NationStates Jolt Archive

... No?

Maybe I'm missing a joke here.
Nah. I have a friend from Istanbul whose name is Bircan (except the c has one of those squigglies under it), so I thought there might be a connection.

They were requested mate.

Maybe I should have been more specific... I meant the recent renewal following the snipering of the APS fella. I'm an Aussie, and I happen to support Australia's actions (on that front at least), but I'd still hate to have to explain it to a five-year old.

Oh, and their inability to earn your narrow-minded acceptance no doubt causes them to toss and turn at night. :rolleyes:
Why not accept it as a compliment? Someone found you attractive - that's never a bad thing, right? The only reason I can see that such a thing would make you uncomfortable would be if some little quiet insistent bit of your psyche was muttering "Hey, I wonder..."
I swear, no offence meant by any of this.

Ever heard of a law against sexual harrassment?

Or does that only cover women in your little PC book?

Nah. I have a friend from Istanbul whose name is Bircan (except the c has one of those squigglies under it), so I thought there might be a connection.

No, but I have a barber named Dominic. :D

I was walking through the mall today, just finishing up a little bit of late christmas shopping. The mall was packed with people, individuals buying for their families and couples searching for gifts together. The line for the kids to take a picture with Santa Claus was almost out the door. There was a gay couple holding hands and window shopping at rings, then they continued on and kissed each other. RIGHT IN FRONT OF A LINE FULL OF KIDS GOING TO SEE SANTA.

As I passed by the line, I heard a boy go "Why did those two men kiss daddy?", I felt sorry for the dad that had to answer that question. How are you supposed to explain that?

And that's only the start, kids copy what they see, next thing you know they will be trying to COPY that!!

If Gay Marriage isn't banned, next thing you know they will be having to teach this shit to our kids in school!!

[parody] I was taking my kids on a jaunty little trip to Euro Disney in France, Micky Mouse was milling around giving hugs to all the little children, when suddenly two frenchmen walked towards each other arms extended and then OH MY, they actually leaned towards each other and kissed not only once but twice one to each side!!!

I heard this little american boy ask his daddy, why did those men kiss. Can you image, that poor father having to explain why frenchmen kiss, the horror at having to explain cultural differences to the young innocent child! Whatever should we do to rid the world of the french next thing you know they will try and great others of another culture in just that way! [end parody]

Lets get real...

:headbang:
diversity is a good thing no?

[QUOTE=Biercanistan]Maybe I should have been more specific... I meant the recent renewal following the snipering of the APS fella.


Id say thats why.


I'm an Aussie, and I happen to support Australia's actions (on that front at least), but I'd still hate to have to explain it to a five-year old.

Im Aussie too, and I support our troops anywhere.


Why, hes curious, just tell him what happenned.

Not in a gruesome way, but you dont have to sugarcoat it either.

Ever heard of a law against sexual harrassment?

Or does that only cover women in your little PC book?

Last I heard, it wasn't a crime for someone to approach another person with the hope/intention of conversation possibly leading to romance...

No doubt, sexual harassment should cover same-sex advances with equal weight to hetero advances. But unless Unenlagia meant that guys had been actually harassing him, as opposed to maybe asking him out for dinner or something, I don't see the relevance.

Ever heard of a law against sexual harrassment?

Or does that only cover women in your little PC book?
Wha? Who said anything about sexual harassment? Oh, right. You did.

Sexual harassment applies equally to gays. That means that you have to be able to make a case that it is, in fact, harassment and not a simple inquiry.

Im Aussie too, and I support our troops anywhere.

Good for you.

Why, hes curious, just tell him what happenned.

Not in a gruesome way, but you dont have to sugarcoat it either.

Yeah, well you're right, but I think maybe you're breezing past my subtext, which was that I'd rather tell my kid about love than hate and violence any day of the week. I don't really care what kind of love.

Yes, I know it's all Disney. ;)

Gays are only Negative because people are unsure of their own selves sexually, and they are afraid that if they can't make fun of the gays, then they will be the next ones to be made fun of. Well, to those people I say, go get drunk, and look around, everything looks messed up. Now, you get a gay guy drunk, and he sees the world messed up too. See, now you share something. Start from there and you'll realize that everyone is just as messed up as everyone else, and its through understaning one's own short comings and not blameing others, that they will be more secure in the world.

excuse any typos and such, tired.

It must really, really, really suck to be you.


That was uncalled for. It's not nice to make fun of retarded people.

[QUOTE=Biercanistan]Last I heard, it wasn't a crime for someone to approach another person with the hope/intention of conversation possibly leading to romance...

yeah well thats a big grey area sometimes now, if a gay man is told to piss

off, like Ive heard many men told to by women (myself included) in this

situation, then he should just accept it, how ever if he starts whining

homophobic etc then hes guilty of sexual harrassment.

Yeah, well you're right, but I think maybe you're breezing past my subtext, which was that I'd rather tell my kid about love than hate and violence any day of the week. I don't really care what kind of love.
Yes, I know it's all Disney. ;)

Sure, but he/she will ask questions, and sometimes the best answer is to let

them make their own mind up, kids are alot quicker than us.

Wha? Who said anything about sexual harassment? Oh, right. You did.
Sexual harassment applies equally to gays. That means that you have to be able to make a case that it is, in fact, harassment and not a simple inquiry.




So if gay person is simply told to piss off, he/she wont screech homophobe!

Right?

So if gay person is simply told to piss off, he/she wont screech homophobe!

Right?

Maybe once the real homophobia dies down, they'll feel comfortable enough not to. Do your part by just ignoring them.

Oh and parts =/= whole.

Edit: OH! And they might call 'homophobia', but that's not sexual harrassment.

So if gay person is simply told to piss off, he/she wont screech homophobe!

Right?
Frankly, "piss off" is not an appropriate response. However, if the offer was declined respectfully, then the gay person would be at fault for assuming homophobia.

Frankly, "piss off" is not an appropriate response. However, if the offer was declined respectfully, then the gay person would be at fault for assuming homophobia.

Exactly. In fact, if the response was "Piss off, queer" or something similar, then homophobia might be a justified call.

Sexual harassment is a pretty big topic, and out of the spectrum of this board, I think. What spawned this was just some retard who decided that he didn't like being found attractive by men, and that that constituted a valid argument against gay marriage.

lol fundies :rolleyes:

[QUOTE=Shaed]Maybe once the real homophobia dies down, they'll feel comfortable enough not to. Do your part by just ignoring them.

Telling them to piss off is ignoring them.



Edit: OH! And they might call 'homophobia', but that's not sexual harrassment.

What about, pressuring...

What about, pressuring...
I think that, by the point they've decided you're a homophobe, they've given up on wanting to date you.

[QUOTE=Pythagosaurus]Frankly, "piss off" is not an appropriate response.

Your right, I can think of a much better one.


However, if the offer was declined respectfully, then the gay person would be at fault for assuming homophobia.

Does this go for women as well, meaning no matter how many times some

poor chick gets hit on, she has to decline respectfully, no matter what?

Why should gays expect any different?

Pythagosaurus[/B]]I think that, by the point they've decided you're a homophobe, they've given up on wanting to date you.

Or better still, if they were intelligent, that I just wasnt interested in having

sex with men?

Does this go for women as well, meaning no matter how many times some

poor chick gets hit on, she has to decline respectfully, no matter what?

Why should gays expect any different?
No, she never has to respond in a respectful manner. However, if she doesn't, she has no right to respect it in return. And if the same guy repeatedly makes advances on a girl who doesn't want them, then he has no right to expect a respectful response. When it can be shown that somebody has gone too far, giving the same standards to homosexual and heterosexual advances, then that person is guilty of sexual harassment.

[QUOTE=Pythagosaurus]No, she never has to respond in a respectful manner.

Then why should I?

Or better still, if they were intelligent, that I just wasnt interested in having

sex with men?
Yes. However, you could just tell them that. It might make it easier for you.

Then why should I?
You don't. You're granted the same rights. However, you're also not granted the same rights that she is not granted.

Yes. However, you could just tell them that. It might make it easier for you.

That sounds like a threat.

Is it?

That sounds like a threat.

Is it?
What? No.

Think about it bud. If you make marriage legal in the the U.S., make a constitutional right or whatever for anyone to marry anyone.

People are going to get pissed and offended if their constitutional right isn't taught in school - the right to be gay and marry. They will be forced in schools to not only bring up subjects such as straight sex in the classroom, but also gay sex.

I believe if it was fully legal to have gay marriages, they should have to teach that if they teach stuff about straight marriages and sex...

What your saying is like "Sure, we made the black free, but lets not teach that in our schools!"

I don't know how you have had your schooling where you live... But for me (who lives in Sweden/Europe) I have had, as most of the last generations, lessons about sex and safe sex.. This includes questions being asked around gay sex and other stuff.. As far as I know.. no kid has been harmed and so far no Gay party has tryed to take over the nation...
Many of us here in europe are starting to think of you in the US as a third world country for your ways to push down people for their way to live... For me it sounds like something from muslim africa that stones young girl for geting pregnate befor marrige...

What? No.

It sounds threatening to me, either I kowtow down and be polite, or Ill get

called a homophobe.

Frankly, that really smacks of facism.

are starting to think of you in the US as a third world country for your ways to push down people for their way to live... For me it sounds like something from muslim africa that stones young girl for geting pregnate befor marrige...

I dont think its law to stone people for being gay in the US, try and keep

your arguements real.

It sounds threatening to me, either I kowtow down and be polite, or Ill get

called a homophobe.

Frankly, that really smacks of facism.
Yes, I suppose it does a little bit. I didn't say, though, that you would necessarily be called a homophobe if you're impolite, just that you would have no grounds on which to object.

However, saying that gay people have no right to call you a homophobe after you've told them to "piss off" is extremely fascist. So, it's fascist either way. I like the way where people are nice to each other.

Public displays of affection do embarass some people anyhow. Gays are no more negative than heteros in this case???

[QUOTE=Pythagosaurus]just that you would have no grounds on which to object.

No ground to object??

Is this law or something?


However, saying that gay people have no right to call you a homophobe after you've told them to "piss off" is extremely fascist.

I dont care what they call me, what my beef is about, is conditioned

responses to their queeries, no pun intended.

So, it's fascist either way. I like the way where people are nice to each other.

I dont agree, telling someone to piss off is just free speech.

I have no problem with nice, and if a gay man walked up to me and put it on

politely, Id probably be polite back, admittedly short.

However if say a gayman got just abit too friendly, a piss off would be well in

order.

No offence, but he would just be wasting his time, so why not make it clear

from the start.

It sounds threatening to me, either I kowtow down and be polite, or Ill get

called a homophobe.

Frankly, that really smacks of facism.
Termie, that's what we call "being an adult." if you act like a jerk in situations that do not call for it, and your jerkishness is directed at gay people, then you will be called a homophobe. that's not a threat, that's simply the truth...people will see your actions and respond with a certain name for those actions. since you are, in fact, a homophobe, why should that bother you? all they are doing is calling you what you are, and i don't see why you should take that as an insult unless you are actually ashamed of being a homophobe.

However if say a gayman got just abit too friendly, a piss off would be well in order.

No offence, but he would just be wasting his time, so why not make it clear from the start.

Aren't there more polite ways to make your non-interest apparent than "Piss off"?

And let's not forget - gay guys generally don't (except maybe in Sydney during the Mardi Gras) have a big neon sign over their head flashing "POOF!" For all you know, the guy who's being friendly is simply trying to be nice.

Breeders will always breed, because it is their nature. The homosexual free from the burden of procreation and child rearing will always lead, in art, literature, politics ,
Yeah, right. Just look at all those queers in politics. The true legacy of gays is the spread of AIDS across the planet.

Yeah, right. Just look at all those queers in politics. The true legacy of gays is the spread of AIDS across the planet.
riiight, and the hetro's legacy will be one of teenage pregnancy, its been found for like 100s of years, but 99.9% of them are from hetro matings ;)

Yeah, right. Just look at all those queers in politics. The true legacy of gays is the spread of AIDS across the planet.

I hope you're being sarcastic.

Or do you actually believe that AIDS is God's anti-rainbow Wrath in virus form?

Yeah, right. Just look at all those queers in politics. The true legacy of gays is the spread of AIDS across the planet.

Naturally. Since everybody knows that straight couples are completely immune to AIDS. Right ? *Especially* if they don't use condoms, since the church tells them to.

EDIT:
*wonders out loud what will really contribute more to the spread of AIDS.. homosexuality, or the Church telling people they shouldn't use condoms*

Naturally. Since everybody knows that straight couples are completely immune to AIDS. Right ?
*Especially* if they don't use condoms, since the church tells them to.
Thats right, cause the Pope doesn't have it, so it can't strike his pure self.....wait, that also shoots down the part about homosexuals bringing AIDS, cause then the Pope might have it ;)

at least some of his underlings would.

Termie, that's what we call "being an adult." if you act like a jerk in situations that do not call for it, and your jerkishness is directed at gay people, then you will be called a homophobe. that's not a threat, that's simply the truth...people will see your actions and respond with a certain name for those actions. since you are, in fact, a homophobe, why should that bother you? all they are doing is calling you what you are, and i don't see why you should take that as an insult unless you are actually ashamed of
being a homophobe.


But they can be jerks can't they Bottle, you would have no problem with that

I bet.

Dont bother sticking your dumb little PC labels on me either, they mean

nothing to me, as I dont believe they even mean anything.

Its just PC crap.

Good for you. Although you might find out one of these days that those PC labels are worth paying attention to - maybe when your gay coworker brings a sexual harassment case against you for telling him to piss off cause you don't like homos?

[QUOTE=Biercanistan]Aren't there more polite ways to make your non-interest apparent than "Piss off"?

No, its short and sweet and gets the message across Biercanistan, if they

have a big problem with that, then their obviously looking for a confrontation.

And didnt I already tell you, this is a response to being hit on in an agressive

fashion, but you have conviently chosen to ignore this, did you even read

where I said previously gay people being polite dont bother me, are you

reading this too Bottle, or are you putting on your little blindfold again, dumb

bitch.

And let's not forget - gay guys generally don't (except maybe in Sydney during the Mardi Gras) have a big neon sign over their head flashing "POOF!" For all you know, the guy who's being friendly is simply trying to be nice.

Like I allready said, pay attention also Bottle, I have no problem with polite

people, including gays, polite people dont get aggressive when they hit on to

you, its jerks... Bottle, that I tell to piss off, comprende yet?

Termie, that's what we call "being an adult." if you act like a jerk in situations that do not call for it, and your jerkishness is directed at gay people, then you will be called a homophobe. that's not a threat, that's simply the truth...people will see your actions and respond with a certain name for those actions. since you are, in fact, a homophobe, why should that bother you? all they are doing is calling you what you are, and i don't see why you should take that as an insult unless you are actually ashamed of being a homophobe.

but also being an adult is to hold to your values, even if they are the unpopular ones. I think the term homophobe is used too often. It used to mean a person that was scared or felt insecure about homosexuals, know it means anyone that doesn't see it the "right way" about homosexuality.

