The whole gay thing.

[Ctrl]

My black thread was way too long for the short attention span of the internet savy. All things of perfection tend to be, so I will address the issue of gays, because, for me, it is as short as a chinamans dingy. I don't hate gay people, but I do hold some contempt for most of them. I sneer at most of them the way that I sneer at drama queens and sychophants... more of a... "get over it you pathetic ****" roll your eyes kind of way.

I think some people are gay. I think the vast majority of people who engage in homosexual behavior are not gay. I think that sometimes chemistry gets ****** up and some hormones go the wrong way during conception. You can see this in the people whom I refer to... that tell-tale androgony that is not begat of style, but features. I don't mean lisps, I don't mean flamboyance, I don't mean brutish or feminine behavior. Those are environmental cues that are adopted when defining ones self. Social cues. For those who are what I will call "born gay", I have compassion... and... well sympathy. It can't be easy to come to grips with that sort of thing I don't expect. Especially given some backgrounds. You can have all the civil union, health insurance **** you want in egalitarian means... no SPECIAL consideration, but fair egalitarianisms. That does not lend itself to marriage, primarily because the term marriage refers to a religious ceremony which is exclusive to heterosexuals for reasons of genetics, and has become intermingled (as many religious moralities) with law. You do not have to spite and dishonor a group because you aren't a part of it... isn't that what "gay rights" is fighting against? Im sidetracking...

The majority of "gays" I am convinced are socially influenced deviants. Once society accepts anti-social behavior (which homosexual activity is by definition) it becomes fashionable. Things that buck the system are fashionable. People who are unaccepted by society at large, tend to be the ones bucking it. The liberating nature of legally protected protest against a normal society, begets more of it.

If you believe that all gays are "born gay" I would like to point out that either you think ALL Greeks were genetically predisposed to homosexuality, or you have to accept that SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE of the practice had SOMETHING to do with it. Either you accept that prison *** is ALWAYS perpetrated by homosexuals, or you realize that "gay for the stay" is a trend born of social environment. Some guys in the pen engage in "loving" relationships, not rape or even necessarily sexual ones (though I think most probably are), who would NEVER in a million years do so outside of a male only prison system. When they leave, they leave that there as well. Either you open your ******* eyes and realize that it is ABSOLUTELY environmentally influenced, or you are a complete fucktard and I will ruin you with logic when you reply.

 

[Msixty]

My black thread was way too long

at least your consistant
[/QUOTE]

 

[Ctrl]

That doesn't even make sense.

 

[Phantom]

I don't hate gay people, but I do hold some contempt for most of them. I sneer at most of them the way that I sneer at drama queens and sychophants... more of a... "get over it you pathetic ****" roll your eyes kind of way.

That is understandable. There is no reason for any group to receive special treatment. If something bothers you, why play favorites?

I think some people are gay. I think the vast majority of people who engage in homosexual behavior are not gay.

I wouldn't say the majority but I would say there are many heterosexual people who experiment with someone of their gender.

I don't mean lisps, I don't mean flamboyance, I don't mean brutish or feminine behavior. Those are environmental cues that are adopted when defining ones self.

Very true.

That does not lend itself to marriage, primarily because the term marriage refers to a religious ceremony which is exclusive to heterosexuals for reasons of genetics, and has become intermingled (as many religious moralities) with law.

I completely agree. My brother and my best friend are both gay and I fully support gay rights. However, marriage should be limited to a man and a woman.

The majority of "gays" I am convinced are socially influenced deviants. Once society accepts anti-social behavior (which homosexual activity is by definition) it becomes fashionable. Things that buck the system are fashionable. People who are unaccepted by society at large, tend to be the ones bucking it. The liberating nature of legally protected protest against a normal society, begets more of it.

This is a very interesting view point. When my brother "came out" almost 15 years ago, our family assumed he did it to spite our religious beliefs, out of rebellion, and to find a group in which he felt he belonged. Fifteen years later, however, we no longer feel this way.

[Either] you believe that all gays are "born gay" [or] realize that it is ABSOLUTELY environmentally influenced

I strongly feel homosexuality sprouts from one's environment. As I was telling another member just days ago when she asked about my gay brother, there was a book I read over a decade ago (probably around the same time my brother came out) and within the book there was a checklist of what 99% of gays experience in their childhood. I swear, I checked off every one when thinking about my brother.

 

[Sly]

Wow, your spot on with how I feel.

