NationStates Jolt Archive

When people look at anti-semitism and religious intolerance, they have the specter of the holocaust to demonstrate just how wrong such things are. When they look at rascism, They can look at the years of slavery, and then the subsequent years of persecution by the Ku Klux Klan. With gays, there is no one specific event that is similer. Does it take a holocaust like event to wake people up to the fact that members of certain groups are, in fact, human? or, being that gays were a secondary target by both the Nazis and the Klan, am I just talking out my ass?

am I just talking out my ass?

Yeah, that.

I think most people already recognise that gay people are humans as well. Do we 'need' a holocaust? Yeh:rolleyes:

When people look at anti-semitism and religious intolerance, they have the specter of the holocaust to demonstrate just how wrong such things are. When they look at rascism, They can look at the years of slavery, and then the subsequent years of persecution by the Ku Klux Klan. With gays, there is no one specific event that is similer. Does it take a holocaust like event to wake people up to the fact that members of certain groups are, in fact, human? or, being that gays were a secondary target by both the Nazis and the Klan, am I just talking out my ass?


Bulldust.
You're so talking out of where the sun doesn't shine.

When people look at anti-semitism and religious intolerance, they have the specter of the holocaust to demonstrate just how wrong such things are. When they look at rascism, They can look at the years of slavery, and then the subsequent years of persecution by the Ku Klux Klan. With gays, there is no one specific event that is similer. Does it take a holocaust like event to wake people up to the fact that members of certain groups are, in fact, human? or, being that gays were a secondary target by both the Nazis and the Klan, am I just talking out my ass?

Didnt we already have one? Like the same one you're talking about. Wasnt just jew's y'know.

Liasia']I think most people already recognise that gay people are humans as well. Do we 'need' a holocaust? Yeh:rolleyes:
Ok, consider this in the same vein as the whole "was stalin necessary" thing. and from watching recent politics, it does seem that a significant portion of the American voting public do not see gays as human beings.

Ok, consider this in the same vein as the whole "was stalin necessary" thing. and from watching recent politics, it does seem that a significant portion of the American voting public do not see gays as human beings.
No, because gay people hold positions of power. Besides, other countries have adapted to the whole gay thing much better than the USA. The idea of 'needing' a holocaust for any reason is still a bit silly, especailly beings as there already was one under the Nazis.

What you wrote reads like shit, sounds like shit, and is shit: you're definitely talking out of your arse.

you'd like to think that in this day and age, when people are supposed to be a little more enlightened, that your answer would be no.

but then people like to be hostile with others just simply because they are different, it matters not what the difference is.

having said all that, maybe a gay holocaust would be fun. maybe we could do it for charity. Imagaine a day once a year, where you go to work and have gay holocaust day where you dress up in leather, jack boots and wearing a freddie mercury moustache (completely unaware of the irony) and harrass, persecute and torture your colleagues for even the slightest suspicion of being gay.

having said all that, maybe a gay holocaust would be fun. maybe we could do it for charity. Imagaine a day once a year, where you go to work and have gay holocaust day where you dress up in leather, jack boots and wearing a freddie mercury moustache (completely unaware of the irony) and harrass, persecute and torture your colleagues for even the slightest suspicion of being gay.

That would be so gay. :rolleyes:

A Gay Holocaust? why that is a capital idea!

...yeah...no. No, we do not. Further, I highly recommend you subject any ideas you have to significantly more mental testing before posting them. This kind of thread could easily cause a massive flamewar, and I expect Fass to go ballistic when he sees it.

...yeah...no. No, we do not. Further, I highly recommend you subject any ideas you have to significantly more mental testing before posting them. This kind of thread could easily cause a massive flamewar, and I expect Fass to go ballistic when he sees it.

oh dear

do you mean like this fine thinking?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=486260

I would suggest you keep your recommendations to your self.

anyway, who are you to tell anyone what they can post or not?
are you the post police?


I expect Fass to go ballistic when he sees it.

You sound like the kid that runs to your parents when somebody says a bad word.

and I expect Fass to go ballistic when he sees it.
Bumpity bump

There is virtually never a good reason for a holocaust, they aren't effective enough if you're pro "hey lets be complete asses and kill other human being because of who they sleep with" or whatever it is your trying to eliminate, I'd like to state that I think the above idea is ridiculus anyway. However a holocaust is also such a heavy weight on the economy, I mean gawd, it takes so much money and logistics...
Bottom line, holocausts are filthy, costly and ineffective, not to mention ridiculus, gay people are people too.

Haven't we been having a gay holocaust for about the last two millenia?

When people look at anti-semitism and religious intolerance, they have the specter of the holocaust to demonstrate just how wrong such things are. When they look at rascism, They can look at the years of slavery, and then the subsequent years of persecution by the Ku Klux Klan. With gays, there is no one specific event that is similer. Does it take a holocaust like event to wake people up to the fact that members of certain groups are, in fact, human? or, being that gays were a secondary target by both the Nazis and the Klan, am I just talking out my ass?

We've already had at least one. Gay people were among the victims at the Nazis' death camps-- that's where the symbol of the pink triangle originated. And the way the Reagan administration sat idly by as AIDS spread, because it was "only killing homos" it tantamount to an attempted-- or at least a tacitly endorsed-- holocaust of gay men. And the fact that in a number of countries (ie. Iraq, as mentioned in another thread) members of the new police force are murdering gay people while US forces-- who are supposedly bringing "justice" and "democracy" and other assorted flavours of self-righteousness-- are letting it happen, indeed, even turning away those who come to them seeking protection. And the fact that discriminatory laws are still being passed in the US that contribute to a cultural atmosphere wherein gay people are murdered for sport and their murderers aren't even charged for hate-crimes. There is a holocaust going on, it's just being conducted more subtly than people are used to.
I just wish we had some pink Warsaw action going on-- gay ghettos stockpiling weapons and preparing themselves to kill any round-up squad stormtrooper bastard that dares set foot within a hundred yards of a gay pride flag. When they come to murder us, let us create a river of their own hateful blood for them to cross or drown in, and a wall of their own hateful corpses for them to scale or dissappear under.

:eek:

It would be interesting to see anyway...


...I´ll just go and play with bunnies now out in the nice happy world

oh dear

do you mean like this fine thinking?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=486260

I would suggest you keep your recommendations to your self.

anyway, who are you to tell anyone what they can post or not?
are you the post police?




You sound like the kid that runs to your parents when somebody says a bad word.
*raises an eyebrow*

Yes, that thread wasn't perfect. It is not, however, something that could potentially start a flame war, nor anywhere close, unless the person happens to be an all-out Hitler-esque facist.

Further, I find the attack on me unnecessary and deplorable. Please cease.

And the fact that discriminatory laws are still being passed in the US that contribute to a cultural atmosphere wherein gay people are murdered for sport and their murderers aren't even charged for hate-crimes.

really?

care to give further info to support this?

When people look at anti-semitism and religious intolerance, they have the specter of the holocaust to demonstrate just how wrong such things are. When they look at rascism, They can look at the years of slavery, and then the subsequent years of persecution by the Ku Klux Klan. With gays, there is no one specific event that is similer. Does it take a holocaust like event to wake people up to the fact that members of certain groups are, in fact, human? or, being that gays were a secondary target by both the Nazis and the Klan, am I just talking out my ass?

No, though the gay movement is not using the political climate as well as they could. A clever campaign could be launched to shift public opinion to the idea that prosecuting gays and limiting their rights is something Al Queada and Muslem countries like - and that a good American should theefor desire the opposite. That tactic did wonders for God during the cold war against the atheist Soviet Union - as the still present motto "In God We Trust" shows.

Liasia']Bumpity bump
lol

No, though the gay movement is not using the political climate as well as they could. A clever campaign could be launched to shift public opinion to the idea that prosecuting gays and limiting their rights is something Al Queada and Muslem countries like - and that a good American should theefor desire the opposite. That tactic did wonders for God during the cold war against the atheist Soviet Union - as the still present motto "In God We Trust" shows.
...that can't work. See, the thing is, it's the religious bit. Having people be religious in the U.S. isn't exactly a hard thing to accomplish. It's the way Americans are. Similarly, many Americans are--sadly--quite bigoted about this sort of thing. It's utterly ridiculous, but it's how they are. So while it worked when it's something we'd have done anyway, it won't work here. It will go against their character or some such nonsense too much and they won't go for it.

*raises an eyebrow*

Yes, that thread wasn't perfect. It is not, however, something that could potentially start a flame war, nor anywhere close, unless the person happens to be an all-out Hitler-esque facist.

Further, I find the attack on me unnecessary and deplorable. Please cease.


fair enough, i will not suggest or supose anything further about you personally. that was perhaps a little harsh.

However, i do think that anything posted here or in any forum has the potential to cause a flame war. would you not agree?

You admit yourself that your own post had the potential. You also state that anyone that diasagrees with what you say would have to be an "all-out Hitler-esque facist." this is quite a statement to make.

Do you not believe that we are all have equal rights to post whatever we feel we would like discussing or considering, however the post is delivered?

Does it take a holocaust like event to wake people up to the fact that members of certain groups are, in fact, human?

I think the fact that the US government all but turned a blind eye to the AIDS epidemic in the 1980s because it was merely a "fag disease" should count for something in this respect.

...that can't work. See, the thing is, it's the religious bit. Having people be religious in the U.S. isn't exactly a hard thing to accomplish. It's the way Americans are. Similarly, many Americans are--sadly--quite bigoted about this sort of thing. It's utterly ridiculous, but it's how they are. So while it worked when it's something we'd have done anyway, it won't work here. It will go against their character or some such nonsense too much and they won't go for it.

However, the condemnation for homosexuality fouind in the Bible is generally "somewhat exaggerated". In fact, poeple have argued on these forums that it is not condemned at all by the Bible, and certainly not by Jesus himself. A clever campaign, also incorporating Fred Phelps, could definately shift the balance.

Btw - you severely overestimate the difficulty of changing public opinion on such a large scale. Once something is fact people tend to stop caring quickly. Most people merely *say* they care but didn't really do so in the first place.

fair enough, i will not suggest or supose anything further about you personally. that was perhaps a little harsh.

However, i do think that anything posted here or in any forum has the potential to cause a flame war. would you not agree?

You admit yourself that your own post had the potential. You also state that anyone that diasagrees with what you say would have to be an "all-out Hitler-esque facist." this is quite a statement to make.

Do you not believe that we are all have equal rights to post whatever we feel we would like discussing or considering, however the post is delivered?
I said that the only one who might have been riled enough to start flaming and thus a flame war would have to have been Hitler-esque, as the post was quite benign in nature. Do not twist my words.

