Liberal media outlets aren't usually sympathetic to the story of people growing upset at the changing shape of their neighborhoods, often at the arrival of new Hispanic or Asian immigrants. But AP reporter Lisa Leff reports sensitively from San Francisco that the distraught natives who dislike the invaders are gay men are upset at the arrival of -- gasp -- people with baby strollers:
SAN FRANCISCO -- Even on a weekday in winter, the Castro district vibrates with energy, most of it male. Men holding hands, walking dogs and lounging at cafes have long been the main attraction in a neighborhood known as a gay mecca the world over.
Yet where visitors see a living monument to gay pride, longtime community leader Brian Basinger sees a cultural enclave at risk of becoming a faded museum piece - or worse, a place where men who love men may one day feel like they don't belong.
"When I see a stroller now, I see it as someone who evicted a person with AIDS, right or wrong," said Basinger, president of the Harvey Milk Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transexual Democratic Club.
This is an interesting sound for people who used terms like "born-again bigots" to describe those who disagree with their "sexual orientation." But the problem, apparently, is growing acceptance: "as gays and lesbians win legal rights and greater social acceptance, community activists worry these so-called 'gayborhoods' are losing their relevance."
Lisa Leff (Lisa Left?) simply relays their anxiety that the neighborhood is becoming "Disneyfied" -- that it's losing its bohemian, sex-drenched flavor. Notice the threatening language embraced by the reporter that the "wild abandon" and sexual liberation is not the dominant culture:
Don Reuter, a New York writer who is researching a book on the rise and fall of a dozen gay neighborhoods in the U.S., has observed the same trend in cities as far-flung as New Orleans, Philadelphia and Seattle. He found "Disneyfied" places boasting chain stores, restaurants catering to a diverse clientele and "cleared of any reference to sex."
"What makes these neighborhoods gay? Not much," concluded Reuter, who predicts that outside New York, San Francisco and a handful of other cities, neighborhoods with a significant gay presence will not survive.
In the early 1970s, an atmosphere of wild abandon prevailed in districts often referred to as "gay ghettos." Men who had kept their sexual orientations hidden reveled in the freedom of leading openly gay lives for the first time. The nonstop party dragged to a painful halt in the 1980s with the onset of AIDS, Reuter said, but the crisis also solidified gay communities even as it decimated them.
Now, as the fear of AIDS has abated, the neighborhoods have become attractive to developers and investors trying to encourage families and empty-nesters to return to city centers, said Reuter.
Besides the brigades of baby strollers in the Castro, ominous signs include the security gates installed last year by a local hotel to discourage "cruising," and the recent closings of two longtime stores, one that sold leather goods and the other bath products. National retail chains like Pottery Barn and Diesel now occupy prominent Castro locations.
Several nonprofit agencies serving the gay community have also moved out due to rising rents. Meanwhile, 500 new apartments and condominiums are planned for the area, half of which have been designated as "family housing."
But no one is suggesting that the Castro has been overrun by heterosexuals just yet.
Whether Leff's being sincere or sardonic, her tone is unquestionably in favor of the natives. Unsurprisingly, no one critical of homosexuality is interviewed for the piece. There is one Castro resident who's not so panicked at the arrival of straight outsiders, but that's just a brief interruption of otherwise consistent mourning that the straights are ruining the place, that they're "colonizing" the Castro all the way to the story's end.
"We have Chinatown and Japantown and so forth, and that's important for minority communities in this country, to have a place where they can get a sense of being the majority," said Joe Curtin, an architect who serves as president of Castro Area Planning Action. "But if you took those away, you would still have China and Japan. If the Castro goes away as a gay neighborhood, there is nowhere else."
...Basinger, Curtin and other San Francisco activists agree it's a good thing that gay people no longer feel restricted to the Castro, but fear younger generations will overlook the struggles that went into building the neighborhood.
"When you are a minority, you have to be the wedge, and the Castro is it," he said. "The people who are coming in here and colonizing the Castro, they are exercising their priorities. Whether they are heterosexual priorities or economic priorities, they are not our priorities."
This is an interesting trend, and certainly a news story. But if the roles were reversed and gay activists were "colonizing" a formerly straight neighborhood, the AP's tone probably wouldn't sound like the reporters and editors were blowing their nose into a hanky with the natives.
AP may have been inspired by this story, which interviewed the same experts.
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Hey... I am all for giving th
March 12, 2007 - 05:39 ET byHey... I am all for giving them their own island. How about Iceland? I hear it is not claimed yet.
:o)
People need to be real clear
March 12, 2007 - 06:45 ET by stanleygoodspeedPeople need to be real clear on the depth of evil that homosexuality is ...
Romans 1:24-27
(24) Wherefore God also gave them up [paradidomai - surrendered them] to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves:
(25) Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the creature [ktisis - their own bodies] more than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
(26) For this cause God gave them up [paradidomai - surrendered them] unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use [phusikos chresis - natural sexual intercourse] into that which is against nature:
(27) And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use [phusikos chresis - natural sexual intercourse] of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet [full-blown devil spirit possession 24/7/365].
Romans 1:28-32
(28) And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
(29) Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
(30) Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
(31) Without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
(32) Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
And, as great as that depth is, God is still able and willing to save any homosexual who wants out of that lifestyle.
Isaiah 1:16-18
(16) Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil;
(17) Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow.
(18) Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.
Romans 10:9
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
1 John 1:9
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
Yeah, and with Global Warming
March 12, 2007 - 07:24 ET by rimskyYeah, Iceland sounds good to me.. and with Global Warming.. hey, they're good to go!
Yes, and Al Gore can be their
March 12, 2007 - 08:36 ET byYes, and Al Gore can be their president. hehe..
Sounds like a plan..
March 12, 2007 - 09:04 ET by rimskySounds like a plan..
No plan needed
March 13, 2007 - 09:56 ET by SportPoliticsNo plan needed , they invaded,and now payback time has come.
[ Thousands of gays and lesbians came to the city at the beginning of the Gay Liberation movement in the late 1960s, settling first in the Haight, where they fixed up Victorian homes. In the 1970s and '80s, many of them moved over the hill to the Castro, where there was less crime. ]
I guess it's ok to INVADE the Haight, and the way you can tell the homogate paper endorses that invasion is when they say " where they fixed up Victorian homes". ( Rather than disturbed the long established conservative victorian area)
Then the next endorsement comes when the homos skipped over the hill, and INVADED the low crime, crime free community, the "Castro" (because of course the gays are less often criminal in nature - is that the homogate implication ..).... I bet the residents enjoying their low crime area loved the homo invasion. Must have been wonderful.
So, ya know, I guess they kept their stolen enclaves for 30-40 some years... and now someone else has come to invade - since homophobia is gone by the wayside....
Awwww... poor babies are losing the ground they stole in the 60's,70's and 80's... oh I feel so bad for them...
Maybe they will all by committee decide to mass migrate to the next nearest lowest crime community - I bet that next community can hardly wait for the gayvasion coming to them...
[ "You can't tell people where to live, and people are making all sorts of decisions," said Kyle Raye, Toronto's first openly gay city councilman who has represented the Gay Village area since 1991. "The lines are blurred; even the police love working (during gay pride events). There are significant social changes that have occurred." ]
Yeah, well you homos asked for it, now after decades you've got it - and it's about to destroy your special status world. Congratulations.
WELCOME TO THE EQUALITY YOU HAVE DEMANDED
[
In Chicago, the core gay neighborhood has moved farther from the urban center as real estate prices have risen. Most gay and lesbian people who own homes now live on the northern edge of the city, said filmmaker Ron Pajak, who is documenting the history of the city's gay community.
A district of gay nightclubs in southern Washington, D.C., is being demolished to make room for a new stadium. And in Toronto, high-rise condos are replacing parking lots in the Gay Village, and more heterosexuals are moving into the neighborhood. ]
Now you're just another homo - sapien, nothing special at all.
Just so I've got this strai
March 13, 2007 - 10:15 ET by sarcasmoJust so I've got this straight (no pun intended)...Homosexuals, often fleeing thug-violence so they naturally tended to flee in groups, buying homes from private individuals in the free real estate marketplace are "invading" and the resulting enclaves are "stolen." Then, across the country, a very-large & growing big government uses eminent domain to support a baseball-monopoly, thereby taking-away real estate and nightclubs privately-owned & peaceably-used by gays, and that's apparently not-a-problem. Does everyone see from this why I'm a libertarian instead of a conservative?
JMR
I see this much sarcasmo
March 14, 2007 - 00:37 ET by SportPoliticsI see this much sarcasmo. You're no where near your own name in detecting the same. Next time read the article, and use your noggin instead of whining like an idiot.
That should mean to you that, no you don't have it straight,you didn't have it straight, and surely you won't.
Ah, finally a reply, and it
March 14, 2007 - 00:49 ET by sarcasmoAh, finally a reply, and it's the classic: "the stupid thing I said was actually attempted sarcasm, you idiot!" Good try!!! But yet another failure for you...
JMR
I'm with you. Libertarianism
March 14, 2007 - 00:57 ET by mostlymoderateI'm with you. Libertarianism is looking "mighty" good. Homosexuals have just as much right to the American dream as anyone else. San Francisco is a very wealthy city and many of those wealthy people are gay. Sportspolitics was out of line.
Shhhh! You're destroying my
March 14, 2007 - 01:02 ET by sarcasmoShhhh! You're destroying my process of getting him & RJ into an absolute antihomosexual tither, and that's likely to be as fun as annoying the lefties about the bipartisan nature of political criminality. (And as a public service, I just did a 'how to do sarcasm 101' post for his other reply on this thread!)
JMR
NICE!
March 14, 2007 - 01:53 ET by mostlymoderateNICE!
Yes it is nice, isn't it, for an idiot.
March 14, 2007 - 02:03 ET by SportPoliticsYes it is nice, isn't it, for an idiot. Time to refocus your stupid leftist bigotmeter, on the liars- which in this case are the Castro faggers and their San Fran fraternity.
Mr blubbertarian your new buddy, shrills up about the free market, but when the fags say it's all wrong on them, he runs to their defense.
In the end, you two doofuses can cuddle eachother happy with the thought that the big bad imaginary bigot got what's coming to him. Less post groping in public would be appreciated, however, unless of course one or both of you somehow wind up being correct and on point.
I guess it be forever before either one of you admits the fags got what they DEMANDED (acceptance) and what they gave ( a freemarket buyout ), and now they don't like it.
GET A CLUE.
Again, Liar, where did I ev
March 14, 2007 - 02:09 ET by sarcasmoAgain, Liar, where did I ever, even once, defend the anti-baby homosexual's idiocy? Find a post! And my various posts making you look like the moron you are do not count, because your own idiocy is a completely separate topic from the anti-baby homosexuals' very-similar idiocy.
