Return HAZARD to Club Status

[hazard]

I have just been removed from the commie club. As a prominent member of this board, I am seeking support from all members to allow me back into the club. I was organizing a new series of guerilla raids ALA guerrilla posting before this happened. It would be to the benefit of all board emmbers to allow me back.

FREE HAZARD! THE REVOLUTION CANNOT STOP!

[Hampton]

I'm sure it would be.

[hazard]

hey, that reminds me of a song I wrote

the chorus goes:

"Owned, I'm owing, all because I'm owned"

as for why you posted that pic and your comment I fail to see the connective. maybe I'm just stupid.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I tried, comrade, to ask them to give you another chance, but they refused.
The administration, the moderation, and most members including myself have become increasingly unaccepting of racism, homophobia, chauvinism, nationalism, mysoginy, religious zealousness, etc. I tried to forgive you, though, because you're a long time member and perhaps you would appologize or keep the homophobia down for you memebership's sake, but they didn't listen. Sorry, mate, maybe in the future.

[hazard]

first off, there was not any instant of homophobia that I am accountable for.

I described the difference between HOMOPHOBIA and HOMOPHOBE-APHOBIA

if lisiting a description is the same as holding that description as my own belief, than you may indeed have something. you don't even have to read my posts too clearly to understand this. I described both of these, and nothing more.

please xplain this AND re-read what I have written and see what they have to say

[RedCeltic]

it doesn't take a PHD to see where your comments on homophobia were offensive.

[Bolshevika]

*Warning political correctness overload*

The commie club blows anyway. Hangout with us here in "restricted members".

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I hate to turn my back on a comrade, Hazard, but it's obvious that your sentiments are quite prejudicial.

Bolshevika, che-lives is not a means for the public expression of ignorant and stereotypical prejudice against anyone. We do not tolerate lackeys of the bourgeoisie who seek to selectively with hold power from the oppressed based on false prejudice of peoples' characteristics that have no true connection to a person's competency and attributes.
Not to mention the fact that you have offended some of our members.

[hazard]

comrades and friends:

my comments were clearly and obviously misinterpreted. they were taken so far out of context I know not where to begin.

my first post had three paragraphs whed dealing with what I referred to as homos. why homo? I'll tell you why. because I was dealing with both homophobes and homophobe-aphobes. homo is the only connective I could subtract and retain cohesion. I thought it might have been kind of funny, but it was not and I quickly corrected my error. the second paragraph was an example of HOMOPHOBIA. the third was an example of HOMOPHOBE-APHOBIA. neither are an example of how I feel in regards to this "issue", which is one that I really have no opinion on either way.

of the two phobias I illustrated in this original post, this site tok great offence to my description of homophobia. I was simply defining the topic. nothing more. nothing less. perhaps I could have been more clear on this, however, I was not and I apologize for this. the ensuing debate took place under the pretense that I was playing devils advocate and defending this ridiculous perspective to the best of my ability. it does not reflect my opinion.

in any case, the level of HOMOPHOBE-ApHOBIA is rampant on this website. ridiculously rampant. but ONE MORE FUCKING TIME. I have no real stance on this issue. simply allow me access back to the club so I can conduct my own little guerrilla campaigns and leave these issues to other members.

HAZARD MUST BE ALLOWED TO CONTINUE IN THE REVOLUTION!!!

[The Feral Underclass]

Hazard

You said - "homos, if they don't hate women, have a problem understanding the point of sex and the point of sexual relations." This is quite clear how your feel.

You then go onto compare homosexual sex with that of rodents calling it an "animal state" which you claim is "frivolous, pointless,"

You then go onto confirm these prejudices by admitting they are something something which gay people should be rebuked about..."I'm not going to berate the homos of our society any more than that,"

You then go onto to describe why homophobes dislike homosexuals. You claim that homophobes (people who hate homosexuals) do not fully understand that "the human subconscious is a cesspool of animal depravity." By this, having been specific to homosexuality, are claiming that homosexual sex is one such "animal depravity"

You then assert it is your belief that attacks made against homophobia (which in a literal translation does mean fear of homosexuals - but you know full well how the term has been adopted to mean descrimination against homosexuals) is wrong, "you are clearly a homophobe-aphobe. I am not in favour of you or your position."

There is nothing here that demonstrated any respect or understanding for homosexuals. The meaning of your comments are quite clear. You are homophobic, whether you want to belive it or not.

Victorcommie: I do not think it is right to ask members to tame their bigoted attitudes for the sake of getting into the CC. They should tame their bigoted attitudes because they are wrong.

Keep him out of commie club

[Sovietsky Souyuz]

In my opinion you should let hazard back into your lil club.

there are two main reasons i think this;
1 - its an internet message board. not a seat of government. the internet was set up to allow people to freely express their views. and wouldnt it get boring if people jus agreed with everything you lot thought , and if he says he isnt a homophobe, he isnt. its not your place to play judge/jury/executioner. not at all.

2 - hazard has made some rather important contributions to this site, the site-raids being something of signature. jsut because you decided to take offence at something, doesnt mean you should remove him from you club. and anyway , dont you think you offend the hell out of him doing all this? or everytime somone whinges about stalin, isnt a stalinist going to be offended ?

dont suddenly think its clever to kick someone just because you dont like the way they sound. especially without listening to them first.

[The Feral Underclass]

Sovietsky Souyuz


1 - its an internet message board. not a seat of government. the internet was set up to allow people to freely express their views.

This is not a message board for every person to come and espress his or her views freely. This is a message board for ultra-left and left wing comrades of varying tradition to discuss left-wing theory and politics.

In the che-lives community policy it states that homophobia will not be tolerated. Hazard was clearly being homophobic and it should not have gone unchecked.


2 - hazard has made some rather important contributions to this site, the site-raids being something of signature. jsut because you decided to take offence at something,

This is a silly arguement. It is irrelevant what contributions he has made. He demonsrated prejudice. It is not a question of decideing to be offedned, it is about standing up against homophobic members andtelling them that their opinions are not valid or welcome.


and anyway , dont you think you offend the hell out of him doing all this? or everytime somone whinges about stalin, isnt a stalinist going to be offended ?

This is a message board for Anarchists, Leninisnts, Trotskyists and Socialists, you will also find Liberals, Capitalist supporters and Stalinists. That is the nature of this board. However, Fascism, Nazism, Ultra-conservatism ie rascism, sexism, and homophobia is not welcome on this board and shoul be dealt with by the admins and mods.

Commie club is a palce for commited che-lives members to discuss board policy and allows members to voice concerns. It also gives the admins and mods an opportunity to get an understanding for the feelings of the board. It is not a seat of government, but it is democratic and all problems are discussed and if necessary voted on. Commie club is not a haven for capitalists, homophobes,racists etc. I made it clear how I felt about Hazards comments and believe that club should not have people like that as members. It was agreed on and hazard was removed.

He is a homophobe, it is clear by the language used. Just because he says he isnt does not make it fact. Hitler called himself a humanitarian but the evidence proved otherwise. :ph34r:

[Bolshevika]

It is not a seat of government, but it is democratic and all problems are discussed and if necessary voted on

Why the fuck are people like me put in the same category as "liberals, capitalists, bla bla"? How come Anarchists are not subject to ban or restriction (hmm... how many left wing anarchists or Trots have been restricted to OI?) There is definetly a bias in the Commie Club, do you agree? The cyber dictator Malte is the sole person to make decisions. How come Anarchists like you are allowed into a "communist" club, yet branches of real Marxists are not allowed, and instead caged.

Hazard has been unjustly kicked out of your little treehouse club for making a comment that all of you CC reactionaries probably misinterpreted.


. This is a message board for ultra-left and left wing comrades of varying tradition to discuss left-wing theory and politics.

Moosehockey. Far leftists, Guevarists, are looked down upon. "softcore leftists" and Anarchists are what this board promotes, any speech that isn't 100% Politically correct is taken against you. To think, Anarchist Tension, that you have no prejudices against any group of people is simply a lie (prejudice is not the same as hate). Hazard expressed his opinion, and instead of debating him and proving him wrong, you assholes kick him out. You turn a potential ally into a complete resentful enemy.

[The Feral Underclass]

Why the fuck are people like me put in the same category as "liberals, capitalists, bla bla"? How come Anarchists are not subject to ban or restriction

I am not speaking on behalf of Malte, or the other admins, but I will tell you how I see it. Although Stalinists are welcome to post there is a wider belief that Stalinism is not something that necessarily wants to be associated in great depth on the board. I believe Stalinism should be fought against at all costs, as do many other non-anarchists in this forum. Stalinists are a minority and should remain so.

Anarchists are subject to a restriction and/or ban if they prove to hold views which are contradictory to the boards policy. ie homophobia, racism, sexism or extreme authotarianism just as anyone else is.


There is definetly a bias in the Commie Club

Anyone is allowed to join CC except racists, homophobes, sexists or extreme authotarians.


How come Anarchists like you are allowed into a "communist" club, yet branches of real Marxists are not allowed, and instead caged.

anarchists and leninists alike are permitted into commie club. And you are not a Marxist, you are a Stalinist.


Hazard has been unjustly kicked out of your little treehouse club for making a comment that all of you CC reactionaries probably misinterpreted.

The comments that Hazard made have been proven to be homophobic on several occasions. He was justly kicked out for showing prejudice towards gay people...Read the thread. He clearly shows a general prejudice. The comment "Homos, if the dont hate women, do not understand the point of sex and sexual relations" shows this. There was nothing to take out of context by this remark. The meaning is clear.


Far leftists, Guevarists, are looked down upon. "softcore leftists" and Anarchists are what this board promotes, any speech that isn't 100% Politically correct is taken against you.

This just is not true...


To think, Anarchist Tension, that you have no prejudices against any group of people is simply a lie

I have prejudice towards homophobes and stalinists yes...


Hazard expressed his opinion,

Which was homophobic...


instead of debating him and proving him wrong, you assholes kick him out.

He was kicked out of commie club because it was an immediate consequence of his action...He was not restricted or banned.



You turn a potential ally into a complete resentful enemy.

