Comments Thread For: Miguel Cotto Praises Orlando Cruz For Coming Out

[jtiger777]

everything is being efeminized... there is nothing good or exciting about a man coming out or about another man congratulating another one for coming out whats the big praise for??? smh

[jtiger777]

Originally Posted by Ring Leader

I really don't see a problem with homosexuality. Two people from the same sex having sex don't hurt me none! It's none of my business what two adults are into as long as it aint hurtin' anyone....am i right?

what if one of them was a little kid and the other was a preacher with a long robe on?

[Superflo777]

Originally Posted by jtiger777

what if one of them was a little kid and the other was a preacher with a long robe on?

So according to your logic if a little girl gets molested by an adult man that means heterosexuality is bad.

[Ravens Fan]

Originally Posted by chaos

Thanks for being honest.

I really wasn't going to respond. But I had to let you know that I am absolutely flattered by the fact that you think so highly of me that you actually believe that I would use a Latin term. Wow that is really special, thank you. I also need to clarify something for you. You stated that you didn't like that the gay lifestyle is being shoved down your throat. So I assumed that you just don't like to choke. And my comment really had nothing to do with you being gay. Thanks again for the kind words!!

[streetwaves]

This will be easy.

Originally Posted by chaos

Retards are commonplace too, but we can all agree that that's not the way it was meant to be. The problem with you pro-assbandits is that you can't accept that some people disagree with that lifestyle.

First, you compare homosexuality to retardation and claim that "some people disagree with the lifestyle". Is retardation a lifestyle? Major fail already.

Being born that way isn't an excuse cause they're still choosing to act on it.

Are retarded people born with mental disabilities 'choosing to act on' their disabilities? What a shoddily-put-together comparison. You shouldn't speak, it doesn't work so good.

Paedophiles are born that way too does that mean we should accept them for who they are?

Again, false equivocation. Pedophiles may be born that way, but unfortunately their nature is inherently different from that of retarded or homosexual people. Neither of those two groups hurt anyone. A pedophile, by its very nature, does.

Obviously it's wrong, that's why the majority of people are against it. The point I'm making is that some things are wrong in and of themselves. Just cause they have the right to live like that doesn't mean I have to like or agree with it. If being like that was "normal" then imagine everyone was "normal" and think what would become of the human race in a hundred years.

Let's follow your simpleton logic for a second. Apparently the litmus test for deciding whether something is "right or wrong" is whether, if the whole species were to do that thing, humanity would go extinct in 100 years.

Being a male is natural, what would happen if the entire human race was male? They'd go extinct in less than one hundred years, you imbecile.

What about being a blacksmith? Suppose everyone on Earth was a blacksmith. The race wouldn't last 10 years, because nobody would have any food, clothes, etc.

Apparently being male or a blacksmith is wrong.

The other stupid part of your argument is that it ignores the reality of what the eventual consequences of an entirely straight, procreative human race are: overpopulation and lack of adequate resources to support this gigantic population. This will be a real problem, and is nearly there in certain parts of the world. So, being straight is wrong?

Listen kid, get out of here. I find it rather fun to toy with your brain's inadequacy, but for your own good, go read some books and educate yourself before you make the rest of the world deal with The Kid Who Was Stupider Than the Others.

[chaos]

Originally Posted by streetwaves

This will be easy.


First, you compare homosexuality to retardation and claim that "some people disagree with the lifestyle". Is retardation a lifestyle? Major fail already.


Are retarded people born with mental disabilities 'choosing to act on' their disabilities? What a shoddily-put-together comparison. You shouldn't speak, it doesn't work so good.


Again, false equivocation. Pedophiles may be born that way, but unfortunately their nature is inherently different from that of retarded or homosexual people. Neither of those two groups hurt anyone. A pedophile, by its very nature, does.



Let's follow your simpleton logic for a second. Apparently the litmus test for deciding whether something is "right or wrong" is whether, if the whole species were to do that thing, humanity would go extinct in 100 years.

Being a male is natural, what would happen if the entire human race was male? They'd go extinct in less than one hundred years, you imbecile.

What about being a blacksmith? Suppose everyone on Earth was a blacksmith. The race wouldn't last 10 years, because nobody would have any food, clothes, etc.

Apparently being male or a blacksmith is wrong.

The other stupid part of your argument is that it ignores the reality of what the eventual consequences of an entirely straight, procreative human race are: overpopulation and lack of adequate resources to support this gigantic population. This will be a real problem, and is nearly there in certain parts of the world. So, being straight is wrong?

Listen kid, get out of here. I find it rather fun to toy with your brain's inadequacy, but for your own good, go read some books and educate yourself before you make the rest of the world deal with The Kid Who Was Stupider Than the Others.

Apparently it's not as easy as you think because your reading comprehension is lacking. I never said retardation is a lifestyle, the comparison with retardation is to address the fact that just because someone is born a certain way does not automatically mean they're normal. I've never once addressed in any of my posts whether I believe it's nature or nurture. I only use the retard example because it answers the nature argument.
The reference to "acting on it" has to do with the fact that even if they are born that way it doesn't mean they have to act on it. Being a f@g is one thing but no one is forcing them to live the lifestyle. Retards have no choice but f@gs have a choice. Paedophiles are the same, they're born that way too but have to decide whether or not to act on it. For you one is wrong and the other is right. For me both are wrong. The standard of whether something is right or wrong is not just whether or not it hurts someone. An incestuous couple is wrong and they're not hurting anyone. Some things are just wrong in and of themselves. You're just more liberal in what you'll accept but even you'd agree, unless you're a sick f_ck, that incest is wrong.
Your last argument is pathetic. Procreation between man and woman is what's natural, not just the mere fact of being a straight man or woman. So your whole blacksmith example is useless because it's based on a false premise. And don't even start with the fear mongering about over population cause that's the most laughable argument of all. I know you can't possibly be so stupid as to believe what you wrote, you probably thought you'd jot down a few smartass replies and give yourself a pat on the back thinking you got me, when in fact all you did is make yourself look like an illiterate jack@ss. Nice try kid.

[streetwaves]

Originally Posted by chaos

Apparently it's not as easy as you think because your reading comprehension is lacking. I never said retardation is a lifestyle, the comparison with retardation is to address the fact that just because someone is born a certain way does not automatically mean they're normal. I've never once addressed in any of my posts whether I believe it's nature or nurture. I only use the retard example because it answers the nature argument.

Yes, a better word would be natural. Stop playing semantic games you dumbfvck, you know what I mean. It's completely natural to be a homosexual because they developed as a result of natural processes in a natural world, period.

The reference to "acting on it" has to do with the fact that even if they are born that way it doesn't mean they have to act on it. Being a f@g is one thing but no one is forcing them to live the lifestyle. Retards have no choice but f@gs have a choice. Paedophiles are the same, they're born that way too but have to decide whether or not to act on it. For you one is wrong and the other is right. For me both are wrong. The standard of whether something is right or wrong is not just whether or not it hurts someone. An incestuous couple is wrong and they're not hurting anyone. Some things are just wrong in and of themselves. You're just more liberal in what you'll accept but even you'd agree, unless you're a sick f_ck, that incest is wrong.

If a homosexual is born that way, why should he expected to not live that lifestyle? You have an absolutely horrible way of explaining how homosexuality is wrong except for saying that "the human race would go extinct" if everyone were a homosexual. Damn, you might be ready to publish your first book. There are a million things that a person can do that if the whole world did we'd go extinct. That's irrelevant because the whole world doesn't them, for ****'s sake. It's a non-argument from an idiot online.

If your whole argument is that they're acting on their homosexuality, and if the whole world did that we'd go extinct, then my point still stands. You're condemning the action, not the "condition of homosexuality" by your own admission. So, in other words, if everyone chose to be a car salesman we wouldn't have food, houses, etc. and we'd all go extinct, therefore being a car salesman is wrong. ****ing idiot thinking you escaped that point. Actually, I'm convinced you knew you didn't and just ignored it because you freaked out.

In fact, in this paragraph you basically say jack sh1t as to why homosexuality is wrong. You merely say that pedophilia and incest are wrong. Pedophilia is wrong because it hurts a child who is too young to consent to what is being forced on them. An argument for incest being wrong is that it could be argued in virtually every case that one of the two people involved is being taken advantage of based on their relation to the other person.

Your last argument is pathetic. Procreation between man and woman is what's natural, not just the mere fact of being a straight man or woman. So your whole blacksmith example is useless because it's based on a false premise. And don't even start with the fear mongering about over population cause that's the most laughable argument of all. I know you can't possibly be so stupid as to believe what you wrote, you probably thought you'd jot down a few smartass replies and give yourself a pat on the back thinking you got me, when in fact all you did is make yourself look like an illiterate jack@ss. Nice try kid.

Dude, there isn't even an argument in this entire quote. All you say is "procreation between a man and a woman is natural" and the rest says absolutely nothing.

Procreation between a man and a woman is natural, so choosing not to have kids is immoral? I guess I'm going to Hell, then. I'm not too worried about it.

And yes, you retard, I do believe what I wrote. Apparently you think the population shrinking to the point of extinction is a problem but a million religious retards ****ing our way to overpopulation ain't no problem at all. Genius. Don't bother giving me this 'pro-procreation' pep talk, I'm not interested in your religious sh1t.

[damit305]

Couldn't help myself:

[streetwaves]

Originally Posted by chaos

You're not very good at this. At first I thought it's cause you didn't pay attention to the original posts but now I realize it's because you're just not that bright. I use the terms natural and normal interchangeably when it comes to being straight and procreation. It doesn't mean every straight couple has to have kids, but the fact is that most can if they want. F@gs can't no matter how hard they try, that should tell you something. An eight grade biology course will teach why it's wrong and unnatural but if you want to play stupid, be my guest, I'm not going to spoon feed you everything.

God, you're running on critically low intelligence. A biology course tells you nothing of the immorality of homosexuality and that's what the argument is here. If you're born with four fingers on one hand that may be 'wrong' in the sense of the word you're using, but I sure as hell won't go online condemning four-fingered motha****as. Apparently you would.

It's sad that you put so much effort into defending the acts of a few butt-pirates. And just as an aside, are you saying that incest between consenting adults is ok? Your answer will be interesting because it'll show that you're either a sick f_ck or that you do in fact believe some things are wrong in and of themselves.

I don't believe that the sexual acts of two truly consenting adults are of any real moral concern. My guess is that your basis is religious, which is stupid in and of itself.

Would I engage in incest? No, I think it's pretty ****ed up. However, it would require more robust argumentation to prove that there is something objectively immoral about it, if objective morality even exists. Want to go down that road with me? Something tells me your brain power isn't up to the task. I like to think my positions through rather than make lazy arguments based on gut feelings most of the time. I happen to think it's explained by the difference in our intelligence, which favors me.

[chaos]

Originally Posted by streetwaves

God, you're running on critically low intelligence. A biology course tells you nothing of the immorality of homosexuality and that's what the argument is here. If you're born with four fingers on one hand that may be 'wrong' in the sense of the word you're using, but I sure as hell won't go online condemning four-fingered motha****as. Apparently you would.


I don't believe that the sexual acts of two truly consenting adults are of any real moral concern. My guess is that your basis is religious, which is stupid in and of itself.

Would I engage in incest? No, I think it's pretty ****ed up. However, it would require more robust argumentation to prove that there is something objectively immoral about it, if objective morality even exists. Want to go down that road with me? Something tells me your brain power isn't up to the task. I like to think my positions through rather than make lazy arguments based on gut feelings most of the time. I happen to think it's explained by the difference in our intelligence, which favors me.

You're not very good at this. At first I thought it's cause you didn't pay attention to the original posts but now I realize it's because you're just not that bright. I use the terms "natural" and "normal" interchangeably when it comes to being straight and procreation. It doesn't mean every straight couple has to have kids, but the fact is that most can if they want. F@gs can't no matter how hard they try, that should tell you something. An eight grade biology course will teach you why it's wrong and unnatural but if you want to play stupid, be my guest, I'm not going to spoon feed you everything. It's sad that you put so much effort into defending the acts of a few butt-pirates. And just as an aside, are you saying that incest between consenting adults is ok? Your answer will be interesting because it'll show that you're either a sick f_ck or that you do in fact believe some things are wrong in and of themselves. (repost)