California becomes first state to mandate gay history in curriculum

[chloe]

“History should be honest. This bill revises existing laws that prohibit discrimination in education and ensures that the important contributions of Americans from all backgrounds and walks of life are included in our history books,” said a statement from Gov. Jerry Brown (http://www.debatepolicy.com/tags/topic/Jerry+Brown) (D), who signed the bill after supporters and opponents endured more than a week of suspense.
The bill, S.B. 48, which passed in the legislature on a mostly party-line vote, drew sharp opposition from some religious groups, who raised concerns that schools were promoting what they call an immoral lifestyle and impinging on parental rights to teach their children about sexual issues.
But supporters hail the law as a breakthrough that will give children a more complete view of history and society – and make California students

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Education/2011/0714/California-becomes-first-state-to-mandate-gay-history-in-curriculum

[J.T]

How 'bout just including it along with Women and Negroes when they cover the culture wars over civil rights?

Unless it's really just about keeping us separated and turned against eachother...

[darin]

Said an another forum "The most fucked-up state just got more fucked-up"

[soupnazi630]

Said an another forum "The most fucked-up state just got more fucked-up"

I seem to recall my high school history teachers OCCASIONALLY making passing references to the orientation of some historic figures, such as Alexander the Great or Julius Caesar.

But it was not really important who such people slept with as what they accomplished or how they influenced history.

I have yet to see where any specific gay history has been ignored.

I think that this will probably lead to a greater controversy as historians with an agenda start trying to label some important people in history as gay.

They have already done this to some extent such as an attempt a few years ago to label Abraham Lincoln as gay. Ironically another historian also wrote a book called " The Hidden Hitler " where he argued that Hitler was gay and in the closet and other historians who championed a pro gay stance freaked. Apparently only good people in history can be called gay ( like Lincoln ) but not evil people like Hitler. Or at least that is how some people would have history taught.

The attempt to label Lincoln as a gay man was a failure and quickly debunked and forgotten but I expect more such arguments will rise concerning various figures in history.

[gabosaurus]

If you study ancient history, you will find that the Greeks and Romans had no qualms about gay relationships. Many were very comfortable with having both male and female partners.
A few Biblical historians believe Jesus was either gay or had gay relationships. Most notably among the Twelve Disciples.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/apr/04/jesus-gay-man-codices

[Binky]

Said an another forum "The most fucked-up state just got more fucked-up" When the leader of the pack, so to speak, has its head shoved high up its butt, odds are, others will follow by example.

[Gunny]

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Education/2011/0714/California-becomes-first-state-to-mandate-gay-history-in-curriculum

As usual, the leading state in celebrating being abnormal strikes again. Is there a footnote to include those that common law marry their farm animals, or what?

[Dilloduck]

If you study ancient history, you will find that the Greeks and Romans had no qualms about gay relationships. Many were very comfortable with having both male and female partners.
A few Biblical historians believe Jesus was either gay or had gay relationships. Most notably among the Twelve Disciples.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/apr/04/jesus-gay-man-codices


How in the world did you learn about gays in history without it being mandated in your curriculum?

[KarlMarx]

If you study ancient history, you will find that the Greeks and Romans had no qualms about gay relationships. Many were very comfortable with having both male and female partners.
A few Biblical historians believe Jesus was either gay or had gay relationships. Most notably among the Twelve Disciples.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/apr/04/jesus-gay-man-codices

Glad you brought that up, Gabby. If you look, the Athenians had an institutionalized form of pedophilia. A family would find a man who was well versed in the arts and classics and teach their son. In return the kid repaid the man by satisfying him (I think I don't have to go into specifics). I can't imagine finding a man to abuse my son and thinking it was a good thing....

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

BTW... The Romans and Greeks also were misogynistic, had slaves, and were constantly at war. Just because they did something doesn't mean it was a good thing.


Jesus was gay..... what is it with you people? Everything has to go right down below the belt? Did it ever occur to you that Jesus had no sexual relations with his disciples? If you bothered to look... Jesus said He was there to fulfill the Law and the Prophets (the Law made no secret that gay relations were not kosher)... so how does it make sense that Jesus broke the Law of Moses?

BTW... they were the twelve Apostles, not the 12 Disciples. I know that's being nit picky but there is a difference. All early Christians were disciples, the Apostles were the 12 men who followed Jesus while He was here on Earth.

[KarlMarx]

BTW... Mahavira and Siddhartha Guatama (AKA the Buddha) and many Hindu mystics did not have relations with women when they became mystics.... no one suggests that the founder of Jainism or the founder of Buddhism were gay.

Ancient societies tended to be segregated ones. Women did hang out with men, men did not hang out with women. A woman's husband was the exception, but then on a limited basis. If you put that in context with what was going on with the times, it was not unusual for a holy man to have little to do with women. Jesus did have female disciples, e.g. Mary and Martha, but then Jesus reached out to those who were the outcassts in that society e.g. prostitutes, Samaritans, and women.

Paul reached out to the Greeks some of whom may have been gay and in his letter to the Corinthians he wrote (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)

"Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%206&version=NIV#fen-NIV-28477a)] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. "

(note:


1 Corinthians 6:9 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%206&version=NIV#en-NIV-28477) The words men who have sex with men translate two Greek words that refer to the passive and active participants in homosexual acts.)


In other words, homosexuality was not acceptable.

[gabosaurus]

BTW... The Romans and Greeks also were misogynistic, had slaves, and were constantly at war.

Sounds very Republican to me.



Jesus was gay..... what is it with you people? Everything has to go right down below the belt? Did it ever occur to you that Jesus had no sexual relations with his disciples? If you bothered to look... Jesus said He was there to fulfill the Law and the Prophets (the Law made no secret that gay relations were not kosher)... so how does it make sense that Jesus broke the Law of Moses?

Not presenting this a gospel truth. Just saying it was a theory. And being gay doesn't mean you have sex. Some gay men and women are celibate. There are a lot of theories concerning the Bibles, depending on how it is interpreted.

[KarlMarx]

Sounds very Republican to me.
World War I - Woodrow Wilson (Democrat)
World War II - Franklin Delano Roosevelt (Democrat)
Korean Conflict - began during Harry S Truman's term (Democrat)
Vietnam - began during Lyndon B Johnson's term (Democrat)

A Republican freed the slaves (Lincoln)

The Republican party was first organized as an abolitionist party

Democrats (aka Dixiecrats) were opposed to the desegregation of the South

Yes, I can see what you mean

[logroller]

World War I - Woodrow Wilson (Democrat)
World War II - Franklin Delano Roosevelt (Democrat)
Korean Conflict - began during Harry S Truman's term (Democrat)
Vietnam - began during Lyndon B Johnson's term (Democrat)

A Republican freed the slaves (Lincoln)

The Republican party was first organized as an abolitionist party

Democrats (aka Dixiecrats) were opposed to the desegregation of the South

Yes, I can see what you mean

Rep must be spread.

[LuvRPgrl]

Sounds very Republican to me..

Do you think your Delusional POV surprises anybody here?



Not presenting this a gospel truth. Just saying it was a theory. And being gay doesn't mean you have sex. Some gay men and women are celibate. There are a lot of theories concerning the Bibles, depending on how it is interpreted.


And the Bible also says that gossip and gossipers are vile and evil. Spreading unsubstantiated information as such, is very dispicable, and by your own words, it is unsubstantiated.
If you want to say that it isnt important what people might choose to believe on the subject you are gossiping about, then why would you bother bringing it up?
Liars.

[LuvRPgrl]

If you study ancient history, you will find that the Greeks and Romans had no qualms about gay relationships.
Not historical fact.


Many were very comfortable with having both male and female partners.
A few Biblical historians believe Jesus was either gay or had gay relationships. Most notably among the Twelve Disciples.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/apr/04/jesus-gay-man-codices

Trash in, trash out...Now we understand why your opinions and morals are so trashy.

[logroller]

Not historical fact.

Not sure what qualifies as fact, but there is strong evidence.


The ancient Greeks did not conceive of sexual orientation (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Sexual_orientation) as a social identifier, as Western societies have done for the past century. Greek society did not distinguish sexual desire or behavior by the gender of the participants, but rather by the role that each participant played in the sex act, that of active penetrator or passive penetrated.[5] (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#cite_note-OCD-4) This active/passive polarization corresponded with dominant and submissive social roles: the active (penetrative) role was associated with masculinity, higher social status, and adulthood, while the passive role was associated with femininity, lower social status, and youth.[5] (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#cite_note-OCD-4)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Greece


2252
pompeiian bi-swingers?

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

[LuvRPgrl]

[QUOTE=LuvRPgrl;479144]Not historical fact.
QUOTE]
Not sure what qualifies as fact, but there is strong evidence.


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


2252
pompeiian bi-swingers?

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

To whom is that info attributable?

What historians view on a wide scale observation of a collective peoples is not always honest, and even sometimes when honest, just plain out and out mistaken.

A simple example would be Nazi Germany. While people even today, talk about the collective shame of the German people, or the shame of the American southern states during slavery, there may be a majority of those people who oppose such actions. Whether or not an act is deemed legal or illegal, and how often it is practised publicly doesnt always represent the percent of the population that endorses such behavior.
.....I know alot of Americans personally do not think POT should be illegal, but they also have been led to believe that if one smokes pot, it is a gateway drug and will lead to harder drugs (onlly a myth). But that illogical conclusion causes them to ban that which they deem harmless.
.....As such, a population may put freedom so high on the llist that they may deem making some acts, even if they consider them immoral, illegal, is a threat, not a direct threat, but an indirect threat to their freedom.

An example of miguided analysis of historians would also show that sometimes a small group, say 30%, IF THEY ARE VEHEMENT about their opposistion or acceptance of some behaviors, will have more influence of the apprearance of that society than , lets say double, 60% who have the same values, but are not as passionate about it.
That is precisely what happened in Vietnam area, circa 1969, USA. Most people still think the war was very, very unpopular, when in fact, the silent majority supported the effort.

PS: The screwup of the quote functions shall be attributed to a poster other than I, :)

[logroller]

[QUOTE=logroller;479147]

To whom is that info attributable?

What historians view on a wide scale observation of a collective peoples is not always honest, and even sometimes when honest, just plain out and out mistaken.

A simple example would be Nazi Germany. While people even today, talk about the collective shame of the German people, or the shame of the American southern states during slavery, there may be a majority of those people who oppose such actions. Whether or not an act is deemed legal or illegal, and how often it is practised publicly doesnt always represent the percent of the population that endorses such behavior.
.....I know alot of Americans personally do not think POT should be illegal, but they also have been led to believe that if one smokes pot, it is a gateway drug and will lead to harder drugs (onlly a myth). But that illogical conclusion causes them to ban that which they deem harmless.
.....As such, a population may put freedom so high on the llist that they may deem making some acts, even if they consider them immoral, illegal, is a threat, not a direct threat, but an indirect threat to their freedom.

