NationStates Jolt Archive

Decisions insofar as they run their businesses. All individuals will be able to freely conduct their private lives, insofar as they do not harm the liberty of others.

Of course.

It seems like an ideal system. The marriage of the free-market with socialist principles.

I'm not sure what model of consumer accountability will work out best; if it turns out to be the market I have no problem with that, as long as it does not subordinate other important aims - like the protection of the environment and the non-oppression of the workforce - to efficiency.

So what do you do with the industry baron who has built a successful company under the current regime? Say "Thanks for all your effort", and take it away to give to his/her workers?

Depends on a lot of things, ideally. You would compensate the owner for the labor he contributed to the company, and for the wealth that came from his past labor, but yes, you would deprive him of his position.

Most of the time, though, the current owners control what they do through the proceeds of other people's labor, or through other aspects of class privilege, not through (or solely through) their own effort or merit.

Most folks can be proud without having a parade.

Just a thought.

And regarding the actual topic...

Most people don't have to deal with systemic alienation from 90% of the world.

Think about it. There's a good chunk of people out there who would like to imprison/stone/burn you, and the rest of the population thinks you're "abnormal" "diseased" "disgusting", etc etc. All the couples you see around you are straight. All the ads you see with people kissing/flirting/etc feature straight people. All the shows on TV feature breeders. You can hardly ask anyone out for fear that you will get stomped. Your family won't speak to you. You can't tell anyone at work, on your baseball team, or at your friends', because then the best you can hope for is awquardness, the worst is...much worse.

Wouldn't you like to party now and then?

Depends on a lot of things, ideally. You would compensate the owner for the labor he contributed to the company, and for the wealth that came from his past labor, but yes, you would deprive him of his position.

Most of the time, though, the current owners control what they do through the proceeds of other people's labor, or through other aspects of class privilege, not through (or solely through) their own effort or merit.Last post before I bugger off..

Unless there's a compelling reason to snag his business from him, it wouldn't happen. He'd just have to share ownership with the rest of the people responsible for operating said business, and he'd be compensated as Soheran pointed out.

Take care all, it's been a pleasure :)

Depends on a lot of things, ideally. You would compensate the owner for the labor he contributed to the company, and for the wealth that came from his past labor, but yes, you would deprive him of his position.

Most of the time, though, the current owners control what they do through the proceeds of other people's labor, or through other aspects of class privilege, not through (or solely through) their own effort or merit.

None the less, the company, as it exists today, is 100% the result of the current owner's abilities. She had a vision. Hired the workers. Built the company. Made the deals. Invested the capital. Etc etc. "removing them from their position" is theft, plain and simple.

Even if the position is inherited, and the new owner has done nothing but squander the company's assets, that is his right by virtue of ownership.

And who would compensate the owner? The workers? If they have that kind of money, then the whole operation is kind of pointless. If they don't, then who does. The government?

And regarding the actual topic...

Most people don't have to deal with systemic alienation from 90% of the world.

Think about it. There's a good chunk of people out there who would like to imprison/stone/burn you, and the rest of the population thinks you're "abnormal" "diseased" "disgusting", etc etc. All the couples you see around you are straight. All the ads you see with people kissing/flirting/etc feature straight people. All the shows on TV feature breeders. You can hardly ask anyone out for fear that you will get stomped. Your family won't speak to you. You can't tell anyone at work, on your baseball team, or at your friends', because then the best you can hope for is awquardness, the worst is...much worse.

Wouldn't you like to party now and then?
Sorry -- blow that hanky elsewhere.

Queer As Folk
The L Word
Will and Grace
Ellen
Six Feet Under
Queer Eye

The TV argument is hash.

I'm frequently in the minority on any number of issues. More often than not, I don't feel the need to bring them up. Most notably sex. If a homosexual lives in an area where his life is under threat (i.e. Matthew Shepard) for merely being gay, that's his lookout. Of course I'd like to party every now and then under the conditions you describe, but in no way would I do it down the main thoroughfare of a major city. Be gay, be proud and get on with life. Your "awkwardness" comes from your own shame, and from giving too much power to the ignorant around you. There's a difference between pride and demanding others be proud, too.

Most folks can be proud without having a parade.

Just a thought.

Yeah, like the Irish. Oops. (http://images.google.se/images?q=patrick's%20day&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:sv-SE:official&sa=N&tab=wi) Yah, like the Christians. Oops. (http://images.google.se/images?svnum=10&hl=sv&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Asv-SE%3Aofficial&q=macy%27s+parade&btnG=S%C3%B6k) Yeah, like the USians. Ooops. (http://images.google.se/images?svnum=10&hl=sv&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Asv-SE%3Aofficial&q=4th+of+july+parade&btnG=S%C3%B6k) Yeah, like the Hindus. Ooops. (http://images.google.se/images?svnum=10&hl=sv&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Asv-SE%3Aofficial&q=Diwali+parade&btnG=S%C3%B6k) Yeah, like the...

Yeah, like the Irish. Oops. (http://images.google.se/images?q=patrick's%20day&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:sv-SE:official&sa=N&tab=wi) Yah, like the Christians. Oops. (http://images.google.se/images?svnum=10&hl=sv&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Asv-SE%3Aofficial&q=macy%27s+parade&btnG=S%C3%B6k) Yeah, like the USians. Ooops. (http://images.google.se/images?svnum=10&hl=sv&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Asv-SE%3Aofficial&q=4th+of+july+parade&btnG=S%C3%B6k) Yeah, like the Hindus. Ooops. (http://images.google.se/images?svnum=10&hl=sv&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Asv-SE%3Aofficial&q=Diwali+parade&btnG=S%C3%B6k) Yeah, like the...
Assume all you like, Fass. I don't think those groups need parades, either. Nobody needs a parade just for being who they are.

Assume all you like, Fass. I don't think those groups need parades, either.

So, when you said most people didn't need parades, you were just talking crap, or what?

So, when you said most people didn't need parades, you were just talking crap, or what?
Nope. I meant exactly what I said. Most folks can be proud without having a parade. A parade just 'cause you're Irish? Why? Accomplish something worthy of community recognition, and I'll be the first to watch you strut down the boulevard. Perhaps commemorate a major anniversary -- say 25, 50 or 100 years of something. But every year? No thanks.

Sorry -- blow that hanky elsewhere.

Queer As Folk
The L Word
Will and Grace
Ellen
Six Feet Under
Queer Eye

The TV argument is hash.

I'm frequently in the minority on any number of issues. More often than not, I don't feel the need to bring them up. Most notably sex. If a homosexual lives in an area where his life is under threat (i.e. Matthew Shepard) for merely being gay, that's his lookout. Of course I'd like to party every now and then under the conditions you describe, but in no way would I do it down the main thoroughfare of a major city. Be gay, be proud and get on with life. Your "awkwardness" comes from your own shame, and from giving too much power to the ignorant around you. There's a difference between pride and demanding others be proud, too.

"demanding that others be proud" Where did that come from? Does your pride parade have mandatory attendance?

In my city, for example, the pride parade was originally a protest march. Police destroyed a couple of bathhouses, and the community marched to protest. It slowly evolved into a celebration. I don't see how that's wrong.

Nope. I meant exactly what I said. Most folks can be proud without having a parade. A parade just 'cause you're Irish? Why? Accomplish something worthy of community recognition, and I'll be the first to watch you strut down the boulevard. Perhaps commemorate a major anniversary -- say 25, 50 or 100 years of something. But every year? No thanks.

No, you claimed most people could be proud without parades, yet most people seem to have a parade. So, I call BS on your claim that they don't need parades. If they didn't need them, they wouldn't have them. But they do, don't they?

"demanding that others be proud" Where did that come from? Does your pride parade have mandatory attendance?

In my city, for example, the pride parade was originally a protest march. Police destroyed a couple of bathhouses, and the community marched to protest. It slowly evolved into a celebration. I don't see how that's wrong.
Nobody said it was wrong.

Not mandatory, but I have to deal with it when I'm headed downtown.

I'm glad you have a celebration, but every year? Why not spend that energy getting friendly lawmakers elected?

No, you claimed most people could be proud without parades, yet most people seem to have a parade. So, I call BS on your claim that they don't need parades. If they didn't need them, they wouldn't have them. But they do, don't they?
Semantics.

I (ME, personally) don't think that most parades are necessary. The fact that most people seem to have them doesn't invalidate that point. Those who have them seem to think they're necessary. Why, I don't know.

Nobody said it was wrong.

Not mandatory, but I have to deal with it when I'm headed downtown.

I'm glad you have a celebration, but every year? Why not spend that energy getting friendly lawmakers elected?

We did. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_marriage_in_Canada)

Pride week isn't just about floats and parties, it's also about activism and organization.

We did. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_marriage_in_Canada)

Pride week isn't just about floats and parties, it's also about activism and organization.
Well done there. Another in a long series of reasons why Canada rocks.

I just don't think sexual preference is something that needs to be overtly flaunted -- by ANY preference. I'm sickened at the constant barrage of heterosexual garbage all across life in the US, and though I realize I'll never stop it because it feeds directly into capitalism, I can still oppose it. Same thing goes for gay-themed capitalism. If there were no money in, for example, Queer Eye, you can bet it wouldn't be on TV. Wait a minute -- I suppse that reverses me, doesn't it? Capitlaism overcame cultural bias there, didn't it.

Clearly this issue is ridiculously complex. Or is it?

Y'know what? Fuck it. Dance in the streets. Why should I care? In fact, I don't think I do anymore.

I (ME, personally) don't think that most parades are necessary. The fact that most people seem to have them doesn't invalidate that point. Those who have them seem to think they're necessary. Why, I don't know.

So, what you're basically saying is you were wrong. They do need parades. You don't, but they do. You weren't speaking for yourself. You were speaking for them.

Unfortunately for any minority group, if our presence is not noticed by main stream society, then we as people or our struggles and fight for the basic civil rights that all "normal folk" have earnt would never be noticed or achieved either. We are then forced to live in the shadows and never be able to live as our true selves for fear of persecution. This is not only the case for LGBT people but for people of faith like the Jews in Nazi Germany, African Americans during the times of slavery etc. Martin Luther King Jr. lead an "in your face" march to Washington to "flaunt" his belief that all men were created equal. The million man march did the very same thing as did Germaine Greer and other leaders of the feminist movement.

The acceptance and visibility that LGBT folk enjoy today is a direct result of a movement (similar to the women's movement and African American civil rights actions) that started at the Stonewall Riots in New York in 1969. Stonewall happened because gays and lesbians were being tracked by the police and harassed on suspicion of being gay. The people at Stonewall decided that enough was enough and marched to highlight the fact that they were being persecuted by the police and local government for being gay. This was the first gay pride event and brought our issues out of the shadows and this is why we continue to march.

i am not saying look at me im gay and who i sleep with is all of who i am. My sexuality is not the be all and end all of who i am, just like yours is not or the color of an African American person's skin is the sum total of who they are. BUT when we are attacked, hated and persecuted for any of the traits that are part of us then it becomes imperative we stand up and fight for ourselves and our basic civil rights and for acceptance. i have the same opinion in the context of attacking and persecuting someone on the basis of their religious and/or moral convictions.

So, what you're basically saying is you were wrong. They do need parades. You don't, but they do. You weren't speaking for yourself. You were speaking for them.
Look, I appreciate your thinly-veiled and channeled anger at having your lifestlye looked at askance. I know if something I were that invested in were questioned, I'd be defensive, too.

Fass, you're easily one of the most skilled dialecticians and debaters in all of NS, and there's no way in hell I'm going to try to match wits with you. If I liked having my head handed to me that much, I'd go tease a bison.

That doesn't change the fact that my point is that -- in my opinion -- parades just for being who or what you are are wasteful, unnecessary and annoying. That doesn't make me right or wrong, it makes me opinionated...something you should have no trouble identifying with.

So you're saying that you're willing to be tolerant of homosexuality, provided that you don't have to actually tolerate anything?

If there were no money in, for example, Queer Eye, you can bet it wouldn't be on TV. Wait a minute -- I suppse that reverses me, doesn't it? Capitlaism overcame cultural bias there, didn't it.
There's money in the perpetuation of stereotypes and the notion of materialism being related to self-image and your value as a person, yes. But very few profitable mainstream depictions of homosexuals are remotely realistic. For instance, the failure of television's Normal, Ohio due to the discrepency between the depiction of the gay main character and what mainstream America expected a gay man to look and act like.

There's money in the perpetuation of stereotypes and the notion of materialism being related to self-image and your value as a person, yes. But very few profitable mainstream depictions of homosexuals are remotely realistic. For instance, the failure of television's Normal, Ohio due to the discrepency between the depiction of the gay main character and what mainstream America expected a gay man to look and act like.

And that -- that alone -- was why the show failed? The failure of very well-written shows on network television is practically a proverb.

Why On Earth Would You Be Proud About Committing A Mortal Sin????
Umm so are you.. judge not lest you be judged. Do unto others as they would do unto you.. i could go on but ya know what im wasting valuable seconds even answering this because so called Christians like you forget so much of the teaching of the great Man who your religion is named after. But then we were warned to beware of false prophets, so i guess that's covered too!:headbang:

There's money in the perpetuation of stereotypes and the notion of materialism being related to self-image and your value as a person, yes. But very few profitable mainstream depictions of homosexuals are remotely realistic. For instance, the failure of television's Normal, Ohio due to the discrepency between the depiction of the gay main character and what mainstream America expected a gay man to look and act like.

Yes and what about the money being made from Christianity? Mel Gibson's lil movie for which ticket sales were sold even demanded by clergy all around the country? the surge in Christian Diet Books? The increase in merchanising of all things Christian??? Or is it ok when it's your product or at least one that the so called bastions of moral decency would buy, being marketed to Mainstream America?

I'm not sure what model of consumer accountability will work out best; if it turns out to be the market I have no problem with that, as long as it does not subordinate other important aims - like the protection of the environment and the non-oppression of the workforce - to efficiency.
The market, ultimately yes, but considerations such as the protection of the environment would be key. New technologies would help more efficient production. And, because the workers would ultimately be working for themselves, productivity would be likely to rise. So efficiency might be maintained anyway. There are books, such as Natural Capitalism, which advocate greener, more socially friendly business models.

Last post before I bugger off..

Unless there's a compelling reason to snag his business from him, it wouldn't happen. He'd just have to share ownership with the rest of the people responsible for operating said business, and he'd be compensated as Soheran pointed out.

Take care all, it's been a pleasure :)
Sounds pretty fine to me. This would meet with resistance, but if it succeeded ultimately, it would be a boon.

What kind anyway? Liberal-libertarian or libertarian-left? I am the former.

BTW, Kravania check your telegrams.

Liberal Libertarian - Liberal as in the meaning of 'freedom' not 'socialist' or 'welfare state' which is the way it gets used today.

Small government, individual choice and responsibility, and allowing the individual to donate to the organisations that they wish to support rather than having a government steal money off them each week, and then bribe them each election year with their own money, by offering sweetners.

Europa Maxima:

Check your TGs.

If you want to talk to me via chatroom.

Liberal Libertarian - Liberal as in the meaning of 'freedom' not 'socialist' or 'welfare state' which is the way it gets used today.

Small government, individual choice and responsibility, and allowing the individual to donate to the organisations that they wish to support rather than having a government steal money off them each week, and then bribe them each election year with their own money, by offering sweetners.
Then we are more or less in agreement. :) That's liberalism in its classical sense. When it comes to anarcho-libertarianism, I go for a mix of meritocratic syndicalism and capitalism, as mentioned before in this thread.

I do not publicly display my Fascist beliefs.

I don't walk around the streets of London in Fascist uniform either.

Im not a skinhead, I do have hair on my scalp. BTW I detest skinheads, they give the Fascist cause bad publicity.

I dress and act in a normal and polite manner.

If you were ever to meet me in person, you would have no idea of my beliefs or views.

I guess the reason my muggers went for me is that fact that I wear designer clothing and have expensive taste. But then again, what does that say about these violent youths, who attack people who are not afraid of showing others their success?

Interesting, so in otherwords, you're a coward who is too scared to show his beliefs; goes right to the heart of the issue.

Facists and their lack of a backbone.

Interesting, so in otherwords, you're a coward who is too scared to show his beliefs; goes right to the heart of the issue.

Facists and their lack of a backbone.

There is no need to get all personal, I never insulted you.

Granted you may dislike my decision to develop a process by which I'm trying to live according to my Faith and my process to try and see if I can leave homosexuality.

Please respect my wishes on that, for it's a hard process for me, one that does cause me to go through emotional upset and it is causing great mental stress on me, all the worse, givne I work in a very stressful environment and one that consumes me mentally as well.

I may not even be able to do as my Faith asks, then God must decide upon my fate.

If you wish to have a debate on the nature of Fascism, then please, we can start a new thread for that if you wish.

Anyways, this was supposed to be a thread about Gay Pride marches and yet it has now developed into a debate about Communism, Fascism etc...

Anyways, this was supposed to be a thread about Gay Pride marches and yet it has now developed into a debate about Communism, Fascism etc...
Albeit a rather constructive one.

I sent you a message on the website.

There is no need to get all personal, I never insulted you.

Granted you may dislike my decision to develop a process by which I'm trying to live according to my Faith and my process to try and see if I can leave homosexuality.

Please respect my wishes on that, for it's a hard process for me, one that does cause me to go through emotional upset and it is causing great mental stress on me, all the worse, givne I work in a very stressful environment and one that consumes me mentally as well.

I may not even be able to do as my Faith asks, then God must decide upon my fate.

If you wish to have a debate on the nature of Fascism, then please, we can start a new thread for that if you wish.

Anyways, this was supposed to be a thread about Gay Pride marches and yet it has now developed into a debate about Communism, Fascism etc...

Sorry, why should I give sympathy to a person who deliberately goes out of their way to make their life difficult?

Here is the 'solution' to your problem - accept your homosexuality; have some values based on reality rather than myths; read some books about more than just religious jingoisms, and for goodness sake, drop the facist attitude, you're not going to get a boyfriend with that sort of persona.

As for 'gay pride' marches, I don't get involved with them because quite frankly, I can't stand them; and that goes for ANY march, be it the Christmas parade etc. Its a pathetic display of adults trying to relive their youth or show that they're still 'hip' and 'cool'. I certaintily don't need some hip gyrating twink drancing on the float to give me pride.

Do I want them banned? of course not, if people wish to want down the road naked, I would have no issues, just as I would have no issues if some heterosexuals go together to express their culture of out of control breeding, domestic violence, and the strange thing I've noticed recently, the decline of their IQ after having a child and decreasing with each child they have, to the point that they're some pathetic 30 year old parent who gets excited each time the Christmas parade rolls around each year.

The reason why homosexual deviants make such an effort to not only inform the wider public of their sin, they make a specific point of promoting the homosexual 'lifestyle' to the extent that homosexuals will insist that EVERY member of society not only tolerates their perversion, but to shout down and supress the voices of truth, be they upstanding members of society who detest the moral decay of todays world or the Church, who now have been silenced by an elaborate network of homosexual 'rights' activists.

Homosexuals seek to recruit the innocent and the simple minded to either become homosexuals themselves or they try and turn normal people into foot soldiers/cannon fodder for their campaign to spread homosexuality and thus morcal decay throughout the whole of society.

I beg to dissagree. Though if you want me to, by all means let me know, since you seem to expect it from me. :D

I don't find my sexuality to be something to be proud of, but it is a part of me.

Europa Maxima:

Did you get my last message on the 'other' website?

It was the very long one?

If not I'll do a re-send.

...just as I would have no issues if some heterosexuals go together to express their culture of out of control breeding, domestic violence, and the strange thing I've noticed recently, the decline of their IQ after having a child and decreasing with each child they have, to the point that they're some pathetic 30 year old parent who gets excited each time the Christmas parade rolls around each year.
Interesting talk for someone who seems to express his/her wish for homosexuality to be an accepted lifestyle. Do you really think that slandering the sexuality of the majority of the world is a way to gain acceptance? It's funny, so many people claim to want acceptance/harmony for the world, regardless of traits such as race and sexuality, and yet they attack those different from them just because they are attacked by certain members of that group. It's a ludicrous and hypocritical behavior.

Europa Maxima:

Did you get my last message on the 'other' website?

It was the very long one?

If not I'll do a re-send.
I got it :)

Interesting talk for someone who seems to express his/her wish for homosexuality to be an accepted lifestyle. Do you really think that slandering the sexuality of the majority of the world is a way to gain acceptance? It's funny, so many people claim to want acceptance/harmony for the world, regardless of traits such as race and sexuality, and yet they attack those different from them just because they are attacked by certain members of that group. It's a ludicrous and hypocritical behavior.
Ever heard of sarcasm?;)

Ever heard of sarcasm?;)

But humor is a bannable offense on the forums... didn't you know? ;)

Disclaimer: Kravania, this is for your benefit.

Granted you may dislike my decision to develop a process by which I'm trying to live according to my Faith and my process to try and see if I can leave homosexuality.

Please respect my wishes on that, for it's a hard process for me, one that does cause me to go through emotional upset and it is causing great mental stress on me, all the worse, givne I work in a very stressful environment and one that consumes me mentally as well.
If you're trying to leave homosexuality, all you're committing is an exercise in futility. Listen to everyone else who's said this, if not to me: sexuality is innate, and once it's developed in a person, it does not change. My belief (how correct it is could be debated) is that people are not born straight or gay or bi. Throughout their emotional and physical development, they evolve and grow as a person, and their sexuality is a part of that (albeit a relatively small one). Again, once it's developed, it doesn't change.

You're 23. You're long past your development stage, and so there is no hope of you to possibly change who you are. People can change how they look to other people on the outside. You can act straight, but deep down, you will always be gay. Nothing you can do can change that; the best thing you can do for yourself is to accept that.

You're religious, that's a fact that you've been practically screaming this whole thread. If you're gay or straight, then that's the way God intended for you to be. If you try and change your sexuality, you'll be going against what God intended to be your path through life. Isn't that kinda going against your religion?

Disclaimer: Kravania, this is for your benefit.


If you're trying to leave homosexuality, all you're committing is an exercise in futility. Listen to everyone else who's said this, if not to me: sexuality is innate, and once it's developed in a person, it does not change. My belief (how correct it is could be debated) is that people are not born straight or gay or bi. Throughout their emotional and physical development, they evolve and grow as a person, and their sexuality is a part of that (albeit a relatively small one). Again, once it's developed, it doesn't change.

You're 23. You're long past your development stage, and so there is no hope of you to possibly change who you are. People can change how they look to other people on the outside. You can act straight, but deep down, you will always be gay. Nothing you can do can change that; the best thing you can do for yourself is to accept that.

You're religious, that's a fact that you've been practically screaming this whole thread. If you're gay or straight, then that's the way God intended for you to be. If you try and change your sexuality, you'll be going against what God intended to be your path through life. Isn't that kinda going against your religion?

He can choose not to be gay (in a sense). It's called chastity. (Although he still may have those types of feelings...)

He can choose not to be gay (in a sense). It's called chastity. (Although he still may have those types of feelings...)
That's merely choosing not to have sex, which doesn't change the fact that he's attracted to guys. He just doesn't have sex with them.

I get what you mean though. The net result in the human population is the same.

Disclaimer: Kravania, this is for your benefit.


If you're trying to leave homosexuality, all you're committing is an exercise in futility. Listen to everyone else who's said this, if not to me: sexuality is innate, and once it's developed in a person, it does not change. My belief (how correct it is could be debated) is that people are not born straight or gay or bi. Throughout their emotional and physical development, they evolve and grow as a person, and their sexuality is a part of that (albeit a relatively small one). Again, once it's developed, it doesn't change.

You're 23. You're long past your development stage, and so there is no hope of you to possibly change who you are. People can change how they look to other people on the outside. You can act straight, but deep down, you will always be gay. Nothing you can do can change that; the best thing you can do for yourself is to accept that.

You're religious, that's a fact that you've been practically screaming this whole thread. If you're gay or straight, then that's the way God intended for you to be. If you try and change your sexuality, you'll be going against what God intended to be your path through life. Isn't that kinda going against your religion?

Even so... I can empathise with him, especially if he's christian and/or has many friends who would dislike him because of his orientation... It's not easy by any means.

Even so... I can empathise with him, especially if he's christian and/or has many friends who would dislike him because of his orientation... It's not easy by any means.
That is true too. But he's going to be worse off himself further down the track if he continues to deny who he is.

(and try quoting the right post next time ;) )

That is true too. But he's going to be worse off himself further down the track if he continues to deny who he is.

(and try quoting the right post next time ;) )

Agreed :)

(and I will, lol :D )

None the less, the company, as it exists today, is 100% the result of the current owner's abilities. She had a vision. Hired the workers. Built the company. Made the deals. Invested the capital. Etc etc. "removing them from their position" is theft, plain and simple.

Even if the position is inherited, and the new owner has done nothing but squander the company's assets, that is his right by virtue of ownership.

And who would compensate the owner? The workers? If they have that kind of money, then the whole operation is kind of pointless. If they don't, then who does. The government?I disagree.

From a strictly legal perspective, laws only apply when they exist. A complete restructuring of society, and property ownership, would mean it'd be illegal for the company owner to hang on to the property.

From a moral perspective, she is enjoying the fruits of other people's labour, at their expense. In moral terms, that's stealing - or slavery, if you prefer.

Lastly, in practical terms, the business woman would loose her business regardless, because there'd be no one to supply her with whatever resources she needs, and no one to work for her. So her precious business would simply be replaced by worker-owned competitors.

One could argue that she should be punished for getting rich by exploiting others. That's what's happened in a lot of "successful" revolutions throughout the ages. I don't advocate such behaviour though. A fresh start should be a fresh start for all, otherwise it'd be no better than what we already have. The people exploiting one another would just switch places.

Ever heard of sarcasm?;)

Yes, it was sarcasm with a hint of ranting.

For everythiung humourous, there is an element of truth hidden in there.

god this thread is still churning on, its still right here on page one after i've been gone 24ish hours. at least its not still in the marxist theory mode, of course that jacking was partially my fault.

Well, I don't like people to spout off sermons and barking dogs are much more obnoxious than screaming orgasms. And surely no one could dispute the terrible nature of car horns or helicopters circling.

No one has the right to determine someone else's sin. If the Goddess chooses to punish someone it would those among you that are intolerant and hateful towards anyone.

Well, I don't like people to spout off sermons and barking dogs are much more obnoxious than screaming orgasms. And surely no one could dispute the terrible nature of car horns or helicopters circling.

No one has the right to determine someone else's sin. If the Goddess chooses to punish someone it would those among you that are intolerant and hateful towards anyone. does that punishment involve spankings, cuz if it does i can get all bigotted with a quickness.

The reason why homosexual deviants make such an effort to not only inform the wider public of their sin, they make a specific point of promoting the homosexual 'lifestyle' to the extent that homosexuals will insist that EVERY member of society not only tolerates their perversion, but to shout down and supress the voices of truth, be they upstanding members of society who detest the moral decay of todays world or the Church, who now have been silenced by an elaborate network of homosexual 'rights' activists.

Homosexuals seek to recruit the innocent and the simple minded to either become homosexuals themselves or they try and turn normal people into foot soldiers/cannon fodder for their campaign to spread homosexuality and thus morcal decay throughout the whole of society.

Wow dude! You are really in the dark here aren't you? Don't think I've seen so many misconceptions in such a small amount of words.

Wanna buy a bridge?

First off,I am a Singaporean,just so that people know.Not really important though.

This is a message to all people of non-standard sexual orientations.

I am supportive of people who are proud of who they are.I know plenty of people who are homosexual and maintain my friendship with them,both male and female.

However,it is just tiring to encounter those that want to make the issue of their sexuality significant.

Accepted,you are homosexual.Live your life as you please,without hurting or bothering anyone.Most people can live with that.But some individuals cannot observe discretion in their matters.

I know you are of a different sexual orientation.Fine.Good for you.It is not my cup of tea.It doesn't affect me,as long as you don't try to 'hit' on me.Fine,you like to penetrate another persons anus or use your toungue on another womens genitals or do all sorts of other non-standard sexual actions,also fine.

Is it ok for a guy to do this to a woman?

However,you don't need to tell me about it and sound so happy about it.Okay,so you do it for recreation.I also don't really care.

But it's ok for hetero folks to discuss their conquests?

However,what affects me is when you start parading it about,making loud noises,and going out of your way to bother me with your activities.I do not care to join a BDSM or 'watersports' group or a gay group or a lesbian group or whatever funny adverts ending up in my email.

Gee, most of the email that the filters throw into my bulk mail folder are for straight porn or viagra/cialis for hetero relationships.

I just want to be left alone to lead my own damn life without getting woken up at 4 am in the morning by my damn neighbour,who happens to be lesbian,screaming her orgasm through a concrete wall into my bedroom,no matter if it is muffled.

Again, what if a guy caused her orgasm? By pointing out that she's lesbian, I hear an implication that if a guy made her orgasm, that'd be fine.

So,all the homosexuals and other orientations out there,good on ya,I seriously mean it.Have pride in who you are.But please,remember to observe discretion when you're doing whatever you're doing,and you don't need to be so open about it.Just leave the ever-suffering masses out of the way.

Cheers.

*Just to confirm my position on the issue,I really am indifferent to homosexuals,transsexuals,heterosexuals or any other orientation.I just wish either side would shut up and leave the people who don't care damn well alone and let us get on with their lives.

My approach to life is such:If it works,it works.You do it well,get the job done,leave and rest or do your own thing,live by your own code of honour or whatever philosophy,look after your friends and family,leave people alone as long as they don't disturb you,and basically live.Whether there is life after death or whether there is some sort of deity are esoteric questions,and I will not state my beliefs or evidence for the facts of either here,but either you will find find when you find out,or when you are dead.


I haven't read the rest of the thread, so apologies if I repeat what 50 other people have said.

And sometime, I gotta learn to stop feeding the trolls.
Either way,the reason you exist?.[/QUOTE]

The reason why homosexual deviants make such an effort to not only inform the wider public of their sin, they make a specific point of promoting the homosexual 'lifestyle' to the extent that homosexuals will insist that EVERY member of society not only tolerates their perversion, but to shout down and supress the voices of truth, be they upstanding members of society who detest the moral decay of todays world or the Church, who now have been silenced by an elaborate network of homosexual 'rights' activists.

Homosexuals seek to recruit the innocent and the simple minded to either become homosexuals themselves or they try and turn normal people into foot soldiers/cannon fodder for their campaign to spread homosexuality and thus morcal decay throughout the whole of society.

Ok, after reading this, I'm truly afraid for this planet. I thought people like your were fairy tales, rather like the boogey man.

watch this:
http://www.markfiore.com/animation/agenda.html

I have a couple queer friends, who don't match your severly warped views.

I am supportive of people who are proud of who they are.I know plenty of people who are homosexual and maintain my friendship with them,both male and female.
I don't buy your friendship claim here because of this:

I just want to be left alone to lead my own damn life without getting woken up at 4 am in the morning by my damn neighbour,who happens to be lesbian,screaming her orgasm through a concrete wall into my bedroom,no matter if it is muffled.
IF it was a heterosexual woman "screaming her orgasm through a concrete wall into your bedroom" at "4 am in the morning", would it somehow make a difference?

So,all the homosexuals and other orientations out there,good on ya,I seriously mean it.Have pride in who you are.But please,remember to observe discretion when you're doing whatever you're doing,and you don't need to be so open about it.
Unless it is a lesbian waking you up at 4 a.m.? :rolleyes:

...
Hetrosexuality is natural, homosexuality is not, there is NO debate on that issue.

If you don't like seeing families and children being raised in a loving home by their mother and father, if you don't like seeing humans act according to their natural state, go and live in your hellhole 'paradise' of that dump of a nation, Cuba.

You can spend the rest of your life living under the tyranny of that monster, Castro.

Greetings, stranger, and welcome to planet Earth.

Might I suggest wiping your shoes on the doormat before coming in? T'would appear that your starship leaked some oil on your shoes, and I just had my carpet cleaned. Thank you.

I will make a pair of assumptions here, that either animals are quite different n your planet, or you are an alien city slicker and have not seen many animals. Therefore, let me assure you that animals here, raised far away from gay pride parades, exhibit homosexual tendencies themselves. Thus, one can conclude that homosexuality is in fact normal an Plant Earth.

Read this (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html)

Also, this nuclear family you exhalt is unfortunately a depressingly rare breed in certain parts of this planet. It seems that man + woman doesn't last very long, with or without child. In fact, one might observe that man + man tends to do better! Why, the latter might well provide greater stability for a child than the former!

A person's sexual orientation should not be their quintessential defining characteristic. I advise people not to identify as straight, gay, or bisexual. As Dr. Alfred Charles Kinsey claimed, sexuality is a spectrum. It doesn't fit neatly into boxed categories. Instead, it is more responsible to say "I have an opposite sex partner" or "I have a same sex partner" - we do not know what our future holds.

Hetrosexuality is natural, homosexuality is not, there is NO debate on that issue.Actually, this is debated. The APA disagrees with you (http://www.apa.org/topics/sbehaviorsub1.html).

By the way, logically:
Assume that homosexuality is not natural.
Supernatural is defined as "not existing in nature or subject to explanation according to natural laws"
Therefore, if homosexuality is not natural, then it is supernatural. - (conditional proof (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conditional_proof))

Dictatorship is the only PROVEN for of peaceful rule, democracy only leads to civil war

Yep.

Cause when you kill off all the dissidents, or all the Jews, or anyone with dark skin, or people who just want to live a little differently than you without afecting you in any way, they sure are peaceful. At least until the next zombie movie comes around.

Assume all you like, Fass. I don't think those groups need parades, either. Nobody needs a parade just for being who they are.

Oh, come on! Parades are fun!

Even when the guys aren't wearing leather, um, things, and brandying whips.

Gay pride parades (aka pride marches) are the modern term for the gay rights marches that began after Stonewall (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_riots). Though it may be just a celebration for some, it's a struggle for equal rights to many others.

Ok, after reading this, I'm truly afraid for this planet. I thought people like your were fairy tales, rather like the boogey man.
I have a couple queer friends, who don't match your severly warped views.

On behalf of Queer folk everywhere thank you for this post. Warms the cockles of my lil queer heart. Have to add that yes people like this do exsist but they are becoming a rare bread. Thank you Lord. :p :D :fluffle:

A person's sexual orientation should not be their quintessential defining characteristic. I advise people not to identify as straight, gay, or bisexual. As Dr. Alfred Charles Kinsey claimed, sexuality is a spectrum. It doesn't fit neatly into boxed categories. Instead, it is more responsible to say "I have an opposite sex partner" or "I have a same sex partner" - we do not know what our future holds.

And AMEN to that too. I identify as me.. and that is enough!:cool:

god this thread is still churning on, its still right here on page one after i've been gone 24ish hours. at least its not still in the marxist theory mode, of course that jacking was partially my fault.

I like that the thread is still going in a way and i am way more a Marxist than a homophobe. ROCK ON. ;-)

Look, I appreciate your thinly-veiled and channeled anger at having your lifestlye looked at askance. I know if something I were that invested in were questioned, I'd be defensive, too.

My "lifestyle?"

That doesn't change the fact that my point is that -- in my opinion -- parades just for being who or what you are are wasteful, unnecessary and annoying. That doesn't make me right or wrong, it makes me opinionated...something you should have no trouble identifying with.

That was not what you were claiming. You were insinuating that only gay people need parades, and that those other people - "most people" - didn't need them. You were wrong. It shouldn't be that hard for you to admit.

Exile the gays to a small island, let them all die out because homosexuality IS NOT normal, and they will have no kids. Be gay, but do it somewhere else!

Exile the gays to a small island, let them all die out because homosexuality IS NOT normal, and they will have no kids. Be gay, but do it somewhere else!

Actually, homosexuality is natural and normal, and there is nothing wrong with it, bigot. Reference Post 306 for evidence to support this.

What is wrong about having prisons?

Why do anarchists always wish to see rapists, child molesters, killers, theives etc.... free to walk the streets.

Your type always go on about the 'rights' of criminals, gangsters and terrorists, what about the rights of the victims to be safe?

You anarchists also never come up with workable solutions to the criminal justice system either.



Yes, it's so wrong to 'bitch' about criminal teenagers who terrorise innocent people on the streets. I would love to see you hold these stupid beliefs that criminals deserve either rights or respect, if you get mugged or beaten up on the streets.

I have seen with my own eyes, who these sub-human welfare parasites from those awful council estates cause misery in our cities.

I was mugged 4 times last year, I had a mobile phone worth £300 stolen, money, worth about £800 or so in total stolen last year by these scum who only seek to steal and live of state handouts for they cannot be asked to work, becuase of Britian's retarded socialist system seek to preserve these sub-human creatures, for what reason, I only wish I knew.
Ummmmmm...
While I agree that criminals get off way to easy, and that anarcy is evil, aren't you going a little to far here? Did you ever consider that that person may be starving, and his only way to get money is to steal? Christ said do not judge, and while I may pull out the Crusade sword quite often, it is sick and wrong to not try and help the bottom of society. AS for your earlier post about moral decay, while I firmly believe that the minority has WAY to much power in activist groups, gays do not go around recruting people, if "they" did, believe me, I would be up in arms about it. They just demand not to be hated and killed, which is not alot to ask. The Church says we should try and encourage them down the path of righteousness, yes that means no gay marriage. Although I disagree with their beliefs, thye should be allowed to show pride in who they are, just as I am allowed to show my pride in being a far right wing Catholic. Of course, you DO have to draw the line somewhere, but I don't think it is right to siply crush them into the ground. It is their decision to convert to justice, not ours. Amen to them if they do, have fun in Hell if they don't but, unless they are spreading their sin, simply don't give them the benifits of heterosexual marriage.

Actually, homosexuality is natural and normal, and there is nothing wrong with it, bigot. Reference Post 306 for evidence to support this.
Forged liberal scientific evidence, if homosexuality was natural, why can't they have kids, go through a natural gender change or something? THe science does NOT support it, 3 islands, one with heterosexuals, one with gays, and one with lesbians, the heterosexual one is the only living one in about 150 years.

Exile the gays to a small island, let them all die out because homosexuality IS NOT normal, and they will have no kids. Be gay, but do it somewhere else!

I'm gay, not sterile. Didn't anyone teach you about the birds and the bees and the turkey basters? I think we should exile all people who are as ignorant as you. Actually, I don't. We need the comic release you people bring.

Ummmmmm...
While I agree that criminals get off way to easy, and that anarcy is evil, aren't you going a little to far here? Did you ever consider that that person may be starving, and his only way to get money is to steal? Christ said do not judge, and while I may pull out the Crusade sword quite often, it is sick and wrong to not try and help the bottom of society. AS for your earlier post about moral decay, while I firmly believe that the minority has WAY to much power in activist groups, gays do not go around recruting people, if "they" did, believe me, I would be up in arms about it. They just demand not to be hated and killed, which is not alot to ask. The Church says we should try and encourage them down the path of righteousness, yes that means no gay marriage. Although I disagree with their beliefs, thye should be allowed to show pride in who they are, just as I am allowed to show my pride in being a far right wing Catholic. Of course, you DO have to draw the line somewhere, but I don't think it is right to siply crush them into the ground. It is their decision to convert to justice, not ours. Amen to them if they do, have fun in Hell if they don't but, unless they are spreading their sin, simply don't give them the benifits of heterosexual marriage.
So on one hand, you don't believe in treating the homo's worse, just because of who they are.. But on the other, you don't want them to have equal rights?

Also, seeing as you accept the right to throw parades, why don't you accept other churches right to perform marriage ceremonies for them?

And doesn't your failure to recognise their right to marry whomever they please, also indicate that your own church have no right to marry whoever it pleases?

Forged liberal scientific evidence, if homosexuality was natural, why can't they have kids, go through a natural gender change or something? THe science does NOT support it, 3 islands, one with heterosexuals, one with gays, and one with lesbians, the heterosexual one is the only living one in about 150 years.

Actually, if you split the straight people into genders, too, the straight people will die off as well. Thus heterosexuality is flawed, too.

Oh, and you are aware that the straight people on that straight island would constantly be having part of their offspring be gay?

Forged liberal scientific evidence, if homosexuality was natural, why can't they have kids, go through a natural gender change or something? THe science does NOT support it, 3 islands, one with heterosexuals, one with gays, and one with lesbians, the heterosexual one is the only living one in about 150 years.

The only problem with that is that the situation you describe is not natural in itself, since it was created after the sexual orientation of the people on it was known. If you were to isolate some kids on an island and never give them any concept of homosexuality, according to you they would never be homosexual because they could not make a choice they didn't know exists, however you would find that some of them would be anyways. In most animals, homosexuality is the response to overpopulation, so yes I'd say it is pretty natural, unless animals like mice are smart enough to "choose" to be homosexual. So yes you are correct in saying that an entirely homosexual population is not natural, however you are incorrect in saying that some homosexuals in a population is "unnatural".

Forged liberal scientific evidence, if homosexuality was natural, why can't they have kids, go through a natural gender change or something? THe science does NOT support it, 3 islands, one with heterosexuals, one with gays, and one with lesbians, the heterosexual one is the only living one in about 150 years.

I have 3 things to say:
1) Guess which island will have the most homosexuals after 150 years? Exactly, the "straight island". After all, homosexuality isnt a heritary thread. It occurs randomly in the population

2) Let us consider another experiment. Put all Religious extremist men on one island, religious extremist women on another and all gays and lesbians on a third. After about 15 years the first island will probably have one man standing, becausse religious extremists simply tend to have a thing for starting vicious mudering rampages. After 150 years only the gay and lesbian island will have any population left (after all, this is the only island with 2 genders!)

3) You might not have noticed, but the world is actually very full. Just the fact that someone does not have children shouldnt make them inherently evil, right? In fact, they are doing society a favour!

So on one hand, you don't believe in treating the homo's worse, just because of who they are.. But on the other, you don't want them to have equal rights?

Also, seeing as you accept the right to throw parades, why don't you accept other churches right to perform marriage ceremonies for them?

And doesn't your failure to recognise their right to marry whomever they please, also indicate that your own church have no right to marry whoever it pleases?
Homos do not deserve the benifits of regular couples! If they insist on defying morals, fine, let them burn for their sins, but making it legal corrupts those who made it leagal, the sin is called scandal. By making it easier for homos to commit sodomy, you are encouraging it. Any Christian church that supports gay marriage doesn't deserve they lable of Christian, as obviously they don't read their bible.

Homos do not deserve the benifits of regular couples!

Yes, we do, as we are regular couples.

I have 3 things to say:
1) Guess which island will have the most homosexuals after 150 years? Exactly, the "straight island". After all, homosexuality isnt a heritary thread. It occurs randomly in the population

2) Let us consider another experiment. Put all Religious extremist men on one island, religious extremist women on another and all gays and lesbians on a third. After about 15 years the first island will probably have one man standing, becausse religious extremists simply tend to have a thing for starting vicious mudering rampages. After 150 years only the gay and lesbian island will have any population left (after all, this is the only island with 2 genders!)

3) You might not have noticed, but the world is actually very full. Just the fact that someone does not have children shouldnt make them inherently evil, right? In fact, they are doing society a favour!
First off, I am not a religious extremist. Your post is yet another example of sensationalist lef-wingers trying to cause knee-jerk reactions from the common man. Second, gays will try and avoid women, unless they REALLY want children.

Second, gays will try and avoid women, unless they REALLY want children.

Bullshit. I hang around women all the time. I'll tell you a secret - my mother is one! And my sister! And the woman that works in my grocery store!!!

Yes, we do, as we are regular couples.
You most certaintly are not! Sodomy is a sin! Marriage is NOT

Homos do not deserve the benifits of regular couples! If they insist on defying morals, fine, let them burn for their sins, but making it legal corrupts those who made it leagal, the sin is called scandal. By making it easier for homos to commit sodomy, you are encouraging it. Any Christian church that supports gay marriage doesn't deserve they lable of Christian, as obviously they don't read their bible.
You argue about as well as you spell.

Just out of curiosity, what about sodomy among heterosexual couples? Is that something that they will burn in hell for as well? If so, how should we prevent it? Are we all going to have to be monitored in our sexual activities to ensure we, um, hit the right spot?

You most certaintly are not!

Oh, yes we are.

Sodomy is a sin!

I don't give a crap about your religion.

Marriage is NOT

Marriage isn't religious, so that's irrelevant.

First off, I am not a religious extremist. Your post is yet another example of sensationalist lef-wingers trying to cause knee-jerk reactions from the common man. Second, gays will try and avoid women, unless they REALLY want children.

I think the desire for the continuation of the species counts as REALLY wanting children. They may not enjoy it, or feel for the other person, but in order for the continuation of the species, some may (and some may not) choose to have children.

Secondly, gays most often incorporates men and women, fyi.