Good for you. Although you might find out one of these days that those PC labels are worth paying attention to - maybe when your gay coworker brings a sexual harassment case against you for telling him to piss off cause you don't like homos?


Actually, at least in the USA, you can't file sexual harassment for telling someone to piss off. To file harassment you must first inform the offending party that you do not like their comments, and then if they continue, a harrassment suit may be filed.

No, its short and sweet and gets the message across, if they have a big problem with that, then their obviously looking for a confrontation.

How can I put this... If some dude I worked with (or whatever) came out and told me to piss off for no apparent reason, or because he thought I was being a "jerk", then there would certainly be a f**king confrontation, and not because I'd been looking for one.

Terminalia bro, you need to grow up. And that's all I'm gonna say about it. Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good night. :)

Actually, at least in the USA, you can't file sexual harassment for telling someone to piss off. To file harassment you must first inform the offending party that you do not like their comments, and then if they continue, a harrassment suit may be filed.

Fair call, but I think you see my point. :)

Good for you. Although you might find out one of these days that those PC labels are worth paying attention to - maybe when your gay coworker brings a sexual harassment case against you for telling him to piss off cause you don't like homos?

Your not listening are you, I have worked with homos as you call them, in a

factory, I never told either of them to piss off for being gay, one of them I

didnt get along with much, because he was just so over the top sometimes

about being gay, it even pissed the other one off sometimes, who I got

along with fine.

I never abused either of them, we joked around sometimes that was it.

The piss off is about being hit on aggressively or repeatedly, is any of that

getting through yet?

Im just wondering, thats all.

Your not listening are you, I have worked with homos as you call them, in a

factory, I never told either of them to piss off for being gay, one of them I

didnt get along with much, because he was just so over the top sometimes

about being gay, it even pissed the other one off sometimes, who I got

along with fine.

I never abused either of them, we joked around sometimes that was it.

The piss off is about being hit on aggressively or repeatedly, is any of that

getting through yet?

Im just wondering, thats all.

So what he should be saying is that YOU could file the sexual harrassment, and he just isn't using the understanding to see it.

How can I put this... If some dude I worked with (or whatever) came out and told me to piss off for no apparent reason, or because he thought I was being a "jerk", then there would certainly be a f**king confrontation, and not because I'd been looking for one.
Terminalia bro, you need to grow up. And that's all I'm gonna say about it. Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good night. :)

You just wont even listen to what Ive said will you, its been repeated to you

in plain english, black and white, either learn to read properly or grow up

yourself idiot.

So what he should be saying is that YOU could file the sexual harrassment, and he just isn't using the understanding to see it.

Yeah why not.

Not that I would, if I got raped or something Id just go get a baseball bat

and remove their head from their shoulders when they least expect it.

I dont agree, telling someone to piss off is just free speech.
Calling you a homophobe is also free speech. Each is a reaction to a perceived offense.

I have no problem with nice, and if a gay man walked up to me and put it on politely, Id probably be polite back, admittedly short.

However if say a gayman got just abit too friendly, a piss off would be well in order.
This type of thinking, in my opinion, is the root of all problems in the world. Such and such person offended me. I'm going to be mean to him. I offended this person, and in return he was mean to me. I'm going to be mean to him. Such and such person offended me, and I was mean to him, so he was mean to me. Obviously, I should be mean to him. And so on.

It never ends. This battle between oppressively expressive gays and homophobes (not saying that either side is what I just said, just using the words they call each other) will not stop until one side decides to forgive and move on. It can start with you. Of course, you could decide to let them do it, since they started it in the first place. But they think exactly the same thing. Then, we can go back to the argument that I just made. Neither side thinks they're wrong. Otherwise, they wouldn't be acting the way they do.

I am an atheist, but I reserve the right to quote Jesus when he's telling the truth. Go to Matthew 7 and just start reading.

Your not listening are you, I have worked with homos as you call them, in a

factory, I never told either of them to piss off for being gay, one of them I

didnt get along with much, because he was just so over the top sometimes

about being gay, it even pissed the other one off sometimes, who I got

along with fine.

I never abused either of them, we joked around sometimes that was it.

The piss off is about being hit on aggressively or repeatedly, is any of that

getting through yet?

Im just wondering, thats all.

If ANYONE hits on another person aggressively, a "piss off" is most DEFINITELY in order, especially if the person has been turned down already.

[QUOTE=Pythagosaurus]Calling you a homophobe is also free speech. Each is a reaction to a perceived offense.

Accept all Im doing is telling someone to just go away.

If ANYONE hits on another person aggressively, a "piss off" is most DEFINITELY in order, especially if the person has been turned down already.

If anyone, male or female hits on you at work, repeatedly, after you've said No, you can sue the crap out of them and the company here in the US.

Think of it as a free meal ticket they're handing you.

If ANYONE hits on another person aggressively, a "piss off" is most DEFINITELY in order, especially if the person has been turned down already.

Ahh But not if said person is gay, that makes you a homophobe

then :rolleyes: bollocks.

I was walking through the mall today, just finishing up a little bit of late christmas shopping. The mall was packed with people, individuals buying for their families and couples searching for gifts together. The line for the kids to take a picture with Santa Claus was almost out the door. There was a gay couple holding hands and window shopping at rings, then they continued on and kissed each other. RIGHT IN FRONT OF A LINE FULL OF KIDS GOING TO SEE SANTA.

As I passed by the line, I heard a boy go "Why did those two men kiss daddy?", I felt sorry for the dad that had to answer that question. How are you supposed to explain that?

And that's only the start, kids copy what they see, next thing you know they will be trying to COPY that!!

If Gay Marriage isn't banned, next thing you know they will be having to teach this shit to our kids in school!!

Well unless I'm mistaken, it's common practise for men to kiss each other in some European countries, and face it, gays will start to become more and more common in public now more then ever, so we might as well get used to it, in 50 years, it will be as common as straight people kissing. Hopefully, I'll be dead by then, and besides, we censor our kids to much now a days anyway, we shouldn't hide things like sex from them.

[QUOTE=Latta]Well unless I'm mistaken, it's common practise for men to kiss each other in some European countries,

This is out of respect, not from sexual attraction, and I doupt they use their

tounges.

[QUOTE]

This is out of respect, not from sexual attraction, and I doupt they use their

tounges.
well maybe not the italians, but probably the french and certainly the greeks.

Accept all Im doing is telling someone to just go away.
print (('go away' == 'piss off') ? 'true' : 'false');

Perl says 'false', and so do I. And that doesn't even take vocal tone into account.

I like the way you didn't respond to the rest of my post.

print (('go away' == 'piss off') ? 'true' : 'false');

Perl says 'false', and so do I. And that doesn't even take vocal tone into account.

I like the way you didn't respond to the rest of my post.

It didnt rate a response.

well maybe not the italians, but probably the french and certainly the greeks.

Ernst Rohm, gay wasnt he?

It didnt rate a response.
..., meaning...?

wow, how very ignorant of you... congrats!

i think that people should be able to love who they want, whenever they want. and for those relegios people, they forget that adam and eve commited incest. one of them must of slept with there kids, or at least the kids with each other. it doesnt matter who you love, aslong as the love is shared

Well unless I'm mistaken, it's common practise for men to kiss each other in some European countries, and face it, gays will start to become more and more common in public now more then ever, so we might as well get used to it, in 50 years, it will be as common as straight people kissing. Hopefully, I'll be dead by then, and besides, we censor our kids to much now a days anyway, we shouldn't hide things like sex from them.

what so U want gays, not only being inmoral and unnatural this isnt correct for our society, the human species wasnt made for this, i dnt igve a fuk wot goes inside gay ppls head, it just isnt correct.

what so U want gays, not only being inmoral and unnatural this isnt correct for our society, the human species wasnt made for this, i dnt igve a fuk wot goes inside gay ppls head, it just isnt correct.
Well said.

Well said.
Well, I counld give a few pointers on how to make his case a bit stronger.

But maybe that's just me.

Well, I counld give a few pointers on how to make his case a bit stronger.

But maybe that's just me.
No, I don't think so. It shows no room for improvement whatsoever.

isn't the term "ninja dom" just s&m code for a top into japanese ropework?

Ummm, excuse me, dom and top are not mutually interchangeable.

Do you have proof that gayness isn't a serious mental illness?

I do. Go read the APA's website. They also hold that its not a choice. Do you have proof to the contrary? Didn't think so . . .

I don't think anyone seriously actually believes that being gay is a choice. It's just an extremely convenient way to dismiss it. We shouldn't judge conservatives too harshly for being lazy.

When laziness gives excuses for inequalities and discrimination, forgive me if I'm not too forgiving of it. Wow. . .too much eggnog I think.

Ever heard of a law against sexual harrassment?

Or does that only cover women in your little PC book?

It's only harassment if you continue making advances after they tell you its unwanted. Hitting on someone is not illegal yet.

[QUOTE]

yeah well thats a big grey area sometimes now, if a gay man is told to piss

off, like Ive heard many men told to by women (myself included) in this

situation, then he should just accept it, how ever if he starts whining

homophobic etc then hes guilty of sexual harrassment.

If he starts whining homophobia then he isn't guilty of sexual harassment. If he keeps making advances, catcalls etc., then he is and should be prosecuted. If the guy tells him to piss off, then he is guilty of being an ass--a simple, I'm not that way would suffice.

So if gay person is simply told to piss off, he/she wont screech homophobe!

Right?

Screeching homophobe is not sexual harassment--making lewd comments or hittong on the guy again is. And this gay person wouldn't yell homophobe if I were told that the guy I had hit on were straight, I would apologize and go on with my life.

[QUOTE]

Your right, I can think of a much better one.




Does this go for women as well, meaning no matter how many times some

poor chick gets hit on, she has to decline respectfully, no matter what?

Why should gays expect any different?


There is a big differnece between declining respectfully the first time (which one should do) but then having to stop someone from badgering you. If they continue to do it, you are justified in telling them to fuck off. Be nice the first time, civil the second, decent the third and then take the stupid idiot on if they don't get the point.

What we are saying is unacceptable is when someone comes up to you and you immediately personally attack them instead of being polite and giving them the chance to back down with some dignity and grace.

It sounds threatening to me, either I kowtow down and be polite, or Ill get

called a homophobe.

Frankly, that really smacks of facism.


It's logic. If you don't want to be called a homophobe, don't act like one. If you dont' want a scene made, then don't cause one . . . its all very simple.

Its like if you asked a girl out, if she politiely declines, no scene gets made. If she yells that you are a nasty fuck, then a scene is made. Its all in teh reaction.

Yeah, right. Just look at all those queers in politics. The true legacy of gays is the spread of AIDS across the planet.

Funny, since its hetersexuals who have it far more prevalently than gays.

I was walking through the mall today, just finishing up a little bit of late christmas shopping. The mall was packed with people, individuals buying for their families and couples searching for gifts together. The line for the kids to take a picture with Santa Claus was almost out the door. There was a gay couple holding hands and window shopping at rings, then they continued on and kissed each other. RIGHT IN FRONT OF A LINE FULL OF KIDS GOING TO SEE SANTA.

Yeah... so? Unless you also have objections to public kissing in general that you want to discuss -- which might be a little silly, but at least it doesn't discriminate -- there is no problem here.

As I passed by the line, I heard a boy go "Why did those two men kiss daddy?", I felt sorry for the dad that had to answer that question. How are you supposed to explain that?

How about, "Because they love each other." Seems pretty straightforward to me.

And that's only the start, kids copy what they see, next thing you know they will be trying to COPY that!!

So? Not that they should be kissing girls at that age either... but sooner or later, they are going to kiss someone. And who are you to decide ahead of time whom they should love?

I once heard a little girl ask her mother, "Mommy, am I going to marry a man or a woman?" I thought it was the most wonderful thing in the world!

but also being an adult is to hold to your values, even if they are the unpopular ones. I think the term homophobe is used too often. It used to mean a person that was scared or felt insecure about homosexuals, know it means anyone that doesn't see it the "right way" about homosexuality.

Actually phobia is often misused to mean fear--instead a phobic really means "hating". Someone who hates gays is homophobic. I've spoken with Term enough to know that he is homophobic. I will give him credit for sticking up for what he believes in--indeed I will even respect him for it and wish him a Merry Christmas. Still, that doesn't mean I like what he believes in or that I think he is a decent person overall (though he might be, it takes far more than one issue to make a decent person).

first off - hooray for slippery slope!

Second - it might be good for the kid to open his mind. You don't see me yelling that Christians are a bad influence every time they start a war.

hypocrite

[QUOTE]

Accept all Im doing is telling someone to just go away.


I thinkt he problem here is a misunderstanding Term . You made it sound like a gay guy asks you to dinner and you immediately respond "piss off fag". If your first response was "Sorry, not interested, I'm straight" that's great. If your response is "piss off" after he repeatedly hits on you, no one would blame you for that.

Ahh But not if said person is gay, that makes you a homophobe

then :rolleyes: bollocks.


What makes you a homophobe is when you immediately start calling names without even giving them a chance to back down after you say no.

I think PDA where kids are in general is bad influence on kids.

Actually. This whole "gay" thing has kind of become a fad.

I don't know why. But everyone seems to think they're gay now...

At least in my school.

Secondly...I love how "Christianity" is brought up in like everything...

Usually in a negative sense too...

Sarcastically speaking of course.

Thanks and Merry Christmas to you too Grave, have you got anything good

yet?

So far I have scored an Art Easel, and Ricky Pontings 'World Cup Diary' :)


I believe in the stone age, as I believe Adam and Eve etc came before it.

I dont think the world is 6,000 years old either, but the garden account in

the Bible I think is based on a real event.

Scored a nice black 'trendy' top, and a cool book of 'Dr Frankenstein's Notebook', so far.

How do you account for the stone age following Adam and Eve, when the angel on the gates of eden carries a sword? Swords = metal work...

Interestingly - I also believe the Eden account is based on truth - I just think that most of it is metaphor, and that it was never designed to be read as though Adam and Eve were the ONLY two people.

(Look at the Hebrew... it all becomes clear).

Well... I call it logic. Your rebuttal, however, is quite illogical.

You are correct that any normal functioning human being is capable of reproduction, but it is only through sexual[3] (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sexual) reproduction, that we actually procreate. Perhaps a confused individual like yourself can easily change your sexual nature, but my own gay friends have convinced me that it is in fact nature and not nurture that dictates their orientation. They tell me that they find women as unattractive to themselves as I do men to myself. If so, I find it hard to believe that they WOULD even if they COULD.

And how did I miss this? Reread my post; I said monogamy; I never mentioned hetero or homo at all if my statement regarding this statistic. Please do not put words in my mouth.

The point is - sexual reproduction IS possible for homosexuals... they just have to have sex with the opposite gender to do it.

They might not WANT to, but they could.

If, for example, there were only 'gay' people left on the planet, and they wanted a next generation, some of the 'gay' men could impregnate some of the 'gay' women. Obviously - there would be no attraction there, since that isn't the way they 'lean', but the biological process is still POSSIBLE.