JMR
Thanks, and no-worries. I o
March 14, 2007 - 02:05 ET by sarcasmoThanks, and no-worries. I obviously got my antihomosexual tither anyway, even without RJ being awake. :)
JMR
No you didn't sarc
March 14, 2007 - 02:46 ET by SportPoliticsNo you didn't sarc. You must be really green behind the ears.
The fact that you hide your own bigotry and your own lamer defense for the miscomplaining fags behind your bigotmeter is pathetic for you.
It's the exact same thing the left does all the time. It certainly isn't worthy of being called libertarian, but being a trolling jerkoff fits well.
Let's take the sarc line and forget the entire case, and cry and whine someone has a predjudice - except when it comes to the fag community predjudice, and their demand for a segregated community, that sarcy the wimp angel endorses because conservative meanies beat them all up in sarcs imaginary victim drain brain.
Go blow another doobie and cackle like the idiot leftist you are.
.... a trolling jerkoff fits
March 14, 2007 - 02:58 ET by bigtimer.... a trolling jerkoff fits well.
SP...giving yourself a little too much credit aren't ya there little guy?
Ya need something to use to jerkoff with first.
Which you seem to lack.
Of course you do know I am speaking brain wise....mental capabilities...when it comes to you, you crude bast@rd.
LOL!
Yeah, sure there bigtimer
March 14, 2007 - 03:10 ET by SportPoliticsYeah, sure there bigtimer. This of course is the beating up story of the faggo you or sarco witnessed ? Try that one on, genius.
It appears you are the worst of the bunch, though, so far. Wear that as well.
Now, since when was it obvious to you, as it was to the lying jerkoff sarc, that I was being literal when I said the the places were invaded and stolen ?
I guess being a pathetic retard is catchy.
I never said "literal,
March 14, 2007 - 03:18 ET by sarcasmoI never said "literal," Liar. It's more like "moronic" in your case...
JMR
You have a screw loose tonigh
March 14, 2007 - 03:31 ET by bigtimerYou have a screw loose tonight SP...I cannot even follow what the hell you are talking about as to the line you posted below that I have inserted here...that you are addressing to me?
Now, since when was it obvious to you, as it was to the lying jerkoff sarc, that I was being literal when I said the the places were invaded and stolen ?
What the heck does that have to do with me?
Eh?
What does that have to do with you ?
March 14, 2007 - 04:25 ET by SportPoliticsWhat does that have to do with you ? Aren't you the one who demanded I go back and read what I already read, and now of course it seems you didn't read what I wrote, or more correctly find sarcs spiel on are gays born that way to your liking, and nothing else matters, but the moans of yesterday. did ya freakin' notice I never commented on that ? Perhaps the reason your so confused is because your following sarc around like a puppy. Well, he's a lying skumbag, and that's what that had to do with you. I thought perhaps you had a bit more going on.
Yeah, I sure as hell know what's going on with you, but once again it sure as hell doesn't matter one whit.
Dumb jerkoff asked a 3rd grader question, because he cannot detect his own namesake in another post. Let me make it easy for you. Butthead pretended my sarcasm was literal.
Not knowing what's going on...It's a great excuse, bal uses it all the time.
I'd like to give sarc and youmore credit, but maybe I shouldn't. Really.
I guess I have to become a complete freakin 60 IQ moron like sarcy and you, so we can argue over "invaded" and "stolen" properly, since noone here has a clue, and of course only the sane would think I meant it literally.
I guess STUPID is popular.
Then we can get into " Hey Sport, how do you feel about gays ". That's the other gigantic topic, isn't it. Or maybe it's " bigtimer is notabigot and she loves her gay cousin and doesn't have a homophobic bone in her body - really really really - ya just gotta love it. "
Uhh huh... I love it alright. It's great.
Now, back to the whining enclave gaters, who get these special formerly abused - or perhaps would be abused SPECIAL RIGHTS....
Or not of course, since they are WRONG, you and sarc have to playdumb and play bigot bash.. or word police, or moron who can't understand, or probably soon "just shut-up".
So in other words, since their faggots- you and sarc demand they get special protections, an absolution or two, a city or two or more, special word policing, and all above and beyond the non fags...
Thanks, that's great.
Well SP...It's been loads of
March 14, 2007 - 04:36 ET by bigtimerWell SP...
It's been loads of fun, going to go pop a top on an ice cold beer, enjoy myself for the rest of the night, watch the sun come up over the mountain tops later...and say a prayer for you.
Catch ya later fella...
Liar, one thing I don't wan
March 14, 2007 - 04:42 ET by sarcasmoLiar, one thing I don't want you to do is shut up, and you can't find where I've demanded any "special protections" for homosexuals, because I haven't. My libertarian solution to "gay bashing" is a .44 caliber one, and does not involve special laws or big government. Keep lying!!
JMR
You are out of control, sarca
March 14, 2007 - 11:27 ET byYou are out of control, sarcasmo. I suggest you get some sleep and later retract what you have said in this post. As someone who speaks out against homosexuality, I am a bit uncomfortable with this post of yours.
Debra, he was saying they can
March 15, 2007 - 03:40 ET by Conservative VoiceDebra, he was saying they can defend themselves with a .44, not that we should shoot them.
Thanks for supplying some a
March 15, 2007 - 03:52 ET by sarcasmoThanks for supplying some actual comprehension along with your reading. You're right about my meaning, which I'd thought was pretty clear anyway. I hereby retract nothing I've said, whatsoever, on this entire overly-long, repetitive thread.
JMR
Keep on lyin', Liar! It's a
March 14, 2007 - 03:00 ET by sarcasmoKeep on lyin', Liar! It's as amusing when you try to rewrite bigoted-violence history as it was yesterday when the Clinton-fans tried to rewrite Slick's US attorney firing history. You sure do know how to lose, Liar...
JMR
History
March 14, 2007 - 03:15 ET by SportPoliticsHistory, being the key word, which fits exactly with your whine that faggos get their segregated city, because they got that hate crime butt kicking and fled there.
I'd bet 95% of the those that you put down WOULD NOT AGREE with you.
GO BLOW.
Wait a second, Liar. Are yo
March 14, 2007 - 03:24 ET by sarcasmoWait a second, Liar. Are you actually saying that gays, or 95% of them, would deny there's a history of bigoted violence which brought them together in the first place? Wow...Your lies have apparently expanded from what you don't-know about me to what you don't-know about history! I guess ignorance is contagious.
JMR
I am putting a response to th
March 14, 2007 - 03:48 ET byI am putting a response to this on page 3.
Um, I said nothing of "
March 14, 2007 - 04:03 ET by sarcasmoUm, I said nothing of "hate crime" laws (libertarians like me do dislike such laws, though). I instead was speaking of a history of bigoted violence which far predates the passage of any "hate crime" laws. Said bigoted violence, at least in part, caused these citizens to band together for protection in famously-tolerant San Francisco, just as other unpopular minority groups like Mormons banded together for protection decades before.
JMR
Way to go Sarc, you're sayi
March 14, 2007 - 13:52 ET by Rupert CadellWay to go Sarc, you're saying everything I've always wanted to. Keep on tearing down Sports, he's the biggest, most hateful lunatic on this site. Even BigTimer's calling him on his sh!t.
By the way, I was sorry to see RJ trying to use my words against you Re: Homophobes = Closet-Cases. You had it right, he didn't seem to want to look at the post directly above the one he cited.
And Debra, why don't you worry about your own hatefulness instead of "speaking out" against homosexuals. Seriously, have you nothing better to do than berate people whose sexual proclivities are different from yours?
"I'm liberal, but to a degree; I want everyone to be free." -B. Dylan
Missing genes
March 14, 2007 - 14:08 ET by RJRup, sarky didn't get it at first, and apparently you don't either....sure, I was busting him for dragging out the hoary old liberal trick of slapping the usual labels on those in disagreement with you on this issue...but at the same time it was a joke.
However, you seem to fall into the same "missing humor gene" category as sarky (that's a joke, too, Rup)
And while you're formulating your response, you might want to check out your post directly below sarky's post, where you equated his post to calling people Nazis...was I using your words against him there, too? ;^>
Nope. You were selectively-
March 15, 2007 - 03:56 ET by sarcasmoNope. You were selectively-quoting just like I said, and your own quotee just busted you on it, RJ, despite your denials. Getting the last word != anything-like an intellectual victory when you're losin' this bad.
JMR
:: Laughing at Rupert Cadell
March 14, 2007 - 19:24 ET by:: Laughing at Rupert Cadell :: What a doofus.... hehe
Did you get lost on the way to liberals-R-us.com?
:o)
It's always good to see the liberal in disguise take with the op
March 14, 2007 - 01:32 ET by SportPoliticsIt's always good to see the liberal in disguise take with the opposition.
Jerkoff argues the government stole land from gays, ignoring the vast majority of the complaint, which is that gays are accepted and now rich heteroes are buying up the place. ( Obviously in the free market, and with the faggers taking a sizeable profit, also conveniently unmentioned and ignored by you two DOOFUSES, because you haven't got a damned clue. )
When the faggos invaded, they said it was their right, and now that others invade them, they whine like the sissy hypocrits they are, and you two morons play their game.
Talk about being out of line and out of it entirely, you two pieces of stupidity take the cake.
Um, Liar, if you'd actually
March 14, 2007 - 01:37 ET by sarcasmoUm, Liar, if you'd actually read for once (it's fundamental!) you'd see that I'm just as critical of the anti-baby homosexual's idiocy as I am of your own anti-homosexual idiocy. It's good to see that you know your argument is so-weak that you have to lie-again about me, though.
JMR
You're a dummy again sarc
March 14, 2007 - 01:58 ET by SportPoliticsYou're a dummy again sarc. I'm anti-lying idiot as always. But you're so foolish a gay card is all you have left ( very, very left). The faggers did their deed, and now it's time they take the same deed, which you fully endorsed when they fled from your imaginary beatings, like the men they are supposed to be. But, of course, lowlife antics are better suited to you. Call Jesse Jackson, maybe you can convince him that fags deserve to do it, but noone else does.
Yeah, Liar! Deny anti-gay v
March 14, 2007 - 02:03 ET by sarcasmoYeah, Liar! Deny anti-gay violence ever existed, that's the ticket! Just say people who bring up a long history of bigoted violence are making it all up. Brilliant...
JMR
What a maroon, you're now hilarous sarc
March 14, 2007 - 02:10 ET by SportPoliticsWhat a maroon, you're now hilarious sarc, really.
Unfortunately for you, I give the faggers a lot more credit than you do. You seem to think they all beebopped into one spot because some mean conservative was beating the crap out of them. Quite incorrect, you biggotted jerkoff.
