Homophobia

[Zero]

When I was Google hacking around for different zines I came across this pretty obscure post on a long-forgotten message board still out there on the net. I think this woman deserves for her voice to be heard, especially in these times. Homophobia isn't something thats new to this world, but the least we can do is end it. I posted this in the OI because I think everyone should read it.


I am the girl of strong religious beliefs who was horrified when she discovered that she was attracted to girls not boys.

I am the girl who prayed every night for years for God to remove her sinful desire for other girls. And who still, to this day, struggles with that question.

I am the girl who on one night slipped and found her first moment of utter bliss with her best friend ... only to have it be followed the next morning with almost unendurable shame.

I am the girl who almost lost her best friend because we fell in love with each other.

I am the girl who went to her Pastor desperate for help, told him everything and then, suddenly found herself rejected by friends and neighbors she had known all her life.

I am the girl who was stripped of her duty as a Sunday School teacher for the children that I adored.

I am the Girl Scout with a vest full of badges that after years of joyful service was banished from my Troop at the mere suggestion of what I might be.

I am the girl who slept with her first boy in order to be accepted into her community again as it seems it was better to be a slut than a lesbian.

I am the girl who found God in her own heart when the Church abandoned me and never lost her faith.

I am the girl who saw her father's dreams crumble in front of her eyes when he caught me with my girlfriend.

I am the girl who denied what she was for years for the sake of those she loved the best.

I am the girl who dreadfully damaged the man I was to marry because I finally realized that I couldn't be the wife he deserved, and in doing so gave up my most precious dreams.

I am the girl who found her dream again, who discovered to her surprise that she could find forever in the eyes and arms of another woman.

I am the girl who lost her love when my girlfriend's own moral compass and pressures from family and church pushed her away from me in tears, shattering my dreams once again.

I am the girl who was a bridesmaid at the wedding of the woman I loved and wanted to spend the rest of my life with. I am the woman who saw her look at me with resignation and desperation before the world locked her into a loveless but socially acceptable marriage. I am the woman who loves her still.

I was the woman who had to give up her career path and aspirations in College and find new ones because "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" still means I can lose it all I had worked for because of what I am.

I am the woman who never told her father, the man she loved best in this world, what she was because she was so very ashamed for failing him.

I am a woman believes in family and has sought it all her life, but who has consistently been met by anger or pure hatred by the family members of the women I have loved.

I am the woman who all too often has had to hide who and what she is from the people she cares for in her life.

I am the woman who when my partner was near death in the hospital could not visit her for days because "I wasn't family".

I am the woman who has watched more friends that I can bear turn their back on me and walk out of my life once they discover what I am.

I am the woman who had her Aunt call her a "Dirty Lesbo *****" on the day I took custody of my daughters.

I am the woman who offered my love to my two little girls, who brought them into my home, brought them to safety and surrounded them with all the love in the world, despite the fact that no-body said I had a chance.

I am the woman who keeps the cleaning supplies ready by the garage door for the next time someone eggs my house and spray paints "Fucking Lesbian Whore" on my property.

I am the woman who has to explain to my daughters what "Fucking Lesbian Whore" means and deal with those children they meet in school who's parents don't like the idea of kids with two mommies.

I am the woman who nearly lost her career when one of the partners in my firm discovered what I was.

I am the woman who became a Girl Scout Troop leader for my daughters troop only to be nearly physically assaulted by some of the parents who I thought of as my friends when it was found out that my girls had two mothers.

I am the Girl Scout troop leader who stood my ground in the face of unreasoning hate when it would have been easier to run because I needed to hand down a legacy to my girls, and running wasn't going to be a part of that.

I am the woman who has learned that holding the hand of the woman you love in public is worth the stares and glares of people who can not see the love between us.

I am the woman who still cares for people, who dreams of a better day, who sees with joy the changes around her, and rails against the obstacles still in her way. I am a woman that, despite the pain that life has sometimes caused her, still has hope.

[guerillablack]

Now not i think of it, i think its stupid.

[Zero]

You think what is stupid?

[guerillablack]

Alot of her arguments or experiences makes me not believe in homosexuality anymore. I'mma do more thinking on it and develop my theory more, but as of right now. EH.

[overlord]

Hmmm, if she wants acceptance, she and her girlfriends can come around to my plance anytime.:)

Can't wait to see what 'AutumnWindIsARaider' has to say about this.:)

[Herman]

I thought it was very beautiful and sad.

[Free Left]

That's the same story with so many peope out there. Pity, she grew in such a conservtive area. That just makes it so much worse.

[overlord]

That chick and her girl really need to move out of Ohio. Maybe Redstar will take them in :)

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 07:46 AM
Hmmm, if she wants acceptance, she and her girlfriends can come around to my plance anytime.:)


Wow your a total fuck.

[RaiseYourVoice]

Originally posted by Additives Free+Jun 16 2006, 11:26 AM--> (Additives Free @ Jun 16 2006, 11:26 AM)
[email protected] 16 2006, 07:46 AM
Hmmm, if she wants acceptance, she and her girlfriends can come around to my plance anytime.:)


Wow your a total fuck. [/b]
he only knows "lesbians" (&girls?) from porn movies what do you expect?

@topic yea its sad that these things happen all the time... i am glad that my area is slightly more tolerant... at least i hope for it to be.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 08:41 AM
Alot of her arguments or experiences makes me not believe in homosexuality anymore. I'mma do more thinking on it and develop my theory more, but as of right now. EH.
So you're saying that homophobia may be acceptable?

Can you tell me why you think that?

[LSD]

Alot of her arguments or experiences makes me not believe in homosexuality anymore.

What does that even mean? How does one "believe" in homosexuality?

Not that I'm surprised by your latent homophobia, however, considering that the most direct comment you've ever made previously on this subject was:

Originally posted by you
Again, i never said whether homosexuality or heterosexuality is an abomination.

:o!

[Comrade J]

The woman would do well to move out of the Bible Belt (Im presuming they live in a conservative Christian area anyway.)
Of course, one shouldn't have to move from their home because of homophobic abuse, but there's no changing the minds of these f***ed-in-the-head Christian folk, she and her daughters could have a better life somewhere else.

[ummProfessional]

umm ok? so is this woman's story supposed to make me or society feel bad or something? she was the lesbian one sorry deal with it , i don't give a shit, and society won't either...this happens to all gay people, or probably most of them, so they just have to deal with it...

[FriedFrog]

this happens to all gay people, or probably most of them

Thats the point. Why should gay people have to deal with being shunned from friendship, family and the society they grew up in?


so they just have to deal with it

And millions of people live in poverty, they should just deal with it?
Thousands of people die every day because they cant afford to feed themselves, they should just deal with it too?

No.

These are called injustices. We aim to rectify these. At least, most normal people do.

[violencia.Proletariat]

It sounds like she just needs to give up religion. Why am I not suprised about that :lol:

[LSD]

umm ok? so is this woman's story supposed to make me or society feel bad or something?

I think that's the general idea, yes.


she was the lesbian one sorry deal with it

What is that even supposed to mean? She was a lesbian...therefore...what? She "deserves" to be stimatized and discriminated against? :blink:

Why should anyone have to "deal" with injustice? More importantly, why on earth would you object to them highlighting that injustice and demanding equality!?

After all, even the most ardend captialists must acknowledge the inherent irrationality and oppression of the "double standard" regarding homosexual relationships. So the fact that you don't even pay lip service to the ostensibly "capitalist" notion of individual rights makes me wonder exactly what your politics are.

Tell me, should black people have "dealt with" segregation? Should women have "just dealt" with not being allowed to vote?

I guess it&#39;s fairly obvious that you&#39;ve never been the victim of institutionalized discrimination... <_<


It sounds like she just needs to give up religion.

Unfortunately, it&#39;s unlikely that that would solve anything. It would appear that the majority of her problems emerged from other people&#39;s religious beliefs.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

That really sucked cos it makes you think about all the stuff that you might be excluded from because you are gay.

Its a really good piece though. Its wierd that she doesnt sound angry about all the shit she&#39;s been through.

[Zero]

Imagine.

[ummProfessional]

Thats the point. Why should gay people have to deal with being shunned from friendship, family and the society they grew up in?

personally i agree with you, but it&#39;s just how it is, homosexuality is seen as a bad thing, and i doubt it&#39;s going to change , sorry thats how it is..


And millions of people live in poverty, they should just deal with it?
Thousands of people die every day because they cant afford to feed themselves, they should just deal with it too?

No.

These are called injustices. We aim to rectify these. At least, most normal people do

ohh i take it you also think it&#39;s an injustice for a frog to get eaten by a snake, and we should stop it, and also it&#39;s wrong how zebras get killed by lions or tigers or something, and also since your communist you must also beleive that it&#39;s not fair that models have to be beautiful people, it&#39;s an injustice they should also be ugly people, and i take it&#39;s an injustice for a skilled football player to get paid more than one who doesn&#39;t have his skills huh? dude why do you guys try to change whats natural, why do you try to change something thats unchangeble, there are always going to be unfortunate and fortunate people , this is the same for everything, hence why life is not fair, i would think by now you would know that life is not a fair game learn it and thats why i say deal with it..and by the way poor people in this country bring it upon themselves sorry nobody can tell me it was because they were born into poverty...because school is free here



I think that&#39;s the general idea, yes.

oooooook Mother Theresa :unsure:


What is that even supposed to mean? She was a lesbian...therefore...what? She "deserves" to be stimatized and discriminated against?

she is lesbian therefore she will have to deal with the things that come with being a homosexual, sorry thats just how it is..


Why should anyone have to "deal" with injustice? More importantly, why on earth would you object to them highlighting that injustice and demanding equality&#33;?

dude homosexuality shouldn&#39;t be compared to say racism or something, because homosexuality is seen as a taboo kind of thing, as a moral thing, kind of like insest, so its not an injustice, it&#39;s just how it is, some will accept your way of life others wont, live with it god damn it&#33;&#33; not everyone has to like your flamboyant homo life FUCK&#33;

and what are you saying about "highlighting that injustice and demanding equality"..?huh? i feel indifferent towards homosexualism, if you are a homosexual fine you have the right to do with your life whatever the hell you want, but you will have to deal with the social problems that come with it sorry, it&#39;s not going to change, of course if i call you FAGGOT&#33;&#33; COCKSUCKER&#33;&#33;which are defenitaly derogatory and offensive words, but i doubt anyone says that to homsexuals in the streets, as times passes homosexualism has becomed more accepted in society, and i also believe homosexuals have the right to adopt children and marry although personally i am opposed to it, but under the law they have the right to do so...i shouldn&#39;t put my moral codes in front of the human rights and liberites, but that&#39;s just me..

[Zero]

So does that mean that you would side with the plantation owners in the deep south because "Thats the way it is, and if Black people don&#39;t like it, thats too bad for them."

Yes it can be compared to racism. Some people are just as ignorant of peoples natural feelings as some are with peoples race... also, what does it matter if its "taboo" or "moral", its simple oppression that has origionated from religious zealots who see Gays as their only roadblock into their fictional kingdom of bullshit.

Just as the needless oppression of Blacks in the USA was partially overcome, we need to get over this stupid obession with sexual orientation.

[ummProfessional]

dude racism is not the same as social acceptance....you are not going to go to concentration camps, and your not going into gas chambers for being gay ok..plus it&#39;s something that has no limits to race or gender, therefore it&#39;s just a way of life which for the most part it&#39;s not accepted by society , therefore unfortunately for you your going to have to live with it...if i have sex with animals and people laugh at me and look at me in a weird way because it&#39;s obviously looked upon as a nasty thing, will that be injustice as well? :blink: :rolleyes: im doing something which is obviously not a normal thing, therefore im going to have to accept to live with the consequences of my way of life.......but i hope you do see my position, i believe you have the right to do whatever the fuck you want, if what turns you on is watching your wife getting nailed by another dude, than go ahead, but whether people are going to talk about your way of life about how stupid or ridiculous that is, than sorry your going to have to live with how the majority of society thinks about your way of life....of course if you get beaten up or called derogatory names or something like that than surely thats not a cool thing and it should be punished, just like if your denied a job or something because of your way of life...but this girl is *****ing about loosing friends or what not, thats why im saying well your just going to have to live witht hat and find people who accept you simple as that..

[adenoid hynkel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 06:32 PM

Thats the point. Why should gay people have to deal with being shunned from friendship, family and the society they grew up in?

personally i agree with you, but it&#39;s just how it is, homosexuality is seen as a bad thing, and i doubt it&#39;s going to change , sorry thats how it is..


And millions of people live in poverty, they should just deal with it?
Thousands of people die every day because they cant afford to feed themselves, they should just deal with it too?

No.

These are called injustices. We aim to rectify these. At least, most normal people do

ohh i take it you also think it&#39;s an injustice for a frog to get eaten by a snake, and we should stop it, and also it&#39;s wrong how zebras get killed by lions or tigers or something, and also since your communist you must also beleive that it&#39;s not fair that models have to be beautiful people, it&#39;s an injustice they should also be ugly people, and i take it&#39;s an injustice for a skilled football player to get paid more than one who doesn&#39;t have his skills huh? dude why do you guys try to change whats natural, why do you try to change something thats unchangeble, there are always going to be unfortunate and fortunate people , this is the same for everything, hence why life is not fair, i would think by now you would know that life is not a fair game learn it and thats why i say deal with it..and by the way poor people in this country bring it upon themselves sorry nobody can tell me it was because they were born into poverty...because school is free here



I think that&#39;s the general idea, yes.

oooooook Mother Theresa :unsure:


What is that even supposed to mean? She was a lesbian...therefore...what? She "deserves" to be stimatized and discriminated against?

she is lesbian therefore she will have to deal with the things that come with being a homosexual, sorry thats just how it is..


Why should anyone have to "deal" with injustice? More importantly, why on earth would you object to them highlighting that injustice and demanding equality&#33;?

dude homosexuality shouldn&#39;t be compared to say racism or something, because homosexuality is seen as a taboo kind of thing, as a moral thing, kind of like insest, so its not an injustice, it&#39;s just how it is, some will accept your way of life others wont, live with it god damn it&#33;&#33; not everyone has to like your flamboyant homo life FUCK&#33;

and what are you saying about "highlighting that injustice and demanding equality"..?huh? i feel indifferent towards homosexualism, if you are a homosexual fine you have the right to do with your life whatever the hell you want, but you will have to deal with the social problems that come with it sorry, it&#39;s not going to change, of course if i call you FAGGOT&#33;&#33; COCKSUCKER&#33;&#33;which are defenitaly derogatory and offensive words, but i doubt anyone says that to homsexuals in the streets, as times passes homosexualism has becomed more accepted in society, and i also believe homosexuals have the right to adopt children and marry although personally i am opposed to it, but under the law they have the right to do so...i shouldn&#39;t put my moral codes in front of the human rights and liberites, but that&#39;s just me..
No, personally I do not think that "it&#39;s an injustice for a skilled football player to get paid more than one who doesn&#39;t have his skills". I am one of the people who believe that everybody should have equal opportunities, NOT NECESSARILY EQUAL OUTCOMES. If ,for example, Einstein is paid better or is more famous than John, because he is a more skillful scientist than John, that&#39;s fine by me. John cannot say that he was not treated equal. He was given equal oppurtinities to Einstein, he wasn&#39;t skillful enough to use them. But if John is a genius and he is ignored because he is gay, this is injustice.

YOU said that you agree that gay people should not have to deal with being shunned from friendship, family and the society they grew up in? If you really believe that, why don&#39;t you support those people who try to stop this injustice?

You say that "homosexuality is seen as a bad thing, and i doubt it&#39;s going to change , sorry thats how it is..". What makes you think that it is not going to change? Homophobia has been seriously reduced the last 100 years. What makes you think that it is imposssible to reduce it even more?

You ask "why do you guys try to change whats natural"? Common sense says that there are many natural things. Some of them are good( bravery, happiness,peace etc.) , some of them are bad( cowardness, fear, war etc.) . If something natural is good, you try to increase it. If something natural is bad you try to reduce it, or even eliminate it, if this is possible. For example fear is a natural feeling; it always existed and it will always exist. But we realise that it is a NEGATIVE feeling, and that&#39;s why we try to overcome our fears and be brave. War is natural; There have always been wars. But we realise that war is a NEGATIVE aspect of life, and we try to have as few wars as possible. In the exact same way we believe that homophobia is something NEGATIVE, and we try reduce it. As I said the EXPERIENCE of the last 100 years, PROVES that WE CAN REDUCE IT. If you agree that "gay people should not have to deal with being shunned from friendship, family and the society they grew up in", why don&#39;t you support our cause?

[Zero]

Originally posted by "ummProfessional"+--> ("ummProfessional")dude racism is not the same as social acceptance....you are not going to go to concentration camps, and your not going into gas chambers for being gay ok..[/b]
Just because something isn&#39;t happening now does not mean that it won&#39;t ever happen. If tensions escallate, and people find it "ok" to vandalise peoples homes and terrorise children based on sexual preferance, who knows what will happen.


Originally posted by "ummProfessional"+--> ("ummProfessional")plus it&#39;s something that has no limits to race or gender, therefore it&#39;s just a way of life which for the most part it&#39;s not accepted by society , therefore unfortunately for you your going to have to live with it...[/b]
What difference is it to hate someone because they are Black, or hating someone because they are gay? Also, being Black was stigmatised in the south. Would you say that being Black was "not accepted by society, therefore unfortunately for you your going to have to live with it..."

("ummProfessional")if i have sex with animals and people laugh at me and look at me in a weird way because it&#39;s obviously looked upon as a nasty thing, will that be injustice as well? im doing something which is obviously not a normal thing, therefore im going to have to accept to live with the consequences of my way of life.......[/b][/quote]
I hardly see how thats a comparison. We have two sentient, concious beings consenting in sexual acts, and being discriminated against socially. Your posing that having non-consentual sex between a sentient, concious being and a sentient, non-concious being have any similarities?


"ummProfessional"@
but i hope you do see my position, i believe you have the right to do whatever the fuck you want, if what turns you on is watching your wife getting nailed by another dude, than go ahead, but whether people are going to talk about your way of life about how stupid or ridiculous that is, than sorry your going to have to live with how the majority of society thinks about your way of life....
Which is exactly the reason not to live with this discrimination, and change the system&#33; Why be apathetic to your own cause?


"ummProfessional"
of course if you get beaten up or called derogatory names or something like that than surely thats not a cool thing and it should be punished, just like if your denied a job or something because of your way of life...but this girl is *****ing about loosing friends or what not, thats why im saying well your just going to have to live witht hat and find people who accept you simple as that..
Umm, look again buddy.


I am the Girl Scout with a vest full of badges that after years of joyful service was banished from my Troop at the mere suggestion of what I might be.

I was the woman who had to give up her career path and aspirations in College and find new ones because "Don&#39;t Ask, Don&#39;t Tell" still means I can lose it all I had worked for because of what I am.

I am the woman who when my partner was near death in the hospital could not visit her for days because "I wasn&#39;t family".

I am the woman who had her Aunt call her a "Dirty Lesbo *****" on the day I took custody of my daughters.

I am the woman who keeps the cleaning supplies ready by the garage door for the next time someone eggs my house and spray paints "Fucking Lesbian Whore" on my property.

I am the woman who nearly lost her career when one of the partners in my firm discovered what I was.

I am the woman who became a Girl Scout Troop leader for my daughters troop only to be nearly physically assaulted by some of the parents who I thought of as my friends when it was found out that my girls had two mothers.

One question, did you even read my post?

[ummProfessional]

my stance on the issue is the same, personally most humans will be indifferent towards homosexualism meaning we are not really going to accept it as a "normal" thing, to tell you the truth to me homosexualism is not a normal thing, but i think the law should protect you like iv said over and over again against such things like she said about loosing her job or what not...


Just because something isn&#39;t happening now does not mean that it won&#39;t ever happen. If tensions escallate, and people find it "ok" to vandalise peoples homes and terrorise children based on sexual preferance, who knows what will happen.

dude homosexualism has been around since the first humans probably, and i still have not herd of the "gay genocide" :lol:



What difference is it to hate someone because they are Black, or hating someone because they are gay? Also, being Black was stigmatised in the south. Would you say that being Black was "not accepted by society, therefore unfortunately for you your going to have to live with it..."

ok fine thats true, but :


I hardly see how thats a comparison. We have two sentient, concious beings consenting in sexual acts, and being discriminated against socially. Your posing that having non-consentual sex between a sentient, concious being and a sentient, non-concious being have any similarities?

fine if that doesn&#39;t work for you for whatever reason , how about insest..you think it&#39;s a perfectly normal thing that you shouldn&#39;t have to suffer injustices for it? well technically the position that i take and that you obviously take is NO you shouldn&#39;t, because like iv said before i think you should be able to do with your private life whatever the fuck you want, but c&#39;mon you think your going to be socially accepted :rolleyes: insest is not normal as well..



Which is exactly the reason not to live with this discrimination, and change the system&#33; Why be apathetic to your own cause?

you don&#39;t understand do you? people will still look at you weird people will still laugh at you and talk about how nasty or morally wrong it is the things your doing, but that is something you have to live with when choosing a non-conformative not normal life style&#33;&#33;&#33; now like i said before over and over again god dammit , if your thrown out of your job because of that then yes it sure should not be allowed....whether people talk about you or not they also have the right to do so FUCK&#33;&#33;&#33; damn commies



One question, did you even read my post?

one question, who cares? it was too freaking long and boring, and once you finish the first sentance you already know what the damn thing is about..

[RevMARKSman]

to me homosexualism is not a normal thing

There have been scientific studies that show animals have gay relationships too.
http://myweb.lsbu.ac.uk/stafflag/zoology.html


i still have not herd of the "gay genocide"

Have you ever heard of this guy called "Hitler"? He killed gays for being gay.


one question, who cares? it was too freaking long and boring, and once you finish the first sentance you already know what the damn thing is about..

Maybe he has FACTS to back up his opinions, and they aren&#39;t in the first sentence of the post...ever thought of that?

[LSD]

dude homosexuality shouldn&#39;t be compared to say racism or something, because homosexuality is seen as a taboo kind of thing, as a moral thing, kind of like insest, so its not an injustice, it&#39;s just how it is

And "how it is" can&#39;t be unjust? What kind of perverted logic is that?

Slavery was "how it was" for most of the past 500 years; that doesn&#39;t mean that it wasn&#39;t wrong.


and i also believe homosexuals have the right to adopt children and marry although personally i am opposed to it

"Although personally you&#39;e opposed" to what?

Gay people&#33;? :o


to tell you the truth to me homosexualism is not a normal thing

And that position is based on what evidence?

Considering that homosexual attraction has been found among many non-human animals and considering that, in your own words, homosexuality has been around "since the first humans" ...how much more "normal" can you get?

Homosexuality, after all, is far more basic to humanity than, say, capitalism. And yet somehow you consider property rights and the "free market" to be "normal"; whereas a regular loving homosexual couple is "wrong".