Personally that's fine...

[Bolshevika]

I believe Stalinism should be fought against at all costs

This statement is eerily similar to what the CIA and Bolivian government believed in when they shot Che in cold blood and installed military dictatorships across latin america. Disgusting.


Anyone is allowed to join CC except racists, homophobes, sexists or extreme authotarians.

I don't believe in authoritarianism. Nor do other true "Stalinists".


anarchists and leninists alike are permitted into commie club. And you are not a Marxist, you are a Stalinist.

I do not consider myself a Stalinist, I consider myself a Marxist-Leninist. All 'Stalinists' are Marxist-Leninists. The term "Stalinism" is coined by the bourgeoisie and Trotskyists as a taboo word to label anyone who they believe is evil. For example, yesterday while watching the tele I see some fuckwit say "North Korea, the last Stalinist stronghold, oppresses and tortures its people", this is moronic (I have a moderate/ok opinion on DPRK and believe they hold only a few ideas in common with Stalin). Another example: yesterday while debating a capitalist he said "Well, you know, Saddam Hussein is a Stalinist", outrageous.


I have prejudice towards homophobes and stalinists yes...

Uh-huh. That's not what I meant, I meant you probably have prejudices against random, apolitical groups of people. I know you do, because you are human.

It's funny, in boards run by "Stalinists" we do not purge or restrict everyone who disagrees as you paint as out. Only in Libertarian pothead paradise like Che-Libs do we face punishment for disagreeing with the general opinion, even put in the same category as Right-Wingers or capitalists.


Personally that's fine...

That's good for my movement. This is why Anarchism will always be a failure, because of your thick and closed minds and ultra left dogmatism.

[IHP]

I, too, argued on your behalf. It's out of my hands mate.

[The Feral Underclass]

:rolleyes:

[cubist]

to be fair hazard,

its a power thing that people in the commnuist ideology seem to forget that they aren&#39;t supposed to have. --&#62;all being equal and everything<--

otherwise known as selfish human values inherent in all humans only real socialists accept this and they aren&#39;t liberals stalinists trotskyists or anything they are just human beings with a desire to tend for thier own race.


Bolshevika, lol you hypocrite

retracted misunderstanding of situation

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Well.... the CC is quite biased, to tell you the truth.
But as long as you don&#39;t say shit like hazard said, you&#39;ll be fine.
Hazard wasn&#39;t restricted for being a reall communist (Marxist-Leninists =D ), he was restricted fro being a homophobe.

[Guest1]

Bolshevika, cut the fucking bullshit. You weren&#39;t restricted for authroritarian views, you were restricted for trolling and spamming.

[hazard]

lets see if you children can keep up with me here

nobody has any problems with my homophobe-aphobe statements about pickup trucks and football. not a single one of you. strange, no? prejudice and stereotypes are fine as long as you are in agreement with them.

but a series of you have many problems with my homophobic statements. so, clearly, my thought project has clearly to the point of the utmost clarity proven not just hypocrisy, for you are all clearly hypocritical, but a vast array of stupidity.

has anybody, especially the anarchist, even bothered to read any of my defences? no. and I know why. because he knows he is wrong. he simply says stuff like "hazard is a homophobe no matter what he says" in a clearly homophobe-aphobic way. forget about the truth, which was simply a plain and simple illustration of the self feeding fear both groups have for one another.

regardless, if the fear that homophobe-aphobes have for standard rhetorical devices in relation to the NON ISSUE of homosexuality is similiar to their fear of homophobes, there is much work to be done.

restore my status to the CC immediately so this issue can be corrected. it is not through fearing homophobes that correcting the problem can be enacted. it is through attempting to discuss and debate the issue with them. whether any of you actually realize I am not a homophobe is irrelevant. you have all demonstrated that you are clearly homophobe-aphobes. if you don&#39;t think that is a problem, I got news for you. it is.

[Guest1]

ok hazard. I&#39;m beginning to see what you&#39;re trying to get at. not that I agree with you.

let me try to give you some help here.

be direct. stop winding around and dancing circles in people&#39;s heads.

say what you meant, and define the "homophobe-aphobe" term. then tell us why we should care. then tell us your opinion on homosexuals. and why it is a non-issue.

you&#39;re way too vague for your own good. being direct and open is your only hope right now.

[hazard]

che:

not a bad suggestion. don&#39;t mind if I take you up on it.

a homophobe-aphobe is simply a person afraid of homophobes. much like homophobes who are afraid past the point of reason of not just homosexuals but anything remotely homosexual, homophbe-aphobes are similarly afraid of anything even remotely homophobic. this might seem confusing but it really isn&#39;t. both groups sort of feed off of one anothers fears. while a homophobe leaps at the chance to call someone a faggot, the homophobe-aphobe leaps at the chance to call someone a homophobe. the reasoning can be as simple as the way a person speaks, or the type of car a person drives, or the type of clothes a person wears. this applies to both groups.

we should care because fear is not the answer. paranoia is not the answer. reason is.

as for my opinion of homosexuals, I am unsure how I should speak of them. it is not as if I have any ill feelings towards the group or towards their sexual practices. I do, however, feel caught up in the homophobe / homophobe-aphobe context. on the one hand I think homosexuals should be able to do what they want, and on the other I think that they sometimes go too far in making others acceptant of their sexual practices. to quote Trudeau, the state has no business in another persons bedroom. homosexuals, as of late, however, have taken the whole world to mean their bedroom. its one thing to particapte in private in sexual activities and another to let everybody know what these practices are and expect them to approve of them. my opinion is necessarily stunted as a result of this. if I say its okay for homosexuals to participate in private in homosexual activities, the homophobes would call me a homosexual. if I say that homosexuals should keep their sexual practices private, the homophobe-aphobes would call me a homophobe.

the non-issue is a multifacetted argument. first of all, this topic deals with sex. and as sex is nothing more than a primal, animal drive like eating and sleeping, it being phrased as an issue seems fairly archaic. the purpose of sex is simple: procreation. this does not mean that I abhore any sex that does not result in this action. it does mean that people who have sex should keep this at least somwhere in their heads while they&#39;re doing it. sexual immaturity ends when this realization is made and applied. homosexuality is a non-issue because it deals with sex, and sex is nothing more than a primal drive that stems back and through all lower levels of life. it is also a non issue because of its relation to communism. as communism is supposed to be a collective community, it is neither an issue because of its collectiveness ( ie. we&#39;re all individuals together ) or because of its commune factor ( ie. the best for the majority of all ). homosexuality is a strange topic for it mostly falls into the right wing category of politics. it is an extreme view that is really only applicable to a tiny minority of the population. that is, as a right wing view, highly individualistic and highly anti-collective. it cannot be an issue under communism unless the loosley defined version of communism is taken, such as we are all different and together in our differences. and this perspective of communism is a difficult one to defend. we should be more interested in our similarities and less interested in our differences. the homosexual "issue" almost forces people to focus on a difference to the point of wanting to either ignore it or fight it. I ignore it. just as I would ignore somebody who, to the point of force feeding, wants to prove that their preference in hamburger is just as acceptable as another persons prefernce in steak. I don&#39;t care if you like hamburger more than steak. I accept that you might like hamburger more than steak. you don&#39;t have to go around wearing &#39;I love hamburger" t-shirts and demanding people accept your preference. you don&#39;t have to make speeches about hamburgers and write books about hamburgers. most people accept that hamburger is at least allright, although the vast majority might prefer steak.

I don&#39;t know what else I can say.

[RedCeltic]

In your logic… someone who is called a bigot is just someone being attacked by a “bigot-aphobe” ? Or a Fascist being attacked by a “Fascist-aphobe”?

[hazard]

think I covered this one already, but for the record, a phobe means somehing to the effect of "unreasonable fear or prejudice towards". as such, as I am being unreasonably prejudiced against, I feel confident in my claim that I am a victim of homophobe-aphobia.

[RedCeltic]

I&#39;m not Afraid of you, I just think you’re a bigot.

[hazard]

im not afraid of you either. I just think you&#39;re a homophobe-aphobe.

did you happen to read my latest statement concerning this controversey? do you still think I&#39;m a bigot?

[RedCeltic]

ok.. that was a bit too harsh.. sorry man.

[hazard]

no sweat. I&#39;m cool like that.

peace out

[Comrade Ceausescu]

Bolshevika, cut the fucking bullshit. You weren&#39;t restricted for authroritarian views, you were restricted for trolling and spamming.

shut the fuck up you hippie.when the fuck did he spam?your fucking screename gives a great example of the general ideology here.Drug abusers are reactionaries.your "pOt" money goes to some rich columbian drug dealer who oppresses the people of his country with that money,and gets rich while his people starve.

[Guest1]

and your tax-dollars go to a CIA that poisons the fields of thousands of Columbian farmers, causing even more hunger and poverty. Then some more is taken to be given to trained death squads to wipe out columbian unions. Then some more is taken to murder my family in Iraq. Then some more is taken to develop smaller nuclear weapons to kill hundreds of thousands in the future.

I&#39;ll stick with my drug money that goes to a small-time farmer who I know, who grows the weed a few kilometres away from here.

are you gonna tell me "drugs support terrorism" now?

if you read my post, you would see that I never say I think he was spamming, I was simply telling him that his authoritarianism was never a part of the debate

fucking shithead

[The Feral Underclass]

Hazard


nobody has any problems with my homophobe-aphobe statements about pickup trucks and football. not a single one of you. strange, no? prejudice and stereotypes are fine as long as you are in agreement with them.

This isn&#39;t true. Truthaddict picked you up on your statement and asked you to explain it. You didnt answer him.

Anyway these generalizations are mostly likly true, were as your generalization that all "homos, if the hate women, have a problem understanding the point to sex or sexual relations" is nothing put bigotry and you can not compare them. I don&#39;t think there is any hypocrisy here because the two things are not the same.


has anybody, especially the anarchist, even bothered to read any of my defences? no. and I know why. because he knows he is wrong.

Your defence amounted to nothing. There was nothing in it which exonerated you from your previous statements. You simply reaffirm your position on one of the things I mentioned and ignored the rest.