An example of miguided analysis of historians would also show that sometimes a small group, say 30%, IF THEY ARE VEHEMENT about their opposistion or acceptance of some behaviors, will have more influence of the apprearance of that society than , lets say double, 60% who have the same values, but are not as passionate about it.
That is precisely what happened in Vietnam area, circa 1969, USA. Most people still think the war was very, very unpopular, when in fact, the silent majority supported the effort.

PS: The screwup of the quote functions shall be attributed to a poster other than I, :)

Dont shoot the messenger, even if he left off a bracket.

sure, a study, even an unbiased study may come to a mistaken conclusion. SO far as a general conclusion being the absolute truth among all members of a culture; of course not. Mark Twain said "All generalizations are false, including this one" As per yur example, I disagree with gab's "no qualms" assertion, but there are many writings from these two cultures which indicate sexual preference was not of particular concern, but rather an assertion of power and control-- it would appear "prison rules" applied. In fact, "homosexuality", as a label for those engaged in the behavior, is a relatively recent development. Besides , I'm not really sure what Rome and Greece have to do with our culture, not today anyways. Most of the homosex debate stems from a judeochristian ethic, with a widely varied degree of orthodoxy surrounding perversion. Sodomy, as I understnd it, refers not only to the perversion of sex between men, but any copulatory act outside of reproductive sex, including oral and manual. I don't think a blowjob makes one a pervert; neither do i think it's what God intended when He made sex pleasurable, but it's hypocritical to think it any less perverse between man and woman than two men.


[QUOTE]" Got any more gum Ace?
That's none of your damn business-- and I'll thank you to stay out of my personal affairs."[/QUOTE

[Shoottothrill]

If you study ancient history, you will find that the Greeks and Romans had no qualms about gay relationships. Many were very comfortable with having both male and female partners.
A few Biblical historians believe Jesus was either gay or had gay relationships. Most notably among the Twelve Disciples.

A few "Biblical historians" probably come up with wilder theories than that once the bong makes it around a couple of times.

[Shoottothrill]

Well, I couldn't find the introduction thing, so I decided to just jump in. No, I'm not sure why I chose this particular topic, it just caught my eye for some reason.

I think it's tough to teach "gay history" when so much of it is unknown and undocumented. I am curious to know exactly what the lesson plan would be. Is it just history in the United States? Or will they be teaching all these theories that have popped up in the last few years about figures from hundreds or even thousands of years ago? I'm also curious, will AIDS be in the lesson plan? Will it concentrate on facts or will it be propaganda?

[Gunny]

Well, I couldn't find the introduction thing, so I decided to just jump in. No, I'm not sure why I chose this particular topic, it just caught my eye for some reason.

I think it's tough to teach "gay history" when so much of it is unknown and undocumented. I am curious to know exactly what the lesson plan would be. Is it just history in the United States? Or will they be teaching all these theories that have popped up in the last few years about figures from hundreds or even thousands of years ago? I'm also curious, will AIDS be in the lesson plan? Will it concentrate on facts or will it be propaganda?

Who cares? I mean, what's next? Do we force the history of booger pickers on our kids? Let's just pick any old aberrant behavior and go for it.

It boggles the mind that less than 10% of the US population can control the other 90+% like this.

[chloe]

I mean if we are teaching kids gay history, then are we going to teach heterosexual history too?


I can't wait for the lesson in heterosexual history of presidents especially the "clinton years" :laugh2:

[LuvRPgrl]

Who cares? I mean, what's next? Do we force the history of booger pickers on our kids? Let's just pick any old aberrant behavior and go for it.

It boggles the mind that less than 10% of the US population can control the other 90+% like this.

Not to mention the kids coming out of our system today are woefully udereducated. When I was in 8th grade, we had more knowledge than some who are in college these days.

It cant last forever, the fall is inevitable as long as the left continues to foster their agenda upon the 90%

[Thunderknuckles]

My poor state of California :(
Most of my family and friends jumped ship years ago and don't ever want to come back.
I'd leave as well but my wife's roots run deep here and she can't bring herself to leave yet.

[soupnazi630]

Not to mention the kids coming out of our system today are woefully udereducated. When I was in 8th grade, we had more knowledge than some who are in college these days.

It cant last forever, the fall is inevitable as long as the left continues to foster their agenda upon the 90%

This same sentiment has been expressed in different ways by other posters and I believe it strikes to the core of the problem.

The American education system is indeed slipping and we keep falling farther and farther behind.

Yet in addition to defending failed attempts at reforming education many seek to come up with new politically correct ways to teach subjects which are unimportant rather than addressing the lack of real quality education.

[Shoottothrill]

Not to mention the kids coming out of our system today are woefully udereducated. When I was in 8th grade, we had more knowledge than some who are in college these days.

It cant last forever, the fall is inevitable as long as the left continues to foster their agenda upon the 90%

That's something that crossed my mind last night. Our educational system sucks as it is, now they want to take more time away from actual education to talk about... Liberace? Adult theaters? I still don't know exactly what "gay history" means.

[Thunderknuckles]

I still don't know exactly what "gay history" means.
It means history books will now go out of their way to make note of notable homosexuals in history and their contributions to society. The purpose of which is to indoctrinate children at a young age that homosexuality is natural part of society in order to eradicate discrimination against them long term. Pretty much the same way they did with blacks by making special note of their historical contributions to society and giving them the month of February.

I wonder what month the Homosexuals will get?

[Shadow]

I seem to recall my high school history teachers OCCASIONALLY making passing references to the orientation of some historic figures, such as Alexander the Great or Julius Caesar.

But it was not really important who such people slept with as what they accomplished or how they influenced history.

I have yet to see where any specific gay history has been ignored.

I think that this will probably lead to a greater controversy as historians with an agenda start trying to label some important people in history as gay.

They have already done this to some extent such as an attempt a few years ago to label Abraham Lincoln as gay. Ironically another historian also wrote a book called " The Hidden Hitler " where he argued that Hitler was gay and in the closet and other historians who championed a pro gay stance freaked. Apparently only good people in history can be called gay ( like Lincoln ) but not evil people like Hitler. Or at least that is how some people would have history taught.

The attempt to label Lincoln as a gay man was a failure and quickly debunked and forgotten but I expect more such arguments will rise concerning various figures in history.

That was actually the first thing that crossed my mind when I read the article. That in an effort to make the gay life style more appealing that they would start "outting" historical figures.

This is such a stupid piece of legislature. The argument is that the GLBT youth "deserve" to know their history. How is their so called "history" different from everyone else's?

[chloe]

It means history books will now go out of their way to make note of notable homosexuals in history and their contributions to society. The purpose of which is to indoctrinate children at a young age that homosexuality is natural part of society in order to eradicate discrimination against them long term. Pretty much the same way they did with blacks by making special note of their historical contributions to society and giving them the month of February.

I wonder what month the Homosexuals will get?

August:laugh2:

[Shadow]

I seem to recall my high school history teachers OCCASIONALLY making passing references to the orientation of some historic figures, such as Alexander the Great or Julius Caesar.

But it was not really important who such people slept with as what they accomplished or how they influenced history.

I have yet to see where any specific gay history has been ignored.

I think that this will probably lead to a greater controversy as historians with an agenda start trying to label some important people in history as gay.

They have already done this to some extent such as an attempt a few years ago to label Abraham Lincoln as gay. Ironically another historian also wrote a book called " The Hidden Hitler " where he argued that Hitler was gay and in the closet and other historians who championed a pro gay stance freaked. Apparently only good people in history can be called gay ( like Lincoln ) but not evil people like Hitler. Or at least that is how some people would have history taught.

The attempt to label Lincoln as a gay man was a failure and quickly debunked and forgotten but I expect more such arguments will rise concerning various figures in history.

Kind of the way people who argue for gay rights try to use bible verses to prove Jesus was a gay man and had a relationship with Peter (and some of the other disciples). They like to use terms from scriptures such as " unbounded intimacy" or "Paul's holy kiss" and try and stretch them to highlight their gay agenda. I expect to see more of this type of thing also. Funny...but only in an odd and totally hypocritically bigoted way though....since their other agenda is not to respect Jesus (or christians)...but to tear down. Wonder if they know how stupid this makes them look?

[Thunderknuckles]

August:laugh2:
Sounds good. August is a pretty useless month anyhow:p
They can associate themselves along with all of the following bizarre holidays for August:

Admit You're Happy Month
Family Fun Month
National Catfish Month
National Eye Exam Month
National Golf Month
Peach Month
Romance Awareness Month
Water Quality Month
National Picnic Month

[LuvRPgrl]

It means history books will now go out of their way to make note of notable homosexuals in history and their contributions to society. The purpose of which is to indoctrinate children at a young age that homosexuality is natural part of society in order to eradicate discrimination against them long term. Pretty much the same way they did with blacks by making special note of their historical contributions to society and giving them the month of February.

I wonder what month the Homosexuals will get?

IRONICALLY, THE BLACK COMMUNITY IS LESS INFORMED THAN EVER ABOUT THEIR OWN HISTORY.
However, I also dislike, very much, of using a persons race (which is NOT a verb) to an act, Homosexuality, (a verb so to speak).
We know people are born black and cant change that, Michael Jackson withstanding, but we DONT KNOW for sure what causes Homos to become homos, and it is possible to change that.

The reason they are putting it in the schools cirriculums, is they want to indoctrinate society while they are still impressionable to propaganda.
And the reason for that is because all other attempts were not working on the kids. Its a very natural thing for kids to reject homosexuality, (NOT homosexuals), as has been proven when society at large in America has come to accept homosexuals, but the rejection of homosexuality as a "normal" sexual act is still wholeheartedl rejected by school age kids.
............The kids go on their instincts, and rightly so. The control freaks of the left wish to destroy their ability to rely on their instincts.
Part of that war for them is drugging boys wholesale with ritalin.
.....Having seven kids myself, ranging from the 1980's through to the current decade, I have seen firsthand the reaction of kids to the topic, and it hasnt changed a plug nickel. So now, the desperate control freaks are using their ace in the hole, brainwash the kids in schools.
.....The entire thing is mind numbing, liberals are under some sort of a delusional spell, fueled by feelings of guilt and narcisism

[chloe]

Sounds good. August is a pretty useless month anyhow:p
They can associate themselves along with all of the following bizarre holidays for August:

Admit You're Happy Month
Family Fun Month
National Catfish Month
National Eye Exam Month
National Golf Month
Peach Month
Romance Awareness Month
Water Quality Month
National Picnic Month


They might as well take august perhaps they can redecorate the august weather:laugh2:

[LuvRPgrl]

It means history books will now go out of their way to make note of notable homosexuals in history and their contributions to society. The purpose of which is to indoctrinate children at a young age that homosexuality is natural part of society in order to eradicate discrimination against them long term. Pretty much the same way they did with blacks by making special note of their historical contributions to society and giving them the month of February.