Furthermore, your final statement is amusingly ironic considering you were chatising me for what I previously posted. I told him that he should think his threads out more thoroughly in the future because the very idea he proposes does have the potential for a massive flamewar, given the way people are about this forum. I also stated that Fass would probably go ballistic because that would be in character for the way Fass has reacted to similar threads based on past history. Hence why I said what I said.

As for the right: we do not have that right. We do not have it because this a forum with rules. One must stick to those rules if one wishes to post.

It's funny how serious people can get about it, when the obvious answer is 'no'. Would ANYONE say yes to the OPs question in r/l?

However, the condemnation for homosexuality fouind in the Bible is generally "somewhat exaggerated". In fact, poeple have argued on these forums that it is not condemned at all by the Bible, and certainly not by Jesus himself. A clever campaign, also incorporating Fred Phelps, could definately shift the balance.

Btw - you severely overestimate the difficulty of changing public opinion on such a large scale. Once something is fact people tend to stop caring quickly. Most people merely *say* they care but didn't really do so in the first place.
I am not so certain. Considering the fervor I've seen so many people take towards this subject--on both sides--I don't think it would be easy to change public opinion. Do I wish it would be? Yes. But, as I said, I doubt that one could easily change public opinion on this matter.

I am not so certain. Considering the fervor I've seen so many people take towards this subject--on both sides--I don't think it would be easy to change public opinion. Do I wish it would be? Yes. But, as I said, I doubt that one could easily change public opinion on this matter.

The trick is to focus on emotions and limit the use of rationality. Give people something to believe in so they can feel superior and blame others for their problems and you are halfway there.

It is sad, but it is how humans work. We are malleable.

When people look at anti-semitism and religious intolerance, they have the specter of the holocaust to demonstrate just how wrong such things are. When they look at rascism, They can look at the years of slavery, and then the subsequent years of persecution by the Ku Klux Klan. With gays, there is no one specific event that is similer. Does it take a holocaust like event to wake people up to the fact that members of certain groups are, in fact, human? or, being that gays were a secondary target by both the Nazis and the Klan, am I just talking out my ass?

OK, stuff like this just makes me tired. Tired, tired, tired, tired. *sigh*

I spend the day having a nice enough time, talking to friends, having coffee, doing my job, flirting with the cute guy at the book store, and so on, and when I come home and for some reason go online to see if there's some silliness I can participate in instead of doing the laundry, I get to see this. Someone asking if I "need" to be subject to genocide.

There can't be a fucking day without someone, some schmuck, problematising my life, and questioning my right to it. I am fed up with it, OP.

So fucking fed up.

OK, stuff like this just makes me tired. Tired, tired, tired, tired. *sigh*

I spend the day having a nice enough time, talking to friends, having coffee, doing my job, flirting with the cute guy at the book store, and so on, and when I come home and for some reason go online to see if there's some silliness I can participate in instead of doing the laundry, I get to see this. Someone asking if I "need" to be subject to genocide.

There can't be a fucking day without someone, some schmuck, problematising my life, and questioning my right to it. I am fed up with it, OP.

So fucking fed up.
*snickers with supressed joy*

OK, stuff like this just makes me tired. Tired, tired, tired, tired. *sigh*

I spend the day having a nice enough time, talking to friends, having coffee, doing my job, flirting with the cute guy at the book store, and so on, and when I come home and for some reason go online to see if there's some silliness I can participate in instead of doing the laundry, I get to see this. Someone asking if I "need" to be subject to genocide.

There can't be a fucking day without someone, some schmuck, problematising my life, and questioning my right to it. I am fed up with it, OP.

So fucking fed up.
Fass, trust me: the day will come when that will never occur again except from radical hate groups that no one ever truly pays any attention to and is indeed often a subject of derison. I don't know when. I don't know how. But trust me, Fass. This injustice WILL be corrected.

Fass, trust me: the day will come when that will never occur again except from radical hate groups that no one ever truly pays any attention to and is indeed often a subject of derison. I don't know when. I don't know how. But trust me, Fass. This injustice WILL be corrected.
Republican party...

Liasia']It's funny how serious people can get about it, when the obvious answer is 'no'. Would ANYONE say yes to the OPs question in r/l?

What's funny, is that no one seems to be getting the question. I didn't think there was any suggestion in that that a "gay holocaust" would be a good idea...but rather: "Is that what it's going to take to reframe the debate?"

In this sense, I think what Hiroshima and Nagasaki did for nuclear weapons would have been a better analogy than the holocaust.

That said, I think the answer is no. Clearly, the last holocaust did not end anti-semitism, or genocide. We talk tough on genocide, but only actually act when the victims are white...or have oil. (And, frankly, in Africa we seem inclined to let it go, and just scoop up the oil after.) The holocaust did allow for the creation of Israel. I guess if you want to start Gaytopia, a holocaust might give you a leg up, but it hardly seems like a good way to get there.

What's funny, is that no one seems to be getting the question. I didn't think there was any suggestion in that that a "gay holocaust" would be a good idea...but rather: "Is that what it's going to take to reframe the debate?"

Here on NS General, quite a few people cannot understand the concept of discussing something as a hypothetical. If you posit a question like this, they automatically kneejerk into thinking that you're advocating shoveling gays into ovens.

Getting to the point - "Is that what it's going to take to reframe the debate?" is not possible for some here. They read "holocaust" and "gay" in the same sentence and call you Hitler before they get to the end of the sentence.

Here on NS General, quite a few people cannot understand the concept of discussing something as a hypothetical. If you posit a question like this, they automatically kneejerk into thinking that you're advocating shoveling gays into ovens.

Getting to the point - "Is that what it's going to take to reframe the debate?" is not possible for some here. They read "holocaust" and "gay" in the same sentence and call you Hitler before they get to the end of the sentence.

I read it and understood what he was getting at, but I maintain that it was still an incredibly stupid thing to post.

Fass, trust me: the day will come when that will never occur again except from radical hate groups that no one ever truly pays any attention to and is indeed often a subject of derison. I don't know when. I don't know how. But trust me, Fass. This injustice WILL be corrected.
*Vomits*

*Vomits*
:p Lol at that

The gay holocaust? Didn't that occur from 1 AD to 2006 AD?

I said that the only one who might have been riled enough to start flaming and thus a flame war would have to have been Hitler-esque, as the post was quite benign in nature. Do not twist my words.

"It is not, however, something that could potentially start a flame war, nor anywhere close, unless the person happens to be an all-out Hitler-esque facist."

Ok, so unless somebody with very different politics read it, it was ok and inflammatory. isn't that true for most posts on this forum? the whole idea of discussion, particularly with people with varying political views?


[/QUOTE] Furthermore, your final statement is amusingly ironic considering you were chatising me for what I previously posted. I told him that he should think his threads out more thoroughly in the future because the very idea he proposes does have the potential for a massive flamewar, given the way people are about this forum. [/QUOTE]

and yet you fail to see your own irony with your initial post?

You may notice that i finished with a question, not a statement. I fail to see the irony, as i don't believe i said what you should or shouldn't write.

[/QUOTE] I also stated that Fass would probably go ballistic because that would be in character for the way Fass has reacted to similar threads based on past history. Hence why I said what I said.[/QUOTE]

also, he did not suggest that holacaust would be a good thing, i believe the question was more along the lines of what would it take to raise the issues of homophobia and the persecution that goes with being homosexual


[/QUOTE] As for the right: we do not have that right. We do not have it because this a forum with rules. One must stick to those rules if one wishes to post.[/QUOTE]

and how exactly were the rules broken?

[QUOTE=Questionable Decisions]What's funny, is that no one seems to be getting the question. I didn't think there was any suggestion in that that a "gay holocaust" would be a good idea...but rather: "Is that what it's going to take to reframe the debate?"

In this sense, I think what Hiroshima and Nagasaki did for nuclear weapons would have been a better analogy than the holocaust.

QUOTE]

Dude, you probably stop digging!


i think most people got your point, they seem to be taking shots at your post for the sake of it.

even if the faggots made a holocaust weapon i would still not like them.If anything i would not like them more

Gays were treated pretty badly in medieval Europe. Don't you know the word faggot? It means a bundle of sticks. Gays would wear a tattoo of a faggot back then, and the word for applied to them because they were burned at the stake (in a bundle).

even if the faggots made a holocaust weapon i would still not like them.If anything i would not like them more
What a nice guy.:fluffle:

even if the faggots made a holocaust weapon i would still not like them.If anything i would not like them more

In another thread the question was asked if one would join Magnetos "they will hate us and attempt to slaughter us no matter what we do, so let us strike first" Brotherhood or Xaviers "Can't we all just get along" X-men.

I am definately starting to see Magnetos point here.

When people look at anti-semitism and religious intolerance, they have the specter of the holocaust to demonstrate just how wrong such things are. When they look at rascism, They can look at the years of slavery, and then the subsequent years of persecution by the Ku Klux Klan. With gays, there is no one specific event that is similer. Does it take a holocaust like event to wake people up to the fact that members of certain groups are, in fact, human? or, being that gays were a secondary target by both the Nazis and the Klan, am I just talking out my ass?

I'm not sure if this has been pointed out, but currently in the United States and most European countries homosexuals aren't oppressed in any way near the way that racial minorities and Jews were. Gay people can have huge parades, "We're here, we're queer!" - imagine if Black people tried to do that during slavery in the South, or if Jews tried to do that in Nazi Germany.

What is currently happening to homosexuals is near equal to what is happening to racial minorities today. There is discrimination, but there isn't the state-sponsored discrimination of homosexuals to the extent that there was wide-scale extermination of Jews in the holocaust or non-citizen slaves of the South. And while there is some state-sponsored discrimination (such as that they lack to the right to be married in some places), I think we can all acknowledge that it isn't anything similiar to previous discrimination against minority groups.

The real exceptions to this rule are the way homosexuals are treated in non-Western countries, specifically Muslim countries. Homosexuals should try to direct an eye to human rights and the way gays are treated in Muslim countries, as many have laws where it is punishable by death to engage in any male-male sex.

I think it was called AIDS, but that didnt work.

I think it was called AIDS, but that didnt work.
See, you do think like I do. The world is full of people who want to kill others secretly with gems.

See, you do think like I do. The world is full of people who want to kill others secretly with gems.

Yes. Kill people with emeralds.

They say AIDS was designed for the black people. Nah. It was for the gays. Sickle cell anemia was for the blacks. And so was crack.

EDIT: Im saying "was" like its not happening anymore.

I didn't read any of this but I hope some one pointed out gay people were also in the Holocaust. The Jews just got all the attention.

I didn't read any of this but I hope some one pointed out gay people were also in the Holocaust. The Jews just got all the attention.
They did. Rest easy, sweet pantless one.