As for being wrong...I have said you were homophobic and you have agreed. Regardless of this the evidence speaks for itself. There is no room to take you out of context. What you said is blatantly obvious. The meaning is clear.


forget about the truth, which was simply a plain and simple illustration of the self feeding fear both groups have for one another.

That is not what you were talking about. There was a small part of your originaly post which dealt with this, the rest was sweeping generalizations and condescension. At one point you demonstrate exactly what you feel about homosexual sex when you include it in the "cesspool of animal depravity" you were talking about.


restore my status to the CC immediately so this issue can be corrected. it is not through fearing homophobes that correcting the problem can be enacted

You should be kept out of CC and debated in the appropraite threads. You have admitted it was a homophobic statement and therefore should not be allowed back in. And it is not a question of fear, it is a question of contempt. Your opinions are disgusting and should not be condoned.

[truthaddict11]

yes i did ask him TAT, hazard i asked you how the hell does watching football, watching action movies or smoking a certain brand of cigarettes make you a homophobe?

when i get home from work on sundays i usually turn on a game and im not a homophobe, my dvd collection has a few action movies in it and im not a homophobe. so how is liking a certain sport and genre of movies make someone a homophobe?

[The Feral Underclass]

Hazard

Your definition of the word homophobe is incorrect. Of course the literal meaning of the world is someone who fears homosexuals. But this accounts for a small percentage of the bigoted opinions made against gay people. Usually due to insecurities in themselves. The word homophobia also refers to the state-sponsered descrimination. The age of consent, the right to inheritance laws, housing benifits and social benifits. The right to discuss homosexuality in schools, the right for gay couples to marry and to enjoy the same company benifits as a straight couple. This is also homophobia, and this is no fear. This is a premeditated hatred for homosexuality. Also the misunderstanding and general preconceptions of homosexuals is also a form of homophobia. ie the notion that all gay people are paedophiles or as you pointed out hate women.


a homophobe-aphobe is simply a person afraid of homophobes.

It is not a question of fear. I do not fear you. I have nothing but contempt for you. Someone who is a "homophobe-aphobe" is someone who fights the bigotry that has been mentioned. State sponsered oppression and bigoted generalizations like the ones you made.


both groups sort of feed off of one anothers fears. while a homophobe leaps at the chance to call someone a faggot, the homophobe-aphobe leaps at the chance to call someone a homophobe.

The gay rights movement does not "feed" of anyones fear we fight gay oppression. Calling me a faggot is one form of homophobia. The fact that me and my partner can not enjoy the same property rights as a straight couple due to the fact we are two men is clearly wrong and has nothing to do with fear but everything to do with the fact we are being descriminated against.


on the one hand I think homosexuals should be able to do what they want, and on the other I think that they sometimes go too far in making others acceptant of their sexual practices.

The fact is that our sexual practices are not accepted in society. It was only until two years ago that the age of consent for gay men was reduced from 18 to 16 inline with that of straight men. It was only in 1994 that the age of consent was reduced from 21 to 18. Not even ten years has passed. In schools in england Section 18 prohibits teachers from talking about homosexuality in a positive manner, so helping young teenagers who are having difficulties coping with their sexuality get a handle on their emotions. In fact it completely alienates them and in worst cases draws teenagers to suicide.

I can not go into a bar and kiss my partner as a straight couple might because the chances are I am going to get verbally or physically attacked for it. In america in many some states the age of consent is 21 where as straight sex is 18. In some states sodomy is illegal making it a crime to have sex with your partner.

In cyprus you can go to prison for 5 years. In saudi arabia it is punishable by death. So. Until this homophobia has stopped and our sexual practices are accepted we will not give up going too far to show you that we are no different.


homosexuals, as of late, however, have taken the whole world to mean their bedroom. its one thing to particapte in private in sexual activities and another to let everybody know what these practices are and expect them to approve of them.

The state is envolved in my bedroom and has legislated against me and we are trying to bring this to the attention of the world so that we are not descriminated against. However, we meet people like you who do not take it on a political level but simply on the level of sex. And draw this rediculas conlusion. We are not trying to show you how we have sex, we are trying to tell you that we are oppressed and we want something done about it.


homosexuality is a non-issue because it deals with sex,

Gay people are oppressed. That is the issue. You&#39;re rationalizing it and reducing it to sex because you do not have a wider perspective.


I ignore it. just as I would ignore somebody who, to the point of force feeding, wants to prove that their preference in hamburger is just as acceptable as another persons prefernce in steak. I don&#39;t care if you like hamburger more than steak. I accept that you might like hamburger more than steak. you don&#39;t have to go around wearing &#39;I love hamburger" t-shirts and demanding people accept your preference. you don&#39;t have to make speeches about hamburgers and write books about hamburgers. most people accept that hamburger is at least allright, although the vast majority might prefer steak.

That&#39;s because people who eat hamburgers are not legislated against, attacked, abused, sterotyped and descriminated against.

It was a law in the US until 40 years ago that gay people had to declare the homosexuality to a shop owner so that the shop owner could then make a decision whether or not to serve them. The suicide right is higer amongst gay teenagers. A boy was kicked out of the boy scouts for being gay. I can be fined £40 for kissing my boyfriend in public. This is the reality.

In the US again you can send your teenager (under 18) to a "correctional treatment centre." In these centres these kids are subject to electric shock treatment, beatings, torture such as having to squot for 10 hours a day with phone books on your head. Some of these "centres" are in prisons and these teenagers from 13 to 18 have to walk through the prison with a banner saying "I am dealing with my homosexuality." Fortunatly there is a women in San Francisco who dedicates her enitre time, energy and cash to helping these teeangers who have managed to escape. She could go to prison for helping these kids. :blink:

My partner was asked to leave his work at a residential school for teenagers with difficult back grounds because of "conflicting interests." They did want to upset the parents. A man called matthew shepard was murdered by two homophobes and then demonstrations where held outside the church, on the day of his funeral, to demand that he was not buried on sacred land. Musicians, actors, politicians all perpetrate their homophobia by singing about it, talking about and fighting it in parliments. Homosexuality is a sin, and the church perpetrate this belief when ever they can. In fact they are allowed to stand up in front of a congregation of hundreds and declare that anyone who is gay will go to hell. Hows does that make me feel? How does that make those poor fucking kids who are battleing with it feel? And these kids who have no one too talk too because schools, by law have to "ignore it."

Being gay and eating hamburgers are not the same thing. We are descriminated against every single day. These are the realities and you would sooner perpetrate them or ignore them. This is why I am so in your face, this is why we demonstrate and make speeches and write books. Because we are treated like inferior second class citizens with no rights except those ones that are deemed appropriate.

As a so called communist, you should be embracing the gay rights movement and acknowledging it as a worthy cause that should be fought for, clearly you do not. Well maybe one day me having sexual relationship with my partner will be no different to eating a hamburger. Until attitudes like yours are changed, it aint gonna happen :ph34r:

[apathy maybe]

really I don&#39;t see the problem. If you don&#39;t like the descisions taken, leave&#33; Fine by me. Normally I would be opposed to secretive little clubs, but hell if Malte, wants to be a &#39;cyber-dictator&#39; (not that I think he is (in fact I think he&#39;s a great guy&#33;&#33; (hint hint))), then well he owns the place let him.

[canikickit]

That was a helluva good post, Anarchist Tension.

[Saint-Just]

You then go onto to describe why homophobes dislike homosexuals. You claim that homophobes (people who hate homosexuals) do not fully understand that "the human subconscious is a cesspool of animal depravity." By this, having been specific to homosexuality, are claiming that homosexual sex is one such "animal depravity" -The Anarchist Tension

He is claiming that the the human subconsciousness is a cesspool of animal depravity. This is a common and widely accepted Freudian view. Personally I reject this view. However, you cannot call him homophobic for this reason. He is saying that this is true for both homosexuals and heterosexuals and that homophobes do not &#39;understand&#39; this true, this truth about the subconscious. Hazard does not acknowldge that this view of the subconscious may be wrong. This Freudian view is a rather liberal view and one that cultivates acceptance of homosexuality.

However, from some of the other comments I think you can deduce that Hazard is homophobic.

I think labelling people as homophobe-aphobes is wrong. It is the same as labelling feminists as too extreme. Movements such as these require aggressive and exclusionist tactics. Homosexuals have to create an uproar when they see the slightest incidences of discrimination for their movement to succeed. Compromise will dilute the movement and eventually sabotage it from the inside. It was the same for African Americans and feminists in the last century. Having said this I don&#39;t approve of fighting for the right to have sex at a certain age when it could be outside of a relationship or indeed kissing in public.

[cubist]

personally i don&#39;t see the problem,

what is so good about the commie club anyway,

do they have a special status or something??? if they do i struggle to recognise authority so it doesn&#39;t matter,

hazard,

they don&#39;t want you for you homophobic atitude which you yourself say you have what is the problem???

i am going to get shot for this i know but it will be funny

anarchist tension WTF?? are you saying the state sponsors the oppression of homosexuals?? where is this please proove the acusation. i think you should say that people "society" has not evolved to accept homosexuality i don&#39;t believe that it is the governments responsibility to make people accept what is unnatural anyway. asides from which making people accept what they disagre with would also be wrong for the state.

[Comrade Ceausescu]

if you read my post, you would see that I never say I think he was spamming, I was simply telling him that his authoritarianism was never a part of the debate

lets re-look your post,shall we?


You weren&#39;t restricted for authroritarian views, you were restricted for trolling and spamming.

There you go.You said he was restricted for spamming and trolling.

[The Feral Underclass]

are you saying the state sponsors the oppression of homosexuals??

Of course it does. Many state institutions descriminate against gay people. The army, the police force. Even the judicial system. A man was raped by another man and the judge through the case out of court because the victim admitted to having an erection and concluded that he must have enjoyed it.