Birds of a feather flock together, and it is easy to quite more correctly assume they wanted their own place to let it all hang out together, where they could get what they wanted.
Instead, sarc the idiot bigot victimologist, says they all fled because bigbully beat them up.
You're still as dumb as a rock, and insulting to the gay community, which you falsely defend, in more than one way, as has been pointed out.
pinhead
Ok, I'll say it, Liar.
March 14, 2007 - 02:18 ET by sarcasmoMethinks thou dost protest too-much. ;)
JMR
methinks you're an idiot sarc
March 14, 2007 - 02:25 ET by SportPoliticsmethinks you're an idiot sarc, with a faggot victim card, the exception to the rule.
If they beat the crap out of you for disrespecting them, that would be justice.
Methinks he is off his rocker
March 14, 2007 - 02:25 ET by bigtimerMethinks he is off his rocker...
Hey bigtimer
March 14, 2007 - 02:52 ET by SportPoliticsHey bigtimer, when was the last time you,or sarc,or his insane friend saw some fag get beat up,for being a fag ?
Let's just say right now, that was in all likelihood NEVER.
It's not a world I've created, it's a world you people claim exists, that NONE of you have ever seen. ( Oh, well maybe if you're old grey, you might have )
Tell ya what SP,Go back and r
March 14, 2007 - 03:11 ET by bigtimerTell ya what SP,
Go back and read my posts that I posted yesterday about this subject...when you are calm, cool and collected, most likely sarc's too...seriously, you may learn more about what I said about how I feel about this whole situation if you did...before shooting off your loud big rude crude mouth...
I still can't believe you tonight, maybe you are always like this, I don't know....but I am serious, if you have time tomorrow, go reread ...from the beginning the start of the subject.
I posted a pretty long posts numerous times with CV misterbill and others...you are way off base.
Btw...sarc and I do not agree about a lot, but he is my friend, we have both been here for a very long time...and he certainly didn't ask for this IMO...you are taking things waaaaay out of line...way out.
Another thing...life is not as simple as black and white with most milestones we cross.
Unless you haven't lived, or are to stubbornly blind to see it.
Well bigtimer
March 14, 2007 - 03:32 ET by SportPoliticsWell bigtimer, it seems most of your posts were blown off in the electrical outage or whatever.
Let me be clear again.
THE FAGGOTS WHINED WHAT THEY DID WAS DONE BACK TO THEM.
Now, if you don't like the word(s) used, too bad. Obviously I am an equal opportunity name caller, something sarco the idiot can't figure out yet either.
I'd sure like either one of you lamer freaking pathetic DEFENDERS, to get your hats screwed on straight and flat out admit that what they did was fair and square, and what is being done to them is therefore fair and square as well.
Instead we're all cought in some sort of PC timewarp -where the EXCUSE apparently is " they were beat up - and will be beaten if they don't get to keep their segregated community." Of course, it's NOT PC to come right out and say that, so instead you have coddled sarc, and somehow think that I have been incorrect.
Well, once again, I expect a big fat ZERO from either of you, when it comes to the point of the thread starter, whereby my extension from the newspaper coddling them, to their own hipocrisy in the matter, will NEVER BE ADMITTED by you, sarc, or his supposed moderate buddy, or so it seems.
I'm very happy to CONTINUE to give you all a big fat pathetic EXCUSE for not agreeing, because I used the word(s) fag, faggot- homo - or whatever - INSTEAD OF YOUR DEMAND FOR PC DOCTRINAIRE WORDING - a courtesy NONE of you demanded be extended to " the bigots and christain zealouts" you see everywhere.
What a patheitc, lamer, crybaby way to cop out on the truth.
Amazing, Liar. You've evolv
March 14, 2007 - 03:40 ET by sarcasmoAmazing, Liar. You've evolved from calling home-buying an "invasion" & "stealing" to describing the same situation as "fair and square" in less than 4 hours. And you still can't point out a single time where I objected to anyone's real estate deal, no matter the sexual preference of the buyer/seller. If you keep trying to deny the history of bigoted violence, I'm gonna throw this link back in your face over & over so your creative "history" can't negatively affect others. You lose, again, Liar.
JMR
SP...I was talking about the
March 14, 2007 - 03:50 ET by bigtimerSP...
I was talking about the crude way you are talking to sarc from the beginning...please go reread the posters, there was no need for that, it makes you look small and immature, not about the SF neighborhood! I could care less about.
I have posted my feelings about what I feel about gays and such yesterday on another thread, it was the rude crude way you are talking to a friend of mine when there is no need to talk that way.
I am and never will be PC...and I would think you know that by now SP.
Quit spewing, calm down and at least address people that have been here for a long time with a little decorum.
Come on now...it is terrible the way you are screaming and using language like a pre-teen.
No need for that.
Btw...my favorite cousin is gay, and I would lay down my life for him.
Period.
He din't choose to be that way either...which is part of what I posted about yesterday in another long thread, well heck, guess it wasn't yesterday now, it had to be two days ago!
Morning has almost broken....
LOL!
Once again,it's all feelings and anti-bigot cries
March 14, 2007 - 04:06 ET by SportPoliticsOnce again, it's all feelings and anti-bigot cries.
You made a perfect liberal post again.
Frankly I don't really care how much you love your cousin. I won't be doing Christain praise for you, or condemning you claiming it isn't true.
The point the bigotted liar went on a false attack, as do most of the wackos, and neither you nor he have the capacity to give your stance in the matter.
This isn't about HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT GAYS.
I quite understand that's ALL you and sarc think this whole thing is about.
Yeah, and of course, it's oh so very important how you think I FEEL ABOUT GAYS.
Now it's about how to have decorum with lying attack dogs - but OFCOURSE YOU ATTACKED ME QUITE RABIDLY - AND FIRST - BTW - AS DID SARC.
( Perhaps sarc could claim I did - when I pointed out how STUPID the writer was in the link he posted. )
So bigtimer- if you want decorum now - maybe you should have thought about it before you went digging in - FIRST.
My "feelings about gays" have ABSOLUTELY ZERO to do with every point I brought up.
I think my rewriting my posts to the PC dogma version would have had you agreeing with what I actually said. Sarc has a silimar disease, only it's off topic commentary on his libertarian perspective, muddled with lamer liberal bigot carding in this case, coupled with obviously flawed illiteracy used as a weapon for misinterpretation, which of course he goes raging insane about if he thinks someone did it to himeven when they didn't. ( in this very thread)
So, ya know, who gives a darn what youpersonally feel about gay people. I could care less.
What I have a problem with, is after - 30+ and more years of the gays buying up a community, openly begging for relief when the same dang thing happens to them, and idiotic fools to busy with gay bigot checkpoint doctrine to even notice the gigantic HYPOCRISY - and using every excuse they can dream up to pretend it just ain't THERE.
Goodnight.
NIGHT!And good riddance!Btw..
March 14, 2007 - 04:13 ET by bigtimerNIGHT!
And good riddance!
Btw...I have never ever said I think gays ever should or deserve to have special rights...ever, I am totally against it.
You are one cold SOB as far as I am concerned you can stick it where the sun doesn't shine and twist it sideways while you are at it.
No , I don't think you did bigtimer
March 14, 2007 - 04:43 ET by SportPoliticsNo , I don't think you did bigtimer. The problem is you never said the opposite either concerning the Castro and the Haige, specifically that the gays there will have to suffer a similar thing to what they brought on the community when they decided it would be theirs.
Ya see, that's the rub. The perfect adherence to anti-antigay positioning precludes you or sarc from ever even acknowledging it. The orignal poster of the thread got it. I get it.
Ya see, the special priveledges and indeed the liberal bias in the news was all about defending the gays' community --- instead of defending the incomers as was pointed to up top, when it'sa favored minority. Now the minority is there, and not only are they there, but they got there the same way others they are against are getting there now. It's PURE HYPOCRISY.
Now instead of actually agreeing, it's big fat PC police bigot lie chase fest. I'm your happy little "he's a bigot " target, since the one islanders left.
I guess sarc is just being his normal lying idiot super senstive openly admitted trolling bs self. It's skumbagville.
So, go off all cocked up - who cares.
I'll keep wating for either of you losers to admit the fags are getting what's coming to them, and I'll be waiting forever, because your PC anti-bigot wacko card is more important than the plain simple we are all equal truth.
Whatever. I see it all so clearly, it reminds me of tumlber.
I was waiting for the great
March 14, 2007 - 04:46 ET by sarcasmoI was waiting for the great "whatever! argument" from you, Liar! :)
JMR
No you weren't
March 14, 2007 - 04:53 ET by SportPoliticsNo you weren't. That's another lie from you. The second lie is that is what the argument is.
Of course I've told you already what I'm wating for, and you won't deliver.
It's one stupid infantile (the meaning of invaded and stolen) idiot argument after another.
What you are really waiting for is for me to say one way or the other wether I agree with the government buying up stadium land. That's what you want, you moron.
Keep on lyin', Liar! It's n
March 14, 2007 - 04:57 ET by sarcasmoKeep on lyin', Liar! It's nice when it's so-obvious...
JMR
When I said good night to ya
March 14, 2007 - 04:50 ET by bigtimerWhen I said good night to ya a second ago...this has really been bugging me I forgot to say...
...and stoke the fire and sit by it as the sun comes up with a cold beer, pet my dogs and cats...
Then get ready for the new day...start the same old grind...with Maxwell House...the bold brand!!...or I could grind some good coffee beans...just depends on my mood, fry up some spuds, bacon and eggs...want to join me SP...sarc...?
LMAO!
Later...
Yeah I'd join you
March 14, 2007 - 04:58 ET by SportPoliticsYeah I'd join you. I don't hold anything against you. I said what I think and that's it to me.
Hilarious. But obviously yo
March 14, 2007 - 04:14 ET by sarcasmoHilarious. But obviously you've not spent much time on a farm... Homosexuality happens, period, in the animal world. The homosexual hypocrites in the story sound just as dimwitted to me as lying bigots like you do. And it's funny to be lectured on literacy by someone as English-impaired as you obviously-are....
JMR
Never said it didn't MORON LIAR sarc
March 14, 2007 - 04:31 ET by SportPoliticsNever said it didn't MORON LIAR sarc.
Ya know, maybe once in a blue moon when you pull your idiot noggin out of your self made trash barrel, you can figure out the difference now between 10% plus a few -vs- the majority, and now the difference between the former 10%+ and ZERO.
You're still a LYING IDIOT .
Liar, you have yet to prove
March 14, 2007 - 04:37 ET by sarcasmoLiar, you have yet to prove one thing I've said is not true. Not one. And I'm not sure what you're spewing about, but the behavior of farm animals is a fact you're not going to be able to deny, even if you don't like it. Yep. Still batting 1000, Liar.