There&#39;s a word for that kind of thinking: bigotry. :angry:


you don&#39;t understand do you? people will still look at you weird people will still laugh at you and talk about how nasty or morally wrong it is the things your doing, but that is something you have to live with when choosing a non-conformative not normal life style&#33;&#33;&#33;

People don&#39;t "choose" to be gay any more than they "choose" to be black; and for most of American history, people were "looked at weired and laughed at" for being black.

Was that "OK"? Was that "something they should have lived with"?

Frankly, I think that it&#39;s you who don&#39;t "understand" the relevent issues here. This isn&#39;t a matter of "non-conforming" or "life style choices". This is a fundamental matter of basic human rights and societal prejeduce.

And by your logic, any hatred or discrimination is acceptable so long as it is based on "moral" principles. That means that southern racism and Islamic sexism are "just fine" because they come out of "prinicpled" reasoning.

Hell, by your reasoning any social progress shouldn&#39;t be fought for as "nothing changes" and you should "just live with" prejeduce.

I guess that women shouldn&#39;t have gotten the vote back in the 20s and 30s since most men at the time considered it "nasty" and "morally wrong". I guess that the slaves shouldn&#39;t have been freed.

Honestly, UP, we&#39;ve had some odd cappies on this board in the past, but I think you take the cake on moronic "defenses" bigotry. I mean, mo0st of our long-standing restricted members are of the libertarian bent, so at least they attempt rationality.

You don&#39;t even seem capable of feigning logic&#33; :lol:

[JimmyC]

LSD,

One of the proofs that you cannot compare prejudice against sexual orientation with variuos racisims throughout history is that there have been in history many examples of tolerance of race, religion, and even women&#39;s political views. Many rulers allowed opposing religious priests in their communiities to learn from them. Many communities allowed the views of many races.

Generally speaking, there has never been in history, until THIS past 20 years, societal acceptance of same sex couples. It is TOTALLY NEW in every way. Even Rome, where homosexuality was opened in semi-open ways had its shame.

You can&#39;t find a place for open acceptance of homosexuality until very recently.

You can&#39;t smugly sit there and blame anyone really.

I have no problem with New York supporting same sex marriage, but I don&#39;t believe that those against it are homophobes. The word to me implies being scared of homosesuals. One can be against homosexual marriage and still not be afraid of homosexuals.

Three years ago I was against such marriages. I&#39;ve changed my mind now. But I didn&#39;t become more or less homophobic by my change of view.

I think you&#39;re just shouting out a non-existant frustration on this issue, because history is on my side on this, and you will not find societies embracing homosexual marriage, as opposed to slavery, racism, and other prejudices which always had groups of people and full societies against the prejudices

[LSD]

One of the proofs that you cannot compare prejudice against sexual orientation with variuos racisims throughout history is that there have been in history many examples of tolerance of race, religion, and even women&#39;s political views.

Really? Name them.

"Until very recently", sexism was the universal standard. There simply has not been a major civilization in which women were granted equal status to men. Does this mean that sexism is "normal" or "accpetable"? Or does it merely speak to the oppressive nature of class-society.

Remember, we are not aiming for just one more unequal social hierarchy, we are fighting for the abolishment of class and all the reactionary regressive "values" that go along with it.

With very few exceptions all societies in human history have been oppressive in some way. With no exceptions, they have all been exploitive.

That doesn&#39;t mean that either is "tolerable" today. We should learn from history, but we should not be ruled by it. The reasons that gay people deserve basic rights have nothing to do with "ancient rome", but everything to do with the fundamental societal contract.

Society exists to bennefit its members. Period.


Generally speaking, there has never been in history, until THIS past 20 years, societal acceptance of same sex couples.

Nonsense.

In ancient Greece, "same sex couples" were treated with more respect than heterosexual ones. Women, after all, were barely considered "human" and were thought of as "good for fucking", but for little else.

Male-male couples were seen as a far more "austere" and "enlightened" choice and, indeed, those who could live in them exclusively were often admired.

The prejudices that a society embraces have very little to do with the "nature of man". They are rather entirely determined by the material conditions and prevailing class-interest at that point in time.


I have no problem with New York supporting same sex marriage, but I don&#39;t believe that those against it are homophobes. The word to me implies being scared of homosesuals. One can be against homosexual marriage and still not be afraid of homosexuals.

That&#39;s more a semantic problem than it is a political one.

The word "homophobia" is a badly constructed one and does seem to imply that "fear" is a factor. Perhaps "heterosexism" would be more to your liking; although the fundamental point is the same.

And that is that, like it or nor, if you do not support equal rights for homosexuals, you are a bigot.

And that word is anything but ambiguous. :angry:

[JimmyC]

LSD,

Your allusion to Ancient Greece doesn&#39;t cut the mustard. Not at all.

It&#39;s up to you, in fact, to list all of those socially accepting societies that embraced homosexuals in the past 2000 years, which you cannot.

I could, if I wanted to take the time, point out several of my examples.

But you go first, and leave out the one moment in history where the one society embraced SOME aspects of homosexuality.

Also, the issue of "rights" in the U.S. is taken literally. Since you enjoy words so much. This bigotry issue doesn&#39;t work in the issue of "rights", because we have listed in America those rights which will be enforced, and sexual orientation for marriage has only been given this view in some states in the U.S. and a few countries in Europe.

But watch out my commie friend. If we go by your compass, Massachusetts is less of a bigotted place than the People&#39;s Repubilc of China was in commie times, or the USSR, or Vietnam, or currently many other places on the planet.

And, be careful about this denying rights thing. As a commie, you would deny the right of someone to own private property, making you a bigot in opposing people&#39;s right to enjoy the benefits of life.

I suppose when you use the word "rights", it depends on what rights each of us believes are fundamental.

[Zero]

Originally posted by "JimmyC"
It&#39;s up to you, in fact, to list all of those socially accepting societies that embraced homosexuals in the past 2000 years, which you cannot.
How is it up to him? Your the one who brought up the whole "there have been in history many examples of tolerance of race, religion, and even women&#39;s political views."

[LSD]

It&#39;s up to you, in fact, to list all of those socially accepting societies that embraced homosexuals in the past 2000 years

No it isn&#39;t.

You&#39;re the one who came up with this ludicrous "history" theory of rights and I have made it quite clear that I do not accept it as legitimate.

And, neither in fact, would any of your "conservative" heroes. Even the "fathers" of your "constitution" would laugh at the notion that to be justified, rights must have repeated historical precedent.

After all, the one historical constant in societal organization has been elite rule of one sort or another. Whether kings, emperors, or aristocrats; "until very recently", participation in the political process was not taken as a fundamental right.

That doesn&#39;t have any bearing on the question of modern governance. Democracy is still infinitely superior to tyranny, even if your "history" model would suggest otherwise.


I could, if I wanted to take the time, point out several of my examples.


Then do so&#33;

I am still waiting for one single example of an historically significant society which valued women equally to men.

Since it&#39;s you who&#39;s promoting this "rights come out of history" theory, the onus is on you to back it up with relevent examples.

So far, I&#39;m the only one to even attempt to provide a relevent historical example and your only response was to call it an aberation and demand that I "leave it out" in the future&#33; :lol:


Also, the issue of "rights" in the U.S. is taken literally. Since you enjoy words so much. This bigotry issue doesn&#39;t work in the issue of "rights", because we have listed in America those rights which will be enforced

Firstly, I&#39;m not American, so what your government has "listed" is really of no concern to me.

And secondly, I really couldn&#39;t care less what a bunch of aristocratic feudalistst thought "appropriate" to protect. Your constitution is 250 years old now, and is about as relevent to modern society as the Magna fucking Carta.

If you want to defend the institutional discrimination of homosexuals, you&#39;re going to have to argue it from a rational objective perspective and leave the appeals to authority at home.

This is a revolutioanry leftist forum, buddy, we don&#39;t exactly "respect" bourgeois state documents&#33; :D


And, be careful about this denying rights thing. As a commie, you would deny the right of someone to own private property

That&#39;s because the "right" to private property nescessarily effects others.

That is, your "ownership" of a resource prevents others from utilizing said resource and can, in certain situations, lead to their suffering and/or death.

It should also be noted here that communism does not oppose the use of personal property, merely the instition of privately owned proprty and the "principle" of property as an externalistic "right", above and beyond basic human societal rights.

None of which has anything to do with individual rights.

Basic fundamental negative rights are by their nature limited to the people they describe. So a right to gay marriage, for instance, only affects those who wish to enter into a gay marriage.

And yet somehow you still insist that this right is not legitimate... :unsure:

[JimmyC]

He can&#39;t do it&#33; You can&#39;t do it&#33;

I&#39;m not trying to have a prolonged discussion about obvious things. I&#39;m not writing about proving that the sun rises in the East either.

So far only a few places on the planet have given legislative or judicial authority for homosexuals to marry. I&#39;m proud to say that some of them are in the U.S., based on many Constitutional reasons.

We triumph once more, over the tiny minded jurisdictions that do not allow such marriages.

This is not something that is a cappie v. commie issue.

It&#39;s a RECENT civil rights issue.

And we are the best at such issues.

[LSD]

He can&#39;t do it&#33; You can&#39;t do it&#33;

um...I can&#39;t do what?

Point to an historical civilization in which gay people had equal rights to straight ones (other than the one which you demanded I "leave out")? Well ...no. But then I also can&#39;t point to one in which women had equal rights or workers had equal rights.

That has absolutely no bearing on my perception of fundamental liberties.

For some reason, which you have yet to explain, your entire paradigm of rights is dependent on historical precedent. This paradigm nescessarily leads to a socially regressive concept of liberties.

That is, if you were living in the 1860s you could, rightfully, point out that there is not one historically significant example of racial harmony ...and therefore slavery is "right".

Personally, I find that conclusion despicable, but I&#39;m not the one basing my entire worldview on one massive argumentum ad antiquitatem.


So far only a few places on the planet have given legislative or judicial authority for homosexuals to marry. I&#39;m proud to say that some of them are in the U.S.

As far as I understand it, the only jurisdiction in the US where gay marriage is legal is the State of Massachusists; a tiny New England state with probably less than 1% of the total American population.

Meanwhile, your federal congress is considering ways to constitutionaly ban free access to marriage and several of your states have already outlawed it via referendum.

Hardly what I would call "American exceptionalism"&#33; :lol:

Especially not when right to your north, Canada has already legalized gay marriage across the entire country. As has Belgium, Holland, and Spain; and the South African supreme court has ordered that country&#39;s parliament to pass similar legislation.

Yeah, that&#39;s right, your country is now offically less progressive than South Africa.

So much for your "triumph"....

[JimmyC]

You don&#39;t know much about America, but it&#39;s not your fault. Our federal system was designed in 1787. To insure that the federal government did not have too much power, its powers were defined in a list (Art. I, Section 8) If its not on the list, the States have those powers.

First of all, the attempt to amend the Constitution will fail, but keep on believing it will pass if it makes you feel better.

In Canada, I don&#39;t know how your federalism works, but apparently its easier for your country as a whole to tell its provices what to do. Or maybe your marriage certificates say CANADIAN on them.

Ours say California, Nevada, New Mexico, etc. And the federal government cannot tell the state what to do with the certificates, UNLESS, the Supreme Court rules that the marriage is a fundamental implied right.

In 2002, it ruled that homosexual conduct was protected by the constitution as a liberty right, (this is a double edged sword to you because this same liberty right gives someone the right to work and get paid, to hire people to do legal things, and to generally make a legal living. Oh well, you win some, you lose some haha.)

This is a far more complicated issue because so many states are on the edge of allowing homosexual marriage, including California, which is 15% of our population.

Your South Africa allusion is for shit, because it went from being right wing to non-right wing literally overnight, so your comparrison to us in the U.S. is for shit.

In fact, I believe that in the U.S. we are very close to a break through on this issue and it will soon be legal all over the place. But, barring a Supreme Court decision, each state will have to make that decision itself.

Now, if you want to end federalism in the U.S., and have our national Congress have the authority for EVERYTHING, we just get rid of the states, and instand U.S. Marriage License for hetero and homosexuals.

But that would result in making us far more powerful than YOU would probably want.

Your full of double edge swords tonight, LSD&#33;

[overlord]

Well, I just got two warning points from the same thread&#33; :o Allegedly I&#39;m a "male chauvanist". Guess that must be a crime around these &#39;libertarians&#39; :rolleyes: . Well, I am not a chauvanist, I am a realist. Reality is something lacking in the minds of the people here. I guess you are not true libertarians at all since being a chauvanist is illegal. I guess under your regime we will have speech police going around shooting chauvanists. :rolleyes: Oh well, If you do you&#39;ll just get shot yourself by your own big governemnt eventually, so no big loss. :lol:

And I got a warning point for being homophobic earlier by Hedgehog, even though i&#39;m not. But let&#39;s say I was, is it better to shoot or place me in some bastard re-education centre than for me not to call someone a &#39;fag&#39;? If so that&#39;s REALLY stupid. You aren&#39;t livertarians at all. You are STALINISTS&#33; Stalin himself got poisoned by Beria so he got what he deserved. You all will too.

I know some of you will grow up and lose your idiotic obsessions since you&#39;re 90% teenagers. For the rest of you retards, move to a communist country, where they deal with gay people REALLY well. :lol:

[red team]

I guess you are not true libertarians at all since being a chauvanist is illegal.

So if I should insult my boss to his face at work by calling him a lazy, stupid parasite can I still be expected to be employed?

Same with you. If you insult somebody, you&#39;ll be denied participation in society or forced to perform compensational work.


I guess under your regime we will have speech police going around shooting chauvanists. rolleyes.gif Oh well, If you do you&#39;ll just get shot yourself by your own big governemnt eventually, so no big loss. :lol:

Not exactly. The degree of punishment will fit the infraction by the individual.

But for someone who is favor of sweatshops and deniability of responsibility for industrial accidents caused by your horrendous working conditions and to subject children to this shit the degree of punishment should be harsher.

Actually no amount of punishment can make up for that since available technology can make this suffering all unnecessary. That is why I advocate turning cappies into computer-controlled zombies or live organ farms and believe me the technology is in hand to do exactly that.

[Zero]

Ohh shit LSD is in the house&#33; :D

[Kuro Morfos]

She should leave the US, in other countries homosexuality is not considered such a terrible thing. In any other Democracy, her lifestyle would be considered acceptable. America is a bigoted hellhole.

[Zero]

Kuro, as much as running away sounds good for the oppressed... Well... We all know what can happen with Fascism in one country.

Hats off to Hitler everybody&#33; Maybe we can learn from our mistakes&#33;


...Maybe.

[chimx]

ohh i take it you also think it&#39;s an injustice for a frog to get eaten by a snake, and we should stop it, and also it&#39;s wrong how zebras get killed by lions or tigers or something, and also since your communist you must also beleive that it&#39;s not fair that models have to be beautiful people, it&#39;s an injustice they should also be ugly people, and i take it&#39;s an injustice for a skilled football player to get paid more than one who doesn&#39;t have his skills huh? dude why do you guys try to change whats natural, why do you try to change something thats unchangeble, there are always going to be unfortunate and fortunate people , this is the same for everything, hence why life is not fair, i would think by now you would know that life is not a fair game learn it and thats why i say deal with it..and by the way poor people in this country bring it upon themselves sorry nobody can tell me it was because they were born into poverty...because school is free here

some frogs defend themselves with deadly poisons to kill any potential predators. what strikes me as more natural as the struggle for survival. i don&#39;t know why you keep insisting on looking at it in moral terms.



LSD: i&#39;m going to have to agree with JimmyC on many of his points. The marriage amendment is designed to fail, and to compare our country&#39;s political traditions to south africa is asinine as it has an extremely progressive constitution as far as liberal democracys go, no doubt due to how recent its political shift has occured.

in fact, i think South Africa&#39;s constitution was the first world-wide to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation.

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 07:46 AM
Can&#39;t wait to see what &#39;AutumnWindIsARaider&#39; has to say about this.:)
I expect it to range anywhere between "OMG GO BACK TO RUSSIAZZ&#33;kri;óu23o 1&#092;=tqe&#092;tthj" and "LOLZ FAGG00000RRRRTTZZZZ". :rolleyes: As a matter of fact, that&#39;s what we&#39;re already hearing from most self-declared libertarians here. So much for your free-market utopia, eh? No initiation of coercion, unless it is against the "faggots"?

And to the people who go all "Oh nobody actually did anything to her", read the first post again, dickheads.

[Zero]

Originally posted by "Matthijs"
&#33;kri;óu23o 1&#092;=tqe&#092;tthj

Is that the part where he smashes his head onto his keyboard?

[ummProfessional]

want to clear some things here, yes i do believe homosexuality is not a normal thing, it is a mental disorder in my opinion, this doesn&#39;t mean that the person is mentally retarded or crazy or anything, it just means that mentally the person&#39;s sexual behavior is a disorder to the rule....most animals have male and female species, meaning that is how it is supposed to be, you have a penis and a female has a vagina, obviously you come into this world with the function to have sex with a female....those examples of animals you guys say is bullshit, its what? like 20 animals that show homosexual behaviors? and sure other animals can have this sexual orientation disorder as well, after all we are animals as well.....the reality is there is no purpouse to this life, what is the point of being in the world? what is our purpouse? the only obvious thing is procreation, and live in harmony with nature, helping in the food cycle and so on...since we have brains we can think about our purpouse, and we can really choose many things...but for the most part all animals just do few things, procreate, eat, and do their usual jobs which are beneficial or whatever to keep the harmony of this planet....there are no animals which are strictly homosexual if not then how would they procreate? unless they were asexuals, but we aren&#39;t..and we are designed to not be asexual or homosexual, we are supposed to be heterosexual, and if your homosexual then obviously it is a mental thing....

with that said, im not saying there is anything wrong with it, therefore homosexual discrimination is wrong, that would be getting fired from a job for being gay, getting called names or being harrassed, and so on obviously im against all this because if you are gay you really have no choice it&#39;s how your sexual preference is, your still just another human being, but about loosing friends, about being looked in wierd ways, about being laughed at or whatever, that , you have to put up because your homosexual sorry, and it&#39;s not about to change, people are always going to feel wierd about homosexualism.....

LSD:

QUOTE
and i also believe homosexuals have the right to adopt children and marry although personally i am opposed to it



"Although personally you&#39;e opposed" to what?

Gay people&#33;?

dude stop putting words on my mouth :angry: wtf,CAN&#39;T YOU READ?? when did i say im opposed to gay people? are you retarded or your just being a dumbass? i say that personally meaning my preference is that no kid grows up with gay parents, that doesn&#39;t mean im opposed to gay people, in fact i have a gay uncle &#33; what im saying is that that is not the normal environment a child should grow up on, the kid will grow up under so much hardships its not even funny, he will be ridiculized in school, and plus 2 guys is not the same as a mother, c&#39;mon, no matter how much love, this is a disfunctional family.....


There&#39;s a word for that kind of thinking: bigotry

again, what the fuck is wrong with you dude? stop it, seriously, your being an idiot, :unsure: tell me how im being a biggot? your just labeling me and putting words on my mouth

[Free Left]

yes i do believe homosexuality is not a normal thing, it is a mental disorder in my opinion, this doesn&#39;t mean that the person is mentally retarded or crazy or anything, it just means that mentally the person&#39;s sexual behavior is a disorder to the rule

Disorder to the rule? 10% of all people are homosexual&#33; That&#39;s a pretty big disoder. I think its just human nature, and everyone has had homosexual experiences just some are fully commited to it.

[black magick hustla]

hey guys

being black is weird i am not personally opposed to it however people should live in harmony with nature and black people do not live in harmony with nature

i think being black is a mental disorder but they cannot change it so we shouldnt harrass them or fire them for being black

sorry people will never see blackness as something normal if you are black you need tp resist it because that shit wont change

http://www.chsofnj.org/images/African%20American%20boy.jpg

look this little child he has the sexual disorder of blackness

[KC]

:lol:

[LSD]

want to clear some things here, yes i do believe homosexuality is not a normal thing, it is a mental disorder in my opinion

A mental disorder is, by definition, a conditions which harms the individual who has it. Since homosexuality is not inherently deleterious, it cannot be labeled as a mental disorder.

You could, I suppose, say that it is a mental condition, but then you could say the same for heterosexuality. Indeed, every element of human behaviour ultimately comes down to a mental condition of one sort or another, and that has absolutely no bearing on societal standing.

Something like 10% of all people are homosexual. That&#39;s a far greater percentage than are, say, Jewish. But I would be willing to bet that you are far less tolerant of antisemitism than you are of homophobia.

Tell me, since Jews are "different", do you find mocking them or laughing at them "acceptable"? Should Jews just "deal" with losing friends or facing discrimination? Aren&#39;t people "always going to feel wiered" about Jews? <_<


the reality is there is no purpouse to this life, what is the point of being in the world? what is our purpouse? the only obvious thing is procreation

So what?

That has absolutely no bearing on whether homosexuals are entitled to the same rights and societal protections and heterosexuals.


but about loosing friends, about being looked in wierd ways, about being laughed at or whatever, that , you have to put up because your homosexual sorry, and it&#39;s not about to change, people are always going to feel wierd about homosexualism.....

And you know this ...how?

500 years ago it would not have been out of line to say that people will "always" be sexist. After all, sexism had been around "forever" and women were, as far as most men (and even a good deal of women) thought, "naturally" inferior.

Today, though, most people think that sexism is dying if not already dead. And no one in the first world is short-sighted enough to claim that it will "last forever".

Even the conservative lunatucs calling for a "return" to "traditional values" acknowledge that we are rapidly moving towards an equalization of the sexes.

There is no reason why the same cannot one day be true for sexual orientation.


i say that personally meaning my preference is that no kid grows up with gay parents, that doesn&#39;t mean im opposed to gay people, in fact i have a gay uncle &#33; what im saying is that that is not the normal environment a child should grow up on

And what is this "normal environment"?

For most of human history, children were raised by a community of women, with their fathers contributing very little to their actual development.

It&#39;s only in the past few centuries, that a "two parent" family structure has become the "norm". And all evidence suggests that this system is no more "normal" and no more effective than any other.

Study after study show that so long as a child is properly cared for, it really doesn&#39;t matter what sex the caregiver is or how many caregivers there are.

Children raised by homosexual couples are just as likely to do well as those raised by heterosexual ones and every piece of reliable evidence so far has shown that there is no correlation between "traditional families" and child development.


again, what the fuck is wrong with you dude? stop it, seriously, your being an idiot, tell me how im being a biggot?

You have expressed a "strong partiality" towards your own group (heterosexuals) and intolerance to those who differ (homosexuals).

That is the definition of a bigot.

Dictionary.com: Bigot (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Bigot)

[RevMARKSman]

what im saying is that that is not the normal environment a child should grow up on, the kid will grow up under so much hardships its not even funny, he will be ridiculized in school, and plus 2 guys is not the same as a mother, c&#39;mon, no matter how much love, this is a disfunctional family.....