I wonder what month the Homosexuals will get?

I would think they would want Dec. since it would be a twofer for them. It would be a further attack on Christmas as well as forcing their agenda on the general public.

It is backfiring with me however, I am less tolerant of homos than any time in my life

[Thunderknuckles]

I would think they would want Dec. since it would be a twofer for them. It would be a further attack on Christmas as well as forcing their agenda on the general public.

It is backfiring with me however, I am less tolerant of homos than any time in my life
If it were up to California, they'd get December too and we'd probably throw in November as well so we can remember to be thankful for them.

[chloe]

If it were up to California, they'd get December too and we'd probably throw in November as well so we can remember to be thankful for them.


california might as well make it every month for the less fortunate gays who coulnd't afford to celebrate on those months, or they could just implement a tax on everyone to pay for just the august month have a program set up to "celebrate gay history month" maybe a food drive twinkies for twinks

:laugh2:

[Shadow]

If it were up to California, they'd get December too and we'd probably throw in November as well so we can remember to be thankful for them.

That's a given...there is not a single creature on earth more engrossed in oneself and one's own affairs then a gay man (totally self centered). Took the heat right off of all us "frivolous" women...which I, for one, am thankful for. :thumb:

[LuvRPgrl]

california might as well make it every month for the less fortunate gays who coulnd't afford to celebrate on those months, or they could just implement a tax on everyone to pay for just the august month have a program set up to "celebrate gay history month" maybe a food drive twinkies for twinks

:laugh2:
HAHAHhaha, I dont know if you're a better cynic, or PR person for the homos.

[Gunny]

Not to mention the kids coming out of our system today are woefully udereducated. When I was in 8th grade, we had more knowledge than some who are in college these days.

It cant last forever, the fall is inevitable as long as the left continues to foster their agenda upon the 90%

They're under-educated because they can't be taught the truth if it doesn't conform to political correctness.

[Gunny]

That's a given...there is not a single creature on earth more engrossed in oneself and one's own affairs then a gay man (totally self centered). Took the heat right off of all us "frivolous" women...which I, for one, am thankful for. :thumb:

Definitely.

[KartRacerBoy]

That's a given...there is not a single creature on earth more engrossed in oneself and one's own affairs then a gay man (totally self centered). Took the heat right off of all us "frivolous" women...which I, for one, am thankful for. :thumb:

Your ignorance could fill a building. Know any gay people or are you too busy stereotyping to get to know any? Or just too intolerant or judgmental?

[Gunny]

Your ignorance could fill a building. Know any gay people or are you too busy stereotyping to get to know any? Or just too intolerant or judgmental?

She actually hit the nail on the head. By the very fact homosexuals have to identify themselves as people by their sexually deviant behavior speaks of their self-centeredness. All they care about is what they want. The Hell with the other 90+% of the population. We should cater them.

[KartRacerBoy]

She actually hit the nail on the head. By the very fact homosexuals have to identify themselves as people by their sexually deviant behavior speaks of their self-centeredness. All they care about is what they want. The Hell with the other 90+% of the population. We should cater them.

You don't have any homosexual friends, do you? The only thing that "outs" them is the fact that they love someone of the same gender and someone like you notices and takes offense. When they want the same rights other couples have, you object. Of course they define themselves by their sexual orientation. It's what makes folks who don't like them deny them equal rights. You, as much as them, put the fight on these terms. So get off your "high horse" becz it isn't working for you.

And your argument would mean that ANY group is self centered if they identify themselves by a particular trait -- women, persecuted white men, blacks, etc. It's a rather laughable argument.

[Gunny]

You don't have any homosexual friends, do you? The only thing that "outs" them is the fact that they love someone of the same gender and someone like you notices and takes offense. When they want the same rights other couples have, you object. Of course they define themselves by their sexual orientation. It's what makes folks who don't like them deny them equal rights. You, as much as them, put the fight on these terms. So get off your "high horse" becz it isn't working for you.

And your argument would mean that ANY group is self centered if they identify themselves by a particular trait -- women, persecuted white men, blacks, etc. It's a rather laughable argument.

Assume much? I don't take offense, nor do I wish to deny them any right(s) that the rest of us have.

I take exception to them having an exclusive right based on their sexual behavior.

Your argument is the laughable one. Being identified by race and gender has nothing to do with being identified by behavior. Two completely different things.

All in all, your entire statement is a red herring based on positions you assume I hold, but no real facts.

[KartRacerBoy]

Assume much? I don't take offense, nor do I wish to deny them any right(s) that the rest of us have.

I take exception to them having an exclusive right based on their sexual behavior.

Your argument is the laughable one. Being identified by race and gender has nothing to do with being identified by behavior. Two completely different things.

All in all, your entire statement is a red herring based on positions you assume I hold, but no real facts.

Certainly homosexuals are asking for rights based on their sexual behavior. But have you not noticed that the rights given to heterosexuals are based on heterosexual behavior? :laugh::laugh::laugh: You might think your sexual orientation somehow makes you better but I assure you it does not.

So do you want your hetero rights taken away since it's based an "exclusive right based on" YOUR sexual behavior? Or would you object that? I rather suspect your specious argument would fall flat in that case.



All in all, your argument is simply one based on ignorance and perhaps bigotry. Only you really know.

[fj1200]

I take exception to them having an exclusive right based on their sexual behavior.

I'll assume you're referring to marriage which is a state-sponsored "right" that they are not allowed to do.


Certainly homosexuals are asking for rights based on their sexual behavior. But have you not noticed that the rights given to heterosexuals are based on heterosexual behavior? :laugh::laugh::laugh: You might think your sexual orientation somehow makes you better but I assure you it does not.

Let's abolish state-sanctioning of marriage; marriage/divorce is merely a matter of contract. Problem solved.

[Shadow]

Your ignorance could fill a building. Know any gay people or are you too busy stereotyping to get to know any? Or just too intolerant or judgmental?

Why, yes I do...several infact. And they are full of more superficial drama than a soap opera, they used to actually have a life that didn't revolve around their sexuality 24/7 once upon a time too. Then they came out of the closet. BTW how is pointing out an obvious personality trait "intolerant"? Oh yeah...we aren't supposed to talk about the gays in real life terms unless those words are glowing and dripping with praise. Shhhhh. :rolleyes:

[fj1200]

And they are full of more superficial drama than a soap opera, they used to actually have a life that didn't revolve around their sexuality 24/7 once upon a time too.

I can't think of one that I know that fits that bill but watch a pride parade or much of what's on TV and I can see where one would say that.

[Shadow]

They're under-educated because they can't be taught the truth if it doesn't conform to political correctness.

That and until High School the public school system (at least in my state anyway) doesn't really offer summer school if kids fail classes. They just pass them on up unprepared to the next grade level hoping they will magically catch up somehow. It's pretty pathetic actually.

[KartRacerBoy]

I can't think of one that I know that fits that bill but watch a pride parade or much of what's on TV and I can see where one would say that.

If gay was the norm, and hetero was the exception, do you really think heteros would be any different?

And what does "much of what's on TV" mean? Crap, gays get to watch heteros being sexual on TV 24/7. What makes that so wonderful to watch? Sexuality is sexuality, gay or straight.

If homosexuality just makes you uncomfortable and squirm, just say so. But try not to make stuff up.

[fj1200]

If gay was the norm, and hetero was the exception, do you really think heteros would be any different?

And what does "much of what's on TV" mean? Crap, gays get to watch heteros being sexual on TV 24/7. What makes that so wonderful to watch? Sexuality is sexuality, gay or straight.

Very true. But what's on TV tends to be a bit more, flamboyant shall we say, than the norm that I know which is hardly sheltered in my area. But I haven't been to Midtown ATL in awhile.


If homosexuality just makes you uncomfortable and squirm, just say so. But try not to make stuff up.

What did I make up?

[Shadow]

I can't think of one that I know that fits that bill but watch a pride parade or much of what's on TV and I can see where one would say that.

Um...no...if I judged all gay people just based on the wackadoodles that attend the gay pride parades I see on TV I would think they were just a bunch of loons. Period. Don't over exaggerate just to argue. :rolleyes:

[fj1200]

Don't over exaggerate just to argue. :rolleyes:


...there is not a single creature on earth more engrossed in oneself and one's own affairs then a gay man (totally self centered).

I would never do that. :rolleyes:

[Shadow]

I would never do that. :rolleyes:

That is what you call being sarcastic...I like how you didn't get all peeved that I refered to women as "frivolous" in the same comment too though.

How about we throw you into the "overly sensitive" bucket. :rolleyes:

[LuvRPgrl]

Your ignorance could fill a building. Know any gay people or are you too busy stereotyping to get to know any? Or just too intolerant or judgmental?

She was merely giving her OPINI0N. To judge it as ingorant is a misnomer. Its like asking how high is red?

Personally I can stereotype and meet homos at the same time. :)

Uh, so arent you being judgmental and intolerant with your post here?

[LuvRPgrl]

That sounds like its straight out of the "LEFTY'S LIBERAL BOOK OF PROPAGANDA QUOTES".

SUBTITLED: "We feel so guilty that to get rid of it we have to find an issue-whether we are right or not is irrelevant- that the right would oppose and since we are morally & intellectually superior to conservatives, and everyone else for that matter, we have to support an underdog group."


You don't have any homosexual friends, do you? The only thing that "outs" them is the fact that they love someone of the same gender and someone like you notices and takes offense. When they want the same rights other couples have, you object. Of course they define themselves by their sexual orientation. It's what makes folks who don't like them deny them equal rights. You, as much as them, put the fight on these terms. So get off your "high horse" becz it isn't working for you.

And your argument would mean that ANY group is self centered if they identify themselves by a particular trait -- women, persecuted white men, blacks, etc. It's a rather laughable argument.

CLUE, marriage isnt a right. You should go back and read about what marriage is for in our country.

[ConHog]

Note to 49 other states. In order to be successful, look at what California does, then do the opposite.


Makes me sick that kids are learning about homosexuality. I couldn't care less what consenting adults do with or to each other, and I don't condone mistreating gays in anyway , shape, or form; but there is NO legitimate reason to force people's kids to learn that it is natural and equal to heterosexuality if the parents don't with them to be taught that.

[KartRacerBoy]

That sounds like its straight out of the "LEFTY'S LIBERAL BOOK OF PROPAGANDA QUOTES".

