Homosexuality

[texaspackerbacker]

In light of Proposition 8 in California and our Prop 8 thread, I decided to do a poll to try and see where people stand, percentage-wise, anyway.

I tried to make wording as neutral as possible. I realized as I was writing the options that another poll is needed--which will follow shortly.

[Kiwon]

Where's the Homer Simpson option?:

"I'm not gay, but I'll learn."

:)

[SkinBasket]

In light of Proposition 8 in California and our Prop 8 thread, I decided to do a poll to try and see where people stand, percentage-wise, anyway.

I tried to make wording as neutral as possible. I realized as I was writing the options that another poll is needed--which will follow shortly.

You forgot to mention nutz's nazi rat thread that exposes how one can go about hiding your hatred of queers behind your religion, after claiming religion as exclusively yours.

[red]

i think there should be one more choice, right in the middle

[Harlan Huckleby]

i think there should be one more choice, right in the middle

yeah, baby

[arcilite]

laws restricting the practice of homosexuality? lol wut

how would they be enforced?

[MJZiggy]

Stoning, of course. Keep up with the times.

[Partial]

who are the gay posters?

[MJZiggy]

Well if we tell you, how are they going to sneak up on you at the next Posters Game and do bad things to you?

[Partial]

Well if we tell you, how are they going to sneak up on you at the next Posters Game and do bad things to you?

They will probably get punched.

[Jimx29]

Stoning, of course. Keep up with the times.Hell, that works over in the middle east. Last week a 13 year old girl was gang raped and she was then stoned to death for either being unfaithful or 'not saving herself' or some other back-assed stone age reasoning :roll:

[arcilite]

who are the gay posters?

i am your worst nightmare.

a gay black man on welfare

[GrnBay007]

who are the gay posters?

i am your worst nightmare.

a gay black man on welfare

:lol: :lol:

That was TOO good!!!

[MateoInMex]

What is your opinion of homosexuality?
I practice it, therefore, I'm for it.
I don't practice it, but I see it as just fine--a morally equivalent alternative to heterosexual behavior.
I oppose homosexuality as clearly a wrong behavior, but I would NOT go back to having legal restrictions on the practice of it.
I favor laws restricting practice of homosexuality.

===========================================

First of all Tex, (LOL I like to start out slow LOL) Whether or not someone is homosexual and for Proposition 8 is not the issue with you it seems. It's not in "liu" of any proposotion out in the Left Coast. Rather it seems you're more intent on finding out how aroused you get by outing gay posters on these threads.

"I practice it, therefore, I'm for it" is poorly worded an ill-informed from a conservative pov towards a lifestyle you don't agree with. Why don't you just cut to the chase and label OPTION 1

BROWNIE HOUND

"I practice it, therefore I'm for it"??? What the f**??? Are gay people jugglers in a talent show all of a sudden? They need practice?...Dude, if you weren't such an a$$clown buzzkill I would have cut you slack for the colossal douchedraping you made other posters suffer through during your time at JSOnline.

How do you know those that "practice gay love" are for it? Larry Craig isn't for it. I'm pretty sure Ted Haggard isn't for it...or is he? Congress "R" Mark Foley doesn't practice on little boys? Or does he? No, Florida House of Rep Bob Allen doesn't like to filiate "burly black men" either?

I guess I could chime in with the "it's a lifestyle" mantra, but you seem to think gays "practice" like some 7th Wonder of the World sack-brain who can spin 15 plates on his fingers, toes and Johnson.


"A morally equivalent alternative to heterosexual behavior."

I mean this in all seriousness when I ask you....

Are you retarded?... said the gay person who actually read Crayon "literature" some dumbass Texan stuck in his mailbox when he wasn't home.

You so need to get out more and quit showing your a$$holishness on websites...eventhough it's more than apparent...And frankly I would be surprised if anyone on this board actually responded to your poll.

Because after all, naturally, people against "practicin' homosexuals" want to be REALLY REALLY anonymous and respond to poorly written polls.

Actually...TEX, you complete me. :oops:

[SkinBasket]

Well if we tell you, how are they going to sneak up on you at the next Posters Game and do bad things to you?

They will probably get punched.

I think you just signed your queer warrant for the next posters game.

[th87]

None of the above.

Homosexuality isn't an "alternative." To say so implies that it's a choice. It isn't. All it is is a trait. Like blond hair.

[mraynrand]

None of the above.

Homosexuality isn't an "alternative." To say so implies that it's a choice. It isn't. All it is is a trait. Like blond hair.


As if the discussion couldn't get more trivial. Did you get that off a bumper sticker? Do you have a way of determining whether the homosexuality 'trait' you are talking about is inherent (natural genetic predispostion), due to a genetic error (such as genetic intersexualism), environment (abuse), or simple experimentation (choice: like dying your hair blonde)? Homosexual behavior can result from all of these things as well as others I didn't mention.

[th87]

None of the above.

Homosexuality isn't an "alternative." To say so implies that it's a choice. It isn't. All it is is a trait. Like blond hair.


As if the discussion couldn't get more trivial. Did you get that off a bumper sticker? Do you have a way of determining whether the homosexuality 'trait' you are talking about is inherent (natural genetic predispostion), due to a genetic error (such as genetic intersexualism), environment (abuse), or simple experimentation (choice: like dying your hair blonde)? Homosexual behavior can result from all of these things as well as others I didn't mention.

Yes, simplified some for a simplified poll.

I think there is a certain genetic predisposition. Environment can possibly cause a realization of this.

It's probably akin to our attraction. Let's say I think a woman is hot. I couldn't tell you why. She just is. It wasn't my choice - I innately found her attractive.

I'm guessing it's the same thing with gay people. They couldn't tell you why they're attracted to dudes.

Nobody would choose to live a life of persecution and ridicule, which is why I don't think anyone would choose to be gay.

[SkinBasket]

It's akin to our attraction. Let's say I think a woman is hot. I couldn't tell you why.

Symmetry.

[th87]

It's akin to our attraction. Let's say I think a woman is hot. I couldn't tell you why.

Symmetry.

I've heard that theory. But wouldn't that be more for an aesthetic approval, as if admiring a painting? There are plenty of people out there who think a woman is pretty from an "intellectual" standpoint, but aren't attracted to them at a more "gut level" (or lower).

For example, I could see why Scarlett Johansson and Julia Roberts would be considered pretty. But I personally am not that attracted to them. On the other hand, I'm very attracted to Angelina Jolie, Demi Moore, Megan Fox, and Salma Hayek. Why did I choose them over Scarlett? I have no answer for that.

[SkinBasket]

It's akin to our attraction. Let's say I think a woman is hot. I couldn't tell you why.

Symmetry.

I've heard that theory. But wouldn't that be more for an aesthetic approval, as if admiring a painting? There are plenty of people out there who think a woman is pretty from an "intellectual" standpoint, but aren't attracted to them at a more "gut level" (or lower).

For example, I could see why Scarlett Johansson and Julia Roberts would be considered pretty. But I personally am not that attracted to them. On the other hand, I'm very attracted to Angelina Jolie, Demi Moore, Megan Fox, and Salma Hayek. Why did I choose them over Scarlett? I have no answer for that.

I'm with you on Julia Roberts. I've always thought she's a cow. Demi Moore's nose is too big and she looks like a pathetic rag when she does crying scenes. I don't want anything to do with a person who makes me want to hit them when they cry.

[Tarlam!]

Now we are turning Tex's thread into a virtual hetero beauty contest, when actually the subject is do we or don't we condone rectal intercourse between two consenting male adults.

I know that's a blunt way to phrase it, but ulimately, that's what it's about.

Frankly, I have no issue with it, as long as it's not my rectum!

I was out with a coupla ladies back in 81, or there abouts, in Sydney, Australia. Sydney reputedly has the second largest Gay population behind San Fran in the world.

We were in Taxi driving past the Gay hang outs on a hot summer night and the "boys" were drinking on the sidewalks. The two girls I was with were drooling, because the boys mostly looked like studs. I mean, I wished I was as attractive as 98% of these fellows. Gorgeous SOBs. Muscles. Tans. Everything.

The only comment was "What a waste".

[th87]

Now we are turning Tex's thread into a virtual hetero beauty contest, when actually the subject is do we or don't we condone rectal intercourse between two consenting male adults.

I know that's a blunt way to phrase it, but ulimately, that's what it's about.

Frankly, I have no issue with it, as long as it's not my rectum!

I was out with a coupla ladies back in 81, or there abouts, in Sydney, Australia. Sydney reputedly has the second largest Gay population behind San Fran in the world.

We were in Taxi driving past the Gay hang outs on a hot summer night and the "boys" were drinking on the sidewalks. The two girls I was with were drooling, because the boys mostly looked like studs. I mean, I wished I was as attractive as 98% of these fellows. Gorgeous SOBs. Muscles. Tans. Everything.