 

[Msixty]

That doesn't even make sense.

i was saying your post was really big......gah, never mind, too complecated a thought for you...

anyway, i do agree with some of your post, but you are leaning to a bias anti-gay view, i thought this was a 'terms and conditions' thread, and why do you look down on them for choosing what they do? (even if we see it as nasty as ****) i have met gay people that are problably better people than you will ever be.

BUT I DON'T THINK THEY DESERVE SPECIAL TREATMENT!!!!!

just wanted that out there, i hate people who want to be 'accepted equilly' and then beg for special treatment

 

[Ctrl]

i was saying your post was really big......gah, never mind, too complecated a thought for you...

First of all, if you are going to imply that you are mentally superior to me, it helps not to misspell "complicated". Is that simple enough? The thread in question required two posts due to a 10k character limit, this one is minute in contrast... oh I'm sorry, that would require some research and understanding about the topic you are discussing... I see your confusion... nm.

anyway, i do agree with some of your post, but you are leaning to a bias anti-gay view

I am anti-fake gay and have no issue saying so. For sake of argument, what would it matter if I were anti-gay? Who the **** are you to judge the "correctness" of my distain for something I saw as morally, socially, and logically repugnant?

i thought this was a 'terms and conditions' thread,

More caveman speak. If you could be clearer as to what you mean by that... Terms and conditions of GF? Again, why you would conclude anything about a thread before reading it defies reason.

and why do you look down on them for choosing what they do? (even if we see it as nasty as ****) i have met gay people that are problably better people than you will ever be.

So... you dont look down on... say... pedophiles? Because WHAT THEY DO IMPACTS THE SOCIETY I LIVE IN. Tollerance has limits.

 

[hugo]

So... you dont look down on... say... pedophiles? Because WHAT THEY DO IMPACTS THE SOCIETY I LIVE IN. Tollerance has limits.

So you are too ******* stupid to understand the difference between actions between consenting adults and similar actions between an adult and a child?

What can you expect from someone who spells tolerance tollerance.

 

[Msixty]

I am anti-fake gay and have no issue saying so. For sake of argument, what would it matter if I were anti-gay? Who the **** are you to judge the "correctness" of my distain for something I saw as morally, socially, and logically repugnant?

you seem to enjoy big words, but just becouse you type like you're smart don't mean ****, all you need to do is go to dictonary.com for that, you are trying to use big words to impress becouse your ideas are lacking substance (looks like we now know why you have huge ******* posts)

More caveman speak. If you could be clearer as to what you mean by that... Terms and conditions of GF? Again, why you would conclude anything about a thread before reading it defies reason.

oh jesus christ man, YOU'R the one that called it that..... here, i'll show you.

Here I am trying to start a thread on the gay thing so that terms and conditions can be defined

HOLY ****! the dumbfuck has spoken in reply to himself! have we been a good tutor to ourselves you twinkletoed scumsucking shitbag? maybe after the lesson you should go give yourself some head to say thankyou!

(lol, i blame gunny ermy for being so good in FMJ)

So... you dont look down on... say... pedophiles? Because WHAT THEY DO IMPACTS THE SOCIETY I LIVE IN. Tollerance has limits.

yes, tolerance has it's limits, and i have spoken out adamently against pedophiles on this site in the past. and i'm loosing tolerance for your stupidity, a gay couple doing something in their own home, not subjecting others to it is INCREDEBLY different from a pedophile raping a child. Think, i know it must hurt, but it will help you out alot.

[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

 

[RoyalOrleans]

What can you expect from someone who spells tolerance tollerance.

Not to mention, savvy with only one v.

 

[hugo]

The fact is gayness is almost certainly a combination of nature and nurture. It ain't one or the other.

 

[hugo]

Not to mention, savvy with only one v.

And disdain as distain.

 

[RoyalOrleans]

My black thread was way too long for the short attention span of the internet savy. All things of perfection tend to be, so I will address the issue of gays, because, for me, it is as short as a chinamans dingy. I don't hate gay people, but I do hold some contempt for most of them. I sneer at most of them the way that I sneer at drama queens and sychophants... more of a... "get over it you pathetic ****" roll your eyes kind of way.
I think some people are gay. I think the vast majority of people who engage in homosexual behavior are not gay. I think that sometimes chemistry gets ****** up and some hormones go the wrong way during conception. You can see this in the people whom I refer to... that tell-tale androgony that is not begat of style, but features. I don't mean lisps, I don't mean flamboyance, I don't mean brutish or feminine behavior. Those are environmental cues that are adopted when defining ones self. Social cues. For those who are what I will call "born gay", I have compassion... and... well sympathy. It can't be easy to come to grips with that sort of thing I don't expect. Especially given some backgrounds. You can have all the civil union, health insurance **** you want in egalitarian means... no SPECIAL consideration, but fair egalitarianisms. That does not lend itself to marriage, primarily because the term marriage refers to a religious ceremony which is exclusive to heterosexuals for reasons of genetics, and has become intermingled (as many religious moralities) with law. You do not have to spite and dishonor a group because you aren't a part of it... isn't that what "gay rights" is fighting against? Im sidetracking...

The majority of "gays" I am convinced are socially influenced deviants. Once society accepts anti-social behavior (which homosexual activity is by definition) it becomes fashionable. Things that buck the system are fashionable. People who are unaccepted by society at large, tend to be the ones bucking it. The liberating nature of legally protected protest against a normal society, begets more of it.

If you believe that all gays are "born gay" I would like to point out that either you think ALL Greeks were genetically predisposed to homosexuality, or you have to accept that SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE of the practice had SOMETHING to do with it. Either you accept that prison *** is ALWAYS perpetrated by homosexuals, or you realize that "gay for the stay" is a trend born of social environment. Some guys in the pen engage in "loving" relationships, not rape or even necessarily sexual ones (though I think most probably are), who would NEVER in a million years do so outside of a male only prison system. When they leave, they leave that there as well. Either you open your ******* eyes and realize that it is ABSOLUTELY environmentally influenced, or you are a complete fucktard and I will ruin you with logic when you reply.

You're ******* in the wind.

Preaching to the choir.

Great. Another ******* mongoloid. You people need a lobbyist.

 

[hugo]

The government that governs best governs least. Society should leave consenting adults alone.

 

[Jhony5]

Jesus Christmas already with the spelling error corrections. Iespell is available for download at http://www.iespell.com/ Download it, use it and we may move on from that aspect of rebuttal.

Nothing distracts from a debate/discussion more than people simply hunting for errors in grammar/spelling.

Posted by Hugo:

The government that governs best governs least. Society should leave consenting adults alone.

Very well put and I fully agree. However with the politics of homosexuality these days, I find myself wishing they (homos) would leave the government alone.
Two men have never been allowed to become legally betrothed and reap the financial benefits of marriage.

Our laws are being adjusted to fit what the San Francisco liberal homosexual lobbyist agenda would like it to be. The rest of America that stands outside of their purview does not want this.

If I kick a homos *** I will go to jail. Granted thats fair. If I call him a ****** while doing so, I will go to prison under the federal hate crimes act.

Remember when the federal government abolished anti-sodomy laws back what, 10 years ago? I cannot forget the countless images of gays taking to the streets in full parade regalia celebrating. But what were they celebrating? Another step up in gay rights? Or the drumming down of moral standards that have, up until recently, held this nation above the water line of depravity. They were actually in full celebration of the legality of buttfucking, when you remove the PC terms applied.

posted by Hugo:

So you are too ******* stupid to understand the difference between actions between consenting adults and similar actions between an adult and a child?

Heres where the conceived moral depravities become entwined. Homosexuality and pedophilia have as much in common as they do not have in common. What they do not have in common is obvious, so I need not explain. So what is it that they have in common? Well they both engage in an alternate lifestyle that differs from the norm. They both fly in the face of the moral standards of the majority religion of this nation and this nations government.

Now neither one of these things bother me in the least. What bothers me goes back to the beginning of my post. When I referred to my issue with the homosexual lobbyist in the legislative process. What ties them (pedophiles and homosexuals) together is the bed they share on the political stage.

The ACLU.

They are often the voice of the homosexual agenda. This same voice speaks for the rights of child sexual offenders. When two parties speak from the same mouth with the same voice, the inevitable result is a conjoinment of the two entities.

Posted by Ctrl:

So... you don't look down on... say... pedophiles? Because WHAT THEY DO IMPACTS THE SOCIETY I LIVE IN. Tolerance has limits.

Now this is key. When we watch the ACLU knocking down barriers for the rights of gays, at the same time we hear them lobby for the same action for pedophiles, a posturing as a legitimate threat has evolved.

Like an epileptic using Morse code, it sends a mixed signal

 

[hugo]

There is no doubt that the gay agenda, as is the agenda of all so-called civil rights groups, goes beyond equal protection under the law. IMO, the government should only be in the business of civil unions. Marriage should be in the religious sphere. The fact is the sanctity of marriage has already been destroyed by heterosexuals; whatever happened to until death do you part?

Our nation sprung from the philosophies of classical liberals. At the core of classical liberalism is the belief in individual liberty. People should have the right to engage in alternative lifestyles providing all parties involved are of legal age. You rightfully understand the stupidity of criminalizing marijuana. You do not understand the stupidity of criminalizing sodomy. I don't smoke weed or engage in sodomy myself but I believe that under the principle of maximizing the liberty of the individual that neither should be criminalized.

When our nation was founded the principle of individual liberty basically only applied to straight white males. The seed was planted however. Over the last 230 years women and people of color have achieved equal protection under the law (in fact I would argue a bit more than that). When you allow government to attack one man's individual preferences you sooner or later attack us all. I can't legally drink that 24 ounce Bud when I am coming from work. You can't light up a joint in your own home. A bar owner. in many areas of the country, cannot establish his own smoking policy. Until recently you could not take it up the ***, if you so wished, in your own bedroom.

I see no chance of legalized pedophilia. The ACLU will take about any cause. What can I say..they are pinko-commie child molester advocates and , yes, it seems to me that pedophilia is more common in the gay community and gays would be smart to rid themselves of groups such as NAMBLA. This does not mean gays with no interest in children should be penalized. If anything society seems to be taking a tougher stand on pedophilia as reflected by laws and attitudes. Nowadays ya don't just keep your kids away from Uncle Bubba because he has a little problem. Uncle Bubba goes to jail.

I agree with the correction of spelling errors as a **** poor debate tactic. I only do that when some jackass corrects another's error while making one or more of his own. This ain't a term paper. I don't tend to spell check and proof read.

 

[Jhony5]

posted by Hugo:

You do not understand the stupidity of criminalizing sodomy.

I guess I should have phrased it differently when I mentioned the so called decriminalization of sodomy. I too do not think the government should have any say in what people do in their own homes, sexually. I meant only to convey the sheer unadulterated ******* stupidity of taking too the streets in parade style celebration of these laws being stricken down. It was among the most bizarre events I have ever witnessed. Homosexuals were not being rounded up in buttfuck stings. There were no lynch mobs kicking in doors to hang the sodomites from the 'ol tree in town square. Frankly, the only people that were ever charged with sodomy were rapist and child molesters.

When our nation was founded the principle of individual liberty basically only applied to straight white males.

Very true. I was suspended from high school when I mentioned this to my history teacher and refused to give a formal apology to the class. It was deemed as a 'racist' proclaimation.

Our nation sprung from the philosophies of classical liberals.

Yes, and they seemed far more interested in equal rights than special rights. The question I struggle with is, is the idea of civil unions (gay marriage) an extension of inherent equal rights, or the creation of a special right extended to homosexuals only? I go back and forth with my own opinion on this. I've never been a big fan of legislated morality standards. On the other hand, without some code of morality intertwined in our laws, the foundation of our society would be compromised.

 

[hugo]

Where I have problems with civil rights laws is when they limit the individual's freedom to discriminate. If I am a employer I should have the right to hire and fire anyone I please for any reason including because I don't like there color, gender or religion. If I am a landlord I should have the right also to discriminate, similarly if I am a business owner. Individual liberty includes the liberty to discriminate. The free market will keep discrimination to a minimum. I really feel that with a truly limited government government would not even need to be in the civil union business and that individuals could make whatever contract they wish between themselves defining their relationship.

What I struggle with is whether or not gay marriage is a state issue or a federal issue.I am leanig toward a federal one based on Loving vs. Virginia the USSC decision that ended state ban of interracial marriages. The final arbitrator, in the absence of a federal amendment, will be the USSC.

 

[Jhony5]

Posted by Hugo:

Individual liberty includes the liberty to discriminate.

Boy I don't know, Hugo. That seems a bit of a leap doesn't it? If I were to paraphrase that I would do it as follows. Individual liberty includes the liberty to deny others of their liberty. Being granted unlimited freedom to deny others of their freedom sounds counter productive to a progressive social structure.
If this sort of "freedom" was granted, would it not transfer to emergency and authority structures? i.e. police, firefighters, ambulance services, port authorities. Than what? Sounds like one step up from anarchism too me.

The free market will keep discrimination to a minimum.

Well...ya I guess in some sectors it would. However wouldn't there also be room for free market to cater too discrimination? For example:Whites only restaurants. Homosexuals only ice cream parlors (parking in rear ). All that separation seems a step back for our society. There has to be a better way to extend freedoms without drawing so many social divides.