SUBTITLED: "We feel so guilty that to get rid of it we have to find an issue-whether we are right or not is irrelevant- that the right would oppose and since we are morally & intellectually superior to conservatives, and everyone else for that matter, we have to support an underdog group."



CLUE, marriage isnt a right. You should go back and read about what marriage is for in our country.



So you're saying you DON'T have any gay friends. Thought so. Straight out of the Republican "This is who we HATE" playbook. As for marriage, what is and isn't a right is sometimes defined by the legislature and sometimes by the courts. Jim Crow laws once were approved by SCOTUS, but now they are not. What is a "right" changes with cultural changes.

But I will say that hate or fear is a bad tool to base who does or does have rights.

[ConHog]

So you're saying you DON'T have any gay friends. Thought so. Straight out of the Republican "This is who we HATE" playbook. As for marriage, what is and isn't a right is sometimes defined by the legislature and sometimes by the courts. Jim Crow laws once were approved by SCOTUS, but now they are not. What is a "right" changes with cultural changes.

But I will say that hate or fear is a bad tool to base who does or does have rights.



My best friend, and the godfather of both of my children, is gay. He saved my life in 1991. I declined to ever report him for being gay.

That being said, There is NO right to a state sanctioned marriage period. Not for gays nor straights. I would in fact prefer that the state got out of marriage completely. Let folks go to church to get married. If you don't attend a church, well then what interest do you have in marriage?

[Missileman]

If you don't attend a church, well then what interest do you have in marriage?

Marriage is as much a civil and legal arrangement as it is a religious one, perhaps even more so.

[ConHog]

Marriage is as much a civil and legal arrangement as it is a religious one, perhaps even more so.

It shouldn't be, everything government related could and should be handled with legal agreements. Heck I'm married to a woman, and I certainly don't depend on the word married to make everything okay for either of us should the unthinkable happen.

[Missileman]

It shouldn't be, everything government related could and should be handled with legal agreements. Heck I'm married to a woman, and I certainly don't depend on the word married to make everything okay for either of us should the unthinkable happen.

If you take the state out of it, then you might wind up with some pretty weird marriages out of the Church of Zoophilia, for example.

[ConHog]

If you take the state out of it, then you might wind up with some pretty weird marriages out of the Church of Zoophilia, for example.



Fine by me. This is the US. You should have the right to do whatever you want as long as it is within the bounds of being consensual and legal.

[Missileman]

Fine by me. This is the US. You should have the right to do whatever you want as long as it is within the bounds of being consensual and legal.

So you'd be okay with a gay marriage as long as it isn't sanctioned by the state? That's an unusual stance.

[KartRacerBoy]

Marriage is as much a civil and legal arrangement as it is a religious one, perhaps even more so.

This. Inheritance rights. Hospital visitation rights. All of that. That's why gay people object to laws that give religious exceptions to recognition of gay rights. A catholic hospital wouldn't have to recognize a gay partner and let them make end of life decisons under some state laws.

Would we allow that in an interracial marriage? Some churches used to think that interracial marriage was a sin. So when does general sociatal morals trump 'religious freedom"? I think equal rights for homosexuals is one of those times, much like it was for desegregation.

[ConHog]

So you'd be okay with a gay marriage as long as it isn't sanctioned by the state? That's an unusual stance.



No, personally I'd be okay with state sanctioned marriage. Why do I care who gets married to whom? However, I realize that will NEVER fly with the more militant among the religious. However I also realize that it simply isn't right to tell people they can't be married. SO , I think a fair compromise would be to say no state sanctioned marriages , anyone can get married by a church willing to do so though.

[ConHog]

This. Inheritance rights. Hospital visitation rights. All of that. That's why gay people object to laws that give religious exceptions to recognition of gay rights. A catholic hospital wouldn't have to recognize a gay partner and let them make end of life decisons under some state laws.

Would we allow that in an interracial marriage? Some churches used to think that interracial marriage was a sin. So when does general sociatal morals trump 'religious freedom"? I think equal rights for homosexuals is one of those times, much like it was for desegregation.


All handled by legal documents, not marriage. In Arkansas , my wife automatically has all those rights, and likewise I have them in regards to her. But we don't rely on our marriage, we also have legal documents spelling out who inherits what, etc etc. Anyone who doesn't is crazy.

[KartRacerBoy]

[QUOTE=ConHog;479789]All handled by legal documents, not marriage. In Arkansas , my wife automatically has all those rights, and likewise I have them in regards to her. But we don't rely on our marriage, we also have legal documents spelling out who inherits what, etc etc. Anyone who doesn't is crazy.[/QUOTE}


You know not of what you speak. If the state doesn't recognize your "legal document," it's invalid. That's why there is a
Defense of Marriage Act in the federal govt specifically NOT recognizing legal rights for federal employees (ie, no gay partner inheritance as a hetosexual spouse would inherit), etc.

In states with similar laws, gay couples legal agreements ARE NOT LEGAL AND BINDING. That's what everything is about.

[ConHog]

[QUOTE=ConHog;479789]All handled by legal documents, not marriage. In Arkansas , my wife automatically has all those rights, and likewise I have them in regards to her. But we don't rely on our marriage, we also have legal documents spelling out who inherits what, etc etc. Anyone who doesn't is crazy.[/QUOTE}


You know not of what you speak. If the state doesn't recognize your "legal document," it's invalid. That's why there is a
Defense of Marriage Act in the federal govt specifically NOT recognizing legal rights for federal employees (ie, no gay partner inheritance as a hetosexual spouse would inherit), etc.

In states with similar laws, gay couples legal agreements ARE NOT LEGAL AND BINDING. That's what everything is about.



ANY contract which is not illegal in content is legal and valid PERIOD. Don't confuse legal contract with marriage. IF two gay men have a legal contract stating that one person inherits the others things then the state can't invalidate that contract just b/c they are gay PERIOD.

Now if you're talking about things like a hospital allowing a gay man's husband to visit him (assuming they are married by a church) then yes the government would have to step in and say " you will NOT deny these folks their rights if they have proper paperwork" etc etc.

There is NO perfect solution here.

[KartRacerBoy]

[QUOTE=KartRacerBoy;479799]



ANY contract which is not illegal in content is legal and valid PERIOD. Don't confuse legal contract with marriage. IF two gay men have a legal contract stating that one person inherits the others things then the state can't invalidate that contract just b/c they are gay PERIOD.

Now if you're talking about things like a hospital allowing a gay man's husband to visit him (assuming they are married by a church) then yes the government would have to step in and say " you will NOT deny these folks their rights if they have proper paperwork" etc etc.

There is NO perfect solution here.

Yes there is. Equal rights to heterosexual couples. Seems perfect to me. It may not make eveyone happy but neither did elimination of the Jim Crow laws. Moral equivalents in my book.And as I;ve said, religious proscribtions hold not ground with me. Christianity at one time thought slavery was fine. No longer. Evolve and adapt.

[ConHog]

[QUOTE=ConHog;479801]

Yes there is. Equal rights to heterosexual couples. Seems perfect to me. It may not make eveyone happy but neither did elimination of the Jim Crow laws. Moral equivalents in my book.And as I;ve said, religious proscribtions hold not ground with me. Christianity at one time thought slavery was fine. No longer. Evolve and adapt.



Where have I suggested less than equal rights for anyone? NO state sanctioned marriage , gay or straight.

But don't equate choosing to be gay with being black. They aren't the same thing at all. Last I checked no one thought it was okay to own a gay, beat a gay, kill a gay, send a gay to the back of the bus, not let a gay eat at a restaurant, make a gay use seperate water faucets, or anything else of that nature.

How disgusting that some crap all over the sacrifices of black men and women who truly suffered discrimination just to score some political points.

[KartRacerBoy]

[QUOTE=KartRacerBoy;479808]



Where have I suggested less than equal rights for anyone? NO state sanctioned marriage , gay or straight.

But don't equate choosing to be gay with being black. They aren't the same thing at all. Last I checked no one thought it was okay to own a gay, beat a gay, kill a gay, send a gay to the back of the bus, not let a gay eat at a restaurant, make a gay use seperate water faucets, or anything else of that nature.

How disgusting that some crap all over the sacrifices of black men and women who truly suffered discrimination just to score some political points.

Choosing to be gay? Good god, man, you're delusional. I'm sure my cousin chose to be gay and get beat up regularly in middle school. But you keep your easy beliefs. I'm also sure that kid strung up to die on a fence in Montana really thought he had equal rights and Brown vs Bd of Educ. did him good.

And I find it disgusting when blacks justify discriminating against gay people after the discrimination they went through and still go through. It just shows how humanity can always find a way to justify hate. Becz that's what it is. Hate.

[ConHog]

[QUOTE=ConHog;479813]

Choosing to be gay? Good god, man, you're delusional. I'm sure my cousin chose to be gay and get beat up regularly in middle school. But you keep your easy beliefs. I'm also sure that kid strung up to die on a fence in Montana really thought he had equal rights and Brown vs Bd of Educ. did him good.

And I find it disgusting when blacks justify discriminating against gay people after the discrimination they went through and still go through. It just shows how humanity can always find a way to justify hate. Becz that's what it is. Hate.



Blah blah blah, sorry your cousin got beat up, but doubtful he was gay in middle school, and guess what ,middle schoolers are cruel and they pick on anyone they feel is vulnerable.

[KartRacerBoy]

[QUOTE=ConHog;479819][QUOTE=KartRacerBoy;479816]



Blah blah blah, sorry your cousin got beat up, but doubtful he was gay in middle school, and guess what ,middle schoolers are cruel and they pick on anyone they feel is vulnerable.[/QUOTE

Blah, blah, blah, and you would've been one of the guys beating up my cousin, no doubt.


And you would've cited his "choice" as your reason.

[ConHog]

[QUOTE=ConHog;479819][QUOTE=KartRacerBoy;479816]



Blah blah blah, sorry your cousin got beat up, but doubtful he was gay in middle school, and guess what ,middle schoolers are cruel and they pick on anyone they feel is vulnerable.[/QUOTE

Blah, blah, blah, and you would've been one of the guys beating up my cousin, no doubt.


And you would've cited his "choice" as your reason.


Actually sir, I myself was bullied in school, until the first day of my senior year. for you see I had joined the national guard and went to boot camp the summer before my senior year of high school. Put on 40 lbs of muscle, learned to fight, and learned to not take shit from anyone. First day f my senior year one of the idiots who had picked on me in previous years started some shit and got to visit the hospital before the first bell had even rung. I don't cotton to bullies AT ALL. I don't approve of homosexuality, that does NOT mean I condone bullying them.

Thank you for playing.