The only comment was "What a waste".

Hmm...so what is homosexuality then?

Attraction to dudes? Or sexual intercourse with dudes?

[Tarlam!]

Hmm...so what is homosexuality then?

Attraction to dudes? Or sexual intercourse with dudes?

Actually, Lesbians are homo's too. But I think this thread is concerend with male/male homosexuality. The offending piece being the penis inserted into the male oral tract or rectum.

The speciecies would appear to be homo sapiens,

That's just my take.

[th87]

Hmm...so what is homosexuality then?

Attraction to dudes? Or sexual intercourse with dudes?

Actually, Lesbians are homo's too. But I think this thread is concerend with male/male homosexuality. The offending piece being the penis inserted into the male oral tract or rectum.

The speciecies would appear to be homo sapiens,

That's just my take.

Yeah, I know, but how are you defining homosexuality exactly? Is it just the sexual attraction to one of the same sex? Or is it the actual act of carrying out that sexual attraction, i.e., sexual acts?

[mraynrand]

Nobody would choose to live a life of persecution and ridicule, which is why I don't think anyone would choose to be gay.

Well, then you would be wrong. Many people choose to engage in sex with partners of the same gender due to curiosity, rebellion, etc. But I get your point - some people have no control over who they are attracted to - but they still have to choose their behaviour and lifestyle. It's just not as common and generally socially accepted as heterosexuality and monogamy - yet.

[Tarlam!]

Yeah, I know, but how are you defining homosexuality exactly? Is it just the sexual attraction to one of the same sex? Or is it the actual act of carrying out that sexual attraction, i.e., sexual acts?

The latter, and we like Lesbians around here....

[th87]

Yeah, I know, but how are you defining homosexuality exactly? Is it just the sexual attraction to one of the same sex? Or is it the actual act of carrying out that sexual attraction, i.e., sexual acts?

The latter, and we like Lesbians around here....

So then you're saying that there is something wrong with engaging in the sex that would make them happy?

Then persecuting homosexuality would be akin to someone attempting to curb heterosexual sex. It would be unnatural.

And in the same way, it is unnatural to wish homosexuality away. It's just natural and biological to them.

(But of course, lots of religions attempt to curb natural instinct. No sex before marriage, for example. I guess it comes down to whether one believes in rules.)

[HowardRoark]

Yeah, I know, but how are you defining homosexuality exactly? Is it just the sexual attraction to one of the same sex? Or is it the actual act of carrying out that sexual attraction, i.e., sexual acts?

The latter, and we like Lesbians around here....

So then you're saying that there is something wrong with engaging in the sex that would make them happy?

Then persecuting homosexuality would be akin to someone attempting to curb heterosexual sex. It would be unnatural.

And in the same way, it is unnatural to wish homosexuality away. It's just natural and biological to them.

(But of course, lots of religions attempt to curb natural instinct. No sex before marriage, for example. I guess it comes down to whether one believes in rules.)

What about Jeff Dahmer? His natural instinct was to kill people and eat their organs. Who’s religion/morals did we impose on him?

I am not equating homosexuality with being a psychopath; I am trying to show that humans do have many things that they are born with that society does try to curb. Your argument doesn’t work.

[hoosier]

Yeah, I know, but how are you defining homosexuality exactly? Is it just the sexual attraction to one of the same sex? Or is it the actual act of carrying out that sexual attraction, i.e., sexual acts?

The latter, and we like Lesbians around here....

So then you're saying that there is something wrong with engaging in the sex that would make them happy?

Then persecuting homosexuality would be akin to someone attempting to curb heterosexual sex. It would be unnatural.

And in the same way, it is unnatural to wish homosexuality away. It's just natural and biological to them.

(But of course, lots of religions attempt to curb natural instinct. No sex before marriage, for example. I guess it comes down to whether one believes in rules.)

What about Jeff Dahmer? His natural instinct was to kill people and eat their organs. Who’s religion/morals did we impose on him?

I am not equating homosexuality with being a psychopath; I am trying to show that humans do have many things that they are born with that society does try to curb. Your argument doesn’t work.

In the counter-example you used there is the subtle but important difference that Dahmer's partners didn't consent to becoming meals.

[th87]

Yeah, I know, but how are you defining homosexuality exactly? Is it just the sexual attraction to one of the same sex? Or is it the actual act of carrying out that sexual attraction, i.e., sexual acts?

The latter, and we like Lesbians around here....

So then you're saying that there is something wrong with engaging in the sex that would make them happy?

Then persecuting homosexuality would be akin to someone attempting to curb heterosexual sex. It would be unnatural.

And in the same way, it is unnatural to wish homosexuality away. It's just natural and biological to them.

(But of course, lots of religions attempt to curb natural instinct. No sex before marriage, for example. I guess it comes down to whether one believes in rules.)

What about Jeff Dahmer? His natural instinct was to kill people and eat their organs. Who’s religion/morals did we impose on him?

I am not equating homosexuality with being a psychopath; I am trying to show that humans do have many things that they are born with that society does try to curb. Your argument doesn’t work.

Psychopathy infringes on others' well-being. When others are harmed, the line should be drawn there.

Homosexuality does no such thing.

Further, derangement and sexuality are completely different things. People go from un-deranged to deranged. People do not go from heterosexual preference to homosexual preference.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Frankly, I have no issue with it, as long as it's not my rectum!

I always figured you to be a top man.


I don't think many people still think of homosexuality as a choice. If you know any gay people, you can't hold this view for long.

[Tarlam!]

Frankly, I have no issue with it, as long as it's not my rectum!

I always figured you to be a top man.


I don't think many people still think of homosexuality as a choice. If you know any gay people, you can't hold this view for long.

Listen, my prince, I am a trained chef. Born in 1963. So when I was 16 years old, starting out in my trade, it was trendy to fuck male asses or have yours fucked. It was just prior to the HIV years.

In those days, homos tried very fucking hard to turn you. The hospitality industry back then was 80% queer for males in Sydney. They were not passive seeking only their own kind. they were aggressive, trying to turn all straights. But it was harmless fun!

Then came AIDS.

I have been priviliged to sleep in beds that were paid for by Gays, because the alternative was sleeping in my car. They were kind enough to not expect me to put out - I never would have! But, they were civilized. They tried and failed, but didn't force it.

I met others, though, during that time. They would have forced it. Pricks.

[MadtownPacker]

I met others, though, during that time. They would have forced it. Pricks.Good thing Harlan didnt show up to the posters game last year. As drunk as you where he would have got his grove on for sure, force or no force, though Im guessing HH prefers the ruff stuff.

[HowardRoark]

Yeah, I know, but how are you defining homosexuality exactly? Is it just the sexual attraction to one of the same sex? Or is it the actual act of carrying out that sexual attraction, i.e., sexual acts?

The latter, and we like Lesbians around here....

So then you're saying that there is something wrong with engaging in the sex that would make them happy?

Then persecuting homosexuality would be akin to someone attempting to curb heterosexual sex. It would be unnatural.

And in the same way, it is unnatural to wish homosexuality away. It's just natural and biological to them.

(But of course, lots of religions attempt to curb natural instinct. No sex before marriage, for example. I guess it comes down to whether one believes in rules.)

What about Jeff Dahmer? His natural instinct was to kill people and eat their organs. Who’s religion/morals did we impose on him?

I am not equating homosexuality with being a psychopath; I am trying to show that humans do have many things that they are born with that society does try to curb. Your argument doesn’t work.

In the counter-example you used there is the subtle but important difference that Dahmer's partners didn't consent to becoming meals.

Way to get all nuancey on me Hoosier. That’s why I caveated that the two are different. I was trying to make the point that people are born with conditions that make them happy and fulfilled that sometimes are destructive to society.

What about a pedophile? What about his happiness and fulfillment? If the kid consents, is there a problem with this?

Now, before I can log back on, someone will come back and say that it has to be “consulting adults” and the kid is not an adult. But wait a minute. Who decides at what age someone becomes an adult? Isn’t that rather arbitrary? Or, is it the definition of a word that society has agreed on?

There we go again with those pesky definitions of words. That’s the only point I have. Marriage is a word to define a union between a man and a woman. The laws concerning marriage have, over time, evolved based on that definition.

[hoosier]

Yeah, I know, but how are you defining homosexuality exactly? Is it just the sexual attraction to one of the same sex? Or is it the actual act of carrying out that sexual attraction, i.e., sexual acts?

The latter, and we like Lesbians around here....

So then you're saying that there is something wrong with engaging in the sex that would make them happy?

Then persecuting homosexuality would be akin to someone attempting to curb heterosexual sex. It would be unnatural.

And in the same way, it is unnatural to wish homosexuality away. It's just natural and biological to them.

