Michele Bachmann Gay barbarians descend on Marcus and Michele Bachmann’s clinic

Look folks, i just posted this as news and nothing more. This is what happens when you are a politician and you come out so strong against something. If anything, it will help Bauchmann with her core supporters believe me... I personally believe that "being gay" is a sin and know more than one person that have repented and "become straight". I also know at least one person who refuses to repent and believes that "God loves him anyway".

My Lord has advised me not to judge in matters such as these. I will leave the matter between them and their Creator...
 
I can't watch the video, but it means you're bi.

Bi-curious means you think you might be bi but haven't acted on it. Most if not all of these people are bi to some extent, but doesn't necessitate that one acts on these urges.

Huh? Are you serious? Neither the fact that you can’t watch it, nor the content of the video, means I’m bi.

I think in Marcus’s terms, “being bi-curious and not acting on it” means masturbating daily to gay porn. LOL. But seriously, he all but states that he EXPERIMENTED in his youth, which would directly imply he “acted on it”.
 
Look folks, i just posted this as news and nothing more. This is what happens when you are a politician and you come out so strong against something. If anything, it will help Bauchmann with her core supporters believe me... I personally believe that "being gay" is a sin and know more than one person that have repented and "become straight". I also know at least one person who refuses to repent and believes that "God loves him anyway".

My Lord has advised me not to judge in matters such as these.

Then YOU should repent to your lord, because you just laid out two judgments.
 
So what if Marcus Bachmann had experimented? Maybe that's why he changed and thinks others can do the same.

Your use of “change” is suspect. The only “change” than can occur is to stop having (as much) gay sex. But this is no change in sexual orientation/preference. The concept of an adult changing his/her sexual preference is about as valid as them rising from the dead, ESPECIALLY when the adult is so obviously a biological gay like Marcus Bachmann. I mean it may theoretically be a teeny tiny bit possible for learned homosexuality (homosexual preference acquired through the generational cycle-of-abuse; often exhibiting no effeminate traits) to be unlearned; but even that is highly unlikely. You might as well claim a bird can UNLEARN his favorite song. And as far as potential therapies that might semi-succeed (horribly tortuous aversion therapies?), “praying away the gay” is NOT ONE (by magnitudes of orders).
 
LOL. Why would anyone care if a place offering a scam remedy was protested? I think it's great! I wish they'd do this to homeopathy dealers too! A scam is a scam...

...gay is NOT contagious.

Any guy who thinks there is a "temptation of homosexuality" is either gay or bi. Any "doctor" who thinks there is a "cure" for something that isn't a disease to begin with, is a quack...and should have the title of doctor revoked from them. I'd say the same of the doctors that proclaim marijuana to be "seriously addictive and dangerous", like that quack on TV, Dr. Drew.

I can understand (and I'm not trying to be insulting to anyone) if you view homosexuality as some sort of genetic personality disorder, wherein the affected engage in sexual behavior not advantageous to reproduction and the continuation of the species. I can't understand thinking it's curable, or even treatable, when it's GENETIC. If you don't think it's genetic, then you obviously didn't go to school with a Puerto Rican boy that talked and had mannerisms like a girl, jumped rope with the girls, and played with dolls when he could get away with it. I did. We went to a Christian grade school together, and we all knew he was gay in 1st grade. He denied it until he was like 20. He was a flamer trying to be straight, because he thought it was wrong. He came out, and everyone was like "who cares dude? We been tellin' you for years you're gay. How could you not notice, you walk and talk like a girl!"

This clinic scams people...therefore, it needs to be shutdown by a fair court system. Fraud is harm, and they are commiting fraud. The protestors only exist because a justice system has previously failed to act.

And don't give me the excuse "he really believes this works, so it's not fraudulent"...I used to have gypsy neighbors, and (sterotypically, but true) they told fortunes out of store front a few blocks from our houses. I knew it was a scam for years, but I was dating one of the their daughters, and she and the rest constantly kept telling me it was real to sell me on it...and they were obviously lying (not good liars either). One time I picked this girl up from the store where they worked, to take her out, and an old lady stumbled out crying. I asked my date "what's wrong with her", she replied "she was talking to her dead husband", and motioned in to the room where her grandmother met with clients. I'm like "how can you do that to people, just lie to them, and take their money, when you know they are emotionally unstable?" She replies "look, you really need to stop all this talk about 'it isn't real'. The bottom line is this is our family business, and you aren't going to stop us anyway."