JMR
I'm absolutely sure what you're spewing about.
March 14, 2007 - 04:47 ET by SportPoliticsI'm absolutely sure what you're spewing about. I'm also sure what bigtimer was spewing about.
So your spew prior to the last was another big fat lie. It goes all the way back to your idiot link. Now you have a reason to be confused. Use it well dummy.
SP, you have way too much hos
March 14, 2007 - 02:05 ET by mostlymoderateSP, you have way too much hostility in your prose to be taken seriously. Lighten up a little bit. Those words you use like "faggers et. al" are so below quality of Newsbusters. I mean, I don't think homosexuals should get married; however, I refuse to let some 'jock-strap-wannabe' use such derogratory language toward a fellow American and not say something about it. Two words for you: ANGER MANAGEMENT....ya big bully! :0)
mostlymoderate
March 14, 2007 - 02:19 ET by SportPoliticsmostlymoderate, perhaps you should consider that while you were dancing in public with your newly acquired sarcasm failure buddy, who openly proclaimed with your hipster approval, that he set about to elicit a raging homo bashfest, that he failed and I succeeded.
I obviously drove both of you two fools crazy, as you lofted the bigot word police card far above your own abilities to asses the facts in the case presented.
Now you're both down to --- oh please don't use that word...
Well, let me say, that certainly fagbasher, bigot, homo hater- or whatever else, including "right wing christain zealout ", fundamentalist - and all the rest -neither of you two have complained about the whole thread....
Has the PC specific choice word olympics picked your mind to a hollow shell ?
Once again, their whine is FALSE, they did it themselves and demanded everyone praise them for it, now the stick is up their rear end, and for the first time in their lives, they claim don't like it.
Welcome to the world of equality - as I said prior in the post that lit off doofus into a deranged babble against the free market, with his fagticket taking priority over everything.
did I misspell assess ?
See, now that is an intellige
March 14, 2007 - 02:24 ET by mostlymoderateSee, now that is an intelligent, Newsbuster-worthy reply. Good man. Oh, and P.S...I have no Idea how to spell assess. rock on bro
Lol mm..He is a world all of
March 14, 2007 - 02:33 ET by bigtimerLol mm..
He is in a world all of his own!
Pathetic soul.
Well that's interesting from you bigtimer
March 14, 2007 - 02:49 ET by SportPoliticsWell that's interesting from you bigtimer. Just what is your hangup ?
What part of the posts that I
March 14, 2007 - 03:01 ET by bigtimerWhat part of the posts that I have posted do you not understand since you started posting your rude crude tirade?
Go back and start from the beginning SP.
I can't believe you.
Wow, you think you are something.
Not.
Yeah,that's what I thought
March 14, 2007 - 03:41 ET by SportPoliticsYeah, that's what I thought, the PC word police, liberal flaming in all it's glory.
Congratulations, you can vote for the corrupt democrats now, you are just like them.
Maybe, one of you two will have the guts to admit the Castro and Haige gay flamers are WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.
This is a case where you apparently, along with "the LYING guy who you agree with" ( on matters I HAVE NOT COVERED BY THE WAY - GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR POSTERIOR THERE AS WELL) think that it's AOKfor that very special right to be extended to them....
So far the 2 or (3) excuses for special treatment under the law are
1. you used bad words
2. they got beat up - it really, really, is why it must be
3. This big one " I don't give a dang what's right or wrong, because I think so and so hates fags . He's right, he's correct, but I think he used bad words because of that he must be a bigot, so screw him, nothing else matters ! "
Yeah, that's the WHOLE STORY.
3 easy questions for DebraJMSmith.
March 12, 2007 - 14:44 ET by Dave RDebraJMSmith,
Right up front there are a few things I want to get straight with you. 1) I am securely heterosexual. 2) I consider myself a Christian.
I was born in an area of Atlanta known as Buckhead, one of the most affluent areas in this city. I have spent well over half my life living in that area. The next neighborhood over is known as Midtown. It has one of the largest homosexual populations in the nation. It has been that way since before I was born (1964). I have been around and known many homosexuals my entire life. There are some homosexual people I consider to be friends.
Over the years, I have been invited to, and have attended, many of their parties and social gatherings (probably the best environment there is when it comes to meeting beautiful-I am talking drop-dead gorgeous heterosexual females, than any guy could ever hope for) and never once felt threatened in any way, by the hosts or the other guests. I have met several wonderful professional women who became very close relationship-wise, including one I nearly married, and would have save for my refusal to leave the Atlanta area.
Never once, in my nearly 43 years on this rock, have I ever witnessed the behavior you and others on this site have attributed to homosexuals, toward children or anyone else. These people are, for the most part, highly educated and have a level of intelligence far above those of average people. They are the highest income earners, as a group, than any other group in this city. Most of them are content to pursue their careers and live their lives. Nearly all of them just want to be left alone. You would be surprised at how many are actually quite conservative.
I have three questions for you:
1)How many homosexuals have you ever actually known in your life?
2) At what point in your life did you make the conscious descision to be a heterosexual.
3)If all homosexuals are destined for an eternity in Hell, as you seem so sure that they are, I wonder how many of them are going there because of Christians like you?
Dave, How would it be a Chris
March 12, 2007 - 14:52 ET by florida_chadDave, How would it be a Christians fault if homosexuals go to hell?
Dave R. Contrary to popular b
March 12, 2007 - 14:53 ET by bassndudeDave R. Contrary to popular belief, neither I nor anyother Christian can send someone to hell. That is a decision made by the individual themselves. It is not my actions that condem someone to hell, nor yours nor Deb's. The fact of the matter is, you make a choice to except Jesus Christ as lord and savior, trust in him and do his will to the best of your ability. Witness to others about Him and let him direct your life.
Homosexuals, by defination, are not living their lives for Him, nor are they letting Him direct their lives. Jesus said that the sexually immoral will not enter to heaven. Now how can that be the act of a christian sending homos to hell?
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Please, please ,please
March 12, 2007 - 15:13 ET by misterbillduplicate Don't know what is wrong today, it not only posted twice but it logged me out too!
Please, please ,please
March 12, 2007 - 15:14 ET by misterbillPlease, please ,please, I am not taking sides, I have no answers. I have met and worked with and relaxed with homosexuals. Some are my friends. Some of them are deeply religious and loved Jesus. There is a poser.. Does Jesus reject them and close the door of salvation to them? I am concerned that by asking that question I will be thought of as a defender of homosexuality. I am not. I simply do not know the answer.
I also did a little reading and found that the medical(including psychological) community has done some studies and published some papers that said that it is not genetic. Again, I am not a doctor nor a defender, but how can there be people born as hermaphrodites or as the meds call it "ambiguous genitalia" and yet they say that "internally" (my word), there is no evidence of genetic differences. In spite of my lack of medical training, I suggest they just haven't broken the code yet.
Lastly, none of the homosexual men I know ever manifested the slightest interest in pedophilia. To the contrary, they found it abhorrent.
All that being said , I am totally turned off seeing two men or two women passionately kissing each other in public, or dressing in a style that "announces" their sexuality. But, again, I am totally turned off by heterosexual people behaving the same as I described in the previous sentence.
So, I am very confused about many circumstances of the world we live in.
Lastly, if one of my children or grandchildren were to be homosexual, I would still love them with all my heart.
.
Great post Mr. B."I'm
March 12, 2007 - 15:19 ET by Rupert CadellGreat post Mr. B.
"I'm liberal, but to a degree; I want everyone to be free." -B. Dylan
grazie
March 12, 2007 - 15:22 ET by misterbillgrazie-- I like to think that sometimes God's love is in me.
What part is great Rupert? Th
March 12, 2007 - 15:28 ET by florida_chadWhat part is great Rupert? That its not genitic or that Mr. Bill would still love the gay grandchild, or that he is confused about the subject (as many are)?
Just curious.
That he owns up to being un
March 12, 2007 - 15:33 ET by Rupert CadellThat he owns up to being uncomfortable with some elements of homosexuality without denigrating anyone. It is the most Christian approach to the subject I've seen on this site. Citing the Bible over and over again isn't even close.
"I'm liberal, but to a degree; I want everyone to be free." -B. Dylan
The 'hate the sin not the sin
March 12, 2007 - 15:42 ET by florida_chadThe 'hate the sin not the sinner' approach. Works for me. So do civil unions, not marriage.
Damn, FC, that reminds me,
March 12, 2007 - 15:51 ET by Rupert CadellDamn, FC, that reminds me, I owe you a response viz. gay marriage from last week. Your post was so good it's had me reconsidering my whole position. I'd still say I support gay marriage, but your argument was the most persuasive anyone's ever given me.
"I'm liberal, but to a degree; I want everyone to be free." -B. Dylan
Thanks - I couldn't find your
March 12, 2007 - 15:56 ET by florida_chadThanks - I couldn't find your responce and felt bad. Like maybe I missed. Glad that your thinking about it. I really to think it is about acceptance and not rights, otherwise a civil union is sufficient. Anyway - the system is slow and I gotta go for a couple of hours. See you later.
Why I asked Debra those three questions.
March 12, 2007 - 17:02 ET by Dave Rmisterbill,
I asked Debra those three questions for a reason.
I have been following this debate on NB with some interest ever since I started lurking here way back when. I have, until today, decided to stay out of it for fear of touching off yet another holy war here at NB, as I really don't consider this to be the proper forum for that sort of thing. However, it has gotten to the point that I can maintain my silence no-longer.
As someoone who believes that as Christians, we are supposed to represent Christ here on Earth, I am disheartened when I see so many people professing to be Christian expressing such utter vehemence and hatred towards other human beings who just happen to not be like them. I honestly believe there are people on this site who would, if it were in their power, have them all rounded up and placed in a concentration camp, if not worse. It is amazing to see so many people get so disjointed on a subject that Jesus never even spoke about in His entire ministry.
Many of the homosexuals that I know want absolutely nothing to do with Christians or Christianity itself due mainly to the attitudes they encounter on the part of some Christians whose zeal has reached the point where they are trying to do God's job for Him and condemn every homosexual living on this planet. Debra's statement about wanting them all shipped off to Iceland is but one example of this. This is really unfortunate.
Can you really blame these people for fearing Christians? I can't. Every time they turn around, they hear "Christians" expressing the desire to have them thrown up against a wall and shot, or something similar. Sure, I have problems with some of their agenda, too, but what Debra and many others here fail to realize is that many parts of the homosexual agenda they are so terrified of are being pushed by radical lefties who probably aren't even homosexual themselves. I know not one homosexual who supports promoting homosexualty in our schools.
According to Debra and others like her, there is a homosexual lurking behind every bush just waiting to jump out and grab their children when they walk by, and that is nonsense. Yes, there are child predators out there who are homosexual, but not nearly as many as these female school teachers who go after their young males students. Debra seems to think that if her child passes withing 1000 ft. of a homosexual, then her child is suddenly going to turn gay. This is crap.
I asked her the first question because I truly wonder if she has ever had any real contact with any homosexuals. I'm guessing she has known more of them than she even realizes.
I asked her the second question as I am sure Debra is convinced that people make a choice to be that way. Right. I'm sure that people make a conscious choice to engage in a lifestyle that is going to cause them a lifetime of being ostracized, condemned, discriminated against and out-right hated by many.
My point here is that homosexuals no more chose to be homosexual than Debra, or me, decided to be heterosexual. I have several homosexual friends who have told me thay knew what their orientation was at a very young age, in one case before their sixth birthday. It had nothing to do with any of the actions of any adults in their lives.
My reason for the third question are very simple. If we as Christians do not make an effort to tell these people about Christ, then who will? The media? Their pets? Some drunken bum on the sidewalk?
Many homosexuals already have a very twisted view of Christians and Christianity in general. Is that all their fault? I was wondering if Debra had ever given that any consideration at all. and if she has, what has she thought she might could do about it, I mean, when she wasn't busy condemning them for what they are doing in private, which is none of her business, nor mine. Nor is it anyone elses.
IMHO, the irrational fear and loathing many "Christians" have of homosexuals needs to be dealt with, and soon. While Debra, along with all American Citizens has the right not to associate with whomever she chooses, people who do not believe as she does and who might just be homosexual, have the right to live their lives as they see fit, without interference from others. This is the right of all Americans.
I believe many people are going to be held accountable for driving people away from Christ, and I believe we are running out of time.
DaveR and misterb,I had a muc
March 12, 2007 - 17:20 ET by bigtimerDaveR and misterb,
I had a much longer post earlier today on this subject and lost it twice so I will just sum it up this way...
I agree with both of you.
I have a cousin who is homosexual, we have a nephew who is, I would lay my life down for either of them if need be.
To put all in one category as Debra does is so typical of the kind of Christianity I want no part of.
I do believe it is genetic, as I am the oldest, watched both grow up and know they were born that way, let alone the closeness and conversations I have had for many many years. I have had friends that are homosexuals too in my life...
None of them agree with the radical groups that make them cringe.
I am not going to go any further...
Debra is black and white on issues...period. I lived with someone just like her...sorry to say, we never got along, I tried, I considered her off the deep end religiously, but this is just my opinion and my life experiences.
By the way, both gay relatives are hard working individuals, do not like what the extremists do, make good money, pay taxes, love kids, detest pedophiles, do not believe in pushing for marriage...I know they both have struggled personally with a lot of things beyond their control as to what society thinks should be the norm.
Well.... I could go on and on....
Things in life are never just black and white all the time...in fact most times they aren't.
While I agree with many of th
March 12, 2007 - 17:27 ET by Conservative VoiceWhile I agree with many of the things you posted here, I do want to take issue with the choice factor. First let me preface with I don't think people chose in the sense of making it a goal to become gay. However, I strongly believe that the person is lead to it for one reason or the other. Be it they were abused, curious and confused, or drugs. Not that everyone who is abused, or tries gay sex, or who does drugs will become gay, obviously, and there are probably other reasons I failed to list. There isn't a formula. Genes may play a role, but I think it plays a role like a person may be drawn toward alcoholism, but they wouldn't know it until it is tried. But I do think in the end people have a choice. And those choices have consequences.
As far as shipping them off to neverland...I think we should remember we need to love the sinner and not the sin. I strongly agree with the psychological field before Gay Science became political like Global Warming Science...they felt it was a mental disorder. I don't think we need to be throwing stones at them, but rather we can show them respect and even be friends. Where we may disagree is I do think we should fight against gay marriage and civil unions in the sense of how parental rights and responsibilities are defined. If a gay couple want to live together, I don't care. But I don't think they should be allowed to adopt. If that makes me one of those hatemongers that you are refering to, then so be it. I also am against schools teaching it is ok being gay, as it is a morality issue. If they can't talk about God in schools, then leave all morality issues to the parents and church.
CV,I don't know if you were p
March 12, 2007 - 17:45 ET by bigtimerCV,
I don't know if you were posting to me or Dave, but I agree with you on what you posted in your last paragraph totally.
The PC crowd has gone over the line, I scream at the television when I hear about the schools and their programs ect. I do believe a lot of the youth is swayed to think they are gay or it's cool to be gay with what this TV generation and the leftists with an agenda are cramming down their throats especially in schools...there is no place in school for any of this, especially when God cannot even be mentioned...I also agree about adoption for the most part, but on the other hand I can think of some straight couples that have adopted over a lot of years that have abused or killed the kids...so...
I get very very mad when I see all the television shows showing men and women kissing over and over when they report the news on this topic, we do not need to see that, but most especially our kids or grand-kids do not, it is beyond maddening.
Like I said... I had a longer post today, twice, and they were lost in the wind...
LOL!
It was to Dave R. It seems
March 12, 2007 - 18:30 ET by Conservative VoiceIt was to Dave R. It seems bigtimer we agree 99.9% of the time :) As far as straight couples being bad parents...it happens, and we should "flog" those parents. The reason why I have the position I have is the child's need for healthy role models and the need to have both a mother and a father. They learn how they should relate to their future spouse by watching their parents. As a society we should do everything possible to strengthen the family. Personally I view adultry and divorce worse than being gay (unless of course the divorce was due to any of the three A's Adultry, Abuse, Addiction), as being gay in and of itself is on the level of fornication or living together before marriage, because marriage is a convenant between a couple and God, bound under law. So if you want to transport the gays, then you should transport those who commit adultry, divorce because they "fell out of love", murder, pedophiles, rapists -- all of which are greater sins.
It was to Dave R. It seems
March 12, 2007 - 18:36 ET by Conservative Voice<double post>
While I agree with many of th
March 12, 2007 - 17:27 ET by Conservative Voice<double post>
Dave R
March 12, 2007 - 19:23 ET by misterbillDave R-- sorry about the delay, the old man fell asleep at the wheel here. I support your position. I feel the same. I come from a time and a place where there was no tolerance for , not only homosexuality, but anything that was considered to be "different". It really wasn't bad. It was just a time when lack of knowledge resulted in people saying and doing bad things because of ignorance or fear. I never was aware if anyone I met was homosexual until I was in the Navy. It wasn't a big subject of conversation. I am sure there were those who successfully hid their sexuality. I am not without some reservations about homosexuality, but , mostly, I feel that is my problem and I have no right to visit it on other people. In spite of some things I have read and heard in my life, I cannot believe that God rejects those who were created through His blessings.
I do confess to one strong dislike I have. When the homosexual community (e.g. San Francisco) have their "proud to be gay" parades etc. Their outlandish costumes and actions(long kisses,leather leggings with no seat to them, etc.), I find to be extremely distasteful. On the other hand, once again, I can find the same with heterosexuals (Mardi Gras) actions for example. I guess I am just an old conservative who feels that certain actions should not be performed on public streets where children can see them.
Nuff said.
misterb,The crap they show on
March 12, 2007 - 19:33 ET by bigtimermisterb,
The crap they show on television with those critters in the costumes or lack of, in San Fran or anywhere else should not even be on television..at all IMO.
It is disgusting...
Btw...I am old enough to remember the first time I ran into a gay person and finally knew it, took me a minute or two to understand she was coming on to me in a bathroom in a bar, I went out and sat next to my husband, stupefied, and then a light came on in my head ...and I got the shivers...lol!
I was nineteen.
I look back over the years and I can think of two people I knew going to school with that I know must of been gay, but of course didn't understand it, nor do I think did they at the time, but they were out-casts and I always took in out-casts and stuck up for them, still do to a point, with anybody who is down and out.
Like I said...to a point.
Oh well enough...I have made my points.
LOL!
misterbill & bt,Thanks
March 13, 2007 - 06:20 ET by Dave Rmisterbill & bt,
Thanks to both of you for your input. I am not a fan of the homosexual lifestyle either, though some would say I am on here defending homosexuality, and thus apparently I am going straight to hell (see below). I am not defending homosexuality. As a libertarian, I will, however, defend their right to be left alone, as I would for any other American.
I was simply trying to find out why some Christians here at NB seem to think that sin by a homosexual is any worse than sin by a Christian.
I got the response I expected.
David.
Excellent post, Dave R.
March 13, 2007 - 09:25 ET by fosstenExcellent post, Dave R.
fc & bass,I was referri
March 12, 2007 - 17:34 ET by Dave Rfc & bass,
I was referring more to indirectly, not directly. I guess I should have clarified that, but the site is acting up today, so I did't want to do too many previews. Lost a few posts today that way.
And I have no idea why everything is italicized in the comment, either.
DaveR we may have our diffe
March 12, 2007 - 15:12 ET by Rupert CadellDaveR we may have our differences on a lot of issues, but I'm with you 110% on this. As a fellow comfortably straight Christian male, I have never understood the phenomenon of ostensibly straight people not only feeling obviously threatened by homosexuality (and also feeling that their own marriage is somehow threatened by potential homosexual marriage) but also the way that that insecurity is manifested in things like "let's send them all to Antarctica."
Wonderful post my friend.
"I'm liberal, but to a degree; I want everyone to be free." -B. Dylan
Maybe, instead of insecurit
March 12, 2007 - 15:26 ET by sarcasmoMaybe, instead of insecurity, it's more like a Roy Cohn-style closeted latent-homosexuality. At least, that's what I've always suspected, perhaps because that particular suspicion usually elicits the most-amusing reactions...
JMR
I'm sure it's true in many
March 12, 2007 - 15:35 ET by Rupert CadellI'm sure it's true in many cases, but I try to avoid throwing that one around because it's just too easy to be taken seriously in a respectful conversation. Much like calling a modern-day American politician a Nazi.
"I'm liberal, but to a degree; I want everyone to be free." -B. Dylan
speaking of amusing reactions, sarky
March 12, 2007 - 15:38 ET by RJSpeaking of amusing reactions, sarky, perhaps your proclivity for directing insults at those who disagree with you on the homosexuality issue has something to do with your well-known anal-retentive personality.... ;^>
Who's insulted anyone? I sa
March 12, 2007 - 15:51 ET by sarcasmoWho's insulted anyone? I said "maybe," and Roy Cohn was a very effective lawyer in his time, who exhibited the same kind of over-the-top anti-gay statements in public we're seeing here, while staying "queer as a $3 bill" in private, right? How is accurately pointing out recent history an insult, like, say, ironically-alleging an anal-retentive personality would be?