Why do you assume I am a confused individual? Do you know me? You don't know my gender... you don't know my orientation... you don't know if I am single or married (straight or gay). You are making assumptions, my friend.

I happen to have two close personal friends that are lesbians. They have a twelve year old son. Where did the son come from? One of them had sex with a man, obviously. She might not have WANTED a man, but she did WANT a child.

Surely this is easy enough for you to understand, now?


Regarding last line: yes you did say monogamy, but it was a clause in a sentence about heterosexuality. If you wanted to point out it was separate from you 'heterosexuality = normal' campaign, you should have left it separate.

No matter how you try to argue the question either from a Christian stand point or from an athiest scientific standpoint it is wrong to be gay. Gay people do not support the continuation of the human race. The best they can do is to adopt or artificially inseminate which putting aside all moral arguments will amount to the same thing if in turn their descendants opt for the same path. Society is built on universal truths. If being gay were a universal truth then the world would die in one generation.......

As a preface to this post, let me just say that I'm a Christian with several gay friends - I have no quarrel with civil unions, and I don't see what would be wrong with gay marriage OUTSIDE of the church (after all...many people HAVE been getting married outside of the church for years in courts, etc. - hence the argument that marriage in America is a solely religious institution is foolish). However, I fervently believe that gay marriage can not be allowed inside the Christian church, just as marriage into adultery or polygamy cannot be allowed.

But your argument just plain sucks. It is an overused argument and it can easily be shot down.

What about heterosexual couples who are infertile? They are not supporting the continuation of the human race because they can't have children themselves! The same goes for single people who remain celibate - they aren't supporting the continuation of the human race, either! Perhaps we shouldn't allow infertile people to exist, and perhaps we should force sex on everyone so we can all support the continuation of the human race together! What your argument implies is that reproduction and fertility are universal truths. They obviously are not, and your argument has just been decimated.

Think your arguments out, people, or else you aren't supporting the continuation of the human race.

and I don't see what would be wrong with gay marriage OUTSIDE of the church (after all...many people HAVE been getting married outside of the church for years in courts, etc. - hence the argument that marriage in America is a solely religious institution is foolish)
Well, anyone can be married in a church. As long as it has no legal status, anyone or -thing can marry anyone or -thing. My parents were married in my grandmother's basement, and they're legally married, though not religiously.

*sigh*

Unlike religion, musical preference or ideology, sexual preference is not a learned behavior or a life choice. It's something you are born with, much like race. You can cover your eyecolor with contacts, dye your hair and bleach or dye your skin, but you remain, essentially, what you were born to be racially. You can force yourself to sexual acts with something you do not find attractive, but you still retain the biological urge that you were born with.

If a person is attracted to the opposite sex, when they mature, they will be happy and satisfied only when they are mated with the appropriate person of the opposite sex. If that person were born being attracted to the same sex, the same conditions apply. They can only find their comfort and happiness with the right person of their own gender.

What gives any one of you or anyone, for that matter, the right to deprive another person of the right to the comfort and fulfillment of loving the person they are meant to love? How would any of you feel if expressing your love and desire for the One YOU chose as your life's mate caused a large percentage of your local population to treat you so poorly and so shamefully? How would you respond to having to hide an essential and unchangeable part of your being to prevent being denied everything you now take for granted? How would you like being physically and verbally assaulted for being openly in love with your partner?

I don't think any of you would appreciate it very much at all. I know what gay people go through at the hands of people like those of you who so loudly and viciously condemn them.

I know because people treat me in a very similar fashion because of COSMETIC choices I have made. People who don't know me assume because my hair is blue and purple, because my arms are tattooed with bright (and I must add TASTEFUL) artwork and because my nose and lower lip are pierced that I am dangerous to their children, that I am mentally inferior, that I am morally bankrupt and that I am evil. I endure completely shameful treatment from so-called normal, decent, godfearing people every time I go outside my own neighborhood.

I am a highly skilled, well-educated, rational, POLITE and extremely ethical (to the point where these so-called honest, ethical persons find it inconvenient and uncomfortable) mature adult woman. Unlike so many of these pathetic hypocrites, I do not base my treatment of others on their exterior appearance, their declared religion, their sexual preferences or their genetic heritage. I judge and treat EVERYONE on the same basis and yardstick: BY THEIR ACTIONS. I give them respect, politeness, courtesy and kindness until they prove they are not worthy of it... which very sadly all too often is until the time that they open their mouths or do something nasty to either myself or to someone else in my presence.

At which time, unlike most GAY people I know, I reward them with what they have shown is their preference. Distain. You hypocritical, smallminded, selfish, vicious little people who DARE to assign guilt, intolerance and disgust on a group of people based SOLELY on the fact that their sexual preference is not yours should get down on your collective knees and thank whatever god it is you pray to that these people you so readily despise have more heart and decency than you can aspire to possess and don't reward you as I would -- in kind.

I suspect, in your heart of hearts, your hatred and intolerance stems not from your professed love of God, not from your spurious, ignorant and animalistic beliefs that every living human on this planet MUST produce offspring to preserve the species or even some misguided, flawed distaste with their supposed mental defects -- but from your absolute stupid, senseless terror of anything or anyone you don't understand and your blind xenophobic hatred of anything or anyone that is not just like you. Which in the end is even more pathetic and less palatable than your weak, empty arguements.

Merry effing XMas, you worthless wastes of skin.

..., meaning...?

I had better posts to respond too, and too little time, sorry.

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]Scored a nice black 'trendy' top, and a cool book of 'Dr Frankenstein's Notebook', so far.

Great, I also just got too sable hair brushes, the best for painting.

How do you account for the stone age following Adam and Eve, when the angel on the gates of eden carries a sword? Swords = metal work...

A flaming sword actually, no mention of any metalwork, if your into Von

Danikens theorys of human history on this planet, the flaming sword was a

laser beam, like a light saber, so to speak.

And Adam and Eve would have been reduced to the stone age as they left

the garden with nothing.

Interestingly - I also believe the Eden account is based on truth - I just think that most of it is metaphor, and that it was never designed to be read as though Adam and Eve were the ONLY two people.

Never the less, I think they existed, whatever their names were.

(Look at the Hebrew... it all becomes clear).

Whys that?

I cant even read hebrew.

The thing here is that the guy's using irrelevant evidence against gay marriage. What does any of this have to do with marriage?

Absolutely nothing. Oh, and Merry [insert name of your favorite holiday of the 25th of december] to you all!

I don't even see how that resembled a threat from here...

I didnt mean Pythagosaurus was threatening me, sorry thag.

I was referring too gays and their supporters using PC too support their

actions and beliefs.

Whys that?
I cant even read hebrew.

Reading a literary work in its original language is a world of difference from reading translations. Some words don't even have modern equivalents. Hell, at the UN there are often times great trouble translating between two prevalent, modern languages. Reading the Bible in the original Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic can lend a whole new--and true--understanding of it.

I didnt mean Pythagasaurus was threatening me, sorry buddy. I was referring too gays and their supporters using PC too support their
actions and beliefs.

Let me just warn those of you who will choose to debate with Term. He does not think that anyone who disagrees with him can do so because they can think for themselves. Instead, we are all just mindless PC drones (though I've asked before and he's never been able to give me a true definition for what he thinks PC is). Just wanted to give a heads up before it makes you angry.

Honestly, tolerance is the first mode that we are born in, all my little cousins asked recently (not all at once, just over the course of a few years as they became more cogniscient of the world around them) why it was bad for boys and boys and girls and girls to get married, my aunts and uncles were bewildered at this stuff, i did too, assume that it was normal until i was about six and my mom said "marky, now, dont you ever let me catch you with another boy" and...i had no idea why it was such a deal, much less a big one.


So, what im trying to say is this, the kids seeing the dudes making out probably thought nothing of it unless their parents made a hubbub about it, (which they doubtlessly did)

Honestly, tolerance is the first mode that we are born in, all my little cousins asked recently (not all at once, just over the course of a few years as they became more cogniscient of the world around them) why it was bad for boys and boys and girls and girls to get married, my aunts and uncles were bewildered at this stuff, i did too, assume that it was normal until i was about six and my mom said "marky, now, dont you ever let me catch you with another boy" and...i had no idea why it was such a deal, much less a big one.


So, what im trying to say is this, the kids seeing the dudes making out probably thought nothing of it unless their parents made a hubbub about it, (which they doubtlessly did)

So what you're saying is that, not only is homosexuality not a "choice" or form of learned behaviour, it is in fact homophobia that is a learned behaviour.

Yeah, I'll pay that. Nice. :)

So what you're saying is that, not only is homosexuality not a "choice" or form of learned behaviour, it is in fact homophobia that is a learned behaviour.

Yeah, I'll pay that. Nice. :)

Bollocks.

How isnt being brainwashed by the media and education system from an early

age to not even question homosexuality, for risk of being labeled a

homophobe, not also a learned behaviour?

I like your style. You're very good at sticking words into other's mouths.
Where did Bottle state that he/she would have no problem with homosexuals being jerks?
Before you try to use that in a logical argument, you'd best wait til he/she states that...

No I can tell you right now, Bottle likes to play games, she knows what I'm

talking about.

What I mean is, even though (unless she didnt read the particular posts,

which I highly doupt) I stated clearly, in two posts, that I had no problem

getting hit on by a polite gay dude, that me telling a gay person to get lost,

so to speak, was usually if the person in question is either persistant, or just

being threatening or rude, she chose of course ,to convieniently ignore that,

and make me out to be aggressive towards gay people approaching me, no

matter what, so she lies about people.

but thats nothing new from her, like I said, she plays dumb games.

Reading a literary work in its original language is a world of difference from reading translations. Some words don't even have modern equivalents. Hell, at the UN there are often times great trouble translating between two prevalent, modern languages. Reading the Bible in the original Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic can lend a whole new--and true--understanding of it.

Hebrew looks like chicken scratches too me, but I'll do my best.

Bollocks.

How isnt being brainwashed by the media and education system from an early

age to not even question homosexuality, for risk of being labeled a

homophobe, not also a learned behaviour?


How is being taught by the church to believe that homosexuals are deviant sinners not a learned behavior?

And for that matter--is your sexuality a learned behavior? Could you learn to love and lust after men?

I suspect, in your heart of hearts, your hatred and intolerance stems not from your professed love of God, not from your spurious, ignorant and animalistic beliefs that every living human on this planet MUST produce offspring to preserve the species or even some misguided, flawed distaste with their supposed mental defects -- but from your absolute stupid, senseless terror of anything or anyone you don't understand and your blind xenophobic hatred of anything or anyone that is not just like you. Which in the end is even more pathetic and less palatable than your weak, empty arguements.

Merry effing XMas, you worthless wastes of skin.
Bravo, Booslandia! That was probably the best post I have seen on this board. You have earned my greatest respect. I wish I could even come close to your eloquence...

And for that matter--is your sexuality a learned behavior? Could you learn to love and lust after men?

If men can grow up believing they are straight and then suddenly come to realize they are gay (Or vice versa), then probably so.

:fluffle:

nothing wrong with guys kissing

Sweet Jesus, help us! Oh, God forbid our children become...tolerant! :eek:

Gee whiz, I reckon we better keep them faggots away from our kids. First it was them black folk trying to corrupt our youngins, and look what's come of that! I tell ya, you give one bunch of sinners rights and pretty soon everyone wants them.

Let's all bow our heads and thank our Savior, George W. Bush, for his holy crusade against the faggots. Amen.

Sweet Jesus, help us! Oh, God forbid our children become...tolerant!

Gee whiz, I reckon we better keep them faggots away from our kids. First it was them black folk trying to corrupt our youngins, and look what's come of that! I tell ya, you give one bunch of sinners rights and pretty soon everyone wants them.

Let's all bow our heads and thank our Savior, George W. Bush, for his holy crusade against the faggots. Amen.

Love the sinner hate the sin, that's what I do.

Note how it's this very leftist here who goes on a tirade calling people faggots. I've never used that word toward anyone.

Nor have I found anyone on the right willing to accept George W. Bush as their savior. I accept Jesus Christ as mine. Perhaps because the above is so threatened by the current President that they feel the need to pretend he represents something other than the country's figurehead.

Though I'll be happy to call somebody like the above a total bitch.

hah, I did once find it hilarious when a friend tried to tell me that homosexuality was genetic....yeah, their parents homosexuality was passed down to them..oh wait, they can't genetically have kids with eachother...but gays can be gay as much as they want, just as long as they don't try to include me I'm ok with them.

What a f***ing nazi...

What a f***ing nazi...
And you're a jackass. You couldn't even come up with a rebuttal. People want to debate so debate. You wanna write somebody off with generic terms, then go the f*ck away you f***ing moron.

Love the sinner hate the sin, that's what I do.

Note how it's this very leftist here who goes on a tirade calling people faggots. I've never used that word toward anyone.

Nor have I found anyone on the right willing to accept George W. Bush as their savior. I accept Jesus Christ as mine. Perhaps because the above is so threatened by the current President that they feel the need to pretend he represents something other than the country's figurehead.

Though I'll be happy to call somebody like the above a total bitch.

A) I think being a "faggot" gives me the right to use that word, dearest. :)

B) Ummm...I don't think you really got the "George W. Bush" joke...I'll give you a day or two. (Doesn't threaten me; I'm going to France!)

C) Can guys be bitches?

P.S. I'm just a little offended by being called a "sinner" because of how I was born. Shouldn't baptism take care of that? And I know, "Blah blah blah, it's a choice," says the homophobe, but HELLO, I don't think you know whether it's a choice or not if you've *never been gay*!

Tschüss, Täubchen.

A) I think being a "faggot" gives me the right to use that word, dearest.
I see. So you're allowed to use special words while nobody else is allowed. So the whole equality thing to you doesn't mean a thing? Fine. Keep your words and we'll keep marriage. You want to take but not give.

B) Ummm...I don't think you really got the "George W. Bush" joke...I'll give you a day or two. (Doesn't threaten me; I'm going to France!)
Bon voyage to France. I'll take two days and while I'm doing that you can learn to be straight again.

C) Can guys be bitches?
Of course they can. They're made in prison all the time.

P.S. I'm just a little offended by being called a "sinner" because of how I was born. Shouldn't baptism take care of that? And I know, "Blah blah blah, it's a choice," says the homophobe, but HELLO, I don't think you know whether it's a choice or not if you've *never been gay*!

I'm offended by your GW Bush joke and stereotyping of Republicans but that doesn't matter to you, does it? By the way, I have homosexual co workers, a family member, and even a couple of friends. I don't advocate their destruction nor do I fear them. So why call me a homophobe? Your own argument defeats itself.... so if you've always been gay, then how do you know it's a choice either? You could try being straight.

Yes they can be bitches

I see. So you're allowed to use special words while nobody else is allowed. So the whole equality thing to you doesn't mean a thing? Fine. Keep your words and we'll keep marriage. You want to take but not give.


Bon voyage to France. I'll take two days and while I'm doing that you can learn to be straight again.


Of course they can. They're made in prison all the time.