Really? So one parent must have certain anatomy for the family to not be "disfunctional [sic]"? That sounds pretty fucked up to me. Take a look at Marmot&#39;s post.

[JimmyC]

ummProfessional,
Oh my. This is embarrassing, but I find myself having to agree with LSD.

It is a dangerous and harmful thing to use mental health in the manner which you speak.

Obviously homosexuality is the "minority" conduct between the sexes. Nature deals in LARGE NUMBERS, and the largest of us are hetro, and continue to populate the planet, as nature intended.

Now, I&#39;ll write about something that has been written here before, so you do not take the path the commies have taken.

As you will recall, during the Cultural Revolution, the PRC treated "Counter Revolutionaries" as those with mental defects. The Catholic Church did the same during medieval times to those who did not accept the Vatican Announcements, and the Soviets went one further, declaring anyone who didn&#39;t accept Marxism-Leninism as mentally defective, and in need of treatment. So much so that when the USSR collapsed, the mental health program of the Soviet Union and East Germany was not accepted by the Western powers. Thousands of doctors of psychiatry found their work and practice totally useless, because they had subscribed drugs to those with capitalist tendencies.

You will every now and then run into people at this site who call you insane for supporting free enterprise.

Simply put, you are falling into the absurd "reasoning" of the idiots of the world, namely any Marxist or Leninist who believes that socialism is so "obvious", that to fight it is sign of mental defect.

ummProfessional:

Let this way of thinking be reserved for the idiots and not by the "Good Guys", who stand for truth, justice, and the American way of intelligent and reasoned medicine, practiced and protocalled by doctors.

Consider rethinking your views on men and women who are homosexual. Fall back instead on the standard line of why women are lesbians..."Because they haven&#39;t been to bed with me, yet."


(LSD and MonicaTTmed: Hey, for one brief moment, we&#39;re all on the same page and I&#39;m SURE you ratify my position. Yours, Jimmy)

[ummProfessional]

i still stand strong behind what i said, even you yourself said it Jimmy, homosexuality is the minority "conduct" between the sexes, meaning it&#39;s not the norm, its not the normal mental sexual orientation conduct the majority of humans have, therefore it defenitaly is a mental disorder, even LSD himself said it, call it what you want to call it mental disorder or condition, the same, it&#39;s not the normal conduct of most humans therefore it&#39;s not normal and a disorder...although it is normal meaning that people will have it...don&#39;t misunderstand me here...

you can criticize me all you want but i have my proof called "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-TR)" , published by the American Psychiatric Association, which labels homosexuality as a mental disorder, which is what i was saying since it&#39;s not the normal way a human&#39;s sexual orientation is, therefore it&#39;s not normal, but it&#39;s normal because it happens to many people and like you guys said it&#39;s 10% of the population...you guys think im saying this is some sort of bad thing or something, not at all, im just saying it&#39;s a mental condition which is not the normal sexual orientation humans have thats all..


Disorder to the rule? 10% of all people are homosexual&#33; That&#39;s a pretty big disoder. I think its just human nature, and everyone has had homosexual experiences just some are fully commited to it.

ahhhh the IRONY, so it&#39;s HUMAN NATURE huh? wow funny cuz all of your comrades here disregard human nature as some sort of mystical force which doesn&#39;t exist.. :rolleyes:


For most of human history, children were raised by a community of women, with their fathers contributing very little to their actual development.

It&#39;s only in the past few centuries, that a "two parent" family structure has become the "norm". And all evidence suggests that this system is no more "normal" and no more effective than any other.

Study after study show that so long as a child is properly cared for, it really doesn&#39;t matter what sex the caregiver is or how many caregivers there are.

Children raised by homosexual couples are just as likely to do well as those raised by heterosexual ones and every piece of reliable evidence so far has shown that there is no correlation between "traditional families" and child development.


and what exactly is all this evidence, and proof and so on you speak off? :huh:

im just wondering what do you guys think of insest? or bestiality? do you guys consider these things as normal because they happen? i know it&#39;s normal because they happen meaning it&#39;s not a 1 in 6 billion people kind of thing, but it&#39;s surely not a normal conduct for any sane person...not saying homosexuals are insane lmao because homosexuality is just a disorder of the sexual orientation...but yeah i guess we can all one day come to accept insest and bestiality as normal human behaviors and not think of it as an abnormal way of life , they will have their rights too ;) just like the revolution will come one day lmao

[chimx]

perhaps you could explain to me the reason behind the physical biological differences between homosapien heterosexuals and homosexuals. in particular the enlarged hypothalamus nuclei (link (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=2085769))

as far as homosexuality in other animals, it is 31 and counting, not 20.

[JimmyC]

chimx reminded me of something (thanks):

Generally, all sexual labels are what the law technically calls malum prohibitum. Crimes like rape and murder and robbery are malum in se, because people KNOW they are doing a wrong thing as they do it.

But prohibitum is different: All sex crimes are that, because you don&#39;t KNOW screwing a 17 year old girl is bad, society just says it is. Beastiality, inscest, protitution, homosexuality (where it&#39;s still a crime, not in the U.S. by the way) multiple partners during the act, ALL of these things are prohibitum, wrongful because society has judged them so.

I&#39;m not saying you would make homosexuality criminal, ummProfesional, just remembered this and wanted to throw it out there.

[LSD]

i still stand strong behind what i said, even you yourself said it Jimmy, homosexuality is the minority "conduct" between the sexes, meaning it&#39;s not the norm

Well, what is the "norm"? More importantly, who cares?

Most people in the world aren&#39;t black either, does that make it "abnormal" to be African-America? Should discriminatory laws/social mores against them be "tolerated" because they&#39;re "only a minority"?

You see any argument that you could make for homosexuality not being "normal" could also be made for any minority group, be it racial, ethnic, cultural, etc...

Indeed, for a good deal of European colonial history, those precise arguments were made; namely, Europeans would readily insist that black were "less evolved" and "abnormal". That they were not "truly human" and would "never be integrated" with the "white man".

Well, they were wrong; and their "arguments" were exposed as the empty racist trash that they were.

Look, I know that this is confusing you for some reason, so I&#39;m going to try and put this as simply as possible: the fact that a biological condition does not encompass a majority of the world&#39;s population does not mean that it is not a valid identity, nor that it is somehow a "disorder".

Logically speaking, your argument simply makes no sense.

Not that that probably matters to you. At this point, I&#39;m getting the feeling that you&#39;re grasping for "rational" straws here and that your primary objection to homosexuality is that it&#39;s "icky" for you.

At the very least, though, you should be honest about your petty emotionalist motivations and admit that, like it or not, they fundamentally contradict any "liberal" or "democratic" instincts that you have.

Even your fellow cappies are abandoning you on this issue, UP. There&#39;s just no getting around it. You are wrong on this one and your position is nothing short of absolute bigotry.


even LSD himself said it, call it what you want to call it mental disorder or condition, the same

The difference between a "disorder" and a condition is that everything is a condition of one sort or another.

Heterosexuality is a condition. That doesn&#39;t make it "disordered". A mental disorder, again, is defined as something which causes distress to the individual. Not just something that isn&#39;t found in every single human being.

As homosexuality does not inherently cause distree, it cannot be classified as a disorder.


it&#39;s not the normal conduct of most humans therefore it&#39;s not normal and a disorder

Again, that&#39;s an entirely perverse way of approaching this issue. And one which can be used to justify all manners of discrimination.

Remember, Jews also constitute a distinct minority. Indeed, there are less Jews in the world than there are homosexuals. Does that make antisemitism "acceptable"? Does that make "mocking" or "laughing" at Jews "OK"? :o


you can criticize me all you want but i have my proof called "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-TR)" , published by the American Psychiatric Association, which labels homosexuality as a mental disorder


:blink:

The APA removed homosexuality from the DSM in 1973. The word "homosexuality" doesn&#39;t even appear in the DSM-IV&#33;

I have no idea where you&#39;re getting your "arguments" from, but it would appear that you need to do a lot more impartial research. Stop visiting Christian apologist sites and start reading the actual evidence&#33;

The reality is that the APA has, over the past few years, consistantly argued that there is absolutely no statistical or medical reason to restrict adoption to heterosexual couples. The APA is completely against you on this issue...so why you&#39;d bring it up is wholly beyond me. :unsure:


and what exactly is all this evidence, and proof and so on you speak off?


Too High A Price: The Case Against Restricting Gay Parenting (http://www.aclu.org/images/asset_upload_file953_24098.pdf)
Resolution on Sexual Orientation, Parents, and Children. (http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/policy/parentschildren.pdf)


im just wondering what do you guys think of insest?

Adult or child?

Obviously I have a problem with child sexual abuse, but if we&#39;re talking about two consenting adults who just happen to be related to one another, I have absolutely no opinion on their activites whatsoever.

What they chose to do with eachother is their business and no on else&#39;s.


All sex crimes are that, because you don&#39;t KNOW screwing a 17 year old girl is bad, society just says it is.

It does? :huh:

Where are you living &#39;cause up here in Canada, the age of consent is 14.

[ummProfessional]

perhaps you could explain to me the reason behind the physical biological differences between homosapien heterosexuals and homosexuals. in particular the enlarged hypothalamus nuclei (link)

as far as homosexuality in other animals, it is 31 and counting, not 20.

huh? without looking at the link which im going to look at right now, there is a difference between human hetero and homos? :huh: well, im dumbfounded by this to tell you the truth, im ignorant to this fact, but wouldn&#39;t this be helping my reasoning? eitherway i looked at the link right now, and my conclusion was WTF? these scientific names hypothalamus or whatever don&#39;t really know what these things mean, and that the institute found there is no "femenine hypo whatever" to homosexuals, well maybe because they arent females eitherway i guess Jimmy anwsered it best i guess? :unsure:


Well, what is the "norm"? More importantly, who cares?

Most people in the world aren&#39;t black either, does that make it "abnormal" to be African-America? Should discriminatory laws/social mores against them be "tolerated" because they&#39;re "only a minority"?

first of all stop bringing race into this issue, this is so different to racial bigotry and so on , first of all i can compare it to a disease for example....say Psoriasis which is a skin disorder, or a skin condition, it is fairly normal and common because it can be found in around 10 % of the population, is it a normal condition for skin NO, which is what im trying to get at here with homosexuality, normally your skin is not supposed to have Psoriasis , and those who are affected by it have a skin disorder, just like homosexuals have a sexual orientation disorder, which is nothing wrong , shit i feel like i keep repeating myself.....anyways thank you for asking me this question : "What is the norm?", finally i can put this thing to rest..

here ill put it simple so that you can understad....do you not believe that the normal sexual orientation condition for the homosapien species is heterosexual? if you don&#39;t then you are surely dillusional or gay which would surely be the reason why you would act bias


A mental disorder, again, is defined as something which causes distress to the individual.

ask the lesbian girl or any homosexual if they don&#39;t feel distress because they are homosexuals :rolleyes:


The APA removed homosexuality from the DSM in 1973. The word "homosexuality" doesn&#39;t even appear in the DSM-IV&#33;

I have no idea where you&#39;re getting your "arguments" from, but it would appear that you need to do a lot more impartial research. Stop visiting Christian apologist sites and start reading the actual evidence&#33;

The reality is that the APA has, over the past few years, consistantly argued that there is absolutely no statistical or medical reason to restrict adoption to heterosexual couples. The APA is completely against you on this issue...so why you&#39;d bring it up is wholly beyond me

i would love to see the evidence, and actually if you would know, some people feel the term is too clinical and somewhat dehumanizing, and this sentiment arose when the APA used it in the DSM-IV, and thus then started using gay or lesbian as the reference words ;)


Too High A Price: The Case Against Restricting Gay Parenting
Resolution on Sexual Orientation, Parents, and Children.

alright dude, to be frank with you i did not read any of these , but i opened the first link and i saw some pictures and it seems perfectly normal to me, i mean as long as they are caring people and that would give more to those children then anyone would thats fine...but like iv said before im not against gay adoption or marrige, it&#39;s just that i guess it&#39;s not really the best environment, but whatever...


Adult or child?

Obviously I have a problem with child sexual abuse, but if we&#39;re talking about two consenting adults who just happen to be related to one another, I have absolutely no opinion on their activites whatsoever.

What they chose to do with eachother is their business and no on else&#39;s.

AHA&#33; you are not saying what you really think about it, your just being indifferent, sure we all agree people should do whatever the fuck they want, heck i don&#39;t think a 20 year old screwing a 13 year old should be illegal as long as the 13 year old consents, but in my opinion it&#39;s nasty and why would a 20 year old want to screw a 13 year old?

anyways LSD, i just want you to anwser me 1 question and it will all be over, do you not believe that the normal sexual orientation of a human being is heterosexual? surely if you say different im through with this argument...

[JimmyC]

i just want you to anwser me 1 question and it will all be over, do you not believe that the normal sexual orientation of a human being is heterosexual? surely if you say different im through with this argument


ummProfessional,&#39;

I went through a couple of weird "phases" when I was younger, before I was married.

1) I went to bed with women I didn&#39;t really care about as people. I pretty muched used them and was an asshole. (Don&#39;t worry, God got even with me and I have a daughter.

2) My male freinds and I believed that we had the "right" to know what any woman we thought was attractive looked like in the nude. So we hid a video camera (one of the first of its kind in the early&#39;80&#39;s) in such a way and in an area where they had to change before swimming, and then enjoyed the tapes later, but mainly for the purpose of checking them out. This was about 20 years ago.

3) Two of my friends and I sought out girlfriends who wanted to "swing" (share sex parnters), and we did this for about a year and a half. (I turned out to be more bored with the prospect than I thought I would be.)

Remember that UK report you were quoting about where homosexuality could be dealt with psychologically? Well, let&#39;s say for fun that such a point of view is "right wing". The same could have happened to me if "left wing" feminism controlled phychology instead of sound medical judgment.

Any one of the things I just admitted to would bring reactions from feminists as being abnormal. In fact, if one defines humans as "normally" chosing one mate for life, and that person being of the opposite sex, and living with that person for the rest of their life, ANYONE who deviated from that norm would be abnormal. That number might be as high as 55%.

Now, what happens if the number of divoerces (probably around 45% now) goes over 50%. Does that mean that staying married for life is "abnormal", and that we&#39;d better seek therapy for anyone who stays married?

I&#39;m not "proud" of a lot of my sexual choices I&#39;ve made, but I think the best policy is not to politicise sex as being right or wrong. The left wing does that enough. The radical left even moreso, because to them, EVERY act is political&#33;

What is normal? Why would I want to be normal if it meant having an affair? Studies have shown that most marriages have had an affair. I haven&#39;t yet in 15 years. I&#39;d guess I better get busy so I can be normal.

[LSD]

first of all stop bringing race into this issue, this is so different to racial bigotry and so on

Why?

Black people also constitute a "minority" of human beings; and, statistically speaking, being "negroid" is not "normal".

Why then you do you not apply the same "disorder" standard to African-Americans?

Again, there is simply no way to dismiss homosexuality as unaccetably "different" without also nescessitating tolerance for sexist and racialist thinking. If "what&#39;s normal" is all that counts, then all minorities become acceptable targets.


first of all i can compare it to a disease for example

No you can&#39;t&#33;

You keep on trying to compare homosexuality with "diseases" and "disorders" but you are missing the critical definition that makes a disease disodered. And that is, again, the inherent causing of harm.

Unless somethings is injurious by its nature, it cannot be considered as or "compared to" a disease.

Rather we are obligated to compare sexual orientation to other benign human differences ...like, again race.


normally your skin is not supposed to have Psoriasis , and those who are affected by it have a skin disorder, just like homosexuals have a sexual orientation disorder

Psoriasis is a medical condition. It damages the body and causes harm to the sufferer. As such, it is wholly irrelevent to a discussion of human sexual orientation.


ask the lesbian girl or any homosexual if they don&#39;t feel distress because they are homosexuals

She feels distress because she is a lesbian living in a homophobic society, not because of her homosexuality.

It&#39;s the same reason that black people feel distressed when they live in racist environments. That doesn&#39;t mean that being black is a "disease". It just means that prejeduce and discrimination is psychologically harmful.


i would love to see the evidence, and actually if you would know, some people feel the term is too clinical and somewhat dehumanizing, and this sentiment arose when the APA used it in the DSM-IV, and thus then started using gay or lesbian as the reference words

:huh:

I really don&#39;t know what you&#39;re talking about.

Again, this is not a "semantic" issue with the APA. Homosexualtiy is no longer considered a disorder and has not been since 1973.

If you would like to claim otherwise, please tell me where in the DSM-IV homosexuality is listed. Because, according to the people who know (http://www.mhsource.com/expert/exp1052101c.html), it&#39;s nowhere to be found.


im not against gay adoption or marrige, it&#39;s just that i guess it&#39;s not really the best environment, but whatever...

Again, though, the evidence overwhelmingly shows that it is just as good an environment as any other; and that heterosexual parents do not raise children better than homosexual ones.


anyways LSD, i just want you to anwser me 1 question and it will all be over, do you not believe that the normal sexual orientation of a human being is heterosexual?

Yes.

But I also believe that the normal gender for human beings is female (52% of the population at last count).

"Normalcy", you see, doesn&#39;t matter&#33;

[ummProfessional]

I went to bed with women I didn&#39;t really care about as people. I pretty muched used them and was an asshole.

lmao if you call that a "weird" phase, then i don&#39;t know who your male friends where that you talked to dude, because that attitude is called being a guy lol


My male freinds and I believed that we had the "right" to know what any woman we thought was attractive looked like in the nude. So we hid a video camera (one of the first of its kind in the early&#39;80&#39;s) in such a way and in an area where they had to change before swimming, and then enjoyed the tapes later, but mainly for the purpose of checking them out. This was about 20 years ago.

ummm yeah i would probably think that it would have been for the purpose of checking them out, i highly doubt you would be using them for scientific study :lol: and yet again how is that something weird from any heterosexual guy? :huh:


Two of my friends and I sought out girlfriends who wanted to "swing" (share sex parnters), and we did this for about a year and a half. (I turned out to be more bored with the prospect than I thought I would be.)

dude whatever, you were looking for freaky girls eitherway i don&#39;t know how these supposed "weird" pahases have to do with the anwser to my question, in any case these are examples of how any normal guy would act...we just want sex, girls want caressing and shit..


Remember that UK report you were quoting about where homosexuality could be dealt with psychologically? Well, let&#39;s say for fun that such a point of view is "right wing". The same could have happened to me if "left wing" feminism controlled phychology instead of sound medical judgment.

:huh: ? dont remember any UK report that homosexuality could be dealt psychologically&#33;&#33; in fact how can you change homosexuality? this would be like making someone like pickles when they don&#39;t...



Any one of the things I just admitted to would bring reactions from feminists as being abnormal. In fact, if one defines humans as "normally" chosing one mate for life, and that person being of the opposite sex, and living with that person for the rest of their life, ANYONE who deviated from that norm would be abnormal. That number might be as high as 55%.

umm no, in fact feminists would actually say it&#39;s normal for men to act this way, they would just be obviously opposed to it..



Now, what happens if the number of divoerces (probably around 45% now) goes over 50%. Does that mean that staying married for life is "abnormal", and that we&#39;d better seek therapy for anyone who stays married?

huh? dude you can&#39;t compare marrige to a mental condition dude..get real man, if that was the case i can name 1 billion examples of what can be labeled normal or not...


I&#39;m not "proud" of a lot of my sexual choices I&#39;ve made, but I think the best policy is not to politicise sex as being right or wrong. The left wing does that enough. The radical left even moreso, because to them, EVERY act is political&#33;

sure, but i think iv made my points, and yours really aren&#39;t saying much...my point is simple, and all i wanted was a simple anwser, do you not think that the normal sexual orientation for homosapiens is heterosexual, and if you anwser yes i rest my case, if you awnser otherwise your surely disllusional and frankly Jimmy with the points youv made it seems you are just trying to be friends with LSD or something


What is normal? Why would I want to be normal if it meant having an affair? Studies have shown that most marriages have had an affair. I haven&#39;t yet in 15 years. I&#39;d guess I better get busy so I can be normal.

yet again you can&#39;t bring marrige into a discussion about sexual orientation, a mental condition, your talking about choices, i doubt a homosexual makes the choice to be one...and yes affairs are a normal thing, specially with men because for the most part we don&#39;t really conform to 1 hole ;)

[ummProfessional]

:lol: thanks for the link friend


..who voted to eliminate the general category of homosexuality, and replace it with sexual orientation disturbance

anyways thank you again for the anwser i was looking for:


Yes.

But I also believe that the normal gender for humans is female (52% of the population at last count).

"Normalcy", you see, doesn&#39;t matter&#33;

i rest my case, and no you see gender doesn&#39;t constitue normality or what not, your just using invalid examples like Jimmy did, in that case i can use countless examples, i guess i can also say that since golf is not as popular as soccer its not a normal sport? :huh: WTF&#33;? lmao...plus homosexuality is like you guys said 10% i don&#39;t think that can be labeled as normal on anything, 52% would then be more believable...but yeah when it comes to sexual conditions it does constitute to clasiffy normality and abnormality, which you accepted thank you, yet again i REST MY CASE :)

[LSD]

:lol: thanks for the link friend


..who voted to eliminate the general category of homosexuality, and replace it with sexual orientation disturbance

Obviously, you failed to read the relevent section:

The DSM-III committee and subcommittee charged with drafting the new manual (1976-78) settled on the diagnosis of ego-dystonic homosexuality, which, according to Meyer, "...represented a compromise between those individuals whose clinical experience, interpretation of the data, and, perhaps, biases, led them to the conviction that homosexuality was a normal variant of sexual expression..." By the time DSM-III-R (revised version of DSM-III) came out in 1987, the tide had shifted again. The category of ego-dystonic homosexuality was eliminated. As DSM-III-R itself stated, "...the diagnosis...has rarely been used clinically, and there have been only a few articles in the scientific literature that use the concept..."

However, one could use the category of sexual disorder not otherwise specified to include cases that previously would have been called ego-dystonic homosexuality. Our present DSM-IV does not include homosexuality per se as a disorder, but still permits the diagnosis of "Sexual Disorder Not Otherwise Specified" for someone with "...persistent and marked distress about sexual orientation".

Again, as I&#39;ve been trying to explain for several hours now, in order for something to be quantified as a "disease" or "disorder", it must inately cause distress. Something which normal homosexuality does not.


i rest my case, and no you see gender doesn&#39;t constitue normality or what not, your just using invalid examples like Jimmy did

You keep saying that, but you have yet to explain why.

What is it that makes homosexuality "different" form other natural occuring biological differences?

Again, minority racial groups, by definition, are not strictly "normal". Despite this, though, you seem unwilling to expand your "normalcy" paradigm to matters of racial policy.

I am still awaiting a rational explanation for this rather obvious hypocrisy.


plus homosexuality is like you guys said 10%

And Judaism is even less&#33;

Does that mean that Jews should be subject to the discrimination that you find so acceptable against homosexuals? Does it mean that they should just "deal" with being targeted since it&#39;s "not going to change"?

