# gays have a purpose!



## stephengreen (May 6, 2002)

If you accept the notion that nothing happens in heaven or on earth without the lords knowledge or approval.then perhaps homosexuality in the human race isn't that hard to understand.
Through out history, mans population has been "culled" by war, famine and disease.By reducing the breeding portion of human society it would seem that god in his wisdom has found a way to achieve the same result but with out the suffering or misery.
God moves in mysterious ways?
Perhaps in this instance not quite so.
ORGY you can come out now theres no reason to be ashamed :-* :lol:


----------



## andy761 (Jul 27, 2003)

Very PC of you :roll:


----------



## L8_0RGY (Sep 12, 2003)

Was there any reason to post such a load of bulls**t??

What are you trying to implicate?

As no one has replied yet, i presume they agree with my opinion above.

Oh and Stephen, i think you're the one that should come out (in more ways than one) and stop hiding behind a computer screen or maybe thats where you belong.


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

stephengreen said:


> If you accept the notion that nothing happens in heaven or on earth without the lords knowledge or approval.then perhaps homosexuality in the human race isn't that hard to understand.
> Through out history, mans population has been "culled" by war, famine and disease.By reducing the breeding portion of human society it would seem that god in his wisdom has found a way to achieve the same result but with out the suffering or misery.
> God moves in mysterious ways?
> Perhaps in this instance not quite so.
> ORGY you can come out now theres no reason to be ashamed :-* :lol:


Moderator note:

SG please tread carefully. I am sure you have no real wish to offend.

If I thought you were being truely tongue-in-cheek in your post and that it was in turn reciprocated by the brunt of your joke, then fine. It does not actually come across that way. It rather looks like a highly personal dig - and we don't really want those do we? :wink:


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

As I don't accept the premise about the Lord, I can't agree with the reasoning...

Still... an interestingly "diverse" opinion 

But to be fair on stephengreen, many of the righteous church leaders have similar views, and (by and large) they arent considered offensive.

Many religious groups preach that homosexuality is evil.


----------



## Dotti (Mar 9, 2003)

Is PaulS a Homesexual?


----------



## Dont I Recognise You (Oct 10, 2003)

Abi - I'm assuming that is a serious question 

Which of course PaulS may or may not decide to answer


----------



## andytt (Sep 25, 2002)

interesting thoguht -

So you see 'gays' as a kind of "raining frogs" sort of thing - that it's god's way of culling?

What if it's just an evolutionary thing to eventually make women and men capable of breeding... therefore increasing the population and giving birth to more intelligent people (male+male genes are obviously more intelligent) and therefore making space travel a reality and collonising other planets come quicker?

Hmm... :? :roll: :lol:


----------



## Dotti (Mar 9, 2003)

andytt said:


> interesting thoguht -
> 
> So you see 'gays' as a kind of "raining frogs" sort of thing - that it's god's way of culling?
> 
> ...


Good point ...we would al be shagged out! :wink:


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

Soddom.... that's what I say 

:lol: :lol: :lol:  :twisted:


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

^Abi^ said:


> Is PaulS a *Home*sexual?


What's one of them then? Is it vaguely similar to the meals on wheels concept? :wink: I suggest you IM Paul and see if he cares to comment.


----------



## Dotti (Mar 9, 2003)

:lol:


----------



## Dont I Recognise You (Oct 10, 2003)

andytt said:


> What if it's just an evolutionary thing to eventually make women and men capable of breeding...


I think we've got that bit sussed already 
Though in some cases, I wish certain parents had not  *



> therefore increasing the population and giving birth to more intelligent people (male+male genes are obviously more intelligent) and therefore making space travel a reality and collonising other planets come quicker?


Minor problem with the offspring of male + male doing the colonising:
they would never find the right planet - and be dammed if they would stop to ask for directions 

(and don't even *think* about the use of the word 'colon' in this subject - PLEASE )

* such as my ex-in-laws :evil:


----------



## dimitt (Apr 21, 2004)

diry... LMFAO...

excellent


----------



## PaulS (Jun 15, 2002)

I can't really be bothered with this anymore.

Abi - no I'm not.


----------



## kmpowell (May 6, 2002)

SG, looking at your recent posts, i would guess you are 'G2EEN' that frequented the Forum a few years ago?


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

kmpowell said:


> SG, looking at your recent posts, i would guess you are 'G2EEN' that frequented the Forum a few years ago?


Hercule Poirot? :wink:


----------



## stephengreen (May 6, 2002)

was sat watching "corrie" when i asked myself why nature would produce a non breeding section of society. Thats the best reason i could think of.
as regards my post concerning ORGY i made the mistake that he was comfortable with his sexuality and it would be impossible therefore to be offended. and he would see it for the banter it was ( with appropriate emoticon to leave no doubt)
however as it appears my assumption was wrong, i apologise, and wish ORGY all the best in resolving any personal issues he may or may not have.
@GARY C
i think its a strange precedent to state homosexuality as "offensive"
when its become an "accepted" part of every day life
it was IMO more of an over reaction by a member of tender years however your warning is noted and you have my assurance that ORGY will be given special dispensation in any further posts that may require a conviction of character before reply


----------



## kingcutter (Aug 1, 2003)

garyc said:


> stephengreen said:
> 
> 
> > If you accept the notion that nothing happens in heaven or on earth without the lords knowledge or approval.then perhaps homosexuality in the human race isn't that hard to understand.
> ...


very good gary

tongue in cheek.


----------



## andytt (Sep 25, 2002)

^Abi^ said:


> andytt said:
> 
> 
> > interesting thoguht -
> ...


thats just wishful thinking..


----------



## Dotti (Mar 9, 2003)

kmpowell said:


> SG, looking at your recent posts, i would guess you are 'G2EEN' that frequented the Forum a few years ago?


I thought he was a reformed Sebastian Flaxsteed  :wink:


----------



## andytt (Sep 25, 2002)

why would nature create a non-breeding section of society... Would it be possible for gene's to know that they can't contribute anything worthwhile to the gene pool and resultantly change the mind to believing the person is gay and therefore won't breed?...

or is it the gene's detecting that this perosn can contribute more to society as a fairy godfather type person (sterotyping i know) than as a hetrosexual person?

dammit thats way too much thought for this time of night...


----------



## Dotti (Mar 9, 2003)

Take .....

[smiley=pimp2.gif] + [smiley=gorgeous.gif] + [smiley=deal2.gif] [smiley=guitarist.gif] [smiley=juggle.gif] [smiley=sweetheart.gif] [smiley=wings.gif] [smiley=whip.gif] [smiley=smoking.gif] = [smiley=baby.gif] then [smiley=sleeping.gif] [smiley=kid.gif] [smiley=stop.gif]


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

With the evolution of science even homosexual couples get children these days...if they are women, they find a sperm donor, if they are men, they find a surrogate mother or adopt.

So God lost this game and the population can carry on increasing. :wink:


----------



## stephengreen (May 6, 2002)

vlastan said:


> With the evolution of science even homosexual couples get children these days...if they are women, they find a sperm donor, if they are men, they find a surrogate mother or adopt.
> 
> So God lost this game and the population can carry on increasing. :wink:


the ratio of births per dirty deed is no doubt higher in hetrosexual couples 
than with gay couples.however if this ratio evens out no doubt GOD will have a plan B.
perhaps part of this plan would be to introduce a gene to make anal sex among hetro's more widespread and dampen down births that way.
my god vlastan you might be GODS prototype!


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

I have said this before in my infamous thread. Anal sex was used when contraceptives were not available, during the dangerous days of the female cycle. So nothing new here. :wink:


----------



## Dotti (Mar 9, 2003)

ROTFLMAO at you two :lol: :wink: .....and it's against the wall aswell because of Vlastan  :wink:


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

stephengreen said:


> @GARY C
> i think its a strange precedent to state homosexuality as "offensive"
> when its become an "accepted" part of every day life
> it was IMO more of an over reaction by a member of tender years however your warning is noted and you have my assurance that ORGY will be given special dispensation in any further posts that may require a conviction of character before reply


Stephen, just for clarity, if my polite suggestions to you have been perceived such that the subject matter 'homosexuality' is deemed "offensive", then my communication skills have failed me. For that I apologise. It is not the case about the subject matter and I don't actually recall stating or inferring that 'homosexuality' is offensive at any time.