(But of course, lots of religions attempt to curb natural instinct. No sex before marriage, for example. I guess it comes down to whether one believes in rules.)

What about Jeff Dahmer? His natural instinct was to kill people and eat their organs. Who’s religion/morals did we impose on him?

I am not equating homosexuality with being a psychopath; I am trying to show that humans do have many things that they are born with that society does try to curb. Your argument doesn’t work.

In the counter-example you used there is the subtle but important difference that Dahmer's partners didn't consent to becoming meals.

Way to get all nuancey on me Hoosier. That’s why I caveated that the two are different. I was trying to make the point that people are born with conditions that make them happy and fulfilled that sometimes are destructive to society.

What about a pedophile? What about his happiness and fulfillment? If the kid consents, is there a problem with this?

Now, before I can log back on, someone will come back and say that it has to be “consulting adults” and the kid is not an adult. But wait a minute. Who decides at what age someone becomes an adult? Isn’t that rather arbitrary? Or, is it the definition of a word that society has agreed on?

There we go again with those pesky definitions of words. That’s the only point I have. Marriage is a word to define a union between a man and a woman. The laws concerning marriage have, over time, evolved based on that definition.

If that's all you got, it's not much of a point, Howie. Any social philosophy that can't distinguish between acts that involve consent and acts that don't, or between acts that create victims and acts that don't, is pretty useless in my view. I got all "nuancy" with you because the example that you used involved something entirely different from the topic that was being discussed--which, if memory serves, was "homosexuality." (When did this become a thread about gay marriage? I never subscribed for that thread--let me out!) Your example was a sociopath and his cravings; and now you want to throw in a pedophile too (again, let me out!). The difference, as you yourself see, is that your examples involve a person imposing his will and power on another person who hasn't consented or isn't considered by society to be capable of giving consent. In the example of two gays having consensual sex, you don't have that problem. Nor is it clear to me how that behavior is "destructive to society," since it has been going on since human societies were first formed. If anything, historical evidence would seem to indicate that you can't have a society WITHOUT homosexuality. So first of all, it's up to you to demonstrate that homosexuality has destructive social consequences.

Yes, any attempt to pin the abstract idea of responsibility and adulthood to a chronological age will be arbitrary and we will discover plenty of exceptions. So what? Are you proposing that we do away with the legal concept of responsibility and start treating five-year olds like adults? Should we also abandon the idea that you don't get to vote or register for the draft until you're 18? Should we let 12-year olds drive because responsibility is an arbitrary concept?

[mraynrand]

We've already explored the language and tradition issues. To attempt to present as indistinguishable a union between man and man to man and woman is absurd. But that is what is being attempted. Why? The issue is ultimately one of acceptance. A wish to, by force, not only to be granted the same rights, but to be sanctioned as THE SAME - to confer, via governmental certificate, a status of equivalency. Even if people ultimately vote in favor of handing out a governmental certificate of approval, the two types on unions are not the same. Some believe they are not the same morally, while others simply understand that they are not the same in their essence, even though, depending on individual relationships, it is possible to find sound gay unions and unsound heterosexual unions. A is A. A is not B. A and B can be granted equal rights without being 'made equivalent' by a governmental edict. That is why this issue remains contentious - the confusion of these two principles. And they reach back into the core of differences between constrained and unconstrained mindsets. Constrained thinkers advocate the principle of 'equality of opportunity' while unconstrained thinkers advocate for a limitless egalitarianism or 'equality of outcome.' The only way to ensure equality of outcome among individuals with different inherent properties and potentials is through force.

[HowardRoark]

If that's all you got, it's not much of a point, Howie. Any social philosophy that can't distinguish between acts that involve consent and acts that don't, or between acts that create victims and acts that don't, is pretty useless in my view. I got all "nuancy" with you because the example that you used involved something entirely different from the topic that was being discussed--which, if memory serves, was "homosexuality." (When did this become a thread about gay marriage? I never subscribed for that thread--let me out!) Your example was a sociopath and his cravings; and now you want to throw in a pedophile too (again, let me out!). The difference, as you yourself see, is that your examples involve a person imposing his will and power on another person who hasn't consented or isn't considered by society to be capable of giving consent. In the example of two gays having consensual sex, you don't have that problem. Nor is it clear to me how that behavior is "destructive to society," since it has been going on since human societies were first formed. If anything, historical evidence would seem to indicate that you can't have a society WITHOUT homosexuality. So first of all, it's up to you to demonstrate that homosexuality has destructive social consequences.

Yes, any attempt to pin the abstract idea of responsibility and adulthood to a chronological age will be arbitrary and we will discover plenty of exceptions. So what? Are you proposing that we do away with the legal concept of responsibility and start treating five-year olds like adults? Should we also abandon the idea that you don't get to vote or register for the draft until you're 18? Should we let 12-year olds drive because responsibility is an arbitrary concept?

Sorry Hoosier, I didn’t know what thread I was in; it’s starting to feel like the Castro District around here.

Obviously you can’t stop homosexuality. Some people believe in right and wrong and some people don’t. Whatever.

I just hope you celebrate my Diversity.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Frankly, I have no issue with it, as long as it's not my rectum!

I always figured you to be a top man.


I don't think many people still think of homosexuality as a choice. If you know any gay people, you can't hold this view for long.

Listen, my prince, I am a trained chef. Born in 1963. So when I was 16 years old, starting out in my trade, it was trendy to fuck male asses or have yours fucked. It was just prior to the HIV years.

In those days, homos tried very fucking hard to turn you. The hospitality industry back then was 80% queer for males in Sydney. They were not passive seeking only their own kind. they were aggressive, trying to turn all straights. But it was harmless fun!

Then came AIDS.

I have been priviliged to sleep in beds that were paid for by Gays, because the alternative was sleeping in my car. They were kind enough to not expect me to put out - I never would have! But, they were civilized. They tried and failed, but didn't force it.

I met others, though, during that time. They would have forced it. Pricks.


your story made me come

[mraynrand]

Frankly, I have no issue with it, as long as it's not my rectum!

I always figured you to be a top man.


I don't think many people still think of homosexuality as a choice. If you know any gay people, you can't hold this view for long.

Listen, my prince, I am a trained chef. Born in 1963. So when I was 16 years old, starting out in my trade, it was trendy to fuck male asses or have yours fucked. It was just prior to the HIV years.

In those days, homos tried very fucking hard to turn you. The hospitality industry back then was 80% queer for males in Sydney. They were not passive seeking only their own kind. they were aggressive, trying to turn all straights. But it was harmless fun!

Then came AIDS.

I have been priviliged to sleep in beds that were paid for by Gays, because the alternative was sleeping in my car. They were kind enough to not expect me to put out - I never would have! But, they were civilized. They tried and failed, but didn't force it.

I met others, though, during that time. They would have forced it. Pricks.


your story made me come

And another Kitten bites the dust.

[Freak Out]

How many voted fag just to put some numbers up? Out of the closet now. :smack:

[hoosier]

If that's all you got, it's not much of a point, Howie. Any social philosophy that can't distinguish between acts that involve consent and acts that don't, or between acts that create victims and acts that don't, is pretty useless in my view. I got all "nuancy" with you because the example that you used involved something entirely different from the topic that was being discussed--which, if memory serves, was "homosexuality." (When did this become a thread about gay marriage? I never subscribed for that thread--let me out!) Your example was a sociopath and his cravings; and now you want to throw in a pedophile too (again, let me out!). The difference, as you yourself see, is that your examples involve a person imposing his will and power on another person who hasn't consented or isn't considered by society to be capable of giving consent. In the example of two gays having consensual sex, you don't have that problem. Nor is it clear to me how that behavior is "destructive to society," since it has been going on since human societies were first formed. If anything, historical evidence would seem to indicate that you can't have a society WITHOUT homosexuality. So first of all, it's up to you to demonstrate that homosexuality has destructive social consequences.

Yes, any attempt to pin the abstract idea of responsibility and adulthood to a chronological age will be arbitrary and we will discover plenty of exceptions. So what? Are you proposing that we do away with the legal concept of responsibility and start treating five-year olds like adults? Should we also abandon the idea that you don't get to vote or register for the draft until you're 18? Should we let 12-year olds drive because responsibility is an arbitrary concept?

Sorry Hoosier, I didn’t know what thread I was in; it’s starting to feel like the Castro District around here.

Obviously you can’t stop homosexuality. Some people believe in right and wrong and some people don’t. Whatever.

I just hope you celebrate my Diversity.

I agree that these homosexuality threads are proliferating faster than, well....rabbits. And I think celebrating diversity is a pretty boring idea, but hey, whatever floats your boat. When will you be substantiating your insinuation that homosexuality is socially destructive?

[HowardRoark]

When will you be substantiating your insinuation that homosexuality is socially destructive?