The state refuses to acknowledge gay men and women as a legal couple so that they can benifit from inheritance and property laws. The state has section 18 in schools which disallows teachers to talk about homosexuality in a positive way. These are all matters that the state can rectify but refuses to do. Why? Because they do not approve of homosexual relationships. There is no other logical explination for it.


i think you should say that people "society" has not evolved to accept homosexuality i don&#39;t believe that it is the governments responsibility to make people accept what is unnatural anyway.

The government and the state perpetrates this prejuidice by making it legal. Of course these people have a responsability to curb this descrimination. They have a responsability to society to say that homosexuals are as equal as hetrosexuals regardless of what people think.

homosexuality has existed ever since the dawn of time. It existed in ancient civilzations as a norm. In greek and roman society it was looked down upon if you didnt endulge in homosexual sex and was encouraged among the armed forces. So I would say it is extremly natural.


asides from which making people accept what they disagre with would also be wrong for the state.

This is liberalism gone mad. What you are saying here is that gay descrimination should be accepted until people decide otherwise. How rediculas. Gay descrimnation is wrong. As is descrimination against race and sex. These people must accept homosexuality as equal. Because it is&#33;

[Bolshevika]

You fuckheads in the CC didn&#39;t even let me fully tell my side of the story. You wanted a reason to restrict me, any reason, and capitalized on it you opportunist scumbags. Che y Marijuana, quit whining. Why do you take offense to someone that did not even mean to insult you? Even if I did insult you, why would you care?

All of you better watch out, or I&#39;ll argue with you over the internet&#33;

[The Feral Underclass]

I sense a hint of bitterness.....

[cubist]

This is liberalism gone mad. What you are saying here is that gay descrimination should be accepted until people decide otherwise. How rediculas. Gay descrimnation is wrong. As is descrimination against race and sex. These people must accept homosexuality as equal. Because it is&#33; .

Thank you

but you haven&#39;t explained why hazard should accept something that isn&#39;t natural, you haven&#39;t explained why the commie club hates discrimination yet discriminates against political view, tell me how does Fidel treat homosexuals very well i hope else your commie club is BS

also i am used to it being accepted in the UK schools talk about it the public generally hate it but the government doesn&#39;t encourage an anti gay atitude?

i am also not homophobic i think they should be equal i have many gay freinds but i don&#39;t think people should be forced to accept something that even just the idea makes them cringe, are you going to be pro heterosexual rights when the tables turn??

[canikickit]

but you haven&#39;t explained why hazard should accept something that isn&#39;t natural

What the hell is "natural"? Is it natural to sit in your house beside a big monitor and communicate with people electronically on something called "the internet"? Is it natural for people to get into four wheeled machines which carry them to places through a series of explosions?

Homosexuality is natural because it occurs. That&#39;s all there is to it.

The commie club hates discrimination yet discriminates against political views because it feels that these views are, in themselves, discriminatory. It&#39;s a pretty stupid question, if you don&#39;t mind my saying so. The members of the commie club (it doesn&#39;t function on its own) decide what they view as acceptable and as unnacceptable. It&#39;s not always a unanimous decision, and sometimes it just comes down to a call by Malte, but that&#39;s the way things go.


tell me how does Fidel treat homosexuals very well i hope else your commie club is BS

Is this a riddle?


also i am used to it being accepted in the UK schools talk about it the public generally hate it but the government doesn&#39;t encourage an anti gay atitude?

That&#39;s not actually a question, is it?
The Anarchist Tension has already demonstrated how the government condones prejudice on the basis of sexual orientation. One example being property laws - gay partners do not have the same rights as partners of the opposite sex to one another. Another example being laws against schools saying positive things about homosexuality. This was all in the posts he wrote in the last few hours. you really should read them. again, if necessary, because a lot of it obviously went over your head.


I am also not homophobic i think they should be equal i have many gay freinds but i don&#39;t think people should be forced to accept something that even just the idea makes them cringe, are you going to be pro heterosexual rights when the tables turn??

I bet if this was a discussion about racism you&#39;d have many black friends also.
It&#39;s not as if the Anarchist Tension is advocating rounding people up and beating their skulls in until they accept homosexuality.

And why wouldn&#39;t he be in favour of hetrosexual rights?

[The Feral Underclass]

cephas


but you haven&#39;t explained why hazard should accept something that isn&#39;t natural

Homosexuality is natural. it is as natural as you putting clothes on in the morning and using knives and forks to eat food cooked on an electric oven.

And please tell me why hazard shouldnt accept it?


i don&#39;t think people should be forced to accept something that even just the idea makes them cringe,

Ask yourself why it makes them cringe? Then you have to make a decision whether or not this is acceptable. Not just on an indevidual level but in a wider societal context.


are you going to be pro heterosexual rights when the tables turn??

I think this is a stupid thing to say. Of course I would support hetreosexuals if they were being descriminated against. I do not think, however that this will be the case.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2003, 08:42 PM
I, too, argued on your behalf. It&#39;s out of my hands mate.
I tried as well, but che-lives would not run with out our brand of democracy, and if the "electorate" chooses to make decisions some people disagree with, then thats the way it goes.

But regarding this thread: -

lets re-look your post,shall we?

QUOTE
You weren&#39;t restricted for authroritarian views, you were restricted for trolling and spamming.


There you go.You said he was restricted for spamming and trolling.

LOL&#33;

He is claiming that the the human subconsciousness is a cesspool of animal depravity.

I said that to him, and he made comments which clearly construed I was a homophobe, I lost my temper and then quit that thread, as I am not going to argue with an amoral twat who, when short of an argument makes such accusations. I have however now changed my mind, as i wish to see what he has to say in deffence of his own comments, which I will explain later.

However before I leave it at that, I will add, that TAT is rather a hypocrit for mentioning prejudice, when he has in the past made comments that could easily be construed as prejudice towards those with learning difficulties. But hey argue with TAT and he labels you as a homophobe, so excuse me if I leave it at that.

[The Feral Underclass]

Engima


TAT is rather a hypocrit for mentioning prejudice, when he has in the past made comments that could easily be construed as prejudice towards those with learning difficulties.

please show me an example, I am interested to see.


amoral twat

And when your short of an argument you resort to name calling or change the subject altogether...your pathetic.


I said that to him, and he made comments which clearly construed I was a homophobe

No. You overreacted. I did not call you a homophobe I asked you a direct question. Did you think that homosexuality was among the definition of animal depravity? You did not answer it except start calling me names.

Cephas on the other hand gave an argument which although i am not sure I agree with fully was a thousand times more insightful than your self surfing bullshit.


I have however now changed my mind, as i wish to see what he has to say in deffence of his own comments, which I will explain later.

And what comments would these be?

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 7 2003, 10:10 PM
Engima


TAT is rather a hypocrit for mentioning prejudice, when he has in the past made comments that could easily be construed as prejudice towards those with learning difficulties.

please show me an example, I am interested to see.


amoral twat

And when your short of an argument you resort to name calling or change the subject altogether...your pathetic.


I said that to him, and he made comments which clearly construed I was a homophobe

No. You overreacted. I did not call you a homophobe I asked you a direct question. Did you think that homosexuality was among the definition of animal depravity? You did not answer it except start calling me names.

Cephas on the other hand gave an argument which although i am not sure I agree with fully was a thousand times more insightful than your self surfing bullshit.


I have however now changed my mind, as i wish to see what he has to say in deffence of his own comments, which I will explain later.

And what comments would these be?
please show me an example, I am interested to see.

The guy is misguided and so stupid he couldnt even spell the word. TAT

The inability to spell is often a trait of those with learning difficulties, so by describing a person who cannot spell as being stupid, you describing the inability to spell as being stupidity. Therefor those with learning difficulties are stupid, thats called prejudice i&#39;m afraid. The shocking thing is that Einstein had learning difficulties you know, but he couldn&#39;t spell so he&#39;s an idiot.

And when your short of an argument you resort to name calling or change the subject altogether...your pathetic.


Ohh the hypocracy: -

You can make your own conclusions, I will make mine, and I will add its not like we haven&#39;t had homosexual members before, and they didn&#39;t seem to kick up a massive fuss every time someone made the slightest remark Enigma

Or, the most likly reason is they [gay people] new that NOTHING WOULD GET DONE ABOUT IT...BECAUSE OF TWATS LIKE YOU [Enigma]&#33;&#33;&#33; TAT

Pot and Kettle alert.

No. You overreacted.

Perhaps, you implied I was a homophobe, and I got angery, maybe that&#39;s an overreaction.

Did you think that homosexuality was among the definition of animal depravity?

Actually you said: -

Do you think that me having sex with my partner is an act of "animal depravity"?

and i rest my case, anyone can clearly see what you are implying. the fact that you asked the question clearly shows that.

You did not answer it except start calling me names.


Names which you thoughrly earned, and if you want to talk about name calling, you had been calling me names sinse your third post of that thread. :rolleyes: If you think that me calling you names is wrong after that then sue me. ;)

Cephas on the other hand gave an argument which although i am not sure I agree with fully was a thousand times more insightful than your self surfing bullshit.

yeah then why haven&#39;t you got an answer to half the things I asked you in the other thread except for: -

"BECAUSE OF TWATS LIKE YOU&#33;&#33;&#33;" sort of thing?

And what comments would these be?

see top of post.

[canikickit]

Did you think that homosexuality was among the definition of animal depravity?

Actually you said: -

Do you think that me having sex with my partner is an act of "animal depravity"?

and i rest my case, anyone can clearly see what you are implying. the fact that you asked the question clearly shows that.

Enigma, it is called rethoric. The Anarchist Tension asked you a question which he knew you would answer "no" too. The reason you would answer no to it, and indeed, the reason you are attempting to take the moral high ground, is because to answer yes to that question would be prejudiced.

The Anarchist Tension has already shown Hazard to have generalised gay people as "depraved animals", a prejudiced view. You are proving his point.

[(*]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2003, 02:59 PM


i am also not homophobic i think they should be equal i have many gay freinds but i don&#39;t think people should be forced to accept something that even just the idea makes them cringe, are you going to be pro heterosexual rights when the tables turn??
If homosexuality makes you cringe, it is almost certain that you are homophobic. It&#39;s like a person cringes when they see a black person (or they hold their purse a little closer), then claim they are not racist.