[LuvRPgrl]

So you're saying you DON'T have any gay friends. Thought so..
You quoted my post, then responded to someone elses, I'm confused. You couldnt have been responding to mine, cuz I never even hinted any such thing, much less flat out state it.



Straight out of the Republican "This is who we HATE" playbook..
Oh my, how original. Thanks for the compliment, oh, and then you throw in the hate word. my my my, what a gifted insightful debater you are. They say when someone copies you, its the sincerest form of flattery, thank you.



As for marriage, what is and isn't a right is sometimes defined by the legislature and sometimes by the courts..
Oh my, you actually said something that wasnt merely a personal insult. Caught me by surprise. But you are wrong. If the Legislature could decide what is and isnt a right, then they could simply take any of them away whenever they wanted, not by making a law against it (as the courts would find it unconstitutional) but by redifing something that is a right (free speech) to no longer be a right.



Jim Crow laws once were approved by SCOTUS, but now they are not. What is a "right" changes with cultural changes. .HMMMM
SCOTUS ??? I thought you just said the LEGISLATURE could define rights.


But I will say that hate or fear is a bad tool to base who does or does have rights.

who DOES OR DOES have rights???? I dont base any of my values on hate or fear, try again.

[LuvRPgrl]

This. Inheritance rights. Hospital visitation rights. All of that. That's why gay people object to laws that give religious exceptions to recognition of gay rights. A catholic hospital wouldn't have to recognize a gay partner and let them make end of life decisons under some state laws.

Would we allow that in an interracial marriage? Some churches used to think that interracial marriage was a sin. So when does general sociatal morals trump 'religious freedom"? I think equal rights for homosexuals is one of those times, much like it was for desegregation.

another propaganda filled LLL, Lie of the Liberal Lefties.
You cant properly compare homo marriages to interracial, and black people in particular are insulted when someone does that.

And desegragation, Pleeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaase, you are showing your desperation when you have to pull out those cards.

There are no legitimate Christian religions or churces that , or ever thought, interacial marriage was a sin. Very often people used their posistion of power in the church to implement controls over society, but it wasnt for religous purposes, they would only claim it was.
....The reasons were the usual, fear, anger, racism,,,,,,but not religous

[darin]

The 'Who would CHOOSE the gay lifestyle' question is seriously dishonest - and a fallacy-argument.

People choose all sorts of destructive behaviours. Drugs, Crime, Liberalism - whatever it is, whatever destroys and hurts; people have chosen those activities throughout recorded history.

It's also sort of insulting to folks who practice homosexuality. It's implying their are somehow 'broken' - if they are, let's fine a cure to save them the frustration and pain of being a victim to whatever entices them, and 'forces them' to have sex with members of the same gender.

It's a choice, 100%. Just like robbing a bank, getting a dog, driving a subaru.

[Gunny]

If gay was the norm, and hetero was the exception, do you really think heteros would be any different?

And what does "much of what's on TV" mean? Crap, gays get to watch heteros being sexual on TV 24/7. What makes that so wonderful to watch? Sexuality is sexuality, gay or straight.

If homosexuality just makes you uncomfortable and squirm, just say so. But try not to make stuff up.

If gay was the norm and hetero the exception, I'd say the issue would be moot as there wouldn't be a lot of procreating going on.

Television, until recently, depicted the norm. Then some geniuses decided to force gay situational comedies as normal. They aren't. Your comment is a basic poster child for the vast majority suffering for the crybabying of less than 10% of the population.

Speaking of making stuff up .... the famous war cry of the homosexual/homosexual enabler : You're a homophobe and/or hate/fear all homosexuals because you don't agree with and/or fear their lifestyle. Bull. Considering their lifestyle abnormal (which is a biological fact) and despising the flaming attention seekers for the same reason I despise most flaming attention seeking minorities induces neither hatred nor fear in me. It means exactly what I said it means and nothing more nor less.
I could care less what they do behind the privacy of their own doors. It's when they start trying to shove their aberrant lifestyle down my throat, and want exclusive laws that cater solely to them, and someone mandates their "history" be taught to our children as if it has any meaningful impact on history I start giving a shit. It's ass-backwards thinking on the part of gays and those who support their agenda.

[Gunny]

The 'Who would CHOOSE the gay lifestyle' question is seriously dishonest - and a fallacy-argument.

People choose all sorts of destructive behaviours. Drugs, Crime, Liberalism - whatever it is, whatever destroys and hurts; people have chosen those activities throughout recorded history.

It's also sort of insulting to folks who practice homosexuality. It's implying their are somehow 'broken' - if they are, let's fine a cure to save them the frustration and pain of being a victim to whatever entices them, and 'forces them' to have sex with members of the same gender.

It's a choice, 100%. Just like robbing a bank, getting a dog, driving a subaru.

Agreed. Homosexuality is factually only evident by homosexual behavior. Behavior is a choice.

[ConHog]

Agreed. Homosexuality is factually only evident by homosexual behavior. Behavior is a choice.




BUT BUT BUT Gunny, when did YOU choose to be heterosexual? LOL That one always cracks me up.

[KartRacerBoy]

The 'Who would CHOOSE the gay lifestyle' question is seriously dishonest - and a fallacy-argument.

People choose all sorts of destructive behaviours. Drugs, Crime, Liberalism - whatever it is, whatever destroys and hurts; people have chosen those activities throughout recorded history.

It's also sort of insulting to folks who practice homosexuality. It's implying their are somehow 'broken' - if they are, let's fine a cure to save them the frustration and pain of being a victim to whatever entices them, and 'forces them' to have sex with members of the same gender.

It's a choice, 100%. Just like robbing a bank, getting a dog, driving a subaru.


If you mean actting on an attraction is choice, you're right, but if you mean the natural attraction part, I think you're wrong. But I fail to see how homosexuality is "destructive behavior." Something like alcoholism is clearly self destructive, but I fail to see how homosexual behavior is, by itself, destructive absent societal condemnation.

And be careful where you tread, dmp. Afterall, you do drive a Subaru...

[ConHog]

[QUOTE=dmp;479898]The 'Who would CHOOSE the gay lifestyle' question is seriously dishonest - and a fallacy-argument.

People choose all sorts of destructive behaviours. Drugs, Crime, Liberalism - whatever it is, whatever destroys and hurts; people have chosen those activities throughout recorded history.

It's also sort of insulting to folks who practice homosexuality. It's implying their are somehow 'broken' - if they are, let's fine a cure to save them the frustration and pain of being a victim to whatever entices them, and 'forces them' to have sex with members of the same gender.

It's a choice, 100%. Just like robbing a bank, getting a dog, driving a subaru.


If you mean actting on an attraction is choice, you're right, but if you mean the natural attraction part, I think you're wrong. But I fail to see how homosexuality is "destructive behavior." Something like alcoholism is clearly self destructive, but I fail to see how homosexual behavior is, by itself, destructive absent societal condemnation.

And be careful where you tread, dmp. Afterall, you do drive a Subaru...



I fail to see why some gays refuse to admit it's a choice. What's the big damned deal? Thiis is the US of A , you have every right to choose to be as perverted as you wish with consenting adults. Claiming it's not a choice is just a strawman set up by some to try to weasel their way into something that no other group who chooses to do something has.

[darin]

If you mean actting on an attraction is choice, you're right, but if you mean the natural attraction part, I think you're wrong. But I fail to see how homosexuality is "destructive behavior." Something like alcoholism is clearly self destructive, but I fail to see how homosexual behavior is, by itself, destructive absent societal condemnation.

Attraction and reactions to same are learned, easily. I believe kids are taught attractions - and it's getting worse. In part, the over-sexualization of our youth is to blame, I suppose. When a friend feels 'attraction' to another of the gender, kids can be 'taught' that must be manifested sexually.

Are you really saying those who choose that lifestyle are NOT more likely to die, be involved in domestic violence, have health concerns, etc?




And be careful where you tread, dmp. Afterall, you do drive a Subaru...

I've been telling folk I'm a lesbian trapped in (arguably) a man's body....

[KartRacerBoy]

[QUOTE=KartRacerBoy;479928]



I fail to see why some gays refuse to admit it's a choice. What's the big damned deal? Thiis is the US of A , you have every right to choose to be as perverted as you wish with consenting adults. Claiming it's not a choice is just a strawman set up by some to try to weasel their way into something that no other group who chooses to do something has.

If something is so engrained in you, it is really a choice. It's a natural function. Do you choose to be a heterosexual? Do you choose what arouses you?

But that's semantic argument (the "choice" thing) set up by folks who want to label it as a "bad" choice because they disapprove of the behavior.

[darin]

If something is so engrained in you, it is really a choice. It's a natural function. Do you choose to be a heterosexual? Do you choose what arouses you?

But that's semantic argument (the "choice" thing) set up by folks who want to label it as a "bad" choice because they disapprove of the behavior.

I choose heterosexuality, of course. It's logical and rewarding. :)

What would you say to Gay folk who admit it's 'their choice' and NOT something they are merely 'victim to'?

[ConHog]

I choose heterosexuality, of course. It's logical and rewarding. :)

What would you say to Gay folk who admit it's 'their choice' and NOT something they are merely 'victim to'?




Yep, my buddy is gay, he chooses to be. He just prefers to be around guys. I don't approve, but I got another buddy who treats women like shit, tells them anything he can to get in their pants. I equally disapprove of that. So, I guess by the logic of some, I hate them both, even though they are my friends.


Oh, and I/m still waiting for a logical explanation of people who suddenly are reborn gay in their 30s or later...... How does that happen?

[KartRacerBoy]

I choose heterosexuality, of course. It's logical and rewarding. :)

What would you say to Gay folk who admit it's 'their choice' and NOT something they are merely 'victim to'?

Some folks think homosexuality is logical and rewarding. After all, women, while enticing to me, certainly have their downsides sometimes.

But my point is that you really don't "choose" to be heterosexual. It either comes naturally or it doesn't.

[darin]

Some folks think homosexuality is logical and rewarding. After all, women, while enticing to me, certainly have their downsides sometimes.

But my point is that you really don't "choose" to be heterosexual. It either comes naturally or it doesn't.

Uh - sexuality is not a 'condition' - as mentioned, it's only betrayed or defined by behaviour.

[ConHog]

Some folks think homosexuality is logical and rewarding. After all, women, while enticing to me, certainly have their downsides sometimes.

But my point is that you really don't "choose" to be heterosexual. It either comes naturally or it doesn't.


I didn't choose not to be a bank robber either. It's just natural not be a bank robber. That doesn't mean that those who DO rob banks were just born that way.

[darin]

I didn't choose not to be a bank robber either. It's just natural not be a bank robber. That doesn't mean that those who DO rob banks were just born that way.