I never made that insinuation. I said:

1. Not all things we are born with that make us happy are good.

2. The word "marriage" is for men and women.

[hoosier]

When will you be substantiating your insinuation that homosexuality is socially destructive?

I never made that insinuation. I said:

1. Not all things we are born with that make us happy are good.

2. The word "marriage" is for men and women.

But you also said:


Way to get all nuancey on me Hoosier. That’s why I caveated that the two are different. I was trying to make the point that people are born with conditions that make them happy and fulfilled that sometimes are destructive to society.

Are you now claiming that this statement about "conditions...that sometimes are destructive to society" wasn't referring to homosexuality? Why bring the destructiveness up then?

[HowardRoark]

When will you be substantiating your insinuation that homosexuality is socially destructive?

I never made that insinuation. I said:

1. Not all things we are born with that make us happy are good.

2. The word "marriage" is for men and women.

But you also said:


Way to get all nuancey on me Hoosier. That’s why I caveated that the two are different. I was trying to make the point that people are born with conditions that make them happy and fulfilled that sometimes are destructive to society.

Are you now claiming that this statement about "conditions...that sometimes are destructive to society" wasn't referring to homosexuality? Why bring the destructiveness up then?

I was referring to TH87, I was not referring to homosexuality:


(But of course, lots of religions attempt to curb natural instinct. No sex before marriage, for example. I guess it comes down to whether one believes in rules.)

BTW, did you go to that Hoosier game Saturday? I was hoping you guys would have won. The quicker we change things the better.

[hoosier]

BTW, did you go to that Hoosier game Saturday? I was hoping you guys would have won. The quicker we change things the better.

I think you might have gotten your wish if Chappell hadn't gotten himself knocked into next week at the end of the first half. :lol: The Badgers were trying as hard as they could to give the game away until that point. If you ever find yourself thinking that UW football just couldn't get any worse, take a trip down to Bloomington to see what true Saturday afternoon misery looks like.

[texaspackerbacker]

What is your opinion of homosexuality?
I practice it, therefore, I'm for it.
I don't practice it, but I see it as just fine--a morally equivalent alternative to heterosexual behavior.
I oppose homosexuality as clearly a wrong behavior, but I would NOT go back to having legal restrictions on the practice of it.
I favor laws restricting practice of homosexuality.

===========================================

First of all Tex, (LOL I like to start out slow LOL) Whether or not someone is homosexual and for Proposition 8 is not the issue with you it seems. It's not in "liu" of any proposotion out in the Left Coast. Rather it seems you're more intent on finding out how aroused you get by outing gay posters on these threads.

"I practice it, therefore, I'm for it" is poorly worded an ill-informed from a conservative pov towards a lifestyle you don't agree with. Why don't you just cut to the chase and label OPTION 1

BROWNIE HOUND

"I practice it, therefore I'm for it"??? What the f**??? Are gay people jugglers in a talent show all of a sudden? They need practice?...Dude, if you weren't such an a$$clown buzzkill I would have cut you slack for the colossal douchedraping you made other posters suffer through during your time at JSOnline.

How do you know those that "practice gay love" are for it? Larry Craig isn't for it. I'm pretty sure Ted Haggard isn't for it...or is he? Congress "R" Mark Foley doesn't practice on little boys? Or does he? No, Florida House of Rep Bob Allen doesn't like to filiate "burly black men" either?

I guess I could chime in with the "it's a lifestyle" mantra, but you seem to think gays "practice" like some 7th Wonder of the World sack-brain who can spin 15 plates on his fingers, toes and Johnson.


"A morally equivalent alternative to heterosexual behavior."

I mean this in all seriousness when I ask you....

Are you retarded?... said the gay person who actually read Crayon "literature" some dumbass Texan stuck in his mailbox when he wasn't home.

You so need to get out more and quit showing your a$$holishness on websites...eventhough it's more than apparent...And frankly I would be surprised if anyone on this board actually responded to your poll.

Because after all, naturally, people against "practicin' homosexuals" want to be REALLY REALLY anonymous and respond to poorly written polls.

Actually...TEX, you complete me. :oops:

Well, Mateo, I wish you would have put forth some "improvements" on those "poorly worded" poll questions. I honestly DID try to word things in as unbiased a way as I could.

The fundamental premise, though, is that homosexuality is indeed A CHOICE--an alternative behavior to heterosexual behavior. The born-to-be-a-fag concept is BOGUS--it is purely FALSE propaganda put forth to advance the gay agenda of promoting homosexuality as being just as moral and natural an alternative behavior as heterosexuality.

As for the reason behind my making these polls, I have asked repeatedly--and not gotten an answer: WHY is it always the leftists defending homosexuality--those of us on the good side of everything else are also virtually 100% on the good side of the homosexuality issue too. I'd STILL like to get an answer to that--why in the hell does somebody who favors higher taxes, government as a solution, de-emphasis of defense and security, etc.--all the other leftist shit--necessarily have to defend same sex ass-fucking?

TH87 asked a key question here: is homosexuality merely the attraction to/preference for the same sex? Or is it the practicing of homosexual behavior? I would say, clearly the latter, although I doubt there is any valid science to support even the former as being an inherited trait. Even by THAT definition--mere attraction/preference, homosexuality is a CHOICE, not a genetic trait. Maybe we should have a poll on that question.

[th87]

As for the reason behind my making these polls, I have asked repeatedly--and not gotten an answer: WHY is it always the leftists defending homosexuality--those of us on the good side of everything else are also virtually 100% on the good side of the homosexuality issue too. I'd STILL like to get an answer to that--why in the hell does somebody who favors higher taxes, government as a solution, de-emphasis of defense and security, etc.--all the other leftist shit--necessarily have to defend same sex ass-fucking?



Liberals are generally sympathetic to people of all kinds and believe in letting everyone do whatever floats their boat, as long as it doesn't infringe upon someone else's rights.

Conservatives are generally more into preserving society and traditionally established constructs.

In sum, Liberals focus more on making the individual person happy, and Conservatives focus more on making the existing society happy.

[mraynrand]

As for the reason behind my making these polls, I have asked repeatedly--and not gotten an answer: WHY is it always the leftists defending homosexuality--those of us on the good side of everything else are also virtually 100% on the good side of the homosexuality issue too. I'd STILL like to get an answer to that--why in the hell does somebody who favors higher taxes, government as a solution, de-emphasis of defense and security, etc.--all the other leftist shit--necessarily have to defend same sex ass-fucking?



Liberals are generally sympathetic to people of all kinds and believe in letting everyone do whatever floats their boat, as long as it doesn't infringe upon someone else's rights.

Conservatives are generally more into preserving society and traditionally established constructs.

In sum, Liberals focus more on making the individual person happy, and Conservatives focus more on making the existing society happy.

More like sinking the boat - or the sub, at least in this example.

[mraynrand]

Liberals are generally sympathetic to people of all kinds and believe in letting everyone do whatever floats their boat, as long as it doesn't infringe upon someone else's rights.


Then why do liberals want to change the definition of marriage, when most people - in poll after pol after proposition after proposition - consistently vote to preserve the definition as union of one man and one woman? No one is denied the right to do whatever floats their boat and marriage gets to keep the definition by which it has been known since language began. Changing the definition infringes on my rights to have consistency in language and meaning.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Liberals are generally sympathetic to people of all kinds and believe in letting everyone do whatever floats their boat, as long as it doesn't infringe upon someone else's rights.


Then why do liberals want to change the definition of marriage, when most people - in poll after pol after proposition after proposition - consistently vote to preserve the definition as union of one man and one woman? No one is denied the right to do whatever floats their boat and marriage gets to keep the definition by which it has been known since language began. Changing the definition infringes on my rights to have consistency in language and meaning.

For a while, the battle cry was for the protection of the institution of marriage. I never saw how heterosexual marriages were threatened by gays getting married. Have heterosexual marriages in Canada suffered from gay neighbors tying the knot? That argument has run out of steam.

Now we see a new variation: it is necessary to keep gays from marrying to protect consistency in language. The integrity of the English language is the priority. We can't have the meaning of a word change - good lord no!

The arguments against allowing gays to marry are hollow to the core. They are no more substantial than the arguments preventing different races from marrying. Young people want no part of bigotry towards gays. Maybe it will take a little longer for change to come because of immigration, but it will come.

[mraynrand]

Liberals are generally sympathetic to people of all kinds and believe in letting everyone do whatever floats their boat, as long as it doesn't infringe upon someone else's rights.


Then why do liberals want to change the definition of marriage, when most people - in poll after pol after proposition after proposition - consistently vote to preserve the definition as union of one man and one woman? No one is denied the right to do whatever floats their boat and marriage gets to keep the definition by which it has been known since language began. Changing the definition infringes on my rights to have consistency in language and meaning.

