Viewing Thread:
"Are you born gay or do you 'acquire' it?"

I heard two people talking about this the other night, and was wondering what you guys thought. Is being gay in your DNA, or is it 'acquired' through your life?

So yeh, enlighten me...

Light wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> Icaruss wrote:
> What's the point in calling him Gump? Your statements alone make a
> pretty good impression, so it's completely unnecessary.
>
> He likes to denigrate himself.
>
>
> No; I like to denigrate your fantasy of being the messiah. It's
> fairly clear that, with all your comparisons of yourself to Jesus,
> you live in a fantasy world where you are special in the eyes of God,
> and may even be the messiah himself. This is laughable cockrot of the
> first order, and I'm responding to it by referring to you as a
> character who is a byword for being a simpleton. If you'd prefer,
> I'll simply call you a simpleton? Is that better?

I'm no Messiah - only Jesus is - but we are told to try and be like Him, follow Him.
>
> Oh, you're running and hiding from questions again. Care to start
> answering them, or is your cowardice getting the better of you again?

Questions...

Forest Fan wrote:

>
> > cleared up.


Yes, yes all this is beneath you really, isn't it?

Your persona is slipping my simpleton friend; you started out painting yourself as the epitome of patience. Now your arrogance is starting to shine through. On top of your cowardice and hypocrisy, it makes rather grim reading...

Forest Fan wrote:
> Icaruss wrote:
> What's the point in calling him Gump? Your statements alone make a
> pretty good impression, so it's completely unnecessary.
>
> He likes to denigrate himself.


No; I like to denigrate your fantasy of being the messiah. It's fairly clear that, with all your comparisons of yourself to Jesus, you live in a fantasy world where you are special in the eyes of God, and may even be the messiah himself. This is laughable cockrot of the first order, and I'm responding to it by referring to you as a character who is a byword for being a simpleton. If you'd prefer, I'll simply call you a simpleton? Is that better?

Oh, you're running and hiding from questions again. Care to start answering them, or is your cowardice getting the better of you again?

Icaruss wrote:
> What's the point in calling him Gump? Your statements alone make a
> pretty good impression, so it's completely unnecessary.

Because it upsets him basically. He's incredibly self important, and I rather enjoy popping that bubble.

Icaruss wrote:
> No no, I was pointing out FF requoting your "Huh???"
> comment after he had edited it.

Ahh, apologies in that case. I thought you meant I was picking up on the spelling mistake. If that was the case, I'd agree. :)

[edit] Whoa. Serious crossed wires ahoy!

Icaruss wrote:
> Pandaemonium wrote:
>
>
> *shrugs* Wasn't sure what he meant. Just clearing up. I haven't
> heard
> anyone use denigrate for a while, and was unsure if that was what he
> was getting at.
>
> No no, I was pointing out FF requoting your "Huh???"
> comment after he had edited it.

I was simply reposting it with the edits so everything was cleared up.

Pandaemonium wrote:

>
> *shrugs* Wasn't sure what he meant. Just clearing up. I haven't heard
> anyone use denigrate for a while, and was unsure if that was what he
> was getting at.

No no, I was pointing out FF requoting your "Huh???" comment after he had edited it.

He likes to "blacken" himself. Is that what you're saying?

Icaruss wrote:
> And that's just bloody childish

*shrugs* Wasn't sure what he meant. Just clearing up. I haven't heard anyone use denigrate for a while, and was unsure if that was what he was getting at.

Forest Fan wrote:
> Pandaemonium wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> He likes to denigrate himself.
>
> ??? Huh?

Aha, *denigrate*. I wasn't sure if you meant "degrade" or "denigrate".