I broke up with her right there and then.

Like I told her, I can't be associated with people who scam people with the law's protection. I'd rather be associated with theives and thugs, at least they aren't acting like it's okay.

People who run scams like this, whether clairvoyants, homeopathic medicine dealers, or "gay cure" doctors, are TOTALLY aware it's a scam. If they by some miracle are self deluded, they are mentally ill, and require a sentence to a padded room that is equal to the stay in a prison for a scammer. The family I lived next to for a year or two were knowingly scamming everyone they could, not representing it as entertainment, and took old people for a ton of cash. They left town soon after, not because the law gave a shit, but because the neighborhood (and zip code really) had turned on them, and socially they couldn't go anywhere anymore without a scene. Again social norms govern behavior, not laws.

If any of us wish to judge anyone, it shouldn't be people who cornhole other willing adults, it should be the ones cornholing you financially by scamming unwitting vulnerable people.


Good post. Not the reaction you were expecting, eh?
 
Last edited:
Then YOU should repent to your lord, because you just laid out two judgments.

Judging isn't sinful in and of itself. Learn the context of Scripture, please.

A good deal of nasty speculation and gossip is taking place regarding her husband and I wish we could stop perpetuating it here.
 
Last edited:
Then YOU should repent to your lord, because you just laid out two judgments.

Man you got me, I am soo hypocritical! :rolleyes:

Get lost… There is a difference between discerning for one’s self what is right and what is wrong and judgment of someone else. Maybe you are not as intelligent as you think you are…

In any case, don't worry about me as I am generally at peace with my Lord and when I am not, I am sure to make it right... ( As I am sure that you are genuinely concerned..)

God Bless
 
I'm reading a heck of a lot of cannon fodder here. If you want Paul elected then I suggest getting on with issues and not phobias.
 
Man you got me, I am soo hypocritical! :rolleyes:

Get lost… There is a difference between discerning for one’s self what is right and what is wrong and judgment of someone else. Maybe you are not as intelligent as you think you are…

In any case, don't worry about me as I am generally at peace with my Lord and when I am not, I am sure to make it right... ( As I am sure that you are genuinely concerned..)

God Bless

Ahh, so “discerning for oneself” is different than “judging”. I see. So which one are you doing when you imply a personal insult about my intelligence?

And despite your command to “get lost”, I will probably continue to reply.

(Readers: Once again the religious advocate is the first one to resort to aggression.)
 
I can't be associated with people who scam people with the law's protection. I'd rather be associated with theives and thugs, at least they aren't acting like it's okay.

People who run scams like this, whether clairvoyants, homeopathic medicine dealers, or "gay cure" doctors, are TOTALLY aware it's a scam.

You forgot to mention the many religious leaders who claim to talk to God, and con billions out of their desperate followers. And it is all tax free.
 
Ahh, so “discerning for oneself” is different than “judging”. I see. So which one are you doing when you imply a personal insult about my intelligence?

And despite your command to “get lost”, I will probably continue to reply.

(Readers: Once again the religious advocate is the first one to resort to aggression.)

Listen dude, you were the one to initiate accusations in this conversation. If you could not understand, that would be one thing but in my opinion you are the kind that does their best not to understand and I have little tolerance for your type. You go around accusing people of being hypocritical and or intollerant when you yourself are blind to your own hypocrisy and intollerance. Truth is, you care nothing of understanding me or my faith so what is the point of continuing this conversation?

I have much better things to do with my time from here out but please do carry on if you like....
 
Listen dude, you were the one to initiate accusations in this conversation. If you could not understand, that would be one thing but in my opinion you are the kind that does their best not to understand and I have little tolerance for your type. You go around accusing people of being hypocritical and or intollerant when you yourself are blind to your own hypocrisy and intollerance. Truth is, you care nothing of understanding me or my faith so what is the point of continuing this conversation?

I have much better things to do with my time from here out but please do carry on if you like....

I have not been intolerant or hypocritical. But you have now included more personal remarks. Apparently you don’t know the difference between disagreements and insults. Please educate yourself.

But at least you went from “get lost” to “carry on”. Progress.
 
Look, I've brought the study that says it can be seen physically. Now you and another person are refuting this and I even humbly claimed my ignorance on the intricacies of scientific methodology.

Remember my "duck" analogy? I'm not saying everyone who opposes homosexuality are homosexuals. I'm saying in this one specific case of a person with all these traits adds up to a homosexual. If he just walks like a duck is not enough to conclude anything, but when you add quacking, swimming, and appearance...well...

Suppression simply means you know it's there but you don't act on it. I don't know how you can say that people don't do that. It's a very basic thing.

You analogy is bunk as well. Sorry, but it really is. Talking about a duck inherently implies physical traits. Being gay is inherently non-physical. Even if you were to prove that gays had a slightly different "look" about them, that doesn't mean those with that look are always gay. Like I said, if someone is black, you can see that and recognize it immediately regardless of how the person acts. This is not so with gay people. Even if you had a suspicion, it would never be the same because being gay cannot be physically defined to a rule and is not obvious.

You also have to assume all of the traits of a duck which you speak of, automatically apply to ducks. Other things can waddle, swim, have bills, etc.
 
Your use of “change” is suspect. The only “change” than can occur is to stop having (as much) gay sex. But this is no change in sexual orientation/preference. The concept of an adult changing his/her sexual preference is about as valid as them rising from the dead, ESPECIALLY when the adult is so obviously a biological gay like Marcus Bachmann. I mean it may theoretically be a teeny tiny bit possible for learned homosexuality (homosexual preference acquired through the generational cycle-of-abuse; often exhibiting no effeminate traits) to be unlearned; but even that is highly unlikely. You might as well claim a bird can UNLEARN his favorite song. And as far as potential therapies that might semi-succeed (horribly tortuous aversion therapies?), “praying away the gay” is NOT ONE (by magnitudes of orders).

This is ridiculous. How can you keep saying sexual orientation is some ingrained metaphysical trait, when you have absolutely no evidence of this? People in the gay rights movement like to redefine things according to their view. Beside, this commits the is-ought fallacy. Just because someone is attracted to the same sex, doesn't mean that's the way it should be. It also doesn't mean that's their "nature." If I was attracted to drinking alcohol, would it be part of my nature simply to lay around and get drunk? Would that be "just the way I was born"? There is no reason to condemn the idea that people can change their ways if they are willing. It's just a result of the politically correct movement in this country that we now have to accept every lifestyle, no matter its moral implications, as something normal or OK. Political correctness only goes so far, but when it's used as an excuse to tell me not to uphold my moral Christian principles, I have problems with that.
 
If being bi-curious when you are an adolescent, AND EXPERIMENTING, means you are gay, then Marcus Bachmann is gay.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2nK1sskUG4&feature=related

I can't watch the video, but it means you're bi.

Bi-curious means you think you might be bi but haven't acted on it. Most if not all of these people are bi to some extent, but doesn't necessitate that one acts on these urges.

Huh? Are you serious? Neither the fact that you can’t watch it, nor the content of the video, means I’m bi.

I think in Marcus’s terms, “being bi-curious and not acting on it” means masturbating daily to gay porn. LOL. But seriously, he all but states that he EXPERIMENTED in his youth, which would directly imply he “acted on it”.

Oh good grief! I'm understanding you better and better. When something can be interpreted more than one way you pick the interpretation most insulting to yourself. Dannno was not calling you bi. He was saying that if someone is "bi-curious" and acts on it then that doesn't mean that this same someone is gay but that if anything they are bi. And Dannno saying "I can't watch this" either means that A) he was at work where he couldn't watch it for policy reasons or B) he was having technical difficulties. It could not mean he was squeamish about it. If there's one thing Dannno is not it's squeamish about sex. Hell he just posted an audio clip of a man talking about how his dog would "consensually mount" him. (ewwwww)

Please try to look at things in something other than the worst possible light.
 
Back
Top