[ummProfessional]

Obviously, you failed to read the relevent section:

the link you quoted is still largely on my side, even labeling it as a "disorder" dude..



Again, as I&#39;ve been trying to explain for several hours now, in order for something to be quantified as a "disease" or "disorder", it must inately cause distress. Something which homosexuality does not.

you think a mental retard feels distress? :blink: eitherway why is it labled as a disorder even on the link you posted above? :
Our present DSM-IV does not include homosexuality per se as a disorder, but still permits the diagnosis of "Sexual Disorder Not Otherwise Specified" for someone with "...persistent and marked distress about sexual orientation".

exactly


What is it that makes homosexuality "different" form other natural occuring biological differences?

what makes it different? dude i thought we agreed on this&#33; homosexuality is not the normal sexual behavior for a human being or for any other animal for that matter..it&#39;s not the dominant behavior, plus there is a man and a woman, i have a penis she has a vagina, obviously it&#39;s for a reason, obviously it&#39;s meant for me to have sex with her, obviously that is why 10% are really homosexuals...if you don&#39;t see the pattern , if you don&#39;t get it by now than surely this is a pointless conversation..



And Judaism is even less.

Does that mean that Jews should be subject to the discrimination that you find so acceptable against homosexuals? Does it mean that they should just "deal" with being targeted since it&#39;s "not going to change"?

dude judaism is a choice&#33;&#33; it&#39;s a human invention, it&#39;s like speaking a language, stop using invalid stupid points to prove your pointless examples..like i said i can use your analogy to make anything normal or not..

[chimx]

w t f

homosexuality is exhibited in dozens of species. in homosapiens we can look at biologic evidence of its existence. you are ignoring these two fundamental facts and turning the argument towards abstractions such as "normalacy".

you&#39;re a fucking retard. go back to biology class nub.

[ummProfessional]

w t f

homosexuality is exhibited in dozens of species. in homosapiens we can look at biologic evidence of its existence. you are ignoring these two fundamental facts and turning the argument towards abstractions such as "normalacy".

you&#39;re a fucking retard. go back to biology class nub.

wow seems i pissed someone off :lol: its ok i got nothing against you man, but i suggest you stop the flaming ;) anyways do you know what normal is? hahaha just to finish you off you said homosexuality is exhibited in dozens of species as if that is supposed to mean an overwhelming majority or something, do you know how many species of sharks there is? more than 360&#33;&#33; and thats just of sharks, please man shut up lol obviously homosexuality is not a normal behavior...

[LSD]

you think a mental retard feels distress?

Mental retardation is not in the DSM-IV and does not constitute a psychological disorder.

It is rather a neurological condition as it is characterized by market deficiency in functioning. Something which, again, homosexuality does not produce.


eitherway why is it labled as a disorder even on the link you posted above?

It isn&#39;t&#33;

Rather, if you&#39;d actually care to read the quote you posted, you&#39;d see that while "persistent and marked distress about sexual orientation" can constitute Sexual Disorder Not Otherwise Specified ; baisc homosexexuality is not considered a disorder of any kind.


what makes it different? dude i thought we agreed on this&#33; homosexuality is not the normal sexual behavior for a human being

Who&#39;s talking about "behaviour"? We&#39;re discussing orientation here, a naturally occuring biological attraction to members of the same sex.

I am not denying that homosexuality is a minority orienation; what I am contending, rather, is that that doesn&#39;t matter. That whether something is found among "all" humans, "most" humans, or "some" humans; it&#39;s distrubition is not what makes it counts.

Again -- and I am sick of having to keep brining up this comparison -- race is also a "minority" situation.

For some reason you seem unable to grasp this but, most people are not black. Now, I answered your "simple question", so how about you answer mine:

Do you not believe that the normal race of a human being is non-black?


plus there is a man and a woman, i have a penis she has a vagina, obviously it&#39;s for a reason

Again, who cares?

White people have white skin "for a reason" too. That doesn&#39;t make African-Americans "abnormal" or "disodered".


like i said i can use your analogy to make anything normal or not..

Exactly&#33;

That&#39;s why the paradigm of "normalcy" is entirely bankrupt and irrelevent to any discussion of rights or protections.

Discrimination is wrong regardless of the size of the group being discriminated against. And regardless of whether homosexuals constituted 1%, 10%, or 50% of the population, homophobia would nonetheless be despicable.

[ummProfessional]

persistent and marked distress about sexual orientation" can constitute Sexual Disorder Not Otherwise Specified ; baisc homosexexuality is not considered a disorder of any kind.

disorder not otherwise specified



Who&#39;s talking about "behaviour"? We&#39;re discussing orientation here, a naturally occuring biological attraction to members of the same sex.

so behavior has nothing to do with sexual orientation? :huh:


Do you not believe that the normal race of a human being is non-black?

and which do you believe is the normal? white? think again&#33;&#33; this is irrelevant as race is not a mental condition, this has nothing to do with race for god&#39;s sake, homosexualism affects all races...


Again, who cares?

White people have white skin "for a reason" too. That doesn&#39;t make African-Americans "abnormal" or "disodered".

WHAT&#33;? :blink: we have white skin for a reason? and what reason would that be? wtf i want to hear this one hahahahaha



Exactly&#33;

That&#39;s why the paradigm of "normalcy" is entirely bankrupt and irrelevent to any discussion of rights or protections.

this is not a paradigm at all, in fact your the one who has his mind stuck in a paradigm and i wouldn&#39;t be too far off if i predict there is some sort of bias involved in your stance..


Discrimination is wrong regardless of the size of the group being discriminated against. And regardless of whether homosexuals constituted 1%, 10%, or 50% of the population, homophobia would nonetheless be despicable.

agreed 100%, but i don&#39;t understand how im being discriminant towards homosexuals? i don&#39;t know why you think this is something about being wrong or right, it&#39;s just normal or abnormal, this doesn&#39;t mean it&#39;s something wrong or bad, dude chill...not normal doesn&#39;t mean it&#39;s something bad, it&#39;s just how it is, and it&#39;s the fact..

[LSD]

so behavior has nothing to do with sexual orientation?

No.


and which do you believe is the normal? white?

You didn&#39;t answer my question.

I paid you the common courtesy of replying with a simple yes or no, I expect the same from you.

Do you or do you not agree that not being black is "normal"? Yes or no?


this is irrelevant as race is not a mental condition

And neither is homosexuality.

It is rather, again, a biological condition not that different from race. Neither race nor homosexuality are actually significant in terms of human capacity or living, but both have been socialized to be "wrong" or "disordered".


this has nothing to do with race for god&#39;s sake

Sure it does; namely the arguments that you are making against homosexuals (it&#39;s not "normal", it&#39;s the "minority") can be equally applied to minority races.

The fact that you insist on avoiding this fact is only evidence that you are, at some level, aware of then inherent bankruptcy of your "normalcy" paradigm and are unwilling to confront it.


we have white skin for a reason? and what reason would that be?

To better absorb vitamin D in regions where solar concentration is limited.

What, did you think it was a "coincidence" that white skinned people live in the north? :lol:


i don&#39;t understand how im being discriminant towards homosexuals?

You have indicated that you do not support the adoption of children by homosexual couples and you have said more than once that discrimination of homosexualis is accpetable as they are "not normal".

If you want an obvious example of your homophobic, try applying everything you&#39;ve said about homosexuals to blacks and see if you&#39;d consider such statements to be racist.

If so ...you&#39;re a homophobe.

[RevMARKSman]

Okay. Now that this is over and LSD has beaten UmmProfessional down thoroughly, I would like to make a few statements.

1. UmmProfessional - Get a stinking SPELL CHECKER&#33; Illegible posts do NOT increase your credibility with the rest of the world&#33;
2. LSD - Thank you for spending so many hours trying to insert logic into this guy&#39;s brain. I don&#39;t think I could have lasted that long. Most of us knew you were right--it was just a battle of endurance and will.
3. UmmProfessional - If you are still homophobic after being gutted and gored by reason, prepare to be BANNED. :angry:

[Herman]

LSD has OWNED &#39;Look-I-have-a-cartoon-of-santa-claus-it&#39;s-so-funny-ha-ha-ha&#39;.

[ummProfessional]

ummm ok? :huh: so because i have a life and i went away from this board up to now suddenly its a "victory" jajaja wtf get a life you low life loosers...

anyways back to the guy on LSD..


No.

so sexual behavior is another mystical term to you right :rolleyes:



You didn&#39;t answer my question.

I paid you the common courtesy of replying with a simple yes or no, I expect the same from you.

Do you or do you not agree that not being black is "normal"? Yes or no?

YES&#33; of course being black is just as normal as being white, this is just a physical appearence that is supposed to occur and differ amongst humans, it&#39;s not a way of life, or a type of sexual behavior, neither is it a mental condition. Plus what is the purpouse of skin colors other than beauty?
you said white skin is to better adapt to where the sun&#39;s light is not as present as in tropic areas, but this is just to benefit yourself, like i said it&#39;s supposed to occur, it&#39;s the change the human skin is supposed to have after thousands of years of adaptation to weather, so how does skin color benefit the earth? how does it keep the balance and harmony of nature or what not? in contrast homosexuality is not normal and obviously if homosexuality was the NORM this world would be a very different place...what is the point of homosexuality? it is not the normal sexual orientation for a human being and i know you know it because you yourself said it, AND IM SAYING HUMAN BEINGS&#33;&#33; so you can&#39;t bring race in here because races supposed to be different amongst all human beings like i said, there is an explination to this difference, there isn&#39;t one for homosexualism...


And neither is homosexuality.

It is rather, again, a biological condition not that different from race. Neither race nor homosexuality are actually significant in terms of human capacity or living, but both have been socialized to be "wrong" or "disordered".

ITS NOT A MENAL CONDITION?? really, well here is what you had to say about that:

You could, I suppose, say that it is a mental condition, but then you could say the same for heterosexuality

exactly sexual orientation is obviously a mental thing...and no shit biological is everything about you... and yeah of course homosexuality is not significant in terms of human capacity or living, how many times do i have to repeat myself that not normal doesn&#39;t mean you have 3 fingers or 1 eye&#33;&#33; fuck, it&#39;s just not the sexual orientation a human being is supposed to have god dammit&#33;&#33; this doesn&#39;t mean your different then a heterosexual other than your obvious sexual behavior and preference..

and you all are a bunch of idiots, because i say homosexuality is not the normal sexual orientation a human being is supposed to have, you all call me a homophobe, how many times do i have to say i have a gay uncle, how can i be homophobic? im merely stating the facts, im not the one being bias here, i take it if i say mental retardation is not the normal mental state a human being should have im also being a bigot towards mental retards... :rolleyes:

[LSD]

so sexual behavior is another mystical term to you right

No, sexual behaviour is about choice, sexual attraction is about nature.

What people chose to do with their bodies is their own business of course, but it is ultimtely a matter of free will. Sexual orientaion, however, is not a "choice" or a "lifestyle" it is a natural biological being.

Something, again, not unlike race or gender.


YES&#33; of course being black is just as normal as being white

How can black be "normal" if most people aren&#39;t black?

Again, for some reason you seem unable to grasp the fact that your logic with regards to homosexuality must also apply in other situations. That is, if because it is a minority orientation, homosexuality is implicitly "abnormal", the same must also be true for racial groups.

Otherwise, you are applying one standard for orientation and a different standard for race, an unfair policy which cannot be jusftified and which can only come out of prejeduce.

If being black or being white is "normal", then by definition, so must being homosexual.

You simply cannot have it both ways&#33;


Plus what is the purpouse of skin colors other than beauty?

Again, there are biological evolutionary reasons why different skin colours developed, but even if there wasn&#39;t, would that matter?

What if skin colour was just about "beauty"? Would that make it acceptable to engage in racial discrimination? After all, your central argument against homosexuality seems to be that it&#39;s "abnormal" and "pointless", well, if it could be established that being black was "pointless", would that make segregation "OK"?

Why should "point" or "normalcy" have anything to do with treatment or public policy? Why should "eveolutionary purpose" direct how we react to discrimination?

Again, your "logic" simply makes no sense.


in contrast homosexuality is not normal

You keep saying that, but you have yet to prove it.

There is a difference between not being the norm and not being normal. The former means that it is not found in a majority of people, the latter, however, means that it is not an ordinary part of life.

Just because most people are not gay, it does not mean that being gay is not normal. After all, the factt that most people are not men, does not mean that being a man is "abnormal", does it?


and obviously if homosexuality was the NORM this world would be a very different place...

Yeah, for one thing, there&#39;d be a whole lot less babies born and maybe we could finally lick this overpopulation problem&#33; :)


what is the point of homosexuality?

There really isn&#39;t one.

But here&#39;s a question for you, what&#39;s the "point" of being ethnically Jewish? Not "believing" in Judaism, but being, you know, "racially" a "Jew".

And how about being arab? How about being Persian? How about being Chinese?

The fact is most human groups don&#39;t have "points", but that doesn&#39;t make discrimination against them any less wrong, nor does it make their suffering any less real.


so you can&#39;t bring race in here because races supposed to be different amongst all human beings like i said, there is an explination to this difference, there isn&#39;t one for homosexualism...

So your thesis is what, that homosexuality just "happened"? :lol:

Of course there is an "explination" (sic) for sexual orientation. Indeed, this subject is being studied rather intensively as you read this by experts all around the world.

Not that, again, knowing that explanation is at all relevent to our purpose here.

400 years ago, nobody knew why there were different races, but that ignorance didn&#39;t make racism "acceptable"; well, neither does our limited knowledge on sexuality make homophobia accpetable today.


fuck, it&#39;s just not the sexual orientation a human being is supposed to have god dammit&#33;&#33;

And who&#39;s to say that human beings are "supposed" to have anything?

More importantly, who cares either way?

This has nothing to do with "nature" or "normality", it has to do with basic human rights and whether or not homophobia should be tolerated. You insist that you "can&#39;t" be homophobic because you have a gay relative, but you&#39;re the one who "personally opposes" gay adoption; you&#39;re the one who thinks that gays should just "deal" with being oppressed.

Again, take your statements with regards to homosexuality and try applying them to any other minoirty group, be it racial, ethnic, or whatever.

I think you&#39;ll quickly see why we are so offended by your comments. :angry:

[ummProfessional]

No, sexual behaviour is about choice, sexual attraction is about nature

ok you have a point there because a homosexual may choose to have sex with a female just to feel accepted or something, but also your orientation will define your natural behavior which is sex with males..


natural biological being.

Something, again, not unlike race or gender.

yeah homosexuality is normal in that it&#39;s not a 1 in a million type of rare case or something, and it occurs naturally, meaning not by some sort of trauma which caused it...yet this still doesn&#39;t mean it&#39;s the norm, or what is supposed to be...



How can black be "normal" if most people aren&#39;t black?

THAN by the way your taking this analogy whic is mathematically homosexuality isn&#39;t normal either, but im not guiding myself mathematically, im guiding it by how it&#39;s naturally supposed to be, FUCK how hard is it to understand that there are men and woman, and we are supposed by the law of nature to get together and make babies, whatever you do sexualy other than that it&#39;s not how it&#39;s supposed to be and it isn&#39;t normal, which is why incest and bestiality as well as homosexuality aren&#39;t the sexual behaviors a human is supposed to have...


Again, there are biological evolutionary reasons why different skin colours developed, but even if there wasn&#39;t, would that matter?

and who is saying it does? im not saying it matters or not if your homosexual or heterosexual, gosh calm your ass down your drawing from an obvious bias which is apparent and therefore it is pointless discussing this with you because your obviously going to feel "discriminated" no matter what i say for the obvious reasons.. ;)



You keep saying that, but you have yet to prove it

how much fucking proof do you want? where is your proof that it isn&#39;t an abnormal sexual orientation?? there are male and female species for almost every species of animal on this world, i would think that was for a reason don&#39;t you think?? obviously you will say no because you will feel wierd yet again for the obvious reasons...


Yeah, for one thing, there&#39;d be a whole lot less babies born and maybe we could finally lick this overpopulation problem

:rolleyes: it would be the dream world for you wouldnt it lmao


So your thesis is what, that homosexuality just "happened"?

really, lol than you are admiting it is a mental condition, it is a mental thing that isn&#39;t supposed to occur..and thus scientist are studying why it happens lol


And who&#39;s to say that human beings are "supposed" to have anything?

yeah your right&#33;&#33; who says men are supposed to have penises and woman viginas?? right? :lol: who says we are supposed to have legs or eyes? :rolleyes:



it has to do with basic human rights and whether or not homophobia should be tolerated. You insist that you "can&#39;t" be homophobic because you have a gay relative, but you&#39;re the one who "personally opposes" gay adoption; you&#39;re the one who thinks that gays should just "deal" with being oppressed.

Again, try taking your statements with regards to homosexuality and try applying it to any other minoirty group, be it racial, ethnic, or whatever.

I think you&#39;ll quickly see why we are so offended by your comments

dude i want equality, i have said it is discrimination for homosexuals to be called names or being fired for what they inevitably are, so stop making it that issue now we are over it, i im only saying that homosexuality is not the FUCING SEXUAL ORIENTATION A HUMAN FUCKING BEING IS SUPPOSED TO FUCKING HAVE FOR THE FUCKING OBVIOUS REASONS&#33;&#33; how many times do i have to repeat myself shit&#33;&#33; im done with this, like i said you have your obvious reasons so it is stupid for me to keep on...no matter what i say you will still feel discriminated so it&#39;s pointless even when it&#39;s the truth..

[LSD]

yeah homosexuality is normal

:lol:

You&#39;re a deeply confused man, you know that?


yet this still doesn&#39;t mean it&#39;s the norm, or what is supposed to be...

Well, "the norm" is irrelevent since, as we&#39;ve established, many normal things aren&#39;t found in all people.

And in terms of "what is supposed to be", I again ask, why does that matter? Evolutionarily speaking, none of us are "supposed" to live past thirty? Once we reproduce our lives are "supposed" to be over, but that doesn&#39;t make seniors "abnormal" or not deserving of rights&#33;


but im not guiding myself mathematically, im guiding it by how it&#39;s naturally supposed to be, FUCK how hard is it to understand that there are men and woman, and we are supposed by the law of nature to get together and make babies


And what is this "law of nature" exactly? Doesn&#39;t it also dictate that we are "supposed" to kill other people? That men are "supposed" to hunt while women are "supposed" to stay at home making babies?

This kind of pseduo-sociobiological crap is really fucking old hat. It&#39;s the same bullshit that was used to justify sexism and racism for thousands of years.

Indeed, racists would make the exact same claims that you are making; namely that non-white racese were "supposed" to be inferior and that white people are "naturally" their masters.

If there&#39;s one thing we can learn from that atrocity, it&#39;s that basing social policy on "nature" is a monumental mistake.


it would be the dream world for you wouldnt it lmao

:lol:

Why, because "I&#39;m gay"? :rolleyes:

You know, it&#39;s so pathetic how people assume that to oppose homophobia, one must be homosexual. It&#39;s not unlike how in the 1860s, abolitionists were accused of having "negroe blood".

Is it really so hard to believe that I actually just care about human rights? That I understand that gay people should not have to "deal" with oppressoin but should fight back?


really, lol than you are admiting it is a mental condition, it is a mental thing that isn&#39;t supposed to occur..and thus scientist are studying why it happens lol

Scientists study a lot of stuff, UP, including the origins of races.

But the fact that scientists are studying the genetic and evolutionary causes of different racial groups does not make race a "condition" or something that "isn&#39;t supposed to be".

I understand that kind of anti-science attitude is a hallmark of the extreme right and so it may come quite naturally to you, but please understand that it is not welcome on this board.


dude i want equality, i have said it is discrimination for homosexuals to be called names or being fired for what they inevitably are

maybe, but you also said that you "personally oppose" gay adoption and that gay people should "just deal&#39; with being discriminated.

Again, if you said either about any racial group, you would be immediately labeled as a bigot. Why should the same standard not apply in this case?

[Zero]

Originally posted by "LSD"
Why should the same standard not apply in this case?
Because the religious right has decided that being homophobic is "cool".

[GraylySquirrel]

Homophobia, in my opinion, is a savage primal reaction. It’s kind of hard to reproduce if you are gay, ergo the reaction that is sadly all too common.

Homophobes are those who are not self aware and intelligent enough to separate themselves from cavemen and realize that the reproduction rate of the human race is in no way in jeopardy. The human race has been afforded a great luxury. We are free from the chain of survival of the fittest. What’s the problem with being gay? None. Its not a "choice" or a "sickness" anymore than its a choice or sickness to have, for example, brown hair. The fact remains that I have seen no argument against being gay other than:

a) Its not natural (Bull shit, animals in the wild have been observed to be gay.)
b) Its morally wrong (Bull shit again, as this usually stems from a religion, or other arbitrary concept. In any case, when you ask why it’s wrong, the answer is always "because it is.")

Without the pressures of a Dawrnist enviroment we are free to live our lives how we choose; hopefully we choose the path of freedom, acceptance, and equal opportunity for all. People who are gay deserve our acceptance and respect that we would give to anyone else. There is simply no reason why people are so intolerant of others. It truly makes me sick.

[Zero]

Ohh shit&#33; Sup mang?

Damn dude, thats two "converts" from TNHQ. Score two for the Zero man&#33;

I wonder if I level up soon.

[GraylySquirrel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 03:09 AM
Ohh shit&#33; Sup mang?

Damn dude, thats two "converts" from TNHQ. Score two for the Zero man&#33;

I wonder if I level up soon.
I knew I&#39;d find you around here somewere. :lol:
[/offtopicness]

[overlord]

Yep. I think ummProfessional is definitely a homophobe. Look at this:


how many times do i have to say i have a gay uncle, how can i be homophobic?

Guilty as charged. Lets shoot him.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 07:22 AM
Yep. I think ummProfessional is definitely a homophobe. Look at this:


how many times do i have to say i have a gay uncle, how can i be homophobic?

Guilty as charged. Lets shoot him.
:wacko:

How on earth does having a gay uncle negate you from homophobia? How does that make any logical sense?

[overlord]

How on earth does having a gay uncle negate you from homophobia? How does that make any logical sense?
I think he likes his uncle? :mellow:

ATTN comrades, let us look for guidance on the issue of normalcy of homosexuality from other comrades on soviet-empire.com:
http://www.soviet-empire.com/ussr/viewtopic.php?t=35388

Comrade Gerry has this to say: "It&#39;s wrong and un-natural my marxist friend... Your arse is for going to the toilet and sitting... it is not meant as a sexual object... "

Other members routinely consider homosexuality an unhealthy product of the decadence of the capitalistic system.

[RevMARKSman]

I don&#39;t give a shit about those "other comrades." Homosexuality is normal and biological, not a "choice" lifestyle.

[saint max]

Perhaps Leftism is just missing the boat. Certainly homophobia and heterosexism are problematic but did&#39;nt poststructual feminisms (late 3rd wave) and gender-theory indict gender, at least it&#39;s bianary construct all together? Perhaps if you believe in the essential "women" or "man," this is not problematic to you, but if you recognize gender as a social construction, doesn&#39;t this also problematize the old modes of LG(BT) struggles (i.e. assimilation) and posit a radical, if not revolutionary politics could only be located within a queer struggle?