I didn't read any of this but I hope some one pointed out gay people were also in the Holocaust. The Jews just got all the attention.

And according to Pope Ratzingfuckface, so were catholics, and those deaths are the only important ones.

When people look at anti-semitism and religious intolerance, they have the specter of the holocaust to demonstrate just how wrong such things are. When they look at rascism, They can look at the years of slavery, and then the subsequent years of persecution by the Ku Klux Klan. With gays, there is no one specific event that is similer. Does it take a holocaust like event to wake people up to the fact that members of certain groups are, in fact, human? or, being that gays were a secondary target by both the Nazis and the Klan, am I just talking out my ass?

I stepped in fresh dog crap once. It smelled and looked like the above post.

you'd like to think that in this day and age, when people are supposed to be a little more enlightened, that your answer would be no.

but then people like to be hostile with others just simply because they are different, it matters not what the difference is.

having said all that, maybe a gay holocaust would be fun. maybe we could do it for charity. Imagaine a day once a year, where you go to work and have gay holocaust day where you dress up in leather, jack boots and wearing a freddie mercury moustache (completely unaware of the irony) and harrass, persecute and torture your colleagues for even the slightest suspicion of being gay.

:D

When people look at anti-semitism and religious intolerance, they have the specter of the holocaust to demonstrate just how wrong such things are. When they look at rascism, They can look at the years of slavery, and then the subsequent years of persecution by the Ku Klux Klan. With gays, there is no one specific event that is similer. Does it take a holocaust like event to wake people up to the fact that members of certain groups are, in fact, human? or, being that gays were a secondary target by both the Nazis and the Klan, am I just talking out my ass?

You're talking out your ass.

We don't need them playing victim to get more ammo for special rights. Blacks have carried their victimhood too far and too long. Jews, well, some made good with the rest of their lives, others, like George Sorros, Madeline Albright, and the like, well, ... I won't say it. I'd "offend" too many people.

And according to Pope Ratzingfuckface, so were catholics, and those deaths are the only important ones.

Hey, we had our martyr heyday. No less important than other peoples persecution. And I don't see why slavery is always thought of as a black issue. Anybody of any race served as slaves for thousands of years and still continue to do so. Blame the White customers of the African slave trade al you want for their problems- but their "brothers" in Africa are just as much to blame.

In another thread the question was asked if one would join Magnetos "they will hate us and attempt to slaughter us no matter what we do, so let us strike first" Brotherhood or Xaviers "Can't we all just get along" X-men.

I am definately starting to see Magnetos point here.
Yeah, I'd join him anytime. Those puny humans can never understand us anyway.

Has Fass seen this thread yet? I can't be bothered reading through but I don't want to miss him ripping a few people new ones.

When people look at anti-semitism and religious intolerance, they have the specter of the holocaust to demonstrate just how wrong such things are. When they look at rascism, They can look at the years of slavery, and then the subsequent years of persecution by the Ku Klux Klan. With gays, there is no one specific event that is similer. Does it take a holocaust like event to wake people up to the fact that members of certain groups are, in fact, human? or, being that gays were a secondary target by both the Nazis and the Klan, am I just talking out my ass?

It still surprises me how little people know of history, especially about the holocaust.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_triangle

Guess what happened to homosexuals in Nazi-Germany, that's right - they were persecuted and killed in the holocaust.

Next time you have an idea like that, try to think it through and staple your ass shut.

You're talking out your ass.

We don't need them playing victim to get more ammo for special rights. Blacks have carried their victimhood too far and too long. Jews, well, some made good with the rest of their lives, others, like George Sorros, Madeline Albright, and the like, well, ... I won't say it. I'd "offend" too many people.

Well old son, I have bad news for you. You see despite the vastness in your mind of the planet, it's still relatively small. You will run into blacks almost anywhere you go, and women, and gays...and all the rest of the people who are either not white, anglo-saxon, protestant or heterosexual.

I'm not offended by the topic starter, I'm offended by people like you. You see, chum, you're a mouth breather, a genetic non-starter, a waste of bio-genetic material.

If you don't like Jews, tough shit. If you don't like gays and lesbians, tough shit. You don't like blacks, tough shit. Ad nauseum

You see bub, "special" rights wouldn't be necessary if people treated everyone equally, but guess what? They don't. Until chuckleheads like you get it into their faulty brain wiring that absolutely everyone deserves to be treated fairly and equally, we will have to make laws to compensate for the lack of EQUAL rights.

Well, there have been some pivotal events that paved the way for acceptance. The Stonewall Inn riots, for example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_riots

Whoa, is there really still anti-semitism? I almost feel less Jewish for never having faced oppression. Come on, anybody want to tell me that I control the banks and the media?

Whoa, is there really still anti-semitism? I almost feel less Jewish for never having faced oppression. Come on, anybody want to tell me that I control the banks and the media?

You damn, dirty Jews control all the banks and media with your damn, filthy Zionist Jewish conspiracy! Raaarrrrr, death to Israel! Heil Hitler! etc. etc. etc.

Feel better now? :D

Let me first try to sincerely apologize to Fass for not being more clear. I should have made it very apparent I wasn't advocating this. I tend to get off on the wrong foot in these discussions a lot. It might help that as a bisexual, my life would be threatened as well by any holocaust.

The question I was posing was whether it takes a holocaust to get the majority of people to accept the basic human rights of a group, because the way gays are treated today reminds me of the treatment of jews in America in the 1930s.

I'm also beginning to think that I need to go over some of the borderline posts I make and make it more clear what I mean by them.

Ok, consider this in the same vein as the whole "was stalin necessary" thing. and from watching recent politics, it does seem that a significant portion of the American voting public do not see gays as human beings.

Please don't use "Americans" for this. The kind of "Americans" you're talking about don't seem to see a lot of people as human beings. And there are other kinds of "Americans" who despise them for it. :) Meanwhile, you're missing out on the other nationalities of gay-bashers in the world.

As for the question, the original poster could have asked himself, "Now that we've had the repeated mass-deaths of Africans through AIDS, starvation, and genocides, did all that tragedy and cruelty and evil finally make white supremacists realize that black people are human beings?"

If he'd done that, this thread might not have existed. (= good thing, IMO)

Gays were killed in the Holocaust too...Try reading your history textbook next time you go through Adult Remedial Education, instead of just staring at your hot Spanish teachers' ass...

No, we don't need another Holocaust, the gays are already making good progress...Remember, the Senate recently voted against the anti-gay-marriage bill...

That would be so gay. :rolleyes:

I'm still baffled why people call something "gay"; could somebody explain this to me, PLEASE?

It can't be a put-down, can it? After all, we're all socially enlightened now, so saying something is "gay" no longer means it's inferior or undesirable, right? I mean, that would be like using "That would be so black" or "That would be so feminist" or "That would be so disabled" as a put-down, right?

It can't be a compliment, can it? Why would you roll your eyes about something you thought was a good idea? And anyway, that's not usually the tone people use to say it, is it? And looking at what it's said about, it doesn't seem to fit. It's not exactly like people go around saying to each other, "Have you seen 'Mission Impossible III' yet? It's so gay!" [Hmmm, maybe I should choose a different film... ;)]

Anyway, I'd be glad for an explanation.

Why is it that everytime I see the forums here ... there is a GAY topic?

Almost tired of seeing it ... If your gay ... thats nice ... have fun ... be gay and enjoy ... just getting sick of all the GAY topics here on NS

I'm still baffled why people call something "gay"; could somebody explain this to me, PLEASE?

It can't be a put-down, can it? After all, we're all socially enlightened now, so saying something is "gay" no longer means it's inferior or undesirable, right? I mean, that would be like using "That would be so black" or "That would be so feminist" or "That would be so disabled" as a put-down, right?

It can't be a compliment, can it? Why would you roll your eyes about something you thought was a good idea? And anyway, that's not usually the tone people use to say it, is it? And looking at what it's said about, it doesn't seem to fit. It's not exactly like people go around saying to each other, "Have you seen 'Mission Impossible III' yet? It's so gay!" [Hmmm, maybe I should choose a different film... ;)]

Anyway, I'd be glad for an explanation.
Ah, if only that were true...

It is a putdown. For some people, they just use it as a word in their vocabulary even if they mean nothing bad by it(and indeed, most don't and probably don't understand that using it the way they are is insulting and degrading, just as if one were to call something n*****dly.) Others, however, mean it as a full and complete insult. To call something gay is to call it inferior and/or horrible, which is utterly despicable.

Philosphy: Vomit all you wish. I don't give a damn. I'm going to fight for gay rights for as long as it's necessary. (Though I probably should stop with the speeches that are intended to rouse feelings. It doesn't work very well, especially in text.)

Why is it that everytime I see the forums here ... there is a GAY topic?

Almost tired of seeing it ... If your gay ... thats nice ... have fun ... be gay and enjoy ... just getting sick of all the GAY topics here on NS

Nobody's forcing you to read them or come here. So, if you don't like it, tough titties. Get over it, or get outta here.

NS is gay.

NS is gay.

I've been toiling like a little Vietnamese child to make it so, so it better be! :)

Suppose you hated gays.

Whats the point of holocausting a group that doesn't breed true, anyway?

What would be the purpose?

Suppose you hated gays.
Whats the point of holocausting a group that doesn't breed true, anyway?
What would be the purpose?

Those kinds of people are not the sharpest tools in the shed. They don't seem to understand that the overwhelming majority of gay people have straight parents.

Sort of like those who claim that gay people "don't breed true."

When people look at anti-semitism and religious intolerance, they have the specter of the holocaust to demonstrate just how wrong such things are. When they look at rascism, They can look at the years of slavery, and then the subsequent years of persecution by the Ku Klux Klan. With gays, there is no one specific event that is similer. Does it take a holocaust like event to wake people up to the fact that members of certain groups are, in fact, human? or, being that gays were a secondary target by both the Nazis and the Klan, am I just talking out my ass?

We need a holocaust for gay themed threads.

We need a holocaust for gay themed threads.

No, we need it for the dolts who claim in their girlish bitching not to like them, but still keep reading them for some reason.

No, we need it for the dolts who claim in their girlish bitching not to like them, but still keep reading them for some reason.

Oh you're just angry because you're afraid I'll take away your favorite place to troll for cock.

Those kinds of people are not the sharpest tools in the shed. They don't seem to understand that the overwhelming majority of gay people have straight parents.

Sort of like those who claim that gay people "don't breed true."

*shrug* Still don't tell me what the purpose of a gay holocaust would be.

i don't think we need any holocausts.

am I just talking out my ass?

Yes, you are asking for the intolerants to go out and flame you without reason or need.

Oh you're just angry because you're afraid I'll take away your favorite place to troll for cock.