I&#39;m not sure if you are talking solely about your friends, or yourself included. So if I have misinterpreted your statement, I apologize.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2003, 11:55 PM

Did you think that homosexuality was among the definition of animal depravity?

Actually you said: -

Do you think that me having sex with my partner is an act of "animal depravity"?

and i rest my case, anyone can clearly see what you are implying. the fact that you asked the question clearly shows that.

Enigma, it is called rethoric. The Anarchist Tension asked you a question which he knew you would answer "no" too. The reason you would answer no to it, and indeed, the reason you are attempting to take the moral high ground, is because to answer yes to that question would be prejudiced.

The Anarchist Tension has already shown Hazard to have generalised gay people as "depraved animals", a prejudiced view. You are proving his point.
The fact he asked the question clearly shows what he thought.

The Anarchist Tension has already shown Hazard to have generalised gay people as "depraved animals",

Actually no he didn&#39;t, Hazard said that human sub consious was a cesspit of animal depravity (or something along those lines). Unless only homosexuals are now human, that comment applies to all people, gay, straight, rich, poor, etc etc.

That fact also puts his question into a poor light as gay sex was never described as an act of "animal depravity". the fact that was used as a question shows sensationalism, bias, and rather an amoral attitude towards those who disagree with you.


In short it was very much below the belt, and fundamentally inappropriate. And I am not attempting to gain the moral high ground, I&#39;m already there.

[Guest1]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2003, 05:02 PM
lets re-look your post,shall we?

QUOTE
You weren&#39;t restricted for authroritarian views, you were restricted for trolling and spamming.


There you go.You said he was restricted for spamming and trolling.

LOL&#33;
well, I&#39;ll point out you&#39;re both dumbasses.

he was restricted for spamming and trolling. that&#39;s fact. it doesn&#39;t mean I think he was spamming or trolling.

enigma, I always try to get people to leave you alone, even though I disagree with you on almost everything. but your utter stupidity sometimes makes this impossible.

as for bolshevika, I was sensitive to that at first, but took myself out of the debate later because I felt it was not a justification for restriction. so no, I had nothing to do with your restriction in the end really.

in fact, I&#39;d be happy to ask for your reinstation, if you show yourself to be a contributing member.

[redstar2000]

And I am not attempting to gain the moral high ground, I&#39;m already there.--Enigma

:lol: :lol: :lol:

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[The Feral Underclass]

The inability to spell is often a trait of those with learning difficulties, so by describing a person who cannot spell as being stupid, you describing the inability to spell as being stupidity.

You loved doing that didnt you...I can tell, it&#39;s like an episode of the west wing...all this political intrigue. Granted, this could easily have been construed in the wrong way and I apologise if anyone took offence by it. I obviously have nothing against people who are dyslexic for I am mildly dyslexic and also can not spell very well (hurray for dictionary.com).


Pot and Kettle alert.

My name calling was in the context of an argument, you just through names out because you dont have one...you see what is happening now...are we arguing about the issue...oh now, we are arguing about who named called first...you see what you did here enigma...completely changed the subject...


and i rest my case, anyone can clearly see what you are implying. the fact that you asked the question clearly shows that.

No..only in the land of enigma...I asked you a question. Hazard made his feelings clear. I was asking you if you agreed. Then you got defensive.


Names which you thoughrly earned, and if you want to talk about name calling, you had been calling me names sinse your third post of that thread. If you think that me calling you names is wrong after that then sue me.

It&#39;s like im five all over again...


yeah then why haven&#39;t you got an answer to half the things I asked you

Now you&#39;re just clutching at straws. Go back and read the thread I answered all your questions several times over, if you have the inability to understand them then there isnt much I can do about that.


Actually no he didn&#39;t, Hazard said that human sub consious was a cesspit of animal depravity (or something along those lines). Unless only homosexuals are now human, that comment applies to all people, gay, straight, rich, poor, etc etc.

That fact also puts his question into a poor light as gay sex was never described as an act of "animal depravity". the fact that was used as a question shows sensationalism, bias, and rather an amoral attitude towards those who disagree with you.

He was being specific to homosexuality the passage is clear. Even hazard has admitted it was homophobic. Only you are trying to argue otherwise.

You took the question as being sensationalism because you needed something to bulk up your argument. Think what you like enigma, you dont concern me one little bit. Your just a sad guy trying desperatly to hold onto an argument you have clearly lost.


In short it was very much below the belt, and fundamentally inappropriate. And I am not attempting to gain the moral high ground, I&#39;m already there.

:rolleyes:

[Comrade Ceausescu]

well, I&#39;ll point out you&#39;re both dumbasses.

he was restricted for spamming and trolling. that&#39;s fact. it doesn&#39;t mean I think he was spamming or trolling.

enigma, I always try to get people to leave you alone, even though I disagree with you on almost everything. but your utter stupidity sometimes makes this impossible.

as for bolshevika, I was sensitive to that at first, but took myself out of the debate later because I felt it was not a justification for restriction. so no, I had nothing to do with your restriction in the end really.

in fact, I&#39;d be happy to ask for your reinstation, if you show yourself to be a contributing member.

Whatever man.I think Bolshevika is one of the smartest people here.I don&#39;t give a fuck what you say to that,but if you laugh,you obviously haven&#39;t seen some of his posts on isf.though i still think he makes a big contribution here,if you didnt restrict him he could do a lot more&#33;

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Che y Marijuana+Dec 8 2003, 12:58 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Che y Marijuana @ Dec 8 2003, 12:58 AM)
[email protected] 7 2003, 05:02 PM
lets re-look your post,shall we?

QUOTE
You weren&#39;t restricted for authroritarian views, you were restricted for trolling and spamming.


There you go.You said he was restricted for spamming and trolling.

LOL&#33;
well, I&#39;ll point out you&#39;re both dumbasses.

he was restricted for spamming and trolling. that&#39;s fact. it doesn&#39;t mean I think he was spamming or trolling.

enigma, I always try to get people to leave you alone, even though I disagree with you on almost everything. but your utter stupidity sometimes makes this impossible.

as for bolshevika, I was sensitive to that at first, but took myself out of the debate later because I felt it was not a justification for restriction. so no, I had nothing to do with your restriction in the end really.

in fact, I&#39;d be happy to ask for your reinstation, if you show yourself to be a contributing member. [/b]
well, I&#39;ll point out you&#39;re both dumbasses.

cheers

he was restricted for spamming and trolling. that&#39;s fact. it doesn&#39;t mean I think he was spamming or trolling.

Ohh I belive you, I just though that, that guys post was funny.

enigma, I always try to get people to leave you alone, even though I disagree with you on almost everything. but your utter stupidity sometimes makes this impossible.

Great, whatever.

My name calling was in the context of an argument

Ahh of course it was... :rolleyes:

we are arguing about who named called first...you see what you did here enigma...completely changed the subject...

At the risk of sounding childish, I never brought up the name calling thing, one more post to add to your ever growing list of hypocritical statements.

But yeah whatever :rolleyes:... that goes for just about everything you posted.

[cubist]

natural,

what exactly is natuiral about have sex with the same sex?

you sex is there as a way for the human race to survive, surving is natural&#33;&#33;

sex is useful for reproduction in order for our race to exist, existing is natural&#33;&#33;

having sex where you can&#39;t reproduce becuase you aren&#39;t putting the male &#39;reproductive&#39; organ into the female &#39;reproductive&#39; organ is not natural. unless theres something i have missed there,

i know there are mammals where homosexual sex will male the female more fertile, but all other cases are liesure activities and serve no natural purpose.

[cubist]

Enigma,

which paret of that post was your righting?? either your point is??

[Guest1]

and condoms fit in here how?


homophobe...

[canikickit]

Things don&#39;t have to "serve a purpose" to be natural.
Homosexuaity is natural because it occurs. That&#39;s all there is to it.

Do you think it is unnatural for an infertile man to have sex with a woman?


unless theres something i have missed there

Yes, you are missing out on human understanding.

Microwaves are unnatural.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2003, 03:57 PM
Enigma,

which paret of that post was your righting?? either your point is??
pardon? Could you please, rephrase what you asked.

[cubist]

condoms would go on your penis, don&#39;t the teach sex ed to potheads or were you too stoned to listen?

yes homophobe thats right try a new word like wanker or twat with outrageous opinions as a.) it would sound right coming from you&#33;
b.) i am not a homophobe i don&#39;t agree with homosexuality as it is unatural, but i like gay people i feel they should have as much rights as any other being.

now for the rest of it,

condoms these are natural?
where do they grow?
i could do with one of those trees just like the money tree and the ciggarette tree and the provide you with everything else that is materiel in life tree....

you see condoms prevent natural deseases being spread and stop natural repriductive actions from occuring when people seek pleasure not a family,

i am not saying pleasure is unnatural it is very natural every human has a right to enjoy themselves. well nearly&#33;&#33; as for example:

A serial killer who is acting on the feeling of pleasure that he gains from doing the action.

The serial rapist seeks pleasure out of getting what he can&#39;t have, it just wouldn&#39;t be the same paying for it. Now that type of pleasure is unnatural i hope you don&#39;t disagree with that?

the point is i don&#39;t mind homosexuals having leisurable(spelling?) activities that they choose to do to share there affections for each other but that doesn&#39;t mean it is natural. that doesn&#39;t mean you should make people accept it you should prevent people from cuasing distress to the homosexual through prejudice but you also shouldn&#39;t cuase distress to those that hate it by making them accept what they feel is unatural.

[cubist]

sorry which part of that post was your own righting you didn&#39;t make it clear,

thus meaning i didn&#39;t understand the point you were trying to make

[The Feral Underclass]

Cephas


i am not a homophobe i don&#39;t agree with homosexuality as it is unatural, but i like gay people

yes well I have the slight feeling they wont be liking you...How can you say you&#39;re not a homophobe and then say you dont agree with homosexuality because its unnatural.

