PDA

View Full Version : So you think homosexuality is perfectly normal and acceptable?



stsinner
05-15-2009, 09:26 AM
So you think that homosexuality is perfectly normal and natural, huh? Well, let's analyze this situation as rational adults, shall we?

Homosexuality, as I'm discussing it here, is the attraction of a human being to another human being of the same sex. Due to the make up of the human body and the fact that opposite-gender sex results in procreation, it's quite obvious that homosexuality is a deviation from the way nature intended (whatever your religious beliefs), genetic, or not. Agreed?

Homosexuality is what? An attraction to another adult of the same gender, the desire to have sex with this person of the same gender and to have a relationship with them (or not), and it's increasingly being forced on society and pushed as being perfectly normal and acceptable when it was once condemned and those partaking of it ostracized or imprisoned or killed.

Perfectly natural, right? After all, you're born predisposed to love other men or other women, right, and therefore it can't be wrong, right?

Well, then what about the man who grows up and is attracted to the same sex, but he prefers for them to be young and innocent and, well, a child? He thinks about sex, and nothing besides sex with a young boy turns him on. Perfectly natural, right, and how can we demonize him when he was, after all, born that way, right? Who are we to judge, right? No! This person is correctly labeled sick and condemned to never have sex legally. This is a pedophile.

And what about the adult human being who finds himself only attracted to various animals? These are the natural feelings of this person, and they didn't choose to have them, so how can we condemn them for them, right? After all, what turns you on and gives you pleasure, homosexuals argue, is nothing you can choose, and it is what it is genetically, and, therefore, must be natural and perfectly okay, right? Wrong!! This behavior is called bestiality, and it is illegal.

What's the one difference between Homosexuality, Pedophilia and Bestiality? One is with a consenting human being who has reached the age of majority and, therefore, deemed by society to be capable of making a legal decision to consent.

All are disgusting perversions of nature and should be illegal.

I don't care how natural you think homosexuality is-if it is, then too bad for you that you were born with that deficiency. If it's beyond your control who you are attracted to, than what can you do about that, right? I mean you can't control it, right? THAT DOESN'T MEAN YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO ACT ON THAT SICK URGE, JUST AS IN THE CASE OF THE PEDOPHILE AND PERSON ATTRACTED TO ANIMALS. THE FACT THAT IT'S AN ADULT OVER THE AGE OF CONSENT IS THE ONLY DIFFERENCE. The behavior is still abhorrent to the majority of Americans.

No different than being born with some form of retardation that limits your movement or senses-sorry, but you will never drive a car. Sorry, but no matter how bad you may want to drive a car, society just can't see fit to allow this because you were born with a deficiency. The same with homosexuality, if it is in-born, which I don't believe, then you have a perverted mind that is somehow deficient, and you shouldn't be allowed to act on this deficiency, just as the pedophile is not allowed to and nor is the proponent of bestiality.

linda22003
05-15-2009, 09:35 AM
This is apparently a topic of ongoing fascination to you. Equating it with pedophilia is a new variation for you; what about heterosexual pedophiles? Sex with children is by nature predatory, and that's just wrong. But it doesn't mean that heterosexuality is automatically tarred with that brush, even though heteros commit pedophilia at least as often as gays.
Some of us pay a lot more attention to our own sex lives than other people's. :rolleyes:

linda22003
05-15-2009, 09:39 AM
As to the retarded not being allowed to drive, that is sadly not true. See my "Friday Fill-Up" thread; the retarded sometimes own and drive Porsche SUVs. :rolleyes:

stsinner
05-15-2009, 09:41 AM
This is apparently a topic of ongoing fascination to you. Equating it with pedophilia is a new variation for you; what about heterosexual pedophiles? Sex with children is by nature predatory, and that's just wrong. But it doesn't mean that heterosexuality is automatically tarred with that brush, even though heteros commit pedophilia at least as often as gays.
Some of us pay a lot more attention to our own sex lives than other people's. :rolleyes:

Oh, hello, Linda. I've missed you!! Well, with regard to paying attention to others' sex lives, I wouldn't give a damn at all about what anyone did if it wasn't being forced on my children and the homo-marriage debate on my television nearly every day. Personally, I wish they had their own island so they could have be as immoral and disgusting as they wanted, and I would have to deal with explaining to my children why society is trying to tell them that this perversion of nature is okay and perfectly normal.

With regard to your bestiality question, I didn't mention sexual preference other than to say human-animal. It's a perverted urge, as is the urge to have sex with a human of the same sex.

As far as being a topic of ongoing fascination with me-I figured a lot of people had read the other thread ad nauseum and likely wouldn't be back, so I started a fresh thread to put out some perspective. And, yes, I supposed that seeing the moral fiber of my once moral country unravel is a topic of ongoing fascination, and they new sick pleasures that are deemed okay almost daily are of interest to me.

Shannon
05-15-2009, 09:44 AM
I don't think homosexuality should be illegal but I sure am tired of hearing about it. A couple of weeks ago a girl I work with told me she was gay. She seemed surprised that I didn't already know. Why would I? Other peoples sex lives is not something I think about.

linda22003
05-15-2009, 09:46 AM
With regard to your bestiality question, I didn't mention sexual preference other than to say human-animal. It's a perverted urge, as is the urge to have sex with a human of the same sex.



Where did I mention bestiality, let alone ask a question about it?

stsinner
05-15-2009, 09:47 AM
I don't think homosexuality should be illegal but I sure am tired of hearing about it. A couple of weeks ago a girl I work with told me she was gay. She seemed surprised that I didn't already know. Why would I? Other peoples sex lives is not something I think about.

You mean she didn't already proudly proclaim it with a rainbow sticker on her car so that you could, accordingly, give her preferential treatment?

Sorry to hear that, Shannon. I've always hated working with homosexuals because once everyone knows they are the new protected class that aren't allowed to get bad reviews or get fired.. My wife's boss is gay, and she sucks at her job, but she still have a job. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that she is openly gay. No, surely not.

Of course homosexuality should be illegal. People can have any feelings or urges they desire. What should be illegal is acting upon those urges, as sodomy has traditionally been.

stsinner
05-15-2009, 09:49 AM
Where did I mention bestiality, let alone ask a question about it?

Forgive me-I'm multi-tasking :). Well, the same holds true for the Pedophile. Desiring sex with a child is not natural, and is rightly a criminal offense if acted upon.

Apocalypse
05-15-2009, 09:50 AM
Your homophobia reminds me of this study.




Is Homophobia Associated With Homosexual Arousal?


Henry E. Adams, Lester W. Wright, Jr., and Bethany A. Lohr
University of Georgia


The authors investigated the role of homosexual arousal in exclusively heterosexual men who admitted negative affect toward homosexual individuals. Participants consisted of a group of homophobic men (n = 35) and a group of nonhomophobic men (n = 29); they were assigned to groups on the basis of their scores on the Index of Homophobia (W. W. Hudson & W. A. Ricketts, 1980). The men were exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual, and lesbian videotapes, and changes in penile circumference were monitored. They also completed an Aggression Questionnaire (A. H. Buss & M. Perry, 1992 ). Both groups exhibited increases in penile circumference to the heterosexual and female homosexual videos. Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli. The groups did not differ in
aggression. Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.


http://blogs.psychologytoday.com/files/u47/Henry_et_al.pdf

linda22003
05-15-2009, 09:54 AM
I've been mulling over your last statement about your "once moral country", stsinner. I understand what you mean, but I don't think you can paint with such broad brush strokes. Have we always been a uniformly moral country? I don't think so. Gays may be "out" now, but on the other hand, we don't think it's right to hang black people from trees any more, and set their bodies on fire.

(You knew that, right?) ;)

linda22003
05-15-2009, 09:56 AM
Forgive me-I'm multi-tasking :). Well, the same holds true for the Pedophile. Desiring sex with a child is not natural, and is rightly a criminal offense if acted upon.

We agree on pedophilia and bestiality. For me, it's because of the inability to consent, hence it is predatory on the instigator's part. Serious question - I'm in a more conversational mood today than a confrontational one - do you think there is any possibility that making homosexuality illegal, and your supposition that it would stop illegal behavior, is achievable?

Rebel Yell
05-15-2009, 09:56 AM
Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.

And the Klan secretly love black folk.:rolleyes:


Like I said in an earlier thread. On average people don't have a problem with gay people, they just get tired of faggotts who think they have to announce to anyone in ear shot how gay they are. You're gay, we believe you, you don't have to prove it.

Rebel Yell
05-15-2009, 09:57 AM
We agree on pedophilia and bestiality. For me, it's because of the inability to consent, hence it is predatory on the instigator's part. Serious question - I'm in a more conversational mood today than a confrontational one - do you think there is any possibility that making homosexuality illegal, and your supposition that it would stop illegal behavior, is achievable?

Did we up the Lexapro?;):D

Water Closet
05-15-2009, 10:00 AM
So you think that homosexuality is perfectly normal and natural, huh? Well, let's analyze this situation as rational adults, shall we?

Homosexuality, as I'm discussing it here, is the attraction of a human being to another human being of the same sex. Due to the make up of the human body and the fact that opposite-gender sex results in procreation, it's quite obvious that homosexuality is a deviation from the way nature intended (whatever your religious beliefs), genetic, or not. Agreed?

No. Nature does not "intend." You're anthropomorphizing. One of the results of heterosexual sex in most species is procreation. However, for humans at least, sex is also a lot of fun. Should that requirement for procreation become no longer so for humans, i.e., if humans are through technology able to procreate without sexual intercourse, does that mean sex of whatever type will be "wrong?"


Homosexuality is what? An attraction to another adult of the same gender, the desire to have sex with this person of the same gender and to have a relationship with them (or not), and it's increasingly being forced on society and pushed as being perfectly normal and acceptable when it was once condemned and those partaking of it ostracized or imprisoned or killed.

Ah, for the good old days (that "no one expected").


Perfectly natural, right? After all, you're born predisposed to love other men or other women, right, and therefore it can't be wrong, right?

You are conflating terminology here - "natural," "wrong." Natural from what standard? Wrong from what standard"


Well, then what about the man who grows up and is attracted to the same sex, but he prefers for them to be young and innocent and, well, a child? He thinks about sex, and nothing besides sex with a young boy turns him on. Perfectly natural, right, and how can we demonize him when he was, after all, born that way, right? Who are we to judge, right? No! This person is correctly labeled sick and condemned to never have sex legally. This is a pedophile.

Well, then what about the man who grows up and is attracted to the opposite sex, but he prefers for them to be young and innocent and, well, a child? He thinks about sex, and nothing besides sex with a young girl turns him on. Perfectly natural, right, and how can we demonize him when he was, after all, born that way, right? Who are we to judge, right? No! This person is correctly labeled sick and condemned to never have sex legally. This is a pedophile.

And what does this have to do with homosexuality? Of course pedophilia is illegal as one of the parties cannot give consent. Private behaviour between consenting adults, however, is none of the government's business.


And what about the adult human being who finds himself only attracted to various animals? These are the natural feelings of this person, and they didn't choose to have them, so how can we condemn them for them, right? After all, what turns you on and gives you pleasure, homosexuals argue, is nothing you can choose, and it is what it is genetically, and, therefore, must be natural and perfectly okay, right? Wrong!! This behavior is called bestiality, and it is illegal.

And what does this have to do with homosexuality? Of course beastiality is illegal as one of the parties cannot give consent. Private behaviour between consenting adults, however, is none of the government's business.


What's the one difference between Homosexuality, Pedophilia and Bestiality? One is with a consenting human being who has reached the age of majority and, therefore, deemed by society to be capable of making a legal decision to consent.

All are disgusting perversions of nature and should be illegal.

And that makes all the difference between legal activities and illegal ones. Incidentally, your opinion regarding the "disgustingness" of any of these behaviours is irrelevant to the law.


I don't care how natural you think homosexuality is-if it is, then too bad for you that you were born with that deficiency. No different than being born with some form of retardation-sorry, but you will never drive a car. Sorry, but no matter how bad you may want to drive a car, society just can't see fit to allow this because you were born with a deficiency. The same with homosexuality, if it is in-born, which I don't believe, then you have a perverted mind that is somehow deficient, and you shouldn't be allowed to act on this deficiency, just as the pedophile is not allowed to and nor is the proponent of bestiality.

Sigh! Driving a car is not a "private activity" as it can impact others. I'm not sure what "the proponent of beastiality" even means, but the legal difference between homosexuality and bestiality/pedophilia in terms of ability to consent is clear. Your own morals or tastes should have no affect upon public policy.

linda22003
05-15-2009, 10:05 AM
Did we up the Lexapro?;):D

No. Here's why I'm in such a good mood, in case you missed it:

http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?t=14297

Rockntractor
05-15-2009, 10:09 AM
No. Here's why I'm in such a good mood, in case you missed it:

http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?t=14297
Right now Linda numbers is in to boats and butlers not butts!

expat-pattaya
05-15-2009, 10:12 AM
As to the retarded not being allowed to drive, that is sadly not true. See my "Friday Fill-Up" thread; the retarded sometimes own and drive Porsche SUVs. :rolleyes:

HEY. I have a Porsche SUV. :o

linda22003
05-15-2009, 10:15 AM
HEY. I have a Porsche SUV. :o

If you check the thread, THAT does not make you retarded. Running out of gas in the middle of heavy commuting traffic in one DOES make you retarded.

Rockntractor
05-15-2009, 10:21 AM
If you check the thread, THAT does not make you retarded. Running out of gas in the middle of heavy commuting traffic in one DOES make you retarded.
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/nano-porsche-911.jpg?t=1242397231
Now thats retarded!

linda22003
05-15-2009, 10:23 AM
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/nano-porsche-911.jpg?t=1242397231
Now thats retarded!

Or (trying to stick to the thread topic) possibly even gay. Should it be illegal? :)

Water Closet
05-15-2009, 10:24 AM
Or (trying to stick to the thread topic) possibly even gay. Should it be illegal? :)

If so, should we execute the driver just like the good old days? :D

Rebel Yell
05-15-2009, 10:25 AM
No. Here's why I'm in such a good mood, in case you missed it:

http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?t=14297

Must be nice to have that kind of luck. I'm happy for you, though.

stsinner
05-15-2009, 10:39 AM
We agree on pedophilia and bestiality. For me, it's because of the inability to consent, hence it is predatory on the instigator's part. Serious question - I'm in a more conversational mood today than a confrontational one - do you think there is any possibility that making homosexuality illegal, and your supposition that it would stop illegal behavior, is achievable?

I don't care about stopping it, because that would be like saying that you're going to stop the sun from rising.. There will always be deficient people in this world, and we can't stop that. What I would advocate is making teaching our children that it is perfectly natural and fine illegal, making shows on other than movie channels that depict it illegal, basically acting like we have morals that anything you want to do is NOT okay. Choices no longer seem to have consequences unless it's the choice to try to hold onto your morals and teach your family the morals and ethical standards you were raised with by God fearing parents who were much more pure than those judging us today.

I don't wish homosexuals ill or advocate proactive offense or violence toward them. I'm all about live and let live because we will all atone for our lives lived the way we lived them, but get it out of my face, get it out of my living room, and get it out of our schools. That's all I ask. Let me be me, and I'll let you be you, but just as I won't force my sexuality on you, don't you homosexuals force me to deal with your lifestyle and trials and tribulations.

Regarding the hanging blacks from trees comment by you earlier, that was another cheap shot.

stsinner
05-15-2009, 10:50 AM
Private behaviour between consenting adults, however, is none of the government's business..

Of course it's not. But homosexuals continue to bring their lifestyle to the government in an attempt to have the government sanction it and legislate its, "normalcy." It's not the government that got involved in the lives of the homosexuals-it's the homosexuals who lobby the government and hold demonstrations and insist on marching in parades where families will be forced to acknowledge them, etc.

I, along with most, I'd assume, don't care one bit about, "Private behavior," but it's increasingly becoming not-so-private. And that is what I have a problem with. It's to the point where you alomst can't turn on the news without seeing homosexuals complaining about something. Even in California where THE PEOPLE VOTED-followed the letter of the law of the land we live in, and homosexuals got all uppity and challenged the legislation. This just proves that they have no shame. The people around them don't consent to them getting married, but they don't care!! This is the disrespect shown toward straight people that the homosexuals claim we're showing toward them.

How many times have you heard someone say something to the effect of, "I'll leave the decision up to you, and no matter whether I agree with your decision or not, I'll respect your opinion." Well, homosexuals don't exhibit this rational behavior-they can't just accept civil unions and equal rights under the law. We give an inch, but they want a mile.

Water Closet
05-15-2009, 11:02 AM
Of course it's not. But homosexuals continue to bring their lifestyle to the government in an attempt to have the government sanction it and legislate its, "normalcy." It's not the government that got involved in the lives of the homosexuals-it's the homosexuals who lobby the government and hold demonstrations and insist on marching in parades where families will be forced to acknowledge them, etc.

I, along with most, I'd assume, don't care one bit about, "Private behavior," but it's increasingly becoming not-so-private. And that is what I have a problem with. It's to the point where you alomst can't turn on the news without seeing homosexuals complaining about something. Even in California where THE PEOPLE VOTED-followed the letter of the law of the land we live in, and homosexuals got all uppity and challenged the legislation. This just proves that they have no shame. The people around them don't consent to them getting married, but they don't care!! This is the disrespect shown toward straight people that the homosexuals claim we're showing toward them.

How many times have you heard someone say something to the effect of, "I'll leave the decision up to you, and no matter whether I agree with your decision or not, I'll respect your opinion." Well, homosexuals don't exhibit this rational behavior-they can't just accept civil unions and equal rights under the law. We give an inch, but they want a mile.

The government should alway be "value neutral" in private behaviour between consenting adults that does not impact others. Currently it is not in its recognition of opposite-sex marriage and the benefits it bestows upon those.

Homosexuals simply want the same rights and responsibilities accorded to opposite-sex married couples in this country. As to "giving an inch," that's a bit of a laugh. Same-sex marriages and/or domestic partnerships are only recognized in a handful of locales and not by the federal government at all.

stsinner
05-15-2009, 11:09 AM
The government should alway be "value neutral" in private behaviour between consenting adults that does not impact others. Currently it is not in its recognition of opposite-sex marriage and the benefits it bestows upon those.

Homosexuals simply want the same rights and responsibilities accorded to opposite-sex married couples in this country. As to "giving an inch," that's a bit of a laugh. Same-sex marriages and/or domestic partnerships are only recognized in a handful of locales and not by the federal government at all.

Civil unions and equal rights under the law should be enough. No need to call it marriage, which has always had a religious connotation.

linda22003
05-15-2009, 11:18 AM
It's to the point where you alomst can't turn on the news without seeing homosexuals complaining about something.

That's what people said in the 1960's with the lunch counter sit ins and the firehoses in the streets. I believe the word "uppity" was used back then, too. I know you will counter with your old "people can't help being born black, that's different", so I'll point out that what I'm using here is an analogy. Any group testing the limits on "rights" is more obvious and overt in the beginning, when their claims seem more unusual.

Water Closet
05-15-2009, 11:22 AM
Civil unions and equal rights under the law should be enough. No need to call it marriage, which has always had a religious connotation.

Well, if they had that in any but a very few places, perhaps they might be. Or is that a slippery slope?

stsinner
05-15-2009, 11:27 AM
That's what people said in the 1960's with the lunch counter sit ins and the firehoses in the streets. I believe the word "uppity" was used back then, too. I know you will counter with your old "people can't help being born black, that's different", so I'll point out that what I'm using here is an analogy. Any group testing the limits on "rights" is more obvious and overt in the beginning, when their claims seem more unusual.

Linda, whether we want to admit it or not, religion shapes many peoples' feelings toward homosexuals. My religion, for instance, tells me that it's wrong.

Everyone belongs to a religion, whether it's Catholic, Baptist, Muslim, or even atheist or agnostic, and those religions give you guidelines by which to live your life. The government has no right, in a country that was founded on religious tolerance, telling me that what my religions says about homosexuality is wrong or even illegal. This is a topic that has no business in the legislative confines of the government and should be dealt with on a personal level, not legislated by government.. Skin color is a whole separate issue, and that doesn't not cut down religious lines. Abhorrent behavior that is viewed by many as a choice does, and no amount of legislation will ever force me to say to a homosexual that I agree with their lifestyle and think it's just another type of normal. I will be civil to them, but I will never condone their lifestyle.

comparing the civil rights movements of blacks and women to homosexuals is not even a valid argument.

Lars1701a
05-15-2009, 11:28 AM
Well, if they had that in any but a very few places, perhaps they might be. Or is that a slippery slope?

They dont want civil unions or Marriage, what they really want is for normal straight people to accept their perversions as if it was "normal " Thats what this is all about.

Water Closet
05-15-2009, 11:31 AM
They dont want civil unions or Marriage, what they really want is for normal straight people to accept their perversions as if it was "normal " Thats what this is all about.

That may be true in an abstract sense, but the various rights one acquires through marriage are probably of more practical (and financial) importance to gays.

Lars1701a
05-15-2009, 11:40 AM
That may be true in an abstract sense, but the various rights one acquires through marriage are probably of more practical (and financial) importance to gays.

I bet if you did a poll right now with gays, I wager the vast majority dont want to get married. Civil unions will take care of all those financial problems.

linda22003
05-15-2009, 11:42 AM
Everyone belongs to a religion, whether it's Catholic, Baptist, Muslim, or even atheist or agnostic, and those religions give you guidelines by which to live your life. The government has no right, in a country that was founded on religious tolerance, telling me that what my religions says about homosexuality is wrong or even illegal.

And I'm not aware that it does. Your faith beliefs are valid for you, and I would never want to interfere with those. Your particular faith beliefs should also not necessarily limit the rights of others. I think it is fine if Muslims do not believe in eating pork, but I damn well expect to be able to get some ribs at the supermarket for the grill tomorrow night.

Rockntractor
05-15-2009, 11:46 AM
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/233387012_a17e178695.jpg?t=1242402245
And I'm not aware that it does. Your faith beliefs are valid for you, and I would never want to interfere with those. Your particular faith beliefs should also not necessarily limit the rights of others. I think it is fine if Muslims do not believe in eating pork, but I damn well expect to be able to get some ribs at the supermarket for the grill tomorrow night.
Hey! Thats not nice!

linda22003
05-15-2009, 11:47 AM
Hey! Thats not nice!

Sorry. Nothing personal. ;)

Odysseus
05-15-2009, 12:00 PM
My wife's boss is gay, and she sucks at her job,...

Literally? What's her job? Porn star? :D

linda22003
05-15-2009, 12:05 PM
Literally? What's her job? Porn star? :D

Careful, now. If that's his wife's boss, that would mean his wife is in the same industry. :eek::cool:

wilbur
05-15-2009, 12:09 PM
So you think that homosexuality is perfectly normal and natural, huh? Well, let's analyze this situation as rational adults, shall we?

Homosexuality, as I'm discussing it here, is the attraction of a human being to another human being of the same sex. Due to the make up of the human body and the fact that opposite-gender sex results in procreation, it's quite obvious that homosexuality is a deviation from the way nature intended (whatever your religious beliefs), genetic, or not. Agreed?

Homosexuality is what? An attraction to another adult of the same gender, the desire to have sex with this person of the same gender and to have a relationship with them (or not), and it's increasingly being forced on society and pushed as being perfectly normal and acceptable when it was once condemned and those partaking of it ostracized or imprisoned or killed.

Perfectly natural, right? After all, you're born predisposed to love other men or other women, right, and therefore it can't be wrong, right?


Yes, lets analyze this like "rational adults", as you put it... but even this far into the post, youve already gotten off that bus...




Well, then what about the man who grows up and is attracted to the same sex, but he prefers for them to be young and innocent and, well, a child? He thinks about sex, and nothing besides sex with a young boy turns him on. Perfectly natural, right, and how can we demonize him when he was, after all, born that way, right? Who are we to judge, right? No! This person is correctly labeled sick and condemned to never have sex legally. This is a pedophile.


Pedophilia is wrong because of its consequences to children.... nor is it a defining characteristic of a pedophile to be attracted to the same sex, although it does often happen. A pedophile will always choose a prepubescent child, over gender.



And what about the adult human being who finds himself only attracted to various animals? These are the natural feelings of this person, and they didn't choose to have them, so how can we condemn them for them, right? After all, what turns you on and gives you pleasure, homosexuals argue, is nothing you can choose, and it is what it is genetically, and, therefore, must be natural and perfectly okay, right? Wrong!! This behavior is called bestiality, and it is illegal.

What's the one difference between Homosexuality, Pedophilia and Bestiality? One is with a consenting human being who has reached the age of majority and, therefore, deemed by society to be capable of making a legal decision to consent.

All are disgusting perversions of nature and should be illegal.


Actually, all are expressions of a very wide and varied human nature... all of them. We make some of them illegal because of their consequences to other human beings, who have a right to express their nature... free from the unreasonable impositions of another human being (even though he may be simply trying to express his nature).

There's no such thing as a perversion of nature. From a scientific perspective, everything that can be known to exist is natural... everything... the only things that are not natural are the supernatural, which cannot be said definitely exist. Generally, in science... if it can be observed its said to be a part of the natural world, and would fall under the domain of scientific inquiry.

When you, and others here use the term natural in such a way, you use it in a completely different context totally removed from the way in which it is used in science (aka naturalism). You then try and claim you make a scientific argument. But it doest work, its simply disguised theism that attempts to smuggle scientific street cred through the back door. This is a mistake thats made several times a day around here at this rate.



I don't care how natural you think homosexuality is-if it is, then too bad for you that you were born with that deficiency. If it's beyond your control who you are attracted to, than what can you do about that, right? I mean you can't control it, right? THAT DOESN'T MEAN YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO ACT ON THAT SICK URGE, JUST AS IN THE CASE OF THE PEDOPHILE AND PERSON ATTRACTED TO ANIMALS. THE FACT THAT IT'S AN ADULT OVER THE AGE OF CONSENT IS THE ONLY DIFFERENCE. The behavior is still abhorrent to the majority of Americans.

No different than being born with some form of retardation that limits your movement or senses-sorry, but you will never drive a car. Sorry, but no matter how bad you may want to drive a car, society just can't see fit to allow this because you were born with a deficiency. The same with homosexuality, if it is in-born, which I don't believe, then you have a perverted mind that is somehow deficient, and you shouldn't be allowed to act on this deficiency, just as the pedophile is not allowed to and nor is the proponent of bestiality.

Again, although I will be thought of, as "obsessed" with religion, it needs to be shown where this type of thinking comes from. From the Christian worldview, when one lives in sin, one actually invites sin into their lives, so-to-speak. Sin begets more sin. I don't think its an entirely wrong notion, that doing bad things generally brings bad things upon oneself... but this line of thought becomes especially pronounced when it comes to sexual "sins". And it leads to problems.

In this worldview, all sexual acts, tend to be divvied into one of two categories: As God intended, or sexual deviance. This is no different than categorizing things as sinful or good.. but again, it becomes much more pronounced in the sexual sin family.... just look at the post I am responding too if you don't believe me.

Pedophilia and bestiality would of course, get lumped into the deviance category... then homosexuality gets thrown in the category too... S&M as well... the more conservative lot might even throw in the use of birth control, or other types of sex where babies can't be made, into the deviance category also. If one makes a regular habit of any of these things in this deviance category, they naturally run the risk of moving into other forms of deviance, in this category. They invite "sin" into their lives.

The very real distinctions between these acts, their causes, and their consequences are all mixed together into one delightfully sinful bowl of sexual deviance, to be lost forever... as a result, we see many people making all to common mistakes, repeatedly.. where it doesn't even occur to them to think of pedophilia or homosexuality as different things.... instead, one is like a graduated form of the other.. a natural consequence of living in a sinful way for too long. I think many actually view homosexuality as a "gateway" drug so to speak, into other things in the deviance soup... including pedophilia, and bestiality. The biggest problem with this is, there is no reasonable justification for believing any of it, except bad philosophy from ancient dead guys (whose knowledge in these areas we surpassed long long ago).

But modern science tells us differently.. There are distinctions between them.... major ones.. distinctions that scientists, psychologists and others have been explaining for years and years now. So lets get with the program already.

Odysseus
05-15-2009, 12:16 PM
Careful, now. If that's his wife's boss, that would mean his wife is in the same industry. :eek::cool:

She could be a grip or a make-up person. I wasn't suggesting that she was a fluffer. :D

Space Gravy
05-15-2009, 12:24 PM
I don't care about stopping it, because that would be like saying that you're going to stop the sun from rising.. There will always be deficient people in this world, and we can't stop that. What I would advocate is making teaching our children that it is perfectly natural and fine illegal, making shows on other than movie channels that depict it illegal, basically acting like we have morals that anything you want to do is NOT okay. Choices no longer seem to have consequences unless it's the choice to try to hold onto your morals and teach your family the morals and ethical standards you were raised with by God fearing parents who were much more pure than those judging us today.

I don't wish homosexuals ill or advocate proactive offense or violence toward them. I'm all about live and let live because we will all atone for our lives lived the way we lived them, but get it out of my face, get it out of my living room, and get it out of our schools. That's all I ask. Let me be me, and I'll let you be you, but just as I won't force my sexuality on you, don't you homosexuals force me to deal with your lifestyle and trials and tribulations.

Regarding the hanging blacks from trees comment by you earlier, that was another cheap shot.

Why do you need a law for that?

What is preventing you from doing that with your own children?

stsinner
05-15-2009, 12:42 PM
Why do you need a law for that?

What is preventing you from doing that with your own children?
The agenda of government schools is absolutely pro-homo acceptance. I think that sex education should be taught at home and left out of the classroom altogether. The fact that some parents won't pull their weight and do their parental duty to address this issue is not my problem. The school has no business deciding when my child should learn about sex and what's appropriate in the sexual realm. Books about Billy and his two moms and stuff like that undermine my parenting responsibility with regard to my beliefs and my religion, and I should not have to sit idly by while the school tries to program my kid at the direction of the government. Especially with this Socialist pig we now have in office. I don't want my kids seeing the world at all through his distorted, anti-American prism.. He was filmed saying that we should teach sex education to kindergartners..

linda22003
05-15-2009, 12:43 PM
Are you home schooling?

stsinner
05-15-2009, 12:44 PM
Wilbur, you just seem to be anti-family, anti-morals, anti-religion, anti-decency and I just can't believe you came up in America.. Of course I'm making an assumption, as I don't know you. Are you playing devil's advocate just to provoke thought, or do you really feel this way?

stsinner
05-15-2009, 12:47 PM
Are you home schooling?

Unfortunately, we can't afford it. A single income is not an option in Massachusetts for most people.. We are left with trying to deprogram our kids when they get home from the Liberal indoctrination centers.

linda22003
05-15-2009, 12:55 PM
Unfortunately, we can't afford it. A single income is not an option in Massachusetts for most people.. We are left with trying to deprogram our kids when they get home from the Liberal indoctrination centers.

I've noticed before that you've said you live in Massachusetts, and I can't think of anyone less suited to it than you. Why are you there? :o

wilbur
05-15-2009, 01:05 PM
Wilbur, you just seem to be anti-family, anti-morals, anti-religion, anti-decency and I just can't believe you came up in America.. Of course I'm making an assumption, as I don't know you. Are you playing devil's advocate just to provoke thought, or do you really feel this way?

I'm none of those things, except perhaps anti-religion. But I would hardly call the views you seem to hold about any of those other things as credible, or reasonable.... although I'm sure there would be some common ground between us, however slight.

I assure you, I am no devil's advocate here, this is what I believe. Perhaps you can point out the flaws you see in my reasoning?

Shannon
05-15-2009, 01:16 PM
Unfortunately, we can't afford it. A single income is not an option in Massachusetts for most people.. We are left with trying to deprogram our kids when they get home from the Liberal indoctrination centers.

It can get tiring sometimes. Fortunately for me, my son is well informed enough through me to filter through all the bs he is taught in school. He did his Social Studies project this year on Reagan and the fall of communism. I've never been so proud.:D

Lars1701a
05-15-2009, 01:17 PM
It can get tiring sometimes. Fortunately for me, my son is well informed enough through me to filter through all the bs he is taught in school. He did his Social Studies project this year on Reagan and the fall of communism. I've never been so proud.:D

How did your son turn out so well with a ditz like you? :p

linda22003
05-15-2009, 01:19 PM
[running to the office microwave to do a batch of popcorn]

Shannon
05-15-2009, 01:19 PM
How did your son turn out so well with a ditz like you? :p

There are many words that could be used to describe me. Ditz is not one of them.

Lars1701a
05-15-2009, 01:22 PM
There are many words that could be used to describe me. Ditz is not one of them.

Well I tried to be as nice as I could. You can throw in any word that best describes you.

hazlnut
05-15-2009, 01:24 PM
So you think that homosexuality is perfectly normal and natural, huh? Well, let's analyze this situation as rational adults, shall we?

Go ahead, whenever you are ready.

Because everything you've said so far comes from a place so hateful and ignorant that it is beyond sickening.

Trying to draw a comparison between sexual orientation and pedophilia and bestiality is a viciously bigoted argument.

Linda, Wilbur, and W/C are much braver than I. I wouldn't know where to start. Your OP represented to me a cesspool of a person, disgustingly ugly and hateful. Your attempt at an argument or a point was void of logic or thought, and demonstrated a complete lack of understanding about the relevant the social science and biological science.

Strip away all the hate and intolerance and your argument amounts to an almost moronic self-contradiction:

"How can an event that I agree may be naturally occurring be natural?" -- That's it. That is essentially what you/ve been saying for 5 pages now. "I don't feel conformable around these people so therefore it must be unnatural and should be made illegal."

I think the level of ignorance and hate you've revealed in this thread is destructive and contrary to a better society, and therefore unnatural.

Lars1701a
05-15-2009, 01:35 PM
Go ahead, whenever you are ready.

Because everything you've said so far comes from a place so hateful and ignorant that it is beyond sickening.

Trying to draw a comparison between sexual orientation and pedophilia and bestiality is a viciously bigoted argument.

Linda, Wilbur, and W/C are much braver than I. I wouldn't know where to start. Your OP represented to me a cesspool of a person, disgustingly ugly and hateful. Your attempt at an argument or a point was void of logic or thought, and demonstrated a complete lack of understanding about the relevant the social science and biological science.

Strip away all the hate and intolerance and your argument amounts to an almost moronic self-contradiction:

"How can an event that I agree may be naturally occurring be natural?" -- That's it. That is essentially what you/ve been saying for 5 pages now. "I don't feel conformable around these people so therefore it must be unnatural and should be made illegal."

I think the level of ignorance and hate you've revealed in this thread is destructive and contrary to a better society, and therefore unnatural.


Cancer is naturally occurring but shouldnt it be wiped out?

stsinner
05-15-2009, 01:45 PM
I've noticed before that you've said you live in Massachusetts, and I can't think of anyone less suited to it than you. Why are you there? :o

Met a MA woman while in the Army, married her, spent the next 12 years with her, had a son, settled in MA near her parents, now divorced from her-just being a Dad to my son until he's 18 and visitation stops.

stsinner
05-15-2009, 01:47 PM
It can get tiring sometimes. Fortunately for me, my son is well informed enough through me to filter through all the bs he is taught in school. He did his Social Studies project this year on Reagan and the fall of communism. I've never been so proud.:D

That's awesome!

stsinner
05-15-2009, 01:49 PM
Go ahead, whenever you are ready.

Because everything you've said so far comes from a place so hateful and ignorant that it is beyond sickening.

Trying to draw a comparison between sexual orientation and pedophilia and bestiality is a viciously bigoted argument.

Linda, Wilbur, and W/C are much braver than I. I wouldn't know where to start. Your OP represented to me a cesspool of a person, disgustingly ugly and hateful. Your attempt at an argument or a point was void of logic or thought, and demonstrated a complete lack of understanding about the relevant the social science and biological science.

Strip away all the hate and intolerance and your argument amounts to an almost moronic self-contradiction:

"How can an event that I agree may be naturally occurring be natural?" -- That's it. That is essentially what you/ve been saying for 5 pages now. "I don't feel conformable around these people so therefore it must be unnatural and should be made illegal."

I think the level of ignorance and hate you've revealed in this thread is destructive and contrary to a better society, and therefore unnatural.


My condolences for your immoral life devoid of any ethics and salvation. Your post doesn't even warrant a response beyond that. I pity your children, should you have any, as they will grow up not knowing right from wrong and thinking that morality is subjective.. It's truly sad.

A better society is not one in which there are more homosexuals, or in which homosexuals can marry. A better society would be if homosexuals were once again relegated to the fringes of society and ashamed to admit their affliction in public and families once again centered around the church and community, as our forefathers did who made this country great.. Our country was made great during a time when homosexuality was shunned and morals and ethics dominated family life. There is no case that can be presented in which the opposite would have made this country better, but, instead, it would have been profoundly worse.. We can easily see the effects of the decline of morality in our society with sexting teenagers and drug addicted teens and teen pregnancy rates, etc.. Your argument is sad and immoral.

Space Gravy
05-15-2009, 02:11 PM
The agenda of government schools is absolutely pro-homo acceptance. I think that sex education should be taught at home and left out of the classroom altogether. The fact that some parents won't pull their weight and do their parental duty to address this issue is not my problem. The school has no business deciding when my child should learn about sex and what's appropriate in the sexual realm. Books about Billy and his two moms and stuff like that undermine my parenting responsibility with regard to my beliefs and my religion, and I should not have to sit idly by while the school tries to program my kid at the direction of the government. Especially with this Socialist pig we now have in office. I don't want my kids seeing the world at all through his distorted, anti-American prism.. He was filmed saying that we should teach sex education to kindergartners..

You seriously think the law making power of the government should be used to stifle ideas that are different than yours? How very DU of you. Where's feebmaster when you need 'em?

Kind of sad when you see this idea on a conservative board.

Water Closet
05-15-2009, 02:14 PM
You seriously think the law making power of the government should be used to stifle ideas that are different than yours? How very DU of you. Where's feebmaster when you need 'em?

Of course he does as there's no difference between the extreme right and the extreme left. Both want more government power. The only difference is the agendas they wish enforced.

Two sides, same coin.

Lars1701a
05-15-2009, 02:15 PM
You seriously think the law making power of the government should be used to stifle ideas that are different than yours? How very DU of you. Where's feebmaster when you need 'em?

Kind of sad when you see this idea on a conservative board.

Funny I didnt read that in his paragraph.:confused:


Sounds like he didnt want schools i.e. government to teach sex ed to his kids. :confused:

Space Gravy
05-15-2009, 02:16 PM
Of course he does as there's no difference between the extreme right and the extreme left. Both want more government power. The only difference is the agendas they wish enforced.

Two sides, same coin.

Bingo!

Space Gravy
05-15-2009, 02:18 PM
Funny I didnt read that in his paragraph.:confused:


Sounds like he didnt want schools i.e. government to teach sex ed to his kids. :confused:

See where I quoted him in bold in post 40.

Water Closet
05-15-2009, 02:21 PM
.... Especially with this Socialist pig we now have in office. ...

"Socialist pig?" "Magic Negro?" "President Jerkweed?" Oh lawdy, lawdy, lawdy. Where's all that conservative respect for the office that was sooooo vaunted here a few months ago? And before my LA friend comes in with "gooses and ganders," fair enough. However, when you admit that, it makes you no different than all those DUmmies you derided all these years for not respecting the office!

Two sides, one coin.

Lars1701a
05-15-2009, 02:23 PM
See where I quoted him in bold in post 40.

I am all for stopping the schools from teaching kids that Homosexuality is ok. Whats wrong with that? dont say its bad either. ITS FOR THE PARENTS TO TEACH THAT TO THEIR KIDS. Not to deprogram them after school and then teach them

stsinner
05-15-2009, 02:24 PM
You seriously think the law making power of the government should be used to stifle ideas that are different than yours? How very DU of you. Where's feebmaster when you need 'em?

Kind of sad when you see this idea on a conservative board.

I think the government should refrain from stepping on the toes of the person's religion and its teachings.. Teach math and spelling and social studies and leave any topics that deal in morality out of the classroom and up to the parents...

Lars1701a
05-15-2009, 02:26 PM
"Socialist pig?" "Magic Negro?" "President Jerkweed?" Oh lawdy, lawdy, lawdy. Where's all that conservative respect for the office that was sooooo vaunted here a few months ago? And before my LA friend comes in with "gooses and ganders," fair enough. However, when you admit that, it makes you no different than all those DUmmies you derided all these years for not respecting the office!

Two sides, one coin.

Listen up toilet closet.

Who the heck is perfect?

Me personally, its pay back time. :p

stsinner
05-15-2009, 02:27 PM
I am all for stopping the schools from teaching kids that Homosexuality is ok. Whats wrong with that? dont say its bad either. ITS FOR THE PARENTS TO TEACH THAT TO THEIR KIDS. Not to deprogram them after school and then teach them

Exactly. But you see, I might not further their homosexual agenda, and they can't allow that freedom.. The government will now tell you how to feel about matters that have always been left for the family to deal with.

Lars1701a
05-15-2009, 02:30 PM
Exactly. But you see, I might not further their homosexual agenda, and they can't allow that freedom.. The government will now tell you how to feel about matters that have always been left for the family to deal with.

It all comes down to this, they dont want marriage or any other "right". They want YOU to endorse their behavior as if its normal. Pure and simple.

stsinner
05-15-2009, 02:31 PM
So if this act-being openly gay and living that way and, "marrying," which was once an absolute taboo and even punishable in our society is now just fine, what else should be decriminalized? Where do we stop? Just where should we set the moral wall, if anywhere? You know it won't stop here. See the triads thread. After all, it would be discrimination of go all out for Homosexuality and be against anything else that people say they were born with the urge to do, wouldn't it?

linda22003
05-15-2009, 02:31 PM
StSinner, why don't you have confidence in your influence on your child/children? Why do you assume the government's message is stronger and will overwhelm yours?

Lars1701a
05-15-2009, 02:35 PM
StSinner, why don't you have confidence in your influence on your child/children? Why do you assume the government's message is stronger and will overwhelm yours?

Who spends more time with a kid during the day? School or the parents? and that time at home how much of it is being bombarded by the pro gay lifestyle on TV? do the math linda

stsinner
05-15-2009, 02:39 PM
StSinner, why don't you have confidence in your influence on your child/children? Why do you assume the government's message is stronger and will overwhelm yours?

I don't, necessarily, but they have a hard enough time being kids, as all kids do, and for the school to teach about any morality issue from one side or the other when Americans are definitely in different corners on the issue is, in my opinion, just conflicting the kids and causing them to question their parents.. The ones with stand-up parents that have their childrens' respect will have no trouble deprogramming them, but the conflict shouldn't exist and does only, again, in my opinion, to further your thinking the way the government wants you to think.
The schools need to teach facts and only facts and leave the morality issues out of the classroom. After all, what's the parents' job if not to raise their kids? I don't want the schools talking to my kids about religion, sexuality, or anything else that's not rooted in fact. There's one solution to a multiplication problem, so teach that.. There's one way to spell a word and construct a sentence-teach that.. There's more than one reality about sexual orientation, so don't try to make up my kids' minds on the matter. That's not the schools' job.

Linda, you've actually been quite enjoyable today.. Must be the euphoric pre-cruise feeling that got you at peace with the world.... Lucky one, you are.. I'd love to get away for a while.

linda22003
05-15-2009, 02:40 PM
Who spends more time with a kid during the day? School or the parents? and that time at home how much of it is being bombarded by the pro gay lifestyle on TV? do the math linda

Okay, so there's one vote against the ability of a parent to influence a child. :rolleyes:

Lars1701a
05-15-2009, 02:42 PM
Okay, so there's one vote against the ability of a parent to influence a child. :rolleyes:

Funny I didnt vote for it or against it.

I just pointed out who and what spends the most time with your child.

linda22003
05-15-2009, 02:44 PM
I don't, necessarily, but they have a hard enough time being kids, as all kids do, and for the school to teach about any morality issue from one side or the other when Americans are definitely in different corners on the issue is, in my opinion, just conflicting the kids and causing them to question their parents.. The ones with stand-up parents that have their childrens' respect will have no trouble deprogramming them, but the conflict shouldn't exist and does only, again, in my opinion, to further your thinking the way the government wants you to think.
The schools need to teach facts and only facts and leave the morality issues out of the classroom. After all, what's the parents' job if not to raise their kids? I don't want the schools talking to my kids about religion, sexuality, or anything else that's not rooted in fact. There's one solution to a multiplication problem, so teach that.. There's one way to spell a word and construct a sentence-teach that.. There's more than one reality about sexual orientation, so don't try to make up my kids' minds on the matter. That's not the schools' job.

Linda, you've actually been quite enjoyable today.. Must be the euphoric pre-cruise feeling that got you at peace with the world.... Lucky one, you are.. I'd love to get away for a while.

I'll return the compliment and say you've been less offensive than usual, too. :p Must be the peace of Friday afternoon that passeth all understanding.
I tend to agree with you that a factual curriculum is best for children. You have only to read these boards to see the confusion some have over your/you're and there/their/they're. The basics need some real work. I was in school so long ago that the only "sex education" we had (around fifth grade) was the girls going into one room and the boys into another to see some Disney movie about the horrors our little bodies would be experiencing in the next few years.... and why. :eek:

FlaGator
05-15-2009, 02:50 PM
"Socialist pig?" "Magic Negro?" "President Jerkweed?" Oh lawdy, lawdy, lawdy. Where's all that conservative respect for the office that was sooooo vaunted here a few months ago? And before my LA friend comes in with "gooses and ganders," fair enough. However, when you admit that, it makes you no different than all those DUmmies you derided all these years for not respecting the office!

Two sides, one coin.

A few people make nasty comments and now you paint all of CU with your very big brush. At least people here understand he's the President even if they call him President Jerkweed. That is a far sight more respect than many in the liberal blogsphere exhibited. Most people here do show Obama some respect, some don't but hat doesn't mean that the "conservative respect" that was "sooooo vaunted here" is gone.

BadCat
05-15-2009, 03:01 PM
A few people make nasty comments and now you paint all of CU with your very big brush. At least people here understand he's the President even if they call him President Jerkweed. That is a far sight more respect than many in the liberal blogsphere exhibited. Most people here do show Obama some respect, some don't but hat doesn't mean that the "conservative respect" that was "sooooo vaunted here" is gone.

"Broad brush" seems to be the latest liberal "tactic".
The LA Times extols Hussien as the "magic negro", and WE'RE all racists.
Some people don't think faggots should marry, and WE'RE all homophobes.

I truly believe the concept of any sort of individualism is beyond the comprehension of the modern liberal.

They'd make good bees...if they worked.

CorwinK
05-15-2009, 03:39 PM
what an amazingly drawn out post for after work reading, its good stuff.

Correct me if im wrong here, but the overall subject of this thread is that you Mr. Stsinner (despite the fact that the majority of your arguement comes from a fairly religious standpoint, not necesserilly a bad thing but an observation none the less) are simply tired of having schools and "people" telling you and your family that homosexuality is ok when you feel that it isnt.

Welcome to America. There is a wonderful document (that few of us in this country even bother to read past the preamble) called the constitution. This document protects the rights of all US citizens through its various ammendments and articles (1st, 10th, and 14th to be relevent here). One thing you my friend are failing to realize is that even though you dont agree with what they (homosexuals) are saying, they have every right to say it...1st ammendment. The whole reason that ammendment even needed to be put in there was to protect unpopular thought and prevent government from squelching anything that could be perceved as a threat to its SOP. This thought process extends to meaning that no one can squelch the thoughts and opinions of anyone from being said, period, no ifs ands or butts about it. Im not saying that you should stop having or voicing a dissenting viewpoint either mind you...dissenting views are what made this country to begin with.

The next issue that I see is that homosexuals are seeking to legitimize what they are doing as 'natural' or 'right' and seek somewhat of a social class or protected status over what should be their private actions. What people on both sides of the debate fail to realize is that according to the aforementioned document *points to previous paragraph* the federal government has no authority to make legislation over a group of people based on its sexual preference unless their constitutional rights are being violated as a result of that preference...in which case the courts can handle the issues at hand under the 'equal protection under the law' section of the 14th ammendment, and current state employment laws. The entire nation needs a lesson on the 10th ammendment as both sides are going about this debate completely wrong. The issue of fair treatment of homosexuals should never have made it to the national level, bringing me to my next point.

The laws in place already dont require further legislation and especially dont require any further federal legislation.(like we really need the federal government to pass more laws) The 14th ammendment prohibits states from passing laws that would prohibit the hiring of a gay person because he/she is gay (once again...equal protection under the law clause). Civil unions(which arent denied to homosexuals last I checked) handle the financial aspect of the marrage issue (one of the major secular reasons for marraige in the first place...tax/pay benefits), and the first ammendment handles whether or not they have the right to flount their gayness around under free speach. As long as gay people arent attempting to force their way of life on you, then they are in the clear. Is it annoying? To me yes, but again, rights are rights.

will the federal government misuse its power to enact some sort of legislation over the issue? I wouldnt put it past them seeing as they have been sidestepping the constitution since the 19th century...however until we as a people enforce the fact that they dont have that power it will continue to happen.

Should homosexuality be taught as ok in schools? Absolutely not, its the wrong venue to teach whether its ok or not, school is supposed to give everyone the basics for entering the workforce...extra effort on the student's part (with proper parental encouragement) is what sends students to college. School is supposed to be value neutral and simply teach the factual knowledge needed to be a contributing member of society. Ill stop there on that note however as education reform needs its own thread.

Shannon
05-15-2009, 03:59 PM
sstinner is right on when he discusses the public schools. They should only be teaching facts. Period. Any discussion of sex does not belong in the public school system.

hazlnut
05-15-2009, 04:13 PM
My condolences for your immoral life devoid of any ethics and salvation. Your post doesn't even warrant a response beyond that. I pity your children, should you have any, as they will grow up not knowing right from wrong and thinking that morality is subjective.. It's truly sad.

A better society is not one in which there are more homosexuals, or in which homosexuals can marry. A better society would be if homosexuals were once again relegated to the fringes of society and ashamed to admit their affliction in public and families once again centered around the church and community, as our forefathers did who made this country great.. Our country was made great during a time when homosexuality was shunned and morals and ethics dominated family life. There is no case that can be presented in which the opposite would have made this country better, but, instead, it would have been profoundly worse.. We can easily see the effects of the decline of morality in our society with sexting teenagers and drug addicted teens and teen pregnancy rates, etc.. Your argument is sad and immoral.

I'll pray for you, and hope that someday you see that hate can never really mask itself as Christianity.

If history is any indicator, with past civil rights struggles, each generation seems to bring more tolerance. Try as they might, parents are limited as to how much intolerance they force onto their children. I teach my kids to think for themselves and to not blindly follow one ideology or the other.

Shannon
05-15-2009, 04:24 PM
I'll pray for you, and hope that someday you see that hate can never really mask itself as Christianity.

If history is any indicator, with past civil rights struggles, each generation seems to bring more tolerance. Try as they might, parents are limited as to how much intolerance they force onto their children. I teach my kids to think for themselves and to not blindly follow one ideology or the other.

I am really weary of gay "rights" being compared to the civil rights movement.

Lars1701a
05-15-2009, 04:29 PM
I'll pray for you, and hope that someday you see that hate can never really mask itself as Christianity.

If history is any indicator, with past civil rights struggles, each generation seems to bring more tolerance. Try as they might, parents are limited as to how much intolerance they force onto their children. I teach my kids to think for themselves and to not blindly follow one ideology or the other.

Not tolerance, just plain acceptance of immoral behaivor.

hazlnut
05-15-2009, 04:42 PM
I am really weary of gay "rights" being compared to the civil rights movement.

I understand, the color of a person's skin and sexual orientation are two entirely different things in the way that we perceive and understand them.

That is perhaps why it has taken so long for this issue to come to the public as it has. Gay rights activists have been arguing it that way for some time, however it's really been in the last decade that the courts took a look at state sodomy laws and more recently marriage laws regarding homosexuals.

Last year in Ca, the state supreme court found that "California legislative and initiative measures limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples violate the state constitutional rights of same-sex couples and may not be used to preclude same-sex couples from marrying."

In re Marriage Cases (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_re_Marriage_Cases)


On May 15, 2008, the court ruled in a 43 decision that laws directed at gays and lesbians are subject to strict judicial scrutiny and that marriage is a fundamental right under Article 1, Section 7 of the California Constitution, thereby holding unconstitutional the previously existing statutory ban on same-sex marriage embodied in two statutes, one enacted by the Legislature in 1977, and the other through the initiative process in 2000 (Proposition 22). The Court's ruling also established that any law discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation is constitutionally suspect, making California the first state in the United States to set such a strict standard.

Shannon
05-15-2009, 04:54 PM
Wasn't federal income tax considered unconstitutional at some point? Until it became constitutional. I know I'm rambling but my point is valid. The constitution says what it says. We should not be allowed to "interpret" it as time goes by. They said what they meant and meant what they said. Who really cares if gays can marry? Worried about benefits? Work for a company that provides them. Worried about your will? Don't be daft. You can handle your will however you wish.
The whole "my SO can't visit me on my deathbed in the hospital" is a myth too.

Water Closet
05-15-2009, 05:23 PM
Listen up toilet closet.

Who the heck is perfect?

Me personally, its pay back time. :p

Sorry I left you out, Lars. You were the "lawn jockey" guy, weren't you?

Water Closet
05-15-2009, 05:26 PM
A few people make nasty comments and now you paint all of CU with your very big brush. At least people here understand he's the President even if they call him President Jerkweed. That is a far sight more respect than many in the liberal blogsphere exhibited. Most people here do show Obama some respect, some don't but hat doesn't mean that the "conservative respect" that was "sooooo vaunted here" is gone.

A "few people?" Come on, FlaGator, you know better. BTW, the "President Jerkweed" comment came from a moderator (at least an unofficial representative of the board) who also has as his avatar a black Alfred E. Neuman/Obama. I stand by my comment, as you're the exception, not the rule.

MrsSmith
05-15-2009, 07:02 PM
We could call him ChimpyMcBamaHilter, but that would be racist.

hazlnut
05-15-2009, 07:38 PM
We could call him ChimpyMcBamaHilter, but that would be racist.

That fact that you would go there, even as a joke, is pretty telling.

Oh, well, we got Cops in L.A. who still go there.

Water Closet
05-15-2009, 07:39 PM
That fact that you would go there, even as a joke, is pretty telling.

Oh, well, we got Cops in L.A. who still go there.

No, it simply shows that the read difference is that there's no difference.

MrsSmith
05-15-2009, 07:40 PM
That fact that you would go there, even as a joke, is pretty telling.

Oh, well, we got Cops in L.A. who still go there.

I don't recall that you were outraged when that was applied to a different man... :confused:

MrsSmith
05-15-2009, 07:41 PM
No, it simply shows that the read difference is that there's no difference.

So,you're saying that there is no difference in applying that to either man? A man is a man, so a name for one must be OK for the other, right?

Water Closet
05-15-2009, 07:45 PM
So,you're saying that there is no difference in applying that to either man? A man is a man, so a name for one must be OK for the other, right?

What I'm saying is that all of the faux outrage at Georgie-Porgie being called names -- you know, the respect for the office -- was just that, faux. What I'm saying is...

Two sides, same coin.

Care to do a CU search on...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/da/Lawn_jockey.jpg

BadCat
05-15-2009, 07:46 PM
Let me see if I can cause nutsucker to have a cardiac arrest...

One of my favourite campaign t-shirts...

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/1obamacg.jpg

MrsSmith
05-15-2009, 07:47 PM
What I'm saying is that all of the faux outrage at Georgie-Porgie being called names -- you know, the respect for the office -- was just that, faux. What I'm saying is...

Two sides, same coin.

Care to do a CU search on...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/da/Lawn_jockey.jpg

I'm so happy to see that you, at least, follow the high road and don't allow yourself to disrespect either man. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Water Closet
05-15-2009, 07:51 PM
I'm so happy to see that you, at least, follow the high road and don't allow yourself to disrespect either man. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Sorry, I'm not a hypocrite like the rest. I've never claimed to "take the high road." Rather, it's those who are now using the terms "President Jerkweed," "lawn jockey," "magic negro" who were outraged at terms like the idiot child and claimed to be taking the high road. That's the pure definition of a hypocrite.

Water Closet
05-15-2009, 07:54 PM
Let me see if I can cause nutsucker to have a cardiac arrest...

One of my favourite campaign t-shirts...

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/1obamacg.jpg

But of course you can't, as I really don't care what you call Obama. I'm simply having fun laughing at the hypocrites who objected to the term idiot child because it was an affront to the office of the president. Have at it with the names for Obama; the more, the merrier.

MrsSmith
05-15-2009, 07:56 PM
Sorry, I'm not a hypocrite like the rest. I've never claimed to "take the high road." Rather, it's those who are now using the terms "President Jerkweed," "lawn jockey," "magic negro" who were outraged at terms like the idiot child and claimed to be taking the high road. That's the pure definition of a hypocrite.

And yet, you are just fine with your own hypocrisy.

BadCat
05-15-2009, 07:58 PM
But of course you can't, as I really don't care what you call Obama. I'm simply having fun laughing at the hypocrites who objected to the term idiot child because it was an affront to the office of the president. Have at it with the names for Obama; the more, the merrier.

nutsucker = hazlnut.

He has a broader brush than you, even.

Water Closet
05-15-2009, 07:58 PM
And yet, you are just fine with your own hypocrisy.

As I explained to BC, I have no objection to whatever name anyone here wants to call Obama -- no outrage, just amusement.

Water Closet
05-15-2009, 08:01 PM
nutsucker = hazlnut.

He has a broader brush than you, even.

I really have no clue as to what that means. By broad brush do you mean I generalize that people here call Obama names while objecting to others calling Georgie-Porgie names as it offended their sense of the office. I don't think so; it was pretty prevelant here when the idiot child was in office. Would you like me to dig out a broad range of hypocritically outraged posts?

Space Gravy
05-15-2009, 08:02 PM
I think the government should refrain from stepping on the toes of the person's religion and its teachings.. Teach math and spelling and social studies and leave any topics that deal in morality out of the classroom and up to the parents...

I don't have a problem with that. Don't like what's done in public school? Put your kids in private school or homeschool. Don't like certain TV shows or movies? Don't let your kids watch them. Trying to get a differing opinion shut down by law is wrong.

MrsSmith
05-15-2009, 08:04 PM
As I explained to BC, I have no objection to whatever name anyone here wants to call Obama -- no outrage, just amusement.

As if this is the only area in which you could practice hypocrisy? :rolleyes: How about your continual insistance that Christians have no right to maintain laws you don't like because "the government should be neutral," while you ignore the fact that the government is not neutral? How about your continual belittlement of Christians and Christianity despite the fact that you clearly have no understanding of the matter, haven't even read the book on it? Oh, but it's major hypocrisy when a FEW posters on CU are less than polite to Pres. O, isn't it? :rolleyes:

hazlnut
05-15-2009, 08:09 PM
nutsucker = hazlnut.

He has a broader brush than you, even.

Oh look, it's my stalker.:eek:

Hi, Stalker. What do you have planned for the weekend...?:o

Let me guess...:confused:



Tell you what, man, I'm going to go have dinner with my family. You have great weekend!! Seriously.

I'm going tell my son my new nickname. He'll get a kick out of it.

Be good,

Haz

BadCat
05-15-2009, 08:12 PM
Oh look, it's my stalker.:eek:

Hi, Stalker. What do you have planned for the weekend...?:o

Let me guess...:confused:



Tell you what, man, I'm going to go have dinner with my family. You have great weekend!! Seriously.

I'm going tell my son my new nickname. He'll get a kick out of it.

Be good,

Haz

I'm sure he will. Having a faggot for a daddy will make kids appreciate terms like "nutsucker".
You have a nice one too, don't stub your tongue on your boyfriends perineum.

Water Closet
05-15-2009, 08:28 PM
As if this is the only area in which you could practice hypocrisy? :rolleyes: How about your continual insistance that Christians have no right to maintain laws you don't like because "the government should be neutral," while you ignore the fact that the government is not neutral? How about your continual belittlement of Christians and Christianity despite the fact that you clearly have no understanding of the matter, haven't even read the book on it? Oh, but it's major hypocrisy when a FEW posters on CU are less than polite to Pres. O, isn't it? :rolleyes:

Well, that was what we were discussing. And no, it's not a major hypocrisy when people here (not a few btw) are "less than polite" to Obama; it's a major hypocrisy when those same posters who are now "less than polite" to Obama were sooo affronted when some evil posters were "less than polite" to Georgie-Porgie. As CS said once recently, I'm typing this real slow so you can understand it. It's really not that hard.

As to your Christian Persecution Complex (CPC), get over it. The government should not favor Christianity over Islam over Judiasm over Hinduism.

MrsSmith
05-15-2009, 08:45 PM
Well, that was what we were discussing. And no, it's not a major hypocrisy when people here (not a few btw) are "less than polite" to Obama; it's a major hypocrisy when those same posters who are now "less than polite" to Obama were sooo affronted when some evil posters were "less than polite" to Georgie-Porgie. As CS said once recently, I'm typing this real slow so you can understand it. It's really not that hard.

As to your Christian Persecution Complex (CPC), get over it. The government should not favor Christianity over Islam over Judiasm over Hinduism.

Nor should it favor atheism or homosexuality, yet you're quite happy that it does. :rolleyes: I guess only your own hypocrisy is OK...everyone else should "burn" for it.

Water Closet
05-15-2009, 08:53 PM
Nor should it favor atheism or homosexuality, yet you're quite happy that it does. :rolleyes: I guess only your own hypocrisy is OK...everyone else should "burn" for it.

I'm not sure what you mean by "favoring homosexuality?" Do you mean giving the same rights to homosexuals as are given to heterosexuals? If so, (a) giving the same rights to one group as another is clearly not favoring either group and (b) homosexuals, in the vast majority of venues, do not have the same rights in regards to marriage as do heterosexuals. So your argument is completely invalid.

I'm also not sure how atheism is favored? If you mean not teaching mythology in science classes, I'm not sure I would agree with the premise that that's favoritism. Otherwise, what?

BadCat
05-15-2009, 08:57 PM
homosexuals, in the vast majority of venues, do not have the same rights in regards to marriage as do heterosexuals.

Sure they do. I can marry any woman that would have me. So can the faggots. Same goes for the dykes, they can marry any man that will have them.

Water Closet
05-15-2009, 09:03 PM
Sure they do. I can marry any woman that would have me. So can the faggots. Same goes for the dykes, they can marry any man that will have them.

Ah, but the burning question of the day? Would allowing them to marry each other lead to marriage with inanimate objects? And what about the baaaabbbbbies? :rolleyes:

BadCat
05-15-2009, 09:12 PM
I think it will be a step in that direction.

The polyamorous are already making their case in the cold countries of the EU. It may take them a while to get to horses and pet rocks though.

Water Closet
05-15-2009, 09:14 PM
I think it will be a step in that direction.

The polyamorous are already making their case in the cold countries of the EU. It may take them a while to get to horses and pet rocks though.

You do realize that the Netherlands "triad" story was exposed as a WorldNutDaily propoganda piece, don't you?

BadCat
05-15-2009, 09:16 PM
You do realize that the Netherlands "triad" story was exposed as a WorldNutDaily propoganda piece, don't you?

That's fine, but the polyamorous are also making their case in Arizona and Utah.
We got a lot of Mormons out here, ya know?

Water Closet
05-15-2009, 09:27 PM
That's fine, but the polyamorous are also making their case in Arizona and Utah.
We got a lot of Mormons out here, ya know?

Ah, you mean polygamy (sorry, I honestly didn't get the reference). Who cares as long as everyone is a consenting adult?

expat-pattaya
05-15-2009, 09:35 PM
If you check the thread, THAT does not make you retarded. Running out of gas in the middle of heavy commuting traffic in one DOES make you retarded.

OK I get a pass. Did not run out of gas :D

wilbur
05-16-2009, 12:09 AM
My condolences for your immoral life devoid of any ethics and salvation. Your post doesn't even warrant a response beyond that. I pity your children, should you have any, as they will grow up not knowing right from wrong and thinking that morality is subjective.. It's truly sad.

A better society is not one in which there are more homosexuals, or in which homosexuals can marry. A better society would be if homosexuals were once again relegated to the fringes of society and ashamed to admit their affliction in public and families once again centered around the church and community, as our forefathers did who made this country great.. Our country was made great during a time when homosexuality was shunned and morals and ethics dominated family life. There is no case that can be presented in which the opposite would have made this country better, but, instead, it would have been profoundly worse.. We can easily see the effects of the decline of morality in our society with sexting teenagers and drug addicted teens and teen pregnancy rates, etc.. Your argument is sad and immoral.

Was our country more moral when we had children working all day in industrial factories or mines and no child labor laws? Was our country more moral when we engaged in genocide of the native peoples under the excuse of manifest destiny? Were we a more moral people when we held slaves, or even had seperate drinking fountains and seats on the bus for black people?

Give me a break... the thing that I hope frightens you the most is... in many ways, this country is more moral right now that it ever has been.... ever.

This "Leave it to Beaver" picture so many seem to have of past American life is such a grandiose delusion... its beyond words.

stsinner
05-16-2009, 12:21 AM
Was our country more moral when we had children working all day in industrial factories or mines and no child labor laws? Was our country more moral when we engaged in genocide of the native peoples under the excuse of manifest destiny? Were we a more moral people when we held slaves, or even had seperate drinking fountains and seats on the bus for black people?

Give me a break... the thing that I hope frightens you the most is... in many ways, this country is more moral right now that it ever has been.... ever.

This "Leave it to Beaver" picture so many seem to have of past American life is such a grandiose delusion... its beyond words.

Wilbur, you're beyond words.. Homosexuals should be shamed back into seclusion, and that has nothing to do with civil rights (black or female..) The country would absolutely be better off, as families could regroup and center around bible-taught morality, instead of being forced to accept sodomy and debauchery.

FlaGator
05-16-2009, 01:46 AM
Was our country more moral when we had children working all day in industrial factories or mines and no child labor laws? Was our country more moral when we engaged in genocide of the native peoples under the excuse of manifest destiny? Were we a more moral people when we held slaves, or even had seperate drinking fountains and seats on the bus for black people?

Give me a break... the thing that I hope frightens you the most is... in many ways, this country is more moral right now that it ever has been.... ever.

This "Leave it to Beaver" picture so many seem to have of past American life is such a grandiose delusion... its beyond words.

Setting aside corporate and government objectives, yes the people back then were more moral than the people of today. As of now and excluding atheistic regimes, this country is about as immoral a country as history has recorded and that does fighten me greatly. 50 percent of people find it moral to murder the unborn, adultrey is considered just one of those things that happen, casual sex is encouraged by the entertainment media, wedding vows once considered sacrosync are now just words muttered by people in order to fulfill tradition in some ritual that they don't respect and family relations no longer matter. If you find the country moral then you are truly delusional, but then again as you have demonstrated in the past you enjoy a self-centered, self-centric lifestyle where your needs and your beliefs supercede the of others.

wilbur
05-16-2009, 02:42 AM
Setting aside corporate and government objectives, yes the people back then were more moral than the people of today. As of now and excluding atheistic regimes, this country is about as immoral a country as history has recorded and that does fighten me greatly.


Absolutely baffling. From a human rights standpoint, which in my estimation is of primary importance, there is no contesting the fact that we are a more moral country.. than we have ever been in the past, period.



50 percent of people find it moral to murder the unborn,

This has been different in the past, how exactly? Abortion has never been rare, even when its legal status was questionable.



adultrey is considered just one of those things that happen, casual sex is encouraged by the entertainment media, wedding vows once considered sacrosync are now just words muttered by people in order to fulfill tradition in some ritual that they don't respect and family relations no longer matter.


Family relations don't matter anymore? News to me.



If you find the country moral then you are truly delusional, but then again as you have demonstrated in the past you enjoy a self-centered, self-centric lifestyle where your needs and your beliefs supercede the of others.

If your primary metric for judging the overall morality of a nation is how faithfully it practice Christian sexual morality (this certainly seems to be the metric some here use) then sure you could say there is a moral decline of sorts. But such extreme emphasis on such a tangential issue is misplaced.

Camaraderie
05-16-2009, 03:41 AM
Was our country more moral when we had children working all day in industrial factories or mines and no child labor laws? Was our country more moral when we engaged in genocide of the native peoples under the excuse of manifest destiny? Were we a more moral people when we held slaves, or even had seperate drinking fountains and seats on the bus for black people?

Give me a break... the thing that I hope frightens you the most is... in many ways, this country is more moral right now that it ever has been.... ever.

This "Leave it to Beaver" picture so many seem to have of past American life is such a grandiose delusion... its beyond words.


In 1999 two adult homosexuals kidnapped, raped, and murdered 13-year-old Jesse Dirkhising in Rogers, Arkansas, my home town. The news of this horrible crime was deliberately blacked out of the national news, but reported fairly extensively in the local Rogers Hometown News. Some of the nastier and more lurid details of the crime were mentioned in the newspaper. For example, one of the homosexuals, Davis Don Carpenter, a 38-year-old hairstylist who bragged that he had lived in 26 states and had boy friends in all 50 states, showed his homosexual partner, 22-year-old Joshua Macave Brown, the proper way to tie up and position a child for raping, even providing diagrams showing the proper procedure and naming the best drug to use for sedating the child during the rape.

Well, probably the technique worked well enough for earlier child-raping episodes, but something went wrong when they raped little Jesse Dirkhising. When they noticed that the boy had stopped breathing and was turning blue they called 911. Police were met by a stark naked Joshua Brown in the hallway, who explained that they -- quote -- "were just playing a game" with the dead child.

One other detail in connection with this crime: on October 2, just six days after Jesse Dirkhising was raped to death, former President Bill Clinton was exchanging hugs and kisses with one of the larger groups of his homosexual supporters. He was the speaker at a Democratic fundraiser in Los Angeles hosted by a group called Action Now for Gay and Lesbian Equality. The group donated $850,000 to the Democratic Party at the dinner. The theme of Clinton's talk to the group was that Americans need to become more tolerant of homosexuals and their life-style.

More tolerant. Really. You know, the local people in Rogers were pretty unhappy, and so the two homosexuals were protected by bulletproof vests and under heavy guard. Even so, you could hear people outside yelling that the homosexuals would "burn in hell." (If Janet Reno had been there she would have had the FBI arrest everyone for intolerance, and Clinton could have collected another couple of hundred thousand dollars from the homosexual lobby.)

It's not just that Clinton chose to visit his homosexual supporters in Los Angeles and to ignore the murder of little Jesse Dirkhising in his home state. The government and the media of this country, by encouraging homosexuals, by trying to make us all believe that
homosexuals should have the same rights as everyone else, that they should be allowed to be teachers and Boy Scout leaders, and that we all should be nice to them and let them do what they want and not be suspicious of them or shun them, created the atmosphere in which the murder of Jesse Dirkhising became possible. The two rapists were emboldened by all of the propaganda calling for more tolerance for homosexuals; by all of the media hullabaloo to win sympathy for Matthew Shepard, the homosexual who was killed when he tried to pick up a "date" in a bar in Laramie, Wyoming. This pro-homosexual propaganda by Clinton and the media not only encouraged homosexuals to come out of the closet and flaunt their perversion in public, it led some of them to push harder than before against the heterosexual society around them, to take chances they would not have taken before.

Did I make myself clear? I'm blaming the rape and murder of 13-year-old Jesse Dirkising on the media, and the government which dances to the media's tune. They encouraged Davis Don Carpenter and Joshua Macave Brown to take a chance they would not have taken in a more traditional moral environment.

I'm also saying that Bill Clinton, by ignoring the homosexual rape and murder of Jesse Dirkhising and, just six days after that horrible crime, running off to tell his homosexual supporters in Los Angeles that we all need to be more tolerant of homosexuals and their behavior, proved once again that he was/is the sort of man utterly without honor or scruple or principle.

Camaraderie
05-16-2009, 04:38 AM
...yes the people back then were more moral than the people of today. As of now and excluding atheistic regimes, this country is about as immoral a country as history has recorded and that does fighten me greatly.

It's even worse in the UK. A few years ago the British Parliament passed a law lowering the age of consent for homosexual activity to 16. This new law was campaigned for heavily by the so-called "chicken hawk" lobby. "Chicken hawks" are adult male homosexuals who prey on young boys. They pick up boys on streetcorners, ply them with drugs or drink, give them money, and sodomize them. It used to be that they could be arrested and prosecuted for such activity. Now they can't. Now it's legal, as long as the boys are 16 years old. The "chicken hawks," a number of whom actually hold seats in Parliament, are now clamoring for the legal age to be lowered to 14. And just a few weeks ago the UK "Government Youth Advisory Board" recommended that the age of consent for homosexual activity be reduced to 12. Eventually it WILL be twelve - it will be legal for 40-year-old homosexuals to seduce and sodomize any 12-year-old they can get their hands on.

Rockntractor
05-16-2009, 10:36 AM
Unbelievable where will it end?

Japandroid
05-16-2009, 12:08 PM
I cannot believe people like this actually exist.

CueSi
05-16-2009, 12:40 PM
I am really weary of gay "rights" being compared to the civil rights movement.

I'm black. How do you think I feel? I want gay people to have legal protection under the law and the ability to live full lives (civil union included), but STOP USING MY FUCKING HISTORY TO DO IT!

Oh, and stop acting like high schoolers. :) Please. 'Cause I'm now to the point that I hope every state gets civil uinion but California because them people over there are petulant as HALE.

~QC

FlaGator
05-16-2009, 12:47 PM
Absolutely baffling. From a human rights standpoint, which in my estimation is of primary importance, there is no contesting the fact that we are a more moral country.. than we have ever been in the past, period.

Reclassifying immoral behavior does not make us a more moral society any more than classifying as drug addicts as amateur pharmacists makes us a healthier society



This has been different in the past, how exactly? Abortion has never been rare, even when its legal status was questionable.
Views the data at this link
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-unitedstates.html
or
http://www.abortionfacts.com/statistics/us_stats_abortion.asp

, and then rethink that statement. Here is a same sampling.





Family relations don't matter anymore? News to me.

Record high single parent families and record high divorce rates. Sounds like family relations don't matter much any more.



If your primary metric for judging the overall morality of a nation is how faithfully it practice Christian sexual morality (this certainly seems to be the metric some here use) then sure you could say there is a moral decline of sorts. But such extreme emphasis on such a tangential issue is misplaced.

Again you seem to think that your word view is the only one that matters and that you and your views set the standard on what is allowable as a moral metric. I'm reminded of two verses from the Bible

Proverbs 26:11 and 26:12

Camaraderie
05-17-2009, 03:00 AM
Unbelievable where will it end?


I cannot believe people like this actually exist.

Do you remember the case of Matthew Shepard, the homosexual who went into a bar in Laramie, Wyoming, in 1998 and tried to get a date? Two of the men in the bar gave him a good beating and then left him tied to a fence, where he died of exposure. Of course, there's no way anyone could forget that case. It was a cause celebre in the national media for many years after it happened. It was on every television screen in America. Janet Reno and Bill Clinton gave solemn commentary on the case and cited it as a reason why we need to have an expanded "hate crime" law to protect homosexuals from heterosexual males.

Np one has ever heard of the two homosexuals who grabbed a 13-year-old boy off the street in Rogers, Arkansas, took him to their apartment, drugged him, and tied him up and gagged him so that no one could hear his screams, and then they raped him to death. His body was found in a pool of blood on the apartment floor.

The two adult homosexuals were each convicted of capital murder and six counts of forcible rape. Yet no one has ever heard of the case. It was totally blacked out of the national news, while the beating death of homosexual Matthew Shepard, who made the mistake of looking for a date in the wrong bar, is STILL receiving national news coverage ten years later.

Why? Because liberals want it this way. No individual in America has the power to black out the news of the homosexual rape and murder of 13-year-old Jesse Dirkhising. And no individual has the power to give the enormous, non-stop national coverage to the beating of Matthew Shepard that we saw and continue to see. This is the result of a collective decision by those who control the news media in America. The message they want to send to Americans is that homosexuals are innocent victims and heterosexual males are aggressors who prey on them. And so they give us the news which fits that message, and they black out the news which doesn't.

I mean, really, think about it. Which is the more newsworthy crime: the beating to death of Matthew Shepard by two men he approached for a date; or the kidnaping and raping to death of 13-year-old Jesse Dirkhising by two adult homosexuals?

They do this manipulation and distortion of the news for a reason: a collective reason. And it's working. Idiots are joining the homosexuals around the country in even more candlelight vigils in memory of Matthew Shepard. But there will never be a candlelight vigil for Jesse Dirkhising. No one will ever hear about Jesse Dirkhising -- except you people reading this now. And there are thousands of other victims you'll never hear a word about on the television.

Zathras
05-17-2009, 03:17 AM
I cannot believe people like this actually exist.

Since this thread is now 13 pages long, exactly which people are you talking about?

Camaraderie
05-17-2009, 03:56 AM
Since this thread is now 13 pages long, exactly which people are you talking about?

He's talking about the homosexuals who raped 13-year-old Jesse Dirkhising to death, the politicos who want to reduce the homosexual age of consent to 12 or 14, and the chickenhawkers who prey on young boys and brag about it.

Constitutionally Speaking
05-17-2009, 08:17 AM
Do you remember the case of Matthew Shepard, the homosexual who went into a bar in Laramie, Wyoming, in 1998 and tried to get a date? Two of the men in the bar gave him a good beating and then left him tied to a fence, where he died of exposure. Of course, there's no way anyone could forget that case. It was a cause celebre in the national media for many years after it happened. It was on every television screen in America. Janet Reno and Bill Clinton gave solemn commentary on the case and cited it as a reason why we need to have an expanded "hate crime" law to protect homosexuals from heterosexual males.


Yep, I remember it and it turns out this admittedly heinous crime was NOT motivated by the fact Shepard was gay.

It was a drug deal gone bad.


This was just another case of the liberals LYING to score political points and seize power.

Odysseus
05-17-2009, 10:21 AM
I'm black. How do you think I feel? I want gay people to have legal protection under the law and the ability to live full lives (civil union included), but STOP USING MY FUCKING HISTORY TO DO IT!
Oh, and stop acting like high schoolers. :) Please. 'Cause I'm now to the point that I hope every state gets civil uinion but California because them people over there are petulant as HALE.
~QC
But if they don't piggyback on your history, they have no way to play king of the mountain for the moral high ground, and they'd have to argue their case on its merits, which are nil.

Np one has ever heard of the two homosexuals who grabbed a 13-year-old boy off the street in Rogers, Arkansas, took him to their apartment, drugged him, and tied him up and gagged him so that no one could hear his screams, and then they raped him to death. His body was found in a pool of blood on the apartment floor.

The two adult homosexuals were each convicted of capital murder and six counts of forcible rape. Yet no one has ever heard of the case. It was totally blacked out of the national news, while the beating death of homosexual Matthew Shepard, who made the mistake of looking for a date in the wrong bar, is STILL receiving national news coverage ten years later.

Why? Because liberals want it this way. No individual in America has the power to black out the news of the homosexual rape and murder of 13-year-old Jesse Dirkhising.
Exactly. Jesse Dirkhising's rape and murder doesn't fit the narrative, so it goes down the memory hole.
The thing is, it's not like it's a conspiracy, it's just how the lockstep media thinks. Matthew Shepard resonates with them, so they bring his case up every time they report on gays, but Jesse Dirkhising doesn't, so they report his murder once and then forget about it.

Since this thread is now 13 pages long, exactly which people are you talking about?
Why, anyone who doesn't agree with him, of course.

Yep, I remember it and it turns out this admittedly heinous crime was NOT motivated by the fact Shepard was gay.
It was a drug deal gone bad.
This was just another case of the liberals LYING to score political points and seize power.
Not quite. The killers were on a weeklong meth binge and had run out of money, and one of them had already tried to rob a drug dealer for $10k, but Shepard wasn't a dealer, he was just an easy target because he was well dressed, slightly built and too drunk to drive himself back to his campus.

Cal Rerucha, the prosecutor, said that it was the perps' drug-addled state that led to the crime. "The methamphetamine just fueled to this point where there was no control. It was a horrible, horrible, horrible murder. It was a murder that was once again driven by drugs."

Detective Ben Fritzen, a lead investigator, said, "Matthew Shepard's sexual preference or sexual orientation certainly wasn't the motive in the homicide. If it wasn't Shepard, they would have found another easy target. What it came down to really is drugs and money and two punks that were out looking for it."

This is classic media ying by omission. When the case first broke, everyone thought that it was a hate crime, but it took a while for the details to come out, at which point, the media already had its narrative.

Zathras
05-17-2009, 11:15 AM
He's talking about the homosexuals who raped 13-year-old Jesse Dirkhising to death, the politicos who want to reduce the homosexual age of consent to 12 or 14, and the chickenhawkers who prey on young boys and brag about it.

That's what I thought but I want to see if this DUmbass has the stones to admit it.

hazlnut
05-17-2009, 01:01 PM
He's talking about the homosexuals who raped 13-year-old Jesse Dirkhising to death, the politicos who want to reduce the homosexual age of consent to 12 or 14, and the chickenhawkers who prey on young boys and brag about it.

NO. Stop trying to put a homophic spin on that tragic story. Two crimminal sociopaths sexually assualted a boy. The fact that they may have been homosexual--since you've offered no proof of this--is incidental to the crime.

It is disturbing to me that someone would jump on that detail and use it to further push an agenda of intolerance.

BTW--thank to all the compassionte conservatives on this board for turning a blind eye to this comment directed at me reguarding my son:


I'm sure he will. Having a faggot for a daddy will make kids appreciate terms like "nutsucker".
You have a nice one too, don't stub your tongue on your boyfriends perineum.

Nice, BadCat, real nice.

Camaraderie
05-17-2009, 01:13 PM
NO. Stop trying to put a homophic spin on that tragic story. Two crimminal sociopaths sexually assualted a boy. The fact that they may have been homosexual--since you've offered no proof of this--is incidental to the crime.

It is disturbing to me that someone would jump on that detail and use it to further push an agenda of intolerance.

No proof? You just plain didn't read the thread. Why does a liberal post in a conservative forum? :rolleyes:

hazlnut
05-17-2009, 01:26 PM
No proof? You just plain didn't read the thread. Why does a liberal post in a conservative forum? :rolleyes:

You don't know anything about me. IMO conservatives and the Republicans don't want to be seen as intolerant homophobes. So, why do you post here?

How do you blame a viscous and tragic crime on the sexual orientation of the offenders?

Proof--show me a legitimate criminologist or criminal psychologist that would agree with you.

Rockntractor
05-17-2009, 01:33 PM
NO. Stop trying to put a homophic spin on that tragic story. Two crimminal sociopaths sexually assualted a boy. The fact that they may have been homosexual--since you've offered no proof of this--is incidental to the crime.

It is disturbing to me that someone would jump on that detail and use it to further push an agenda of intolerance.

BTW--thank to all the compassionte conservatives on this board for turning a blind eye to this comment directed at me reguarding my son:



Nice, BadCat, real nice.
If you want a compassionte conservative go sniff john mcCains butt. They went out of style with him.

FlaGator
05-17-2009, 02:47 PM
If you want a compassionte conservative go sniff john mcCains butt. They went out of style with him.

Interesting... I consider myself a compassionate conservative and I don't feel my views are out of style.

Rockntractor
05-17-2009, 02:59 PM
Interesting... I consider myself a compassionate conservative and I don't feel my views are out of style.
Ok I'll be nice . Sorry!

Shannon
05-17-2009, 03:00 PM
Interesting... I consider myself a compassionate conservative and I don't feel my views are out of style.

Compassionate conservatism is out of style with hard core conservatives. We were never compassionate and y'all had your chance. You blew it. It's all up to us now.;)

Rockntractor
05-17-2009, 03:06 PM
Compassionate conservatism is out of style with hard core conservatives. We were never compassionate and y'all had your chance. You blew it. It's all up to us now.;)
Does this mean I can be a prick again?

BadCat
05-17-2009, 03:09 PM
NO. Stop trying to put a homophic spin on that tragic story. Two crimminal sociopaths sexually assualted a boy. The fact that they may have been homosexual--since you've offered no proof of this--is incidental to the crime.

It is disturbing to me that someone would jump on that detail and use it to further push an agenda of intolerance.

BTW--thank to all the compassionte conservatives on this board for turning a blind eye to this comment directed at me reguarding my son:



Nice, BadCat, real nice.


Thank you, I am a nice guy, I just hate liberals, and you are one.

If you'd stop stimulating your prostate long enough to develop reading comprehension, you would see the post was directed at YOU, not your son, though I feel sorry for the kid having a father like you.

Water Closet
05-17-2009, 03:11 PM
Does this mean I can be a prick again?

Again??? :confused:

Rockntractor
05-17-2009, 03:14 PM
Again??? :confused:

http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/shitheados5.jpg?t=1242587589

here you go wonder toilet.

FlaGator
05-17-2009, 03:15 PM
Compassionate conservatism is out of style with hard core conservatives. We were never compassionate and y'all had your chance. You blew it. It's all up to us now.;)

Then God help us all :D

BadCat
05-17-2009, 03:16 PM
Then God help us all :D

I think you might be the only one here.

lacarnut
05-17-2009, 03:30 PM
Interesting... I consider myself a compassionate conservative and I don't feel my views are out of style.

Most people are compassionate even liberals. How they dish out that compassion is different. Liberals believe government is the answer to all our needs. Whereas, conservatives believe the private sector should play an equal part. Therefore, compassionate conservative is a misused term in my opinion.

I think the Obummer is just as compasionate as Bush. Even though Bush provided more funding for Aids, he still was vilified by the left on a regular basis. Also, Bush was not my kind of conservative. He did not use the bully pulpit to stand up and fight for what he believed in. Being a wimp will get your compassionate ass kicked every time.

Rockntractor
05-17-2009, 03:32 PM
Interesting... I consider myself a compassionate conservative and I don't feel my views are out of style.
I think he means compassionate to those who deserve or need compassion.

Shannon
05-17-2009, 03:37 PM
I think he means compassionate to those who deserve or need compassion.

Nobody deserves or needs compassion. Pull yourselves together people.:rolleyes:

Water Closet
05-17-2009, 03:42 PM
Nobody deserves or needs compassion. Pull yourselves together people.:rolleyes:

Hey! :mad: I'm compassionate. :D

Shannon
05-17-2009, 03:48 PM
Hey! :mad: I'm compassionate. :D


And when rum is taxed so much that I can no longer afford it I expect you to remember me.

Water Closet
05-17-2009, 03:50 PM
And when rum is taxed so much that I can no longer afford it I expect you to remember me.

If that happens, I'll supply you with all the scotch you can drink. :D

Shannon
05-17-2009, 03:52 PM
If that happens, I'll supply you with all the scotch you can drink. :D

Bastard.

Water Closet
05-17-2009, 03:52 PM
Bastard.

Thank you! :D

Odysseus
05-17-2009, 04:59 PM
NO. Stop trying to put a homophic spin on that tragic story. Two crimminal sociopaths sexually assualted a boy. The fact that they may have been homosexual--since you've offered no proof of this--is incidental to the crime.
Hmmmm.... two men raped a boy. On what world does the act of one or twos male having sex with another male not actually make the former homosexuals?


It is disturbing to me that someone would jump on that detail and use it to further push an agenda of intolerance.
It is disturbing to me that someone could look at the facts of the case and push an agenda of willful blindness.


You don't know anything about me. IMO conservatives and the Republicans don't want to be seen as intolerant homophobes. So, why do you post here?

How do you blame a viscous and tragic crime on the sexual orientation of the offenders?

Proof--show me a legitimate criminologist or criminal psychologist that would agree with you.
If they were heterosexual, perhaps they might would vented their sexual rage on a girl. True, I didn't interview a criminologist or psychologist to arrive at that conclusion, but then, I also didn't consult a math teacher at MIT to determine that 2+2=4.

Compassionate conservatism is out of style with hard core conservatives. We were never compassionate and y'all had your chance. You blew it. It's all up to us now.;)
I'll argue with that. Conservatism is compassionate. A conservative policy is meant to liberate people from perpetual dependence. We see others as agents of their own destinies, capable of making their own decisions and of living with the consequences. We offer equality of opportunity, liberty to pursue one's goals and equal justice before the law Liberals see people as incompetent children who need their guidance and largesse to survive. They offer submission and dependence and punish those who seek to escape that fate with libel and vicious slander. Under liberals, justice is based on your political connections or your ethnic background, and the harder you work, the more that they take from you. That's the opposite of compassion.

Water Closet
05-17-2009, 05:05 PM
Hmmmm.... two men raped a boy. On what world does the act of one or twos male having sex with another male not actually make the former homosexuals? ...

The causal relation that it was a boy who was raped most probably traces back to the homosexuality of the perpetrators; however, the causal relationship that it was a rape does not. If it did, then when heterosexuals rape little girls, the cause of the rape (not the choice of victim) must be their heterosexuality.

Shannon
05-17-2009, 05:22 PM
I don't have any studies. I do know that men rape regardless of their sexual preference. The media covering the "gay" Wyoming (or wherever) kid and ignoring other stories is just ridiculous though.

CueSi
05-17-2009, 10:50 PM
But if they don't piggyback on your history, they have no way to play king of the mountain for the moral high ground, and they'd have to argue their case on its merits, which are nil.


I personally think there is some merit. . .Stonewall happened because the police wouldn't leave gay clubs alone. Gay people is one of those situations where the state can't help itself but interfere and as a conservative, I want the interference to end.

And I did it w/o invoking the usual Civil Rights cliches.'

~QC

stsinner
05-17-2009, 10:55 PM
As a Conservative, I'd prefer to KNOW homosexuals exist but nver have to actually see them or have the overly gay news anchor or have the flaming court TV judge (Judge David Young).... Just do your thing, but don't adopt the lisp, dykes don't adopt the obligatory fat ass and short hair cut, and just be homosexual and happy.. Why does there have to be stereotypical traits?? You live your life, I'll live mine....Why does ti pleasure the homosexuals so much to be so identifiable...?

wilbur
05-18-2009, 12:54 AM
Again you seem to think that your word view is the only one that matters and that you and your views set the standard on what is allowable as a moral metric. I'm reminded of two verses from the Bible


Uhh, no actually, I believe moral issues are debatable. I don't claim to be privy to the perfect morality or moral standard.. that would be your side of the aisle here... which asserts its moral standard as absolute truth... pot calling the kettle black here.

In either case, the idea that there has been a "moral decline" is a very debatable one... and possibly even within the Christian worldview.... but people tend to accept it as an self-evident truth... but I contend that such an assertion, usually accompanied by an arrogant and unwarranted certainty, is very myopic and narrow minded.

Again I have to say that the progress in regards to human rights over the last century, and before simply eclipses any other consideration... but is often the most ignored.

Japandroid
05-18-2009, 01:07 AM
Thank you, I am a nice guy, I just hate liberals, and you are one.

How could you possibly use such a strong word as hate to describe your feelings towards people who simply disagree with you? Do you hate everyone from your old rival high school? Do you hate dog-lovers because you're a cat-lover?

There is no reason at all to act like that and use the kind of language you're using. You need to go out and meet people who are different than you are, come to the inevitable conclusion that just like you they are human beings who can live their lives as they please without you wanting to kill them.

Rockntractor
05-18-2009, 01:12 AM
How could you possibly use such a strong word as hate to describe your feelings towards people who simply disagree with you? Do you hate everyone from your old rival high school? Do you hate dog-lovers because you're a cat-lover?

There is no reason at all to act like that and use the kind of language you're using. You need to go out and meet people who are different than you are, come to the inevitable conclusion that just like you they are human beings who can live their lives as they please without you wanting to kill them.
Did mom and dad go to bed and leave the computer on again?
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/idiots.jpg?t=1242623490

Japandroid
05-18-2009, 01:15 AM
That picture is not very clever.

Rockntractor
05-18-2009, 01:17 AM
That picture is not very clever.
And neither are you.

Camaraderie
05-18-2009, 01:31 AM
Much that is written is inspired by hate. Hatred of the lies and coverups in the media. Hatred of ignorance and superstition in the populace. Hatred of dogmatic science and dogmatic religion. Hatred of hypocrisy and pretense. Hatred of fascist liberals, zombie conservatives, and too damn much government.

It is as mistaken and misguided to repress hate as to repress sexuality; for the repression of either one leads inevitably to exaggeration and perversion. Suppression of hatred breeds hatred, while expression of hatred dissipates it. Now while this may sound paradoxical, there is actually nothing paradoxical about it at all. Indeed, the entire science of psychology was founded on the observation, made by Sigmund Freud, that suppression of emotion produces exaggerations of that emotion, while expression relieves it; and while many other things that Freud said have now been recognized as nonsense, the cited idea remains almost universally agreed upon. When hate is expressed, it is not because the speaker wants to "spread" hate, but because they want to get rid of it.

As a society it is vital that we get our hatred out of the closet. It is vital for our mental equilibrium, vital for our social policies, and vital -- in the long run, if not the short -- for creating smoother relations among all groups, races and peoples. This, however, is only part and parcel of a larger task, which is to educate: a man is truly educated only if there is no idea which he finds offensive.

Hate is normal, hate is healthy, and hate is good for you to express -- provided, of course, that you don't get your jaw broken in the process.


How could you possibly use such a strong word as hate to describe your feelings towards people who simply disagree with you? Do you hate everyone from your old rival high school? Do you hate dog-lovers because you're a cat-lover?

There is no reason at all to act like that and use the kind of language you're using. You need to go out and meet people who are different than you are, come to the inevitable conclusion that just like you they are human beings who can live their lives as they please without you wanting to kill them.

Japandroid
05-18-2009, 01:41 AM
And neither are you.

Good one.

wilbur
05-18-2009, 01:45 AM
I think there is a distinction to be made between hate and anger.

Hate might be a normal, understandable response to some situations, but its never healthy, nor good that I can tell... and we strive to rid ourselves of it.

I would characterize hate as a more irrational form of anger.

Camaraderie
05-18-2009, 01:51 AM
Liberals are willing to jettison eons of painfully-acquired human wisdom because they think it is "irrational". They want to break down old sexual barriers and taboos, so what we now have is an epidemic of sexually-transmitted diseases, explosive anger over homosexuals getting special privileges, and an army that won't be worth diddly-squat once the perverts are affirmatively promoted and the competent soldiers leave in disgust.

Liberals use name-calling to squelch debate. Liberals have a wonderful array of smear terms, the most popular of which is "homophobic". Once a person gets this label pinned on him, it is well-nigh impossible to shake it. And of course, there is never a legitimate need to debate with a "homophobe", which is what liberals label those who do not agree with their opinion that sodomy should be officially sanctioned by the government at every level and encouraged in the public schools.


NO. Stop trying to put a homophic spin on that tragic story.

wilbur
05-18-2009, 01:59 AM
Liberals are willing to jettison eons of painfully-acquired human wisdom because they think it is "irrational". They want to break down old sexual barriers and taboos, so what we now have is an epidemic of sexually-transmitted diseases, explosive anger over homosexuals getting special privileges, and an army that won't be worth diddly-squat once the perverts are affirmatively promoted and the competent soldiers leave in disgust.

Liberals use name-calling to squelch debate. Liberals have a wonderful array of smear terms, the most popular of which is "homophobic". Once a person gets this label pinned on him, it is well-nigh impossible to shake it. And of course, there is never a legitimate need to debate with a "homophobe", which is what liberals label those who do not agree with their opinion that sodomy should be officially sanctioned by the government at every level and encouraged in the public schools.

Read this thread and bask in the intellectual maturity and sophistication <sarcasm, FYI> of the thread starter, and other sympathizers...

Wake up and smell the shit on your own lawn for goodness sake.

Camaraderie
05-18-2009, 01:59 AM
Liberals have no idea why others hate them so much, and they especially do not understand what contempt the minorities have for them. Minorities hate liberals because the liberal insistence on "protecting" minorities implies that the minorities are incompetent and thus need special protection. Yes, minorities will accept the special privileges which liberals have won for them, but the liberals' reward will be the eternal -- if covert -- contempt of their "children".

But if we are to hate properly and constructively, there is an important pitfall which we must avoid. To paraphrase Stephen Vincent Benet, we must avoid hating the sinner when we hate the sin.

Better to say that we hate liberalism; not liberals.


I think there is a distinction to be made between hate and anger.

Hate might be a normal, understandable response to some situations, but its never healthy, nor good that I can tell... and we strive to rid ourselves of it.

I would characterize hate as a more irrational form of anger.

wilbur
05-18-2009, 02:01 AM
Liberals have no idea why others hate them so much, and they especially do not understand what contempt the minorities have for them. Minorities hate liberals because the liberal insistence on "protecting" minorities implies that the minorities are incompetent and thus need special protection. Yes, minorities will accept the special privileges which liberals have won for them, but the liberals' reward will be the eternal -- if covert -- contempt of their "children".

But if we are to hate properly and constructively, there is an important pitfall which we must avoid. To paraphrase Stephen Vincent Benet, we must avoid hating the sinner when we hate the sin.

Better to say that we hate liberalism; not liberals.

You have descended into such broad generalizations, that you really speak of nothings.

stsinner
05-18-2009, 08:31 AM
Read this thread and bask in the intellectual maturity and sophistication <sarcasm, FYI> of the thread starter, and other sympathizers...

Wake up and smell the shit on your own lawn for goodness sake.

Yo'ure one of the dimmest, most double-talking idiots I've ever met.. You truly are a fool.

Water Closet
05-18-2009, 08:33 AM
Yo'ure one of the dimmest, most double-talking idiots I've ever met.. You truly are a fool.

And you've just demonstrated wilbur's point.

linda22003
05-18-2009, 08:34 AM
I think it's time to let this thread go to thread heaven. Everything's been said.

stsinner
05-18-2009, 08:44 AM
I think it's time to let this thread go to thread heaven. Everything's been said.

I agree.. I think I'm getting a headache.. It's just like religion and politics-you can talk all day, but you will never sway the other side on homosexuality.

BadCat
05-18-2009, 10:59 AM
How could you possibly use such a strong word as hate to describe your feelings towards people who simply disagree with you? Do you hate everyone from your old rival high school? Do you hate dog-lovers because you're a cat-lover?

There is no reason at all to act like that and use the kind of language you're using. You need to go out and meet people who are different than you are, come to the inevitable conclusion that just like you they are human beings who can live their lives as they please without you wanting to kill them.

You and the rest of your liberal ilk are not human beings.
You're scum.

hazlnut
05-18-2009, 11:46 AM
Thank you, I am a nice guy, I just hate liberals, and you are one.

If you'd stop stimulating your prostate long enough to develop reading comprehension, you would see the post was directed at YOU, not your son, though I feel sorry for the kid having a father like you.

You really know very little about me, and absolutely nothing about my son. Your comments are over the line. But since you haven't been banned, I guess they are considered acceptable.

I did show my son your earlier comment directed at him:


I'm sure he will. Having a faggot for a daddy will make kids appreciate terms like "nutsucker".
You have a nice one too, don't stub your tongue on your boyfriends perineum.


We both feel sorry for anyone filled with that much hate and anger.

Take care

samurai
05-18-2009, 12:21 PM
You really know very little about me, and absolutely nothing about my son. Your comments are over the line. But since you haven't been banned, I guess they are considered acceptable.

I did show my son your earlier comment directed at him:




We both feel sorry for anyone filled with that much hate and anger.

Take care

Well, I will speak up. I think the comments were over the line too. We should be able to discuss issues without being overly nasty to other posters, and especially not bring their families into it. (And while Badcat's insults were not aimed directly at his son, they still involved him.)

Badcat, IMHO you owe Hazelnut and his son an apology. No matter what your feelings on homosexuality, liberals, or whatever the issue may be, we as conservatives should take the high road and leave the personal attacks out of it.

linda22003
05-18-2009, 12:51 PM
Why he would show his son those remarks is completely beyond me.

BadCat
05-18-2009, 01:18 PM
Well, I will speak up. I think the comments were over the line too. We should be able to discuss issues without being overly nasty to other posters, and especially not bring their families into it. (And while Badcat's insults were not aimed directly at his son, they still involved him.)

Badcat, IMHO you owe Hazelnut and his son an apology. No matter what your feelings on homosexuality, liberals, or whatever the issue may be, we as conservatives should take the high road and leave the personal attacks out of it.

Thank you for your opinion. I will disregard it. Your HIGH road has gotten us the most Socialist government in the history of the nation. Pardon me if I don't want to walk on it with you.

BadCat
05-18-2009, 01:37 PM
You really know very little about me, and absolutely nothing about my son. Your comments are over the line. But since you haven't been banned, I guess they are considered acceptable.

I did show my son your earlier comment directed at him:




We both feel sorry for anyone filled with that much hate and anger.

Take care

You explained the term "nutsucker", what and where a perineum is, and how you would stub your tongue on one, to a SEVEN year old??

Wow, you're the "liberal parent of the year".

What's the number of Child Protective Services in Retardo Beach?

samurai
05-18-2009, 03:44 PM
Thank you for your opinion. I will disregard it. Your HIGH road has gotten us the most Socialist government in the history of the nation. Pardon me if I don't want to walk on it with you.

While I agree that McCain could have been more forceful in his race against Obama, attacking Obama's family would have backfired. Besides, the bigger problem was that McCain was a RINO who was at least 50% liberal, and most conservatives knew that. What we needed was a strong conservative who could articulate the issues well and lead and rally the conservative movement, not someone who just took the low road and slung more mud.

asdf2231
05-19-2009, 11:13 AM
Why he would show his son those remarks is completely beyond me.

You close minded anti-alternative lifestyle bigot!

How dare you tell him what he can expose his son to!!

Why do you hate America?






;)

:D

Odysseus
05-19-2009, 12:38 PM
Thank you for your opinion. I will disregard it. Your HIGH road has gotten us the most Socialist government in the history of the nation. Pardon me if I don't want to walk on it with you.

It's not a case of taking the high road so much as getting stuck on the low road. How many people do you convince with insults? Has Gator ever won an argument? How about the loons at DU? McCain didn't fail because he wasn't mean enough, he failed because he wasn't willing to tell the truth about Obama, even politely. In fact, a polite reference to Obama's spiritual mentor and his association with a domestic terrorist would have been far more effective, because it couldn't be construed as a vicious attack. Facts are more annoying to a liberal than invective because liberals can always do invective, but they can't do facts. By sinking to the level of the bad guys, you've changed the debate from what is acceptable as a lifestyle to what is acceptable conduct in a forum, so you've lost the debate and given someone who has no respect for you ammunition to claim the worst things about you. That's how you lose.

Man up, apologize and beat Hazlnut on the merits your arguments. Leave the infantile crap to the infants.

BadCat
05-19-2009, 12:41 PM
It's not a case of taking the high road so much as getting stuck on the low road. How many people do you convince with insults? Has Gator ever won an argument? How about the loons at DU? McCain didn't fail because he wasn't mean enough, he failed because he wasn't willing to tell the truth about Obama, even politely. In fact, a polite reference to Obama's spiritual mentor and his association with a domestic terrorist would have been far more effective, because it couldn't be construed as a vicious attack. Facts are more annoying to a liberal than invective because liberals can always do invective, but they can't do facts. By sinking to the level of the bad guys, you've changed the debate from what is acceptable as a lifestyle to what is acceptable conduct in a forum, so you've lost the debate and given someone who has no respect for you ammunition to claim the worst things about you. That's how you lose.

Man up, apologize and beat Hazlnut on the merits your arguments. Leave the infantile crap to the infants.

Fuck him.

I'm not trying to convince him of a thing except that I think he's a piece of shit.

Hope I was convincing enough on that point.

Odysseus
05-19-2009, 01:19 PM
Fuck him.

I'm not trying to convince him of a thing except that I think he's a piece of shit.

Hope I was convincing enough on that point.

Okay, and the next time that he runs off at the mouth about how hateful conservatives are, and we tell him that we're better than the idiots at the DUmp, he'll pull out your comments as evidence. Did you really want to give him ammunition?

BadCat
05-19-2009, 01:26 PM
Okay, and the next time that he runs off at the mouth about how hateful conservatives are, and we tell him that we're better than the idiots at the DUmp, he'll pull out your comments as evidence. Did you really want to give him ammunition?

And that would change what?

He's already, before I ever posted a single reply to him, called all of "us", racists and homophobes, then in another thread, tried to associate conservatives and Republicans with Fred Phelps. He doesn't need any ammunition from me.

You're not going to change his addled little mind about a single thing, and you're wasting your time trying. You're not going to convert that fagophile over to our point of view. There is no middle ground anymore.

Odysseus
05-19-2009, 03:15 PM
And that would change what?

He's already, before I ever posted a single reply to him, called all of "us", racists and homophobes, then in another thread, tried to associate conservatives and Republicans with Fred Phelps. He doesn't need any ammunition from me.

You're not going to change his addled little mind about a single thing, and you're wasting your time trying. You're not going to convert that fagophile over to our point of view. There is no middle ground anymore.

I don't expect to change his mind. I expect to prove him wrong to anyone whose mind isn't made up. We can't win the war of ideas if we're mired in explaining that we're not racists, homophobes, monsters, Saracens or whatever other BS they come up with. The more that they get to define us, the more time we waste having to undo their warped picture of us in the minds of the undecided. Every minute that I have to spend explaining why I'm not a bigoted monster is a minute that they get to argue for their destructive agenda. Look at the HEAT rounds that you've taken from your own side because you let him get under your skin. We don't win the fight by alienating each other, something that our RINOs need to learn.

BadCat
05-19-2009, 03:23 PM
I don't expect to change his mind. I expect to prove him wrong to anyone whose mind isn't made up. We can't win the war of ideas if we're mired in explaining that we're not racists, homophobes, monsters, Saracens or whatever other BS they come up with. The more that they get to define us, the more time we waste having to undo their warped picture of us in the minds of the undecided. Every minute that I have to spend explaining why I'm not a bigoted monster is a minute that they get to argue for their destructive agenda. Look at the HEAT rounds that you've taken from your own side because you let him get under your skin. We don't win the fight by alienating each other, something that our RINOs need to learn.


I have no beef with you, Ody, I've known you a long time and you and I agree on many things.

This is not going to be one of them.

wilbur
05-19-2009, 03:46 PM
And that would change what?

He's already, before I ever posted a single reply to him, called all of "us", racists and homophobes, then in another thread, tried to associate conservatives and Republicans with Fred Phelps. He doesn't need any ammunition from me.


It doesnt change anything, or alter his opinion... it just makes his opinion absolutely correct. You've simply validated everything Hazelnut has said, even though I'm sure that wasnt your intent.

BadCat
05-19-2009, 03:53 PM
It doesnt change anything, or alter his opinion... it just makes his opinion absolutely correct. You've simply validated everything Hazelnut has said, even though I'm sure that wasnt your intent.

My intent was to INSULT him, and I apparently did that, as well has hurt his feminine feelings.

Odysseus
05-19-2009, 05:46 PM
I have no beef with you, Ody, I've known you a long time and you and I agree on many things.

This is not going to be one of them.

Ditto, but I recommend that you keep your temper. First, he's not worth the aggravation. Second, you're better than that.

Water Closet
05-19-2009, 05:49 PM
Ditto, but I recommend that you keep your temper. First, he's not worth the aggravation. Second, you're better than that.

Yeah!!!? You've never seen him trying to pick up a hooker at Max's! :D

Odysseus
05-19-2009, 06:02 PM
Yeah!!!? You've never seen him trying to pick up a hooker at Max's! :D

On the contrary, that's where I first gained my respect for his prowess. :D

Camaraderie
05-19-2009, 07:19 PM
(http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/member.php?u=140)And the sudden arrival of slur master asdf2231 is another byproduct of taking the low road.


It's not a case of taking the high road so much as getting stuck on the low road. How many people do you convince with insults? Has Gator ever won an argument? How about the loons at DU? McCain didn't fail because he wasn't mean enough, he failed because he wasn't willing to tell the truth about Obama, even politely. In fact, a polite reference to Obama's spiritual mentor and his association with a domestic terrorist would have been far more effective, because it couldn't be construed as a vicious attack. Facts are more annoying to a liberal than invective because liberals can always do invective, but they can't do facts. By sinking to the level of the bad guys, you've changed the debate from what is acceptable as a lifestyle to what is acceptable conduct in a forum, so you've lost the debate and given someone who has no respect for you ammunition to claim the worst things about you. That's how you lose.

Man up, apologize and beat Hazlnut on the merits your arguments. Leave the infantile crap to the infants.

BadCat
05-19-2009, 08:16 PM
(http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/member.php?u=140)And the sudden arrival of slur master asdf2231 is another byproduct of taking the low road.

You have a problem with asdf or you have a problem with insults towards moonbats?

Water Closet
05-19-2009, 08:21 PM
You have a problem with asdf or you have a problem with insults towards moonbats?

I'm confused. I don't like asdf, but I'm not sure what sort of "slurs" he supposedly made in this thread? :confused: The only post I see is a joking post with Linda.

And, for someone who is supposedly quite new, how does our friend here know anything about asdf? That sentence quite clearly doesn't apply to me, btw. :D

lacarnut
05-19-2009, 08:29 PM
(http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/member.php?u=140)And the sudden arrival of slur master asdf2231 is another byproduct of taking the low road.

He was joking but he should have used a sarcastic smily at the end.

Camaraderie
05-20-2009, 02:08 AM
He was joking but he should have used a sarcastic smily at the end.

No, I wasn't joking.

asdf2231
05-20-2009, 09:52 AM
(http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/member.php?u=140)And the sudden arrival of slur master asdf2231 is another byproduct of taking the low road.


Considering you only have 15 posts here and most of them are in the buggery thread here I am just gonna assume that you have long term stalker issues and invite you to cram something appropriately pointy and bulky into whatever orifice you choose and rotate on it as you will.

Have a nice day.

:)

Camaraderie
05-20-2009, 03:44 PM
I rest my case.


Considering you only have 15 posts here and most of them are in the buggery thread here I am just gonna assume that you have long term stalker issues and invite you to cram something appropriately pointy and bulky into whatever orifice you choose and rotate on it as you will.

Have a nice day.

:)

BadCat
05-20-2009, 03:58 PM
I rest my case.

What case is it that you think you're resting?

asdf2231
05-20-2009, 04:05 PM
I rest my case.


That wasn't a slur.

A slur would be something like "You are a retarded douche-bag who fornicates with squirrels". Or saying you liked Coldplay.

What I offered was a politely worded invitation to you to go F*ck yourself with an object of your own choosing in whatever manner befits ya.

I even offered a pleasantry and a smiley at the end.

And you get all uppity 'bout it.

This is why we can't have nice things.

BTW who are you at DU or other locals that you have such a hardon for me when you are a nOOb here? To the point where you feel you have to chime in when I was making a joking post to someone else?

Sarasota needs to dust off the IP lookup gear again.

Camaraderie
05-20-2009, 05:55 PM
More evidence. Thank you.


..."You are a retarded douche-bag who fornicates with squirrels".

...go F*ck yourself with an object of your own choosing in whatever manner befits ya.

BadCat
05-20-2009, 06:05 PM
More evidence. Thank you.

Man, I hope you're not a lawyer.

Odysseus
05-20-2009, 07:45 PM
...Or saying you liked Coldplay.

Hey! There are kids reading this! :eek::D

asdf2231
05-20-2009, 09:56 PM
More evidence. Thank you.


You're welcome.

If I can provide any further evidence I will be more than happy to help you out.

Have a great day and eff you very much.

See? That wasn't a slur either.

It was more in the nature of a dismissive insult.

If you need more object lessons feel free to ask.

:)

asdf2231
05-20-2009, 09:57 PM
Hey! There are kids reading this! :eek::D


Given the Ghey nature of the thread it was only a matter of time before Coldplay got mentioned. :D

hazlnut
05-21-2009, 12:16 AM
My intent was to INSULT him, and I apparently did that, as well has hurt his feminine feelings.

Listen to the David Bowie wanna-be. Typical closet poof. Goes around acting all big and tough talking, faggot this, dicklick that, meanwhile anytime he makes it with a girl, she's wearing a Mic Jagger mask!!:eek:

Come clean, BadCat. It's cool. You know us libs are totally excepting of your lifestyle.

Do it, man. Come out, right here, on CU.

Admit it. You love c*ck. And you absolutely adore the smell of a man's backside. You had a few too many beers at your last gig and woke up next to your base player. Hey, man, it's really alright. We won't judge.

Think of the freedom you'll have. You can go cruising anytime you want without all the guilt and shame.

JUST ADMIT IT! Your happy place is a reststop bathroom.

And I know you're just dying to name-drop. Not being able to tell us all about that big star you went down on is killing you. Did he invite you back to his hotel room? I bet you were all giddy when you took the walk of shame the next morning.

Stop the lies, BadCat. Set your gay man-loving self free. The country is changing. You don't have to hide anymore.

BTW--my son wants to know what your high score is on WOW.

You angry little geek. My 15-year-old son and I had a good laugh over you. Now we're done.

Good luck with that music career. Send me a postcard from the land of obscurity.

Here's some advice. Write about what you know... the dark little angry bitter hateful closet you've locked yourself in.

David Bowie... LMFAO:D:p

wilbur
05-21-2009, 12:25 AM
BadCat and asdf sure do make a cute couple don't they? I'm so happy for them.

CueSi
05-21-2009, 01:41 AM
Listen to the David Bowie wanna-be. Typical closet poof. Goes around acting all big and tough talking, faggot this, dicklick that, meanwhile anytime he makes it with a girl, she's wearing a Mic Jagger mask!!:eek:

Come clean, BadCat. It's cool. You know us libs are totally excepting of your lifestyle.

Do it, man. Come out, right here, on CU.

Admit it. You love c*ck. And you absolutely adore the smell of a man's backside. You had a few too many beers at your last gig and woke up next to your base player. Hey, man, it's really alright. We won't judge.

Think of the freedom you'll have. You can go cruising anytime you want without all the guilt and shame.

JUST ADMIT IT! Your happy place is a reststop bathroom.

And I know you're just dying to name-drop. Not being able to tell us all about that big star you went down on is killing you. Did he invite you back to his hotel room? I bet you were all giddy when you took the walk of shame the next morning.

Stop the lies, BadCat. Set your gay man-loving self free. The country is changing. You don't have to hide anymore.

BTW--my son wants to know what your high score is on WOW.

You angry little geek. My 15-year-old son and I had a good laugh over you. Now we're done.

Good luck with that music career. Send me a postcard from the land of obscurity.

Here's some advice. Write about what you know... the dark little angry bitter hateful closet you've locked yourself in.

David Bowie... LMFAO:D:p

Lame. Homophobia=Latent homosexual tendencies is sooo 2002.

~QC

Camaraderie
05-21-2009, 06:03 AM
Listen to the David Bowie wanna-be. Typical closet poof. Goes around acting all big and tough talking, faggot this, dicklick that, meanwhile anytime he makes it with a girl, she's wearing a Mic Jagger mask!!:eek:

Come clean, BadCat. It's cool. You know us libs are totally excepting of your lifestyle.

Do it, man. Come out, right here, on CU.

Admit it. You love c*ck. And you absolutely adore the smell of a man's backside. You had a few too many beers at your last gig and woke up next to your base player. Hey, man, it's really alright. We won't judge.

Think of the freedom you'll have. You can go cruising anytime you want without all the guilt and shame.

JUST ADMIT IT! Your happy place is a reststop bathroom.

And I know you're just dying to name-drop. Not being able to tell us all about that big star you went down on is killing you. Did he invite you back to his hotel room? I bet you were all giddy when you took the walk of shame the next morning.

Stop the lies, BadCat. Set your gay man-loving self free. The country is changing. You don't have to hide anymore.

BTW--my son wants to know what your high score is on WOW.

You angry little geek. My 15-year-old son and I had a good laugh over you. Now we're done.

Good luck with that music career. Send me a postcard from the land of obscurity.

Here's some advice. Write about what you know... the dark little angry bitter hateful closet you've locked yourself in.

David Bowie... LMFAO:D:p

I've never seen so many progressive talking points in a single post.

Camaraderie
05-21-2009, 06:04 AM
More evidence. Thanks. ;)


eff you very much.

hazlnut
05-21-2009, 07:31 AM
Lame. Homophobia=Latent homosexual tendencies is sooo 2002.

~QC

No Cutie, what's Lame is attacking a person's family, his kids. Being so angry and immature that you bring someone's family into a heated discussion. That's beyond Lame. It's being an a**hole.

(Question is, where does that all anger come from. Latent Homosexuality?)

What's even Lamer, is sticking up for him. He admitted that he was trying to insult me.

No worries. I'm done with him. He can wallow in his own viscous hate. Maybe write some good songs about it.

Water Closet
05-21-2009, 07:35 AM
No Cutie, what's Lame is attacking a person's family, his kids. Being so angry and immature that you bring someone's family into a heated discussion. That's beyond Lame. It's being an a**hole.

(Question is, where does that all anger come from. Latent Homosexuality?)

What's even Lamer, is sticking up for him. He admitted that he was trying to insult me.

No worries. I'm done with him. He can wallow in his own viscous hate. Maybe write some good songs about it.

It's also against the rules of the board. But, not to worry, those rules are very selectively enforced.

Lars1701a
05-21-2009, 09:55 AM
Listen to the David Bowie wanna-be. Typical closet poof. Goes around acting all big and tough talking, faggot this, dicklick that, meanwhile anytime he makes it with a girl, she's wearing a Mic Jagger mask!!:eek:

Come clean, BadCat. It's cool. You know us libs are totally excepting of your lifestyle.

Do it, man. Come out, right here, on CU.

Admit it. You love c*ck. And you absolutely adore the smell of a man's backside. You had a few too many beers at your last gig and woke up next to your base player. Hey, man, it's really alright. We won't judge.

Think of the freedom you'll have. You can go cruising anytime you want without all the guilt and shame.

JUST ADMIT IT! Your happy place is a reststop bathroom.

And I know you're just dying to name-drop. Not being able to tell us all about that big star you went down on is killing you. Did he invite you back to his hotel room? I bet you were all giddy when you took the walk of shame the next morning.

Stop the lies, BadCat. Set your gay man-loving self free. The country is changing. You don't have to hide anymore.

BTW--my son wants to know what your high score is on WOW.

You angry little geek. My 15-year-old son and I had a good laugh over you. Now we're done.

Good luck with that music career. Send me a postcard from the land of obscurity.

Here's some advice. Write about what you know... the dark little angry bitter hateful closet you've locked yourself in.

David Bowie... LMFAO:D:p



WTF is wrong with you? Just because someone is against the Homo agenda does not mean that someone is gay. I feel sorry for your son that he has a OPENLY gay father. He must have to make up many excuses to his friends about his faggoty father.

BadCat
05-21-2009, 10:49 AM
Listen to the David Bowie wanna-be. Typical closet poof. Goes around acting all big and tough talking, faggot this, dicklick that, meanwhile anytime he makes it with a girl, she's wearing a Mic Jagger mask!!:eek:

Come clean, BadCat. It's cool. You know us libs are totally excepting of your lifestyle.

Do it, man. Come out, right here, on CU.

Admit it. You love c*ck. And you absolutely adore the smell of a man's backside. You had a few too many beers at your last gig and woke up next to your base player. Hey, man, it's really alright. We won't judge.

Think of the freedom you'll have. You can go cruising anytime you want without all the guilt and shame.

JUST ADMIT IT! Your happy place is a reststop bathroom.

And I know you're just dying to name-drop. Not being able to tell us all about that big star you went down on is killing you. Did he invite you back to his hotel room? I bet you were all giddy when you took the walk of shame the next morning.

Stop the lies, BadCat. Set your gay man-loving self free. The country is changing. You don't have to hide anymore.

BTW--my son wants to know what your high score is on WOW.

You angry little geek. My 15-year-old son and I had a good laugh over you. Now we're done.

Good luck with that music career. Send me a postcard from the land of obscurity.

Here's some advice. Write about what you know... the dark little angry bitter hateful closet you've locked yourself in.

David Bowie... LMFAO:D:p

So funny to see a homo loving lib using homo slurs against someone.
What a fucking hypocrite.

Odysseus
05-21-2009, 11:13 AM
No Cutie, what's Lame is attacking a person's family, his kids. Being so angry and immature that you bring someone's family into a heated discussion. That's beyond Lame. It's being an a**hole.

(Question is, where does that all anger come from. Latent Homosexuality?)

What's even Lamer, is sticking up for him. He admitted that he was trying to insult me.

No worries. I'm done with him. He can wallow in his own viscous hate. Maybe write some good songs about it.

And now that you've sunk to the same level of personal invective. How is that working out for you? :rolleyes:

linda22003
05-21-2009, 11:18 AM
Boys can be SUCH drama queens. :rolleyes:

BadCat
05-21-2009, 11:27 AM
And now that you've sunk to the same level of personal invective. How is that working out for you? :rolleyes:

Worked out exactly like I knew it would.
The liberal "defense" of the homosexual agenda only goes so far.

He just proved it.

patriot45
05-21-2009, 12:20 PM
Are we a new and kinder CU? Should we move closer to the middle and be moderate like the Republican party! Thats a joke. I dont have any use for liberals, they are a destructive force with nothing but anti Americans as thier backbone.
Who would that be? Well, on the lib side would be Queers, anti-capitolists, abortionists, anti-war, enviro-whackos and every other miscreant bleeding heart there is.
Yeah we should have feelings for thier side! Hah.

lacarnut
05-21-2009, 12:26 PM
Are we a new and kinder CU? Should we move closer to the middle and be moderate like the Republican party! Thats a joke. I dont have any use for liberals, they are a destructive force with nothing but anti Americans as thier backbone.
Who would that be? Well, on the lib side would be Queers, anti-capitolists, abortionists, anti-war, enviro-whackos and every other miscreant bleeding heart there is.
Yeah we should have feelings for thier side! Hah.

My exact sentiments....5 stars.

stsinner
05-21-2009, 12:37 PM
Are we a new and kinder CU? Should we move closer to the middle and be moderate like the Republican party! Thats a joke. I dont have any use for liberals, they are a destructive force with nothing but anti Americans as thier backbone.
Who would that be? Well, on the lib side would be Queers, anti-capitolists, abortionists, anti-war, enviro-whackos and every other miscreant bleeding heart there is.
Yeah we should have feelings for thier side! Hah.

True dat.

BadCat
05-21-2009, 12:39 PM
I am somewhat vexed by nutsuckers hatred for David Bowie. Though I have cared little for his work after Diamond Dogs, a liberal should just LOVE Bowie, he's one of them.

Maybe it's because nutsuckers boyfriend sings "Cracked Actor" to him every night?

wilbur
05-21-2009, 12:49 PM
Are we a new and kinder CU? Should we move closer to the middle and be moderate like the Republican party! Thats a joke. I dont have any use for liberals, they are a destructive force
with nothing but anti Americans as thier backbone.
Who would that be? Well, on the lib side would be Queers, anti-capitolists, abortionists, anti-war, enviro-whackos and every other miscreant bleeding heart there is.
Yeah we should have feelings for thier side! Hah.

To the extremist, a sensible, reasonable and informed human being often appears like a 'moderate' or 'centrist'.... but becoming a sensible, reasonable, and informed human being does not necessarily mean one is a 'moderate', even though it appears that way to some.

asdf2231
05-21-2009, 12:50 PM
BadCat and asdf sure do make a cute couple don't they? I'm so happy for them.

How's that Blimp and those money bombs workin' out for ya sparky?

Have a Slim Jim!

BadCat
05-21-2009, 12:55 PM
How's that Blimp and those money bombs workin' out for ya sparky?

Have a Slim Jim!

Don't give him a Slim Jim.
You don't know what he'll do with it.

patriot45
05-21-2009, 01:01 PM
To the extremist, a sensible, reasonable and informed human being often appears like a 'moderate' or 'centrist'.... but becoming a sensible, reasonable, and informed human being does not necessarily mean one is a 'moderate', even though it appears that way to some.

This works for you because you are defining who the extremist is. My views are extreme to bleeding heart libs and I see no reason to meet halfway. Bleeding heart libs views are extreme to any sensible, reasonable and informed person.

linda22003
05-21-2009, 01:08 PM
This has turned into a bigger catfight than Valley of the Dolls. :p

Jfor
05-21-2009, 01:08 PM
This works for you because you are defining who the extremist is. My views are extreme to bleeding heart libs and I see no reason to meet halfway. Bleeding heart libs views are extreme to any sensible, reasonable and informed person.

werd

wilbur
05-21-2009, 01:20 PM
This works for you because you are defining who the extremist is. My views are extreme to bleeding heart libs and I see no reason to meet halfway. Bleeding heart libs views are extreme to any sensible, reasonable and informed person.

And Limbaugh conservatism is extreme to any sensible, reasonable and informed person.

I've talked with many liberals who would absolutely eat your lunch (as well as most others here) in any political argument, and by all standards would appear much more reasonable, thoughtful, logical and informed as well. In my experience, there are remarkably few cogent conservatives out there who can argue their philosophy reasonably and intelligently on the internet, in person, or in the media (there's mabye 1 or 2 here, but thats it).... but oddly enough, its not hard to find that on the other side (although, the DUmp isnt a good place to look).

patriot45
05-21-2009, 01:26 PM
And Limbaugh conservatism is extreme to any sensible, reasonable and informed person.

I've talked with many liberals who would absolutely eat your lunch (as well as most others here) in any political argument, and by all standards would appear much more reasonable, thoughtful, logical and informed as well. In my experience, there are remarkably few cogent conservatives out there who can argue their philosophy reasonably and intelligently on the internet, in person, or in the media (there's mabye 1 or 2 here, but thats it).... but oddly enough, its not hard to find that on the other side (although, the DUmp isnt a good place to look).

Man oh man, you are too much! You will not see me debase myself on a liberal board trying to get along!
I post on a conservative board. How can you and your lib friends eat my lunch when you are wrong in my view on all fronts! Just because you can say in 5000 words what can be said in 2 sentences does not make you bright, it makes you boring.

RobJohnson
05-22-2009, 09:22 AM
StSinner, why don't you have confidence in your influence on your child/children? Why do you assume the government's message is stronger and will overwhelm yours?

Maybe the schools could skip over teaching about fags and teach more math?

Lars1701a
05-22-2009, 09:26 AM
Maybe the schools could skip over teaching about fags and teach more math?

I forgot to put this in my reply to lindanumbers, but why should a parent HAVE to compete against another's message?

RobJohnson
05-22-2009, 09:27 AM
Wasn't federal income tax considered unconstitutional at some point? Until it became constitutional. I know I'm rambling but my point is valid. The constitution says what it says. We should not be allowed to "interpret" it as time goes by. They said what they meant and meant what they said. Who really cares if gays can marry? Worried about benefits? Work for a company that provides them. Worried about your will? Don't be daft. You can handle your will however you wish.
The whole "my SO can't visit me on my deathbed in the hospital" is a myth too.

I'm forced to agree with you. :eek:

Good post. :)

Water Closet
05-22-2009, 09:27 AM
Maybe the schools could skip over teaching about fags and teach more math?

Exactly! And keep the mythology to humanities classes and out of science classes.

RobJohnson
05-22-2009, 09:36 AM
I think it's time to let this thread go to thread heaven.

Then no gays will be able to read it. :D

stsinner
05-22-2009, 09:43 AM
I forgot to put this in my reply to lindanumbers, but why should a parent HAVE to compete against another's message?

Lindanumbers... LOL.. Nothing to add.. Just thought that was funny.

RobJohnson
05-22-2009, 09:48 AM
You had a few too many beers at your last gig and woke up next to your base player. Hey, man, it's really alright. We won't judge.



Not even spell check can keep you from misspelling 4 letter words. :D

RobJohnson
05-22-2009, 09:53 AM
We all know that men going down on each other is gross.

When women do it, it's hawt. :D

Go lesbians!

linda22003
05-22-2009, 09:57 AM
We all know that men going down on each other is gross.

When women do it, it's hawt. :D

Go lesbians!

That has always amused me, that homosexuality is disgusting unless it's women, in which case it's porn movie material. My book club and I were discussing the amusement value of this one evening at my house, and just shaking our heads at the double standard that men have about this.

I said, "I can pretty much guarantee you that my husband would pay a hundred bucks to see any two of us French kissing each other." We called my husband upstairs to try the experiment. God bless his sense of humor - without prompting, he took out his wallet, looked through it in a panicky way, and said, "I forgot to go to the bank today! What can I get for twenty bucks?!?" :p

hazlnut
05-22-2009, 10:45 AM
Then no gays will be able to read it. :D

Another compassionate conservative...:rolleyes:

The hits just keep on coming!:cool:

Lars1701a
05-22-2009, 10:46 AM
That has always amused me, that homosexuality is disgusting unless it's women, in which case it's porn movie material. My book club and I were discussing the amusement value of this one evening at my house, and just shaking our heads at the double standard that men have about this.

I said, "I can pretty much guarantee you that my husband would pay a hundred bucks to see any two of us French kissing each other." We called my husband upstairs to try the experiment. God bless his sense of humor - without prompting, he took out his wallet, looked through it in a panicky way, and said, "I forgot to go to the bank today! What can I get for twenty bucks?!?" :p

Life is full of double standards. :D


I was barking up that tree with my wife for 10 years :)

CueSi
05-22-2009, 11:08 AM
I usually stop that in it's tracks by saying, "You and <good-looking friend here> first. " :D

~QC

samurai
05-22-2009, 12:03 PM
We all know that men going down on each other is gross.

When women do it, it's hawt. :D

Go lesbians!


That has always amused me, that homosexuality is disgusting unless it's women, in which case it's porn movie material. My book club and I were discussing the amusement value of this one evening at my house, and just shaking our heads at the double standard that men have about this.

I said, "I can pretty much guarantee you that my husband would pay a hundred bucks to see any two of us French kissing each other." We called my husband upstairs to try the experiment. God bless his sense of humor - without prompting, he took out his wallet, looked through it in a panicky way, and said, "I forgot to go to the bank today! What can I get for twenty bucks?!?" :p

Let me explain the math behind it:

When it's a man and woman we are watching, we avoid watching the guy and instead mentally replace him with ourselves and focus on the woman, and it's all good.

When it's 2 women, it's different but there's no guy to avoid looking at, so it's still 100% watchable. We don't think of it as "they are really lesbians in love with each other", our minds process it as "Wow, 2 hot women going at it = twice as much to watch, and the poor things are only focused on each other because I'm not there..."

However, 2 guys going at it does nothing for us. There's no woman to watch, no mental substitution to perform. It's just disturbing and unwatchable.

RobJohnson
05-22-2009, 01:17 PM
Another compassionate conservative...:rolleyes:

The hits just keep on coming!:cool:

I never claimed to have compassion.

You can shove your compassion up your ass, I'm sure you have plenty of extra lube.

RobJohnson
05-22-2009, 01:18 PM
That has always amused me, that homosexuality is disgusting unless it's women, in which case it's porn movie material. My book club and I were discussing the amusement value of this one evening at my house, and just shaking our heads at the double standard that men have about this.

I said, "I can pretty much guarantee you that my husband would pay a hundred bucks to see any two of us French kissing each other." We called my husband upstairs to try the experiment. God bless his sense of humor - without prompting, he took out his wallet, looked through it in a panicky way, and said, "I forgot to go to the bank today! What can I get for twenty bucks?!?" :p

:D

This thread now needs pictures!

RobJohnson
05-22-2009, 01:19 PM
! Just because you can say in 5000 words what can be said in 2 sentences does not make you bright, it makes you boring.

HA! :D:D:D

linda22003
05-22-2009, 01:21 PM
our minds process it as "Wow, 2 hot women going at it = twice as much to watch, and the poor things are only focused on each other because I'm not there..."



Guys. If it weren't for their fantasy lives, they'd have no lives at all. :p

Lager
05-22-2009, 02:11 PM
And Limbaugh conservatism is extreme to any sensible, reasonable and informed person.

I've talked with many liberals who would absolutely eat your lunch (as well as most others here) in any political argument, and by all standards would appear much more reasonable, thoughtful, logical and informed as well. In my experience, there are remarkably few cogent conservatives out there who can argue their philosophy reasonably and intelligently on the internet, in person, or in the media (there's mabye 1 or 2 here, but thats it).... but oddly enough, its not hard to find that on the other side (although, the DUmp isnt a good place to look).

If you've really found sites on the internet where liberals argue their philosophy reasonably well, and do not shy away from debate, nor have to ban or censor dissenting opinion, I'd be very interested in checking those out. If you know of any, could you give me the names?

Molon Labe
05-22-2009, 02:12 PM
Wow...when I saw post count I thought for sure someone would have been banned by now. :D

BadCat
05-22-2009, 02:14 PM
Wow...when I saw post count I thought for sure someone would have been banned by now. :D

And it even has a child thread in the dome.

Molon Labe
05-22-2009, 02:29 PM
And it even has a child thread in the dome.

Yes.....I've been reading that....
It get's the adrenaline up:p