[nowheretorun56]

Beautiful but very sad. They had their whole lives ahead of them.

[Davis916]

I love the culture. Lets make California like Mexico. Bring more of these folks in. It may be a good population control.

[Ninjavandal]

Originally Posted by nstonerider76 ↗

Well, let’s propose a theory: What if everybody was gay?

Such a hypothesis turns nature on its head. For approximately 10% of the members of each of the 450 species, including Homo sapiens, in which same-sex behavior has been documented are homosexual. (Same-sex behavior encompassing sexual pair-bonding, parental activities, and courtship.) Ergo, same-sex behavior within these 450 speciaes is both innate and immutable.

For the sake of nstonerider76’s provocation, however, let us assume that it were possible for all human beings to become homosexual.

The simple fact of the matter is that being homosexaul does not preclude procreation. In point of fact, homosexual women and men have been conceivng babies since the beginning of our species.

Moreover, given that being born homosexual is a recessive trait, it happens to be a mathematical impossibiity for everyone to be homosexual. But, even if that were to happen, humankind would continue on because, again, homosexual women and men have been conceivng babies since the beginning of our species. Think about it. Have you ever heard of a lesbian or a heterosexual woman being a surragote mother for a gay couple? Of course you have.

Originally Posted by nstonerider76 ↗

And you can’t get a woman to 'carry a baby' for either a man and man couple nor a female and female couple. Because we know for a FACT than two men can’t make a baby, nor can two women, and no matter how many surgeries, a man will NEVER be a woman and carry, and a woman will never impregnate another female.

Yes, men cannot be surrogates for women. But, as we have just seen, women chose to be surrogates for gay men all the time, which is all that is required.

Related and recommended reading: https://www.amazon.com/Babies-Techno.../dp/0300215878

Originally Posted by nstonerider76 ↗

So that right there proves beyond a reasonable doubt, that obviously it’s not fuckin normal.

Nonsense. As the aforementioned fact that same-sex behavior has been documented within some 450 species shows us, homosexuality is utterly natural for roughly 10% of the members within each of those 450 species. It is, of course, axiomatic for the homophobic amongst us to assert the contrary smply because they wish to perpetuate the spurious notion that homosexuality is unnatural, but that simply is not the case.

Originally Posted by nstonerider76 ↗

And as far as your GOD bashing, no matter how hard man tries, he’ll never be able to replicate a perfect union of man and woman out of two men or two women! That right there proves beyond a reasonable doubt, that God aint that stupid!

“…[mankind will] never be able to replicate a perfect union of man and woman out of two men or two women.”

Perhaps.

Originally Posted by nstonerider76 ↗

So, I guess you believe you evolved from a fucking gorilla, huh? Well with beliefs like that you just might have, who knows.

No, I do not promote the notion that humans are desceneded from monkeys or from any other such primates due to the fact that monkeys and human beings are evolving along very different evolutionary paths, which serves to explain why monkeys are still monkeys. That is really quite elementary.

Originally Posted by nstonerider76 ↗

Or better yet, the big fucking bang theory, huh? Yeah, only thing that ever comes from ‘explosions' or ‘implosions' is complete disaster. Yet, this Big Bang created everything so precisely accurate; the sun rises and doesn’t fall out of the atmosphere and burn us all to hell; the ocean only goes so far and doesn’t engulf the dry land; and all the species of animals, plants, fungus, microbes, DNA, that’s all a fucking accident, huh?

So I’m debating someone who thinks that the Big Bang was an actual explosion or implosion, when, in reality, the Big Bang was anything but an explosion or an implosion. Wow!

Originally Posted by nstonerider76 ↗

Have you ever really studied DNA?

Casually - as someone who is not a scientist, yes. Yes, I have studied DNA. Given your less-than-a-tyro’s “understanding” of the Big Bang, nstonerider76, are we to believe that you have “really studied DNA”? I mean, you, sir or madam, are obviously not a scientist.

Originally Posted by nstonerider76 ↗

I feel so sad for your empty mindset. But a lot of atheists have gone off to prove God doesn’t exist, and oh my God, HE’S REAL!

In actuality, however, no amount of atheists have endeavored to “prove “God” doesn’t exist” simply because it is impossible to prove a negative. Indeed, with respect to proving things, the onus is upon religionists to prove “God’s” existence. That too is terribly elementary.

Originally Posted by nstonerider76 ↗

I don’t fear gays, homosexuals or whatever names they are going by these days, nor do I judge them. They are just confused. I mean, in every gay relationship there is a ‘man' in the guy and guy, and in the girl and girl. It like, you want to be with the same sex, but yet one of you plays the roll, if that’s not confused, I don’t know what is!

I think that as your rather atrocious writing and thus obvious lack of an education demonstrates, nstonerider76, it is you who is confused. Suffice it to say that the stereotypical thinking you have put forth vis-a-vis gay people is just that, stereotypical “thinking.” https://www.theguardian.com/lifeands...r-roles-chores

Yours in reality
Rick

[GiJoe7898]

damn, they could have made some great videos if they'd hung around for a few more years.

[paperpilot]

big boobs for 13

[FavaBeans]

They should be still playing with Barbie dolls and they are there hanging....You cant fix stupid

[Sharon]

Originally Posted by philovan ↗

"paedos" are defined as those who are erotically aroused by children. The problem is that "child" has no culturally universal definition. In many places such physically well developed specimens are not regarded as "children" at all.

Children certainly do have an enormous geographical definition but under USA/Florida law where the site is based, we all have to abide by the details given regarding posting and responding to subjects such as underage sex, pedophilia etc. Otherwise the site is in jeopardy.

A 14yo with an 18yo is now this 'Romeo and Juliet' thing which I suppose accommodates kids under their different sentencing rulings.

Florida's age of consent is 18, though the law contains a provision allowing 16- and 17-year-olds to consent to having sex with someone age 16 to 23.

To qualify for removal under “Romeo and Juliet,” the victim must have been at least 14 years old and the offender no more than four years older.

http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2016/775.21

[philovan]

Thanks for that info. I hadn't noticed that the site was based in Florida.

[soyadude]

If you love your children, just let them explore and enjoy life. As long as they dont get themselves killed or hurt/kill others, its part of the process.

[reaperman69]

Originally Posted by paperpilot ↗

big boobs for 13

I take it you like insane clown posse?lol