You make a destinction about what is natural. You imply that something is natural when it idefined by how organic it is "condoms these are natural? where do they grow? i could do with one of those trees just like the money tree and the ciggarette tree and the provide you with everything else that is materiel in life tree" but then go onto say " I am not saying pleasure is unnatural it is very natural every human has a right to enjoy themselves." This is a contradiction. Playing football is not natural by your definition. Neither is going to the cinema or reading a book or even sitting down on a sofa infront of the television.

You contradict yourself again, but in a more sinister way. You claim that pleasure is natural but that homosexual pleasure is unnatural "the point is i don&#39;t mind homosexuals having leisurable(spelling?) activities that they choose to do to share there affections for each other but that doesn&#39;t mean it is natural." Why is that?

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2003, 06:30 PM
sorry which part of that post was your own righting you didn&#39;t make it clear,

thus meaning i didn&#39;t understand the point you were trying to make
Ohh right now I get you, however which post are you refering to?

Usually I bold other peoples statements. If I wish to quote them as part of my own argument I italic them, as I also do with other articals. I also Italic my own statements if I need to re post them for some reason or another.

[cubist]

no i disagree as ever....


You contradict yourself again, but in a more sinister way. You claim that pleasure is natural but that homosexual pleasure is unnatural "the point is i don&#39;t mind homosexuals having leisurable(spelling?) activities that they choose to do to share there affections for each other but that doesn&#39;t mean it is natural." Why is that?

you see i am not homophobic which is why i don&#39;t have a problem with it maybe i explained it badly, but i class homosexuals as tourists of the leisure industry trying things and enjoying themselves, it serves no purpose in nature hense its unnaturalness,


As for the otther bit, what is natural about a condom??? it prevents the only natural purpose for having sex

[canikickit]

Your definition of "natural" is totally useless, serving only to cause rifts in humanity. What is the point in defining someone&#39;s attraction to their own gender as unnatural?

Is oral sex unnatural?

[cubist]

and also i odn&#39;t care if gay people don&#39;t like me it doesn&#39;t affect me at all just like it doesn&#39;t affect me if you don&#39;t let me into the commie club becuase of it :P

[The Feral Underclass]

Cephas

You didnt answer my comments.


i class homosexuals as tourists of the leisure industry trying things and enjoying themselves, it serves no purpose in nature hense its unnaturalness,

You claimed that pleasure was natural but then say homosexual pleasure is unnatural. Why is it different?


you see i am not homophobic

Just because you say you&#39;re not does not mean you aren&#39;t.


As for the otther bit, what is natural about a condom??? it prevents the only natural purpose for having sex

You dont understand what I am saying. I was showing another contradiction in your argument which I asked you to address. I will explain again...

You defined something being natural as something which is organic...

Cephas

condoms these are natural? where do they grow? i could do with one of those trees just like the money tree and the ciggarette tree and the provide you with everything else that is materiel in life tree"

You then say that pleasure is natural...

Cephas

I am not saying pleasure is unnatural it is very natural every human has a right to enjoy themselves."

if you define natural as something which is organic, pleasure can not be natural. Watching TV is pleasurable, reading is pleasurable, playing football is pleasurable, going to the cinem is pleasurable. None of these things are organic.

Please explain this contradiction?

[hazard]

I almost want to laugh at some of these responses.

Anarchist:

that favourite quote you keep throwing out that I made, I forget, something clearly homophobic, must be placed into proper context. no matter how many times I explain this to you, you simply IGNORE my explanation. ONE MORE TIME. all of your arguments against me are taken from ONE post. that post had three paragraphs. one paragraph was the introduction. NO PROBLEM. the second paragraph was an example of a HOMOPHOBIC perspective on HOMOSEXUALS. there should be NO PROBLEM, but you, and others, take this paragraph as holding my view on this subject. IT DOES NOT. my view on this subject is clearly explained in this thread. the third paragrap is a HOMOPHOBE-APHOBE&#39;s perspective on HOMOPHOBEs. This should be the paragraph YOU have a problem with, for you are really the crown achievement in HOMOPHOBE-APHOBIA. but you skip it and jump up and down in a giddy way screaming "Hazard is a homophobe&#33; Hazard is a homophobe&#33;".

I really like how you keep going on about how I "admitted" that I am a homophobe. now I really hate pulling out my first year philosophy shit, but between your STRAW MAN construction of my position, AD HOMINEN attacks and SLIPPERY SLOPE conclusion, I can conclude that you are either a HOMOPHOBE-APHOBE, an idiot, or a child. Probably all three.

Looks to me like you&#39;re just looking for an excuse to talk about your "partner" and other homosexual details, that, for another time I hope to be the last, I really don&#39;t care about. You have a homosexual bedmate? Thats great. I don&#39;t care. Your behaviour seems to infer that I should care. I don&#39;t. I probably never will. SO you and him, or her if you are a she, can go through your day&#39;s trying to force other people, like me, to care about what you do in the sack. As long as you think you&#39;re making a difference.

et all:
"cesspool of animal depravity" applies to all sexual practices, hetero, homo, or other. the differences between animals having sex and humans having sex aren&#39;t worth mentioning. hence the gerbil comparitive. animals also participate in homosexual sex, mostly due to the "pleasure" principle that applies when in absence of an appropriate mate. now before anarchist or one of his brainwashed minions jump all over the use of the word appropriate, I will switch that to be taken as meaning biologically compatible. better not have a problem with that.

"hazard admitted he was a homophobe" is a lie. show me where, and I will show you where you are wrong

I also want to point out that my entire point was to have a reasonable discussion upon HOMOPHOBE-APHOBIA. I had no idea that this site was chock full of homophobe-aphobes. this does not mean that I am a homophobe. I mean, just try reading what I wrote and you&#39;ll find out what I mean. your unreasonable response to my originally innocent query into the state of the liberal sex league really does prove this much. you can&#39;t talk with your brain when you&#39;re thinking with your balls. thats something you can quote me on.

[The Feral Underclass]

Hazard


YOU have a problem with, for you are really the crown achievement in HOMOPHOBE-APHOBIA. but you skip it and jump up and down in a giddy way screaming "Hazard is a homophobe&#33; Hazard is a homophobe&#33;".

You left a message:

Hazard

che:

not a bad suggestion. don&#39;t mind if I take you up on it.

a homophobe-aphobe is simply a person afraid of homophobes. much like homophobes who are afraid past the point of reason of not just homosexuals but anything remotely homosexual, homophbe-aphobes are similarly afraid of anything even remotely homophobic. this might seem confusing but it really isn&#39;t. both groups sort of feed off of one anothers fears. while a homophobe leaps at the chance to call someone a faggot, the homophobe-aphobe leaps at the chance to call someone a homophobe. the reasoning can be as simple as the way a person speaks, or the type of car a person drives, or the type of clothes a person wears. this applies to both groups.

we should care because fear is not the answer. paranoia is not the answer. reason is.

as for my opinion of homosexuals, I am unsure how I should speak of them. it is not as if I have any ill feelings towards the group or towards their sexual practices. I do, however, feel caught up in the homophobe / homophobe-aphobe context. on the one hand I think homosexuals should be able to do what they want, and on the other I think that they sometimes go too far in making others acceptant of their sexual practices. to quote Trudeau, the state has no business in another persons bedroom. homosexuals, as of late, however, have taken the whole world to mean their bedroom. its one thing to particapte in private in sexual activities and another to let everybody know what these practices are and expect them to approve of them. my opinion is necessarily stunted as a result of this. if I say its okay for homosexuals to participate in private in homosexual activities, the homophobes would call me a homosexual. if I say that homosexuals should keep their sexual practices private, the homophobe-aphobes would call me a homophobe.

the non-issue is a multifacetted argument. first of all, this topic deals with sex. and as sex is nothing more than a primal, animal drive like eating and sleeping, it being phrased as an issue seems fairly archaic. the purpose of sex is simple: procreation. this does not mean that I abhore any sex that does not result in this action. it does mean that people who have sex should keep this at least somwhere in their heads while they&#39;re doing it. sexual immaturity ends when this realization is made and applied. homosexuality is a non-issue because it deals with sex, and sex is nothing more than a primal drive that stems back and through all lower levels of life. it is also a non issue because of its relation to communism. as communism is supposed to be a collective community, it is neither an issue because of its collectiveness ( ie. we&#39;re all individuals together ) or because of its commune factor ( ie. the best for the majority of all ). homosexuality is a strange topic for it mostly falls into the right wing category of politics. it is an extreme view that is really only applicable to a tiny minority of the population. that is, as a right wing view, highly individualistic and highly anti-collective. it cannot be an issue under communism unless the loosley defined version of communism is taken, such as we are all different and together in our differences. and this perspective of communism is a difficult one to defend. we should be more interested in our similarities and less interested in our differences. the homosexual "issue" almost forces people to focus on a difference to the point of wanting to either ignore it or fight it. I ignore it. just as I would ignore somebody who, to the point of force feeding, wants to prove that their preference in hamburger is just as acceptable as another persons prefernce in steak. I don&#39;t care if you like hamburger more than steak. I accept that you might like hamburger more than steak. you don&#39;t have to go around wearing &#39;I love hamburger" t-shirts and demanding people accept your preference. you don&#39;t have to make speeches about hamburgers and write books about hamburgers. most people accept that hamburger is at least allright, although the vast majority might prefer steak.

I don&#39;t know what else I can say..

I then replied to pretty much everything in this statement:

The Anarchist Tension

Hazard

Your definition of the word homophobe is incorrect. Of course the literal meaning of the world is someone who fears homosexuals. But this accounts for a small percentage of the bigoted opinions made against gay people. Usually due to insecurities in themselves. The word homophobia also refers to the state-sponsered descrimination. The age of consent, the right to inheritance laws, housing benifits and social benifits. The right to discuss homosexuality in schools, the right for gay couples to marry and to enjoy the same company benifits as a straight couple. This is also homophobia, and this is no fear. This is a premeditated hatred for homosexuality. Also the misunderstanding and general preconceptions of homosexuals is also a form of homophobia. ie the notion that all gay people are paedophiles or as you pointed out hate women.