I fail to see why homophobia is how we frame the discourse. Maybe it is a simple matter of guilt and hail marry&#39;s. Overlords&#39; posturing is&#39;nt very far from the truth for most Maoist/3rd worldism and other classical marxist positions about queerness. You know how we petty lumpenbourgies are...

Serriously though, why the old hat? I think I&#39;ve kicked enough redneck ass; I can&#39;t remember the last night one of them has even yelled "faggot" from a moving vehichle...

kisses,
-max

[JimmyC]

The term homophobia itself can be absurd when it comes to the issue dealing with legalizing homosexual marriage.

The term implies there is a fear of someone who is a homosexual. This doesn&#39;t always work.

Before 2004, I had work-friends and accquaintences who were homosexual, and one close friend who was/is, and I did not support New York State allowing homosexual marriage.

In late 2004, I changed my mind about the marriage thing, after some reflection. BUT, in doing so, no magic wand was waved over me. I didn&#39;t fear them in 2003 and didn&#39;t like them better in 2005. I just changed my mind after examining the issue and coming to a different conclusion then when I had examined it before.

Fear was not an issue.

In the 1970&#39;s there was an attempt to pass the ERA, which would write the 14th Amendment language with the word "sex" instead of race. I didn&#39;t support it because I believed it needed an additional section dealing with privacy concerns, and none was forthcoming.

It failed 2 states short of pasage.

I certainly wasn&#39;t/am not a "female-phobe" because of this political decision. (Although as a male, it&#39;s good to be somewhat afraid of women. They are very powerful, mysterious, and often psychotic. --- That&#39;s a little joke...presuming there are some guys out there who have enjoyed women and have been drivin crazy by them as I have&#33;)

And, merely because someone supported the ERA didn&#39;t make them more "kind" toward women politically. There have been plenty of elected officials who supported women&#39;s rights, only to exploit there position and intice them into bed, though they be 1/3 the age of the politician. (In this regard, I&#39;m sure the Soviets and Americans were probably equal&#33;)

But, to return to the specific: I have undergone no great moment of "feeling better" about those homosexual people around me since I began supporting their right to marry. In fact, ALL of them didn&#39;t know I was against it in 2003, and became for it in 2004.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 02:28 PM

How on earth does having a gay uncle negate you from homophobia? How does that make any logical sense?
I think he likes his uncle? :mellow:
I liked my grandfather but he was the most reactionary person I&#39;ve ever known in my life. You can like someone, but likeing them doesn&#39;t mean you are tolerant to their lifestyle.


ATTN comrades, let us look for guidance on the issue of normalcy of homosexuality from other comrades on soviet-empire.com

I&#39;m not your comrade and I cannot believe you quote soviet-empire as a legitimate source of argument.


Comrade Gerry has this to say: "It&#39;s wrong and un-natural...my marxist friend... Your arse is for going to the toilet and sitting... it is not meant as a sexual object...

That&#39;s what most homophobes say, it&#39;s nothing particularly new.

I&#39;d like to understand how this person has formulated such a bigoted opinion on an entire section of humanity based on the fact that shit comes out of your arse.

This comment is clearly down to personal taste rather than any objective argument about the "validity" of homosexulaity.

Wearing clothes isn&#39;t natural, neither is using a computer or eating with a knife and fork yet we have no moral standard against those practices.

Human beings can no longer define our actions based on what is and what is not natural. Furthermore there is no irrefutable evidence that suggests homosexuality isn&#39;t natural in the first place.

I mean, homosexuality clearly exists, and as no one knows why it does, there is always the possibility that the reason is because it&#39;s simply natural for some human beings to be homosexuals.


Other members routinely consider homosexuality an unhealthy product of the decadence of the capitalistic system.

Homosexuality has existed for thousands and thousands of years with the first ever reports dating right back to the first Egyption civilisations, whom I might add regarded the act of homosexuality as perfectly normal.

Capitalism has only existed for the last 200 years if that, so I&#39;d like to know how it&#39;s a product of a capitalistic system.

Furthermore, many homosexuals, including myself, can tell you that homosexuality was never a lifestyle choice which this "capitalistic system" argument suggests. How do you explain the fact that the majority of homosexuals can tell you unequivicably that they did not "choose" their sexuality?

[guerillablack]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 09:22 AM
I don&#39;t give a shit about those "other comrades." Homosexuality is normal and biological, not a "choice" lifestyle.
how is homosexuality normal and biological?

[guerillablack]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 09:22 AM
I don&#39;t give a shit about those "other comrades." Homosexuality is normal and biological, not a "choice" lifestyle.
how is homosexuality normal and biological?

[guerillablack]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 09:22 AM
I don&#39;t give a shit about those "other comrades." Homosexuality is normal and biological, not a "choice" lifestyle.
how is homosexuality normal and biological?

[Zero]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 01:17 AM

to me homosexualism is not a normal thing

There have been scientific studies that show animals have gay relationships too.
http://myweb.lsbu.ac.uk/stafflag/zoology.html
It&#39;s that simple.

[Zero]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 01:17 AM

to me homosexualism is not a normal thing

There have been scientific studies that show animals have gay relationships too.
http://myweb.lsbu.ac.uk/stafflag/zoology.html
It&#39;s that simple.

[Zero]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 01:17 AM

to me homosexualism is not a normal thing

There have been scientific studies that show animals have gay relationships too.
http://myweb.lsbu.ac.uk/stafflag/zoology.html
It&#39;s that simple.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by guerrillablack
how is homosexuality normal and biological?

Okay, so you&#39;re saying that homosexuality is not &#39;normal&#39; or &#39;biological&#39;? If this is the case, then what is &#39;it&#39;? An unnatural lifestyle choice?

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by guerrillablack
how is homosexuality normal and biological?

Okay, so you&#39;re saying that homosexuality is not &#39;normal&#39; or &#39;biological&#39;? If this is the case, then what is &#39;it&#39;? An unnatural lifestyle choice?

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by guerrillablack
how is homosexuality normal and biological?

Okay, so you&#39;re saying that homosexuality is not &#39;normal&#39; or &#39;biological&#39;? If this is the case, then what is &#39;it&#39;? An unnatural lifestyle choice?

[Loknar]

I would say homosexuality serves the purpose of limiting the population growth, but that’s it (no offense intended).

Now then. I don’t care if somebody wants to be gay, its their business. However I was reading the part where her father was crushed when he caught her with her girlfriend. I have to say....if I caught my daughter/son with a member of the same gender I&#39;d be crushed. I don’t hate gay people but i don’t want my kid to be gay. I just have a real problem with it.

I also have a problem dating any girl who is Bi. If I find out she is Bi I will block any thought in my head about being with her.

And no I only want attractive lesbians at my place….I am not into the spiky hair, eyebrow piercing, purple hair (though sometimes it looks sexy if its combed right), keys attached to the belt, slacks ect.. I want the lipstick ones.

[Loknar]

I would say homosexuality serves the purpose of limiting the population growth, but that’s it (no offense intended).

Now then. I don’t care if somebody wants to be gay, its their business. However I was reading the part where her father was crushed when he caught her with her girlfriend. I have to say....if I caught my daughter/son with a member of the same gender I&#39;d be crushed. I don’t hate gay people but i don’t want my kid to be gay. I just have a real problem with it.

I also have a problem dating any girl who is Bi. If I find out she is Bi I will block any thought in my head about being with her.

And no I only want attractive lesbians at my place….I am not into the spiky hair, eyebrow piercing, purple hair (though sometimes it looks sexy if its combed right), keys attached to the belt, slacks ect.. I want the lipstick ones.

[Loknar]

I would say homosexuality serves the purpose of limiting the population growth, but that’s it (no offense intended).

Now then. I don’t care if somebody wants to be gay, its their business. However I was reading the part where her father was crushed when he caught her with her girlfriend. I have to say....if I caught my daughter/son with a member of the same gender I&#39;d be crushed. I don’t hate gay people but i don’t want my kid to be gay. I just have a real problem with it.

I also have a problem dating any girl who is Bi. If I find out she is Bi I will block any thought in my head about being with her.

And no I only want attractive lesbians at my place….I am not into the spiky hair, eyebrow piercing, purple hair (though sometimes it looks sexy if its combed right), keys attached to the belt, slacks ect.. I want the lipstick ones.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by Loknar+--> (Loknar)I don’t hate gay people but i don’t want my kid to be gay. I just have a real problem with it.[/b]

Erm, okay... you don&#39;t &#39;hate&#39; gay people but you don&#39;t want your kids to be gay and you have a &#39;real problem&#39; with homosexuality? Your statements don&#39;t really flow. If you don&#39;t &#39;hate&#39; gay people why cant your kids be gay? And why do you have a &#39;real problem&#39; with it?

What does having a &#39;real problem&#39; mean?

What do you have a problem with?



Originally posted by [email protected]
I also have a problem dating any girl who is Bi. If I find out she is Bi I will block any thought in my head about being with her.

While, i&#39;m glad i&#39;m not such a bigoted human being, i feel sorry for you :(


Loknar
And no I only want attractive lesbians at my place….I am not into the spiky hair, eyebrow piercing, purple hair (though sometimes it looks sexy if its combed right), keys attached to the belt, slacks ect.. I want the lipstick ones.

Nice, male heterosexism at its finest.

Being gay is fine as long as you&#39;re a &#39;lipstick lesbian&#39; :rolleyes:

You don&#39;t see a contradiction in your position on gay women and men?

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by Loknar+--> (Loknar)I don’t hate gay people but i don’t want my kid to be gay. I just have a real problem with it.[/b]

Erm, okay... you don&#39;t &#39;hate&#39; gay people but you don&#39;t want your kids to be gay and you have a &#39;real problem&#39; with homosexuality? Your statements don&#39;t really flow. If you don&#39;t &#39;hate&#39; gay people why cant your kids be gay? And why do you have a &#39;real problem&#39; with it?

What does having a &#39;real problem&#39; mean?

What do you have a problem with?



Originally posted by [email protected]
I also have a problem dating any girl who is Bi. If I find out she is Bi I will block any thought in my head about being with her.

While, i&#39;m glad i&#39;m not such a bigoted human being, i feel sorry for you :(


Loknar
And no I only want attractive lesbians at my place….I am not into the spiky hair, eyebrow piercing, purple hair (though sometimes it looks sexy if its combed right), keys attached to the belt, slacks ect.. I want the lipstick ones.

Nice, male heterosexism at its finest.

Being gay is fine as long as you&#39;re a &#39;lipstick lesbian&#39; :rolleyes:

You don&#39;t see a contradiction in your position on gay women and men?

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by Loknar+--> (Loknar)I don’t hate gay people but i don’t want my kid to be gay. I just have a real problem with it.[/b]

Erm, okay... you don&#39;t &#39;hate&#39; gay people but you don&#39;t want your kids to be gay and you have a &#39;real problem&#39; with homosexuality? Your statements don&#39;t really flow. If you don&#39;t &#39;hate&#39; gay people why cant your kids be gay? And why do you have a &#39;real problem&#39; with it?

What does having a &#39;real problem&#39; mean?

What do you have a problem with?



Originally posted by [email protected]
I also have a problem dating any girl who is Bi. If I find out she is Bi I will block any thought in my head about being with her.

While, i&#39;m glad i&#39;m not such a bigoted human being, i feel sorry for you :(


Loknar
And no I only want attractive lesbians at my place….I am not into the spiky hair, eyebrow piercing, purple hair (though sometimes it looks sexy if its combed right), keys attached to the belt, slacks ect.. I want the lipstick ones.

Nice, male heterosexism at its finest.

Being gay is fine as long as you&#39;re a &#39;lipstick lesbian&#39; :rolleyes:

You don&#39;t see a contradiction in your position on gay women and men?

[overlord]

QUOTE (Loknar)
And no I only want attractive lesbians at my place….I am not into the spiky hair, eyebrow piercing, purple hair (though sometimes it looks sexy if its combed right), keys attached to the belt, slacks ect.. I want the lipstick ones.



Nice, male heterosexism at its finest.

Being gay is fine as long as you&#39;re a &#39;lipstick lesbian&#39;

You don&#39;t see a contradiction in your position on gay women and men?

So you would be quite happy to let him bang an eyebrow-piercing, purple hair, can&#39;t comb lesbian against his will? For the sake of &#39;equality&#39;? How &#39;libertarian&#39;&#33; But, OH-NO he&#39;s being a &#39;heterosexist&#33;&#39;. Quick, someone call CNN. Not only is Loknar a &#39;heterosexual&#39; SHOCK&#33; He likes women with lipstick&#33; OMG Shoot him. We should force him to fuck a donkey as well or that would be donkeyism, right? :rolleyes:

[overlord]

QUOTE (Loknar)
And no I only want attractive lesbians at my place….I am not into the spiky hair, eyebrow piercing, purple hair (though sometimes it looks sexy if its combed right), keys attached to the belt, slacks ect.. I want the lipstick ones.



Nice, male heterosexism at its finest.

Being gay is fine as long as you&#39;re a &#39;lipstick lesbian&#39;

You don&#39;t see a contradiction in your position on gay women and men?

So you would be quite happy to let him bang an eyebrow-piercing, purple hair, can&#39;t comb lesbian against his will? For the sake of &#39;equality&#39;? How &#39;libertarian&#39;&#33; But, OH-NO he&#39;s being a &#39;heterosexist&#33;&#39;. Quick, someone call CNN. Not only is Loknar a &#39;heterosexual&#39; SHOCK&#33; He likes women with lipstick&#33; OMG Shoot him. We should force him to fuck a donkey as well or that would be donkeyism, right? :rolleyes:

[overlord]

QUOTE (Loknar)
And no I only want attractive lesbians at my place….I am not into the spiky hair, eyebrow piercing, purple hair (though sometimes it looks sexy if its combed right), keys attached to the belt, slacks ect.. I want the lipstick ones.



Nice, male heterosexism at its finest.

Being gay is fine as long as you&#39;re a &#39;lipstick lesbian&#39;

You don&#39;t see a contradiction in your position on gay women and men?

So you would be quite happy to let him bang an eyebrow-piercing, purple hair, can&#39;t comb lesbian against his will? For the sake of &#39;equality&#39;? How &#39;libertarian&#39;&#33; But, OH-NO he&#39;s being a &#39;heterosexist&#33;&#39;. Quick, someone call CNN. Not only is Loknar a &#39;heterosexual&#39; SHOCK&#33; He likes women with lipstick&#33; OMG Shoot him. We should force him to fuck a donkey as well or that would be donkeyism, right? :rolleyes:

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by guerillablack+Jun 22 2006, 08:04 AM--> (guerillablack @ Jun 22 2006, 08:04 AM)
[email protected] 21 2006, 09:22 AM
I don&#39;t give a shit about those "other comrades." Homosexuality is normal and biological, not a "choice" lifestyle.
how is homosexuality normal and biological? [/b]
How is it not? It exists in human beings so the potential is for it to be biological, I didn&#39;t choose my sexuality so there was something inherent in my body that developed me in that way.

Normality is all subjective so as soon as someone says it&#39;s normal, it is. Unless you have some objective way of defining normality?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by guerillablack+Jun 22 2006, 08:04 AM--> (guerillablack @ Jun 22 2006, 08:04 AM)
[email protected] 21 2006, 09:22 AM
I don&#39;t give a shit about those "other comrades." Homosexuality is normal and biological, not a "choice" lifestyle.
how is homosexuality normal and biological? [/b]
How is it not? It exists in human beings so the potential is for it to be biological, I didn&#39;t choose my sexuality so there was something inherent in my body that developed me in that way.

Normality is all subjective so as soon as someone says it&#39;s normal, it is. Unless you have some objective way of defining normality?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by guerillablack+Jun 22 2006, 08:04 AM--> (guerillablack @ Jun 22 2006, 08:04 AM)
[email protected] 21 2006, 09:22 AM
I don&#39;t give a shit about those "other comrades." Homosexuality is normal and biological, not a "choice" lifestyle.
how is homosexuality normal and biological? [/b]
How is it not? It exists in human beings so the potential is for it to be biological, I didn&#39;t choose my sexuality so there was something inherent in my body that developed me in that way.

Normality is all subjective so as soon as someone says it&#39;s normal, it is. Unless you have some objective way of defining normality?

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 10:28 AM
He likes women with lipstick&#33; OMG Shoot him. We should force him to fuck a donkey as well or that would be donkeyism, right? :rolleyes:
Whatever his own preference is his deal, and no one suggests anything otherwise, no sex should be forced. When it comes to "having a real problem with homosexuality" then it is a different matter. This is no longer just personal preference, but something projected onto others, in this case children.

What he likes is not the problem, it is that he is willing to make an exception in terms of acceptance of someone, based wholly on aesthetics. This isn&#39;t exactly an enlightened position.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 10:28 AM
He likes women with lipstick&#33; OMG Shoot him. We should force him to fuck a donkey as well or that would be donkeyism, right? :rolleyes:
Whatever his own preference is his deal, and no one suggests anything otherwise, no sex should be forced. When it comes to "having a real problem with homosexuality" then it is a different matter. This is no longer just personal preference, but something projected onto others, in this case children.

What he likes is not the problem, it is that he is willing to make an exception in terms of acceptance of someone, based wholly on aesthetics. This isn&#39;t exactly an enlightened position.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 10:28 AM
He likes women with lipstick&#33; OMG Shoot him. We should force him to fuck a donkey as well or that would be donkeyism, right? :rolleyes:
Whatever his own preference is his deal, and no one suggests anything otherwise, no sex should be forced. When it comes to "having a real problem with homosexuality" then it is a different matter. This is no longer just personal preference, but something projected onto others, in this case children.

What he likes is not the problem, it is that he is willing to make an exception in terms of acceptance of someone, based wholly on aesthetics. This isn&#39;t exactly an enlightened position.

[overlord]

Whatever his own preference is his deal, and no one suggests anything otherwise, no sex should be forced. When it comes to "having a real problem with homosexuality" then it is a different matter. This is no longer just personal preference, but something projected onto others, in this case children.

ur actually suggesting we should project pro-homosexuality onto children? :o That&#39;s a good one. HAHA you got me. Ur not serious right? I mean, lets be serious for a change. <_<


What he likes is not the problem, it is that he is willing to make an exception in terms of acceptance of someone, based wholly on aesthetics. This isn&#39;t exactly an enlightened position
I know. But life sux. Do you go out with a bum on the street after he gives you the pickup line: "gimme a nickel" :wub: ? I doubt it. So you and others gonna go out with the ugly people right to &#39;accept them. HAH&#33; &#39;I think like and acceptance is the same. ie. If ur ugly, I don&#39;t like you. I hate the ugly diminutive inbred weakling morons socialist medicine is breeding by keeping unfit babies in incubation chambers. I only like cute people. :wub: Your morality is screwing with the world.

[overlord]

Whatever his own preference is his deal, and no one suggests anything otherwise, no sex should be forced. When it comes to "having a real problem with homosexuality" then it is a different matter. This is no longer just personal preference, but something projected onto others, in this case children.

ur actually suggesting we should project pro-homosexuality onto children? :o That&#39;s a good one. HAHA you got me. Ur not serious right? I mean, lets be serious for a change. <_<


What he likes is not the problem, it is that he is willing to make an exception in terms of acceptance of someone, based wholly on aesthetics. This isn&#39;t exactly an enlightened position
I know. But life sux. Do you go out with a bum on the street after he gives you the pickup line: "gimme a nickel" :wub: ? I doubt it. So you and others gonna go out with the ugly people right to &#39;accept them. HAH&#33; &#39;I think like and acceptance is the same. ie. If ur ugly, I don&#39;t like you. I hate the ugly diminutive inbred weakling morons socialist medicine is breeding by keeping unfit babies in incubation chambers. I only like cute people. :wub: Your morality is screwing with the world.

[overlord]

Whatever his own preference is his deal, and no one suggests anything otherwise, no sex should be forced. When it comes to "having a real problem with homosexuality" then it is a different matter. This is no longer just personal preference, but something projected onto others, in this case children.

ur actually suggesting we should project pro-homosexuality onto children? :o That&#39;s a good one. HAHA you got me. Ur not serious right? I mean, lets be serious for a change. <_<


What he likes is not the problem, it is that he is willing to make an exception in terms of acceptance of someone, based wholly on aesthetics. This isn&#39;t exactly an enlightened position
I know. But life sux. Do you go out with a bum on the street after he gives you the pickup line: "gimme a nickel" :wub: ? I doubt it. So you and others gonna go out with the ugly people right to &#39;accept them. HAH&#33; &#39;I think like and acceptance is the same. ie. If ur ugly, I don&#39;t like you. I hate the ugly diminutive inbred weakling morons socialist medicine is breeding by keeping unfit babies in incubation chambers. I only like cute people. :wub: Your morality is screwing with the world.

[RevMARKSman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 07:25 AM

Whatever his own preference is his deal, and no one suggests anything otherwise, no sex should be forced. When it comes to "having a real problem with homosexuality" then it is a different matter. This is no longer just personal preference, but something projected onto others, in this case children.

ur actually suggesting we should project pro-homosexuality onto children? :o That&#39;s a good one. HAHA you got me. Ur not serious right? I mean, lets be serious for a change. <_<


What he likes is not the problem, it is that he is willing to make an exception in terms of acceptance of someone, based wholly on aesthetics. This isn&#39;t exactly an enlightened position
I know. But life sux. Do you go out with a bum on the street after he gives you the pickup line: "gimme a nickel" :wub: ? I doubt it. So you and others gonna go out with the ugly people right to &#39;accept them. HAH&#33; &#39;I think like and acceptance is the same. ie. If ur ugly, I don&#39;t like you. I hate the ugly diminutive inbred weakling morons socialist medicine is breeding by keeping unfit babies in incubation chambers. I only like cute people. :wub: Your morality is screwing with the world.
He&#39;s saying we shouldn&#39;t *not* love our children as much simply because of aesthetics or our own prejudices. You can be homophobic by yourself, but when it involves discriminating against homosexuals, you&#39;d better shut up. You are allowed to only date cute people, but you&#39;ve got to treat everyone equally as a human being in society. You don&#39;t have to date them, but if they&#39;re a person, you&#39;ve got to treat them as such. In Loknar&#39;s case, he doesn&#39;t have to date his children ( :blink: ) but still has to treat them the same as any other human being, and not love them any less because of something as irrelevant as sexual preference.