Homos do not deserve the benifits of regular couples! If they insist on defying morals, fine, let them burn for their sins, but making it legal corrupts those who made it leagal, the sin is called scandal. By making it easier for homos to commit sodomy, you are encouraging it. Any Christian church that supports gay marriage doesn't deserve they lable of Christian, as obviously they don't read their bible.

:( He who is without sin, cast the first stone...

You most certaintly are not! Sodomy is a sin! Marriage is NOT

So much for not being a right wing extremist... :rolleyes:

Yea, you're another one of those people who wouldn't stay in a room with me for more than five seconds, even with other people, after I came out to my school... :mad:

I think the desire for the continuation of the species counts as REALLY wanting children. They may not enjoy it, or feel for the other person, but in order for the continuation of the species, some may (and some may not) choose to have children.

What do you mean by "not enjoy it." Getting someone pregnant really isn't that big of a deal. If a pimple faced Catholic who was never taught about condoms can do it "by accident," I can do it without much effort, too, you know.

What do you mean by "not enjoy it." Getting someone pregnant really isn't that big of a deal. If a pimple faced Catholic who was never taught about condoms can do it "by accident," I can do it without much effort, too, you know.

I know, but being gay, I don't exactly enjoy getting girls pregnant, if you know what I mean...

Homos do not deserve the benifits of regular couples! If they insist on defying morals, fine, let them burn for their sins, but making it legal corrupts those who made it leagal, the sin is called scandal. By making it easier for homos to commit sodomy, you are encouraging it. Any Christian church that supports gay marriage doesn't deserve they lable of Christian, as obviously they don't read their bible.

Well you're not making it easier for homos to commit sodomy, you're just acknowledging that we actually can love eachother... I <3 my unitarian universalist church.

First off, I am not a religious extremist. Your post is yet another example of sensationalist lef-wingers trying to cause knee-jerk reactions from the common man. Second, gays will try and avoid women, unless they REALLY want children.

Did I say you were a religious extremist? I just gave an example of putting religious extremist males on an island and what would happen to that island...

Why would gay males avoid women??? (even apart from the fact that gays can be women themselves). Some/most of my best friends are women! Just that I do not want to have sex with them, does not mean I would avoid them. And the children that my partner and I will have in the future will obviously be brought into this world by a woman. No doubt...

Finally, what on Earth made you say I am a sensationalist left-winger? Compared to you, I probably am, but in general, I would definitely not consider myself a left-winger at all...

You most certaintly are not! Sodomy is a sin! Marriage is NOT

How come anyone who is straight, calls themselves a christian and commits a sin like let's say
Prince Charles and Camilla - Adultery
George W Bush and the entire Admistration - Lying
Rev Jessie Jackson - Adultery
Tom Delay - Lying and stealing
and i could go on...

but how come as long as they are not two loving people in a loving same sex relationship they are automatically forgiven and if marriage is so damn wonderful and so Godly how come it was orginally concieved to make sure bloodlines continued and wealth was shared between families and countries?

Maybe because if the hate filled propaganda of the religious right and homophobes was done away with and homosexuality was finally recognized as not being a choice or a lifestyle but instead just part of some people's genetic make-up (not just in the human species but in so many other species in nature) then we'd have to accept that God made us in His image and loves us too..
:headbang: But then you're not going to even think about this because you just have to be right.. so never mind and may God have mercy on you.

You most certaintly are not! Sodomy is a sin! Marriage is NOT

I think someone has some unresolved personal issues. :rolleyes:

I know, but being gay, I don't exactly enjoy getting girls pregnant, if you know what I mean...

You don't need to fuck them to get them pregnant. Heterosexual procreative sex is so pointless it can be replaced with a cup and a pipette.

:headbang: But then you're not going to even think about this because you just have to be right.. so never mind and may God have mercy on you.

Yea he kind of strikes me as one of those people who won't change his mind no matter what evidence he is given.

Any Christian church that supports gay marriage doesn't deserve they lable of Christian, as obviously they don't read their bible.

Yes indeed let's just have churches who's leaders encourage hate and ignorance and even murder in the name of God.. yup yup much better and oh sooooooo Christlike...:upyours:

You don't need to fuck them to get them pregnant. Heterosexual procreative sex is so pointless it can be replaced with a cup and a pipette.
Sorry, but that's rubbish. It can be done that way, but it's certainly not 'without much effort' as you claimed a minute ago. Ask anyone who's been through several rounds of IVF.

Sorry, but that's rubbish. It can be done that way, but it's certainly not 'without much effort' as you claimed a minute ago. Ask anyone who's been through several rounds of IVF.

People who usually go through IVF already have sterility issues - it tends to be called a "treatment" for a reason, you know - something which would not be the case here. This wouldn't even be "in vitro." This would be squirting a bit of semen up a woman's vagina through a tube of sorts, you know, just like procreative straight sex.

People who usually go through IVF already have sterility issues - it tends to be called a "treatment" for a reason, you know - something which would not be the case here. This wouldn't even be "in vitro." This would be squirting a bit of semen up a woman's vagina through a tube of sorts, you know, just like procreative straight sex.
Fair enough. I just objected to heterosexual procreational sex being called pointless. For many people I know it's the best thing in the world, as it's the only time their wife doesn't have a headache. :p

My "lifestyle?"



That was not what you were claiming. You were insinuating that only gay people need parades, and that those other people - "most people" - didn't need them. You were wrong. It shouldn't be that hard for you to admit.
Then let me adjust my claim so that you might understand.

NOBODY "needs" a parade just for being who or what they are. I realize deliberate misrepresentation and obfuscation are seen as clever tactics, but come on -- where and when did I actually say "only gay people need parades"? The original post was "Most folks don't need a parade to be proud." By saying that, I was trying to imply that people can be proud without dancing down the street, stopping traffic. My error was in using the term "most" to imply the average person sitting in their home who doesn't feel the absurd need to march with others of his or her ethnic extraction, sexual orientation, national identity or religious affiliation.

The insinuation you mention is yours because of gay persecution paranoia, which, in many cases, is entirely justified, but not with me.

And yes, I used the word "lifestyle". What of it? Should I have said "orientation" or "sexual preference"? I don't think so. But hey, you're always right, so why don't you educate me on what words I should be using. I'd hate to be unintentionally gauche.

Fair enough. I just objected to heterosexual procreational sex being called pointless. For many people I know it's the best thing in the world, as it's the only time their wife doesn't have a headache. :p

Pointless to us non-straights, since it's superfluous to us. You poor people can do whatever you want. :)

You most certaintly are not! Sodomy is a sin! Marriage is NOT
Marriage is a sin if one spouse abuses the other, wouldn't you agree? How's about not knowing yourself well enough to realize that marrying some abusive, mullet-headed, Bud-swilling jackass is a bad idea? Surely a sin.

And please, don't trot out Romans or any other biblical justification for "sodomy" being a sin (why did Sodom get the prime billing? I wonder if that pissed off those living in Gamorrah?) -- the same lame book and all the other Old Testament prohibitions either ALL APPLY ACROSS THE BOARD or they're all bullshit. You can't have it both ways. Ever been near a woman while she's menstruating? YOU DON'T KNOW? JESUS, MAN, you TOO could be a heious sinner and not even realize it!

Shit fire and save matches, pal.

You argue about as well as you spell.

Just out of curiosity, what about sodomy among heterosexual couples? Is that something that they will burn in hell for as well? If so, how should we prevent it? Are we all going to have to be monitored in our sexual activities to ensure we, um, hit the right spot?
As they say in the Navy, there is no wrong spot....

(good post, BTW)

The insinuation you mention is yours because of gay persecution paranoia, which, in many cases, is entirely justified, but not with me.

BS, and you know it. You went into a thread about gay pride and said "Most people don't need parades to be proud" (paraphrase). It is clear what your insinuation was. Try as you might to weasle your way out of it to avoid admitting you were wrong, but no one is fooled.