However, perception can be a strange thing, and this should serve to clarify the matter for you. If you do have any further confusion feel free to IM me. But please be certain - NO precedent has been set. Just a gentle reminder about consideration for others.

Play on.


----------



## sonicmonkey (Mar 20, 2004)

I *must*
resist the urge to
press enter
after a few words.....
making postings difficult
to read


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

sonicmonkey said:


> I *must*
> resist the urge to
> press enter
> after a few words.....
> ...


e
v
e
n
h
a
r
d
e
r
i
f
y
o
u
d
o
i
t
l
i
k
e
t
h
i
s
!
:twisted:


----------



## stephengreen (May 6, 2002)

PaulS said:


> I can't really be bothered with this anymore.
> 
> Abi - no I'm not.


im reliably imformed that once you get through the "in denial" stage coming to terms with your sexuality is easier to accept :wink:


----------



## t7 (Nov 2, 2002)

stephengreen said:


> im reliably imformed that once you get through the "in denial" stage coming to terms with your sexuality is easier to accept :wink:


Brings back more school playground memories than the "Primary School Football" thread... :roll:

L


----------



## stephengreen (May 6, 2002)

t7 said:


> stephengreen said:
> 
> 
> > im reliably imformed that once you get through the "in denial" stage coming to terms with your sexuality is easier to accept :wink:
> ...


you were obviously one of the lucky ones who had any "issues" sorted at an early stage.Maybe some forum members weren't as lucky as you


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

Some chaps (friends of mine) were saying that I looked gay in the tight lycra pants and the sleeveless top that I were in the gym.

After this I was pretending to be gay fancing one of them and they shut it...funny chaps, they are only 19 after all. 

Having said this...I wouldn't dare wear the same thing on the street. :wink:


----------



## W7 PMC (May 6, 2002)

vlastan said:


> Some chaps (friends of mine) were saying that I looked gay in the tight lycra pants and the sleeveless top that I were in the gym.
> 
> After this I was pretending to be gay fancing one of them and they shut it...funny chaps, they are only 19 after all.
> 
> Having said this...I wouldn't dare wear the same thing on the street. :wink:


Thank fcuk for that!! :lol:


----------



## PaulS (Jun 15, 2002)

stephengreen said:


> im reliably imformed that once you get through the "in denial" stage coming to terms with your sexuality is easier to accept :wink:


That concept is sometimes true. I'm quite happy that it's not the case for me though :wink:

..........Cue Lord V from www.upthechuff.com, and ^Abi^ from www.titteringtarts.com ............

Oh, and by the way, stephengreen - _up yours_ :wink: 

(OMG, that must be my latent homosexuality showing through :roll: )


----------



## Dotti (Mar 9, 2003)

vlastan said:


> Some chaps that I saw curb crawling like hookers were saying that I looked gay in the tight lycra pants and the sleeveless top that I keep wearing.
> 
> After this I decided to 'come out of my inner self' to be gay and so decided to fancy one of them. Funny chaps, they are only 19 after all. I take the concept the younger the better as they virgin like and tight. 8)


Ah so that explains why you like A*%L SÂ£X so much Vlast! :wink:


----------



## PaulS (Jun 15, 2002)

^Abi^ said:


> vlastan said:
> 
> 
> > Some chaps that I saw curb crawling like hookers were saying that I looked gay in the tight lycra pants and the sleeveless top that I keep wearing.
> ...


Voila!

roflmao!


----------



## stephengreen (May 6, 2002)

PaulS said:


> Oh, and by the way, stephengreen - _up yours_ :wink:


 :lol: [smiley=thumbsup.gif]


----------



## Dotti (Mar 9, 2003)

Go for it! :lol:


----------



## jam (May 8, 2002)

vlastan said:


> Some chaps (friends of mine) were saying that I looked gay in the tight lycra pants and the sleeveless top that I were in the gym.


sounds like you might be a bit fond!!


----------