For a while, the battle cry was for the protection of the institution of marriage. I never saw how heterosexual marriages were threatened by gays getting married. Have heterosexual marriages in Canada suffered from gay neighbors tying the knot? That argument has run out of steam.

Now we see a new variation: it is necessary to keep gays from marrying to protect consistency in language. The integrity of the English language is the priority. We can't have the meaning of a word change - good lord no!

The arguments against allowing gays to marry are hollow to the core. They are no more substantial than the arguments preventing different races from marrying. Young people want no part of bigotry towards gays. Maybe it will take a little longer for change to come because of immigration, but it will come.

Language and meaning Harlan. Have you read 1984? The danger of corrupting meaning - making definitions arbitrary for political and social goals - is spelled out in those pages. I do suspect however that you are right in your prediction for the future. For whatever reason, people want to say A is B because it makes them feel more tolerant and elevated in their quest for the contradictory goals of radical egalitarianism (equality of outcome) and radical individualism.

[Harlan Huckleby]

a "fireman" uses to mean a man. that was the definition.

now "fireman" can mean a man or woman. Meanings of words change as society changes, it's not so fatal. Maybe the definition of "priest" will change some day too.

[MateoInMex]

As for the reason behind my making these polls, I have asked repeatedly--and not gotten an answer: WHY is it always the leftists defending homosexuality--

Tex,

Do you even have to ask?

It's because...jesus christ...it's because historically with the rightie fag slanging...you guys seem to be in the closet. Blues seem to be unfaithful, but reds are unfaithful with the same gender. How the f does that work?

I say this jokingly...I actually appreciated that you responded..but you have such a hatred towards blue people. I'm a registered as an Independent btw.

But I do give you credit for responding.

[Harlan Huckleby]

tex is NOT gay, he just likes to take a wide stance.

[th87]

Liberals are generally sympathetic to people of all kinds and believe in letting everyone do whatever floats their boat, as long as it doesn't infringe upon someone else's rights.


Then why do liberals want to change the definition of marriage, when most people - in poll after pol after proposition after proposition - consistently vote to preserve the definition as union of one man and one woman? No one is denied the right to do whatever floats their boat and marriage gets to keep the definition by which it has been known since language began. Changing the definition infringes on my rights to have consistency in language and meaning.

Which is why a lot of liberals empathize with this viewpoint.

For example, I hear ya. There are some people that want to protect the definition of marriage. The word marriage has meaning to them. That's why I think gay people should be allowed to "marry" and get whatever rights and recognition that heterosexual married couples get, but it would be better for everyone if they named it something else. Everyone's happy - the definition of marriage is preserved, and homosexual couples get rights they didn't have previously.

We can let the next generation deal with expanding the definition of marriage, since I doubt anyone would care by then.

[MJZiggy]

I realize most of you hate this guy, but he has some interesting questions germane to this discussion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVUecPhQPqY

[packinpatland]

Unfortunately, most here will shoot the messenger and not listen to the message.......

[packinpatland]

Liberals are generally sympathetic to people of all kinds and believe in letting everyone do whatever floats their boat, as long as it doesn't infringe upon someone else's rights.


Then why do liberals want to change the definition of marriage, when most people - in poll after pol after proposition after proposition - consistently vote to preserve the definition as union of one man and one woman? No one is denied the right to do whatever floats their boat and marriage gets to keep the definition by which it has been known since language began. Changing the definition infringes on my rights to have consistency in language and meaning.

Which is why a lot of liberals empathize with this viewpoint.

For example, I hear ya. There are some people that want to protect the definition of marriage. The word marriage has meaning to them. That's why I think gay people should be allowed to "marry" and get whatever rights and recognition that heterosexual married couples get, but it would be better for everyone if they named it something else. Everyone's happy - the definition of marriage is preserved, and homosexual couples get rights they didn't have previously.

We can let the next generation deal with expanding the definition of marriage, since I doubt anyone would care by then.

I have wondered a great deal whether the way to go is to get the government out of the marriage business. Marriage is a religious sacrement...let the government issue only civil union licenses and let the different churches/religions etc. decide whether to marry a couple. It seems so simple to me, but obviously it must not be.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I have wondered a great deal whether the way to go is to get the government out of the marriage business. Marriage is a religious sacrement...let the government issue only civil union licenses and let the different churches/religions etc. decide whether to marry a couple. It seems so simple to me, but obviously it must not be.

This is my idea too. But it will never happen, and the reason is that people like having their own religious standards reflected in the government. So the fight goes on. The acceptance of marriage between gays in a legal sense will happen the same time that acceptance of marriage between gays occurs in a majority of churches.

Civil unions are the easy solution to the conflict, but there is zero chance this will be the resolution path, so its not worth discussing. Too many people on both sides of the issue see civil unions as a surrender. So we will waste a decade or two arguing, until enough older people die.

[hoosier]

I couldn't care less about allowing or banning gay marriage (civil unions is another matter), but I am curious about why everyone seems to assume that marriage was originally--and is still fundamentally--a religious institution that only later became coopted by the state. Historically speaking that's not quite accurate. It's true that religion has played a part in marriage for a long time, but so has government since at least the 16th century, when marriages in most European countries had to be sanctioned by both state and church in order to be legal. As far as I'm aware, there is no good evidence that says that marriage was a religious invention. Marriage easily predates Christianity, so it would seem that both Christianity and modern government have glommed onto a practice whose origins are much older. So why does religion now get credit for something it didn't invent?

[Harlan Huckleby]

at some point religion took over marriage.

religions didn't invent sex, and they sure try to control that too.

[hoosier]

at some point religion took over marriage.

religions didn't invent sex, and they sure try to control that too.

Well that's my point. If religion can take over something, it stands to reason that it can also lose control of it and the world won't come to a screeching halt. I know, I'm preaching to the...nevermind.

[Harlan Huckleby]

according to AynRand, the coming rule of Obama shall usher-in a new secular dynasty. So keep your fingers crossed.

[MJZiggy]

I have wondered a great deal whether the way to go is to get the government out of the marriage business. Marriage is a religious sacrement...let the government issue only civil union licenses and let the different churches/religions etc. decide whether to marry a couple. It seems so simple to me, but obviously it must not be.

This is my idea too. But it will never happen, and the reason is that people like having their own religious standards reflected in the government. So the fight goes on. The acceptance of marriage between gays in a legal sense will happen the same time that acceptance of marriage between gays occurs in a majority of churches.

Civil unions are the easy solution to the conflict, but there is zero chance this will be the resolution path, so its not worth discussing. Too many people on both sides of the issue see civil unions as a surrender. So we will waste a decade or two arguing, until enough older people die.

Hey don't forget I was on this bandwagon too. Either they marry everyone or they don't marry anyone and let the churches handle it.

PIPL, It's hard to shoot the messenger when you don't have an answer for the question. It was an interesting statement, though wasn't it?

[packinpatland]

I sometimes watch Olberman for the 'comedic' value............but in this case, there was no comedy.......he was right on.

And I have noticed that no one has answered his question.

[HowardRoark]

I sometimes watch Olberman for the 'comedic' value............but in this case, there was no comedy.......he was right on.

And I have noticed that no one has answered his question.

I shot the messenger after 15 seconds.

[packinpatland]

I sometimes watch Olberman for the 'comedic' value............but in this case, there was no comedy.......he was right on.

And I have noticed that no one has answered his question.

I shot the messenger after 15 seconds.

That's exactly what I said would happen:


Posted: Wed Nov 12, 2008 10:47 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unfortunately, most here will shoot the messenger and not listen to the message.......

[HowardRoark]

I sometimes watch Olberman for the 'comedic' value............but in this case, there was no comedy.......he was right on.

And I have noticed that no one has answered his question.

I shot the messenger after 15 seconds.

That's exactly what I said would happen:


Posted: Wed Nov 12, 2008 10:47 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unfortunately, most here will shoot the messenger and not listen to the message.......

I know.

[texaspackerbacker]

As for the reason behind my making these polls, I have asked repeatedly--and not gotten an answer: WHY is it always the leftists defending homosexuality--

Tex,

Do you even have to ask?

It's because...jesus christ...it's because historically with the rightie fag slanging...you guys seem to be in the closet. Blues seem to be unfaithful, but reds are unfaithful with the same gender. How the f does that work?

I say this jokingly...I actually appreciated that you responded..but you have such a hatred towards blue people. I'm a registered as an Independent btw.

But I do give you credit for responding.

Mateo, no offense, but that is a downright lame answer to the question of WHY leftists incessantly defend homosexuality.

