africanhope

Wait, Nash, come one, read your post. I know aht you mean, but read YOUR post. You have 3 islands, one with hetero sexual men, one with homosexual men, and one with women. All of them will die out after a while, won't they?

AH

__________________
“The subject no longer has to be mentioned by name. Someone is sick. Someone else is feeling better now. A friend has just gone back into the hospital. Another has died. The unspoken name, of course, is AIDS.”
“From the point of view of the pharmaceutical industry, the AIDS problem has already been solved. After all, we already have a drug which can be sold at the incredible price of $8, 000 an annual dose, and which has the added virtue of not diminishing the market by actually curing anyone.”

Ygorl

It's actually common knowledge to anyone that knows anything about the issue that there are more EX "homosexuals" than there are "homosexuals."

Statistics say is that there are far more ex-homosexuals in America than there are active homosexuals. So much for the lie that you can't change. More change than DON'T.

Though I have plenty of proof, I'll not bother presenting you with what you can easily find on your own.

Not that you'll bother of course. It wouldn't help your "cause."

__________________
Why do liberals oppose capitalism except when it produces or promotes perversions and/or degeneracy ?

Ygorl

I wouldn't say it's a "culture of death," I'd say it's a deadly "lifestyle."

Since they like to have us call their perverse sexual desires a "lifestyle."

__________________
Why do liberals oppose capitalism except when it produces or promotes perversions and/or degeneracy ?

swialiberal

To the furthest extent of my knowledge, no, it is not "common knowledge". Actually, this may be the first time I have ever heard somebody assert that claim.

__________________
"Our liberties we prize and our rights we will maintain"

africanhope

Nope, the burden of proof isactually on you, not on me. You made a stement, - commonsense only you seem to know - so I would like you to givethe proof for that. I work in this line, and hav never heard of this, so I would like to so your proof. But at the absence of proof, I will treatthis so called common sense that seems not to be so common as opinion.

AH

__________________
“The subject no longer has to be mentioned by name. Someone is sick. Someone else is feeling better now. A friend has just gone back into the hospital. Another has died. The unspoken name, of course, is AIDS.”
“From the point of view of the pharmaceutical industry, the AIDS problem has already been solved. After all, we already have a drug which can be sold at the incredible price of $8, 000 an annual dose, and which has the added virtue of not diminishing the market by actually curing anyone.”

tresha

I gotta jump back in here for a bit.
I don't consider anyone who disagrees with my life to be a "homophobe". I just don't. I know there are plenty of people who disagree for reasons that are wholly moral (to them) or just come from different idealogical positions.
But at the same time, I have in fact met people who are "phobic" of me.
They automatically believe I am a threat to their children or that I will hit on them or their wives/girlfriends. And they are frightened by this, thus the phobia aspect of this.

I'm not a danger to children and never have been. I don't go after someone's wife or girlfriend, cause that's not my style.
I don't consider myself a "heterophobe" either. I've got plenty of straight friends and we get along with each other great.

I don't hate the Christians or anyone else who rail against me; even when they do it publicly or politically.
I fear them, but I don't hate them.

I fear them, because I have seen what that kind of ignorance and bigotry can do. I've seen it happen to me and my friends and I've read with horror about what happens to people like Matthew Sheppard or Lawrence King.

To me, it just doesn't matter whether I was born this way or not.
I never remember blatently choosing to be attracted to women, but I am.
I don't hurt anyone with what I'm doing and I've damn sure never beaten anyone because I'm gay and they're not.

__________________


"If you can't do something smart, do something right."

Nash

where the fuck did i say the heterolsexual men?? i said the heterolsexuals(this means men and women!!) on one island and put homosexual women on the other and the homosexual men on the third the homosexuals would die out much faster in fact you would cease to exist after not even 200 years. Homosexuality is a life style of death, homosexuals should be homophobic because they have no future.They live a culture of death, I really believe that we should put you all on your own country or seperate island. You could have your gay army or gay mc donalds your gay stores gay walmarts ect.. and when you cease to exist we the heterolsexuals would take the land back


yes it is a deadly lifestyle i used the term "culture of death" because culture can be defined as the intergrated pattern of human knowledge, belief and behaviour that depends on mans capacity for learning and transmitting knowledge to succeeding generations. And to be blunt two penisis sword fighting and attacking the anus does not produce a baby and neither does two vaginas rubbing together you might give birth to friction but not a baby hence the term culture of death!

yes because you represent a poisin lifestyle of death and they do not want their children whose minds can be easily manipulated to look at you as some sort of role model and as far as their wives if given the opportunitie a lesbian woman would hit on the wife in a minute.

.
well in your next line you admit that you are!!

perfect example of hetrophobia


yes play the "i dont remember card" now, you chose you made up your mind you wasn't born that way

LiveUninhibited

Reframing how? The original post was about how whenever somebody questions the morality of homosexuality, they are labeled a homophobe. Fear and hatred were equated, and the author argued that the homosexuals and their allies are being hypocritical because they were being hateful when they accused the haters of being hateful.

