAND CAVALIERS | CLEVELAND INDIANS | THE OHIO STATE BUCKEYES

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we are pushing for equal constitutional rights for all (which I am for) when do women between the ages of 18-26 have to register with selective services?

Blame the conservatives who killed the Equal Rights Amendment.

They happen to be, by and large, the same people fighting against equality today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we are pushing for equal constitutional rights for all (which I am for) when do women between the ages of 18-26 have to register with selective services?

Blame the conservatives who killed the Equal Rights Amendment.

They happen to be, by and large, the same people fighting against equality today.

Dems had both chambers between 2006-2010 and both chambers and the Oval Office between 2008-2010. If they are all for equity why didn't they pass legislation allowing marriage for all and extend selective services to all when they were in power?

Belts.jpg
PotD May 11th, 2011
looooooogodud: June 7th 2010 - July 5th 2012

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correct... therefore disproving the Nature argument for pro-homosexual supporters.

you've offered no such "proof."

In fact, you keep talking about "science" and "logic" without any evidence that you're using either. Please show your work.

... are you talking about VISUAL evidence?

I saw, I came, I left.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we are pushing for equal constitutional rights for all (which I am for) when do women between the ages of 18-26 have to register with selective services?

Blame the conservatives who killed the Equal Rights Amendment.

They happen to be, by and large, the same people fighting against equality today.

Dems had both chambers between 2006-2010 and both chambers and the Oval Office between 2008-2010. If they are all for equity why didn't they pass legislation allowing marriage for all and extend selective services to all when they were in power?

Because 1) They had slightly bigger fish to fry and 2) You can't get a Constitutional Amendment ratified in two years nowadays.

On 8/1/2010 at 4:01 PM, winters in buffalo said:
You manage to balance agitation with just enough salient points to keep things interesting. Kind of a low-rent DG_Now.
On 1/2/2011 at 9:07 PM, Sodboy13 said:
Today, we are all otaku.

"The city of Peoria was once the site of the largest distillery in the world and later became the site for mass production of penicillin. So it is safe to assume that present-day Peorians are descended from syphilitic boozehounds."-Stephen Colbert

POTD: February 15, 2010, June 20, 2010

The Glorious Bloom State Penguins (NCFAF) 2014: 2-9, 2015: 7-5 (L Pineapple Bowl), 2016: 1-0 (NCFAB) 2014-15: 10-8, 2015-16: 14-5 (SMC Champs, L 1st Round February Frenzy)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And besides, who here has ever suggested that all Democrats are always on the right side of every issue? That's silly.

Correct... therefore disproving the Nature argument for pro-homosexual supporters.

you've offered no such "proof."

In fact, you keep talking about "science" and "logic" without any evidence that you're using either. Please show your work.

... are you talking about VISUAL evidence?

No, I'm talking about a coherent argument.

You can't just say "my opinion is logical!" without explanation. Show the steps which led you to arrive at your conclusion.

For example, when I say that marriage is a Constitutional right, and that there is no legitimate reason to deny gay couples their right, I can cite Scalia's own dissent in Lawrence v. Texas, where the Justice said the sane thing. Back up your conclusions.

Then again, you made the claim that homosexuality is "not natural" without bothering to explain why then it is found in... Nature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.