You are in no position to take away Frescati, or, well, anything else for that matter. It's cute how you think you are, though. Pathetic, but cute.

get in there r0cka...

We need a holocaust for gay themed threads.

I entirely agree. I think the points have been already made, now is just becoming a way to fight and insult, rather than argue or discuss.

You are in no position to take away Frescati, or, well, anything else for that matter. It's cute how you think you are, though. Pathetic, but cute.


Yes I have a vast conspiracy planned to somehow stop gay threads from being formed and furthermore I believe I can accomplish it.

The first step is to make sarcastic comments about them.

The second step is to argue with a Swede.

The third will be unveiled, shortly.

One word: bureaucracy. With it comes red tape. So yeah, nothing is going to be done unless a disaster of large proportions happen.

I entirely agree. I think the points have been already made, now is just becoming a way to fight and insult, rather than argue or discuss.


At this point it's overkill.

I always flip through them to see if I'm missing some big new development, but nope same issues re-hashed.

One word: bureaucracy. With it comes red tape. So yeah, nothing is going to be done unless a disaster of large proportions happen.

Damn! Double post.

Yes I have a vast conspiracy planned to somehow stop gay threads from being formed and furthermore I believe I can accomplish it.

Seeing as it's hard to believe you have friends, at all, that is a bit silly, yes.

The first step is to make sarcastic comments about them.

You seem to be confusing "sarcastic" with "hypocritical" and "inane."

The second step is to argue with a Swede.

The third will be unveiled, shortly.

On the edge of my dildo, I am, honey.

Is this argument going somewhere?

Is this argument going somewhere?

Of course not, that's the main point of our participation in this thread.

Is this argument going somewhere?
I think there's a few things we all can learn from this thread:

1. If you don't like reading threads about homosexuality and gay rights issues, you have the power to not read them. I believe in you. Believe in yourself.

2. If you don't like the existence of threads about homosexuality and gay rights issues, this is not the forum for you. You have the power to go somewhere else. I believe in you. Believe in yourself.

3. Every stupid question, when posed on a forum, requires at least 7 pages of stupid answers.

Of course not, that's the main point of our participation in this thread.

Just making sure this doesn't become an all out flame war.

Seeing as it's hard to believe you have friends, at all, that is a bit silly, yes.

I'm not the one with 14,000 plus posts.




You seem to be confusing "sarcastic" with "hypocritical" and "inane."

Inane I'll accept, but I fail to see how I'm being hypocritical.



On the edge of my dildo, I am, honey.

I would have thought you had one of them 12 inch black double dongers.

I'm not the one with 14,000 plus posts.

You're not the one who has anything to say, so that's kind of moot, but you're right. 23 posts per day take me all of a half hour to make. How do I manage?

Inane I'll accept, but I fail to see how I'm being hypocritical.

"Please, stop the threads I keep posting to!"

I would have thought you had one of them 12 inch black double dongers.

I deal in metrics and voltages.

Nobody's forcing you to read them or come here. So, if you don't like it, tough titties. Get over it, or get outta here.

Oh thanks! So I have your permission not to read every damn Gay topic off to the side of the NS every time I logon.

Gee thanks :upyours:

Oh thanks! So I have your permission not to read every damn Gay topic off to the side of the NS every time I logon.

It must be so traumatic to you, having that man pointing that gun at your head, forcing you to come back.

Gee thanks

You're welcome. One would think you'd have the willpower not to read things you don't like on your own, but here you are.

We don't really need a gay holocaust, althought that would be nice. What we need is for gays to realize that it's a choice, regardless of what they or their supporters want us to believe. Having sex with anyone is a choice someone makes consciously. Be gay, just don't act on it. Normal heterosexuals have to have sex to reproduce that's a big difference.
Just because your perverted uncle decided to diddle you when you were 5 does not mean you get to openly have sex with men because you're all messed up in the head. Have your fantasies but control yourself and don't act on them.
Many years ago being openly gay was unheard of and looked down on as being immoral much like pedophilia is today. Is that all of the sudden going to be ok in 50 or 60 years?

Be gay, just don't act on it.

No, I don't think I will head your advice. I'll fuck any adult who I want to fuck and who wants me to fuck him. Or whom I want to fuck me.

Thanks for the suggestion, though, even if it was such an undesirable and loony one.

No, I don't think I will head your advice. I'll fuck any adult who I want to fuck and who wants me to fuck him. Or whom I want to fuck me.

That's bloody irresponsible I say. I kept quiet all this time but seeing this, NO! :mad:

So what if you don't heed me. Fine, go ahead. Not like I'll stop you.

That's bloody irresponsible I say. I kept quiet all this time but seeing this, NO! :mad:


As long as he double bags it, he'll be fine.

No, I don't think I will head your advice. I'll fuck any adult who I want to fuck and who wants me to fuck him. Or whom I want to fuck me.

Thanks for the suggestion, though, even if it was such an undesirable and loony one.

Im sure that's exactly what the members of nambla say about little boys. I guess messed up minds think alike.

Im sure that's exactly what the members of nambla say about little boys. I guess messed up minds think alike.

Agreed.

That's bloody irresponsible I say. I kept quiet all this time but seeing this, NO! :mad:

It's irresponsible to fuck consenting adults, or have them fuck you? Yeah, I kind of get the picture that you've no clue what responsibility means.

So what if you don't heed me. Fine, go ahead. Not like I'll stop you.

Peechy! I'll keep screwing whichever consenting adult I want, and your opinion of that will continue to be irrelevant. :)

Im sure that's exactly what the members of nambla say about little boys.

Which part of "I'll fuck any adult who I want to fuck and who wants me to fuck him" did you not understand?

I guess messed up minds think alike.

I guess illiteracy is to be expected.

It's irresponsible to fuck consenting adults, or have them fuck you? Yeah, I kind of get the picture that you've no clue what responsibility means.

That's not responsibility in the first place. Look up in the dictionary. Unlike you I won't resort to name calling to strengthen my rants. You disregard community, only upholding you're personal wants.

We don't really need a gay holocaust, althought that would be nice. What we need is for gays to realize that it's a choice, regardless of what they or their supporters want us to believe. Having sex with anyone is a choice someone makes consciously. Be gay, just don't act on it.We don't really need a lefty holocaust, althought that would be nice. What we need is for lefties to realize that it's a choice, regardless of what they or their supporters want us to believe. Using your left hand is a choice someone makes consciously. Be lefty, just don't act on it.
Normal heterosexuals have to have sex to reproduce that's a big difference.Normal homosexuals have to have sex to reproduce too...

Im sure that's exactly what the members of nambla say about little boys. I guess messed up minds think alike.
What part of "consent" is hard for you to understand? Little boys cannot give consent; adult men can. Comparing gay sex to pedophilia is as stupid as comparing heterosexual sex to pedophilia. So just don't do it.

Peechy! I'll keep screwing whichever consenting adult I want, and your opinion of that will continue to be irrelevant. :)

Here's hoping one has a communicable disease to share with you. Then you will be irrelevant.

That's not responsibility in the first place. Look up in the dictionary. Unlike you I won't resort to name calling to strengthen my rants. You disregard community, only upholding you're personal wants.
What's it got to do with anyone who he wants to sleep with?

Oh thanks! So I have your permission not to read every damn Gay topic off to the side of the NS every time I logon.

Gee thanks :upyours:
It's not about him giving you permission, it's about him pointing out (albeit a tad harshly) that you can take some responsibility for your own damn choices. Nobody forces you to read these threads. Nobody forces you to post in them. If you choose to participate in these threads, then it's stupid to bitch about the existence of the threads that you choose to participate in.

And that's a general "you," not just you, US RADIO X.

That's bloody irresponsible I say. I kept quiet all this time but seeing this, NO! :mad:
Out of curiosity, why is it irresponsible to say, "I will have sex with whomever I choose to have sex with, provided (of course) that the party in question also wants to have sex with me"?

I think there's a few things we all can learn from this thread:

1. If you don't like reading threads about homosexuality and gay rights issues, you have the power to not read them. I believe in you. Believe in yourself.

2. If you don't like the existence of threads about homosexuality and gay rights issues, this is not the forum for you. You have the power to go somewhere else. I believe in you. Believe in yourself.

3. Every stupid question, when posed on a forum, requires at least 7 pages of stupid answers.

1.- Even if I do not like them (it's not like I do not like gays, it is just that I cannot see the point behind this), I am as free to read whatever I like as you are free to have the sexual preference you like.

2.- This isn't, however, an homosexuality-oriented forum. And perhaps, although it is free, being a little too much overwhelming the issue. Looks like an agenda already. You are free to discuss about it, we are free to complain that it has been too much.

3.- People like you guarantee that last option. I remember the last time I argued with you

That's not responsibility in the first place.

So, having sex with someone who wants to have sex with you is irresponsible? Do you even know what is responsible?

Look up in the dictionary.

Yeah, that's what you seem to need to do.

Unlike you I won't resort to name calling to strengthen my rants.

Name-calling? I'd settle if you understood the words you were using.

You disregard community, only upholding you're personal wants.

What the deuce does the "community" have to do with me having sex with an adult who wants to have sex with me? Yeah, nothing. So, I don't really give a patootie what people like you in the "community" think, as, well, you're irrelevant.

What part of "consent" is hard for you to understand? Little boys cannot give consent; adult men can. Comparing gay sex to pedophilia is as stupid as comparing heterosexual sex to pedophilia. So just don't do it.

Age of consent is something set by law. A law can be changed therefore the age of consent can be changed. If you bothered to read and understand my post before you blew up and got all emotional you would have realized that I meant that since homosexuality is now considered normal, (albeit immoral) someday the same degraded mentality that created homosexual rights could degrade further to include children.

Here's hoping one has a communicable disease to share with you. Then you will be irrelevant.

Psst! We in the civilised world have these things called "condoms" and "safe sex." They're made of this new material called "latex" or "plastic" that work as a "barrier" to diseases. Then we also have these things called "tests" that "test" if someone has a disease. I suggest you take the time to learn more.

We don't really need a gay holocaust, althought that would be nice. What we need is for gays to realize that it's a choice, regardless of what they or their supporters want us to believe. Having sex with anyone is a choice someone makes consciously. Be gay, just don't act on it.

You seem to be a bit confused. If being gay is a choice, then why are you telling people to "be gay, just don't act on it"? Why would somebody choose to have gay feelings if they then are going to choose to never act on those feelings? If you really believe that being homosexual is a choice, shouldn't you be just telling people to choose not to be gay in the first place?


Normal heterosexuals have to have sex to reproduce that's a big difference.

The vast, overwhelming majority of heterosexual sex has nothing to do with reproduction. The vast, overwhelming majority of heterosexuals have sex for reasons other than reproduction, though reproduction is sometimes one of the many reasons a heterosexual will choose to have sex. If you want to define "normal" as "whatever the majority is doing," then it's perfectly normal to have no-procreative sex.


