Author Topic: Argument with a family man  (Read 21587 times)

Boils down to intolerance. What you are saying is you hate gays because of their beliefs. News flash, you can still like someone and hate their beliefs.

True. I liked and dated this one girl who was an extreme catholic. However, me laughing at her purposeful Bible references and my sacrilegious jokes made us break up.

I did like her though. If she wasn't talking about God every five minutes, I would have stayed with her.

True. I liked and dated this one girl who was an extreme catholic. However, me laughing at her purposeful Bible references and my sacrilegious jokes made us break up.

I did like her though. If she wasn't talking about God every five minutes, I would have stayed with her.

My friends like that, except she can take a joke and doesn't try to shove Jesus into your face. She's one of the few I have met. She is the "lets help everyone" person, not the "hell is waiting for you" type.

I would have been in a constant debate with her.

And no, it isn't just about opinion. Opinion is fine, everyone is entitled to their own thoughts and preferences. However, just because you have an opinion about something, such as homoloveuals, doesn't mean that opinion needs to be openly expressed, such as in the form of hate.
The point I was making is that there is little difference in the big picture even on opposite sides of this argument.  I was using my opinion as an example

The point I was making is that there is little difference in the big picture even on opposite sides of this argument.  I was using my opinion as an example

Opinions are terrible examples.

A quick search found a paper called loveual Orientation in Women with Classical or Non-classical Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia as a Function of Degree of Prenatal Androgen Excess.

If Heino F L Meyer-Bahlburg, Curtis Dolezal, Susan W Baker and Maria I New can believe in biloveuality enough that they can write a 15 page paper on how an enzyme deficiency is correlated to emasculation in females (and a suggested correlation to biloveuality), so can I.

Believe it or not, despite what your parents/teacher/evening news/religion tells you, not only has it's non-existence not been proven, but it's generally accepted among the scientific community that it does exist.
You're reading one report out of many.  Some tests have nearly disproven biloveuality in men, but not in women.

Opinions are terrible examples.
Get me a better one.  It's difficult to argue against the use an opinion as an example when this argument is primarily about opinions.

Get me a better one.
A better opinion?  But, why?  After all, they are just terrible, terrible things.

A better opinion?  But, why?  After all, they are just terrible, terrible things.
Well the word "terrible" implies that relative to mine, there is a better one.  But this to, is based on an opinion.

Get me a better one.  It's difficult to argue against the use an opinion as an example when this argument is primarily about opinions.

When making an argument, it is best to back it up with sources. When using an opinion, you are not arguing, you are just saying everyone is wrong and you are right.

Well the word "terrible" implies that relative to mine, there is a better one.  But this to, is based on an opinion.
He said "Opinions."  Which would refer to all opinions, not just yours.

You're reading one report out of many.  Some tests have nearly disproven biloveuality in men, but not in women.
I used proquest. I got well over 600 journal papers. They're written by men and women. None of them are about how biloveuality doesn't exist. This question simply does not exist anymore.
« Last Edit: May 31, 2009, 12:49:14 AM by Wedge »

I used proquest. I got like 600 papers. They're written by men and women. You're crazy.
He is.

most of us have been yelled at by a biloveual so whats the big deal

religious people have to say opinion

because they finally realized the classic "because god said so" horsestuff didn't fly, post 1900s