You must be in denial. Your preference for MONEY means - PROVES are you a bank-robber-in-the-closet! ;)

I wonder if the incidence of homosexual behaviour in prison means Criminals are latent homosexuals, only waiting for prison to have the courage to come out?

[ConHog]

You must be in denial. Your preference for MONEY means - PROVES are you a bank-robber-in-the-closet! ;)

I wonder if the incidence of homosexual behaviour in prison means Criminals are latent homosexuals, only waiting for prison to have the courage to come out?



What if I'm a bank robber for a few years, then stop, then go back to robbing banks. Goddamit I want equal rights for bank robbers!!!!

I'm here
I'm a bank robber
Get used to it



PS - If I wear assless chaps while robbing banks will yall take me more seriously?

[Thunderknuckles]

Speaking of making stuff up .... the famous war cry of the homosexual/homosexual enabler : You're a homophobe and/or hate/fear all homosexuals because you don't agree with and/or fear their lifestyle. Bull. Considering their lifestyle abnormal (which is a biological fact) and despising the flaming attention seekers for the same reason I despise most flaming attention seeking minorities induces neither hatred nor fear in me. It means exactly what I said it means and nothing more nor less.

:bow3:

[darin]

PS - If I wear assless chaps while robbing banks will yall take me more seriously?

Uh...'assless' is what makes them 'not pants' :D By definition, chaps ARE assless.

:p

[KartRacerBoy]

I didn't choose not to be a bank robber either. It's just natural not be a bank robber. That doesn't mean that those who DO rob banks were just born that way.

Thank you for making my point about choice. Again, homosexuality is only called a "choice" so those who dislike it can call it "bad." If it's a choice, it's much easier to condemn. But what is bad about it? Ok, it doesn't produce children, but in a world with 7 billion folks is that a bad thing? Other than that, how does it hurt anyone (I mean other than makes other folks squeamish at the thought of it).\?

And if it's such a bad thing, why do guys have fantasies about a threesome with two girls and the girls kissing and didling one another? :laugh:

[ConHog]

Uh...'assless' is what makes them 'not pants' :D By definition, chaps ARE assless.

:p



maybe so, but are they be definition covered in purple fur?

[ConHog]

Thank you for making my point about choice. Again, homosexuality is only called a "choice" so those who dislike it can call it "bad." If it's a choice, it's much easier to condemn. But what is bad about it? Ok, it doesn't produce children, but in a world with 7 billion folks is that a bad thing? Other than that, how does it hurt anyone (I mean other than makes other folks squeamish at the thought of it).\?

And if it's such a bad thing, why do guys have fantasies about a threesome with two girls and the girls kissing and didling one another? :laugh:

No sir, it is a choice and it is only called natural by those who choose it but don't want to own their choice. Easier to blame it on " I can't help it." You see it in every group of people who make bad choices. Murderers, bank robbers, drug users, pedophiles, EVERY group when cornered responds with " I can't help it, I was born this way" The ONLY difference here is that homosexuality isn't even illegal behavior. But some are so weak that they can't even admit to what they themselves have chosen to do, even though their actions hurt no one, other them perhaps themselves.

[KartRacerBoy]

No sir, it is a choice and it is only called natural by those who choose it but don't want to own their choice. Easier to blame it on " I can't help it." You see it in every group of people who make bad choices. Murderers, bank robbers, drug users, pedophiles, EVERY group when cornered responds with " I can't help it, I was born this way" The ONLY difference here is that homosexuality isn't even illegal behavior. But some are so weak that they can't even admit to what they themselves have chosen to do, even though their actions hurt no one, other them perhaps themselves.

Once again, you make my point by saying it's a choice and then calling it a bad choice. Why is it bad? Why does it piss you off so much if you're not involved?

[ConHog]

Once again, you make my point by saying it's a choice and then calling it a bad choice. Why is it bad? Why does it piss you off so much if you're not involved?


Why are you under the impression that I am pissed about people choosing to be gay? I am not, I am upset about the fact that some want to teach MY kids that the choice is no choice at all. Why have YOU tried to change the topic to people being pissed about something different?

[darin]

Once again, you make my point by saying it's a choice and then calling it a bad choice. Why is it bad? Why does it piss you off so much if you're not involved?


^^ Again - what do you say to Gay folk who celebrate their choice, and admit it's their preference - not just something they are forced to do?

[ConHog]

^^ Again - what do you say to Gay folk who celebrate their choice, and admit it's their preference - not just something they are forced to do?



Peer pressures......... They wanted some hairy man butt back then to, but were scared they would get beat up, so instead of doing without, any port in a storm............... That's their story anyway.

[KartRacerBoy]

^^ Again - what do you say to Gay folk who celebrate their choice, and admit it's their preference - not just
something they are forced to do?

Give me a link that says that and we can talk.

[ConHog]

Give me a link that says that and we can talk.



There is in fact a world outside of the internet.

[darin]

Give me a link that says that and we can talk.

Pretty arrogant of you to assume you understand every person's opinion? You assume every gay person feels like a victim (despite the fact there is zero credible evidence) of their 'genes'?

[ConHog]

Pretty arrogant of you to assume you understand every person's opinion? You assume every gay person feels like a victim (despite the fact there is zero credible evidence) of their 'genes'?


I been here less than 24 hours and he seems pretty arrogant , in another thread he essentially told me that he knows for a fact that no atheist suddenly starts praying in foxholes.

[darin]

I've seen him on another forum, and he's respectful - but I think he's just generally wrong.

:D

I'd drink with him, though. Maybe fish? :D

[ConHog]

I've seen him on another forum, and he's respectful - but I think he's just generally wrong.

:D

I'd drink with him, though. Maybe fish? :D



Meh, if I didn't talk to people who were wrong because they didn't agree with me, I'd be a lonely dude. So it's all good in the 'hood.

[KartRacerBoy]

Pretty arrogant of you to assume you understand every person's opinion? You assume every gay person feels like a victim (despite the fact there is zero credible evidence) of their 'genes'?

Are you a victim of your genes if you're heterosexual? I never said "victim." That''s just you putting a negative spin on being homosexual.


I've seen him on another forum, and he's respectful - but I think he's just generally wrong.

:D

I'd drink with him, though. Maybe fish? :D

That's cz we assholes are generally the most intersting people. I violently disagree with Justice Anton Scalia on most issues, but he's the one justice I'd want to drink scotch with.

[darin]

Are you a victim of your genes if you're heterosexual? I never said "victim." That''s just you putting a negative spin on being homosexual.


If 'healthy' means 'victim' to you... You're saying folks are destined and compelled to act on a fictitious 'gay gene'. I'm saying 'gay folk are only gay based on their behaviour. Everything else is mental'.

Homosexuality IS Negative - needs no spin. It's counter-evolutionary, and it's destructive. I have empathy for folks committed to that lifestyle because they are hurting themselves and they may not realize it until it's too late. Look at the data, man.

[fj1200]

That is what you call being sarcastic...I like how you didn't get all peeved that I refered to women as "frivolous" in the same comment too though.

How about we throw you into the "overly sensitive" bucket. :rolleyes:

I didn't care what you said, I only pointed out your own inconsistencies.

[LuvRPgrl]

[QUOTE=ConHog;479801]

Yes there is. Equal rights to heterosexual couples. Seems perfect to me. It may not make eveyone happy but neither did elimination of the Jim Crow laws. Moral equivalents in my book.And as I;ve said, religious proscribtions hold not ground with me. Christianity at one time thought slavery was fine. No longer. Evolve and adapt.

You just keep on making stuff up. Your credibility is in the toilet, the handle is pulled, and the water is swirling round and round. Better hurry and STOP MAKING STUFF UP, or you will be sucked into the vortex of liberalism and you'll be hanging around all the other liberal turds forever.

Name a right heterosexuals have that homos dont.

Chritianity didnt support slavery as practiced in circa 1700's & 1800's. Bibilical slavery was a completely different animal.
......In fact, it was Christians that started and fueled the abolitionist movement.

[ConHog]

[QUOTE=KartRacerBoy;479808]

You just keep on making stuff up. Your credibility is in the toilet, the handle is pulled, and the water is swirling round and round. Better hurry and STOP MAKING STUFF UP, or you will be sucked into the vortex of liberalism and you'll be hanging around all the other liberal turds forever.

Name a right heterosexuals have that homos dont.

Chritianity didnt support slavery as practiced in circa 1700's & 1800's. Bibilical slavery was a completely different animal.
......In fact, it was Christians that started and fueled the abolitionist movement.

nm

[LuvRPgrl]

Certainly homosexuals are asking for rights based on their sexual behavior. But have you not noticed that the rights given to heterosexuals are based on heterosexual behavior? :laugh::laugh::laugh:
So do you want your hetero rights taken away since it's based an "exclusive right based on" YOUR sexual behavior? .

....still making stuff up. ahem, name one right heterosexuals have that homos dont and is based on their heterosexuality. I can name you some things you cant do or say about or to homos, that you can about heterosexuals.

Im awaiting your reply, and please dont make anything else up.

[ConHog]

....still making stuff up. ahem, name one right heterosexuals have that homos dont and is based on their heterosexuality. I can name you some things you cant do or say about or to homos, that you can about heterosexuals.

Im awaiting your reply, and please dont make anything else up.



I don't think that dude would have ANYTHING to say if he didn't make things up.

[LuvRPgrl]

I don't think that dude would have ANYTHING to say if he didn't make things up.

Maybe it would make him start thinking instead of just reading the LLL, Lefty's Liberal book of Lies.

[KartRacerBoy]

Let's see, what rights don't homosexuals have that heterosexuals do?

Oh wait! I know! I know!


Marriage and all the rights that attend to it. Silly things like getting pension benefits or 401k assets though spousal laws instead of naming a specific beneficiary. Or just the right to be considered "married."

And if the right to marriage is so umimportant, why is the RW fighting so hard to keep it for heterosexuals only? Answer (for those blinded by their own myopia): Because the RW considers the marriage right important!

[KartRacerBoy]

Maybe it would make him start thinking instead of just reading the LLL, Lefty's Liberal book of Lies.

I could cuddle up with the "Vapid Book of Right Wing Hate", but it's tough tearing it out of your mean spirited grubby little hands. That and it's a book for folks like you and ConHog (that guy that studied the US Constitution for 8 yrs but is apparently slow on the uptake).

[ConHog]

Let's see, what rights don't homosexuals have that heterosexuals do?

Oh wait! I know! I know!


Marriage and all the rights that attend to it. Silly things like getting pension benefits or 401k assets though spousal laws instead of naming a specific beneficiary. Or just the right to be considered "married."

And if the right to marriage is so umimportant, why is the RW fighting so hard to keep it for heterosexuals only? Answer (for those blinded by their own myopia): Because the RW considers the marriage right important!