[RevMARKSman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 07:25 AM

Whatever his own preference is his deal, and no one suggests anything otherwise, no sex should be forced. When it comes to "having a real problem with homosexuality" then it is a different matter. This is no longer just personal preference, but something projected onto others, in this case children.

ur actually suggesting we should project pro-homosexuality onto children? :o That&#39;s a good one. HAHA you got me. Ur not serious right? I mean, lets be serious for a change. <_<


What he likes is not the problem, it is that he is willing to make an exception in terms of acceptance of someone, based wholly on aesthetics. This isn&#39;t exactly an enlightened position
I know. But life sux. Do you go out with a bum on the street after he gives you the pickup line: "gimme a nickel" :wub: ? I doubt it. So you and others gonna go out with the ugly people right to &#39;accept them. HAH&#33; &#39;I think like and acceptance is the same. ie. If ur ugly, I don&#39;t like you. I hate the ugly diminutive inbred weakling morons socialist medicine is breeding by keeping unfit babies in incubation chambers. I only like cute people. :wub: Your morality is screwing with the world.
He&#39;s saying we shouldn&#39;t *not* love our children as much simply because of aesthetics or our own prejudices. You can be homophobic by yourself, but when it involves discriminating against homosexuals, you&#39;d better shut up. You are allowed to only date cute people, but you&#39;ve got to treat everyone equally as a human being in society. You don&#39;t have to date them, but if they&#39;re a person, you&#39;ve got to treat them as such. In Loknar&#39;s case, he doesn&#39;t have to date his children ( :blink: ) but still has to treat them the same as any other human being, and not love them any less because of something as irrelevant as sexual preference.

[RevMARKSman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 07:25 AM

Whatever his own preference is his deal, and no one suggests anything otherwise, no sex should be forced. When it comes to "having a real problem with homosexuality" then it is a different matter. This is no longer just personal preference, but something projected onto others, in this case children.

ur actually suggesting we should project pro-homosexuality onto children? :o That&#39;s a good one. HAHA you got me. Ur not serious right? I mean, lets be serious for a change. <_<


What he likes is not the problem, it is that he is willing to make an exception in terms of acceptance of someone, based wholly on aesthetics. This isn&#39;t exactly an enlightened position
I know. But life sux. Do you go out with a bum on the street after he gives you the pickup line: "gimme a nickel" :wub: ? I doubt it. So you and others gonna go out with the ugly people right to &#39;accept them. HAH&#33; &#39;I think like and acceptance is the same. ie. If ur ugly, I don&#39;t like you. I hate the ugly diminutive inbred weakling morons socialist medicine is breeding by keeping unfit babies in incubation chambers. I only like cute people. :wub: Your morality is screwing with the world.
He&#39;s saying we shouldn&#39;t *not* love our children as much simply because of aesthetics or our own prejudices. You can be homophobic by yourself, but when it involves discriminating against homosexuals, you&#39;d better shut up. You are allowed to only date cute people, but you&#39;ve got to treat everyone equally as a human being in society. You don&#39;t have to date them, but if they&#39;re a person, you&#39;ve got to treat them as such. In Loknar&#39;s case, he doesn&#39;t have to date his children ( :blink: ) but still has to treat them the same as any other human being, and not love them any less because of something as irrelevant as sexual preference.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 01:25 PM

Whatever his own preference is his deal, and no one suggests anything otherwise, no sex should be forced. When it comes to "having a real problem with homosexuality" then it is a different matter. This is no longer just personal preference, but something projected onto others, in this case children. ur actually suggesting we should project pro-homosexuality onto children? ohmy.gif That&#39;s a good one. HAHA you got me. Ur not serious right? I mean, lets be serious for a change.
Well, I&#39;m serious. I think it&#39;s important and necessary for teachers and parents to project homosexuality no more or no less than heterosexuality. Homosexuality exists and the recognition of it happens in children at young ages.

Children should understand and be taught that it is not wrong to be a homosexual and that it is as valid a sexuality and lifestyle as heterosexuality

Are you saying that this is not acceptable? If so, why?



What he likes is not the problem, it is that he is willing to make an exception in terms of acceptance of someone, based wholly on aesthetics. This isn&#39;t exactly an enlightened position
I know. But life sux.

That&#39;s no a valid not acceptable argument.


Do you go out with a bum on the street after he gives you the pickup line: "gimme a nickel" :wub: ? I doubt it. So you and others gonna go out with the ugly people right to &#39;accept them. HAH&#33;

The ugly people? I&#39;d be interested to see exactly what it is you look like.

Regardless of that, people who are not as vain and as superficial as that and of course mature enough, will understand that relationships are far more complex and diverse than aesthetics.


&#39;I think like and acceptance is the same. ie. If ur ugly, I don&#39;t like you. I hate the ugly diminutive inbred weakling morons socialist medicine is breeding by keeping unfit babies in incubation chambers. I only like cute people. :wub: Your morality is screwing with the world.

So what&#39;s your solution?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 01:25 PM

Whatever his own preference is his deal, and no one suggests anything otherwise, no sex should be forced. When it comes to "having a real problem with homosexuality" then it is a different matter. This is no longer just personal preference, but something projected onto others, in this case children. ur actually suggesting we should project pro-homosexuality onto children? ohmy.gif That&#39;s a good one. HAHA you got me. Ur not serious right? I mean, lets be serious for a change.
Well, I&#39;m serious. I think it&#39;s important and necessary for teachers and parents to project homosexuality no more or no less than heterosexuality. Homosexuality exists and the recognition of it happens in children at young ages.

Children should understand and be taught that it is not wrong to be a homosexual and that it is as valid a sexuality and lifestyle as heterosexuality

Are you saying that this is not acceptable? If so, why?



What he likes is not the problem, it is that he is willing to make an exception in terms of acceptance of someone, based wholly on aesthetics. This isn&#39;t exactly an enlightened position
I know. But life sux.

That&#39;s no a valid not acceptable argument.


Do you go out with a bum on the street after he gives you the pickup line: "gimme a nickel" :wub: ? I doubt it. So you and others gonna go out with the ugly people right to &#39;accept them. HAH&#33;

The ugly people? I&#39;d be interested to see exactly what it is you look like.

Regardless of that, people who are not as vain and as superficial as that and of course mature enough, will understand that relationships are far more complex and diverse than aesthetics.


&#39;I think like and acceptance is the same. ie. If ur ugly, I don&#39;t like you. I hate the ugly diminutive inbred weakling morons socialist medicine is breeding by keeping unfit babies in incubation chambers. I only like cute people. :wub: Your morality is screwing with the world.

So what&#39;s your solution?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 01:25 PM

Whatever his own preference is his deal, and no one suggests anything otherwise, no sex should be forced. When it comes to "having a real problem with homosexuality" then it is a different matter. This is no longer just personal preference, but something projected onto others, in this case children. ur actually suggesting we should project pro-homosexuality onto children? ohmy.gif That&#39;s a good one. HAHA you got me. Ur not serious right? I mean, lets be serious for a change.
Well, I&#39;m serious. I think it&#39;s important and necessary for teachers and parents to project homosexuality no more or no less than heterosexuality. Homosexuality exists and the recognition of it happens in children at young ages.

Children should understand and be taught that it is not wrong to be a homosexual and that it is as valid a sexuality and lifestyle as heterosexuality

Are you saying that this is not acceptable? If so, why?



What he likes is not the problem, it is that he is willing to make an exception in terms of acceptance of someone, based wholly on aesthetics. This isn&#39;t exactly an enlightened position
I know. But life sux.

That&#39;s no a valid not acceptable argument.


Do you go out with a bum on the street after he gives you the pickup line: "gimme a nickel" :wub: ? I doubt it. So you and others gonna go out with the ugly people right to &#39;accept them. HAH&#33;

The ugly people? I&#39;d be interested to see exactly what it is you look like.

Regardless of that, people who are not as vain and as superficial as that and of course mature enough, will understand that relationships are far more complex and diverse than aesthetics.


&#39;I think like and acceptance is the same. ie. If ur ugly, I don&#39;t like you. I hate the ugly diminutive inbred weakling morons socialist medicine is breeding by keeping unfit babies in incubation chambers. I only like cute people. :wub: Your morality is screwing with the world.

So what&#39;s your solution?

[JimmyC]

OK...

Something&#39;s very wrong here:

I read on one of the above comments that there is a member here who can&#39;t get it up if he learns his girl likes being with other girls.

I guess I have to spell it out...


When you find a girl who likes making love to you, AND OTHER WOMEN ALSO.....YOU KEEP HER&#33;&#33;&#33;

AT ALL COSTS&#33;&#33;&#33;

hello?&#33;?&#33;?&#33;?&#33;?&#33;?&#33;?&#33;

HELLLLLOOOOOO?&#33;?&#33;?&#33;?&#33;?&#33;?&#33;?&#33;?&#33;

[JimmyC]

OK...

Something&#39;s very wrong here:

I read on one of the above comments that there is a member here who can&#39;t get it up if he learns his girl likes being with other girls.

I guess I have to spell it out...


When you find a girl who likes making love to you, AND OTHER WOMEN ALSO.....YOU KEEP HER&#33;&#33;&#33;

AT ALL COSTS&#33;&#33;&#33;

hello?&#33;?&#33;?&#33;?&#33;?&#33;?&#33;?&#33;

HELLLLLOOOOOO?&#33;?&#33;?&#33;?&#33;?&#33;?&#33;?&#33;?&#33;

[JimmyC]

OK...

Something&#39;s very wrong here:

I read on one of the above comments that there is a member here who can&#39;t get it up if he learns his girl likes being with other girls.

I guess I have to spell it out...


When you find a girl who likes making love to you, AND OTHER WOMEN ALSO.....YOU KEEP HER&#33;&#33;&#33;

AT ALL COSTS&#33;&#33;&#33;

hello?&#33;?&#33;?&#33;?&#33;?&#33;?&#33;?&#33;

HELLLLLOOOOOO?&#33;?&#33;?&#33;?&#33;?&#33;?&#33;?&#33;?&#33;

[ummProfessional]

^^^ HAHAHAHAHA&#33;&#33; :lol: seriously lmao

[ummProfessional]

^^^ HAHAHAHAHA&#33;&#33; :lol: seriously lmao

[ummProfessional]

^^^ HAHAHAHAHA&#33;&#33; :lol: seriously lmao

[RevMARKSman]

Real nice counter-argument. :lol: Come on, you can do better than that.

[RevMARKSman]

Real nice counter-argument. :lol: Come on, you can do better than that.

[RevMARKSman]

Real nice counter-argument. :lol: Come on, you can do better than that.

[ummProfessional]

Real nice counter-argument. Come on, you can do better than that.

well i was only meaning to agree with Jimmy, but i guess i can&#39;t even agree with somebody before the no life looser admins who have nothing better to do than watch for the restricted members and warn them for the most minimal thing....but whatever they have the power they are the "oppressors" i don&#39;t have a vioce and thats how it is....

it wouldn&#39;t even surpirse me if some other admin comes here and warns be for being a "reactionary" :lol: funny , because a reactionary would be someone like Pat Robertson, yet if someone compares me to this guy heck you can start calling me a nazi for that matter...

[ummProfessional]

Real nice counter-argument. Come on, you can do better than that.

well i was only meaning to agree with Jimmy, but i guess i can&#39;t even agree with somebody before the no life looser admins who have nothing better to do than watch for the restricted members and warn them for the most minimal thing....but whatever they have the power they are the "oppressors" i don&#39;t have a vioce and thats how it is....

it wouldn&#39;t even surpirse me if some other admin comes here and warns be for being a "reactionary" :lol: funny , because a reactionary would be someone like Pat Robertson, yet if someone compares me to this guy heck you can start calling me a nazi for that matter...

[ummProfessional]

Real nice counter-argument. Come on, you can do better than that.

well i was only meaning to agree with Jimmy, but i guess i can&#39;t even agree with somebody before the no life looser admins who have nothing better to do than watch for the restricted members and warn them for the most minimal thing....but whatever they have the power they are the "oppressors" i don&#39;t have a vioce and thats how it is....

it wouldn&#39;t even surpirse me if some other admin comes here and warns be for being a "reactionary" :lol: funny , because a reactionary would be someone like Pat Robertson, yet if someone compares me to this guy heck you can start calling me a nazi for that matter...

[guerillablack]

Seriously, who wants their kid to be gay? To me that&#39;s like wanting your kid to be blind or grow up impotent. No one wishes or wants those things. Whoever does is lying or just plain weird. Not wanting my kid to be blind doesnt make me hate blind people or a blindophobe(since not wanting my kid to be gay makes me a suffer from homophobia accoridng to this place)

[guerillablack]

Seriously, who wants their kid to be gay? To me that&#39;s like wanting your kid to be blind or grow up impotent. No one wishes or wants those things. Whoever does is lying or just plain weird. Not wanting my kid to be blind doesnt make me hate blind people or a blindophobe(since not wanting my kid to be gay makes me a suffer from homophobia accoridng to this place)

[guerillablack]

Seriously, who wants their kid to be gay? To me that&#39;s like wanting your kid to be blind or grow up impotent. No one wishes or wants those things. Whoever does is lying or just plain weird. Not wanting my kid to be blind doesnt make me hate blind people or a blindophobe(since not wanting my kid to be gay makes me a suffer from homophobia accoridng to this place)

[LSD]

Seriously, who wants their kid to be gay?

I think that most mature parents don&#39;t think in those terms.

They want their children to be happy and fullfilled; they want them to be a good person and to find another good person to love. I really don&#39;t think that the sexual organs that other person happens to have is really their priority.

It&#39;s only bigots who spend time preoccupying with whether their child&#39;s partner will be "acceptable". <_<


Not wanting my kid to be blind doesnt make me hate blind people

No, but it means that you consider being blind inferior to being sighted.

Do you consider being homosexual inferior to being heterosexual? :o

[LSD]

Seriously, who wants their kid to be gay?

I think that most mature parents don&#39;t think in those terms.

They want their children to be happy and fullfilled; they want them to be a good person and to find another good person to love. I really don&#39;t think that the sexual organs that other person happens to have is really their priority.

It&#39;s only bigots who spend time preoccupying with whether their child&#39;s partner will be "acceptable". <_<


Not wanting my kid to be blind doesnt make me hate blind people

No, but it means that you consider being blind inferior to being sighted.

Do you consider being homosexual inferior to being heterosexual? :o

[LSD]

Seriously, who wants their kid to be gay?

I think that most mature parents don&#39;t think in those terms.

They want their children to be happy and fullfilled; they want them to be a good person and to find another good person to love. I really don&#39;t think that the sexual organs that other person happens to have is really their priority.

It&#39;s only bigots who spend time preoccupying with whether their child&#39;s partner will be "acceptable". <_<


Not wanting my kid to be blind doesnt make me hate blind people

No, but it means that you consider being blind inferior to being sighted.

Do you consider being homosexual inferior to being heterosexual? :o

[ummProfessional]

well guerrillablack what do you expect? i was called a homophobe for saying homosexuality is not the normal sexual orientation a human being is supposed to have, i take it if i say mental retardation is not the normal state of mind a human being is supposed to have im also a biggot :rolleyes:

[ummProfessional]

well guerrillablack what do you expect? i was called a homophobe for saying homosexuality is not the normal sexual orientation a human being is supposed to have, i take it if i say mental retardation is not the normal state of mind a human being is supposed to have im also a biggot :rolleyes:

[ummProfessional]

well guerrillablack what do you expect? i was called a homophobe for saying homosexuality is not the normal sexual orientation a human being is supposed to have, i take it if i say mental retardation is not the normal state of mind a human being is supposed to have im also a biggot :rolleyes:

[JimmyC]

ummPro:
Seriously, who wants their kid to be gay?

LSD:
I think that most mature parents don&#39;t think in those terms.
They want their children to be happy and fullfilled; they want them to be a good person and to find another good person to love. I really don&#39;t think that the sexual organs that other person happens to have is really their priority.
It&#39;s only bigots who spend time preoccupying with whether their child&#39;s partner will be "acceptable".


Well, I finally found something to agree with ummPro on this thread. This is also an example of how "seemingly politically correct phrasing can get one into trouble, and make one&#39;s views appear disingenuiness.


Generally speaking, most parents want their children to be hetro. I have met plenty of parents who have said they would be supportive of their children if they were homo, but not either in favor or placing home on the same level as hetro. I am a parent and I am no different.

Now, to a brief comment: THERE ARE THOSE HERE, ADMINISRATORS ESPECIALLY, WHO WILL TAKE THAT COMMENT AND PAINT ME A BIGOT. I AM NOT CONCERNED WITH THEIR TINY MINDED VIEW OF THE WORLD.

One of the things we begin to think about in our 40&#39;s is grandchildren, preferably naturally born from our children and their mates.

Now, to a brief comment: THERE ARE THOSE HERE, ADMINISRATORS ESPECIALLY, WHO WILL TAKE THAT COMMENT AND PAINT ME A BIGOT. I AM NOT CONCERNED WITH THEIR TINY MINDED VIEW OF THE WORLD. ALL PARENTS (OR 95% AT ANY RATE) WANT AS THEIR FIRST CHOICE, CHILDREN TO COME FROM THEIR LOINS. ADOTION BECOMES AN OPTION AFTERWARD. ONLY A SMALL, SMALL, SMALL NUMBER OF PARENTS WANT TO ADOPT AS THEIR FIRST CHOICE. SOME OF THE IDIOTS HERE WOULD HAVE YOU BELIEVE THAT PARENTS WHO WANT NATURAL BIRTH AS A FIRST CHOICE OVER ADOPTION ARE BIGOTS. TO MAKE THAT COMMENT MAKES THEM MORONS.


ummPro:
Not wanting my kid to be blind doesnt make me hate blind people

LSD:
No, but it means that you consider being blind inferior to being sighted.


Here ummPro&#39;s view is not only the norm, but complety without prejudice or bigotry. The word "inferior" becomes the joker in the pack:

Is the person inferior in the sense that their worth as a human being is less than a sighted person? Of course not. No one would argue so.

Is the person inferior in the sense that their abilities are less than a sighted person when is comes to vision? Of course. No one would argue not so.

If given the even choice, all parents would choose their children to have the best vision possible.


ummPro, you can see the problem associated with Marxist arguments of SWEEPING arguments of bigotry and prejudice. It&#39;s not really the "fault" of the Marxist. Once they brainwash themselves, ANYTHING that places another on a different scale against his fellow human is an evil.

[JimmyC]

ummPro:
Seriously, who wants their kid to be gay?

LSD:
I think that most mature parents don&#39;t think in those terms.
They want their children to be happy and fullfilled; they want them to be a good person and to find another good person to love. I really don&#39;t think that the sexual organs that other person happens to have is really their priority.
It&#39;s only bigots who spend time preoccupying with whether their child&#39;s partner will be "acceptable".


Well, I finally found something to agree with ummPro on this thread. This is also an example of how "seemingly politically correct phrasing can get one into trouble, and make one&#39;s views appear disingenuiness.


Generally speaking, most parents want their children to be hetro. I have met plenty of parents who have said they would be supportive of their children if they were homo, but not either in favor or placing home on the same level as hetro. I am a parent and I am no different.

Now, to a brief comment: THERE ARE THOSE HERE, ADMINISRATORS ESPECIALLY, WHO WILL TAKE THAT COMMENT AND PAINT ME A BIGOT. I AM NOT CONCERNED WITH THEIR TINY MINDED VIEW OF THE WORLD.

One of the things we begin to think about in our 40&#39;s is grandchildren, preferably naturally born from our children and their mates.

Now, to a brief comment: THERE ARE THOSE HERE, ADMINISRATORS ESPECIALLY, WHO WILL TAKE THAT COMMENT AND PAINT ME A BIGOT. I AM NOT CONCERNED WITH THEIR TINY MINDED VIEW OF THE WORLD. ALL PARENTS (OR 95% AT ANY RATE) WANT AS THEIR FIRST CHOICE, CHILDREN TO COME FROM THEIR LOINS. ADOTION BECOMES AN OPTION AFTERWARD. ONLY A SMALL, SMALL, SMALL NUMBER OF PARENTS WANT TO ADOPT AS THEIR FIRST CHOICE. SOME OF THE IDIOTS HERE WOULD HAVE YOU BELIEVE THAT PARENTS WHO WANT NATURAL BIRTH AS A FIRST CHOICE OVER ADOPTION ARE BIGOTS. TO MAKE THAT COMMENT MAKES THEM MORONS.


ummPro:
Not wanting my kid to be blind doesnt make me hate blind people

LSD:
No, but it means that you consider being blind inferior to being sighted.


Here ummPro&#39;s view is not only the norm, but complety without prejudice or bigotry. The word "inferior" becomes the joker in the pack:

Is the person inferior in the sense that their worth as a human being is less than a sighted person? Of course not. No one would argue so.

Is the person inferior in the sense that their abilities are less than a sighted person when is comes to vision? Of course. No one would argue not so.

If given the even choice, all parents would choose their children to have the best vision possible.


ummPro, you can see the problem associated with Marxist arguments of SWEEPING arguments of bigotry and prejudice. It&#39;s not really the "fault" of the Marxist. Once they brainwash themselves, ANYTHING that places another on a different scale against his fellow human is an evil.

[JimmyC]

ummPro:
Seriously, who wants their kid to be gay?

LSD:
I think that most mature parents don&#39;t think in those terms.
They want their children to be happy and fullfilled; they want them to be a good person and to find another good person to love. I really don&#39;t think that the sexual organs that other person happens to have is really their priority.
It&#39;s only bigots who spend time preoccupying with whether their child&#39;s partner will be "acceptable".


Well, I finally found something to agree with ummPro on this thread. This is also an example of how "seemingly politically correct phrasing can get one into trouble, and make one&#39;s views appear disingenuiness.


Generally speaking, most parents want their children to be hetro. I have met plenty of parents who have said they would be supportive of their children if they were homo, but not either in favor or placing home on the same level as hetro. I am a parent and I am no different.

Now, to a brief comment: THERE ARE THOSE HERE, ADMINISRATORS ESPECIALLY, WHO WILL TAKE THAT COMMENT AND PAINT ME A BIGOT. I AM NOT CONCERNED WITH THEIR TINY MINDED VIEW OF THE WORLD.

One of the things we begin to think about in our 40&#39;s is grandchildren, preferably naturally born from our children and their mates.

Now, to a brief comment: THERE ARE THOSE HERE, ADMINISRATORS ESPECIALLY, WHO WILL TAKE THAT COMMENT AND PAINT ME A BIGOT. I AM NOT CONCERNED WITH THEIR TINY MINDED VIEW OF THE WORLD. ALL PARENTS (OR 95% AT ANY RATE) WANT AS THEIR FIRST CHOICE, CHILDREN TO COME FROM THEIR LOINS. ADOTION BECOMES AN OPTION AFTERWARD. ONLY A SMALL, SMALL, SMALL NUMBER OF PARENTS WANT TO ADOPT AS THEIR FIRST CHOICE. SOME OF THE IDIOTS HERE WOULD HAVE YOU BELIEVE THAT PARENTS WHO WANT NATURAL BIRTH AS A FIRST CHOICE OVER ADOPTION ARE BIGOTS. TO MAKE THAT COMMENT MAKES THEM MORONS.


ummPro:
Not wanting my kid to be blind doesnt make me hate blind people

LSD:
No, but it means that you consider being blind inferior to being sighted.


