{ahem} Perhaps we should have stated specifically non-religious explanations, as they are the ones that are supposed to hold up in court.
Esprix, being not a big fan of “prophets”
Next time I want your opinion I’ll beat it out of you.
I do have a side note to this whole debate: why does the thought of man-on-man sex gives hetero men a case of the screaming meemies but the thought of woman-on-women sex give them the hots?
Bitch by Birth
The woman-on-woman thing is a very complex psycho-sexual thing, and been researched to death, but I have no idea myself.
I once conducted an experiment - I had two straight female and one straight male friend over, and they wanted to see some of my gay porn. So I popped in the tape and watched their reactions.
The two women just kind of went, “Eh, I don’t see the appeal,” and the guy had this befuddled, confused look on his face. However, there was one point where all three of them shrieked, turned their heads and went “Bleh!”
When two men kissed.
Sure, we can handle cocks and asses, but any sign of affection and its just plain wrong. There is something seriously wrong with this country…
Esprix
Next time I want your opinion I’ll beat it out of you.
LEt me clear the records here for Rousseau and Otto/Esprix;
I am not a troll, nor have I ever been. I am a person who like all others can become exhausted by arguing with the insane and those with MPD’s (Multiple Personality Disorders).
Rousseau your comment on association with me is quite poignant. I wished to distance my views and associations from that of Boomer, and havent made any comments or actions that you didnt concur with till now. Why now?
I havent been troll-ish, I have responded to Esprix/Otto in the militant and attacking way he has addressed me. All others have been treated well and heard out and talked to politely, to inlcude you.
Is that a problem? If so, do tell, because I dont want to think I have an ally or friend when what I have is a wolf in sheeps clothes. Deal?
For the record I dont find two women together erotic or arousing either. Been there, have had that in real life, wasnt all that. Its not what its all cracked up to be, and I dumped the woman after I saw that little “party”.
So dont call me “typical male” or “macho” either. Im just me.
Esprix, are you saying that the UU Church is a non-prophet religious entity? 
(Just to break the tension a little.)
That’s a keeper!
Tension? What tension? All I hear is this annoying little buzzing sound from a genus of insect called Trollus MarvinBoomerDiamondus. Easily swatted, but hard to get rid of.
Esprix
Next time I want your opinion I’ll beat it out of you.
Jab, jab, ad hominem attack, jab, ad hominem attack. Avoid, avoid, ignore, jab, jab,ignore, ad hominem attack, rant, attack, avoid. Start another fight.
Remind you of anything?
perhaps this:
Above is the strategy guide that Esprix/Otto subscribes to.
If there is anyone one poster around here that is Phaedrus, its Esprix.
Hence the multiple personalities fighting together. The ignoring of any amount of evidence or reasonable argument. The endless diatribes and writing style. The countless quotes used to attack, all taken and contorted, even out of context. The way that he attacks a person who tires and become bored with his mind games. Yes, its you all over again.
Now go away AGAIN!!!
This is what I said; I just used fewer words.
Since marriages create families, ruminations on the disintegration of families is not relevant.
Denial…if you have to say you’re not a troll…
Just curious, Otto: did you actually read the link before commenting on it?
thats like the 5th time someone has asked him that. Isnt it funny?
Ooo, someone’s learned a new word - ad hominem - and like any typical 2-year-old, we can’t seem to get him to shut up about it.
Esprix
Next time I want your opinion I’ll beat it out of you.
Hey, Diamond made it quite clear that he had an unreasoned antigay attitude resulting from an early molestation situation, which on reading, he rethought. You do need to hear the other side on these things – not everyone who disagrees on a subject is auto-trolling. 
And Rousseau is willing to debate rather than just trade insults, as well.
I think its even funnier that no one else has asked him that before, let alone 4 other people, proving yet again that MarvinBoomerDiamond doesn’t bother to actually read anyone’s posts, just rant and rave at people who have hurt his widdle feelings in the past.
I think that just about puts the cap on the whole troll issue.
For the record, Snark, I did read the link, and didn’t gather anything useful from it.
Esprix
Next time I want your opinion I’ll beat it out of you.
I’ve read policy statements from the Mormons on “the family” before. Don’t you love how these religious wingnuts never talk about families? They always talk about “the family” as if there’s only one.
Anyway, there’s nothing new in your link. The Mormons don’t believe that two people of the same sex can form a family. Awful big talk coming from the Mormons, who considering how enamored they are with “non-traditional” (read: polygamous) families, ought to be the last bunch trying to tell anyone how to be a family.
I think he believes that, since he’s convinced everyone here is posting under at least three different identities, if one person asks all of his personae are asking too.
So is this what militant gay guys do for entertainment all day long? Attack straight folks? Start threads and then set the dogs loose?
The two of you make a lovely couple. Ever considered that? Try it. Occupy each other and thus effectively remove both of you for a while.
But know that I will nto be going anywhere, so dont waste the time to suggest it.
oh and KEN, fuck you, you deranged flamboyant head case.
would “Il corpo” be a good replacement of “ad hominem” or does the whole idea of someone CHARACTERIZING YOU in two words bug you?
Otto wrote:
I didn’t say it was “new.” Does something have to be “new” to be true?
Actually, the Mormons haven’t practiced polygamy for over 100 years. But at least those who practiced it did it heterosexually.