A) No, I believe anyone should use that word as long as they use it nicely, like I did. Regardless of sexual orientation. That's pretty equal, yes? :)

B) Well, I've never been straight, so I don't know how I could be again...do you know where I could take a Straight 101 class?

C) Sorry, Prison, never been there...well, next time you're there, I'm sure you'll get your chance. :)

A) No, I believe anyone should use that word as long as they use it nicely, like I did. Regardless of sexual orientation. That's pretty equal, yes?
No it wasn't very nice now was it? You do know where that word originated from, don't you?

B) Well, I've never been straight, so I don't know how I could be again...do you know where I could take a Straight 101 class?
So your whole argument of me not knowing whether or not it's a choice because I've never been gay is defeated by admitting you've never been straight.

C) Sorry, Prison, never been there...well, next time you're there, I'm sure you'll get your chance.

How cute. Judge me however you want, but I'm still me and I've never been to prison or even gotten a speeding ticket.

No it wasn't very nice now was it? You do know where that word originated from, don't you?


So your whole argument of me not knowing whether or not it's a choice because I've never been gay is defeated by admitting you've never been straight.



How cute. Judge me however you want, but I'm still me and I've never been to prison or even gotten a speeding ticket.

A) I hardly think that gay people can be offended by another gay person using that word.

B) I know it's not a choice BECAUSE I was never straight...I never was given a choice.

C) Yay! Me neither.

Your own argument defeats itself.... so if you've always been gay, then how do you know it's a choice either? You could try being straight.
Therein lies your problem. You apparently misunderstand the whole concept of sexual orientation. You are better than some other people I've met, but you're still ignorant, if not a bigot.

oh come on, everyone knows left handed is just code for gay.

Wtf?! im a lefty! im liberal AND i use my left hand!

Again, i repeat: WHAT THE FUCK???

Wtf?! im a lefty! im liberal AND i use my left hand!

Again, i repeat: WHAT THE FUCK???

I'm right-handed...0 for two, so far...

So are you saying lefties are gay?

oh, and i just noticed this topic is 43 pages long.























Wow.

A) I hardly think that gay people can be offended by another gay person using that word.
Faggot is a duragatory term created when homosexuals were burned at the stakes in the old times. Originally meaning cigarette, homosexuals were burned to ashes which is why they were called faggots. Nice term to call yourself, eh? But then again I guess most people have double-standards.

B) Not really. You don't have to be straight to know you were born gay. By your logic, you obviously chose to be straight, because you've never tried being gay?
You must have missed the point. If I've never been gay, then I have no idea if it was a choice. If you've never been straight, then you have no idea if it was a choice.

I did honestly consider the thought if I would be more content to be bisexual or even homosexual. Considering all the possibilities, I decided I would remain straight. It was a choice of my feelings of morality and faith. If I decided to put aside my own morals and faith, I'm sure it wouldn't be hard at all for me to become bisexual.

Faggot is a duragatory term created when homosexuals were burned at the stakes in the old times. Originally meaning cigarette, homosexuals were burned to ashes which is why they were called faggots. Nice term to call yourself, eh? But then again I guess most people have double-standards.


You must have missed the point. If I've never been gay, then I have no idea if it was a choice. If you've never been straight, then you have no idea if it was a choice.

I did honestly consider the thought if I would be more content to be bisexual or even homosexual. Considering all the possibilities, I decided I would remain straight. It was a choice of my feelings of morality and faith. If I decided to put aside my own morals and faith, I'm sure it wouldn't be hard at all for me to become bisexual.


A) Yeah, I know where the word "faggot" comes from. But it's hard to insult yourself...do you get it? :headbang:

B) If it were a choice to be gay, people wouldn't take years of futile shock therapy or psychological destruction in order to try to change.
And who would choose to be gay anyway? "Hey, I think it would be fun to be an outcast and have people hate me!"

Therein lies your problem. You apparently misunderstand the whole concept of sexual orientation. You are better than some other people I've met, but you're still ignorant, if not a bigot.

You missed it.

I said it was a choice, not a learned trait, proven in the idea that people who grow up straight sometimes realize they are homosexual or bisexual. A man may be a playboy and sleep with many women and enjoy every bit of it, then one day have intercourse with another man and become bisexual.

Jean said it was not a choice and that I knew nothing of it because I was never gay.

Jean then said that he/she was never straight.

So my response was, if I don't know because I've never been gay, then how does he/she know if they've never been straight?

You missed it.

I said it was a choice, not a learned trait, proven in the idea that people who grow up straight sometimes realize they are homosexual or bisexual. A man may be a playboy and sleep with many women and enjoy every bit of it, then one day have intercourse with another man and become bisexual.


But people DON'T grow up straight and BECOME homosexual. That's not how it works. You are born gay, or straight, or bi, and it stays that way.

It is NOT a choice.

It is also NOT genetic or hereditary. It is psychological. That doesn't mean homosexuals can help their feelings, but often times they want to try and stop looking at the bigger picture, and ignore that other factors in life were involved.

No one is born gay.

Not everyone has a choice to start bieng atracted to other members of the same sex.

Some people make a choice for homosexuality, and everyone chooses who they want to sleep with.

Let's keep it that way. You righties' morality is relative in society. Maybe not to you, but to everyone else, it means nothing unless its proven universally true and applicable. Homosexuality bieng wrong is YOUR issue. It's not mine. If you want to teach your kids that's "wrong" than you have every right to do it, but its your job to get off your ass as a parent and do some explaining and stop bieng a lazy bastard. It has nothing to do with what other people are doing. If people are doing something legal that your child is viewing and you do not want them to be viewing... stop your child from watching. The beginnning of this thread (since i didnt read all 600 pages) is filled with pissing and moaning and "feeling sorry" for anyone who has to explain reality to little children like that. Well get the fuck over it. Be a parent and have the fucking guts to tell your kid about the real world and treat them like children who are capable of learning. Not everyone's a closed minded deuche like yourself.

I'm wondering if anyone here actually passed their High School government class (or the equivalent thereof)...

By the way, aesonis; your post is self-defeating. You use an absolute statement to try and refute an absolute statement. Metaphysics, anyone...

But people DON'T grow up straight and BECOME homosexual. That's not how it works. You are born gay, or straight, or bi, and it stays that way.


unproven, unfounded bullshit.


but read my previous post to clearify that im aok with homos.

You know what I view as a negative influence? The media in general. Every 5 seconds there is a commercial on medicine for a disease that looks fun due to the people surfing, hang-glidind, and etc. Also, don't forget Nascar. Nothing is more negative that watching full grown men painting themselves and drinking beer, then running home and beating their wife for the fun of it, over a bunch of cars looping in a circle endlessly. Thats my two bits, you can take it or leave it.

It's good that you're against homophobia, but...

No one is born gay.


I would have to disagree.

B) If it were a choice to be gay, people wouldn't take years of futile shock therapy or psychological destruction in order to try to change.

People change when they truly want to change. Treatments like that are 99% done because of a shame from their family or societal pressure. They don't want to change who they are, but would rather those around them change. Without that true want to change, it's not going to happen.

And who would choose to be gay anyway? "Hey, I think it would be fun to be an outcast and have people hate me!"
Probably the same people who choose to be satanists, goth, furries, star trekkies, and pretty much anyone else. Hell look at the religion that came out of Battlefield Earth.

Anyway I think we're hijacking the thread into a "Is it a choice or not" from the "Why they are a negative influence." So I'll stop here before it gets way off track.

Sorry to the thread starter!

P.S.: I'll pray for your soul and wish you the best in France. Merry Christmas.

unproven, unfounded bullshit.


but read my previous post to clearify that im aok with homos.

Once again, how would you know?

And people who are "okay" with "homos" don't call them homos!

I'm wondering if anyone here actually passed their High School government class (or the equivalent thereof)...

By the way, aesonis; your post is self-defeating. You use an absolute statement to try and refute an absolute statement. Metaphysics, anyone...


Its not self defeating. The common unavoidable universal fact that social morality is relative, is not a social moral. Its an unavoidable truth about sociology.

People change when they truly want to change. Treatments like that are 99% done because of a shame from their family or societal pressure. They don't want to change who they are, but would rather those around them change. Without that true want to change, it's not going to happen.

Almost every gay person WANTS to change when faced with all the homophobia in the world. I have wanted to. I still partly do. Wanting to change doesn't do anything.

Faggot is a duragatory term created when homosexuals were burned at the stakes in the old times. Originally meaning cigarette, homosexuals were burned to ashes which is why they were called faggots. Nice term to call yourself, eh? But then again I guess most people have double-standards.
First of all, words very rarely reflect accurately their etymology. The Aboriginal Americans were originally called Indians, and still are. Yet "American Indian" isn't a derogatory word. That actually is their preferred term in self reference. In fact, the new museum is actually called the National Museum of the American Indian. And, just to correct you, faggot originally meant "a bundle of twigs" in French. It then later came to English. It is a derivative of the same root as fascism, the Latin fascis.

I just looked up "faggot" in the Online Etymology Dictionary to check the verity of my post. Here is what it had to say:
faggot (1)
1279, "bundle of twigs bound up," from O.Fr. fagot "bundle of sticks," from It. faggotto, dim. of V.L. *facus, from L. fascis "bundle of wood" (see fasces). Esp. used for burning heretics (a sense attested from 1555), so that phrase fire and faggot was used to mean "punishment of a heretic." Heretics who recanted were required to wear an embroidered figure of a faggot on their sleeve, as an emblem and reminder of what they deserved.

faggot (2)
"male homosexual," 1914, Amer.Eng. slang (shortened form fag is from 1921), probably from earlier contemptuous term for "woman" (1591), especially an old and unpleasant one, in reference to faggot (1) "bundle of sticks," as something awkward that has to be carried (cf. baggage). It was used in this sense in 20c. by D.H. Lawrence and James Joyce, among others. It may also be reinforced by Yiddish faygele "homosexual," lit. "little bird." It also may have roots in Brit. public school slang fag "a junior who does certain duties for a senior" (1785), with suggestions of "catamite," from fag (v.). This was also used as a verb.

"He [the prefect] used to fag me to blow the chapel organ for him." ["Boy's Own Paper," 1889]

Other obsolete senses of faggot were "man hired into military service simply to fill out the ranks at muster" (1700) and "vote manufactured for party purposes" (1817). The oft-heard statement that male homosexuals were called faggots in reference to their being burned at the stake is an etymological urban legend. Burning was sometimes a punishment meted out to homosexuals in Christian Europe (on the suggestion of the Biblical fate of Sodom and Gomorah), but in England, where parliament had made homosexuality a capital offense in 1533, hanging was the method proscribed. Any use of faggot in connection with public executions had long become an English historical obscurity by the time the word began to be used for "male homosexual" in 20th century American slang, whereas the contemptuous slang word for "woman" (and the other possible sources or influences listed here) was in active use.
Oops again.

If I decided to put aside my own morals and faith, I'm sure it wouldn't be hard at all for me to become bisexual.
Then there's a actually a high chance that you are actually a repressed bisexual. Otherwise you're just narrow-minded and don't realise that you can't just choose that so easily.

Once again, how would you know?

And people who are "okay" with "homos" don't call them homos!

Well, I know that it is a basis with no physical truth. Sexuality is not born into a person at all. They grow into sexuality period. Straight, gay, whatnot. It's all psychological. Were you get attraction comes from a VAST number of sociological things, not many of which someone has control over, especially as a child. Can you see that I don't think its a conscious descision? I know its not always stoppable or changable, and it is just how you are, and people trying to take that from you or discriminate against you sucks, but it's not genetic. You'll not win that arguement if we get into research.

ANd homo is simply short for homosexual. Its not a bad term, just as "Afro American" is not a bad term for an African American.

First of all, words very rarely reflect accurately their etymology. The Aboriginal Americans were originally called Indians, and still are. Yet "American Indian" isn't a derogatory word. That actually is their preferred term in self reference. In fact, the new museum is actually called the National Museum of the American Indian. And, just to correct you, faggot originally meant "a bundle of twigs" in French. It then later came to English. It is a derivative of the same root as fascism, the Latin fascis.

I just looked up "faggot" in the Online Etymology Dictionary to check the verity of my post. Here is what it had to say:

Oops again.


Then there's a actually a high chance that you are actually a repressed bisexual. Otherwise you're just narrow-minded and don't realise that you can't just choose that so easily.

Even I didn't know that burning-at-the-stake-thing is a fake. You get ten points for that! ;)

Well, I know that it is a basis with no physical truth. Sexuality is not born into a person at all. They grow into sexuality period. Straight, gay, whatnot. It's all psychological. Were you get attraction comes from a VAST number of sociological things, not many of which someone has control over, especially as a child. Can you see that I don't think its a conscious descision? I know its not always stoppable or changable, and it is just how you are, and people trying to take that from you or discriminate against you sucks, but it's not genetic. You'll not win that arguement if we get into research.

ANd homo is simply short for homosexual. Its not a bad term, just as "Afro American" is not a bad term for an African American.

And "******" is just short for "negro"...it's not offensive, right? And "chink" is just short for "Chinese"...

There was a gay couple holding hands and window shopping at rings, then they continued on and kissed each other. RIGHT IN FRONT OF A LINE FULL OF KIDS GOING TO SEE SANTA.

Terrible! It's so outrageous that two people in love should kiss...IN PUBLIC!

As I passed by the line, I heard a boy go "Why did those two men kiss daddy?", I felt sorry for the dad that had to answer that question. How are you supposed to explain that?

Uh..."Son, it's because they love each other. See, sometimes men are attracted other men and sometimes women are attracted to other women. And then there those men that are attracted to women and those women who are attracted to men." Not exactly complicated to explain, and not terribly complicated to understand.

And that's only the start, kids copy what they see, next thing you know they will be trying to COPY that!!

Right. At the age of six, I'm sure a boy kissing another boy is going to make him gay. If the boy tries it again ten years later and enjoys it, he's either gay or bisexual. If he doesn't, then he's straight. What's the problem?

If Gay Marriage isn't banned, next thing you know they will be having to teach this shit to our kids in school!!

Teach about relationships, love, and kissing? Since when did that have anything to do with mathematics, geography, and science?

Get over yourself.

~Advice from some gay dude.

And "******" is just short for "negro"...it's not offensive, right? And "chink" is just short for "Chinese"...


You honestly think the word "homo" is derrogitory?

Not yet it isnt.

It probably will amount to that one day, because until people stop bieng offended and using bieng offended as a political means t get what they want, simple words like this will have added to them alot of meaning that was not implied to begin with.

I mean no hate, or belittling by the word. The only reason "******" and "chink" have become such common terms of hate, is because there was alot of hate behind them at the time. People meant hateful things by them.. to the person saying it, being called one of those things would themselves be appauling. That's derrogitorry. People who hate homosexuals say alot more vulgar things than "homo"

I know quite a few homosexuals, and "homo" is definately not an evil word. Its not "faggot" or "queer" (even queer is acceptable and is not derrogitorry most of the time)

Stop bieng offended for political gain. It's irrational.

You honestly think the word "homo" is derrogitory?

Not yet it isnt.

It probably will amount to that one day, because until people stop bieng offended and using bieng offended as a political means t get what they want, simple words like this will have added to them alot of meaning that was not implied to begin with.

I mean no hate, or belittling by the word. The only reason "******" and "chink" have become such common terms of hate, is because there was alot of hate behind them at the time.

I know quite a few homosexuals, and "homo" is definately not an evil word. Its not "faggot" or "queer" (even queer is acceptable and is not derrogitorry most of the time)

Stop bieng offended for political gain. It's irrational.

Whether or not something is offensive depends on whether someone is OFFENDed when they hear it. If I called you a toaster and you were offended and thought it was hateful, I wouldn't call you a toaster anymore.

Whether or not something is offensive depends on whether someone is OFFENDed when they hear it. If I called you a toaster and you were offended and thought it was hateful, I wouldn't call you a toaster anymore.


Yes, but whether something is derrogitory or not has to do with the person speaking it, not the person listening.

And have I called you a "homo" since I realized it offended you. I've tried not to at least. ;)

Yes, but whether something is derrogitory or not has to do with the person speaking it, not the person listening.

And have I called you a "homo" since I realized it offended you. I've tried not to at least. ;)

I'm glad you're trying not to. And I'm just warning you that most gay people take it offensively.

I'm glad you're trying not to. And I'm just warning you that most gay people take it offensively.


I knew a gay guy at work and out of habit (i was raised conservative christian) said "that's gay" about something i disliked. I felt like horse shit and said im sorry alot, but he laughed at me for it.

I knew a gay guy at work and out of habit (i was raised conservative christian) said "that's gay" about something i disliked. I felt like horse shit and said im sorry alot, but he laughed at me for it.

Yeah, it really bothers me when people do that. It's nice of you that you showed you didn't mean to offend him.

its people like you that make me ashamed to be a human

are you kidding me? even if a straight couple had been kissing in front of a group of kids, it might have been inappropriate. but since they were gay, it is out of the ordinary and this may be teaching children things about life that just arent natural let alone permissable for their age group.

people jsut arent ready for gays to be legal, and i'm with em'. keep them away until we can find a suitable colony where they are as far away as possible.

you know what, lets try something: replace "gay" with "black" in there.


"the world just isnt ready for black people"

in most of these peoples arguements, this is howyou show them its wrong.

are you kidding me? even if a straight couple had been kissing in front of a group of kids, it might have been inappropriate. but since they were gay, it is out of the ordinary and this may be teaching children things about life that just arent natural let alone permissable for their age group.

people jsut arent ready for gays to be legal, and i'm with em'. keep them away until we can find a suitable colony where they are as far away as possible.

You know the funny thing about gay people? You aren't gay just because one of your parents was, and even if you don't know any gay relatives, you might be...pretty hard to start a colony then, huh? ;)

are you kidding me? even if a straight couple had been kissing in front of a group of kids, it might have been inappropriate. but since they were gay, it is out of the ordinary and this may be teaching children things about life that just arent natural let alone permissable for their age group.

people jsut arent ready for gays to be legal, and i'm with em'. keep them away until we can find a suitable colony where they are as far away as possible.


www.nazi.org


thats nationalism to a t.

actually nationalism is extreme pride in one's nation, not neccessarily "cleansing" of a nation.

Hey, uh, mitchumton? Your name wouldn't happen to be Casey, now would it? I once knew a nazi that went to my school named Casey, he talked just like you.

Hey, uh, mitchumton? Your name wouldn't happen to be Casey, now would it? I once knew a nazi that went to my school named Casey, he talked just like you.

OOHH! buuurn, i can still hear the sizzle!

First of all, children model behaviors that they see in their environment as a natural part of learning and developement. Some of what they model is acceptable and some of it is not but it is up to the parents to nurture their children in what is acceptable to them and to model alternate things for them. Most adult homosexuals do not recruit, lure or entice children into lurid activiies and I say most because most straight adults don't either BUT in both groups there are a few sick individuals who do and they need to be punished ( with death if possible ) as criminals. If you truly feel that children become gay because of what they see and want to punish someone for the amount of homosexuality in society then feel free to ban and or imprison heterosexuals because 98 percent of homosexuals in the world are born to heterosexuals couples. It is very rare to find a gay or lesbian person with a gay or lesbian child but millions of heterosexual people have gay or lesbian children.
Secondly, I cannot speak for everyone else out there but as far as my own attraction to other women I can say this. I did not choose to be sexuallly attracted to other women and not to men. That is something that is out of my control despite my trying to force myself to be attracted to men for many years. I do however have a choice about whether to act on my attraction or not. I don't claim to have any super insight or answers because to be honest I struggle with this issue everyday because despite myself I do think that my sleeping with other women does not make God happy and so I choose not to simply because I do not want to displease him. It is an extremely hard and I will be the first to admit, lonely way to live but right now I am just trying with everything in me to do the right thing as I see it at any given moment whatever that may be. That is why I think that being gay is partly something that you are born with and partly choice. I believe that heterosexuality is the same way. Folks who say that there is no element of choice in human sexuality are wrong from my point of view. We are not animals who act spontaneously out of primal drive. Animals have no choice in how they express their sexuality but we do and that is true no matter which side of the homosexuality debate you tend to lean towards.

you joined to make that 1 post?

i find it very interesting the way the homosexuals in this forum think.

I think there could be a list started to why you think the way you do.

A. instead of admitting that you made the decision to be gay and taking responsibility, you say you were born that way to make yourself feel better.

B. Gays are like any other highschool clique. imposing themselves upon others in a manner far different then a simple wardrobe or hair-style.

people are finding new ways to stand out and this is one of those extremes.

C. Mental/Hormonal imbalances(i have no research or anything to prove it but there has got to be something wrong with your head.)

D. Insecurities. their is something about yourself you dont like and experimenting with those you feel most comforable with(same sex) is your self-expression.

if homosexuality was right, god would have made men be able to have kids out their asses. because afterall that is the whole point in sex....procreation. thats why even anal and oral with the opposing sex is wrong.

people jsut arent ready for gays to be legal, and i'm with em'. keep them away until we can find a suitable colony where they are as far away as possible.

I agree. Put the bigots and homophobes on some island where they can hate each other instead, and we can live in peace.

I agree. Put the bigots and homophobes on some island where they can hate each other instead, and we can live in peace.


Yhey! someone smart!

Hey, uh, mitchumton? Your name wouldn't happen to be Casey, now would it? I once knew a nazi that went to my school named Casey, he talked just like you.

how am i like a nazi....i admit i was a little harsh with the colony thing, but i dont really think that way.

all and all, i'm fine with homosexuality, but they can have the respect to not impose it upon us(me being straight)......generally speaking, i dont go around persuading gays to be straight.

if homosexuality was correct, wouldnt the majority of the world be gay.

and about the one post thing, i didnt realize their was a forum on nationstates until 10 mins ago. and who the fuck cares if i have 1 or 1 million posts...thats not the point.

Honestly though, would you want a gay male teacher around your 4 year old son in a nursurey school?

Last time i checked, pediophellia and homosexuality are very different things. Though i do agree that all people are small minded, and who is to say what is "normal"?
If we belive that normal is what everyone else is doing, then living in a low income nehiborhood i think i shouldent work hard and live on welfare the rest of my life. But guess what, i dont want to live off welfare, so i do work hard, thus disproving the whole creature of the enviroment thing.

But i think a great biological explination is from my right wing nazi bio teacher (adapded from the lemming). When the lemming population grows to large the lemmings resort to homosexuality to slow the reproductive process, and should the numbers still be so high, they drown themselvs.
This kinda explains homosexuality, theres to many god dammed people on the planet and our dna is goin WTF???? and making some people like other people. Unfortunally biology also gifted us with minds, so we like to think and look deeper than when some answers are right in front of us.

And may i also say that getting gay bashed is the most physicaly exhausting activity a person can engage in... next to soccer.

you have to agree that children tend copy or similarly mimic the influences around them correct?

if you are gay and you adopt a baby and raise him/her...it has been proven that the child has a much higher percentage of being gay because of the parents.

now how's that for making your own choices.

but in saying that, it creates a double standard for straight couples imposing their sexuality on the child....but....and this is where the difference is.

the straight couple MADE that child. they used the power god gave them(the way it was designed).

if everyone woke up one morning and decided to be gay, after a few generations, everyone would become straight because they would be the last generation alive because life would cease to exist without straight sex.

of would I want a homosexual teaching my 4 year old (if I had one)...

If they were a good teacher, why not?

the straight couple MADE that child. they used the power god gave them(the way it was designed).

if everyone woke up one morning and decided to be gay, after a few generations, everyone would become straight because they would be the last generation alive because life would cease to exist without straight sex.


Ever heard of artificial insemination? I will grant you that one of the parents are the only one that can donate the gentetic material required (although I think this is changing. I am not up on the latest Bio-tech but I seem to remember hearing about it) a gay couple can still have a child and not have the physical act of sex ever entering the picture. God not only gave us sex organs, but brains. Using the power of the brain (science) is just as valid as useing anything else to get things done.

of would I want a homosexual teaching my 4 year old (if I had one)...

If they were a good teacher, why not?

that is perfectly fine, but if they have the values that allows them to have sex with men, what stops them from haveing sex with children. but that is besides the point.

if you were straight...and your 4 yr. old son was straight, would you want the gay teacher to be influencing your son to be gay....he doesnt have to be saying" Son! you should be gay just like me" but his actions and thoughts could be jsut as influential.

but again here comes the double standard with the straight teacher and a gay student.

but you do have to cater to the majority eh?

Ever heard of artificial insemination? I will grant you that one of the parents are the only one that can donate the gentetic material required (although I think this is changing. I am not up on the latest Bio-tech but I seem to remember hearing about it) a gay couple can still have a child and not have the physical act of sex ever entering the picture. God not only gave us sex organs, but brains. Using the power of the brain (science) is just as valid as useing anything else to get things done.

with this theory, after awhile, all gay made babies would be related and defects and things would show.

that is considering they are recieving eggs from other gay women.....who knows how it could work.

Ok, don't know what century you're from, mitchumton, but you can't INFLUENCE someone to be gay. They either ARE or they AREN'T, it's as simple as that. It's in our genetics and it's wired into our brains whether we're gay or straight.

Edit--Sorry, misspoke, not genetics, scratch that.

Ever heard of artificial insemination? I will grant you that one of the parents are the only one that can donate the gentetic material required (although I think this is changing. I am not up on the latest Bio-tech but I seem to remember hearing about it) a gay couple can still have a child and not have the physical act of sex ever entering the picture. God not only gave us sex organs, but brains. Using the power of the brain (science) is just as valid as useing anything else to get things done.

this all comes down to values.....in my faith, the whole point in life is to further it with children. i believe the only way to create life properly is with a man and a women on their own. but...then their are physical reasons that keep them from doing that so i believe that man and women should use artificial insemination.

but homosexuals who are choosing to hump guys are abusing the privelage and using a women to have a baby that is genetically only one of the males is wrong.

Ok, don't know what century you're from, mitchumton, but you can't INFLUENCE someone to be gay. They either ARE or they AREN'T, it's as simple as that. It's in our genetics and it's wired into our brains whether we're gay or straight.

Edit--Sorry, misspoke, not genetics, scratch that.

what do you mean you cant influence someone to be gay. of course you can......anybody can be influenced to be anything. if everybody was gay in the world....do you think out of the blue a straight baby will be born to like women from the get go?

its jsut like molestors or abusers....the chances of them influencing the child or molestee or abused to do the same is off the scale.



i hate haveing to repeat myself, but you have a choice.....you may not have remembered makeing it, but you did.

put it this way....you know you had your first words right....your parents told you right?

i can guarentee you dont remember saying them, but you did say them right?

its the same with your decision to be gay or bi or what have you. you just dont remember it.

what do you mean you cant influence someone to be gay. of course you can......anybody can be influenced to be anything. if everybody was gay in the world....do you think out of the blue a straight baby will be born to like women from the get go?

its jsut like molestors or abusers....the chances of them influencing the child or molestee or abused to do the same is off the scale.



i hate haveing to repeat myself, but you have a choice.....you may not have remembered makeing it, but you did.

put it this way....you know you had your first words right....your parents told you right?

i can guarentee you dont remember saying them, but you did say them right?

its the same with your decision to be gay or bi or what have you. you just dont remember it.

Umm, I don't think children under 3 years old comprehend those concepts to make a choice.

*yawns*

Is this STILL going on? Oh, please...it's Christmas, go get loaded or laid already.

*stretches*

Uh, but it's NOT like that, you see...

There's this little thing called science with which the truth of things is found, and, you see, it was found that being gay was not a choice, it was predetermined because of the amounts of testosterone headed to the body or the brain or what have you, causing different results when distributed different ways. Sometimes, you get a male body that has the sexual desires of a woman, or a woman with the sexual desires of a man. You DO know there were gay people WAY before it was talked about openly, right? It happened all by itself, beginning way way back at the dawn of the human race.

you have to agree that children tend copy or similarly mimic the influences around them correct?

if you are gay and you adopt a baby and raise him/her...it has been proven that the child has a much higher percentage of being gay because of the parents.

now how's that for making your own choices.

but in saying that, it creates a double standard for straight couples imposing their sexuality on the child....but....and this is where the difference is.

the straight couple MADE that child. they used the power god gave them(the way it was designed).

if everyone woke up one morning and decided to be gay, after a few generations, everyone would become straight because they would be the last generation alive because life would cease to exist without straight sex.

The fact is that research shows that homosexuality is not a psychological influence. There are plenty of children raised by homosexual couples that are completely heterosexual. Why is this? Homosexuality is a physical differnce in the brain tissues. This is tangible research.
I also agree with what has been said above: homosexuality is a way to slow the growth of the population. If the world continues to find ways to make more children be born and lenghten the lives of the elderly, then the world will be overrun and essentially the environment destroyed.
Furthermore, in the event that there is a shortage of childbirth, artificial insemination is still available
What is so wrong with people marrying the person that they love? And why is it so bad that children would live in a loving home, even if they have two moms or two dads? Would the parents not love their children? Did you realize that 10% of the world's population is gay....In the case of the US, that would mean that there are about as many homosexuals living in the US as there are people living in California. That's a lot of people.

I am gay, and I am damn proud of the fact. I will stand up to protect my people any time I wish. Homophobes, stop thinking we're gonna hit on you...Chances are, we don't think you're attractive anyway...And gay men usually stay away from men they know are straight (at least I do). Oh, and where the hell did this notion come from that all homosexuals are child molesters? You do realize that studies have shown that it has nothing to do with sexual orientation. It's a control issue. Just like with rape.

they can make a choice sure, but its hard to decide how far they can decide.

but then again...a newborn chooses to like some people and cry around others. right?

tons of babies prefer women to men just because of their demeanor right?

the problem with that is, that babies dont know about sex or love or any of that jazz so.....

so if people are wired to be gay, then when does it present itself....the second they learn the difference between guys and girls or much earlier?

little boys dont like little girls at first, but they learn too and after awhile thats jsut the way they are.

i want to stop this, because how can any of us argue about the brain issue..we arent doctors or scientists right? even the frenchy fag cant really decide if he was wired that way or if he was confused and just followed a road in life. its not that simple.

Hamilia, I believe that deserves a round of applause.

*claps*

they can make a choice sure, but its hard to decide how far they can decide.

but then again...a newborn chooses to like some people and cry around others. right?

tons of babies prefer women to men just because of their demeanor right?

the problem with that is, that babies dont know about sex or love or any of that jazz so.....

so if people are wired to be gay, then when does it present itself....the second they learn the difference between guys and girls or much earlier?

little boys dont like little girls at first, but they learn too and after awhile thats jsut the way they are.

i want to stop this, because how can any of us argue about the brain issue..we arent doctors or scientists right? even the frenchy fag cant really decide if he was wired that way or if he was confused and just followed a road in life. its not that simple.
Dude, you really need to read up on your science texts. How many times did you show up for Biology, exactly?
Just because we aren't scientists, it doesn't mean we have no idea about any scientific discoveries. Discoveries are typically displayed to the public, and we learn these things. That's what schools are for, you know? So, anyway, it IS a brain thing, as has been proved and heard by many an educated induvidual, so you can just stop arguing that point, mmkay?

The fact is that research shows that homosexuality is not a psychological influence. There are plenty of children raised by homosexual couples that are completely heterosexual. Why is this? Homosexuality is a physical differnce in the brain tissues. This is tangible research.
I also agree with what has been said above: homosexuality is a way to slow the growth of the population. If the world continues to find ways to make more children be born and lenghten the lives of the elderly, then the world will be overrun and essentially the environment destroyed.
Furthermore, in the event that there is a shortage of childbirth, artificial insemination is still available
What is so wrong with people marrying the person that they love? And why is it so bad that children would live in a loving home, even if they have two moms or two dads? Would the parents not love their children? Did you realize that 10% of the world's population is gay....In the case of the US, that would mean that there are about as many homosexuals living in the US as there are people living in California. That's a lot of people.

I am gay, and I am damn proud of the fact. I will stand up to protect my people any time I wish. Homophobes, stop thinking we're gonna hit on you...Chances are, we don't think you're attractive anyway...And gay men usually stay away from men they know are straight (at least I do). Oh, and where the hell did this notion come from that all homosexuals are child molesters? You do realize that studies have shown that it has nothing to do with sexual orientation. It's a control issue. Just like with rape.

i just cant believe your so called scientific evidence.

hears what really pisses me off, adn here is why the gay rights issues popped up in the first place.

you guys know you are different and you have to make it known. that is part of your faggish nonsense....you are trying to make a statement. i've seen homosexuals get married just for the heck of it.

these two lesbians were sitting on the couch one day and one turned to the other and said "lets go get married" it was jsut that simple. barely dating and they are already "married" you guys jsut dont take it seriously.

maybe if you guys would have been quiet about your orientation it might not have been blown so out of proportion. i say homosexuals compounded their own issue.

you guys know you are different and you have to make it known. that is part of your faggish nonsense....you are trying to make a statement. i've seen homosexuals get married just for the heck of it.

these two lesbians were sitting on the couch one day and one turned to the other and said "lets go get married" it was jsut that simple. barely dating and they are already "married" you guys jsut dont take it seriously.
Where the HELL did you hear that? And Britney's 52 hour or whatever marriage was meaningful and serious? Uh-huh.

Dude, you really need to read up on your science texts. How many times did you show up for Biology, exactly?
Just because we aren't scientists, it doesn't mean we have no idea about any scientific discoveries. Discoveries are typically displayed to the public, and we learn these things. That's what schools are for, you know? So, anyway, it IS a brain thing, as has been proved and heard by many an educated induvidual, so you can just stop arguing that point, mmkay?

you cant believe everything you see or hear right? not all scientific discoveries are 100 percent true. what if some data was read wrong or something was tested or interpreted wrong. dont believe all scientists.

Where the HELL did you hear that? And Britney's 52 hour or whatever marriage was meaningful and serious? Uh-huh.

somehow i knew that would be thrown out, but you cant look at celebrities. they are jsut as bad as homosexuals....they have alterior motives for why they do things in their life.

you have to look at the general public.

"We are the recorders and reporters of facts - not the judges of the behaviors we describe." Alfred Kinsey

you cant believe everything you see or hear right? not all scientific discoveries are 100 percent true. what if some data was read wrong or something was tested or interpreted wrong. dont believe all scientists.
Not believing all scientists is one thing. Not believing ANY scientists is another. I don't know what the hell you learned in school, but scientists sometimes repeat experiments hundreds of times, and then those experiments are re-tested by skeptics. The chances that all those tests were wrong would be quite a stretch.

[QUOTE=Mitchumton]. i've seen homosexuals get married just for the heck of it.

these two lesbians were sitting on the couch one day and one turned to the other and said "lets go get married" it was jsut that simple. barely dating and they are already "married" you guys jsut dont take it seriously.
QUOTE]

Are you saying that no heterosexual couples do that?

you cant believe everything you see or hear right? not all scientific discoveries are 100 percent true. what if some data was read wrong or something was tested or interpreted wrong. dont believe all scientists.

Instead, believe whom? :

somehow i knew that would be thrown out, but you cant look at celebrities. they are jsut as bad as homosexuals....they have alterior motives for why they do things in their life.

you have to look at the general public.
Celebrities are a window into the general public. I mean, what about the 50% divorce rate? Don't tell me that's all celebrities, now. The people who's lives are out in the open and displayed 24/7 are the ones that get the criticism, but it's really more groups doing these things than you think.
For example, you probably think that lower-class people in the ghettos do most of the drugs, right? Well, that's not true. People only think that because the poorer people that they see are out on the streets, and their lives are seen 24/7, they have barely any secrecy. But it is the rich and the upper-class that does most of the drugs, and I would know, I'm an upper-class girl with too many upper-class neighbors and friends that I know do marijuana and herione and all the "street drugs" you see.

Not believing all scientists is one thing. Not believing ANY scientists is another. I don't know what the hell you learned in school, but scientists sometimes repeat experiments hundreds of times, and then those experiments are re-tested by skeptics. The chances that all those tests were wrong would be quite a stretch.

the problem, is we are both wrong can you really say that you have read the reports on those supposed experiments.

but can i say that those reports are wrong.

on the other hand, how many said anywhere in the report.....

Homosexuality is definately caused by a lack or overproduction of testosterone or estrogen in the brain tissues.

NO!

most likely it went like this

"Some scientists BELIEVE, and research MAY suggest that homosexuality is LINKED to an imbalance of testosterone or estrogen in the brain"

if the scientists were 100 percent sure of their research, then the reports would show it.

they arent positive, so they cover their asses and make a half-assed statement that can be interpreted tons of different ways.

that is perfectly fine, but if they have the values that allows them to have sex with men, what stops them from haveing sex with children. but that is besides the point.

It most definately is not beside the point. Comments like these are one of the reasons gays are fighting and as you put it "making a big deal out of it". Now get this this straight:
Two consenting adults having sex is NOT the same as a man raping a child.
Easy, huh ?

But don't feel too bad - the Catholic church has done its best to convince everyone that homosexuality = pedophilia. In a quite brilliant way even- they turned the bad publicity about priests molesting little kids (of which a majority were girls - yet everybody assumes we are talking about altar boys) to their advantage.

if you were straight...and your 4 yr. old son was straight, would you want the gay teacher to be influencing your son to be gay....he doesnt have to be saying" Son! you should be gay just like me" but his actions and thoughts could be jsut as influential.

*If* being gay is a choice/result of your childhood you have a point. However, unless you cite and reference scientific proof of that I will not accept your assumption unconditionally - just like I don't accept the assumption that it is genetic without decent proof.
Yet if it isn't a matter of choice, but people are born gay/bi/straight.. is it not better that the children find out it is not bad to experiment to discover your sexual identity before you make a commitment like marriage ?

Celebrities are a window into the general public. I mean, what about the 50% divorce rate? Don't tell me that's all celebrities, now. The people who's lives are out in the open and displayed 24/7 are the ones that get the criticism, but it's really more groups doing these things than you think.
For example, you probably think that lower-class people in the ghettos do most of the drugs, right? Well, that's not true. People only think that because the poorer people that they see are out on the streets, and their lives are seen 24/7, they have barely any secrecy. But it is the rich and the upper-class that does most of the drugs, and I would know, I'm an upper-class girl with too many upper-class neighbors and friends that I know do marijuana and herione and all the "street drugs" you see.

celebrities are nowhere near a window into the general public, they are in a world of their own.

sure their is a 50 percent divorce raite, but dont jsut look at the 50 percent, look at how long the couple was together before they divorced..it may even things out a bit.

the problem, is we are both wrong can you really say that you have read the reports on those supposed experiments.

but can i say that those reports are wrong.

on the other hand, how many said anywhere in the report.....

Homosexuality is definately caused by a lack or overproduction of testosterone or estrogen in the brain tissues.

NO!

most likely it went like this

"Some scientists BELIEVE, and research MAY suggest that homosexuality is LINKED to an imbalance of testosterone or estrogen in the brain"

if the scientists were 100 percent sure of their research, then the reports would show it.

they arent positive, so they cover their asses and make a half-assed statement that can be interpreted tons of different ways.
Well, if I had to choose between the 90% sure scientist and the 0% sure homophobic guy ranting on the board in front of me, I'd pick the scientist.

Gay people have a lot to answer for in today's society.

They claim, fallaciously I suggest, that they are denied equal rights. The basis of this is that they are not guaranteed the right to marry the person the "love."

No shit Sherlock, that is, in fact how the system works. Gay people have exactly the same marriage rights as everyone else. I know it and they know it. In fact, had they been serious about this they could have obtained a tax determination in California back in the 80s which would really have supported their case. But they didn't. So I suppose this whole "love" thing is bollocks anyway, To them it is all rights, no sacrifice.

But let's get on to the meat of my argument. AIDS.

Yes, that's right, AIDS, the filthy homosexual diesease that was going to kill us all. Not only did the genius homosexuals bring it to this country, they did their damn best to spread it as far as possible.

Then they threatened the straight community with it. Yes the straight people were going to suffer from AIDS just as much as they did. But we didn't. You know why? Because we are not promiscious sodomites. So it was all a big gay lie.

Nevertheless, today, in addition to gay pride parades and fell good about homo days, we have to also contribute to AIDS research.

Listen homos, if you lived like the straight married people you claim you want to be, AIDS would not be a problem - just like it isn't in the straight community.

So here's the deal, cut down on your AIDS, pay all the money back we wasted on your AIDS research - which lets face it is basically a government effort that helps only homosexuals - and then we may be able to talk about you getting married.

There are a few other things that presently ban you too, but I'm not going into them right now.

It most definately is not beside the point. Comments like these are one of the reasons gays are fighting and as you put it "making a big deal out of it". Now get this this straight:
Two consenting adults having sex is NOT the same as a man raping a child.
Easy, huh ?

But don't feel too bad - the Catholic church has done its best to convince everyone that homosexuality = pedophilia. In a quite brilliant way even- they turned the bad publicity about priests molesting little kids (of which a majority were girls - yet everybody assumes we are talking about altar boys) to their advantage.



*If* being gay is a choice/result of your childhood you have a point. However, unless you cite scientific and reference proof of that I will not accept your assumption unconditionally - just like I don't accept the assumption that it is genetic without decent proof.
Yet if it isn't a matter of choice, but people are born gay/bi/straight.. is it not better that the children find out it is not bad to experiment to discover your sexual identity before you make a commitment like marriage ?

i agree pretty much whole heartedly with that end part, i choose not to believe a lot of things without proper proof and evidence, but think of how our lives would be if we needed proof for everything.

people would float through life making no deciesions about anything.

sorry if i have hurt anybodies feelings tonight, but i'm done for the day, i need some sleep.

merry christmas.

Gay people have a lot to answer for in today's society.

They claim, fallaciously I suggest, that they are denied equal rights. The basis of this is that they are not guaranteed the right to marry the person the "love."

No shit Sherlock, that is, in fact how the system works. Gay people have exactly the same marriage rights as everyone else. I know it and they know it. In fact, had they been serious about this they could have obtained a tax determination in California back in the 80s which would really have supported their case. But they didn't. So I suppose this whole "love" thing is bollocks anyway, To them it is all rights, no sacrifice.

But let's get on to the meat of my argument. AIDS.

Yes, that's right, AIDS, the filthy homosexual diesease that was going to kill us all. Not only did the genius homosexuals bring it to this country, they did their damn best to spread it as far as possible.

Then they threatened the straight community with it. Yes the straight people were going to suffer from AIDS just as much as they did. But we didn't. You know why? Because we are not promiscious sodomites. So it was all a big gay lie.

Nevertheless, today, in addition to gay pride parades and fell good about homo days, we have to also contribute to AIDS research.

Listen homos, if you lived like the straight married people you claim you want to be, AIDS would not be a problem - just like it isn't in the straight community.

So here's the deal, cut down on your AIDS, pay all the money back we wasted on your AIDS research - which lets face it is basically a government effort that helps only homosexuals - and then we may be able to talk about you getting married.

There are a few other things that presently ban you too, but I'm not going into them right now.

I want this answered.

Gay people have a lot to answer for in today's society.

They claim, fallaciously I suggest, that they are denied equal rights. The basis of this is that they are not guaranteed the right to marry the person the "love."

No shit Sherlock, that is, in fact how the system works. Gay people have exactly the same marriage rights as everyone else. I know it and they know it. In fact, had they been serious about this they could have obtained a tax determination in California back in the 80s which would really have supported their case. But they didn't. So I suppose this whole "love" thing is bollocks anyway, To them it is all rights, no sacrifice.

But let's get on to the meat of my argument. AIDS.

Yes, that's right, AIDS, the filthy homosexual diesease that was going to kill us all. Not only did the genius homosexuals bring it to this country, they did their damn best to spread it as far as possible.

Then they threatened the straight community with it. Yes the straight people were going to suffer from AIDS just as much as they did. But we didn't. You know why? Because we are not promiscious sodomites. So it was all a big gay lie.

Nevertheless, today, in addition to gay pride parades and fell good about homo days, we have to also contribute to AIDS research.

Listen homos, if you lived like the straight married people you claim you want to be, AIDS would not be a problem - just like it isn't in the straight community.

So here's the deal, cut down on your AIDS, pay all the money back we wasted on your AIDS research - which lets face it is basically a government effort that helps only homosexuals - and then we may be able to talk about you getting married.

There are a few other things that presently ban you too, but I'm not going into them right now.
Too--many--things--wrong--with--that--speech--
System overload--kaBOOM!!!

Too--many--things--wrong--with--that--speech--
System overload--kaBOOM!!!

Oh well that sums it up nicely then. Well done. :rolleyes:

I want this answered.

The group currently most at risk from AIDs is black, straight females. So you're whole point was flawed. And AIDs has been traced to a *bisexual* man, not a gay man.

I want this answered.

It already was - 20 pages ago.