None of those things you mentioned are in fact rights. Further, what sort of moron doesn't make sure he has a will that specifies his heirs regardless of marital status to minimize the legal effort those heirs must undertake when the time comes, or any other legal matter?


PS - it's only the small fringe of the extreme right who care if gays get married or not, just as it is the small lunatic fringe on the left who insist that gay marriage be part of their platform. Those of us who are normal wish you fringers on BOTH sides would shut up. This country has problems, real problems, and gay marriage aint one of them.

[KartRacerBoy]

None of those things you mentioned are in fact rights. Further, what sort of moron doesn't make sure he has a will that specifies his heirs regardless of marital status to minimize the legal effort those heirs must undertake when the time comes, or any other legal matter?


PS - it's only the small fringe of the extreme right who care if gays get married or not, just as it is the small lunatic fringe on the left who insist that gay marriage be part of their platform. Those of us who are normal wish you fringers on BOTH sides would shut up. This country has problems, real problems, and gay marriage aint one of them.



Interesting. Just declare it's NOT a right and everything is ok. So why do object so much to passing a law to make gay marriage the equivalent of hetero marriage? And can we pass a law making segregation legal again without infringing on a "right'? It's just a law so it can't be a "right," correct?

And you're not on the fringe? Good lord, man, you're on this political site exactly becz you care about politcal issues to discuss them, something the masses generally avoid. :laugh:

[ConHog]

Interesting. Just declare it's NOT a right and everything is ok. So why do object so much to passing a law to make gay marriage the equivalent of hetero marriage? And can we pass a law making segregation legal again without infringing on a "right'? It's just a law so it can't be a "right," correct?

And you're not on the fringe? Good lord, man, you're on this political site exactly becz you care about politcal issues to discuss them, something the masses generally avoid. :laugh:

I'm not declaring anything, I'm merely stating. State sanctioned marriage isn't a right. Neither is having an easy inheritance system.

Have you even read the thread? I have plainly stated that I couldn't care less if gays get married. Has ZERO effect on my life. However, the practical side of me says that some are always going to argue about this, and so an equitable solution should be sought. Kicking government out of marriage altogether seems like a reasonable solution.

PS - Not everyone who is interested in discussig politics is a left wing or right wing fringer. In fact I would say most aren't.

[KartRacerBoy]

I'm not declaring anything, I'm merely stating. State sanctioned marriage isn't a right. Neither is having an easy inheritance system.

Have you even read the thread? I have plainly stated that I couldn't care less if gays get married. Has ZERO effect on my life. However, the practical side of me says that some are always going to argue about this, and so an equitable solution should be sought. Kicking government out of marriage altogether seems like a reasonable solution.

PS - Not everyone who is interested in discussig politics is a left wing or right wing fringer. In fact I would say most aren't.

Perhaps we're just arguing semantics, but when the State gives someone a benefit and denies that same benefit to another group, I view that as legal conferring a right.

Kicking govt out of marriage is impractical and unrealistic. I'm sorry if I misconstrued your position. And as for fringe, I still think that if you are willing to evendiscuss politics, you are by defintion on some kind of fringe.:laugh:

[ConHog]

Perhaps we're just arguing semantics, but when the State gives someone a benefit and denies that same benefit to another group, I view that as legal conferring a right.

Kicking govt out of marriage is impractical and unrealistic. I'm sorry if I misconstrued your position. And as for fringe, I still think that if you are willing to evendiscuss politics, you are by defintion on some kind of fringe.:laugh:



I don't think it's ludicrous at all. In fact I think it's very sensible. WHere does the government even get off telling people who may or may not get married? Let churches make that decision, have a separate document for government concerns one that by matter of law is available to any who would like to use it.

Do this and suddenly you are talking about who private entities may or may not marry and anyone who wishes to restrict that can frankly go fuck themselves.

[KartRacerBoy]

I didn't say "ludicrous." I said unrealistic and impractical. In other words, it ain't gonna happen. And since it won't happen, there must be another solution.

[ConHog]

I didn't say "ludicrous." I said unrealistic and impractical. In other words, it ain't gonna happen. And since it won't happen, there must be another solution.

I don't think it will happen either. Too much money for government to give up. That doesn't mean it isn't the right thing to do.

[logroller]

I didn't say "ludicrous." I said unrealistic and impractical. In other words, it ain't gonna happen. And since it won't happen, there must be another solution.

I'm pretty sure an abolition amendment was discussed prior to adopting the BoR; but given our agricultural dependence on slavery, it was "unrealistic and impractical" . Of course, there's always another solution...obviously civil war was more realistic and practical; necessary even, but not entirely effective. We abolished the institution of slavery, but the inequality between races is still prevalent! What is decided with hopeful intent, as we're seeing with the current POTUS, doesn't always result in what we'd hoped.

Let's say marriage is open to all, so what? Do the lgbt people really think a marriage cert will make people accept their behavior? Sounds a lot like change you can believe in.:lol:

[ConHog]

I'm pretty sure an abolition amendment was discussed prior to adopting the BoR; but given our agricultural dependence on slavery, it was "unrealistic and impractical" . Of course, there's always another solution...obviously civil war was more realistic and practical; necessary even, but not entirely effective. We abolished the institution of slavery, but the inequality between races is still prevalent! What is decided with hopeful intent, as we're seeing with the current POTUS, doesn't always result in what we'd hoped.

Let's say marriage is open to all, so what? Do the lgbt people really think a marriage cert will make people accept their behavior? Sounds a lot like change you can believe in.:lol:


And THAT is what it boils down to, they don't want "equality" they want people to shut up about them. Their problem is that we have the right to call them poo pushers, faggots, queerosxuals, homos, or any other slur we would like.


It thoroughly pisses them off that we have this right. Only Christian bashing is looked upon with glee in this country.

[LuvRPgrl]

Homos cant marry? News to me. I dont know of any time in our countrys history that Homos werent allowed to marry based on their sexual preference.

And it would do you well to find out why thee State has a COMPELLING INTEREST IN THE INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE.


Let's see, what rights don't homosexuals have that heterosexuals do?

Oh wait! I know! I know!


Marriage and all the rights that attend to it. Silly things like getting pension benefits or 401k assets though spousal laws instead of naming a specific beneficiary. Or just the right to be considered "married."

And if the right to marriage is so umimportant, why is the RW fighting so hard to keep it for heterosexuals only? Answer (for those blinded by their own myopia): Because the RW considers the marriage right important!

[LuvRPgrl]

I could cuddle up with the "Vapid Book of Right Wing Hate", but it's tough tearing it out of your mean spirited grubby little hands. That and it's a book for folks like you and ConHog (that guy that studied the US Constitution for 8 yrs but is apparently slow on the uptake).

Oh good for you coming up with something so original !!!!

From ;your posts, and this is only from this thread alone:
Know any gay people
<DIR>too intolerant or judgmental?
</DIR>You don't have any homosexual friends, do you?
The only thing that "outs" them is the fact that they love someone of the same gender
they want the same rights other couples have
deny them equal rights
women, persecuted white men, blacks, etc
your argument is simply one based on ignorance and perhaps bigotry
What is a "right" changes with cultural changes.
hate or fear is a bad tool
Would we allow that in an interracial marriage?
Some churches used to think that interracial marriage was a sin.
for desegregation.
Equal rights to heterosexual couples
elimination of the Jim Crow laws
Christianity at one time thought slavery was fine
Choosing to be gay?
<DIR>Becz that's what it is. Hate.
</DIR>I fail to see how homosexuality is "destructive behavior."
a victim of your genes if you're heterosexual
marriage right
Vapid Book of Right Wing Hate
mean spirited
segregation

Sorry to inform you, but I never read any book, right wing or not, advocating hate. I arrived at my conclusions by facts and logical thinking. If they happen to agree with posistions of the right wing/Republicans, then it is not because I read their stuff, cuz I NEVER base my opinions on hate, I base my hate on peoples actions.

[KartRacerBoy]

And THAT is what it boils down to, they don't want "equality" they want people to shut up about them. Their problem is that we have the right to call them poo pushers, faggots, queerosxuals, homos, or any other slur we would like.

It thoroughly pisses them off that we have this right. Only Christian bashing is looked upon with glee in this country.


Why are christians (one of the largest social group in the uSA with most of the political power) in this country so insecure? And folks think minorities like to play the victim. :laugh::laugh::laugh:

[KartRacerBoy]

Oh good for you coming up with something so original !!!!

From ;your posts, and this is only from this thread alone:
Know any gay people
<DIR>too intolerant or judgmental?
</DIR>You don't have any homosexual friends, do you?
The only thing that "outs" them is the fact that they love someone of the same gender
they want the same rights other couples have
deny them equal rights
women, persecuted white men, blacks, etc
your argument is simply one based on ignorance and perhaps bigotry
What is a "right" changes with cultural changes.
hate or fear is a bad tool
Would we allow that in an interracial marriage?
Some churches used to think that interracial marriage was a sin.
for desegregation.
Equal rights to heterosexual couples
elimination of the Jim Crow laws
Christianity at one time thought slavery was fine
Choosing to be gay?
<DIR>Becz that's what it is. Hate.
</DIR>I fail to see how homosexuality is "destructive behavior."
a victim of your genes if you're heterosexual
marriage right
Vapid Book of Right Wing Hate
mean spirited
segregation

Sorry to inform you, but I never read any book, right wing or not, advocating hate. I arrived at my conclusions by facts and logical thinking. If they happen to agree with posistions of the right wing/Republicans, then it is not because I read their stuff, cuz I NEVER base my opinions on hate, I base my hate on peoples actions.


Good god woman, you really do know how to hate. Most haters are amateurs compared to you.

[ConHog]

Why are christians (one of the largest social group in the uSA with most of the political power) in this country so insecure? And folks think minorities like to play the victim. :laugh::laugh::laugh:

I'm not insecure, nor am I a victim. But you can't possibly deny that it has practically became sport to make fun of Christians, and certainly isn't considered to be wrong the way making fun of Muslims, blacks, gays, fat people, or any other "protected " group is.

I mean just be honest and admit it's happening. It's not that big a deal.

[KartRacerBoy]

I'm not insecure, nor am I a victim. But you can't possibly deny that it has practically became sport to make fun of Christians, and certainly isn't considered to be wrong the way making fun of Muslims, blacks, gays, fat people, or any other "protected " group is.

I mean just be honest and admit it's happening. It's not that big a deal.

I said christianity is playing the victim card. Not you. And I disagree with your conclusion.

[Shadow]

I didn't care what you said, I only pointed out your own inconsistencies.

I know you "didn't care what I said",you just wanted to argue with me because you didn't happen to like it. I on the other hand, wasn't being sarcastic just to "argue" with anyone. So,your example was incorrect.