First of all, Barney Frank and the other flaming fag former Dem Congressman more than balance out Craig and the guy from Florida. Secondly, and more importantly, though, I'm referring to lefties in this forum and elsewhere--all or most of which I will give credit for NOT actually being fags--defending homosexuality and the gay agenda of promoting homosexuality as a morally equivalent lifestyle. You would think that somewhere out there would be a liberal who is for all the crap liberals are for, but is disgusted by same sex ass-fucking--and the teaching of kids in schools that it is a fine thing to do. I guess if such a liberal exists, he (or she) doesn't have the balls to speak up.

Actually, I like TH87's explanation for lefties defending homosexuality (which I will discuss in the next post) better.

BTW, what I REALLY hate with regard to this blue/red thing is the fact that the God damned leftist saturated mainstream media CHANGED it from the early days of color TV. It used to be, very logically, red for Democrats and blue for Republicans. However, the God damned media assholes were concerned that people would make the very valid connection between Democrats and red as in Communist red--so they made the switch--somewhere in the early 70s, I think.

[texaspackerbacker]

As for the reason behind my making these polls, I have asked repeatedly--and not gotten an answer: WHY is it always the leftists defending homosexuality--those of us on the good side of everything else are also virtually 100% on the good side of the homosexuality issue too. I'd STILL like to get an answer to that--why in the hell does somebody who favors higher taxes, government as a solution, de-emphasis of defense and security, etc.--all the other leftist shit--necessarily have to defend same sex ass-fucking?



Liberals are generally sympathetic to people of all kinds and believe in .

Conservatives are generally more into preserving society and traditionally established constructs.

In sum, Liberals focus more on making the individual person happy, and Conservatives focus more on making the existing society happy.

THIS explanation definitely DOES make sense as far as it goes. Sympathizing with "letting everyone do whatever floats their boat, as long as it doesn't infringe upon someone else's rights"--including the unobtrusive practice of homosexuality in private--basically embodies the very limited good side of liberalism. However, that explanation does NOT address the so-called "gay agenda" of promoting homosexuality as a morally equivalent alternative to heterosexual behavior. Poisoning the minds of kids in school that way, as well as moving society in general in that direction by way of the news media and entertainment community indeed DOES do a lot of infringing on the rights of others.

You also state the viewpoint of conservatives pretty well. I have to ask, though, if that's what conservatives are all about, how could anyone other than a few all out extremist left wingers possibly NOT be in the conservative camp?

[th87]

As for the reason behind my making these polls, I have asked repeatedly--and not gotten an answer: WHY is it always the leftists defending homosexuality--those of us on the good side of everything else are also virtually 100% on the good side of the homosexuality issue too. I'd STILL like to get an answer to that--why in the hell does somebody who favors higher taxes, government as a solution, de-emphasis of defense and security, etc.--all the other leftist shit--necessarily have to defend same sex ass-fucking?



Liberals are generally sympathetic to people of all kinds and believe in .

Conservatives are generally more into preserving society and traditionally established constructs.

In sum, Liberals focus more on making the individual person happy, and Conservatives focus more on making the existing society happy.

THIS explanation definitely DOES make sense as far as it goes. Sympathizing with "letting everyone do whatever floats their boat, as long as it doesn't infringe upon someone else's rights"--including the unobtrusive practice of homosexuality in private--basically embodies the very limited good side of liberalism. However, that explanation does NOT address the so-called "gay agenda" of promoting homosexuality as a morally equivalent alternative to heterosexual behavior. Poisoning the minds of kids in school that way, as well as moving society in general in that direction by way of the news media and entertainment community indeed DOES do a lot of infringing on the rights of others.

You also state the viewpoint of conservatives pretty well. I have to ask, though, if that's what conservatives are all about, how could anyone other than a few all out extremist left wingers possibly NOT be in the conservative camp?

Your definition of the "gay agenda" is what liberals would disagree with. Liberals don't think homosexuality is promoted. Promotion and then partaking in the lifestyle implies that people choose to be homosexual. I don't believe sexual preference is a choice. Conservatives apparently do. Liberals view the "gay agenda" as an awareness (rather than a promotion) that there are gay people out there, and they're humans just like everyone else. Therein lies the difference.

Why is everybody not in the conservative camp? Because there are people out there that question whether what's "traditional" and "accepted" is really right or necessary. For example, take me and marriage (an accepted and traditional fate for young people). I see people getting married, and they all seem numb to it. Like they just kind of accepted it as something they eventually have to do, rather than being excited about it and really wanting to do it. Many seem miserable and tired. So it made me wonder why I'd ever get married. At this age, it just seems a little dumb and 50% end in divorce anyway (which really screws you over), so what's the point, and what's the rush? This would be a "liberal" viewpoint - questioning the validity and merit of the institution of the traditional concept of marriage.

I think there is merit to both approaches. Conservatism works to preserve societal concepts. For example, defense is a largely conservative concept. This serves to preserve our borders and preserve our national identity and personality. A strong two-parent family is also a conservative concept, and studies show that kids turn out the best when this is present.

However, conservatism has its bad sides too. Because it preserves tradition, it can preserve unjust institutions as well. For example, slavery. Slavery had been established for hundreds of years and conservatives wanted to preserve this institution, because they saw nothing wrong with it. However, it was the liberals of the time that said that keeping Black people in captivity wouldn't be right, and eventually rallied for their release. This is where liberalism has been necessary - to overthrow outdated and unjust concepts.

And of course, liberalism has its bad sides. Too much liberalism results in too much happiness in the moment, and no responsibility and thought of consequences. The arch-liberal wants to do away with government altogether because it's believed to be oppressive and structured. But if that happens, who's going to build the roads to get him where he might need to go, for example?

So the point is, balance is necessary. Too much conservatism makes one rigid and closed-minded, and too much liberalism makes one selfish and irresponsible.

[texaspackerbacker]

There has never been even one shred of scientific evidence to support the idea of homosexuality being inherited, as opposed to the obvious idea that it is a CHOICE. Indeed, I've heard, homosexuals are scared shitless that science will find a "gay gene" because it would lead to abortions of the great majority of fetuses with that gene.

As for the "gay agenda", did I say "promotion of homosexuality" in schools, etc.? No. I said "promotion of homosexuality as a morally equivalent lifestyle"--in other words, the idea that it is OK to practice same sex ass-fucking.

I obviously don't speak for ALL conservatives--just ask Howard and Aynrand about that, but I, for one, for better or worse, do a lot of picking and choosing which traditions and even moral concepts are worth preserving. I tend to be a lot more of a PRAGMATIST when it comes to politics and economics, and a live and let live kind of guy on social issues--even including homosexuality. But that ends when they get all evangelical about it and try to inflict the idea that their sick behavior is OK on others.

I remind you, TH87, it is not only the true teachings of MY religion that vilifies homosexuality, but YOURS too--as well as those of almost every other religion and culture in the world.

[sheepshead]

hey a holes a hole a mouths a mouth-who cares??

[Zool]

hey a holes a hole a mouths a mouth-who cares??

who you callin an a hole

[packinpatland]

"I remind you, TH87, it is not only the true teachings of MY religion that vilifies homosexuality, but YOURS too--as well as those of almost every other religion and culture in the world."

Mostly based on that 'interpret as you need' book of books.....the bible.

[swede]

who are the gay posters?

i am your worst nightmare.

a gay black man on welfare

I crossed a gay Eskimo with a welfare mom and now I've got a snowblower that won't work.

[swede]

I count freedom of sexual expression with other consenting adults as a liberty granted by the constitution.

The right to marriage is different and should be legalized or forbidden wherever a STATE decides to do so,

I am particularly in favor of civil unions, as lifelong partners deserve certain accommodations--but once again this is an issue decided by states and their citizens.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I count freedom of sexual expression with other consenting adults as a liberty granted by the constitution.

that's mighty white of ya there, Swede :lol:

I take the right to get one's groove on in their own disgusting way to be so obvious that it doesn't bear mentioning. But I suppose it wasn't so long ago that the anus was a no-no.


The right to marriage is different and should be legalized or forbidden wherever a STATE decides to do so.

I had to scratch my head the first time I read this. I am surprised that you are so excited about the STATE defining marriage as opposed to leaving it in the hands of the churches.

But then I read on and saw tha you are grinding old axe about "states" as in states rights versus the evil federal government. Damn, we all got these old programs running in our head that pop-up when least expect. Me, I can't let go of the issue of floride in the water supply, I am fine with civil unions in homes with unfloridated tap water.

[swede]

I am fine with civil unions in homes with unfloridated tap water.

Unfluoridated tap water is an abomination before God. You are hereby excommunicated.

[arcilite]

texasPB....you sure do have a lot of anger towards gay people.

What have they done to you?


Who cares if two dudes like each other and want to touch each other funny, its not bothering anyone.

And who cares if they want to get married / civil union? Its not bothering anyone.


I feel we are still stuck in the 50s and 60s almost.