And yes, I used the word "lifestyle". What of it? Should I have said "orientation" or "sexual preference"?

Actually, yes. Or would you claim my sexual orientation to be my lifestyle? Does your presumed heterosexuality define your entire lifestyle? Do you pay bills in a straight way differently from the way I do? Do you mow the lawn in some other heterosexual fashion?

I don't think so. But hey, you're always right, so why don't you educate me on what words I should be using. I'd hate to be unintentionally gauche.

No, so far vous avez eu tort, just like someone who is droite.

By saying that, I was trying to imply that people can be proud without dancing down the street, stopping traffic.

I hope you are never going rule a country where I live... That would not be a lot of fun. After all, a lot of things stop traffic. Markets, celebrations, presidents driving past, pedestrian crossings, protests/strikes. Are you actually against all of these? I mean, I appreciate the need for good traffic, but some civil liberties might be appreciated too...:rolleyes:

Apart from the part about strikes, I am with you on that one. Seriously, when a farmer wants to protest: is there any fcking reason to do so on the middle of the highway??? (e.g. France) :mad:

BS, and you know it. You went into a thread about gay pride and said "Most people don't need parades to be proud" (paraphrase). It is clear what your insinuation was. Try as you might to weasle your way out of it to avoid admitting you were wrong, but no one is fooled.
I'm not trying to fool anyone. Let me say it one last time: All parades are stupid, gay pride parades included. Grow up, be proud (of whatever you see the need to be proud of) and get off the street.



Actually, yes. Or would you claim my sexual orientation to be my lifestyle? Does your presumed heterosexuality define your entire lifestyle? Do you pay bills in a straight way differently from the way I do? Do you mow the lawn in some other heterosexual fashion?
I would claim your sexual orientation to be the central theme in your life, based on your posts. I have no idea what you do outside of NS, but I'll wager there's a bit of activism involved.


No, so far vous avez eu tort, just like someone who is droite.
Et vous avez toujours raison? Je ne pense pas ainsi. Look, your obsession with twisting my words is your business. You go ahead and have the last word here. I will continue to respect your laconic wisdom and acerbic taunting. In fact, if it makes you feel better, I was wrong. Let's have parades every day. Actually, for fat-Americans, daily parades might even be a partial solution. Oh! I know! How's about a street strut for the bestiality buffs? Constipated-Americans?

Look, I just don't think everything deserves a march, okay? If I could somehow keep overtly heterosexual displays out of daily life, I would. But is equality necessarily adotping the same stupid traits as the majority? I feel revulsion at seeing the way younger and younger kids dress (and yes, I know how old that makes me sound) and act. Ever chaperone a school dance? It's a fucking disgrace, and that's almost a literal description.

Am I overreacting? Likely. I'd like to get through a day without seeing a beer ad where some tubby, ugly, hetero asshole has a knockout for a wife and still manages to trreat her like shit for a laugh. I'd also like to be the kind of man I am -- hetero and sensitive -- without being told how I should dress by the Mauve Hand (the gay mafia) AND being called a pussy by the hetero male majority. Of course, coming to North Dakota from Seattle had a bit to do with that, but we go where the jobs are.

Wow. I didn't intend for that to get quite so...involved. But there you go. I overreacted to the whole parade issue and I apologize. Knock yourselves out.

I hope you are never going rule a country where I live... That would not be a lot of fun. After all, a lot of things stop traffic. Markets, celebrations, presidents driving past, pedestrian crossings, protests/strikes. Are you actually against all of these? I mean, I appreciate the need for good traffic, but some civil liberties might be appreciated too...:rolleyes:

Apart from the part about strikes, I am with you on that one. Seriously, when a farmer wants to protest: is there any fcking reason to do so on the middle of the highway??? (e.g. France) :mad:
Good grief. Where did I say I was against crosswalks? Have your party off the street, that's all I'm saying. Presidents driving past do exactly that, drive past. One motorcade and *shoom* life goes on.

So, to answer your ridiculous question, of course I'm not against "all of these". I'm surprised you didn't complete the reduction to absurdity by asking if I were also against red lights.

If everyone gets a parade, the act of parading becomes meaningless along with wasteful.

You most certaintly are not! Sodomy is a sin! Marriage is NOTAh, but what is "sodomy?" The German word "Sodomie" translates into "bestiality" in English...

the reason homosexuals have to promote their orientation is bc so many people are campaining against it. If straight marriage was illegal anywhere, you'd protest too.

Any Christian church that supports gay marriage doesn't deserve they lable of Christian, as obviously they don't read their bible.
Why? Because they don't focus on one little part of Leviticus and turn their attention to the more important parts of the Bible?

Yes, we all know of communism/marxism and it's illogical hatred of the natural order, in particular the family unit. Engles wasted many pages worth of paper writing his nonsense about the family being 'oppressive' etc.....

Who in their right mind would listen to a brainwashed, irrational communist/marxist?

Hetrosexuality is natural, homosexuality is not, there is NO debate on that issue.

If you don't like seeing families and children being raised in a loving home by their mother and father, if you don't like seeing humans act according to their natural state, go and live in your hellhole 'paradise' of that dump of a nation, Cuba.

You can spend the rest of your life living under the tyranny of that monster, Castro.
I hear Cuba is FABULOUS.

Hetrosexuality is natural, homosexuality is not, there is NO debate on that issue.
I believe that's the mental equivalent of putting your hands to your ears and signing "la la la, I can't hear you!":p

So, to answer your ridiculous question, of course I'm not against "all of these". I'm surprised you didn't complete the reduction to absurdity by asking if I were also against red lights.


OK, fair enough. I went a bit far in my post. My point is simply that there are a lot of fun things (and some things that, at least, promote civil liberties). It would be a waste to forbid all of these, in my opinion. Street parties kick ass, Carnaval kicks ass (Rio), Queens Day kicks ass (Amsterdam), Love Parade kicks ass (Berlin). These are all non-gay: they are just FUN. And too bad for you, if you cant drive on the streets that day...

I hear Cuba is FABULOUS.

Friends of mine were there recently.. I saw the pictures: I WANT TO GO THERE TOO!!!!! It is stunningly beautiful, very friendly people, ec.... :cool:

OK, fair enough. I went a bit far in my post. My point is simply that there are a lot of fun things (and some things that, at least, promote civil liberties). It would be a waste to forbid all of these, in my opinion. Street parties kick ass, Carnaval kicks ass (Rio), Queens Day kicks ass (Amsterdam), Love Parade kicks ass (Berlin). These are all non-gay: they are just FUN. And too bad for you, if you cant drive on the streets that day...
And they all happen once a year. I'm not against fun, but let's call it fun and not The Armenian-American Taxidermy Enthusiasts Pride Parade!

And they all happen once a year. I'm not against fun, but let's call it fun and not The Armenian-American Taxidermy Enthusiasts Pride Parade!

In most places I know, Gay Pride only happens once a year too (if they happen at all)...

You most certaintly are not! Sodomy is a sin! Marriage is NOT

Whoa! You mean that I, as a man, can't go running around sticking my penis into womans' asses either?

so why don't you educate me on what words I should be using. I'd hate to be unintentionally gauche.

Only problem is you can't educate anyone on anything if they're not going to listen and keep an open mind - and if you can at least get this bit.. the words you use are not anywhere as problematic as your closed and narrow mind.

I still don't understand whether some of the people on this thread have issues with Public Displays of Affection generally, or only when it is homosexual couples that are doing it?

at the end of the day everyone is different. its only people that want to harm us (and that doesnt mean gay, str8s bis etc) that we should have a problem with.