Just because your perverted uncle decided to diddle you when you were 5 does not mean you get to openly have sex with men because you're all messed up in the head.

I'm not sure if you meant this seriously or not, but just in case you did: there is not any causative link between childhood sexual abuse and homosexuality in adulthood. Also, keep in mind that the majority of sexual abuse is perpetrated by heterosexual males against girls. (I don't mean to in any way downplay sexual abuse perpetrated against male children, of course, just talking statistics here.)


Have your fantasies but control yourself and don't act on them.
Many years ago being openly gay was unheard of and looked down on as being immoral much like pedophilia is today. Is that all of the sudden going to be ok in 50 or 60 years?
50 years ago it was considered wicked for a black woman to marry a white man. 100 years ago it was considered wicked for a woman to be viewed as an equal partner in her own marriage. I hope you aren't honestly suggesting that we cling to prejudice just because it's what has been done for years.

Here's hoping one has a communicable disease to share with you. Then you will be irrelevant.

There is such a thing as safe sex you know.

Psst! We in the civilised world have these things called "condoms" and "safe sex." They're made of this new material called "latex" or "plastic" that work as a "barrier" to diseases. Then we also have these things called "tests" that "test" if someone has a disease. I suggest you take the time to learn more.

Really!! wow, that solves everything then. Oh no wait, since people are still transferring diseases to eachother I guess there's a slight flaw in your reasoning.

Age of consent is something set by law. A law can be changed therefore the age of consent can be changed. If you bothered to read and understand my post before you blew up and got all emotional you would have realized that I meant that since homosexuality is now considered normal, (albeit immoral) someday the same degraded mentality that created homosexual rights could degrade further to include children.
I don't see why you assume I am "emotional" just because I pointed out that you are wrong. Project much?

While it is true that the legal age of consent can be changed arbitrarily, my point still stands for several reasons.

1) Regardless of how you define the age of consent, there is no more reason to compare adult homosexual relationships to pedophilia than there is to compare adult heterosexual relationships to pedophilia. Hence, that subject is irrelevant here.

2) The neurological capability to perform "adult" reasoning functions can be measured empirically, and we can verify that this capacity does not exist in the human brain until around the start of puberty. This isn't because kids are dumb or clueless or immoral, it's just because there are neurological changes that take place over the course of the human lifespan. It is, neurologically, not possible for a 9 year old child to exercise the same judgment as a 19 year old. I find it completely reasonable, therefore, to acknowledge that children below a certain age are not capable of giving adult consent. This reality will not change just because we change a law or two.

Age of consent is something set by law. A law can be changed therefore the age of consent can be changed. If you bothered to read and understand my post before you blew up and got all emotional you would have realized that I meant that since homosexuality is now considered normal, (albeit immoral) someday the same degraded mentality that created homosexual rights could degrade further to include children.

"Letting adults have sex with consenting adults will lead to letting adults have sex with children."

Yeah, that's silly.

I meant that since homosexuality is now considered normal, (albeit immoral) someday the same degraded mentality that created homosexual rights could degrade further to include children.

So only homosexuals haxe sex with children? :rolleyes:

Really!! wow, that solves everything then. Oh no wait, since people are still transferring diseases to eachother I guess there's a slight flaw in your reasoning.
Not really. His reasoning is, "If I practice safe sex, and select my partners with a mind for my personal safety, then the risks of my having sex are pretty much as low as possible." The fact that other people practice unsafe sex doesn't necessarily have anything to do with Fass; he could just choose not to have unsafe sex, and choose not to have sex with people who are having unsafe sex.

There is such a thing as safe sex you know.


How boring.

Really!! wow, that solves everything then. Oh no wait, since people are still transferring diseases to eachother I guess there's a slight flaw in your reasoning.

Yeah, those people who do that don't have "safe sex" or use "condoms." See, by using them properly, that "barrier" we were talking about earlier "protects" you.

Seeing as I practice "safe sex" and don't have sex with people who don't, well, that's where that "protection" comes in.

So only homosexuals haxe sex with children? :rolleyes:
An interesting theory, since a disproportionate majority of child sex abusers are heterosexual men.

Frankly, if you want to use "likelihood of committing child sex abuse" as your benchmark for deciding which adult sex practices are okay, then you'll be forced to conclude that the only "good" adult sexual relationships are those between lesbians. Lesbians are the one who, statistically, are the least likely (by FAR) to sexually abuse children.

Heterosexual men, on the other hand, are the most likely (by FAR). I guess this means that by allowing men to be in consenting heterosexual relationships we are starting down the slippery slope to NAMBLA...?

So only homosexuals haxe sex with children? :rolleyes:


Most pedophiles who rape victims of the same sex aren't even homosexual.

Most pedophiles who rape victims of the same sex aren't even homosexual.
Another excellent point.

I think the fact that the US government all but turned a blind eye to the AIDS epidemic in the 1980s because it was merely a "fag disease" should count for something in this respect.
I know they ignored it, but really, what could they have done?

I know they ignored it, but really, what could they have done?

Not ignore it?

You seem to be a bit confused. If being gay is a choice, then why are you telling people to "be gay, just don't act on it"? Why would somebody choose to have gay feelings if they then are going to choose to never act on those feelings? If you really believe that being homosexual is a choice, shouldn't you be just telling people to choose not to be gay in the first place?

Being gay is not really something you chose, it's chosen for you by whatever traumatic instance took place in the formative years to confuse one's sexual orientation, not always sexual abuse, neglect and physical also play a factor. The choice I refered to was the having sex choice.

years ago it was considered wicked for a black woman to marry a white man. 100 years ago it was considered wicked for a woman to be viewed as an equal partner in her own marriage. I hope you aren't honestly suggesting that we cling to prejudice just because it's what has been done for years.

My morals are based on religion, Homosexuality is the only thing in the bible refered to as an obomination, read it, it's there. If God doesn't like homosexuals then I don't either.

I know they ignored it, but really, what could they have done?
Um, anything?

They could have done what we do in the case of any other epidemic. Instead, they decided to just let the faggots die, and now we're about 10 years behind where we should be in terms of AIDS research. In my humble opinion, every child who dies of AIDS is another corpse to lay at the feet of people like Ronald Reagan, who didn't feel like doing anything about this plague until it started hitting white heterosexuals.

Homosexuality does not spread STD, promiscuity does.

Legalizing gay marriages could stop the promiscuity in the gay community worldwide, so it should be legalized.

AIDS epidemics in Africa is perhaps a more interesting issue to discuss right now than gay marriage, but there you are, not caring for anything.

And finally, the homophobic men usually are the same fanatics to lesbian porn, that is also homosexuality, so do not pay heed to those hypocrites. They hate to see two men making out but love to see two women making out, how typical.

Men are dogs. :D

Being gay is not really something you chose, it's chosen for you by whatever traumatic instance took place in the formative years to confuse one's sexual orientation, not always sexual abuse, neglect and physical also play a factor. The choice I refered to was the having sex choice.

Ok, good to clear that up.

Do you have any sources to back up your belief that homosexuality is always the result of childhood sexual abuse?


My morals are based on religion, Homosexuality is the only thing in the bible refered to as an obomination, read it, it's there. If God doesn't like homosexuals then I don't either.
Ok, now waitaminute. I've heard people claim that homosexuality is an abomination according to the Bible, but I've never heard anybody claim that it is the ONLY THING that is labeled an abomination in the Bible.

Dude, DIVORCE is a bigger deal than homosexuality, according to the Bible. Cheating on your wife was important enough for God to make a whole commandment about it, but He didn't feel it was necessary to single out the fags for their own "Thou Shalt Not."

Most pedophiles who rape victims of the same sex aren't even homosexual.

How in the world can you rape someone of the same sex and not be homosexual? That's pretty much the defenition.

How in the world can you rape someone of the same sex and not be homosexual? That's pretty much the defenition.

Pedophiles are fucking crazy, so the things they do don't have to make sense.

You rarely see a gay pedophile.

It's usally some weird dude, that lives a normal, heterosexual life.

My morals are based on religion, Homosexuality is the only thing in the bible refered to as an obomination, read it, it's there. If God doesn't like homosexuals then I don't either.

Really? The only thing?

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lev.%2011:9-12&version=9;

"These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you."

Let me guess, you didn't actually read the Bible, did you? In any case, your little story book is inconsequential.

Ok, now waitaminute. I've heard people claim that homosexuality is an abomination according to the Bible, but I've never heard anybody claim that it is the ONLY THING that is labeled an abomination in the Bible.

I have a king james bible, I read all through Leviticus where the rules are laid out. The word only appears in one place and its where a man lay with a man as with a woman. Nothing else is specifically refered to as an abomination. I didn't make that up.

Being gay is not really something you chose, it's chosen for you by whatever traumatic instance took place in the formative years to confuse one's sexual orientation, not always sexual abuse, neglect and physical also play a factor. The choice I refered to was the having sex choice.Back that up. Prove that every single homosexual has had a traumatic experience.
My morals are based on religion, Homosexuality is the only thing in the bible refered to as an obomination, read it, it's there. Your bible is incomplete. Read Leviticus 11:9-12.
If God doesn't like homosexuals then I don't either.According to the bible, God loves all his children, if I am not much mistaken.

I have a king james bible, I read all through Leviticus where the rules are laid out. The word only appears in one place and its where a man lay with a man as with a woman. Nothing else is specifically refered to as an abomination. I didn't make that up.

Yes, you did make that up. Read again.

Let me guess, you didn't actually read the Bible, did you? In any case, your little story book is inconsequential.

That says "abomination unto you" smarty. Not unto the lord. read your own posts before you try to make a point.

Being gay is not really something you chose, it's chosen for you by whatever traumatic instance took place in the formative years to confuse one's sexual orientation, not always sexual abuse, neglect and physical also play a factor. The choice I refered to was the having sex choice.

Well Mr. Wizard please explain all my gay friends who had loving non-abusive parents and were never molested or anything of the sort as a child.

My morals are based on religion, Homosexuality is the only thing in the bible refered to as an obomination, read it, it's there. If God doesn't like homosexuals then I don't either.

You should probably read the bible.

Eating shellfish is an abomination
Touching the skin of a dead pig is an abomination (that means no eating pork or bacon, fatty)
Wearing cloting made from blends is forbidden
Cutting your hair and trimming your beard is forbidden
Adopting any customs from foreign lands is forbidden

Tell me, do you sacrifice bulls on an altar? God says the smell is pleasing.

In my humble opinion, every child who dies of AIDS is another corpse to lay at the feet of people like Ronald Reagan, who didn't feel like doing anything about this plague until it started hitting white heterosexuals.