[sheepshead]

2 things i'll say:
1) I think it's inevitable
2) let the states vote and make it so or not so. I hate when its brought up in the presidential race. No one is comfortable with the subject and there are many larger issues the president must deal with on a day-to-day basis.

[texaspackerbacker]

"I remind you, TH87, it is not only the true teachings of MY religion that vilifies homosexuality, but YOURS too--as well as those of almost every other religion and culture in the world."

Mostly based on that 'interpret as you need' book of books.....the bible.

How many different ways can you interpret "abomination"?

BTW, TH87's religion ain't the same as mine and maybe yours. I think his mandates beheading, or at least death for homosexuality.

[texaspackerbacker]

texasPB....you sure do have a lot of anger towards gay people.

What have they done to you?


Who cares if two dudes like each other and want to touch each other funny, its not bothering anyone.

And who cares if they want to get married / civil union? Its not bothering anyone.


I feel we are still stuck in the 50s and 60s almost.

Where do you get that? Certainly not from anything I've written.

Hate the behavior, not the practicers, that's what I say.

How is it you condone same sex ass-fucking and teaching kids in school it's OK?

Speaking of HATE, I understand YOUR people are taking it in the ass figuratively in California from those who take it in the ass literally.

Are you aware of the nasty things the gays you seem to idolize have said about people of the race you apparently are for their overwhelming vote for Prop 8/Against fag marriage?

[Zool]

Hate the behavior, not the practicers, that's what I say.

Wow

[arcilite]

How is it you condone same sex ass-fucking and teaching kids in school it's OK?


Because teaching kids to be tolerant of others' personal choices and to not discriminate is important.

[texaspackerbacker]

How is it you condone same sex ass-fucking and teaching kids in school it's OK?


Because teaching kids to be tolerant of others' personal choices and to not discriminate is important.

Limited to exactly what you just said, I'm with you on that.

I hope you realize, you could be severely chastized by other supporters of homosexuality who can't stand the idea that homosexuality is a choice the practicers make.

When those little elementary school kids ask what exactly it is you are telling them to be tolerant of, and you detail what exactly goes into de tail, and they go "eeeeooooowwwww", what are you gonna say? Are you gonna try to claim it's a "natural" behavior? Good luck with that.

[Deputy Nutz]

How is it you condone same sex ass-fucking and teaching kids in school it's OK?


Because teaching kids to be tolerant of others' personal choices and to not discriminate is important.

Limited to exactly what you just said, I'm with you on that.

I hope you realize, you could be severely chastized by other supporters of homosexuality who can't stand the idea that homosexuality is a choice the practicers make.

When those little elementary school kids ask what exactly it is you are telling them to be tolerant of, and you detail what exactly goes into de tail, and they go "eeeeooooowwwww", what are you gonna say? Are you gonna try to claim it's a "natural" behavior? Good luck with that.

Gee I couldn't even get my teacher tell me how to masturbate in 5th grade. Since when did sex ed get so sultry?

[swede]

My daughter is an education student in the UW system.

One of her education courses has been almost entirely devoted to promoting and accepting homosexuality. She's been forced to read textbooks and articles and view one video after another in which homosexuals are portrayed as victims and Christians are portrayed as persecutors.

The professor singled her out for being quiet and adding little to discussions. My daughter responded by saying that it was apparent from everything presented in class that her opinion was certainly not welcome.

I thought I sent her to the University to learn how to be a teacher.

[packinpatland]

My daughter is an education student in the UW system.

One of her education courses has been almost entirely devoted to promoting and accepting homosexuality. She's been forced to read textbooks and articles and view one video after another in which homosexuals are portrayed as victims and Christians are portrayed as persecutors.

The professor singled her out for being quiet and adding little to discussions. My daughter responded by saying that it was apparent from everything presented in class that her opinion was certainly not welcome.

I thought I sent her to the University to learn how to be a teacher.

:lol: I don't mean to make light of what you're relating, honest......maybe you should have sent her to an Ivy League university.

But seriously.....homosexuals have been persecuted. And who by? Bible toters. She should have stated her opinion and been open to a meaningful dialogue that may have persued.

[packinpatland]

How is it you condone same sex ass-fucking and teaching kids in school it's OK?


Because teaching kids to be tolerant of others' personal choices and to not discriminate is important.

Limited to exactly what you just said, I'm with you on that.

I hope you realize, you could be severely chastized by other supporters of homosexuality who can't stand the idea that homosexuality is a choice the practicers make.

When those little elementary school kids ask what exactly it is you are telling them to be tolerant of, and you detail what exactly goes into de tail, and they go "eeeeooooowwwww", what are you gonna say? Are you gonna try to claim it's a "natural" behavior? Good luck with that.


Those same little elementary school kids would have given exactly the same "eeeeooooowwwww", if a detailed explaination of heterosexual sex had been given.

[HowardRoark]

She should have stated her opinion and been open to a meaningful dialogue that may have persued.

Where exactly would that happen? Are you starting to see the light a little. You guys are the tyrants.

[packinpatland]

Now, the use of the word tyrant.........do you mean that in the modern sense, or the classical ?

[HowardRoark]

Now, the use of the word tyrant.........do you mean that in the modern sense, or the classical ?

Classic.

[texaspackerbacker]

How is it you condone same sex ass-fucking and teaching kids in school it's OK?


Because teaching kids to be tolerant of others' personal choices and to not discriminate is important.

Limited to exactly what you just said, I'm with you on that.

I hope you realize, you could be severely chastized by other supporters of homosexuality who can't stand the idea that homosexuality is a choice the practicers make.

When those little elementary school kids ask what exactly it is you are telling them to be tolerant of, and you detail what exactly goes into de tail, and they go "eeeeooooowwwww", what are you gonna say? Are you gonna try to claim it's a "natural" behavior? Good luck with that.


Those same little elementary school kids would have given exactly the same "eeeeooooowwwww", if a detailed explaination of heterosexual sex had been given.

Somehow, I doubt that.

Kids have a keen sense of what's natural and normal, and what isn't. THAT is why there is so much persecution of homosexuals in schools--NOT because of parental influence or any crap like that.

Supporters of homosexuality like to divert discussions to religion, and most of us on the side of good don't shy away from that diversion, as our religion as well as pretty much everybody else's religion in the world consders homosexuality an abomination. However, the fact is, the real reason that abomination is so matter-of-factly reviled has nothing to do with religion. It is because homosexuality--in the eyes of the huge majority of people, INCLUDING kids who have never been propagandized either for or against it--is seen as unnatural/gross/disgusting.

Anybody sitting there reading this who thinks otherwise is either totally out of touch or so brainwashed by their own extreme liberal propaganda that they deny reality.

The reason these purveyors of the gay agenda have to go through the contortions Swede described above is exactly BECAUSE the crap they are pushing is SO UNNATURAL.

[Zool]

Who the fuck is a supporter of homosexuality except for gay people? This is where your argument turns from pointless to dumb. People support other peoples right to live how they want. I'm not marching in a parade or flying a pink triangle in my truck, but if 2 lesbians want to bump uglies so be it.

[texaspackerbacker]

Who the fuck is a supporter of homosexuality except for gay people? This is where your argument turns from pointless to dumb. People support other peoples right to live how they want. I'm not marching in a parade or flying a pink triangle in my truck, but if 2 lesbians want to bump uglies so be it.

Have you been reading the posts of your fellow lefties (oh, I forgot, you don't admit to being one of them EITHER). What would you call consistently defending homosexual behavior, as well as the agenda of teaching and preaching that it is a morally equivalent if you don't want to call that "supporting" homosexuality?

Hell, even I watch lesbian porn, and even I wouldn't advocate going back to outlawing fags from practicing their abomination in private. However, that is hugely different than what your leftist cohorts are spewing--promotion of homosexuality as MORALLY EQUIVALENT to normal heterosexual behavior.

Which side of THAT fence are you on, Zool? Or are you gonna sit on it?

[Zool]

Have you been reading the posts of your fellow lefties (oh, I forgot, you don't admit to being one of them EITHER). What would you call consistently defending homosexual behavior, as well as the agenda of teaching and preaching that it is a morally equivalent if you don't want to call that "supporting" homosexuality?

Hell, even I watch lesbian porn, and even I wouldn't advocate going back to outlawing fags from practicing their abomination in private. However, that is hugely different than what your leftist cohorts are spewing--promotion of homosexuality as MORALLY EQUIVALENT to normal heterosexual behavior.

Which side of THAT fence are you on, Zool? Or are you gonna sit on it?

Well I'll be damned if I'm going to identify with a group that feels they are the moral and just hammer of God to be swung at all non-believers.

Defending a man or womans right to being a homosexual has nothing to do with supporting them specifically. It's their right to be that way as a human being and thats the only thing I'll support. Otherwise, like you and your ilk say repeatedly, where does it end? If I like a specific style of shoes and you don't, do I have to stop wearing them?