JMR
Sarky, you always have the ability to make me laugh
March 12, 2007 - 16:14 ET by RJSarky, you always have the ability to make me laugh. Not an insult because you said "maybe"? You're trying to run between the raindrops.
Your post responded directly to Rupert's suggestion that "ostensibly straight people" felt threatened and insecure by the subject. You added an allusion to "closeted latent homosexualty", following it with "perhaps because that particular suspicion usually elicts the most amusing reactions." Eliciting a reaction for amusement is hard to claim as not being an insult, sarky.
Even Rupert got the insult and backed off from your post. He likened it to using "Nazi."
But needle artists don't like to be needled, so I fully expect you to not be able to let this go, and also because....well, you know.....so have at it, sarky..... ;^>
Hilarious job once again, R
March 13, 2007 - 00:49 ET by sarcasmoHilarious job once again, RJ. Gotta love using the ol' selective-quoting to try to make your point. But my point is, when I see things as stupid & over the top as I've seen here, I get the distinct feeling of, "methinks thou dost protest too-much." I feel the urge to make them look-stupid because to me they already-do, much like the homosexual threatened by babies in the original blog post also looks stupid. And in view of history (see the Rev. Ted Haggard if you want an anti-gay hypocrite-homo more-recent than the ancient Roy Cohn!) I'll once-again stand by my words. And eliciting a reaction for amusement is just that, like it or not, RJ (but "needle" implies "sharp"!).
JMR
Sorry, sarky, your needle is blunt
March 13, 2007 - 09:06 ET by RJWhew. Your self-gratified posts still make me smile, sarky. Bet you were a gas on the campaign trail.....
If I've been "selective", would you point out what you said (pertinent to my point) that I ignored? MY point, which you ignored, is that it was funny for an anal-retentitive guy like yourself to feel the need to throw insults at those who disagree with you on the subject of (male) homosexuality. It was a needle the needler, jab-in-the-ribs joke, which you clearly didn't find funny. Awwwww. Of course, you immediately ducked and denied that you insulted anyone because you said MAYBE. Always good for a chuckle, is sarky....
Now, you say "I feel the urge to make them feel stupid" (but not insult them, right?) You're a trip, sarky. Sorry, fella. You often bring good information to the board, but you're about the only one here who thinks your overused needle is sharp. ;^>
I love it when I say someth
March 13, 2007 - 09:15 ET by sarcasmoI love it when I say something's hilarious and I'm at the same time informed that I clearly didn't find it funny. :) And look at Rupert's entire comment for where you selectively-quoted, quite obviously, to try to support your point. If accurately pointing out a LONG history of "thou dost protest too-much" over the top anti-homosexual speech by various homosexual hypocrites amid the over-the-top anti-homosexual bigotry in this thread somehow annoys an amusing reaction out of you, well, "sorry fella" yourself RJ, obviously one guy's needle is apparently still just sharp enough...
JMR
Wow, a whole flock of sarky ducks
March 13, 2007 - 09:31 ET by RJWow, a whole flock of sarky ducks.....load the birdshot.....
Sarky, I could be wrong, but I doubt that anyone sees your use of the word "hilarious" as a synonym for "humor". That thought could be worth your taking an entire couch session to explore.
"Annoy" me into making a joke? Ummmm, oookay.
So I should just take your word that my posts used selective quotes, and if I don't believe you, just look it up for myself? Got it. Riiiight. ;^>
RJ
March 14, 2007 - 00:46 ET by SportPoliticsHe's high as a kite again and obviously awestruck with his own self-proclaimed faulty correctness, taking libertarianism to the extreme, whereby he is so independent from authority in his own swirling noggin, noone can tell him he's wrong, even when it's painfully obvious to everyone.
I note he whined like a flaming liberal that homos flee in groups so they don't get beat up - thereby justifying the lapping swarm, yet finds none of the same logic when the whining crybabies he coddles find themselves in the reverse position. Much like himself, willing to sling his flaming rainbows, but when they bounce back the cry he never did it, and noone else should, reaches the level of pathetic shrillness. What a lamer.
Yeah, you're right. Thug-vi
March 14, 2007 - 00:56 ET by sarcasmoYeah, you're right. Thug-violence against homosexuals has never been a problem coming from rightwing bigots, and clearly any private property bought by homosexuals is 'stolen' from the nonhomosexuals they bought it from. Thanks for setting me straight!!
JMR
Yes it is
March 14, 2007 - 02:36 ET by SportPoliticsYes it is stolen, just like it is being stolen back, according to your gay community, that you fully endorse, when they cry and whine about the theft.
It appears your level of understanding is somewhere around 3rd grader and keyed in on slick willies favorite game.
Find one place where I endo
March 14, 2007 - 02:44 ET by sarcasmoFind one place where I endorsed at all, much less "fully," the anti-baby homosexual's idiocy, Liar. You can't, you know it, so you lose. Again. Pointing out a history of bigoted violence is simply telling the truth, so it's understandable if you're unfamiliar with the concept...
JMR
Now it's baby talk time for mr wrong
March 14, 2007 - 03:04 ET by SportPoliticsNow it's baby talk time for mr wrong. Another blithering idiot defense.
You whined about the free market fags getting what's coming, and babbled on about stolen property, because of course I thought people were just entering Castro, and beating the crap out of the faggots, and stealing their fixed up victorian homes, you pathetic moron, because an excuse of sarcasm is the ploy.
If you were any more a liar you'd make all the liberals proud.
The truth is you defended the hypocrit faggos, misinterpreted like a jerkoff troller, then tried to redirect to 1% stadiumville, and now it's your baby whine for your lamer cake.
Eat up - hope ya got the reefer flour ingredient just right, so more of your stupidity can flail about.
( One can say, that the fools about this thread maybe do need to read the Bible, and then be told by an authority that they need not take it all literally. Of course, instead, we'd have endless moron babbles from them. Certainly that literal Constitution has them playing jerkoff far too often. )
Yep, as I predicted, you fa
March 14, 2007 - 03:12 ET by sarcasmoYep, as I predicted, you failed to find even one time, Liar. You're batting 1000.
JMR
SP..You are the one who sound
March 14, 2007 - 03:17 ET by bigtimerSP..
You are the one who sounds like he is missing a reefer or two...whaz the matter, you out of dope and all pissed off and taking it on the keyboard and anybody else who'll listen...
You are getting to be a riot...at first I was angy but it is turning into the SP Comedy Show!
One man performance!
Bravo!
Well bigtimer
March 14, 2007 - 03:48 ET by SportPoliticsWell bigtimer, your anger appears to be with the use of the word fag and it's variants.
Glad you're such an adult in the matter.
As far as the arguments sarc has presented, since you have presented absolutely ZERO, he is incorrect, was incorrect, and will remain incorrect.
Like I said, as soon as both of you fools admit the gaybays are WRONG and "their" communities are free market spots, then of course we can agree.
For some reason neither one of you has the capacity for that, so I guess we don't agree, really.
You want forced segregation, based upon the beatup predjudice you and sarcy claim is imminent and forthcoming, and you ain't gonna budge.
I guess you're both old buggers still mired in those 60's riots, yet neither one of you has ever seen the abuse you claim is the necessary excuse.
GREAT JOB.
If it wasn't so pathetic, I wouldn't be so impressed.
Dave R, To answer your questi
March 13, 2007 - 02:02 ET byDave R,
To answer your questions and respond to your post:
1) How many homosexuals have I known? I have not kept count. Only one, was I close to, but we had gotten close before she came out as a lesbian. We have since, lost touch. I am told that my high school sweet-heart turned homosexual after marrying and having two kids --but that could just be a rumor. And I even hugged a male homosexual whose dad had died. You think I hate them. I don’t hate them. Jesus does not hate them. I desire for them to come to be saved. But, I also desire to not let them hurt others by what they do, which they do. (I get upset that they desire to push their sin on others, just as I would get upset if a person was trying to get everyone to accept the sin of murder.) If you choose to believe it or not, they do. God’s Word is very clear about how evil they are and what their intentions for others are. You choose to believe them over God. I believe God over them and you.
2) When did I choose to be heterosexual? Homosexuality is a sin, people are born sinners. I never had a problem with that sin. But, the sins that I did have a problem with, like the sin of worrying, I hand over to Jesus when ever it creeps its ugly head up. The difference between Christians and rejecters of Christ, is that Christians do not want to sin. We do not ‘practice’ sin. We desire to 'not' sin. We don't just 'go with it.' The day I called on Christ in truth, was the day I walked away from 'practicing' sin. And those who practice the sin of homosexuality can also walk away from their sin, if they call on Christ in truth. Will they never sin again? No, they will still sin, but they will not desire to continue in their sin and they will not make a 'practice' of sinning. All Christians still mess up and sin, but we do not ‘practice’ sin. We don’t want to sin. There is a huge difference.
3) Homosexuals do not go to hell because they are homosexual; they go to hell because they reject the true Savior, Jesus Christ. And those who truly receive Christ as their savior, as I said in #2, they will no longer 'practice' any sin. They will desire to not sin.
As for the rest of your post to me...
I believe God over anyone. And God is clear about this issue and yes, Jesus spoke of this issue when He spoke against fornication. (Fornication is any sex outside of a true marriage.) Also Jesus is the Word of God. Romans chapter one is very clear about how He feels about two people of the same sex doing that which is unseemly. All of Scripture is God's Word. All of Scripture is Good. All of Scripture is to be used for correction and reproof.
I read down further on this thread and saw that you condemn true Christians, while you defend the wicked. God says to defend the wicked and condemn the just, is an abomination to Him. You even defend them over God’s Word. You are so puffed up in thinking you are so great that you have befriended people who do such wickedness and constantly slap God in the face with it.
You also speak further down of telling homosexuals about Jesus, yet you clearly do not believe that what they do is a sin. Which means you go against what God says on this issue. So, you would not be telling them the truth about what they are doing.
---It is like you are standing on the curb, talking to a man who is standing in a street. You see a truck coming and you just keep talking to him and never warn him of the truck. And you go even one step further, when a woman comes along and yells for that man to get out of the street, that he is going to get hit, you tell the man to just stand his ground against the truck and the woman. You then yell at the woman and boast of being such a better person for letting that man die.
You see, facts are facts. God's Word is non-negotiable. The end to every man's life as he knows it, is going to happen. And those who are not in Christ, will go to hell. And they go to hell because they reject Christ. And they reject Christ, because they choose their sin over Christ. They want to stay in the darkness because if they come in the light, their sins will be reproved (corrected), and they don't want that. They want to sin. They are the opposite of true believers in Christ, who do not want to sin.
What it comes down to, Dave, is that you do not worship the Jesus that I worship. You worship a jesus of your own making, that lets you do what you want to do. You are in fact your jesus.
On the surface, you may appear to some as putting homosexuals above the true God. But, I have known many people like you and I know differently. You are using them because of sin in your own life that you are choosing to continue in your sin, over worshiping the true God.
Debra...
Note: You addressed me on this topic.
Debra,Thank you for taking
March 13, 2007 - 06:06 ET by Dave RDebra,
Thank you for taking the time to respond.
David.
Dave R
March 13, 2007 - 10:21 ET by SportPoliticsDave R, thanks for your gigantic bragging session. A couple of things. I doubt anyone else here has witnessed a homo trying to anal rape a child, let alone a hetero trying to do it. Usually the idea is pedophiles do that sort of thing out of the sight of bragging lib elitists, one has to assume.
Second, that was the strangest "I almost got married to the most gorgeous woman alive " LIE I have ever heard in my life. Out of everything you said there, that was the only babble that after thinking a bit - makes me wonder if you ARE gay. If you don't understand that, you need help. Where you live is more important than her, huh. Don't ever expect to be an action hero.
Ok, I suppose I'm almost done. I'm sick of hearing that homos are peaceful high earners without perversions. In the linked newspaper article, they whine that the gay communities are being replaced by heteros with more money.
I know you have your wonderful stereotype all lined up in your elitist brag, but for a few obvious reasons, the shiek neighborhoods aren't "all gayborhoods".
In fact, we are told, they are disappearing. So, that means the monetary power required to keep it all in tact in a few places in the USA, is not there.
Sorreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.
rofl
Okay, Sport, I guess its on now.
March 13, 2007 - 11:41 ET by Dave RSportPolitics,
Second, that was the strangest "I almost got married to the most gorgeous woman alive " LIE I have ever heard in my life.
The person in question's ambition was to live out her life in France, where much of her family resides. Sorry, but I wouldn't move there for Anna Kournikova.
Also, at the time, I had just started taking care of my parents, one who is suffering from Alzheimer's (my dad) for nearly 15 years now, the other from advanced diabetes (my mom) which she has had for most of her life and is now killing her.
They lost much of their money and insurance because of the actions of a crooked accountant, who took advantage of my dad's condition. At the time my newly married brother was living in Tennessee and my sister was in no position to help as she was just out of school and starting her own family.
I am still caring for my parents to a large extent to this day. It has almost destroyed me financially.
I'm sick of hearing that homos are peaceful high earners without perversions.
Whatever perversions they are engaged in are between the two people involved and God. No person residing anywhere in this country is being affected by what two consenting adults do behind closed doors.
My point in all this is very simple. If the Christian fundamentalist zealots in this country (and I am referring to those who are convinced that anyone who does not agree with them 100% on every point are going to Hell) would focus their anger on things that really do affect others, such as school choice, the hideous teacher's unions and the sorry state of our schools, taxes and whatever else, this country would be in far better shape.
If they continue to splinter off in all directions and vow to vote for, or not to vote for, certain candidates because they may have supported some position or other they feel wasn't morally acceptable to them, then we are going to lose this country. And damn soon, at that.
You are not being truthful, D
March 14, 2007 - 00:07 ET byYou are not being truthful, Dave. It was my post that you were responding to, which you have been called to task over; and I in no way said that someone has to agree with me 100% on every point or that they are going to hell. And my response to your post, clearly said that a person goes to hell for rejecting the true Savior, Jesus Christ --not for any other reason.
As for your statement about it not affecting people, what others do behind closed doors? They are not doing it just behind closed doors. They are doing out on the streets and they are flaunting their immoral relationships in public. (I would also have a problem with a mother and her son doing such with each other. Would you?) They are also seeking to get special laws to stop others from not speaking out against what they do. They are trying to force others to accept what they do and they want penalties for those of us who refuse to accept what they do.
They have already taken rights away from people in Canada, and they are working at taking rights away from people here. No one should be forced to hire a homosexual. No one should be forced to sell or rent to them. And no one should be silenced from speaking out against what they do.
They want to be left alone, not to do what they do behind closed doors. They want to be left alone to infiltrate their perversion in society and push it on others. Now they want a general fired, because he used his free speech to say that what these people do is immoral. And hey, guess what? He did not speak against any Constitutional right. Could you imagine how they would react if someone called for a homosexual to be fired, due to saying that heterosexuality is immoral? hmm… You are most likely thinking that no one would ever say it is immoral to be heterosexual ---and to that I say, “exactly!”
Debra...
Another crybaby Debra
March 14, 2007 - 01:02 ET by SportPoliticsAnother crybaby Debra. Don't you just hate it when the whining pathetic word protectors give a big fat poor me personal accounting of their pathetic existence ? What a bunch of crybaby victims.
First they go on bragging, then it's the exact reverse, the pathetic low self esteemed hardship, coupled with some personal humanitarian sacrificial lambing.
Likewise, it's the fag community that are the smartest, the kindest, the least threatening, the non-perverted and non-pedophilic, above all other groups, and they also earn the most money and have the hottest hetero chics all around them, and the greatest parties,with the best part of the city all theirs.
Yep, it's always a godlike existence, and anyone who doesn't know it needs to be told, over and over again...before all the crybaby poor me's, and after the insane lying brag.
Gosh how could I have forgotten the xtian right religious zealouts who aren't allowed to think or say what they believe about hellbound sinners, and if they do, expect gross mischaracterization.
I am so sick of the vociferous defenses for someone else's corrupted causes, along with the arrogant I know better crap, coupled with the bragging and the pathetic poor me's, and then spun into lies to make a false attack.
In the end the correction (you issued this time ) issued is ignored, because it cuts to the bone, flaying the disease completely.
Rebuked.
lol
SP...You and Debra fit perfec
March 14, 2007 - 01:21 ET by bigtimerSP...
You and Debra fit perfectly.
You are both know it all perfect in God's eyes right?
Must be nice to be so prim and proper.
Your holy smugness.
Yes bigtimer
March 14, 2007 - 01:25 ET by SportPoliticsYes bigtimer, except only just me, and the gay community players that live by Dave R.'s(or whomever it was) party central attraction. Yeah, that rounds out the entire group, until I need another set to add in, in total defense against whomever and whatever.
SP...What the hell did you ju
March 14, 2007 - 01:30 ET by bigtimerSP...
What the hell did you just say?
What kind of gibberish was that?
Hey, is this my chance to b
March 14, 2007 - 01:32 ET by sarcasmoHey, is this my chance to blatantly-lie about SP being high on something? (Oops! Too late, I let-slip the truth, which is that I frankly have no idea what goes-on in even fellow-libertarians' brains, let alone his!)
JMR
What do you mean what was that ?
March 14, 2007 - 01:42 ET by SportPoliticsWhat do you mean what was that ? What the hell did you just say before what I just said ?
I can be a huge hypocrit just like the fags whining others don't have a right to not be homophobic, and to pay their fagger friends for a homestead in their queer city they "own", or rather used to own in total segregation...
Now all the touchy feely liars are out for pretend bigot blood, right ? sarc the idiot jumped in, since his stupid link had a moron twit with fuzzy math all over it, and he blustered his usual crap off topic, about his hard on against the government and emminent domain.
One would think the petty fool would bluster a bit about fags who think they have a right to do something,(like buy and fix up victorian homes) then cry and demand some sort of redress when someone else does it, and they're on the recieving end, getting bought out, and begging for from on high relief.
Instead, it's too stupid for that simple obviousness, and so off to the fag card ya go ?
She said you're babbling se
March 14, 2007 - 01:46 ET by sarcasmoShe said you're babbling senselessly. And she was/is right.
JMR
Wrong again sarc
March 14, 2007 - 01:52 ET by SportPoliticsWrong again sarc, you fool.
What is correct, is you missed the faggers free market profiteering, along with their ( libertarian no-no ) whining about the free market, that is destroying their segregated little huddle, and instead became the useful idiot for their cause celeb.
Er, Liar, when/where did I
March 14, 2007 - 01:59 ET by sarcasmoEr, Liar, when/where did I ever defend the idiot homosexuals' whining about the free market? Just because some bigots apparently want to deny a history of violent thuggery and I easily make fools of them here doesn't make that violent bigoted history -- which was behind the segregation in the first place -- magically not-exist.
JMR
SP...You are a rude crude imb
March 14, 2007 - 01:52 ET by bigtimerSP...
You are a rude crude imbecile.
Simple as that.
While sarc and I do not agree about a lot of things, he deserves respect...who they hell do you think you are to trash talk like you do?
You sound like a punk on the high school football team that thinks he is big man ..but really has a small little inferiority problem...that all the gal talks about...
LOL!
Get my drift...big man wanna be?
Do ya tough dude?
ps bigtimer
March 14, 2007 - 01:48 ET by SportPoliticsps bigtimer, you might notice that Debra was correct in her defense of WHAT she said, which the other twit LIED about.
Her beliefs are hers to have and share, and when another elist braggart who tells me the gay conclave segregated above the lowly outsiders who are dumber and less capable, makes a big fatlie about it, and she ably defends what she said, I have to agree.
You should notice, I haven't once in this entire thread declared hellfire upon an (un)chosen group. Imagine that.
SP,You and the Ice queen woul
March 14, 2007 - 01:58 ET by bigtimerSP,
You and the Ice queen would make the perfect Home Coming Dream Team ...
Have at it...
I can't believe the venom you are showing tonight...
Thats okay, I have plenty left over from earlier today to share with the both of ya.
Carry on....
Ice Queen...mmm...
March 14, 2007 - 02:39 ET byIce Queen...mmm...
Debra,
March 14, 2007 - 07:21 ET by Dave RDebra,
As I said, I do not agree with most of their agenda. As a libertarian, I do not believe in special rights for any group.
If I were fired for expressing the view that something, anything, was immoral, I'd sue my employer into abject bankruptcy on 1st Amendment grounds alone, and when he or she defaulted on their mortgage, I'd show up at their house on moving out day and cheer. Yes, you can still do that in this country.
As for public displays of sexual behaviour, those involved in such should be arrested, heterosexuals included.
As for what is going on in Canada, that is the fault of the Canadian people. Canada has nothing like our own 1st Amendment, and they have allowed the government to take away their firearms. They're hosed. Too bad for them.
DebSmith...they need more roo
March 12, 2007 - 15:00 ET by bassndudeDebSmith...they need more room, what say we give them Antarctica?
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Sounds good to me.... :o)
March 13, 2007 - 02:22 ET byBassndude, ....Sounds good to me.... :o)
Debra...Not Iceland, my Fathe
March 12, 2007 - 16:37 ET by Clear thinkerDebra...
Not Iceland, my Fathers ashes are there and I like the people.
How about someplace that deserves them, say North Korea!
The liberal MSM has become an enemy of the USA.