QUOTE
a homophobe-aphobe is simply a person afraid of homophobes.


It is not a question of fear. I do not fear you. I have nothing but contempt for you. Someone who is a "homophobe-aphobe" is someone who fights the bigotry that has been mentioned. State sponsered oppression and bigoted generalizations like the ones you made.

QUOTE
both groups sort of feed off of one anothers fears. while a homophobe leaps at the chance to call someone a faggot, the homophobe-aphobe leaps at the chance to call someone a homophobe.


The gay rights movement does not "feed" of anyones fear we fight gay oppression. Calling me a faggot is one form of homophobia. The fact that me and my partner can not enjoy the same property rights as a straight couple due to the fact we are two men is clearly wrong and has nothing to do with fear but everything to do with the fact we are being descriminated against.

QUOTE
on the one hand I think homosexuals should be able to do what they want, and on the other I think that they sometimes go too far in making others acceptant of their sexual practices.


The fact is that our sexual practices are not accepted in society. It was only until two years ago that the age of consent for gay men was reduced from 18 to 16 inline with that of straight men. It was only in 1994 that the age of consent was reduced from 21 to 18. Not even ten years has passed. In schools in england Section 18 prohibits teachers from talking about homosexuality in a positive manner, so helping young teenagers who are having difficulties coping with their sexuality get a handle on their emotions. In fact it completely alienates them and in worst cases draws teenagers to suicide.

I can not go into a bar and kiss my partner as a straight couple might because the chances are I am going to get verbally or physically attacked for it. In america in many some states the age of consent is 21 where as straight sex is 18. In some states sodomy is illegal making it a crime to have sex with your partner.

In cyprus you can go to prison for 5 years. In saudi arabia it is punishable by death. So. Until this homophobia has stopped and our sexual practices are accepted we will not give up going too far to show you that we are no different.

QUOTE
homosexuals, as of late, however, have taken the whole world to mean their bedroom. its one thing to particapte in private in sexual activities and another to let everybody know what these practices are and expect them to approve of them.


The state is envolved in my bedroom and has legislated against me and we are trying to bring this to the attention of the world so that we are not descriminated against. However, we meet people like you who do not take it on a political level but simply on the level of sex. And draw this rediculas conlusion. We are not trying to show you how we have sex, we are trying to tell you that we are oppressed and we want something done about it.

QUOTE
homosexuality is a non-issue because it deals with sex,

Gay people are oppressed. That is the issue. You&#39;re rationalizing it and reducing it to sex because you do not have a wider perspective.

QUOTE
I ignore it. just as I would ignore somebody who, to the point of force feeding, wants to prove that their preference in hamburger is just as acceptable as another persons prefernce in steak. I don&#39;t care if you like hamburger more than steak. I accept that you might like hamburger more than steak. you don&#39;t have to go around wearing &#39;I love hamburger" t-shirts and demanding people accept your preference. you don&#39;t have to make speeches about hamburgers and write books about hamburgers. most people accept that hamburger is at least allright, although the vast majority might prefer steak.


That&#39;s because people who eat hamburgers are not legislated against, attacked, abused, sterotyped and descriminated against.

It was a law in the US until 40 years ago that gay people had to declare the homosexuality to a shop owner so that the shop owner could then make a decision whether or not to serve them. The suicide right is higer amongst gay teenagers. A boy was kicked out of the boy scouts for being gay. I can be fined £40 for kissing my boyfriend in public. This is the reality.

In the US again you can send your teenager (under 18) to a "correctional treatment centre." In these centres these kids are subject to electric shock treatment, beatings, torture such as having to squot for 10 hours a day with phone books on your head. Some of these "centres" are in prisons and these teenagers from 13 to 18 have to walk through the prison with a banner saying "I am dealing with my homosexuality." Fortunatly there is a women in San Francisco who dedicates her enitre time, energy and cash to helping these teeangers who have managed to escape. She could go to prison for helping these kids.

My partner was asked to leave his work at a residential school for teenagers with difficult back grounds because of "conflicting interests." They did want to upset the parents. A man called matthew shepard was murdered by two homophobes and then demonstrations where held outside the church, on the day of his funeral, to demand that he was not buried on sacred land. Musicians, actors, politicians all perpetrate their homophobia by singing about it, talking about and fighting it in parliments. Homosexuality is a sin, and the church perpetrate this belief when ever they can. In fact they are allowed to stand up in front of a congregation of hundreds and declare that anyone who is gay will go to hell. Hows does that make me feel? How does that make those poor fucking kids who are battleing with it feel? And these kids who have no one too talk too because schools, by law have to "ignore it."

Being gay and eating hamburgers are not the same thing. We are descriminated against every single day. These are the realities and you would sooner perpetrate them or ignore them. This is why I am so in your face, this is why we demonstrate and make speeches and write books. Because we are treated like inferior second class citizens with no rights except those ones that are deemed appropriate.

As a so called communist, you should be embracing the gay rights movement and acknowledging it as a worthy cause that should be fought for, clearly you do not. Well maybe one day me having sexual relationship with my partner will be no different to eating a hamburger. Until attitudes like yours are changed, it aint gonna happen

I think i answered your points in a satisfactory way if you take the time to read them. :)


I really like how you keep going on about how I "admitted" that I am a homophobe. now I really hate pulling out my first year philosophy shit, but between your STRAW MAN construction of my position, AD HOMINEN attacks and SLIPPERY SLOPE conclusion, I can conclude that you are either a HOMOPHOBE-APHOBE, an idiot, or a child. Probably all three.

Very construcive...You have convinced me... :rolleyes:


Looks to me like you&#39;re just looking for an excuse to talk about your "partner" and other homosexual details, that, for another time I hope to be the last, I really don&#39;t care about. You have a homosexual bedmate? Thats great. I don&#39;t care. Your behaviour seems to infer that I should care. I don&#39;t. I probably never will. SO you and him, or her if you are a she, can go through your day&#39;s trying to force other people, like me, to care about what you do in the sack. As long as you think you&#39;re making a difference.

I dont really see the relevance of this statement. I never asked you to care. You are the one choosing to use this kind of language. I have no idea why?

Furthermore, I use my own personal experiences because I am gay. Just like a black woman would use her own experiences because she is black. Deal with it&#33;


"cesspool of animal depravity" applies to all sexual practices, hetero, homo, or other. the differences between animals having sex and humans having sex aren&#39;t worth mentioning. hence the gerbil comparitive. animals also participate in homosexual sex, mostly due to the "pleasure" principle that applies when in absence of an appropriate mate. now before anarchist or one of his brainwashed minions jump all over the use of the word appropriate, I will switch that to be taken as meaning biologically compatible. better not have a problem with that.

I accepted this a long time ago...


"hazard admitted he was a homophobe" is a lie. show me where, and I will show you where you are wrong

I admit, you did not say "I am a homophobe," what you did say was, "but a series of you have many problems with my homophobic statements." You were banned from the CC for making homophobic statments. You admit they were homophobic therefore you should not be permitted back into CC.

When someone says homophobic things, they usually are a homophobe, so my conclusion was not really that illogical.


I also want to point out that my entire point was to have a reasonable discussion upon HOMOPHOBE-APHOBIA. I had no idea that this site was chock full of homophobe-aphobes.

As I have said before, it is not a question of fear, it is a question of frustration towards opinions and beliefs which allow the perpetration of gay oppression to continue. I am glad that this site is full of homophobe-aphobes. It means that people like you wont be able to slip by so easily.


I mean, just try reading what I wrote and you&#39;ll find out what I mean.

I did read it, I do know what it means, I just think your wrong.


you can&#39;t talk with your brain when you&#39;re thinking with your balls. thats something you can quote me on.

As Jack Nicholsan says "People who speak in metaphores should kiss my ass."

[Invader Zim]

QUOTE
"cesspool of animal depravity" applies to all sexual practices, hetero, homo, or other. the differences between animals having sex and humans having sex aren&#39;t worth mentioning. hence the gerbil comparitive. animals also participate in homosexual sex, mostly due to the "pleasure" principle that applies when in absence of an appropriate mate. now before anarchist or one of his brainwashed minions jump all over the use of the word appropriate, I will switch that to be taken as meaning biologically compatible. better not have a problem with that.


I accepted this a long time ago...

I think I&#39;m gonna cry now...

[cubist]

Anarchist tension,

sorry i picked
bad analagy i have been pondering it over night,

i meant homosexuality is just a leisure activity and nothing else,

you haven&#39;t told me how homosexuality is natural.

you see if its genetically natural its a gentic mistake darwins theory or survival of the fittest prooves this as a homosexual wouldn&#39;t be able to reproduce thus defeating the natural purpose of sex,

if its not genetic then how is it natural???

as for the homophobic bit yes your right just becuase i do say i am not doesn&#39;t make me not,

but i am not

i will ask this question

why aren&#39;t you gay if your not of course??

[RedAnarchist]

Who really cares about these laws that Nature makes? Laws are there to be questioned, criticised and if unjust, broken.

Homsexuality in my opinion is perfectly natural. Be proud of who you are.

[cubist]

xphile

i am proud of who i am, your point is rather useless,
as hazard has questioned your commie club rules (which you are a part of) which are aparently there to be questioned and argued about which is the point of this thread,

hazard you have a supporter&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

[The Feral Underclass]

Enigma


I think I&#39;m gonna cry now...

I did admit that it was said in a general sense.

Cephas


i meant homosexuality is just a leisure activity and nothing else

But this is just wrong. Sex between two men and two women is also an expression of love. Taking me as an example again, when i sleep with my partner I am expressing my love for him. Of course I could go and have leisurable sex with a stranger just like a straight person would. But i choose to be faithful to my partner. Maybe when you fall in love and get a girlfriend you will rethink this comment.


you haven&#39;t told me how homosexuality is natural.

Because nature is subjective. What is natural to you may not be natural to me. You might find it natural to eat ice cream every day I would find eating an apple more natural. You can not define universal laws for what is natural and what isnt. The definition changes every day and therefore is left up to the indevidual to decide.

homosexuality may not be natural to you, but to me it is very natural.


you see if its genetically natural its a gentic mistake darwins theory or survival of the fittest prooves this as a homosexual wouldn&#39;t be able to reproduce thus defeating the natural purpose of sex,

I am not sure what genetics has to do with anything. Your comments come back to the definition of sex. The natural purpose of sex has changed. You can not define it as if it were 1000 BC. This is 2003AD. Society has changed. What was natural then is not natural now. In 1000BC it was natural to hunt down your food in 2003AD it is natural to go and buy it at a shop. In 1000BC it was natural to use water to wash your face, in 2003AD it is natural to use soap and all the other crap. You simply can not define natural the way you are doing. It dosnt work anymore.


why aren&#39;t you gay if your not of course??

because i&#39;m attracted to men.

Hitler use to call himself a humanitarian...?

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 9 2003, 04:59 PM
Enigma


I think I&#39;m gonna cry now...

I did admit that it was said in a general sense.
Cool man, I take your word for it... just as long as we can avoid all that argument again&#33;

[cubist]

A
anarchist tension because i&#39;m attracted to men.

why not?? if its so natural why don&#39;t you find men attractive?? you don&#39;t find a man attractive becuase you enjoy women yeah? your not in a cage with men your in the open your not directed by any boundaries like gerbils, you don&#39;t benift from it like the female lizards that do it to gain more fertile eggs,

maybe i view homosexuality different to all of you but i don&#39;t find men attractive becuase i am not supposed too&#33;&#33; as i am a man, nature intended us to survive, science defines this, evrything is moulded around darwins theories he is the reason most won&#39;t accept creationism, yet his theories don&#39;t aply in this case? why is this?

it is fine to practice it but it isn&#39;t a natural practice..

oh well i hope you at least understand my point even if we disagree...

[The Feral Underclass]

why not?? if its so natural why don&#39;t you find men attractive?? you don&#39;t find a man attractive becuase you enjoy women yeah? your not in a cage with men your in the open your not directed by any boundaries like gerbils, you don&#39;t benift from it like the female lizards that do it to gain more fertile eggs,

I dont understand what any of this sentecne means...please explain.


maybe i view homosexuality different to all of you but i don&#39;t find men attractive becuase i am not supposed too&#33;&#33;

Dont be so fucking rediculas. How old are you? Are you saying you are attracted to men but choose not to because nature says you have to reproduce...i mean what kind of a planet are you living on?


as i am a man, nature intended us to survive, science defines this, evrything is moulded around darwins theories he is the reason most won&#39;t accept creationism, yet his theories don&#39;t aply in this case? why is this?

You havent explained what darwin has to do with anything.

[cubist]

sorry? i am on mars didn&#39;t you know we have landed.

no i am saying i dont find men attractive becuase i am a man and nature doesn&#39;t intend me too not to mention it is the ultimate dearouser for me,

darwin survival of the fittest only the ones that live to reproduce survive and thier genetics will follow through, so either we have centuries of closet homosexuals or its not natural&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

[RedCeltic]

Hazard...

looks like Malte gave you club status back.

[hazard]

and I commend Malte for his wisdom, compassion and understanding

THE REVOLUTION BEGINS ANEW LIKE THE PHOENIX FROM THE ASHES&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

[jermicide]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2003, 11:46 AM
darwin survival of the fittest only the ones that live to reproduce survive and thier genetics will follow through, so either we have centuries of closet homosexuals or its not natural&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;
not to get in this whole argument but we have had centuries of closet homosexuals.

[The Feral Underclass]

cephas your an idiot...

[Guest1]

cephas, there&#39;s a theory with some evidence coming out that homosexuality is like nature&#39;s population control, to slow down the rate of elimination of resources, so we don&#39;t literally fuck ourselves into extermination.

but I personally don&#39;t care why someone is homosexual, just that that&#39;s who they are and should have the same rights as everyone.

even the right to talk about their partners, as I and all my friends do.


Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2003, 08:33 AM
that favourite quote you keep throwing out that I made, I forget, something clearly homophobic, must be placed into proper context. no matter how many times I explain this to you, you simply IGNORE my explanation. ONE MORE TIME. all of your arguments against me are taken from ONE post. that post had three paragraphs. one paragraph was the introduction. NO PROBLEM. the second paragraph was an example of a HOMOPHOBIC perspective on HOMOSEXUALS. there should be NO PROBLEM, but you, and others, take this paragraph as holding my view on this subject. IT DOES NOT. my view on this subject is clearly explained in this thread. the third paragrap is a HOMOPHOBE-APHOBE&#39;s perspective on HOMOPHOBEs. This should be the paragraph YOU have a problem with, for you are really the crown achievement in HOMOPHOBE-APHOBIA. but you skip it and jump up and down in a giddy way screaming "Hazard is a homophobe&#33; Hazard is a homophobe&#33;".

as for Hazard, I had the feeling you were trying to say that it was an example. unfortunately my friend, your communications skills are pretty crappy when you&#39;re on the defensive. they were crappy to begin with actually, cause nobody got it. I sort of thought of it when you tried, and failed miserably, to explain it the first time in this thread.

now, I&#39;m sorta inclined to believe you. you&#39;ve got some pretty closed-minded opinions about sex and sexuality in general, but at least it has nothing to do with sexual preference.

anyways, don&#39;t blame TAT. no one else understood it. I&#39;m pretty sure even Enigma didn&#39;t, he was saying that it wasn&#39;t homophobic, not that it wasn&#39;t your opinion.

And drop the whole homophobe-aphobia thing, we have a right to hate homophobes, just as we do to hate racists and sexists. Their views can&#39;t be defended in any way, and we have no reason to accept or respect differences with them. I didn&#39;t wanna suggest it right away with you, cause I thought you needed the benefit of some sort of explanation, but I actually think we would be in the right no matter what we did to them. Banning, restricting, it&#39;s all in the green with homophobes, racists and sexists.

[The Feral Underclass]

che y marijuana

Hazard does not believe it is a question of hate. He believes it is a question of fear. he has no real understanding about the gay rights movement or gay oppression. he must think that everything is fine, that descrimination does not exist, and that we (gay people) should stop flapping our arms about it.

he is wrong of course.

It is absolutly clear that his comments were not meant to be an example of homophobia, he made it clear that they were his opinions "although I am somewhat offended at the fact that my great return is being overrun by a ridiculous and pointles discussion on homos, I feel obliged to at least participate as this is my great return post. homos, if they don&#39;t hate women, have a problem understanding the point of sex and the point of sexual relations."

There was no mention of it being an example. If you were going to make an example which was so provocative, you would have made damn sure it was clear what it was. He is now shifting his opinion because he knows it was wrong. Malte has obviously fallen for it.

[Guest1]

As I may have.

I am trying to keep in mind that this is the internet, and people can be misunderstood.

so I am giving it some time before condeming him in my mind.

I&#39;m afraid though, I&#39;ll probably come to the same conclusion as you in the end. but I wanna give him the benefit of a doubt.

[hazard]

THATS THE FAMOUS QUOTE&#33;&#33;&#33;

how many imes is that now TAT?

it is not only taking out of context, but out of the original context&#39;s context

che is right, my writing skills do lack sometimes in calrity, but I have tried severley to make this clear

additionally, I don&#39;t consider my views on sex to be that closed minded. I simply do have a love requirement in order for sex to be acceptable, in any form. now i&#39;m not talking watered down, screw ball, assinine, irritating, rip-off, condescending, fuck-up capitalist like love ala McDonalds "whats not to love?" bit. I&#39;m talking about honest, proven, tried and tested love. I&#39;m not talking about fucking someone for a couple of monthes and then figuring out that you love them. chances are you just love the fucking like you love that royale with cheese.

theres a REAL topic. LOVE. sex? give me a fucking break. you might as well be looking at a cook book or a catalogue of matresses.

[Guest1]

Could two men, or two women love one another? Have sex to solidify it? How would you feel about that? And nothing about "I don&#39;t wanna know about it", you know, how would you feel?

Also, if this does turn out to be a mistake, I think you should stop being aggressive to TAT and understand he has a right to be angry. What you said should anger everyone, it wasn&#39;t clear it wasn&#39;t you. Had it been a remark about blacks, you wouldn&#39;t be angry at the guy, you would be appologizing and assuring him it was misunderstood.

Appologize, sincerely.

[The Feral Underclass]

Hazard, these are the generalizations with which I am refering in my pm&#39;s to you.

You said "homos, if they dont hate women, have a problem understanding the point of sex and sexual relationships." This maybe a famnour quote, but this is the example of homophobia you were banned from cc for. It is absolutly relevant, and until the matter has been cleared you will keep hearing it.

There was nothing to be taken out of context. The meaning is clear.

These statements are rediculas and as I said to you in pm, should be rejected entirely. Do you reject them or do you maintain them?

It is quite easy for you to now claim that it was an example, but you know perfectly well this was not your intention. This is a statement of your opinion.

[canikickit]

Cephas, can&#39;t you read?

[kylie]

I think cephas thinks you are saying you are not homosexual, The Anarchist Tension.

[cubist]

Che V good point,



canikickit no i can&#39;t read, hope that answers your question...


Anarchist tension i am an idiot well thats great thank you, why dare i ask?

[cubist]

ok i give in

it is time to conceed i have been turned,

and its is time to

http://users.aol.com/marrfei/pie.gif

[canikickit]

canikickit no i can&#39;t read, hope that answers your question...

Yes it does answer my question. Thank you for confirming my suspicions. However, it is evident that you don&#39;t take the time to read people&#39;s posts properly:

Look; this is what The Anarchist Tension said:



QUOTE
why aren&#39;t you gay if your not of course??


because i&#39;m attracted to men.

And do you remember how you responded?


why not?? if its so natural why don&#39;t you find men attractive??



Now anyway, what brings about this change of heart?

[cubist]

oh yes sorry, i apologise god i have dug a huge hole better call for some extra rope&#33;&#33;

[cubist]

i had a very long conversation with a gay friend the other night

a very good one and he explained alot very graphic in places too,
most amusing i must say,