Your argument is that homosexuality is going to somehow ruin society. I think teaching kids to think poorly of another person who's different than they are is a shitty thing to do. I don't agree that homosexuality is some sort of choice. Some people are just wired that way. Have you looked at other dudes? Do you honestly think that a straight dude looks at a guy and goes "fuck I think today I'm going to be gay". Women....possibly, but thats neither here nor there.

Be gay, be straight, I dont really care. I guess I'm glad I'm on the side thats socially acceptable but I won't condemn someone for who they are and how they live. I think that's someone else's job and I don't mean you.

[Partial]

Zool you fag.

[MateoInMex]

Who the fuck is a supporter of homosexuality except for gay people? This is where your argument turns from pointless to dumb. People support other peoples right to live how they want. I'm not marching in a parade or flying a pink triangle in my truck, but if 2 lesbians want to bump uglies so be it.

Have you been reading the posts of your fellow lefties (oh, I forgot, you don't admit to being one of them EITHER). What would you call consistently defending homosexual behavior, as well as the agenda of teaching and preaching that it is a morally equivalent if you don't want to call that "supporting" homosexuality?

Hell, even I watch lesbian porn, and even I wouldn't advocate going back to outlawing fags from practicing their abomination in private. However, that is hugely different than what your leftist cohorts are spewing--promotion of homosexuality as MORALLY EQUIVALENT to normal heterosexual behavior.

Which side of THAT fence are you on, Zool? Or are you gonna sit on it?


You prove time and time again that you're a hypocrite Rexnozzle. You'll watch 2 gay chicks engage in sexual behavior, but the thought of two guys fucking is either too disgusting, or it could be that you might enjoy it and hate to admit it. Whatever floats your boat dude.

I think you're more frightened that the thought of homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle will have you, your kids, and every student in elementary school running to the caves in hills with candles ready to practice this "new religion."

I was raised Catholic and I could give a fuck less about "my religion" smack, because I believe the Bible is a fairytale and Catholic priests have been known to diddle little boys. Not me, thankfully.

You mention the act of two dudes taking it in the tail, and the thought of that being taught in school is gross. I actually laughed at that..but unless it's a three-some of 3 guys or 2 guys and a girl, two guys can't take it in the tail, unless one is giving himself a reach around.

And personally, I'm not an ass-freak, so even the thought of heterosexual anal is a little too risque for me.

As my friend Doug Stanhope has said on Stern and virtually his career...being a sick pig, how can he not be a proponent of anal sex.

"CUz I don't wanna meet a BK BROILER ON THE WAY OUT!"

[Zool]

Zool you fag.

You'd sex me up and you know it. I'm a hot piece of ass.

[texaspackerbacker]

Have you been reading the posts of your fellow lefties (oh, I forgot, you don't admit to being one of them EITHER). What would you call consistently defending homosexual behavior, as well as the agenda of teaching and preaching that it is a morally equivalent if you don't want to call that "supporting" homosexuality?

Hell, even I watch lesbian porn, and even I wouldn't advocate going back to outlawing fags from practicing their abomination in private. However, that is hugely different than what your leftist cohorts are spewing--promotion of homosexuality as MORALLY EQUIVALENT to normal heterosexual behavior.

Which side of THAT fence are you on, Zool? Or are you gonna sit on it?

Well I'll be damned if I'm going to identify with a group that feels they are the moral and just hammer of God to be swung at all non-believers.

Defending a man or womans right to being a homosexual has nothing to do with supporting them specifically. It's their right to be that way as a human being and thats the only thing I'll support. Otherwise, like you and your ilk say repeatedly, where does it end? If I like a specific style of shoes and you don't, do I have to stop wearing them?

Your argument is that homosexuality is going to somehow ruin society. I think teaching kids to think poorly of another person who's different than they are is a shitty thing to do. I don't agree that homosexuality is some sort of choice. Some people are just wired that way. Have you looked at other dudes? Do you honestly think that a straight dude looks at a guy and goes "fuck I think today I'm going to be gay". Women....possibly, but thats neither here nor there.

Be gay, be straight, I dont really care. I guess I'm glad I'm on the side thats socially acceptable but I won't condemn someone for who they are and how they live. I think that's someone else's job and I don't mean you.

I say AGAIN, the issue is NOT the right of fags to practice their abominable behavior. I'm conceding that.

The issue is that they--and more specifically, leftists who may or may not be fags themselves--getting all evangelical about it and trying to spread their abomination--trying to pass off the sick behavior they choose as no different qualitatively than normal heterosexual behavior.

Now you're back to the liberal line of crap that homosexuality is NOT a choice? A few posts back, you were talking about how it was a choice.

I also say AGAIN, nobody is talking about "teaching kids to think poorly .....". Best case would be to leave the who discussion out of the curriculum. But if it does need to get talked about in the name of sex ed or whatever, then simply teach that it is and has been throughout history a behavior that is considered abhorrent and disgusting by virtually every religion and culture--just that fact, no value judgment one way or the other. Would that be good enough for you? Or are you somehow committed to passing off same sex ass fucking as normal or OK?

Mateo, it seems like we have discussed this double standard thing before. Hell yeah, there is a difference between lesbian sex and male fags getting it on. The male/male thing is considered an abomination NOT ONLY by our religion, but by virtually EVERY religion and culture on the face of the earth. The lesbian thing is condemned to a much lesser extent, and not at all (that I know of) in the Bible.

And if you and others want to disparage the Bible and/or any other religious teachings, fine, this is America--you have the right (I'm not sure about Mexico). However, I say this AGAIN too, it ain't about religion. It is about the will of the majority a.k.a. democracy. Sure, go ahead and protect the minority by not outlawing practice of their abomination in private, but do NOT promote the abomination as something that is acceptable behavior, contrary to the will of the majority--as leftists are so prone to do.

[hoosier]

Social norms in Mexico are a little different, where gay sex isn't seen as a single entity. The passive partner in a relation gets nothing but scorn and ridicule, while the active one is often revered as a macho, a chingón. Being a chingón is a good thing regardless of where you like to stick it. A bottom, however, is the lowest of the low.

[texaspackerbacker]

Social norms in Mexico are a little different, where gay sex isn't seen as a single entity. The passive partner in a relation gets nothing but scorn and ridicule, while the active one is often revered as a macho, a chingón. Being a chingón is a good thing regardless of where you like to stick it. A bottom, however, is the lowest of the low.

Sounds like the voice of experience. I always suspected you liberals were receptive to more than just new ideas.

[hoosier]

Whatever you say, Mr. Wide Stance. :P

[LL2]

You guys still debating about the queers?

[packinpatland]

I think they've stopped debating and are dating.

[arcilite]

You guys still debating about the queers?

Yeah... I won... I am the master debater.

[MJZiggy]

You're one syllable long there, dear.

[th87]

"I remind you, TH87, it is not only the true teachings of MY religion that vilifies homosexuality, but YOURS too--as well as those of almost every other religion and culture in the world."

Mostly based on that 'interpret as you need' book of books.....the bible.

How many different ways can you interpret "abomination"?

BTW, TH87's religion ain't the same as mine and maybe yours. I think his mandates beheading, or at least death for homosexuality.

Nope, the Quran makes no such mandate, though it is described as an abomination. Any punishment has come from Sharia law, which is based on dubious texts and dubious sources anyway.

[texaspackerbacker]

So you're saying TRUE Islam says homosexuality is fine and dandy--morally equivalent to heterosexual behavior? I think I'd like a second Muslim opinion on that.

[MJZiggy]

Read his post again. That's not what it said. They just don't mandate murder over it.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Nope, the Quran makes no such mandate, though it is described as an abomination.

It is if its done right.

:rs:

[texaspackerbacker]

Read his post again. That's not what it said. They just don't mandate murder over it.

Since when is capital punishment "murder"? Oh yeah, I forgot, you're a liberal, and probably think it is.

TH87 says--correctly--that the Koran doesn't mandate execution, much less beheadings for homosexuality. I, however, didn't claim the Koran did mandate a death penalty for homosexuality--just that Islam did. And Sharia Law--"dubious texts and sources" notwithstanding, does call for the death penalty--actually by stoning rather than beheading--probably an even more cruel and barbaric punishment. And even though TH87 and maybe some other Muslims consider Sharia Law to be "dubious", it is the law of the land in much of the Muslim world. Furthermore, one of the priorities of the radical Muslims who have chosen to become our primary enemy in the post-Cold War world is to get that Sharia Law established EVEN IN NON-MUSLIM COUNTRIES.

And we in America now are saddled with a president who is on record as saying that if it comes down to a battle between Islam and America, HE SIDES WITH ISLAM!

[arcilite]

hell yeah i love islam

[texaspackerbacker]

hell yeah i love islam

In the context of homosexuality, I guess I do too.