[ConHog]

I said christianity is playing the victim card. Not you. And I disagree with your conclusion.



Of course you disagree poo pusher.

That doesn't change the fact that it is true.

[KartRacerBoy]

Of course you disagree poo pusher.

That doesn't change the fact that it is true.

Not. Jealous.

[LuvRPgrl]

Good god woman, you really do know how to hate. Most haters are amateurs compared to you.

Ahhh, so you just add to the list.

My name is Ron, short for Ronald, Not Veronica.

[fj1200]

I on the other hand, wasn't being sarcastic just to "argue" with anyone. So,your example was incorrect.

So you just like to make blanket, untrue statements and not expect to be called. Got it.

[SassyLady]

You don't have any homosexual friends, do you? The only thing that "outs" them is the fact that they love someone of the same gender and someone like you notices and takes offense. When they want the same rights other couples have, you object. Of course they define themselves by their sexual orientation. It's what makes folks who don't like them deny them equal rights. You, as much as them, put the fight on these terms. So get off your "high horse" becz it isn't working for you.

And your argument would mean that ANY group is self centered if they identify themselves by a particular trait -- women, persecuted white men, blacks, etc. It's a rather laughable argument.

Have you ever heard of Guerneville, CA? It's the gay capital of Northern CA and practically every house has a rainbow flag on display out front. Since when do you drive through a town of heterosexuals and see flags advertising their sexual preferences, or what color they are, or their height, or their weight, or their whatever??? Why alienate and limit oneself by openly displaying the differences?

And before you get all hot and bothered and start asking me about my homosexual friends.....my mother-in-law is gay ... and has been in a relationship for over 32 years with her life partner.. and I've known them for 20 years. I have clients who are gay (men and women) ... in San Francisco, Phoenix and Nashville....for over 15 years. And I have to tell you that I love them all .... because they are not shoving their sexual preference down anyone's throat. They are more about loving each other and just living their life as two people who love and support each other. They are not militant about it. My MIL moved from CA to Arizona to get away from the Bay Area militants because she feels it does more harm than good to be so confrontational and in-your-face.

Do I agree with the "gay curriculum"? Absolutely not. I would rather spend money on teaching children about predators that prey upon them...how to recognize them, how to avoid them and how to maim them if approached.

[Shadow]

So you just like to make blanket, untrue statements and not expect to be called. Got it.

How is it untrue? See any thread discussing the gay agenda...and you will see overly dramatic gay activists and their pals playing the martyr and telling everyone else how mean and intolerant people who disagree with them are...while usually trashing straight folks (and christians),calling everyone breeders,homophobes and a laundry list of other assorted names and blanket generalizations. Hell...they will even call sraight men "fags" as an insult. Gays ARE self centered and full of drama. Please refer to the lesbians in the media recently crying a river over a dress code at Dollywood for another example if you need one. Always abused...never at fault.:rolleyes:


And,yes, for some reason gay men (especially) think that to be "gay" you must also take all of the annoying female sterotypes out there... and live them X 10. Including the mannerisms, trendy expressions and stupid DRAMA. Now... go ahead and have another fit...you know you want to. :laugh:

[fj1200]

How is it untrue? See any thread discussing the gay agenda...and you will see overly dramatic gay activists and their pals playing the martyr and telling everyone else how mean and intolerant people who disagree with them are...while usually trashing straight folks (and christians),calling everyone breeders,homophobes and a laundry list of other assorted names and blanket generalizations. Hell...they will even call sraight men "fags" as an insult. Gays ARE self centered and full of drama. Please refer to the lesbians in the media recently crying a river over a dress code at Dollywood for another example if you need one. Always abused...never at fault.:rolleyes:


And,yes, for some reason gay men (especially) think that to be "gay" you must also take all of the annoying female sterotypes out there... and live them X 10. Including the mannerisms, trendy expressions and stupid DRAMA. Now... go ahead and have another fit...you know you want to. :laugh:

And it was me who had a fit? You follow up a ridiculous post full of nothing but stereotypes with another full of nothing but stereotypes, not to mention falsehoods. I'm not sure how "any thread" relates to every gay in society :rolleyes: but feel free to make generalizations to make yourself feel better. So should I follow up your list of ridiculous generalities with my personal story that zero of my gay acquaintances/friends/couples fall into your stereotype? Or would you just follow up with a comment questioning my proclivities?

[Gunny]

And it was me who had a fit? You follow up a ridiculous post full of nothing but stereotypes with another full of nothing but stereotypes, not to mention falsehoods. I'm not sure how "any thread" relates to every gay in society :rolleyes: but feel free to make generalizations to make yourself feel better. So should I follow up your list of ridiculous generalities with my personal story that zero of my gay acquaintances/friends/couples fall into your stereotype? Or would you just follow up with a comment questioning my proclivities?

Really.

All I see from the pro-gay crowd are posts filled with stereotypical accusations. But then, that was her point. You want to counter her point with her point just making accusations in the opposite direction? Try re-reading this thread. The same accusations you make work BOTH ways in spades.

[fj1200]

Really.

All I see from the pro-gay crowd are posts filled with stereotypical accusations. But then, that was her point. You want to counter her point with her point just making accusations in the opposite direction? Try re-reading this thread. The same accusations you make work BOTH ways in spades.

Really? That was a useless post, I countered her stereotypical accusations, which was her point, and you state I'm doing it back? Try again.

[chloe]

If i closed my eyes and had somebody read each posters post in this thread without knowing who specifically posted it, well if i were going to call the poster gay based soley on the drama of there post....I wondered who all besides my "flamboyant" self would be called a queer based on the stereotype and post style. :laugh2:

[Shadow]

Really? That was a useless post, I countered her stereotypical accusations, which was her point, and you state I'm doing it back? Try again.

No...your whole "point" was to take issue with the fact that I made a "joke" by using a stereotype of a gay man,in response to several others who were joking about giving the gays Thanksgiving...to show how thankful we all are. And then to beat that point into the ground and argue about it because you and your other little buddy didn't like it that I was making fun. Period.

Too bad...get over it.

Gays are humans just like the rest of us and they have flaws. For some reason gay activists and their buddies don't want you to point any of them out...ever. Well...sorry...I know plenty of gays who are not classy little angels 24/7 and I'm not going to "pretend" that they have no flaws whatsoever just to make you feel good about yourself. :rolleyes:

[KartRacerBoy]

If i closed my eyes and had somebody read each posters post in this thread without knowing who specifically posted it, well if i were going to call the poster gay based soley on the drama of there post....I wondered who all besides my "flamboyant" self would be called a queer based on the stereotype and post style. :laugh2:

THIS is the most interesting post on this site for several days.

[LuvRPgrl]

No...your whole "point" was to take issue with the fact that I made a "joke" by using a stereotype of a gay man,in response to several others who were joking about giving the gays Thanksgiving...to show how thankful we all are. And then to beat that point into the ground and argue about it because you and your other little buddy didn't like it that I was making fun. Period.

Too bad...get over it.

Gays are humans just like the rest of us and they have flaws. For some reason gay activists and their buddies don't want you to point any of them out...ever. Well...sorry...I know plenty of gays who are not classy little angels 24/7 and I'm not going to "pretend" that they have no flaws whatsoever just to make you feel good about yourself. :rolleyes:

Its the same thing with racism. If you say something negative about a black person they get all up in arms and scream racism.
....But they will be the first to say blacks can dance and sing better than.....
If you are going to be better at something, then you need to be lesser at something also.
Thats just a fact, to deny it is to be delusional

[LuvRPgrl]

THIS is the most interesting post on this site for several days.

If I closed my eyes and all I saw was Chloe closing her eyes,,,,I wouldnt have any time for anything else. :)

[fj1200]

No...your whole "point" was to take issue with the fact that I made a "joke"...

Gays are humans just like the rest of us and they have flaws. For some reason gay activists and their buddies don't want you to point any of them out...ever. Well...sorry...I know plenty of gays who are not classy little angels 24/7 and I'm not going to "pretend" that they have no flaws whatsoever just to make you feel good about yourself. :rolleyes:

It's a joke now huh? Well your timing doth sucketh much. :rolleyes: You'll also have to point out where I stated that they were flawless.

[Shadow]

What part of it was a "sarcastic" comment did you miss the first time I said it...numbnut?:rolleyes:

Not my fault you are a hard headed judgemental boob.

[fj1200]

What part of it was a "sarcastic" comment did you miss the first time I said it...numbnut?:rolleyes:

Not my fault you are a hard headed judgemental boob.

Correct, it's your fault you suck at words. But way to wait 6 days and then claim "sarcasm" after attempting to back up your point. Was that all "sarcasm" too?

[Shadow]

Its the same thing with racism. If you say something negative about a black person they get all up in arms and scream racism.
....But they will be the first to say blacks can dance and sing better than.....
If you are going to be better at something, then you need to be lesser at something also.
Thats just a fact, to deny it is to be delusional

Dorkus is now going to backtrack and claim he didn't know I was being "sarcastic" while reading all of the leading comments in this thread (although I think he is full of horse hockey.) ;)

[Shadow]

Correct, it's your fault you suck at words.

No...you are just a liar who came in the thread with your pal KRB to pick a fight. Period.

Nice edit BTW.

I pointed it out to you early on dumbass...I can't help it that you aren't too bright. What else does "that's what's called being sarcastic" mean? If not that it was "sarcastic"?

[fj1200]

Dorkus is now going to backtrack and claim he didn't know I was being "sarcastic" while reading all of the leading comments in this thread (although I think he is full of horse hockey.) ;)

You should brush up on the usage of "quotes." Saying you were being "sarcastic" means that you weren't being sarcastic. :thumb:

[Shadow]

Good thing they made you the spelling and grammar police...cuz that's all you got.:rolleyes:

[fj1200]

Good thing they made you the spelling and grammar police...cuz that's all you got.:rolleyes:

I deputize thee now the "sarcasm" police. But you got me, "congratulations," you "win," good on 'ya.

[Prince Lemon]

I will say is to keep our kids away from Cali public schools and place them into safe Christian private school.

[aleksshvarev]

This is a dry branch. It is a disease of society. If it is a disease, then it has a cause. As the mold is drying up the tree, and the fat of the (Gay) diseases have their own reasons.
And they must be discussed.

P.s. Sorry for my English.

[ConHog]

This is a dry branch. It is a disease of society. If it is a disease, then it has a cause. As the mold is drying up the tree, and the fat of the (Gay) diseases have their own reasons.
And they must be discussed.

P.s. Sorry for my English.



They don't have a disease. They have simply made a disgusting choice.

[Prince Lemon]

They don't have a disease. They have simply made a disgusting choice.
True!:clap: