_Wow

The usefulness of stereotypes belongs in another thread. This thread concerns gays. The spread of homosexuality is just that: If people drop their homophobia? That's called an ad hominen attack. In the future, we may not be allowed to speak up against organizations like NAMBLA for fear of being imprisioned on hate charges. So, we must do what we can to inform the general public before this group erradicates statutory rape laws. Rights are equal across the board. What you are referring to is a special right that you and a small number like you wish to have. Uh...??? Prison rape? Are you saying that straight men become homo's when there are no women present? I thought that you couldn't "catch it". I thought it was purely biological, at least that's what you asserted to begin with. Now you are saying that straight men can become gay. Interesting. No, it's not. It's the truth. I want you to stay in the closet. I don't want to have to fight to preserve the nation as it was originally built. I don't want to have to fight to conserve decency and moral absolutes. I don't want to see this nation get sucked into an amoral vortex. I have to deal with being sick of it? It is you and your camp who is dredging this nastiness up. The more you push, the worse it will get for you. You will experience more opposition.

It is we, the straight majority, who must suffer for the feeling of a small minority. For instance, I will point you to recent legislation that could be the death toll for our First Amendment rights. Read, in particular, what I have bolded out. Is this what we really want? Is this what is necessary in order to protect the feelings of a small minority? Will the majority of the nation stand back and let this happen? Will we allow the tyrannical government to usurp our Constitutionally guaranteed rights in order spare feelings? What in the hell is wrong with this picture?

Twenty five to forty percent is more than a "few" messed up individuals. I shudder to think what the outcome of 25 percent of the soccer mom's being child murderers. Nonetheless, the fact that you threw out a few names to counter the info. that I provided is a classical logical fallacy. It's called Changing the Subject and it's definition can be found here: http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/subject.htm Plus, this list of names still doesn't negate the charges. It is more than reasonable to believe, based on the information provided, that with the spread of homosexuality will come the spread of paedophilia. This is the dark underbelly to which I refer. The rights afforded in the Bill of Rights apply to both you and I...regardless of sexual preference. Why wouldn't they? If a straight man raped a man, he wouldn't be straight. How much interest in a woman would a gay have anyway? Once again, this still doesn't negate the charges. You seem to be missing the point. My point is to bring forward information that isn't "PC" and would otherwise be dismissed in order to protect the feelings of a government protected minority. I see an overwhelming trend on this board that is pro-homo. Even TA, a Catholic, isn't willing to step up and debate this topic. I believe that this is because of lack of information regarding the dark underbelly of the homosexual movement. LOL!!! It is we, the straight people, who are having to listen to the ongoing complaints from the homosexual comunity about "equal rights". Right after Joseph Ratzinger became Pope Benedict XVI, I heard a little snip on the news about the "ongoing controversy" over gay marriage. Tell me, just how great a controversy would this be if the news media completely ignored it? Very little, if any at all. The media determines what is or isn't controversy worthy and I, for one, am completely sick of it.

I don't have any real interest in turning this thread into a religious debate, however, I would like to make one point. God expects His followers to judge. If He didn't, how would we know right from wrong?

I would love to hear about the punishment of your male hetrosexual psych teacher if he didn't parrot that which has been deemed non-offensive and politically kosher.

These people have what to do with the information that I presented? You will be hard pressed to find anyone who will agree with the actions of these women, however, there are great number of people (hetrosexuals) who will blindly advocate your type of lifestyle without knowing the potential ramifications. Indeed. But the numbers don't lie. And herein lies the problem. We are unwilling to look at the ugly truth because it doesn't fit into the egalitarian political correctness that our society is fraught with. If I present to you the idea that homo's are exponentally more likely to be child molestors, (regardless of the evidence presented) the whole board just might turn on me. We are unwilling to accept the fact that homosexuality is a deviancy and produces an incredible number of seriously deviant predators. Why is this? Why are we so helplessly caught up in the egalitarian dogma?

This is where I must point out some pertinent facts about the gays who "aren't hurting anyone". Source: http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet2.html What this write-up essentially says is that queers are responsible for 25 to 40 percent of all child molestation cases. This figure is HUGELY DISPROPORTIONAL to the actual percentage of queers who live in the U.S. (approximately 5-7 percent). Yet this group of people are constantly made out to be a "love thy neigbhor" pacifistic group who would go ten miles out of their way in order to spare the life of a fly. This is not the case! There is an extremely dark and ugly underbelly to the homosexual "way of life".

What would you really do with these people? Would you kill them? Would you lock them away? Would you send them to political rehabilitation camps so that they all think and act like you? Seriously, are you condoning mass murder because of a disagreement over morality?

Wouldn't damning "religious winguts" violate your flagrant illogic?

Although what Bill Cosby has said isn't exactly what was conveyed by the essay in the first post, he is on the same page: http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=892020&page=1 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6732651/site/newsweek/ http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38565 He is indeed a black person who "gets it".

What's next Mr. Farrakhan? Perhaps you will jump on the bandwagon with good 'ol Jesse and demand reparations be paid to the blacks (and blacks only) in New Orleans because...some how...the hurricane was the fault of the white man! Source: http://www.wcnc.com/news/topstories/stories/091205-ad-wcnc-farrakhan.4fb21767.html

Actually, I must side with fullauto on this as well. West Virginia is the whitest state in the union. It is also one of the poorest. It is also one of the least crime ridden. This little state shatters all of the socioeconomic excuses that the appologetic Marxists have created.

You're absolutely correct in this! The best thing we could ever do for Africa is to stop meddling! However, the U.S. is failing as the agricultural head of the world: "Sometime in the next 10 years Brazil will probably pass the U.S. as the world's largest agricultural producer. Brazil is now the world's largest exporter of chickens, orange juice, sugar, coffee, and tobacco. Last year, Brazil passed the U.S. as the world's largest beef producer. As a result, while we bear record trade deficits, Brazil boasts a $30 billion trade surplus (NYT, Dec. 12, 2004)." Oh, and don't forget: "As of last June, the U.S. imported more food than it exported (NYT, Dec. 12, 2004)." Both of these are experpts from: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8191.htm America No. 1? I think not.

This is an interesting can of worms you opened, fullauto. However, if the mark of Cain was passed down, it would have ended with the great flood later in Genesis, as Noah was not a decendant of Cain. However, there is one sect within Christianity that believe that the flood was localized and that not all of the earth's land animals were killed. If you really want to know their take on the mark of Cain, just find a Christian Identity website. There, you will find a great number of people who know much more about it than anyone on this site (myself included).

It's not exactly that you get to fuck them...it's just that you get to...fuck them? Until now I have stayed away from the Muslim/Islam/Christianity debate because I don't know much about your faith, Jaffer. However, there is something that I must point out: First of all, I am making the assumption that you Jaffer are a mainstream believer in your faith and that you are a correct representative of what Islam truly preaches. Bearing that in mind, I will get to the point: Why would there be any need for any type of copulation in heaven? Sex is a physical act, granted it has great spiritual implications, but we would have no desire for it if we didn't have our physical bodies. One of the main reasons I don't believe we will have sex in heaven is because we will shed our physical bodies and become something considerably greater. Just a hypothetical question for you Jaffer: What if a husband and wife entered into heaven and the idealistic image of the husband for himself was different than that of the wife's idealistic image of him? Would the wife see her husband differently than the rest of heaven would?