Who is right? Well the core of the issue is whether there is a good reason to oppose homosexuality. If there were, then opposition to homosexuality would not be ignorant and hateful. If there is no reason to oppose homosexuality, then opposition to homosexuality must be based upon bigotry and hatred. Since I do not see any rational reason to oppose homosexuality, my conclusion is that the opposition is based upon some kind of ignorant or bigotted reasons.

Unlike Christians, my view is that the only reason to treat people differently under the law is when they harm another person against their will.

I am not attempting to hide the fact that I hate the hypocrical and/or irrational stances that come from many people who call themselves Christians.

Sidestepping what? Please be more clear. I was giving an example of how homosexuality is not harmful, not even to the individual who voluntarily engages in it.

Of course even if you could prove that homosexuality harms people who voluntarily engage in it, it would not change my position. I only care if the act harms others against their consent. If the act does not harm others, then it is nobody's business to discourage the act or treat people who engage in the act differently under the law.

It doesn't matter. Even if that were true, it would not prove that homosexuality is always a choice. And again I offer the hypothesis that some people are bisexual, some people are heterosexual, and some people are homosexual. The people in the last two categories have no choice. I cannot choose to be homosexual. I cannot get turned on by other men. Anybody who can get turned on by both is bisexual to some degree.

A person is in the minority when a viewpoint or attribute of theirs is outnumbered by others in the population. Obviously homosexuals are a minority, but my argument is not based upon them being a minority. My argument is that their behavior harms nobody beyond them, so they deserve to have equal rights. And no, allowing everybody to marry somebody of the opposite gender is not "equal rights" any more than allowing people to only marry the same race is. Black people having equal rights has nothing to do with them being a minority. If they were the majority, they would still deserve equal rights, but in a democratic system, the minorities are more likely to have their rights trampled. Insofar as homosexuals and homosexual sympathizers are outnumbered by Christians who want to write law based upon Leviticus, their rights will be threatened.

You have done very little to "deal" with my arguments beyond labeling them all as cloaked hatred. The hatred is not cloaked. It is very real and transparent as you say. While I hate most religious institutions, I do not hate somebody because they are a Christian. If one really did act Christian, in terms of loving others and not judging them, then they would be very easy to like. I have known a few of these, but they are a minority among people who call themselves Christians.

But you act as if hatred is inherently bad. Hatred is sometimes justified. I hate hypocrisy. I hate irrationality. Hypocrisy and irrationality lead to suffering and they should be fervently opposed. But as for getting away from the topic, I don't see your point. You believe there is a double-standard in the debate on homosexuality. I have explained why I do not agree that such a double standard exists. It only seems like it because some Christians don't know how to mind to their own morality and otherwise live and let live. I think it is understandable for the persecuted to hate the persecutor just as it was understandable for the slaves to hate the slaveowners. Many slaves hated their masters. Does that mean slavery was okay? That's analogous to your argument against homosexuals calling homophobes homophobes.

It it's only a word, then why not redefine it to suit the changing times? My only concern is equal rights. Does this mean you're for civil unions with all of the same perks of heterosexual marriage? I am not so sure that calling it something else would lead to equal rights any more than calling interracial marriage something else would have.

Ygorl

The word doesn't assign "the rights."

If I called you the president of the united states that doesn't make it so.

I AM for civil unions with all of the same perks of heterosexual marriage, as you said.

Mostly a semantics issue with me. And I also realize that it will have long term negative consequences if we call two entirely different things the same thing when they're so obviously not.

__________________
Why do liberals oppose capitalism except when it produces or promotes perversions and/or degeneracy ?

Ygorl

Always neat to see and talk to one that isn't full of hatred for straight people. That doesn't fake ignorance of facts in order to strengthen their case for their own ideas:

Originally Posted by Ygorl
It's actually common knowledge to anyone that knows anything about the issue that there are more EX "homosexuals" than there are "homosexuals."

answer:
To the furthest extent of my knowledge, no, it is not "common knowledge". Actually, this may be the first time I have ever heard somebody assert that claim.

Yeah, I beleive that

Yes, and I have had people as friends that are "gay" as well. I couldn't care less about what they do in their bedrooms. My only concern is that many radical, fringe "gays" are wanting the entire society to accept and embrace their 'relations' as the exact same thing as a male-female 'relation' which it simply cannot. They are different things. We don't call different things the same word. We don't call different types of human relationships the same word. We never have.

As one who defends Christians and their causes often it may not make sense to you that I understand your fear. There are christians that I am as disgusted with as I am many radical, freakfringe "gays."

I defend them and their issues today because I see them under a steady and malicious attack by sickos of every stripe (not just "gays").

It's a humanities issue that at its core underlines peoples tendencies to fuck ANYTHING up.

We understand these things. Most of us don't hate "gays." We DO hate what many of them want to do to our society by redefining the meaning of a human relationship.

What they often do to themselves.

That they hate many of us only because we are considered "normal" or "straight."

__________________
Why do liberals oppose capitalism except when it produces or promotes perversions and/or degeneracy ?