Rock Hudson to be exact, who was not just white and hetero but FAMOUS. With that said I agree 100%.

According to the bible, I can have columbian kids as slaves, but not brazilians.

Remember that for americans means you can have mexicans slaves, but not canadian.

I have a king james bible, I read all through Leviticus where the rules are laid out. The word only appears in one place and its where a man lay with a man as with a woman. Nothing else is specifically refered to as an abomination. I didn't make that up.
I'm sorry, but your Bible is missing some pages if that is the case.

That says "abomination unto you" smarty. Not unto the lord. read your own posts before you try to make a point.


Are you a Jew or a Christian?

Back that up. Prove that every single homosexual has had a traumatic experience.

Prove they have not!


According to the bible, God loves all his children, if I am not much mistaken.

All the ones that repent, he sends the others to hell.

That says "abomination unto you" smarty. Not unto the lord. read your own posts before you try to make a point.
You are changing your story. You originally said, "Nothing else is specifically refered to as an abomination." You never specified who it was an abomination unto.

That says "abomination unto you" smarty. Not unto the lord. read your own posts before you try to make a point.
http://workingforchange.speedera.net/www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/wfc/TMW03-15-06.jpg

Um, anything?

They could have done what we do in the case of any other epidemic. Instead, they decided to just let the faggots die, and now we're about 10 years behind where we should be in terms of AIDS research. In my humble opinion, every child who dies of AIDS is another corpse to lay at the feet of people like Ronald Reagan, who didn't feel like doing anything about this plague until it started hitting white heterosexuals.
There will never be a cure for AIDS. It’s as versatile and adaptive as the common cold, and they’ve been researching that for quite a while.

Prove they have not!You made the claim, you prove it.
All the ones that repent, he sends the others to hell.Doesn't mean he doesn't love 'em.

Are you a Jew or a Christian?

I think Moron would be the appropriate religion.

That says "abomination unto you" smarty. Not unto the lord. read your own posts before you try to make a point.

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

It says "unto the lord" where exactly? Again, did you like even read the Bible? It's clear by how you have no idea what it says, and how you're weaselling out of making things up, that you didn't.

You are changing your story. You originally said, "Nothing else is specifically refered to as an abomination." You never specified who it was an abomination unto.

My bad for that, I just got off a 10hr shift. I meant onto the lord. You can abominate yourself all you want.

Prove they have not!
Fine. I haven't even come close to a traumatic experience, personally. Yet I'm gay. Hm?
All the ones that repent, he sends the others to hell.
Actually he loves them regardless he just punishes thse that do not repent despite his love. Assuming he exists.

I think Moron would be the appropriate religion.


I'm trying to figure out because people seem intent on citing Leviticus, when Levitcus doesn't apply to Christians.

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

It says "unto the lord" where exactly? Again, did you like even read the Bible? It's clear you didn't.

I didn't read yours.

There will never be a cure for AIDS. It’s as versatile and adaptive as the common cold, and they’ve been researching that for quite a while.
I don't want to hijack this thread, but let me just say that from a research point of view it's not accurate to equate AIDS with the common cold. They're apples and oranges.

Also, regardless of whether or not we ever can "cure" AIDS, you're forgetting about developing vaccines, and developing treatments that save lives and allow AIDS patients to address their symptoms even if the virus remains in their bodies. Personally, I don't think there's any real reason to doubt that a cure could be found, I just happen to think there are plenty of other goals that will be both easier to acheive and more helpful in the long run.

Prove they have not!

*Raises hand*

I'm attracted to members of the same sex. I was never sexually abused as a child.

Actually I think some people missed the point. As Americans, who are we to deny gays (who are legal citizens) freedom, when we give freedom to illegal immigrants (or rather, are far more willing to)? That was what Hitler did to Jews and gays.

To be honest I think that Constitutional gay marriage amendement (as well as 2004 elections) was one part of a holocaust that's already happening, one that is being carried out far more subtly than Hitler's anti-Semitic, anti-gay, anti-non-Aryan one. Or, if you will, one that's been going on since some humans turned gay. Heh, if you think about it, all anyone cares about in the USA is who's sleeping with who, especially moronic fangirls and even more moronic Christian fundamentalists (coughPatRObertsoncough).

I'm trying to figure out because people seem intent on citing Leviticus, when Levitcus doesn't apply to Christians.

Acutally leviticus still applies to christians when it comes to rules. We can just spare all the goat and animal sacrifices, that's what JC was for. Although I like BBQ

Acutally leviticus still applies to christians when it comes to rules. We can just spare all the goat and animal sacrifices, that's what JC was for. Although I like BBQ
Oh, I get it...Jesus said you can ignore all the rules in Leviticus, except the ones that help you justify your personal feelings towards homosexuals.

And to think, some people say religion isn't good for anything.

Acutally leviticus still applies to christians when it comes to rules. We can just spare all the goat and animal sacrifices, that's what JC was for. Although I like BBQ
So do you eat pork or any other non-kosher animals? That's Leviticus. Wear clothes of two cloths? Leviticus again. And you call yourself a Christian?

I didn't read yours.

You said you read the King James Version:

KJV: (King James Version): "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination".

Oh...

Oh, I get it...Jesus said you can ignore all the rules in Leviticus, except the ones that help you justify your personal feelings towards homosexuals.

And to think, some people say religion isn't good for anything.

Yep, just another guy who hates fags and attemps to use religion to justify it.

Its kinda sad how the non-christians know more about the Bible than the christians.

I didn't read yours.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=3&chapter=18&version=9

That was a direct quote from the King James version. You claimed to have the King James version (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11172411&postcount=139). Your King James version is somehow different from everyone else's?

Please, stop this pathetic weaselling. You've no idea what the Bible does or doesn't say, 'cause you haven't read it. That is apparent. You're not fooling anyone.

*Raises hand*

I'm attracted to members of the same sex. I was never sexually abused as a child.

Point missed again. Neglect, Abuse (physical, emotional, sexual), Trauma (Psychological, Subconscious) or some combination of them. Good lord people stay on track here. I wasn't there when whatever happened to you happened otherwise I could tell you what it was.

Point missed again. Neglect, Abuse (physical, emotional, sexual), Trauma (Psychological, Subconscious) or some combination of them. Good lord people stay on track here. I wasn't there when whatever happened to you happened otherwise I could tell you what it was.If you have no evidence in favor of your hypothesis, you can't uphold your hypothesis as truth.

Point missed again. Neglect, Abuse (physical, emotional, sexual), Trauma (Psychological, Subconscious) or some combination of them. Good lord people stay on track here. I wasn't there when whatever happened to you happened otherwise I could tell you what it was.
Neglect? Nope, very caring and loving parents here. Abuse? none at all actually. Maybe that's what caused it, a lack of beatings. Trauma? Again, none here. They'd have to be pretty big events to change my sexuality and yet I can't recall anything like that.

*Sigh*

You know, guys, this just isn't as much fun as it used to be. Some poor terrified hetero boy comes into a thread clutching his Leviticus and shrieking about how the faggots are out to rape our children, and he gets ganged up on by half a dozen viciously-logical people who batter him senseless with their vicious facts and reasoned arguments.

Hardly seems like a fair fight. I'm thinking maybe I should "play for the other team" on this one, if you know what I mean, just to even things out a bit...

So do you eat pork or any other non-kosher animals? That's Leviticus. Wear clothes of two cloths? Leviticus again. And you call yourself a Christian?

I never said I didn't sin, Im human, we all sin. My sins are just not an abomination.

And to answer the other post, JC was the ultimate sacrifice we no longer have to make sacrifices as they did. All the rules are still there. but now we get to just pray and repent and we get to keep the goats.

Point missed again. Neglect, Abuse (physical, emotional, sexual), Trauma (Psychological, Subconscious) or some combination of them. Good lord people stay on track here. I wasn't there when whatever happened to you happened otherwise I could tell you what it was.

You're making this up as easily as you made things up about the Bible, which you know equally as little about.

Hardly seems like a fair fight. I'm thinking maybe I should "play for the other team" on this one, if you know what I mean, just to even things out a bit...
Batting for the other side is evil.

Straight power.

Yay.

Neglect? Nope, very caring and loving parents here. Abuse? none at all actually. Maybe that's what caused it, a lack of beatings. Trauma? Again, none here. They'd have to be pretty big events to change my sexuality and yet I can't recall anything like that.
You clearly are so traumatized that you cannot remember the abuse you suffered. (For more information, see "Denial" under the heading of "Freudian theory.")

If you admit you were sexually abused, then that is clearly the root of your adult homosexuality. If you do not admit you were sexually abused, then you are clearly in denial about the sexual abuse you must have suffered because you are homosexual.

*Sigh*

You know, guys, this just isn't as much fun as it used to be. Some poor terrified hetero boy comes into a thread clutching his Leviticus and shrieking about how the faggots are out to rape our children, and he gets ganged up on by half a dozen viciously-logical people who batter him senseless with their vicious facts and reasoned arguments.

Hardly seems like a fair fight. I'm thinking maybe I should "play for the other team" on this one, if you know what I mean, just to even things out a bit...

The thing is, "the other team," i.e. the homophobes, get their asses handed to them every single time. Which is a bit ironic.

I never said I didn't sin, Im human, we all sin. My sins are just not an abomination.
Eating non-kosher is an abomination, as it is eating that which is religiously unclean. So you have sinned in an abominable manner.

Bottle... you aren't good at this batting for the other team thing.

I never said I didn't sin, Im human, we all sin. My sins are just not an abomination.

Indeed. When God said that it is an abomination to eat shellfish, what he really meant was that it's an abomination to be a faggot. And all that crap about mixed fabrics was just another reminder not to wear fruity cotton-poly blends, because they make you look like a fag (which is an abomination).


And to answer the other post, JC was the ultimate sacrifice we no longer have to make sacrifices as they did.

Well, except for fags.


All the rules are still there. but now we get to just pray and repent and we get to keep the goats.
But we're not going to use the goats the way you sick freaks are thinking.

Point missed again. Neglect, Abuse (physical, emotional, sexual), Trauma (Psychological, Subconscious) or some combination of them. Good lord people stay on track here. I wasn't there when whatever happened to you happened otherwise I could tell you what it was.

Everybody experiences some form of trauma, not everyone is gay.

The thing is, "the other team," i.e. the homophobes, get their asses handed to them every single time. Which is a bit ironic.
Hardly! It's just that the homophobes are so right that their righteousness cannot be comprehended by soft, faggoty brains.

Also, fags hate God, and God hates fags, so the hetero Christians automatically win. Set, match.