Oh well that sums it up nicely then. Well done. :rolleyes:
Seriously, though, I don't know where to begin--it's just too much! I have neither the time nor the energy. Maybe some other sane person can answer this for you.

And by the way, GAYS did not START AIDS. That's a myth started by homophobes like you.

And something to really freak you out--having gay lovers was extremely common in ancient times in many many different cultures, which means that some of your very own ancestors probably took part in homosexual "acts of love."

I agree. Put the bigots and homophobes on some island where they can hate each other instead, and we can live in peace.


Yeah, that island is called North and South America. Now you can go back to "France" and live in peace.

Don't worry, we won't come save you when the next tyrant comes and wipes out your country....

Gay people have a lot to answer for in today's society.

They claim, fallaciously I suggest, that they are denied equal rights. The basis of this is that they are not guaranteed the right to marry the person the "love."

No shit Sherlock, that is, in fact how the system works. Gay people have exactly the same marriage rights as everyone else. I know it and they know it. In fact, had they been serious about this they could have obtained a tax determination in California back in the 80s which would really have supported their case. But they didn't. So I suppose this whole "love" thing is bollocks anyway, To them it is all rights, no sacrifice.

But let's get on to the meat of my argument. AIDS.

Yes, that's right, AIDS, the filthy homosexual diesease that was going to kill us all. Not only did the genius homosexuals bring it to this country, they did their damn best to spread it as far as possible.

Then they threatened the straight community with it. Yes the straight people were going to suffer from AIDS just as much as they did. But we didn't. You know why? Because we are not promiscious sodomites. So it was all a big gay lie.

Nevertheless, today, in addition to gay pride parades and fell good about homo days, we have to also contribute to AIDS research.

Listen homos, if you lived like the straight married people you claim you want to be, AIDS would not be a problem - just like it isn't in the straight community.

So here's the deal, cut down on your AIDS, pay all the money back we wasted on your AIDS research - which lets face it is basically a government effort that helps only homosexuals - and then we may be able to talk about you getting married.


I was highly disgusted when I read this. There are just so many gross inaccuracies.

1. Yeah sure. Gays have all the rights heterosexuals have. That's why most of the states in the U.S.A have outlawed gay marriages. Because heterosexual marriages are outlawed too. RIGHT???

2. So, AIDS wasn't spread by heterosexuals. Out of the billions of heterosexual people, the millions of sexually-active heterosexuals all do not have AIDS, did not have sex with people with AIDS, and did not do anything to spread AIDS. 100 % of all the AIDS cases were caused by homosexuals. Also, out of 100 cases of sex between two individuals whose HIV statuses are undetermined and unknown to each other, 99% of these cases of sex are between homosexuals, right? (The answer, is that 99% of these cases are between heterosexuals)

3. Pay back all the money the government wasted on HIV research? How about asking the beggars on the street to pay the government for everything it's spent on social welfare? How about asking those infected with leprosy, cerebral palsy, and other diseases to pay the goverment for all the money they've spent on research? Or for a more accurate example: how about asking those African-Americans to pay the government for all the money they've spent on research on sickle-cell anaemia? (Since the disease originates from Africa)

You get my point.

Although the majority was already asnwered earlier in this topic, lets review it again. After all, repeating things is mostly what this topic is doing anyway.


Yes, that's right, AIDS, the filthy homosexual diesease that was going to kill us all. Not only did the genius homosexuals bring it to this country, they did their damn best to spread it as far as possible.

Proof that the first AIDS victim was homosexual ?
Proof that AIDS was brought to your country by a homosexual ?
Proof that it couldn't have been brought to your country by a straight man/woman ?

AIDS is not a homosexual disease, but a STD that effects everyone. It does spread easier through anal sex than through vaginal sex - but that is not something only homosexuals do, and neither does restricting yourself penis-in-vagina sex mean that you won't get it. Abstination and good condoms are the only ways to guarantee that - assuming you also will not have blood transfusions, get a sloppy dentist that doesn't clean his equipment etc.

Then they threatened the straight community with it. Yes the straight people were going to suffer from AIDS just as much as they did. But we didn't. You know why? Because we are not promiscious sodomites. So it was all a big gay lie.
As pointed out, gays are not the greatest affected group. In fact, Catholics (especially Africans) are catching up due to the restricted use of condoms.

Listen homos, if you lived like the straight married people you claim you want to be, AIDS would not be a problem - just like it isn't in the straight community.
I suggest you remove your head from the sand and look around. AIDS DOES effect straight people and IS a problem for the entire human race.

Seriously, though, I don't know where to begin--it's just too much! I have neither the time nor the energy. Maybe some other sane person can answer this for you.

And by the way, GAYS did not START AIDS. That's a myth started by homophobes like you.

And something to really freak you out--having gay lovers was extremely common in ancient times in many many different cultures, which means that some of your very own ancestors probably took part in homosexual "acts of love."

Oh good, the we can stop pissing away billions on a non-event disease that does not effect the straight non I.V. drug using community.

It's a waste. Every time I see a stupid homosexual sponsored AIDS walk, I get angry thinking about my best friends daughter who is dying of cystic fibrosis.

And i think, if only CF, was a gay disease communicated through rampant anal sodomy, then she might have a chance. But she doesn't.

So gay people, shut up. You already get more than your fair share with you gay diesease. Stop with the marriage thing too. Clearly given the infection rates, it is all bullshit.

Yeah, that island is called North and South America. Now you can go back to "France" and live in peace.

Don't worry, we won't come save you when the next tyrant comes and wipes out your country....

.... Because France has been wiped out by tyrants so many times? Am I missing something here?

Oh good, the we can stop pissing away billions on a non-event disease that does not effect the straight non I.V. drug using community.

It's a waste. Every time I see a stupid homosexual sponsored AIDS walk, I get angry thinking about my best friends daughter who is dying of cystic fibrosis.

And i think, if only CF, was a gay disease communicated through rampant anal sodomy, then she might have a chance. But she doesn't.

So gay people, shut up. You already get more than your fair share with you gay diesease. Stop with the marriage thing too. Clearly given the infection rates, it is all bullshit.

Again - most at risk group is straight, not gay.

Again - most at risk group is straight, not gay.

Bullshit. The decimation of the straight community that was predicted never happened. You know why, the lack of random anal sodomy.

More to the point, most hetro couples do, in fact engage in anal sex, so on can only conclude that the prevelance of aids in the gay community is solely a function of their massive promiscuity.

And good job, BTW, homos. You managed to take a hard to get disease that showed up in San Fransico in the late seventies, to a national epidemic tha now gobles up most of the federal budget for disease control. But I guess you *are* ready for marriage. :rolleyes:

Oh go blow out it out your backside, Curtis... I'm going to bed. Why don't you stay and make threads for entertainment?

*yawns*

Post later edited after discovering I misread the original. My apologies.

I can admit I'm wrong, sometimes. Can you?

I did have to add this back in, though: "anal sodomy" is still a redundancy. Sodomy = anal sex. Just a thought.

Regards,
Cytherene

Bullshit. The decimation of the straight community that was predicted never happened. You know why, the lack of random anal sodomy.

More to the point, most hetro couples do, in fact engage in anal sex, so on can only conclude that the prevelance of aids in the gay community is solely a function of their massive promiscuity.

And good job, BTW, homos. You managed to take a hard to get disease that showed up in San Fransico in the late seventies, to a national epidemic tha now gobles up most of the federal budget for disease control. But I guess you *are* ready for marriage. :rolleyes:

AIDs can be spread by vaginal intercourse as well as anal... so straight couples having anal sex doesn't actually... you know... mean anything.

Gen Curtis - you still haven't answered my post. To copy you:
"I want this answered"

And do note that with "proof" I mean something othr than you just saying "bullshit". I expect you to show figures and references and proven facts that support your claims.

I want this answered.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7792905&postcount=84

As I said THERE, fuck off. And stop posting the same bullshit in other threads.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7792905&postcount=84

As I said THERE, fuck off. And stop posting the same bullshit in other threads.

No, you were wrong there too.

Blah blah blah blah I can't cite any sources

Hey look, I can post the same thing in multiple threads too!

Hey look, I can post the same thing in multiple threads too!

I really pray that none of your family gets a non-AIDS disease.

I really pray that none of your family gets a non-AIDS disease.

I'll just keep praying for a source for you to cite ;)

Faggot is a duragatory term created when homosexuals were burned at the stakes in the old times. Originally meaning cigarette, homosexuals were burned to ashes which is why they were called faggots. Nice term to call yourself, eh? But then again I guess most people have double-standards.


actually Faggot is a bundle of sticks...cigarettes came later...but they too are called a fag in england at least...

imagine my chagrine when I was told off in america for asking a friend if I could bum a fag from them...scary stuff

actually Faggot is a bundle of sticks...cigarettes came later...but they too are called a fag in england at least...

imagine my chagrine when I was told off in america for asking a friend if I could bum a fag from them...scary stuff

Yeah, everytime I hear the word "fag" used to mean "homosexual," I promptly tell them to "fuck off, you're a bundle of sticks too!"

Of course there is negative influence of homosexuality on society.
I saw a very interesting documentary and discussion on Arte on Monday.
It was about the a study of the effects of homosexual "parents" on children.
The children living under a gay or lesbian couple were asked DIRETLY. That was very important to give the children a voice directly. Too children clearly said, that they were part of an experiment, one even said that all studies claiming that there is no effect of same-sex parents were manipulated for the reason of political correctness.
It became clear through this very interesting documentary that the claims of the gay-activists are wrong.
The children are suffering from different effects. The missing mother or father is a problem.
And this hole can´t be filled by a member of the different sex.
The argument that it can be filled by friends of the family is void because it is missing the role of the father or mother which is not that of an "uncle" or "aunt".
Also the children tend to grow up in a more steril environment in which the other sex is missing within this "family".
Interestingly the girl of a lesbian couple was able to play with Baby toys although her lesbian "mothers" didn´t want it (they were against this "female role-model").
But obviously human nature has certain charateristics which can´t be barred.
None the less, life is much more difficult for such children especially if they have to fight to life a normal (traditional) life although their "parents" present them another role-model.
Noone should forget that parents are the first role-model children get. It is of utmost importance to present a good role-model. And undoubtably the role-model of any society is a heterosexual relationship.
Many of the children said that they are part of an "experiment" (homosexuals as parents).
The question is whether we should allow such human experiments.
At least more study should be done to determine the long-term effects in the cases which have already happened and are currently happening.
Up until this is done it is - to say the least - irresponsible to push more children in such a situation.
Therefore homosexuals should remain barred from the option of adoption.

so then by your rationale single mothers should have their children taken away since there isn't a father figure and anyone who is widowed should also have their children taken away too since there is no longer a mother and a father. I've heard your argument is a common one in France. More extensive studies have been done all over the world and have found no such findings.

Also I don't know if you are aware but gay people have children without adoption. Should those children they have biologically also be taken away? Where does the policing of people's bodies and sex lives end?

I'll just keep praying for a source for you to cite ;)

Fair enough.
Homosexuals get aids. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2004-12-02-us-hiv_x.htm)



U.S. HIV infection rate holds steady
ATLANTA (AP) — Despite the government's promise to "break the back" of the AIDS epidemic by 2005, about 40,000 Americans test positive for the HIV infection every year — the same number as a decade ago.

The figure is double the annual goal of 20,000 new HIV cases laid out by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention nearly four years ago. Nearly a million people in the United States now have the AIDS virus.

"We have a ways to go before we reach the mark of reducing new infections by half in the United States," said Dr. Ronald Valdiserri, who heads the CDC's HIV and AIDS prevention program.

Still, Valdiserri described the infection rate as "relatively stable." CDC released the new data Wednesday as part of the agency's commemoration of World AIDS Day.

"Clearly we want to continue, and are continuing, to fund programs to reach out to people who are high-risk and are not infected," he added.

In 2001, the CDC's campaign focused on outwardly healthy people who did not realize they had HIV — about a fourth of those infected. Officials then said targeting them was key, because if they knew they were infected, they would be more likely to take steps not to spread the virus.

Such an effort "could possibly break the back of the epidemic in the United States," the CDC's Dr. Robert Janssen said then.

But the agency found that just targeting people who didn't know they had the AIDS virus was not enough. So last year, the CDC shifted gears, focusing on counseling those who knew they had HIV in an attempt to get them not to spread the virus.

Some advocacy groups say that effort fails to focus on drug users, or very sexually active young men.

"It just doesn't seem like much is really happening," said Terje Anderson, executive director of the Washington-based National Association of People Living With AIDS. "There just is a lack of imagination or spark in terms of the kinds of programs they support. I think they are politically afraid."

One AIDS expert said it's difficult for health officials to measure exactly how many new infections there are each year.

"Forty thousand is an estimate that is averaged over time. The changes can't be tracked easily from year to year," said Dr. James Curran, dean of Emory University's Rollins School of Public Health and the CDC's former AIDS chief during the epidemic's peak in the 1980s.

Valdiserri said the CDC is working on how to accurately determine how many people are infected each year but the system is still under development. Despite that, more attention needs to be paid to AIDS, Curran said.

"What has concerned many of us in the United States is the lack of attention to the domestic AIDS problem and complacency on behalf of high-risk groups," Curran said, adding that more counseling, testing and education is needed.

The CDC believes up to 950,000 people in the United States are infected and up to 280,000 of them don't know it, Valdiserri said.

The rate of HIV diagnoses in the United States increased slightly — by 1% — between 2000 and 2003, from 19.5 people per 100,000 population to 19.7 per 100,000 in the 32 states surveyed by the CDC.

But the increase in diagnoses was substantially greater for gay and bisexual men — a 11% rise between 2000 and 2003. The increase in HIV diagnoses, along with recent outbreaks of syphilis among that group in major U.S. cities, has concerned health officials, who fear that gay and bisexual men may be growing weary of sexually transmitted disease prevention messages and are abandoning safe sex practices.

Advocacy groups blame a lack of federal money for part of the failure to make a dent in the HIV rate.

"The reality is, to cut the number of infections, we need to do more — you can't always do more with less. We desperately need more resources," Anderson said.

When the AIDS epidemic began to unfold in the 1980s, U.S. HIV infections grew quickly. Although infections peaked after 1984, they have remained level since the early 1990s. Drug therapies have enabled many infected with HIV to live relatively normal lives, but more than 18,000 Americans died of AIDS in 2003, according to the latest data available.
Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Even the liberal press alludes to it Goed.

Fair enough.
Homosexuals get aids. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2004-12-02-us-hiv_x.htm)


Even the liberal press alludes to it Goed.

Now, I COULD be misreading things again (after all, I'm far from perfect), but that article says that there's been an increase in cases among the gay community. This is all well and good, but it still does not support your "gays started AIDS and gave it to the straight community" argument. Perhaps you can find another source that would support this argument? I would be highly interested in reading said source, as I have not been able to find one. Hopefully, your efforts manage to succeed where mine did not.

Regards,
Cythania

Exactly. And i'd be willing to bet MONEY that Amall Madnar is just fine with 2 grown men going at each other on network television, {boxing, wrestling, any type of fights} promoting violence to young citizens.