Here ummPro&#39;s view is not only the norm, but complety without prejudice or bigotry. The word "inferior" becomes the joker in the pack:

Is the person inferior in the sense that their worth as a human being is less than a sighted person? Of course not. No one would argue so.

Is the person inferior in the sense that their abilities are less than a sighted person when is comes to vision? Of course. No one would argue not so.

If given the even choice, all parents would choose their children to have the best vision possible.


ummPro, you can see the problem associated with Marxist arguments of SWEEPING arguments of bigotry and prejudice. It&#39;s not really the "fault" of the Marxist. Once they brainwash themselves, ANYTHING that places another on a different scale against his fellow human is an evil.

[RevMARKSman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 11:31 AM

Real nice counter-argument. Come on, you can do better than that.

well i was only meaning to agree with Jimmy, but i guess i can&#39;t even agree with somebody before the no life looser admins who have nothing better to do than watch for the restricted members and warn them for the most minimal thing....but whatever they have the power they are the "oppressors" i don&#39;t have a vioce and thats how it is....

it wouldn&#39;t even surpirse me if some other admin comes here and warns be for being a "reactionary" :lol: funny , because a reactionary would be someone like Pat Robertson, yet if someone compares me to this guy heck you can start calling me a nazi for that matter...

well i was only meaning to agree with Jimmy
Oh. To me, "^^^" means "look three posts above" and, in this case, to my post--thought you were laughing at my post with no counter-argument.

[RevMARKSman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 11:31 AM

Real nice counter-argument. Come on, you can do better than that.

well i was only meaning to agree with Jimmy, but i guess i can&#39;t even agree with somebody before the no life looser admins who have nothing better to do than watch for the restricted members and warn them for the most minimal thing....but whatever they have the power they are the "oppressors" i don&#39;t have a vioce and thats how it is....

it wouldn&#39;t even surpirse me if some other admin comes here and warns be for being a "reactionary" :lol: funny , because a reactionary would be someone like Pat Robertson, yet if someone compares me to this guy heck you can start calling me a nazi for that matter...

well i was only meaning to agree with Jimmy
Oh. To me, "^^^" means "look three posts above" and, in this case, to my post--thought you were laughing at my post with no counter-argument.

[RevMARKSman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 11:31 AM

Real nice counter-argument. Come on, you can do better than that.

well i was only meaning to agree with Jimmy, but i guess i can&#39;t even agree with somebody before the no life looser admins who have nothing better to do than watch for the restricted members and warn them for the most minimal thing....but whatever they have the power they are the "oppressors" i don&#39;t have a vioce and thats how it is....

it wouldn&#39;t even surpirse me if some other admin comes here and warns be for being a "reactionary" :lol: funny , because a reactionary would be someone like Pat Robertson, yet if someone compares me to this guy heck you can start calling me a nazi for that matter...

well i was only meaning to agree with Jimmy
Oh. To me, "^^^" means "look three posts above" and, in this case, to my post--thought you were laughing at my post with no counter-argument.

[LSD]

Generally speaking, most parents want their children to be hetro.

And in the 50s, most white parents wanted their children to only date whites.

So what?

Biggotry can still be biggotry even if it&#39;s commonplace. Indeed, that&#39;s usually when it&#39;s the most destructive.


SOME OF THE IDIOTS HERE WOULD HAVE YOU BELIEVE THAT PARENTS WHO WANT NATURAL BIRTH AS A FIRST CHOICE OVER ADOPTION ARE BIGOTS.

:huh:

Could you provide a Link? Because I don&#39;t recall anyone saying that not wanting to adopt is "bigotry".


Here ummPro&#39;s view is not only the norm, but complety without prejudice or bigotry.

From what I can tell, Guerillablack&#39;s position (that&#39;s who I was responding to, by the way) is that being homosexual is akin to being blind. That is, it&#39;s like having a disability.

That certainly dounds like prejudice to me&#33;

And tell me, what if he had said the same thing with regards to asians. What if he had said, I don&#39;t want my daughter to marry an asian, it would be like if she dated a cripple.

Are you really saying that you wouldn&#39;t find such a comment racist in the least? Really???


Is the person inferior in the sense that their abilities are less than a sighted person when is comes to vision? Of course. No one would argue not so.

That&#39;s because blindness actually is inferior to sightedness. It is, by definition, the lack of an ability and the inability to excersize a natural human capacity.

Homosexuality, however, is perfectly normal and healthy sexual orientation and equating it with a disability is disgustingly homophobic.

[LSD]

Generally speaking, most parents want their children to be hetro.

And in the 50s, most white parents wanted their children to only date whites.

So what?

Biggotry can still be biggotry even if it&#39;s commonplace. Indeed, that&#39;s usually when it&#39;s the most destructive.


SOME OF THE IDIOTS HERE WOULD HAVE YOU BELIEVE THAT PARENTS WHO WANT NATURAL BIRTH AS A FIRST CHOICE OVER ADOPTION ARE BIGOTS.

:huh:

Could you provide a Link? Because I don&#39;t recall anyone saying that not wanting to adopt is "bigotry".


Here ummPro&#39;s view is not only the norm, but complety without prejudice or bigotry.

From what I can tell, Guerillablack&#39;s position (that&#39;s who I was responding to, by the way) is that being homosexual is akin to being blind. That is, it&#39;s like having a disability.

That certainly dounds like prejudice to me&#33;

And tell me, what if he had said the same thing with regards to asians. What if he had said, I don&#39;t want my daughter to marry an asian, it would be like if she dated a cripple.

Are you really saying that you wouldn&#39;t find such a comment racist in the least? Really???


Is the person inferior in the sense that their abilities are less than a sighted person when is comes to vision? Of course. No one would argue not so.

That&#39;s because blindness actually is inferior to sightedness. It is, by definition, the lack of an ability and the inability to excersize a natural human capacity.

Homosexuality, however, is perfectly normal and healthy sexual orientation and equating it with a disability is disgustingly homophobic.

[LSD]

Generally speaking, most parents want their children to be hetro.

And in the 50s, most white parents wanted their children to only date whites.

So what?

Biggotry can still be biggotry even if it&#39;s commonplace. Indeed, that&#39;s usually when it&#39;s the most destructive.


SOME OF THE IDIOTS HERE WOULD HAVE YOU BELIEVE THAT PARENTS WHO WANT NATURAL BIRTH AS A FIRST CHOICE OVER ADOPTION ARE BIGOTS.

:huh:

Could you provide a Link? Because I don&#39;t recall anyone saying that not wanting to adopt is "bigotry".


Here ummPro&#39;s view is not only the norm, but complety without prejudice or bigotry.

From what I can tell, Guerillablack&#39;s position (that&#39;s who I was responding to, by the way) is that being homosexual is akin to being blind. That is, it&#39;s like having a disability.

That certainly dounds like prejudice to me&#33;

And tell me, what if he had said the same thing with regards to asians. What if he had said, I don&#39;t want my daughter to marry an asian, it would be like if she dated a cripple.

Are you really saying that you wouldn&#39;t find such a comment racist in the least? Really???


Is the person inferior in the sense that their abilities are less than a sighted person when is comes to vision? Of course. No one would argue not so.

That&#39;s because blindness actually is inferior to sightedness. It is, by definition, the lack of an ability and the inability to excersize a natural human capacity.

Homosexuality, however, is perfectly normal and healthy sexual orientation and equating it with a disability is disgustingly homophobic.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by guerrillablack
Seriously, who wants their kid to be gay?
No one wishes or wants those things. Whoever does is lying or just plain weird. Not wanting my kid to be blind doesnt make me hate blind people or a blindophobe(since not wanting my kid to be gay makes me a suffer from homophobia accoridng to this place)

Well no one should want their child to have any specific sexuality, the sexuality of your children is not something you can or should try to control.

Furthermore it shouldnt matter what the sexuality of your child is.

But yes, if you say that you dont want your child to be queer, you&#39;re making a distinction - you have no problem with having a hetero child - you actually WANT to have a hetero child - it&#39;s not that you dont care either way, you actively want to have hetero kids because that would be &#39;better&#39; in your mind. You&#39;re placing one sexuality over another, one is superior, preferable, one is inferior and unwelcome - that is homophobic.

Why should your child&#39;s sexuality matter to you?

The reality is, if the sexuality of your child does matter to you, and its because they&#39;re queer, then you&#39;re a homophobe.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by guerrillablack
Seriously, who wants their kid to be gay?
No one wishes or wants those things. Whoever does is lying or just plain weird. Not wanting my kid to be blind doesnt make me hate blind people or a blindophobe(since not wanting my kid to be gay makes me a suffer from homophobia accoridng to this place)

Well no one should want their child to have any specific sexuality, the sexuality of your children is not something you can or should try to control.

Furthermore it shouldnt matter what the sexuality of your child is.

But yes, if you say that you dont want your child to be queer, you&#39;re making a distinction - you have no problem with having a hetero child - you actually WANT to have a hetero child - it&#39;s not that you dont care either way, you actively want to have hetero kids because that would be &#39;better&#39; in your mind. You&#39;re placing one sexuality over another, one is superior, preferable, one is inferior and unwelcome - that is homophobic.

Why should your child&#39;s sexuality matter to you?

The reality is, if the sexuality of your child does matter to you, and its because they&#39;re queer, then you&#39;re a homophobe.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by guerrillablack
Seriously, who wants their kid to be gay?
No one wishes or wants those things. Whoever does is lying or just plain weird. Not wanting my kid to be blind doesnt make me hate blind people or a blindophobe(since not wanting my kid to be gay makes me a suffer from homophobia accoridng to this place)

Well no one should want their child to have any specific sexuality, the sexuality of your children is not something you can or should try to control.

Furthermore it shouldnt matter what the sexuality of your child is.

But yes, if you say that you dont want your child to be queer, you&#39;re making a distinction - you have no problem with having a hetero child - you actually WANT to have a hetero child - it&#39;s not that you dont care either way, you actively want to have hetero kids because that would be &#39;better&#39; in your mind. You&#39;re placing one sexuality over another, one is superior, preferable, one is inferior and unwelcome - that is homophobic.

Why should your child&#39;s sexuality matter to you?

The reality is, if the sexuality of your child does matter to you, and its because they&#39;re queer, then you&#39;re a homophobe.

[Marx_was_right&#33;]

well guerrillablack what do you expect? i was called a homophobe for saying homosexuality is not the normal sexual orientation a human being is supposed to have, i take it if i say mental retardation is not the normal state of mind a human being is supposed to have im also a biggot

wow. That&#39;s bad. I can&#39;t beleive a person as bigoted as you can exist.

[Marx_was_right&#33;]

well guerrillablack what do you expect? i was called a homophobe for saying homosexuality is not the normal sexual orientation a human being is supposed to have, i take it if i say mental retardation is not the normal state of mind a human being is supposed to have im also a biggot

wow. That&#39;s bad. I can&#39;t beleive a person as bigoted as you can exist.

[Marx_was_right&#33;]

well guerrillablack what do you expect? i was called a homophobe for saying homosexuality is not the normal sexual orientation a human being is supposed to have, i take it if i say mental retardation is not the normal state of mind a human being is supposed to have im also a biggot

wow. That&#39;s bad. I can&#39;t beleive a person as bigoted as you can exist.

[guerillablack]

Originally posted by Black Dagger+Jun 22 2006, 01:31 PM--> (Black Dagger @ Jun 22 2006, 01:31 PM)
guerrillablack
Seriously, who wants their kid to be gay?
No one wishes or wants those things. Whoever does is lying or just plain weird. Not wanting my kid to be blind doesnt make me hate blind people or a blindophobe(since not wanting my kid to be gay makes me a suffer from homophobia accoridng to this place)

Well no one should want their child to have any specific sexuality, the sexuality of your children is not something you can or should try to control.

Furthermore it shouldnt matter what the sexuality of your child is.

But yes, if you say that you dont want your child to be queer, you&#39;re making a distinction - you have no problem with having a hetero child - you actually WANT to have a hetero child - it&#39;s not that you dont care either way, you actively want to have hetero kids because that would be &#39;better&#39; in your mind. You&#39;re placing one sexuality over another, one is superior, preferable, one is inferior and unwelcome - that is homophobic.

Why should your child&#39;s sexuality matter to you?

The reality is, if the sexuality of your child does matter to you, and its because they&#39;re queer, then you&#39;re a homophobe. [/b]
Yeah hetero babies are better than homosexual babies. If you want grandchildren, heterosexual children are more capable of producing that then homosexual babies. So in a sense they are better at something. That&#39;s not homophobic, thats just nature. A man can&#39;t give birth to a child. So, i guess homosexuality is a disability. Disables you from mating and procreating. :rolleyes:

LOL, i dont want my son to be blind, now im prejudice against blind people&#33;? What kind of nonsense is that. Just because i dont want my son to be blind or i dont want to be blind doesnt mean im a blindophobe or whatver you want to label me as.

blah.
*note the sarcasm.

[guerillablack]

Originally posted by Black Dagger+Jun 22 2006, 01:31 PM--> (Black Dagger @ Jun 22 2006, 01:31 PM)
guerrillablack
Seriously, who wants their kid to be gay?
No one wishes or wants those things. Whoever does is lying or just plain weird. Not wanting my kid to be blind doesnt make me hate blind people or a blindophobe(since not wanting my kid to be gay makes me a suffer from homophobia accoridng to this place)

Well no one should want their child to have any specific sexuality, the sexuality of your children is not something you can or should try to control.

Furthermore it shouldnt matter what the sexuality of your child is.

But yes, if you say that you dont want your child to be queer, you&#39;re making a distinction - you have no problem with having a hetero child - you actually WANT to have a hetero child - it&#39;s not that you dont care either way, you actively want to have hetero kids because that would be &#39;better&#39; in your mind. You&#39;re placing one sexuality over another, one is superior, preferable, one is inferior and unwelcome - that is homophobic.

Why should your child&#39;s sexuality matter to you?

The reality is, if the sexuality of your child does matter to you, and its because they&#39;re queer, then you&#39;re a homophobe. [/b]
Yeah hetero babies are better than homosexual babies. If you want grandchildren, heterosexual children are more capable of producing that then homosexual babies. So in a sense they are better at something. That&#39;s not homophobic, thats just nature. A man can&#39;t give birth to a child. So, i guess homosexuality is a disability. Disables you from mating and procreating. :rolleyes:

LOL, i dont want my son to be blind, now im prejudice against blind people&#33;? What kind of nonsense is that. Just because i dont want my son to be blind or i dont want to be blind doesnt mean im a blindophobe or whatver you want to label me as.

blah.
*note the sarcasm.

[guerillablack]

Originally posted by Black Dagger+Jun 22 2006, 01:31 PM--> (Black Dagger @ Jun 22 2006, 01:31 PM)
guerrillablack
Seriously, who wants their kid to be gay?
No one wishes or wants those things. Whoever does is lying or just plain weird. Not wanting my kid to be blind doesnt make me hate blind people or a blindophobe(since not wanting my kid to be gay makes me a suffer from homophobia accoridng to this place)

Well no one should want their child to have any specific sexuality, the sexuality of your children is not something you can or should try to control.

Furthermore it shouldnt matter what the sexuality of your child is.

But yes, if you say that you dont want your child to be queer, you&#39;re making a distinction - you have no problem with having a hetero child - you actually WANT to have a hetero child - it&#39;s not that you dont care either way, you actively want to have hetero kids because that would be &#39;better&#39; in your mind. You&#39;re placing one sexuality over another, one is superior, preferable, one is inferior and unwelcome - that is homophobic.

Why should your child&#39;s sexuality matter to you?

The reality is, if the sexuality of your child does matter to you, and its because they&#39;re queer, then you&#39;re a homophobe. [/b]
Yeah hetero babies are better than homosexual babies. If you want grandchildren, heterosexual children are more capable of producing that then homosexual babies. So in a sense they are better at something. That&#39;s not homophobic, thats just nature. A man can&#39;t give birth to a child. So, i guess homosexuality is a disability. Disables you from mating and procreating. :rolleyes:

LOL, i dont want my son to be blind, now im prejudice against blind people&#33;? What kind of nonsense is that. Just because i dont want my son to be blind or i dont want to be blind doesnt mean im a blindophobe or whatver you want to label me as.

blah.
*note the sarcasm.

[ummProfessional]

wow. That&#39;s bad. I can&#39;t beleive a person as bigoted as you can exist.

who the hell are you to call me a bigot, i know im not a bigot and if you want to label me than go ahead thats just you, but let it be known that i ain&#39;t...i support gay rights, they have the right to do whatever the fuck they want with thier lives, just like a mental retard should have that right, what im saying is that homosexuality ain&#39;t the normal sexual orientation for a human being, niether is mental retardation the normal state of mind of a human being, but that doesn&#39;t make me a bigot at all im merely stating the truth, like Guerrillablack is...

and let me clear something out, when your homosexual, there is nothing wrong with you, nothing at all, except that your sexual orientation which will decide your sexual tendencies and behaviors are not the normal ones for a human being...nothing less nothing more....this is by no ways a disability...although like Guerrillablack said you really won&#39;t be helping and performing your natural job as a human being which is procreation...

[ummProfessional]

wow. That&#39;s bad. I can&#39;t beleive a person as bigoted as you can exist.

who the hell are you to call me a bigot, i know im not a bigot and if you want to label me than go ahead thats just you, but let it be known that i ain&#39;t...i support gay rights, they have the right to do whatever the fuck they want with thier lives, just like a mental retard should have that right, what im saying is that homosexuality ain&#39;t the normal sexual orientation for a human being, niether is mental retardation the normal state of mind of a human being, but that doesn&#39;t make me a bigot at all im merely stating the truth, like Guerrillablack is...

and let me clear something out, when your homosexual, there is nothing wrong with you, nothing at all, except that your sexual orientation which will decide your sexual tendencies and behaviors are not the normal ones for a human being...nothing less nothing more....this is by no ways a disability...although like Guerrillablack said you really won&#39;t be helping and performing your natural job as a human being which is procreation...

[ummProfessional]

wow. That&#39;s bad. I can&#39;t beleive a person as bigoted as you can exist.

who the hell are you to call me a bigot, i know im not a bigot and if you want to label me than go ahead thats just you, but let it be known that i ain&#39;t...i support gay rights, they have the right to do whatever the fuck they want with thier lives, just like a mental retard should have that right, what im saying is that homosexuality ain&#39;t the normal sexual orientation for a human being, niether is mental retardation the normal state of mind of a human being, but that doesn&#39;t make me a bigot at all im merely stating the truth, like Guerrillablack is...

and let me clear something out, when your homosexual, there is nothing wrong with you, nothing at all, except that your sexual orientation which will decide your sexual tendencies and behaviors are not the normal ones for a human being...nothing less nothing more....this is by no ways a disability...although like Guerrillablack said you really won&#39;t be helping and performing your natural job as a human being which is procreation...

[Janus]

and let me clear something out, when your homosexual, there is nothing wrong with you, nothing at all, except that your sexual orientation which will decide your sexual tendencies and behaviors are not the normal ones for a human being
But you&#39;re saying that it&#39;s not normal which would imply that there is something wrong.

[Janus]

and let me clear something out, when your homosexual, there is nothing wrong with you, nothing at all, except that your sexual orientation which will decide your sexual tendencies and behaviors are not the normal ones for a human being
But you&#39;re saying that it&#39;s not normal which would imply that there is something wrong.

[Janus]

and let me clear something out, when your homosexual, there is nothing wrong with you, nothing at all, except that your sexual orientation which will decide your sexual tendencies and behaviors are not the normal ones for a human being
But you&#39;re saying that it&#39;s not normal which would imply that there is something wrong.

[Mujer Libre]

Originally posted by guerillablack+Jun 23 2006, 12:20 AM--> (guerillablack @ Jun 23 2006, 12:20 AM)
Originally posted by Black [email protected] 22 2006, 01:31 PM

guerrillablack
Seriously, who wants their kid to be gay?
No one wishes or wants those things. Whoever does is lying or just plain weird. Not wanting my kid to be blind doesnt make me hate blind people or a blindophobe(since not wanting my kid to be gay makes me a suffer from homophobia accoridng to this place)

Well no one should want their child to have any specific sexuality, the sexuality of your children is not something you can or should try to control.

Furthermore it shouldnt matter what the sexuality of your child is.

But yes, if you say that you dont want your child to be queer, you&#39;re making a distinction - you have no problem with having a hetero child - you actually WANT to have a hetero child - it&#39;s not that you dont care either way, you actively want to have hetero kids because that would be &#39;better&#39; in your mind. You&#39;re placing one sexuality over another, one is superior, preferable, one is inferior and unwelcome - that is homophobic.

Why should your child&#39;s sexuality matter to you?

The reality is, if the sexuality of your child does matter to you, and its because they&#39;re queer, then you&#39;re a homophobe.
Yeah hetero babies are better than homosexual babies. If you want grandchildren, heterosexual children are more capable of producing that then homosexual babies. So in a sense they are better at something. That&#39;s not homophobic, thats just nature. A man can&#39;t give birth to a child. So, i guess homosexuality is a disability. Disables you from mating and procreating. :rolleyes:

LOL, i dont want my son to be blind, now im prejudice against blind people&#33;? What kind of nonsense is that. Just because i dont want my son to be blind or i dont want to be blind doesnt mean im a blindophobe or whatver you want to label me as.

blah.
*note the sarcasm. [/b]
No, the reason you don&#39;t want a blind child is because being blind is something "bad" (compared to being sighted). If you use the same reasoning in your desire for hetero kids, it means that you think &#39;gayness&#39; is bad, something worse than being hetero.

Sorry, bt that does make you a homophobe.

[Mujer Libre]

Originally posted by guerillablack+Jun 23 2006, 12:20 AM--> (guerillablack @ Jun 23 2006, 12:20 AM)
Originally posted by Black [email protected] 22 2006, 01:31 PM

guerrillablack
Seriously, who wants their kid to be gay?
No one wishes or wants those things. Whoever does is lying or just plain weird. Not wanting my kid to be blind doesnt make me hate blind people or a blindophobe(since not wanting my kid to be gay makes me a suffer from homophobia accoridng to this place)

Well no one should want their child to have any specific sexuality, the sexuality of your children is not something you can or should try to control.

Furthermore it shouldnt matter what the sexuality of your child is.

But yes, if you say that you dont want your child to be queer, you&#39;re making a distinction - you have no problem with having a hetero child - you actually WANT to have a hetero child - it&#39;s not that you dont care either way, you actively want to have hetero kids because that would be &#39;better&#39; in your mind. You&#39;re placing one sexuality over another, one is superior, preferable, one is inferior and unwelcome - that is homophobic.

Why should your child&#39;s sexuality matter to you?