Indeed. When God said that it is an abomination to eat shellfish, what he really meant was that it's an abomination to be a faggot. And all that crap about mixed fabrics was just another reminder not to wear fruity cotton-poly blends, because they make you look like a fag (which is an abomination).


Well, except for fags.


But we're not going to use the goats the way you sick freaks are thinking.
You know, your batting for the other team is probably hindering more tan helping... stay there rather than give us the same treatment huh? :p

Hardly! It's just that the homophobes are so right that their righteousness cannot be comprehended by soft, faggoty brains.

Also, fags hate God, and God hates fags, so the hetero Christians automatically win. Set, match.


Ummm... good thing that Christianity is a heterodoxy, so that large numbers of Christians don't have to be homophobes.

Hardly! It's just that the homophobes are so right that their righteousness cannot be comprehended by soft, faggoty brains.

That's OK, as long as our dicks are hard, we'll manage.

Also, fags hate God, and God hates fags, so the hetero Christians automatically win. Set, match.

Fags can't hate what doesn't exist, silly.

Point missed again. Neglect, Abuse (physical, emotional, sexual), Trauma (Psychological, Subconscious) or some combination of them. Good lord people stay on track here. I wasn't there when whatever happened to you happened otherwise I could tell you what it was.

In other words, kids become gay when their puppy dies.

Gays are only good for food plant and live targets.

I REST MY CASE:mp5:
You made one?

Gays are only good for food plant and live targets.

I REST MY CASE:mp5:
Nice case. Now go tell the spartans (two references there. Who gets both?)

Yep, just another guy who hates fags and attemps to use religion to justify it.

Hatred of fags requires no justification, because hating fags is normal and natural. Haven't you ever watched a bunch of straight lions beating up a gay lion?


Its kinda sad how the non-christians know more about the Bible than the christians.
Non-Christians can't know anything about the Bible, because all they can do is read it like it's a book. Christians can FEEL the Bible, and know what God really meant when He wrote it.

For example, Christians know that when Jesus said, "Whatever you did to the least of these, you did to Me," what he meant to say was, "Man, two dudes kissing is so freaking gross. Two hot chicks would be okay, but two dudes? Nasty."

A non-Christian might read that passage of the Bible and think that Jesus meant we should all show the same love and respect to each other that we show to God. But a Christian knows that Jesus was explaining to us that our God-belief is a very useful crutch for those times when we lack actual substantive reasons for hating people who are different. We can prop up our personal bigotry by telling everybody that God agrees with us, and that will ensure that they cannot disagree with us. Everybody wins!

Gays are only good for food plant and live targets.

I REST MY CASE:mp5:

He is saying this as he puts on his trucker hat to cover his mullet and jumps in the window of his 1960 Ford pickup screaming "YEEEHAW"

Gay Holocaust? While i think that homosexuality is wrong and gross i dont think we need a mass killing of them. Im not sure wut to do bout it but killing people isnt the way to go

The thing is, "the other team," i.e. the homophobes, get their asses handed to them every single time. Which is a bit ironic.

It's not that I'm homophobic that implies a fear, im not scared of homosexuals you guys are actually quite amusing. I just don't like the choices you make. We are all way off topic here.

Basically homosexuality is bad by religious standards. Wether whatever bible you say you are quoting from has "onto the lord" or not. Marriage is a religious act that's why it's in a church. Why therefore should we allow gay marriages? Most fiercely religous people are going to oppose with all they have, and althought the homosexual numbers are growing you will not win.
I can't pinpoint on a messageboard what caused you to be gay, it'd be very easy for you to deny it. Something happened to you, Im sorry it did. Bottom line is If you want to have sex with a dude No one can stop you in today's society but you don't have to tread on something heterosexual religious people hold dear (marriage) just because you can. Be gay, be happy just don't be married.

Hatred of fags requires no justification, because hating fags is normal and natural. Haven't you ever watched a bunch of straight lions beating up a gay lion?

Gay animals dont exist and it is an abomination strictly committed by humans!


Non-Christians can't know anything about the Bible, because all they can do is read it like it's a book. Christians can FEEL the Bible, and know what God really meant when He wrote it.

Yeah I guess the real christians can read Aramaic and shit.

In other words, kids become gay when their puppy dies.

Maybe! depends on how traumatic it was and when it happened.

He is saying this as he puts on his trucker hat to cover his mullet and jumps in the window of his 1960 Ford pickup screaming "YEEEHAW"
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! GOOD ONE

Relation between religion and homosexuality is extremely overrated.

I am a roman catholic. An active roman catholic, and I do not see homosexuality as an abomination, and I have no problem regarding gay people getting married or being hapy with what you are.

Be careful of fanatics and orthodox people, they are the true devil in the nightgown.

That's OK, as long as our dicks are hard, we'll manage.

I will spare you the ribald details, but let's just say after that 12 hour train bang I know how Marilyn Chambers felt after Behind the Green Door III. Dude, I can't even fart anymore, I hoot. And I'm so bowlegged they call me Hopalong. But, hey, I'm thinking it was just part of the Members Club for Socialists initiation, because we sometimes did the same thing with Boy Scout recruits. Not gay or anything, just to make sure the new initiates knew who the boss was.

Basically homosexuality is bad by religious standards. Wether whatever bible you say you are quoting from has "onto the lord" or not. Marriage is a religious act that's why it's in a church. Why therefore should we allow gay marriages? Most fiercely religous people are going to oppose with all they have, and althought the homosexual numbers are growing you will not win.
Um.... marriage started nonreligiously and once more has returned to that with more marriages performed by the state than by churches. nonargument.

It's not that I'm homophobic that implies a fear

Actually, no. The suffix "-phobia" means "intolerance or aversion for" such as "photophobia" or "hydrophobia" or "xenophobia" and so on. You'd think all you amateur linguists would actually get yourselves a clue about linguistics one of these days, but, no... just like the Bible, you never read the dictionary.

Basically homosexuality is bad by religious standards.

Lucky thing I don't give a bum about religion, then.

Ummm... good thing that Christianity is a heterodoxy, so that large numbers of Christians don't have to be homophobes.
Um, dude, I think we homophobes know a little something about what it means to be a True Christian. It's simple:

1) God is love, He just happens to hate all the same people I hate.
2) The best way for me to show my love of God is to persecute all people who fail to agree with my world view, and to tell them I'm doing it because it's what God wants.

Actually, no. The suffix "-phobia" means "intolerance or aversion for" such as "photophobia" or "hydrophobia" or "xenophobia" and so on. You'd think all you amateur linguists would actually get yourselves a clue about linguistics one of these days, but, no... just like reading the Bible, you never read the dictionary.
phobos; greek, fear. You were saying?

I will spare you the ribald details, but let's just say after that 12 hour train bang I know how Marilyn Chambers felt after Behind the Green Door III. Dude, I can't even fart anymore, I hoot. And I'm so bowlegged they call me Hopalong. But, hey, I'm thinking it was just part of the Members Club for Socialists initiation, because we sometimes did the same thing with Boy Scout recruits. Not gay or anything, just to make sure the new initiates knew who the boss was.

Hotness.

That's OK, as long as our dicks are hard, we'll manage.

See!!! See that, everybody!!! I told you the fags are about nothing but meaningless sex!!! That proves it!!!


Fags can't hate what doesn't exist, silly.
Hah, so you're godless as well as queer? You're are totally double-dog damned!

In other words, kids become gay when their puppy dies.
And, as we all know, faggots kill puppies for fun. It's part of how they recruit for their gay lifestyle.

See!!! See that, everybody!!! I told you the fags are about nothing but meaningless sex!!! That proves it!!!
Yeah, we are all about meaningless sex, but at least gay meaningless sex doesn't produce meaningful babies like heterosexual meaningless sex, ie all hetero sex :D

Xboxica, you idiot, Leviticus was written 4000 years ago. Everything in it is ancient Jewish purity laws, like much of the Old Testament. Yes, Christians do follow the Old Testament, but we shouldn't do it blindly.

"Homosexuality is an abomination" That's because 4000 years ago one of the two men would be treated as a woman, which was degrading in those times.

"Eating shellfish is an abomination
Touching the skin of a dead pig is an abomination" Again, ancient Jewsih laws.

Wearing cloting made from blends is forbidden- Most clothes you see today are a cotton/polyester blend. Does God consider that an abomination? No. The ancient Jews did. Modern Jews don't. I don't think God ever saw it as an abomination.

Cutting your hair and trimming your beard is forbidden- So since my dad shaves, he goes to hell? Again, acient Jews.

Adopting any customs from foreign lands is forbidden- Back then many countries had separate religons (Greeks/Romans, for example, until they converted to Christianity), and the others that didn't just flat-out did not like some others for some other reason. It was a patriotism tool set up by the ancient Jews. Nowadays it's perfectly okay. God probably didn't see this as an abomination.

Bottom line: God does not see homosexuality as an abomination. If God doesn't like something, then you shouldn't either, but if God does love something, then you should at least respect it.

Um.... marriage started nonreligiously and once more has returned to that with more marriages performed by the state than by churches. nonargument.
Lies, all lies. Marriage was invented by Jesus, shortly before he wrote the Constitution and won World War II. The liberal media has brainwashed you with lies.

Actually, no. The suffix "-phobia" means "intolerance or aversion for" such as "photophobia" or "hydrophobia" or "xenophobia" and so on. You'd think all you amateur linguists would actually get yourselves a clue about linguistics one of these days, but, no... just like the Bible, you never read the dictionary.

taken from my dictinary, what are you reading
phobia - A persistent, abnormal, and irrational fear of a specific thing or situation that compels one to avoid it, despite the awareness and reassurance that it is not dangerous.



Lucky thing I don't give a bum about religion, then.

Then don't get married. (those done outside churches are not marriages they are civil unions)

Then don't get married. (those done outside churches are not marriages they are civil unions)
Wrong. They are marriages and that's what they are called. All a church does is add some nice ceremonial crap.

phobos; greek, fear. You were saying?

Actually, phobos also means "flight" from phebesthai "to flee."

http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=-phobia

You were saying that you're actually this ignorant of linguistics and etymology?

Yeah, we are all about meaningless sex, but at least gay meaningless sex doesn't produce meaningful babies like heterosexual meaningless sex, ie all hetero sex :D
Babies are a blessing from God, particularly when they are born to people who are unwilling and unable to financially or emotionally support them. That's why God likes to bless unwed 14 year old girls, rape victims, and people who are trying to use condoms to escape His blessing.

Xboxica, you idiot, .

Darknovae you lose, you broke the cardinal rule and resulted to insults. Go away now loser. Let the adults argue

taken from my dictinary, what are you reading
phobia - A persistent, abnormal, and irrational fear of a specific thing or situation that compels one to avoid it, despite the awareness and reassurance that it is not dangerous.

