
WOW!  Another Clayton wannabe.  Typical response: lack of logic.

Define 'deviant':  someone who deviates from the normal.  Ok, so far.
Define 'normal':   erm, umm.  If you define yourself as normal then it is for
you to prove that you are (within limits, which then brings in the question,
what are the limits?  For you we may have to broaden them to other's intolerance
;-) ) 'normal'.  Difficult to prove.  From what you have posted it must follow
that `normal` to you means someone without compassion and a sense of justice.
But it does look as if you went to the Clayton school of logic, doesn't it?


Again an astounding lack of logic!  Wow!

You must define what you say such that everyone agrees.  Here you have used
the phrase "sexual deviant".  How in the hell do you define that?  As someone
who does something sexually that _you_ don't?  By this definition you most
probably mean the majority of the planet.  How do you know that your next
door neighbour doesn't like custard to be spread over his genetalia then
have it licked off by his wife?  Is this sexual deviancy?  How do we know
that you don't like something sexually which others may find repulsive?  Is 
having sex doggy fashion a sexual deviancy?  Please be more specific, and
where you do, back up your claims.  Or I may have to go to hospital due to
laughing too much at yours and Clayton's postings.

Secondly, if we assume for the moment that the phrase 'sexual deviant' means
such people as homosexuals, bisexuals &c. (basically everyone you don't like),
I think that your phrase "do not comprise a `political minorit[y]`" (why the
brackets?) is a non-sequiteur.  Gay groups exist which lobby their governments.
That is a fact.  Prove it false.  Hence they are a politial group.  You 
state that they are not a political minority.  Are they therefore a
political majority?  I think you boobed really big on this one.  Try thinking
about your arguments.


Prove the first statement please.   Dates, phone numbers, &c.

Again your logic fails.  Again you make statements which you cannot
(and most probably will not) maintain.

You state that a person (girl, in this context) who considers equal rights
for all humans to be an airhead?  As Clayton (your best mate?) would say:
it just shows how screwed up you are.

 

Proof please.  Proof that homosexuality is not part of the natural order.
Proof that nature has always asserted itself.  Are you saying that nature
is a conciousness?  Are you pretending that you have the ability to see the
future?  Are you god(tm)?  In fact, by your arguement, are you waiting for 
the black people to become slaves again?  Because they were reviled as
sub-human (nb: *not* my view) at one time?  Again your arguement falls
on its ass.



Touchy touchy touchy!

Right.  I have shot holes in each and every one of your arguements.  You are
most probably going to put me in your kill file because you have no answers
to my questions and challenges.  Since you cannot support your arguments it
merely goes to show that what you write is based upon your personal prejudices,
and cannot be taken to be fact of any kind.

I await an intelligent response.....


