Guiscard wrote:Which bit was a flame? I'm fairly sure it was all true...jay_a2j wrote:Flame Warsway.
None of it was true. (except the evolution part)
Moderator: Community Team
Guiscard wrote:Which bit was a flame? I'm fairly sure it was all true...jay_a2j wrote:Flame Warsway.
JESUS SAVES!!!PLAYER57832 wrote:Too many of those who claim they don't believe global warming are really "end-timer" Christians.
Oh right. You're convinced about the plane, then... and that there's no new world order... Because I was getting worried there, Jay.jay_a2j wrote:Guiscard wrote:Which bit was a flame? I'm fairly sure it was all true...jay_a2j wrote:Flame Warsway.
None of it was true. (except the evolution part)
qwert wrote:Can i ask you something?What is porpose for you to open these Political topic in ConquerClub? Why you mix politic with Risk? Why you not open topic like HOT AND SEXY,or something like that.
Guiscard wrote:Oh right. You're convinced about the plane, then... and that there's no new world order... Because I was getting worried there, Jay.jay_a2j wrote:Guiscard wrote:Which bit was a flame? I'm fairly sure it was all true...jay_a2j wrote:Flame Warsway.
None of it was true. (except the evolution part)
You actually had us for a while...
Glad to see you back in the land of the sane.
JESUS SAVES!!!PLAYER57832 wrote:Too many of those who claim they don't believe global warming are really "end-timer" Christians.
Norse wrote: But, alas, you are all cock munching rent boys, with an IQ that would make my local spaco clinic blush.
Fail to see why the internet has to be 100% junk conspiracy nonsense.MeDeFe wrote:Important? Meaningful? On an internet forum?
oic you were joking!
Norse wrote: But, alas, you are all cock munching rent boys, with an IQ that would make my local spaco clinic blush.
Well, if you took all the nonsensical crap Jay has posted here, you could condense it, then expose it to common sense. This would annihilate Jay's arguments and accelerate your ship far faster than antimatter ever could...MeDeFe wrote:Well, but for some reason I doubt we'll be able to work out nuclear fusion or find a way of getting to Mars and colonise the planet (project sponsored by Snickers(tm)) on this internet forum.
I should hope not too, sir!MeDeFe wrote:Well, but for some reason I doubt we'll be able to work out nuclear fusion or find a way of getting to Mars and colonise the planet (project sponsored by Snickers(tm)) on this internet forum.


I never said I don't hope for it, you have to admit that it would be funny, though. Mars is colonised! by Snickers...Stopper wrote:I should hope not too, sir!MeDeFe wrote:Well, but for some reason I doubt we'll be able to work out nuclear fusion or find a way of getting to Mars and colonise the planet (project sponsored by Snickers(tm)) on this internet forum.
Mars...
...colonised by Snickers?
The very idea! You seem to almost suggest Snickers is somehow superior to Mars! Shame on you!
i read your argument but i think what you wrote about genetical benefits of having a gay member of family is not valid. what you described is a social benefit, there are no guarantees that sisters will have more children because gay brother has no children of his own (and also important moment is that one family member has no children not that he's gay). a correlation between the two things described doesn't exist. nature has it way in controlling birth rate of it's own (maybe you heard of increasing number of male sterility in the world).Natali wrote:There actually exists evolutionary explanation for homosexuality. Group (family) can actually benefit (genetically) if one member is gay. Let me make an example:
Person A (heterosexual) has three sisters and they are all heterosexual. They will marry and raise one child each. That means that this family, let's call it A will have 4 children totally.
Person B (homosexual male) has three sisters and they are also heterosexual, but what is the difference? Since person B is homosexual and as such can't have his own children, he'll be able to help each of his sisters to raise one child more than sisters in the A family. Since each of B's sisters will have two children each that means that family B will have totally six children despite the fact that person B is homosexual. On the contrary persons B homosexuality is genetically beneficent to family B because they will have more children and more genes transfered into the next generation than the A family. Person B can help his sisters to raise one extra child because he doesn't have his own and as such he can divert his resources and time into raising his siblings.
Homosexuality isn't limited to Homo sapiens species only. There exists a subspecies of chimpanzees in Africa called bonobo, their whole social structure is based on sex. To put it simply they use sex as a way of reducing social tension. When any bonobo individual is annoyed or irritated he can just "hump" on his/her's clan mate and reduce the tension. Gender is irrelevant.
Conclusion: Homosexuality is perfectly natural phenomenon.

Natali wrote:I wonder if this could bother jay: two girls in the pool, all wet and naked, cuddling each other and kissing and they invite him to join. What would be his answer:
A) if yes - so gay
B) if no - OOOO! I don't think so!
JESUS SAVES!!!PLAYER57832 wrote:Too many of those who claim they don't believe global warming are really "end-timer" Christians.
Suggs, you are not the ideal model for the poster boy of normality. And as to the wet, naked girls in the pool, heh heh, well i'm not moral.suggs wrote:so its moral to be homophobic?
Stop being so frightened-be a man, and let men be men...
JESUS SAVES!!!PLAYER57832 wrote:Too many of those who claim they don't believe global warming are really "end-timer" Christians.
What other religions? And why is it wrong? Homophobia is as bad as racism. It's not choice, it's not their fault it's how they are born jayjay_a2j wrote:But being gay unlike murder, rape, incest and pedophilia isn't morally wrong.
Says you. Funny how Christianity along with most other religions condemn it as "morally wrong".