The reality is, if the sexuality of your child does matter to you, and its because they&#39;re queer, then you&#39;re a homophobe.
Yeah hetero babies are better than homosexual babies. If you want grandchildren, heterosexual children are more capable of producing that then homosexual babies. So in a sense they are better at something. That&#39;s not homophobic, thats just nature. A man can&#39;t give birth to a child. So, i guess homosexuality is a disability. Disables you from mating and procreating. :rolleyes:

LOL, i dont want my son to be blind, now im prejudice against blind people&#33;? What kind of nonsense is that. Just because i dont want my son to be blind or i dont want to be blind doesnt mean im a blindophobe or whatver you want to label me as.

blah.
*note the sarcasm. [/b]
No, the reason you don&#39;t want a blind child is because being blind is something "bad" (compared to being sighted). If you use the same reasoning in your desire for hetero kids, it means that you think &#39;gayness&#39; is bad, something worse than being hetero.

Sorry, bt that does make you a homophobe.

[Mujer Libre]

Originally posted by guerillablack+Jun 23 2006, 12:20 AM--> (guerillablack @ Jun 23 2006, 12:20 AM)
Originally posted by Black [email protected] 22 2006, 01:31 PM

guerrillablack
Seriously, who wants their kid to be gay?
No one wishes or wants those things. Whoever does is lying or just plain weird. Not wanting my kid to be blind doesnt make me hate blind people or a blindophobe(since not wanting my kid to be gay makes me a suffer from homophobia accoridng to this place)

Well no one should want their child to have any specific sexuality, the sexuality of your children is not something you can or should try to control.

Furthermore it shouldnt matter what the sexuality of your child is.

But yes, if you say that you dont want your child to be queer, you&#39;re making a distinction - you have no problem with having a hetero child - you actually WANT to have a hetero child - it&#39;s not that you dont care either way, you actively want to have hetero kids because that would be &#39;better&#39; in your mind. You&#39;re placing one sexuality over another, one is superior, preferable, one is inferior and unwelcome - that is homophobic.

Why should your child&#39;s sexuality matter to you?

The reality is, if the sexuality of your child does matter to you, and its because they&#39;re queer, then you&#39;re a homophobe.
Yeah hetero babies are better than homosexual babies. If you want grandchildren, heterosexual children are more capable of producing that then homosexual babies. So in a sense they are better at something. That&#39;s not homophobic, thats just nature. A man can&#39;t give birth to a child. So, i guess homosexuality is a disability. Disables you from mating and procreating. :rolleyes:

LOL, i dont want my son to be blind, now im prejudice against blind people&#33;? What kind of nonsense is that. Just because i dont want my son to be blind or i dont want to be blind doesnt mean im a blindophobe or whatver you want to label me as.

blah.
*note the sarcasm. [/b]
No, the reason you don&#39;t want a blind child is because being blind is something "bad" (compared to being sighted). If you use the same reasoning in your desire for hetero kids, it means that you think &#39;gayness&#39; is bad, something worse than being hetero.

Sorry, bt that does make you a homophobe.

[guerillablack]

How the hell are you going to tell ME, my reasonings for not wanting a blind child, one armed child,boy,girl, or a homosexual child.
I overstand what you are trying to do. Everyone is tryign to be politcally correct these days and label someone racist, facist, homophobe,disabledhater, whatever just because they dont have same views as you.

[guerillablack]

How the hell are you going to tell ME, my reasonings for not wanting a blind child, one armed child,boy,girl, or a homosexual child.
I overstand what you are trying to do. Everyone is tryign to be politcally correct these days and label someone racist, facist, homophobe,disabledhater, whatever just because they dont have same views as you.

[guerillablack]

How the hell are you going to tell ME, my reasonings for not wanting a blind child, one armed child,boy,girl, or a homosexual child.
I overstand what you are trying to do. Everyone is tryign to be politcally correct these days and label someone racist, facist, homophobe,disabledhater, whatever just because they dont have same views as you.

[ummProfessional]

But you&#39;re saying that it&#39;s not normal which would imply that there is something wrong.

NO&#33;&#33;&#33; not at all, this is not like having 3 fingers or missing a limb or something , it&#39;s only a difference in sexual orientation, thats all dude...is there something wrong with you for being homosexual? NO&#33; i mean your not an abnormal human being or something, you just don&#39;t have the sexual orientation humans are supposed to have, but your still a normal human being who can perform all capabilities including procriation, the only difference is that your sexual preferences are not your normal ones...

[ummProfessional]

But you&#39;re saying that it&#39;s not normal which would imply that there is something wrong.

NO&#33;&#33;&#33; not at all, this is not like having 3 fingers or missing a limb or something , it&#39;s only a difference in sexual orientation, thats all dude...is there something wrong with you for being homosexual? NO&#33; i mean your not an abnormal human being or something, you just don&#39;t have the sexual orientation humans are supposed to have, but your still a normal human being who can perform all capabilities including procriation, the only difference is that your sexual preferences are not your normal ones...

[ummProfessional]

But you&#39;re saying that it&#39;s not normal which would imply that there is something wrong.

NO&#33;&#33;&#33; not at all, this is not like having 3 fingers or missing a limb or something , it&#39;s only a difference in sexual orientation, thats all dude...is there something wrong with you for being homosexual? NO&#33; i mean your not an abnormal human being or something, you just don&#39;t have the sexual orientation humans are supposed to have, but your still a normal human being who can perform all capabilities including procriation, the only difference is that your sexual preferences are not your normal ones...

[KC]

How do you define "normal"? How do you determine what is normal and what isn&#39;t?

[KC]

How do you define "normal"? How do you determine what is normal and what isn&#39;t?

[KC]

How do you define "normal"? How do you determine what is normal and what isn&#39;t?

[ummProfessional]

How do you define "normal"? How do you determine what is normal and what isn&#39;t?

well that is a pretty interesting question, but rather ridiculous as well, not surprisingly though from an Anarchist, heck you might even say what should be labeled a crime and what not&#33;&#33; and how do we determine it? :rolleyes: but lets get real here folks, when it comes to sexual orientation there are obvious reasons, and the most obvious are the fact that men have a penis and women have a vagina, and that there are male and female species, and it&#39;s for obvious freaking reasons, we don&#39;t have eyes for nothing do we? plus, this is how the majority, in fact the overwhelming majority of human beings act..and not just human beings but rather all of the other animals in this planet, those examples of animals with gay tendencies is rather bullshit, how do you determine if the damn animal is gay? is he banging the other male? or are you determining these animals are gay because they are "near" eachother for a long time or something? i can&#39;t seem to comprehend that you can determine an animal is "gay" when they are obviously not conscious like we are about sex and stuff like that, i mean hahahaha what? are you seeing two male species making out or something? lmao...plus, these examples of animals isn&#39;t the whole damn specieis obviously, because if not they wouldn&#39;t exist, which is ample evidence to tell you that it&#39;s not a normal sexual behavior...

[ummProfessional]

How do you define "normal"? How do you determine what is normal and what isn&#39;t?

well that is a pretty interesting question, but rather ridiculous as well, not surprisingly though from an Anarchist, heck you might even say what should be labeled a crime and what not&#33;&#33; and how do we determine it? :rolleyes: but lets get real here folks, when it comes to sexual orientation there are obvious reasons, and the most obvious are the fact that men have a penis and women have a vagina, and that there are male and female species, and it&#39;s for obvious freaking reasons, we don&#39;t have eyes for nothing do we? plus, this is how the majority, in fact the overwhelming majority of human beings act..and not just human beings but rather all of the other animals in this planet, those examples of animals with gay tendencies is rather bullshit, how do you determine if the damn animal is gay? is he banging the other male? or are you determining these animals are gay because they are "near" eachother for a long time or something? i can&#39;t seem to comprehend that you can determine an animal is "gay" when they are obviously not conscious like we are about sex and stuff like that, i mean hahahaha what? are you seeing two male species making out or something? lmao...plus, these examples of animals isn&#39;t the whole damn specieis obviously, because if not they wouldn&#39;t exist, which is ample evidence to tell you that it&#39;s not a normal sexual behavior...

[ummProfessional]

How do you define "normal"? How do you determine what is normal and what isn&#39;t?

well that is a pretty interesting question, but rather ridiculous as well, not surprisingly though from an Anarchist, heck you might even say what should be labeled a crime and what not&#33;&#33; and how do we determine it? :rolleyes: but lets get real here folks, when it comes to sexual orientation there are obvious reasons, and the most obvious are the fact that men have a penis and women have a vagina, and that there are male and female species, and it&#39;s for obvious freaking reasons, we don&#39;t have eyes for nothing do we? plus, this is how the majority, in fact the overwhelming majority of human beings act..and not just human beings but rather all of the other animals in this planet, those examples of animals with gay tendencies is rather bullshit, how do you determine if the damn animal is gay? is he banging the other male? or are you determining these animals are gay because they are "near" eachother for a long time or something? i can&#39;t seem to comprehend that you can determine an animal is "gay" when they are obviously not conscious like we are about sex and stuff like that, i mean hahahaha what? are you seeing two male species making out or something? lmao...plus, these examples of animals isn&#39;t the whole damn specieis obviously, because if not they wouldn&#39;t exist, which is ample evidence to tell you that it&#39;s not a normal sexual behavior...

[KC]

plus, this is how the majority, in fact the overwhelming majority of human beings act

So are you defining normal as what the majority of human beings do?

[KC]

plus, this is how the majority, in fact the overwhelming majority of human beings act

So are you defining normal as what the majority of human beings do?

[KC]

plus, this is how the majority, in fact the overwhelming majority of human beings act

So are you defining normal as what the majority of human beings do?

[Loknar]

can anybody tell me what the hell heterosexism is? Some feminist called me it because, o knoow, I actually like women wiht nice asses, short skirts, long black hair.... How dare I say that.

ladies let me tel you something...if you have a boyfriend, he has looked at, and fantisized about another women a million times since youve been dating. Its what men do...

[Loknar]

can anybody tell me what the hell heterosexism is? Some feminist called me it because, o knoow, I actually like women wiht nice asses, short skirts, long black hair.... How dare I say that.

ladies let me tel you something...if you have a boyfriend, he has looked at, and fantisized about another women a million times since youve been dating. Its what men do...

[Loknar]

can anybody tell me what the hell heterosexism is? Some feminist called me it because, o knoow, I actually like women wiht nice asses, short skirts, long black hair.... How dare I say that.

ladies let me tel you something...if you have a boyfriend, he has looked at, and fantisized about another women a million times since youve been dating. Its what men do...

[KC]

o knoow, I actually like women wiht nice asses, short skirts, long black hair.... How dare I say that.

In the movement to empower women the so-called "objectification" of women by men tends to be viewed as sexist whereas the "objectification" of men by women is viewed as empowering. This is something that we should fight against, as this is just as inappropriate as racism against whites by blacks in response to racism against blacks by whites. The whole idea is ludicrous.


if you have a boyfriend, he has looked at, and fantisized about another women a million times since youve been dating. Its what men do...

It&#39;s not only what men do. Women do it as well.

[KC]

o knoow, I actually like women wiht nice asses, short skirts, long black hair.... How dare I say that.

In the movement to empower women the so-called "objectification" of women by men tends to be viewed as sexist whereas the "objectification" of men by women is viewed as empowering. This is something that we should fight against, as this is just as inappropriate as racism against whites by blacks in response to racism against blacks by whites. The whole idea is ludicrous.


if you have a boyfriend, he has looked at, and fantisized about another women a million times since youve been dating. Its what men do...

It&#39;s not only what men do. Women do it as well.

[KC]

o knoow, I actually like women wiht nice asses, short skirts, long black hair.... How dare I say that.

In the movement to empower women the so-called "objectification" of women by men tends to be viewed as sexist whereas the "objectification" of men by women is viewed as empowering. This is something that we should fight against, as this is just as inappropriate as racism against whites by blacks in response to racism against blacks by whites. The whole idea is ludicrous.


if you have a boyfriend, he has looked at, and fantisized about another women a million times since youve been dating. Its what men do...

It&#39;s not only what men do. Women do it as well.

[guerillablack]

Just so we can be on same page Communique, how is by your definition, homosexuality normal. Why do you view it as such?

[guerillablack]

Just so we can be on same page Communique, how is by your definition, homosexuality normal. Why do you view it as such?

[guerillablack]

Just so we can be on same page Communique, how is by your definition, homosexuality normal. Why do you view it as such?

[KC]

Just so we can be on same page Communique, how is by your definition, homosexuality normal. Why do you view it as such?

You&#39;re reading what you want to see and not what I actually wrote. Nowhere did I even say anything about homosexuality in the last few posts.

[KC]

Just so we can be on same page Communique, how is by your definition, homosexuality normal. Why do you view it as such?

You&#39;re reading what you want to see and not what I actually wrote. Nowhere did I even say anything about homosexuality in the last few posts.

[KC]

Just so we can be on same page Communique, how is by your definition, homosexuality normal. Why do you view it as such?

You&#39;re reading what you want to see and not what I actually wrote. Nowhere did I even say anything about homosexuality in the last few posts.

[guerillablack]

Your absolutely right, i coulda sworn you typed it.

[guerillablack]

Your absolutely right, i coulda sworn you typed it.

[guerillablack]

Your absolutely right, i coulda sworn you typed it.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 03:20 AM
How the hell are you going to tell ME, my reasonings for not wanting a blind child, one armed child,boy,girl, or a homosexual child.
I overstand what you are trying to do. Everyone is tryign to be politcally correct these days and label someone racist, facist, homophobe,disabledhater, whatever just because they dont have same views as you.
You are being called a homophobe because that is clearly what you are.

Being homohophic means being prejudiced towards homosexuals or at some level being "anti-gay".

You have stated clearly that a) you think homosexuality is a disability showing clear signs of prejudice and that b) you would not want your son to be gay comparing that with being blind. This clearly shows that you have anti-homosexual sentiments towards what you view to be "normal" and acceptable.

You shouldn&#39;t care what your child could be, but hopefully love it for what it is.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 03:20 AM
How the hell are you going to tell ME, my reasonings for not wanting a blind child, one armed child,boy,girl, or a homosexual child.
I overstand what you are trying to do. Everyone is tryign to be politcally correct these days and label someone racist, facist, homophobe,disabledhater, whatever just because they dont have same views as you.
You are being called a homophobe because that is clearly what you are.

Being homohophic means being prejudiced towards homosexuals or at some level being "anti-gay".

You have stated clearly that a) you think homosexuality is a disability showing clear signs of prejudice and that b) you would not want your son to be gay comparing that with being blind. This clearly shows that you have anti-homosexual sentiments towards what you view to be "normal" and acceptable.

You shouldn&#39;t care what your child could be, but hopefully love it for what it is.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 03:20 AM
How the hell are you going to tell ME, my reasonings for not wanting a blind child, one armed child,boy,girl, or a homosexual child.
I overstand what you are trying to do. Everyone is tryign to be politcally correct these days and label someone racist, facist, homophobe,disabledhater, whatever just because they dont have same views as you.
You are being called a homophobe because that is clearly what you are.

Being homohophic means being prejudiced towards homosexuals or at some level being "anti-gay".

You have stated clearly that a) you think homosexuality is a disability showing clear signs of prejudice and that b) you would not want your son to be gay comparing that with being blind. This clearly shows that you have anti-homosexual sentiments towards what you view to be "normal" and acceptable.

You shouldn&#39;t care what your child could be, but hopefully love it for what it is.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 07:28 AM
Just so we can be on same page Communique, how is by your definition, homosexuality normal. Why do you view it as such?
Can you define why homosexuality is abnormal? Normality is subjective, so if homosexuality exists within a section of society it becomes a norm.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 07:28 AM
Just so we can be on same page Communique, how is by your definition, homosexuality normal. Why do you view it as such?
Can you define why homosexuality is abnormal? Normality is subjective, so if homosexuality exists within a section of society it becomes a norm.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 07:28 AM
Just so we can be on same page Communique, how is by your definition, homosexuality normal. Why do you view it as such?
Can you define why homosexuality is abnormal? Normality is subjective, so if homosexuality exists within a section of society it becomes a norm.

[ummProfessional]

The Anarchist Tension :


you think homosexuality is a disability showing clear signs of prejudice and that

do you think mental retardation is a disability? THAN SURELY YOUR PREJUDICE AS WELL NOW AREN&#39;T YOU&#33; :rolleyes:

[ummProfessional]

The Anarchist Tension :


you think homosexuality is a disability showing clear signs of prejudice and that

do you think mental retardation is a disability? THAN SURELY YOUR PREJUDICE AS WELL NOW AREN&#39;T YOU&#33; :rolleyes:

[ummProfessional]

The Anarchist Tension :


you think homosexuality is a disability showing clear signs of prejudice and that

do you think mental retardation is a disability? THAN SURELY YOUR PREJUDICE AS WELL NOW AREN&#39;T YOU&#33; :rolleyes:

[An archist]

Look, homosexuality is abnormal because it doesn&#39;t allow humans to procreate.
BUT WHO CARES? the world is getting overpopulated anyway. Should we treat people differently because of their sexual orientation only?
If a homosexual person would fall in love with me, I wouldn&#39;t like it, it would feel awkward, just like when a girl I&#39;m not in love with, would fall in love with me.
But treating people differently because of their sexual orientation? Why? Why limit yourself like that? The world is beautiful and diverse, savour it&#33;
(Right, now I&#39;m starting to sound like a hippie, I&#39;ll just stop)

[An archist]

Look, homosexuality is abnormal because it doesn&#39;t allow humans to procreate.
BUT WHO CARES? the world is getting overpopulated anyway. Should we treat people differently because of their sexual orientation only?
If a homosexual person would fall in love with me, I wouldn&#39;t like it, it would feel awkward, just like when a girl I&#39;m not in love with, would fall in love with me.
But treating people differently because of their sexual orientation? Why? Why limit yourself like that? The world is beautiful and diverse, savour it&#33;
(Right, now I&#39;m starting to sound like a hippie, I&#39;ll just stop)

[An archist]

Look, homosexuality is abnormal because it doesn&#39;t allow humans to procreate.
BUT WHO CARES? the world is getting overpopulated anyway. Should we treat people differently because of their sexual orientation only?
If a homosexual person would fall in love with me, I wouldn&#39;t like it, it would feel awkward, just like when a girl I&#39;m not in love with, would fall in love with me.
But treating people differently because of their sexual orientation? Why? Why limit yourself like that? The world is beautiful and diverse, savour it&#33;
(Right, now I&#39;m starting to sound like a hippie, I&#39;ll just stop)

[ummProfessional]

Look, homosexuality is abnormal because it doesn&#39;t allow humans to procreate.
BUT WHO CARES? the world is getting overpopulated anyway. Should we treat people differently because of their sexual orientation only?
If a homosexual person would fall in love with me, I wouldn&#39;t like it, it would feel awkward, just like when a girl I&#39;m not in love with, would fall in love with me.
But treating people differently because of their sexual orientation? Why? Why limit yourself like that? The world is beautiful and diverse, savour it&#33;
(Right, now I&#39;m starting to sound like a hippie, I&#39;ll just stop)

and how exactly have i said something different than that ^? im 100% in agreement with you...it&#39;s just that there are some wackos here who would call me, and now you, after you admitted it was abnormal, "HOMOPHOBES" :rolleyes:

[ummProfessional]

Look, homosexuality is abnormal because it doesn&#39;t allow humans to procreate.
BUT WHO CARES? the world is getting overpopulated anyway. Should we treat people differently because of their sexual orientation only?
If a homosexual person would fall in love with me, I wouldn&#39;t like it, it would feel awkward, just like when a girl I&#39;m not in love with, would fall in love with me.
But treating people differently because of their sexual orientation? Why? Why limit yourself like that? The world is beautiful and diverse, savour it&#33;
(Right, now I&#39;m starting to sound like a hippie, I&#39;ll just stop)

and how exactly have i said something different than that ^? im 100% in agreement with you...it&#39;s just that there are some wackos here who would call me, and now you, after you admitted it was abnormal, "HOMOPHOBES" :rolleyes:

[ummProfessional]

Look, homosexuality is abnormal because it doesn&#39;t allow humans to procreate.
BUT WHO CARES? the world is getting overpopulated anyway. Should we treat people differently because of their sexual orientation only?
If a homosexual person would fall in love with me, I wouldn&#39;t like it, it would feel awkward, just like when a girl I&#39;m not in love with, would fall in love with me.
But treating people differently because of their sexual orientation? Why? Why limit yourself like that? The world is beautiful and diverse, savour it&#33;
(Right, now I&#39;m starting to sound like a hippie, I&#39;ll just stop)

and how exactly have i said something different than that ^? im 100% in agreement with you...it&#39;s just that there are some wackos here who would call me, and now you, after you admitted it was abnormal, "HOMOPHOBES" :rolleyes:

[guerillablack]

Archist, i feel same way when. When a homosexual hits on me or makes sly comments i feel uncomfortable, just as i do when a female who im not attracted to hits on me. If you don&#39;t mind your children all being homosexual, that&#39;s fine with me&#33; I don&#39;t think your crazy or anything. If my children were homosexual i&#39;d love em to death because their my children. But where i difer is just me personally, if you can&#39;t understand or accept the fact i dont want my child to be homosexual because i want grandchildren, thas cool. Having children is a major priority of mine just as having grandchildren are. Some people dont want children, or dont care if they do or dont. That&#39;s their business&#33;

I want grandchildren, and the only way thats possible is if my kids aren&#39;t homosexual. If you wanna call me a homophobe because of that whatever.

[guerillablack]

Archist, i feel same way when. When a homosexual hits on me or makes sly comments i feel uncomfortable, just as i do when a female who im not attracted to hits on me. If you don&#39;t mind your children all being homosexual, that&#39;s fine with me&#33; I don&#39;t think your crazy or anything. If my children were homosexual i&#39;d love em to death because their my children. But where i difer is just me personally, if you can&#39;t understand or accept the fact i dont want my child to be homosexual because i want grandchildren, thas cool. Having children is a major priority of mine just as having grandchildren are. Some people dont want children, or dont care if they do or dont. That&#39;s their business&#33;

I want grandchildren, and the only way thats possible is if my kids aren&#39;t homosexual. If you wanna call me a homophobe because of that whatever.

[guerillablack]

Archist, i feel same way when. When a homosexual hits on me or makes sly comments i feel uncomfortable, just as i do when a female who im not attracted to hits on me. If you don&#39;t mind your children all being homosexual, that&#39;s fine with me&#33; I don&#39;t think your crazy or anything. If my children were homosexual i&#39;d love em to death because their my children. But where i difer is just me personally, if you can&#39;t understand or accept the fact i dont want my child to be homosexual because i want grandchildren, thas cool. Having children is a major priority of mine just as having grandchildren are. Some people dont want children, or dont care if they do or dont. That&#39;s their business&#33;

I want grandchildren, and the only way thats possible is if my kids aren&#39;t homosexual. If you wanna call me a homophobe because of that whatever.

[The Feral Underclass]

This thread is serving only as a platform for homophobia and it has no place on this board.

Therefore, I&#39;m closing it.

[The Feral Underclass]

This thread is serving only as a platform for homophobia and it has no place on this board.

Therefore, I&#39;m closing it.

[The Feral Underclass]

This thread is serving only as a platform for homophobia and it has no place on this board.

Therefore, I&#39;m closing it.