*yawn*

http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=-phobia

Then don't get married. (those done outside churches are not marriages they are civil unions)

Marriage has nothing to do with religion, so your comment is irrelevant.

Actually, phobos also means "flight" from phebesthai "to flee."

http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=-phobia

You were saying that you're actually this ignorant of linguistics and etymology?
So what you are saying is because it means fear or (possibly, at best) flight, it means hatred. Um?

Bottle, are you saying God is a sadistic little shit?

Then don't get married. (those done outside churches are not marriages they are civil unions)
Damn right. In the US, we don't allow people to get married outside of a church. Well, unless they're getting married in a courthouse. Or on a beach at sunset. Or by Elvis while standing next to the blackjack table in a Vegas cassino.

See!!! See that, everybody!!! I told you the fags are about nothing but meaningless sex!!! That proves it!!!

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Hah, so you're godless as well as queer? You're are totally double-dog damned!

I can only hope.

Lies, all lies. Marriage was invented by Jesus, shortly before he wrote the Constitution and won World War II. The liberal media has brainwashed you with lies.

Jesus did not win WWII, He was out of the military by then.

Jesus did not win WWII, He was out of the military by then.
And out of life too, but around 1900 years.

Liasia']No, because gay people hold positions of power. Besides, other countries have adapted to the whole gay thing much better than the USA. The idea of 'needing' a holocaust for any reason is still a bit silly, especailly beings as there already was one under the Nazis.

I don't know that it is. I live in far northern Europe, and violence against bi, gay and transsexuals are in a great upsurge. People here have the same bigotry feelings as Americans, they just express it through hatred and fear of gays rather than any religious conviction that it is wrong.

So what you are saying is because it means fear or (possibly, at best) flight, it means hatred. Um?

Which part of "intolerance or aversion for" did you read as hatred? Although the usage - you know, the actual thing that defines the meanings of words - does indeed include hatred in the homophobia term.

My 2 scents: If homosexuality is a sin, that's between the sinner and God. And as I understand it, unmarried sex is a sin too, so how many people can throw the first stone?

Bottle, are you saying God is a sadistic little shit?
Hardly. God is loving and good and perfect. That's why He chooses to punish sluts and fornicators by giving them babies to raise.

*yawn*

http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=-phobia



Marriage has nothing to do with religion, so your comment is irrelevant.

*yawn* is right, from your own link
an extreme, irrational fear of a specific object or situation. A phobia is classified as a type of anxiety disorder, since anxiety is the chief symptom experienced by the sufferer.

I don't know that it is. I live in far northern Europe, and violence against bi, gay and transsexuals are in a great upsurge. People here have the same bigotry feelings as Americans, they just express it through hatred and fear of gays rather than any religious conviction that it is wrong.
I thought that was really just in eastern Europe? because here in the UK, that is, northern Europe, I rarely hear about homophobic murders and they are very high profile when they do happen; same for assaults.

I can only hope.
Well that proves it. Fass wants to be damned, which means that all faggots worship Satan. You saw it here first, folks.

And out of life too, but around 1900 years.

Yeah what he/she said

*yawn* is right, from your own link
an extreme, irrational fear of a specific object or situation. A phobia is classified as a type of anxiety disorder, since anxiety is the chief symptom experienced by the sufferer.
Exactly. And we're not anxious about faggots, we just can't stop thinking about their disgusting perversions and how their faggotry is going to destroy us all.

*yawn* is right, from your own link
an extreme, irrational fear of a specific object or situation.

2 : intolerance or aversion for <photophobia>

There's that reading part you have a problem with. Please, you need to start reading things, and not "reading things" you like did with the Bible that you didn't actually read.

A phobia is classified as a type of anxiety disorder, since anxiety is the chief symptom experienced by the sufferer.

Such luck then that the suffix -phobia is at question, not the word. Do you know what a suffix is?

Exactly. And we're not anxious about faggots, we just can't stop thinking about their disgusting perversions and how their faggotry is going to destroy us all.
or maybe about how you are repressed faggots yourselves... :p (http://web.archive.org/web/20040202035152/www.apa.org/releases/homophob.html)

Fass, I personally think intolerance implies hatred of especially in the case of homophobia.

It's not that I'm homophobic that implies a fear, im not scared of homosexuals you guys are actually quite amusing. I just don't like the choices you make. We are all way off topic here.
Be gay, be happy just don't be married.

Theres some sort of fear that homosexuals having a LEGAL union might affect you in a negative way.

Ok. I have singlehandedly brought us all the way up to 16 pages of absolute crap. But I can't play anymore for now.

It was fun but I need sleep, nice heterosexual sleep. If I have a gay dream I'll come back and post in angry tones. Especially towards you Fass.

Bottle, thanks for switching over, you gave it a hell of a try.

or maybe about how you are repressed faggots yourselves... :p (http://web.archive.org/web/20040202035152/www.apa.org/releases/homophob.html)
That's disgusting. You perverts assume that I'm a fag just because I am preoccupied with thinking about every possible permutation of hot man-on-man action? Pfft, yeah, whatever, as if that logic makes any sense.

Ok. I have singlehandedly brought us all the way up to 16 pages of absolute crap.

That's what happens when the Bible you didn't read is involved.

Theres some sort of fear that homosexuals having a LEGAL union might affect you in a negative way.

I don't know but I don't want to find out.

That's disgusting. You perverts assume that I'm a fag just because I am preoccupied with thinking about every possible permutation of hot man-on-man action? Pfft, yeah, whatever, as if that logic makes any sense.
Plus, you forget, because there's scientific evidence for it, you know...

Well that proves it. Fass wants to be damned, which means that all faggots worship Satan. You saw it here first, folks.

Again, you say that like it's a bad thing. Satan has the best sodomy equipment this side of the pope's sceptre.

That's what happens when the Bible you didn't read is involved.


hey now, Mine acutally said what I said it did. It's old and made of paper. I can't cut and paste from it to show you. but alas, I cannot prove it.

Have a nice day all.

Why gay holocaust? We need arab holocaust. It's their turn right now.

hey now, Mine acutally said what I said it did. It's old and made of paper. I can't cut and paste from it to show you. but alas, I cannot prove it.

Have a nice day all.
Um.... then your Bible is wrong, because its the same (though the style isn't so good) in all the versions I've seen.

hey now, Mine acutally said what I said it did. It's old and made of paper. I can't cut and paste from it to show you. but alas, I cannot prove it.

And why should you? "Proof" is irrelevant here. Just because some people may have "facts" and "evidence" to support their side doesn't mean that we are any less right. Our opinions are as valid as anybody else's, which means that anybody who disagrees with us is being intolerant of us.

I don't know but I don't want to find out.

What are you kidding me? How does something that doesnt affect you at all, something that only affects some 2 guys getting married, directly affect you? Please tell me how that is possible. You getting married means shit to me, why should anyone elses mean anything to you?

hey now, Mine acutally said what I said it did. It's old and made of paper. I can't cut and paste from it to show you. but alas, I cannot prove it.

Lying is breaking one of the commandments. Then again, knowing that requires reading the Bible...

And why should you? "Proof" is irrelevant here. Just because some people may have "facts" and "evidence" to support their side doesn't mean that we are any less right. Our opinions are as valid as anybody else's, which means that anybody who disagrees with us is being intolerant of us.
Oh, opinions are equally valid, but not as valid as fact. :p

What are you kidding me? How does something that doesnt affect you at all, something that only affects some 2 guys getting married, directly affect you? Please tell me how that is possible. You getting married means shit to me, why should anyone elses mean anything to you?
Ok, let me break it down for you people.

We all can agree that women are inferior to men, right? And the only reason a man would marry a woman is because he needs somebody to clean his house and service his Little Soldier, right? Well, if we start allowing men to marry other MEN, then who is going to have to end up cleaning the house? That's right, a MAN! And if men start cleaning houses, then women might start thinking they can find other things to do with their time, like getting jobs or having hobbies other than baking. Before you know it, we'll have women holding jobs, men cleaning houses, and box turtles fornicating wildly in the streets. It'll be anarchy.

Ok, let me break it down for you people.

We all can agree that women are inferior to men, right? And the only reason a man would marry a woman is because he needs somebody to clean his house and service his Little Soldier, right? Well, if we start allowing men to marry other MEN, then who is going to have to end up cleaning the house? That's right, a MAN! And if men start cleaning houses, then women might start thinking they can find other things to do with their time, like getting jobs or having hobbies other than baking. Before you know it, we'll have women holding jobs, men cleaning houses, and box turtles fornicating wildly in the streets. It'll be anarchy.
Ah, I see where you are going wrong. other than everywhere, that is. Women are not inferior to men, thugh admittedly nor are they the same as them; i think the phrase is equal but different.

On the other hand have a slogan; Church, children, and kitchen.

Oh so its not about hating gays, its about hating anyone who doesnt put a woman in their proper place: the kitchen! Its become so clear.

this, this is ****ing stupid. A gay holocaust. nooooooo.
bad idea. I shoot you down you dumb-bums. The closest thing to a gay holocaust that you holocausters want is me shooting you down. BEW BEW BEW (those were lasers):sniper:sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours:

Oh so its not about hating gays, its about hating anyone who doesnt put a woman in their proper place: the kitchen! Its become so clear.
Now you're getting it. Men are biologically incapable of cleaning houses or cooking meals, and everybody seems to understand that except the faggots (and the feminists, of course, but who cares what those shrews think?). Faggots seem to think that men are capable of being in egalitarian relationships where both parties are willing and equal participants, when we all know that a man is designed to be lord and master over his mate. If two men marry, then how will they know which person is inherently inferior to the other? That's the bedrock of a solid marriage, after all.

this, this is ****ing stupid. A gay holocaust. nooooooo.
bad idea. I shoot you down you dumb-bums. The closest thing to a gay holocaust that you holocausters want is me shooting you down. BEW BEW BEW (those were lasers):sniper:sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours:
Clicking the smiley button is not compulsory.

Oh so its not about hating gays, its about hating anyone who doesnt put a woman in their proper place: the kitchen! Its become so clear.

So typical...

When was the last time that you touched one of those beautiful, marvelous things known as women?

I guess it was in a galaxy far, far away, ceturies ago, or in your other life, or never, three options to choose

Hotness.
I'll bring the Astroglide.

So typical...

When was the last time that you touched one of those beautiful, marvelous things known as women?

I guess it was in a galaxy far, far away, ceturies ago, or in your other life, or never, three options to choose
Or maybe he was being sarcastic. Still, my offer of a slogan stands...

So typical...

When was the last time that you touched one of those beautiful, marvelous things known as women?

I guess it was in a galaxy far, far away, ceturies ago, or in your other life, or never, three options to choose

...What?

To answer your question, this morning. I live with one.