Actually, im inclined to disagree on one of your points. Boxing, when taught correctly, doesnt bread violence. It teaches disicpline, control and sportsmanship. I've been boxing for 4 years and have seen many people, younger and older than myself, get in the ring either to spare or for an actual contest and never have i seen anyone get angry or upset after.
Also, i have no problem with gay marriage as it isnt a probelm.

I want this answered.
I Don't Know Why I'm Even Addressing You. You Don't Deserve It. (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/georgia/outbreak/details.html)

Fair enough.
Homosexuals get aids. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2004-12-02-us-hiv_x.htm)


Even the liberal press alludes to it Goed.

http://www.thebody.com/asp/march99/myth.html
http://www.unaids.org/EN/Geographical+Area/By+Region/north_america.asp

Bam. Especially the second one.

All your's said was "AIDs is rising." No mention of "OMFG AIDs is ONLY IN GAY PEOPLE!!!ONEONEOEN"

I was walking through the mall today, just finishing up a little bit of late christmas shopping. The mall was packed with people, individuals buying for their families and couples searching for gifts together. The line for the kids to take a picture with Santa Claus was almost out the door. There was a gay couple holding hands and window shopping at rings, then they continued on and kissed each other. RIGHT IN FRONT OF A LINE FULL OF KIDS GOING TO SEE SANTA.

As I passed by the line, I heard a boy go "Why did those two men kiss daddy?", I felt sorry for the dad that had to answer that question. How are you supposed to explain that?

And that's only the start, kids copy what they see, next thing you know they will be trying to COPY that!!

If Gay Marriage isn't banned, next thing you know they will be having to teach this shit to our kids in school!!

S.Tommaso Said: LOVE AND DO EVERYTHINGS YOU WANT.
Learn Amall Learn!!!!

http://www.thebody.com/asp/march99/myth.html
http://www.unaids.org/EN/Geographical+Area/By+Region/north_america.asp

Bam. Especially the second one.

All your's said was "AIDs is rising." No mention of "OMFG AIDs is ONLY IN GAY PEOPLE!!!ONEONEOEN"

Yes Goed, reading is good. And read your second sources again, only one third of the new infections occurred in the straight comunity, the highest proportion of which occured in the African Amreican community, whose female partners reported not knowing the habits of their "lovers".

At the same time, it is the same comunity, by the accounts of your cited article that is most likely to hide their homosexual promiscious behavior.

Like I said, aids is a gay disease, and if the gays could just behave like striaghts, it would disappear.

I sleep for 2 hours and you idiots add 5 pages to this.


seriously, this debate so needs to end.

look outside, touch a woman. seriously.

Yeah, everytime I hear the word "fag" used to mean "homosexual," I promptly tell them to "fuck off, you're a bundle of sticks too!"


lol

I think I may start using that as well.

I find these type of posts (meaning gay debate in general) rather entertaining and affirming for me. It shows that ignorance and fear are alive and well in the world...just look at the general...

methinks perhaps his ignorance is showing too much...

I was walking through the mall today, just finishing up a little bit of late christmas shopping. The mall was packed with people, individuals buying for their families and couples searching for gifts together. The line for the kids to take a picture with Santa Claus was almost out the door. There was a gay couple holding hands and window shopping at rings, then they continued on and kissed each other. RIGHT IN FRONT OF A LINE FULL OF KIDS GOING TO SEE SANTA.

As I passed by the line, I heard a boy go "Why did those two men kiss daddy?", I felt sorry for the dad that had to answer that question. How are you supposed to explain that?

And that's only the start, kids copy what they see, next thing you know they will be trying to COPY that!!

If Gay Marriage isn't banned, next thing you know they will be having to teach this shit to our kids in school!!
Well, there's worse shit Americans teach their kids in school-creationism! Besides, what is offensive about people being people ?

Yes Goed, reading is good. And read your second sources again, only one third of the new infections occurred in the straight comunity, the highest proportion of which occured in the African Amreican community, whose female partners reported not knowing the habits of their "lovers".

At the same time, it is the same comunity, by the accounts of your cited article that is most likely to hide their homosexual promiscious behavior.

Like I said, aids is a gay disease, and if the gays could just behave like striaghts, it would disappear.


Then is homophobia a straight mans disease cos there sure seems to be a lot of it?

I sleep for 2 hours and you idiots add 5 pages to this.


seriously, this debate so needs to end.

look outside, touch a woman. seriously.

Well, I *am* a woman... so me touching a woman would just add to this debate :p

Then is homophobia a straight mans disease cos there sure seems to be a lot of it?

Oooohh pithy.

But wrong. Where did I say I was against gay people, I just want everything to be considered in this whole marriage bullshit debate.

Oooohh pithy.

But wrong. Where did I say I was against gay people, I just want everything to be considered in this whole marriage bullshit debate.


Sorry mate, wasnt intentionally aimed at you. And people who are homophobic arent always bad people. My Grandad doesnt like the thought of gay people but he is never nasty or spiteful about it. It's the people who act on their beliefs by carrying out acts of violence, verbal or phsical, these are the people i do not have time for.

Well, I *am* a woman... so me touching a woman would just add to this debate :p


well, it's different for women. no one cares if you get married. we just pull up a chair, cook some popcorn and say "don't mind us, we wont say anything!"





so, please do addto the debate :p

well, it's different for women. no one cares if you get married. we just pull up a chair, cook some popcorn and say "don't mind us, we wont say anything!"

so, please do addto the debate :p

Heh. Damn inequali... oh wait, it's on my favour. Nevermind :D

I think if I wanted to get married to a girl I'd try and find some loophole that would let me or, preferably, my female partner claim to be male... ideally one of us would have one of those wacky sex-chromosome combinations (no offence meant by 'wacky'). Although I think it's said that anyone with at least one Y chromosome = male...

Bah. Screw it. I'd just move to somewhere where gay marriage is legal. Governments that don't allow it sure as hell don't deserve my tax dollars.

Yes Goed, reading is good. And read your second sources again, only one third of the new infections occurred in the straight comunity, the highest proportion of which occured in the African Amreican community, whose female partners reported not knowing the habits of their "lovers".

At the same time, it is the same comunity, by the accounts of your cited article that is most likely to hide their homosexual promiscious behavior.

Like I said, aids is a gay disease, and if the gays could just behave like striaghts, it would disappear.

And yet, you say that ONLY gay people have AIDs. So what is it? Is AIDs a homosexual disease or not? You contradicted yourself in the same post.

*furthermore* are you saying that homosexuals are promiscuious and straight people are not? Answer these questions please, if you actually can.

homophobia is so close to racism, its hilarious to watch the absurdity. its like watching political debates from the 1840's "hes not a man, hes property! he has no rights!"

*snip blah blah blah verbal diahrea*

if homosexuality was right, god would have made men be able to have kids out their asses. because afterall that is the whole point in sex....procreation. thats why even anal and oral with the opposing sex is wrong.

So, tell me, I really want to know... is it against your religion to form a coherent, logical thought? Because in gamer terms, it sounds very much as if when they were passing out brains, you thought they said trains and ran for your life.

I sincerely wish upon you a lifechanging experience that puts you in the position of the maltreated and opressed minority so that you have an opportunity to learn to be a decent human being.

And yet, you say that ONLY gay people have AIDs. So what is it? Is AIDs a homosexual disease or not? You contradicted yourself in the same post.

*furthermore* are you saying that homosexuals are promiscuious and straight people are not? Answer these questions please, if you actually can.

I never said that only homosexuals have aids, I said that homosexuality is the primary transimission mechanism.

Homosexual men are far more promiscuous than striaight people. We have an entire industry in this country dedicated to curing the disease that they spread thorugh their promiscuity. Unless and until the moderate their behavior, and the AIDS funding is put on the same level as CF, their whole argument about being treated as unequal becuase the cannot get married is moot.

They have, ceteris paribus, the same marriage rights as straight people. In addition they have and exceptional amout of funding aimed at the diesease that their lifstyle promotes.

Shut up I say.

Like I said, aids is a gay disease, and if the gays could just behave like striaghts, it would disappear.

*closes her eyes and counts to ten, then envisions Gen roasting in hell for all eternity. Feels better.*

At the same time, it is the same comunity, by the accounts of your cited article that is most likely to hide their homosexual promiscious behavior.
Like I said, aids is a gay disease, and if the gays could just behave like striaghts, it would disappear.

So, in other words, you are in favour of gay marriage and complete equal rights on all fronts- since that would reduce promiscuity and actually allow them to behave like straights, instead of being forced to hide their preferences from the general public ?

Then I just want to know why you believe they already [i]have[/i those rights.

*closes her eyes and counts to ten, then envisions Gen roasting in hell for all eternity. Feels better.*

*offers Boo some nice calming tea*
It's ok. We all end up on the brink of homicidal rampages occasionally. I think humans have some instinctual aversion to idiocy... possibly because our ancient ancestors had to rely on each other to provide for the tribe... individuals to dumb to throw spears probably ended up getting fed to lions.

Ah... the good old days.

:p

*closes her eyes and counts to ten, then envisions Gen roasting in hell for all eternity. Feels better.*

Oh, so their promiscuity has nothing to do with it then?

Rubbish. You have to meet people half way. If teh gays want the marriage, they need to start acting like the straights.

= Pracus]How is being taught by the church to believe that homosexuals are deviant sinners not a learned behavior?

It is taught, but you are not condemned if you disagree.

And for that matter--is your sexuality a learned behavior?

No, why, well good ol mother nature gave me a prong, and gave the chosen

or interested woman a receptacle for that purpose, as nature intended, so its

natural not learned.

Propagation of the species you know, homosexuality doesnt really fit into

mother natures plans, its deviant behaviour, nothing else.

Is it learned, probably, but there would have to be already, some desire on

the part of the homosexual to be this way inclined, I do not condemn gays

for being like this, but to attack people for not accepting them as a part of

their life, calling them names such as homophobic etc is just PC gone mad.

Could you learn to love and lust after men?

Love, I already do, lust...I dont think so.

[QUOTE]<Things that make me want to go on one of those afforementioned homicidal rampages>

I'm off. I can handle one person with no facts but lots of opinions, but I've debated with Term before. It tends to make my brain itch and leave me with various stabbity desires. Try and keep the flaming down everyone - normally I'm not an advocate of 'play nice', but then... hmm. I can't think of a way to finish that.

then again, i dont want to be pulling banned-rods out of no-ones ass, either

(your welcome)

Oh, so their promiscuity has nothing to do with it then?
Rubbish. You have to meet people half way. If teh gays want the marriage, they need to start acting like the straights.

Do you seriously believe that most gay people are of the "a different f*ck each day" type ? In all honesty this is something I associate more with MTV generation teenagers (which also is stereotyping), but for the sake of argument, let's assume you're right.

Then ask yourself: WHY are they that way. Could it be that society is forcing them ? After all, as pointed out at the start of this topic, if they openly show their love in a normal way like kissing in public they are considered to be offensive. People start yelling that that should be forbidden. So unless they can ignore that, and the throwing in of windows, the shops that refuse to trade with them since their owners consider themselves devout christians (but missed the main message of the religion) it is better to find love secretely. Which does *not* promote stable relationships...

So - give them the possibility of behaving like straights, before you demand that they do.

I'm off. I can handle one person with no facts but lots of opinions, but I've debated with Term before. It tends to make my brain itch and leave me with various stabbity desires. Try and keep the flaming down everyone - normally I'm not an advocate of 'play nice', but then... hmm. I can't think of a way to finish that.

Could you show me where you pulled that little quote from Shaed?

prolly straight out her(his) ass.

Could you show me where you pulled that little quote from Shaed?

Just didn't want to quote the whole post, and nothing in it lead on to my point. Don't worry, I think people will spot that it's not a real quote. I'll go add in some <>'s though. That should make it clearer.

prolly straight out her(his) ass.

Her.

im still skeptical. for all we know your a cigar smoking 420 pound ex con named bubba...


internet no trsuty wusty.

Just didn't want to quote the whole post, and nothing in it lead on to my point. Don't worry, I think people will spot that it's not a real quote. I'll go add in some <>'s though. That should make it clearer.

Righttttt...so you did pull it out of your arse, childish.

Thank you Shaed. You are a sweetie. And I think that we have too many institutions protecting the amazingly stupid and allowing them to reproduce and spread their defective genes through the genetic pool, which produces such prodigies as our dear Gen here.

Gen, please go get a proper education on the disease you are so cheerfully dismissing as primarily vectored by gay men. AIDs, unlike you and your mentally deficient peers, does not discriminate. It spread more quickly through IV drug abuse than via homosexual activity. It CONTINUES to spread more quickly than it should because BIGOTED FATHEADS like yourself INSIST on yammering at the tops of their lungs about how it's mostly if not entirely a big gay disease that godfearing hets aren't at huge risk of getting.

Meanwhile, the gay community is doing everything in its power to protect itself from being ravaged by the "gay plague" while the hetero population is merrily contracting and spreading it like the common cold because most of us are too stupid to understand that screwing someone of the opposite sex is a handy, easy way to transmit the bloody virus. "Oh, Johnny's straight and never touched a sausage in his life so he can't have it" doesn't keep him from giving to Mary-Jane after he got it from his previous girlfriend who just happened to bang some guy who shot up meth and got it off a needle someone else used.

Promiscuity isn't a commodity that the gay population has cornered, FYI. Venerial diseases like herpes are so common in the mainstream population that you can't watch TV for an evening without seeing a commercial for meds that supress and hide breakouts FFS. The average hetero person is amazingly unconcerned about protecting themselves and their sexual partners against STDs and barely concern themselves except for after the fact about pregnancy. It's pretty disgusting that you can blissfully ignore that it's socially acceptible for straight men to carry on like complete whores while bleating about how awful it is for gay men to do so.

Please go rent a brain.

Do you seriously believe that most gay people are of the "a different f*ck each day" type ? In all honesty this is something I associate more with MTV generation teenagers (which also is stereotyping), but for the sake of argument, let's assume you're right.

Then ask yourself: WHY are they that way. Could it be that society is forcing them ? After all, as pointed out at the start of this topic, if they openly show their love in a normal way like kissing in public they are considered to be offensive. People start yelling that that should be forbidden. So unless they can ignore that, and the throwing in of windows, the shops that refuse to trade with them since their owners consider themselves devout christians (but missed the main message of the religion) it is better to find love secretely. Which does *not* promote stable relationships...

So - give them the possibility of behaving like straights, before you demand that they do.


Oh God forbid they could actually do something about their behavior first and, like, earn the respect of people.

Face it, Gay marraige was unanimously voted down in every state where it was on the ballot. Vox Populi Vox Dei, &ct. If it really matters to the gay community, they will start working towards it by moderating their sick promiscous behavior. I suggest not calling gay bars "manhole" as a start.

- as an aside, what the fuvk would happen to me if I opened a bar called womanhole? -

Either it means something, and it is part of the sacred undying love they are always telling us about; in which case they will actually change their behavior to get it; Or it is just yet another mindless rant from the gay community. BTW, if I was in power, I would cut all AIDS funding.