Clear thinker, ... A planet w
March 13, 2007 - 02:25 ET byClear thinker, ... A planet would do the trick too. hehe.. :o)
Just more proof that the Le
March 12, 2007 - 05:48 ET by motherbeltJust more proof that the Left has a "NIMBY" attitude on diversity. Segregation is wrong, unless blacks decide they want their "own" college dorm and student center; diversity is good, unless straight people with families want to move into a "gay" neighborhood.
Reverse the scenario: what if a large contigent of "gays" decided to move their "sex-drenched" culture into a "Disneyfied" neighborhood and the current inhabitants didn't like it? Would these people be upset about disrupting the family-style culture of that neighborhood?
It sounds like this is less about being "gay" and more about maintaining a "sex-drenched" neighborhood.
They are dirty. They are real
March 12, 2007 - 05:53 ET byThey are dirty. They are really dirty! And I don't care what anyone says, they go after children. That is probably a huge part of the problem with descent people moving in, that someone will see them with children that they bring into the neighborhood.
Let's face it, the only way they multiply is by getting at the children. The last verse in Chapter 1 of Romans, speaks about them being happy when someone else is doing what they do. And American schools have opened their doors and let them in to get at the children. Wow! How stupid is that?
The island will end their multiplying.
?? Even Ken Mehlman? Wow...
March 12, 2007 - 06:13 ET by sarcasmo?? Even Ken Mehlman? Wow...I never knew. ;) Quite a wide net you've cast today, eh?
Frankly, the ones I've known well (and libertarian-homosexuals, or at least homosexuals who can abide having libertarians like me in the same room, are probably NOT the homosexual-norm, I'll have to admit) were quite monogamous. They had absolutely no interest in children (or other homosexuals past the age of consent, either). And by saying, "(t)he island will end their multiplying," are you claiming that homosexuality is therefore a genetically-inherited trait, rather than a choice?
JMR
No, sarcasmo, I am saying tha
March 12, 2007 - 08:50 ET byNo, sarcasmo, I am saying that if they cannot get to the children, they won't be able to turn anymore children into homosexuals by doing nasty dirty sexual things to them!
As for the homosexuals that you know, being monogamous? Am I to be impressed that two homosexuals who do nasty dirty sexual things with each other claim to only do so with each other? Sorry, not only do I not believe it, even if they did, it is still a slap in the face to God Almighty! It is still perverted! It is sick and disgusting!
And monogamous is a word that goes with heterosexuals, not homosexuals. It is futile to seek to dignify the wicked.
Debra...
I take it from this you bel
March 12, 2007 - 09:04 ET by sarcasmoI take it from this you believe it's non-genetic, but that homosexual pedophiles manage to create all future-homosexuals somehow via sexual abuse of kids. I seriously doubt this theory, considering my friends (who seem to be merely different, not "wicked," to me) but everyone's free to believe as they wish. BTW, those who actually want to prevent the "wickedness" of widespread homosexual behavior might wish to join me in trying to reduce prison-populations by fighting against victimless "crime" laws -- which I find as evil & disgusting as you find homosexuality, believe it or not...
JMR
sarcamso, I to believe that i
March 12, 2007 - 13:42 ET by Conservative Voicesarcamso, I to believe that it isn't a born issue, but rather a learned issue. It use to be termed a mental disorder, but due to the gay lobby they no longer call it a mental disorder. It has been my experience with dealing with a number of homosexuals, they were either molested as kids, or abused by the opposite sex (usually in the form of rape), or did drugs, or experimented with it and learned to like it (like drinking beer or smoking...the first time it is tried isn't very pleasant). I say its learned, because some "homosexuals" (in quotes because its a label that people will define themselves as, but that doesn't mean they are hard wired to be) with therapy have learned to enjoy sex with the opposite sex and be happily married with the opposite sex. Of course critics then are quick to claim that they weren't gay in the first place, which of course doesn't make any sense. I think Gay Science is equivalent to Global Warming Science, politics has muddied the waters to where being objective is near impossible. Here is what I do know, in addition to what I mentioned above, animals / mankind are sexual in nature, we respond well in that area. The brain is stimulated more with porn than with drugs. So homosexual acts with animals doesn't prove its a gene thing. Animals can learn how to satisfy their needs. Here is what I also know, we have the abillity to reason and make choices. We do not need to be a slave to our desires, even with the matters of sex.
The interesting thing to me
March 12, 2007 - 13:52 ET by sarcasmoThe interesting thing to me is that some animals exhibit homosexual behavior, too. They're presumably not-influenced by schools or media or legal or illegal drugs, either. And I'm not advocating "being a slave to desires," I'm (as usual) instead advocating simply leaving people alone, even if they don't do things the way I do them sexually. I think you'll have a lot of trouble proving to me it's 100% learned in view of the twin study, which seems to indicate a genetic factor is involved unless there's an explanation I'm not seeing. It turns out, twin studies in general can be some of the best and most-interesting behavioral science reading, and a LOT of behavior is influenced by our genes.
JMR
influenced, not determined, t
March 12, 2007 - 13:59 ET by Conservative Voiceinfluenced, not determined, that is the key. I agree with you sarcasmo that I don't really care what they do in the closet, where I do get my dander up is when they parade their closet in the streets, at the theme parks, on TV, in the schools...where it is cool, and we are just suppose to consider it to be acceptable...and anyone who calls it immoral is regarded as a hatemonger and its hate speech, and they need to be silenced. A bit lopsided.
and on the influenced, I am n
March 12, 2007 - 14:04 ET by Conservative Voiceand on the influenced, I am not convinced that there is a gay gene. It could be a related gene...such as a gene that influences hormone levels, or a timid personality, or a curious personality, or a chemical dependant personality.
I'm convinced there are gen
March 12, 2007 - 15:02 ET by sarcasmoI'm convinced there are genes that make an individual more-likely to be gay, and I suspect at least one of 'em will someday be found near the gene(s) making some people (not all of them homosexuals!) susceptible to a lisp.
JMR
sarc - I'm with you - Leavi
March 12, 2007 - 14:00 ET by Dee Bunksarc - I'm with you - Leaving them alone does not mean advocating Gay Marriage though. That is completely different.
I'm old-fashioned enough to
March 12, 2007 - 14:19 ET by sarcasmoI'm old-fashioned enough to want a separation of marriage & state. I'd leave it up to churches in my ideal world, but with the increased growth (or I call it worship...) of big government, marriage has over the years slowly-become sort of a state-sacrament via the tax laws. Assuming (and some of them can't, they're being political about this issue, as is their right IMO) homosexual couples can do-without the word "marriage," as long as through a "civil union" (or whatever people want to call it besides-marriage) these couples can contractually & legally achieve the same result marriage causes for heterosexual couples, do you see anything wrong with it? I really don't. And the one advantage conservatives might see to just going ahead and calling this kind of relationship "marriage" despite their instincts & popular will is the idea within a marriage of monogamy, "forsaking all others," etc. which could tend to counteract some of the issues conservatives have with promiscuity. But I doubt conservatives will see it that way, so there's no real need to say you disagree. :)
JMR
Sarc - no real reason? How
March 12, 2007 - 15:30 ET by Dee BunkSarc - no real reason? How about I'm a big mouth. Isn't that a good reason to say I disagree - so that I can babble on? : - ] The way I see it, marriage in the Church is different and if a Church wants to recognize homosexual marriage then that is their business, but the reason for Marriage to be recognized by government is to support family. For me it's about the children and even though I don't have a problem with homosexuals adopting, I don't think it should be endorsed by the government as a first choice for a child. Children benefit by having a male and female raising them. Everyone I know who did not have a father or a mother growing up, suffered for it . Not because they needed a second person there - but because they needed the influence of the opposite sex.
Of course there are 1001 or more ways we can screw up our kids. Getting divorced for example, but the government doesn't encourage divorce. It doesn't condemn it either just as it doesn't condemn homosexuality. I don't condemn someone for getting divorced and I don't condemn them for being homosexual, I just think neither situation is a first choice for raising kids.
As far as promiscuity, I don't think the government definition of marriage makes a difference to that other than in divorce. Fidelity is a commitment between two people or two people and their religion. The government should not discourage a Gay person from deciding that they were actually straight (Like Ann Heche) especially if they have a child with the opposite sex.
The tax laws actually are unfavorable to married people when they both work. They were set up because in the ideal family someone stayed home to take care of the kids. If only one spouse works then the tax laws were favorable to being married vs just living together, but unfortunately if both work (even if one is just part time) then they are penalized. They did away with some of this with Bush's tax cuts.
I'll surprise you by agreei
March 12, 2007 - 15:44 ET by sarcasmoI'll surprise you by agreeing entirely with paragraph 1, at least in the ideal. My own parents have stayed together, and I'm sure having both of them helped me vastly as well as helping them financially. I'm also sure kids of divorced parents had personality issues.
But I've also seen kids in FL's state foster care, and IMO just-about any single parent, male or female, "gay or straight," beats that.
I think we'll need to agree to disagree on marriage & promiscuity. It's one of those things about conservatives I just do not understand, even as I probably didn't express it very well above, but my bottom line is that any ceremony -- especially a nice ritualized solemn one held among a lot of people you both know -- saying "this is my only mate for life" probably works, at least a little, against the normal human propensity for promiscuity. I was just re-reading this (about heterosexual marriage, and very politically-incorrect) when I saw your note. Not exactly on-topic, but interesting nonetheless -- at least if you want a quick way to infuriate feminists. :)
And while I hate all taxes almost-equally, it's really weird to see a marriage penalty. Another sign we need to vastly-simplify the US tax code, but that's nothing new coming from the likes of me. Anyway, gotta go now.
JMR
sarc, I am with you too on th
March 12, 2007 - 15:21 ET by bigtimersarc, I am with you too on this one.
This is twice I have had a longer post and the wind is screwing with the power here...I have lost two posts and power has gone out completely so I am just going to post this to agree.
Hi BT - I wonder if it's to
March 12, 2007 - 15:32 ET by Dee BunkHi BT - I wonder if it's to do with NB because I just lost the long one I posted above, and had to re-type it.
Hi back at ya Dee, Hope this
March 12, 2007 - 15:41 ET by bigtimerHi back at ya Dee, Hope this gets to you...
My power went out, that is understandable to lose what I was posting, but I have lost three others in the middle or near the end of long ones, I will not try long ones again for now...
It is this site...I do not know what?
Aggravating to say the least.
Quote the verses, freedom of
March 12, 2007 - 06:30 ET by stanleygoodspeedQuote the verses, freedom of speech includes the freedom to speak the words of the Bible ...
Romans 1:24-27
(24) Wherefore God also gave them up [paradidomai - surrendered them] to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves:
(25) Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the creature [ktisis - their own bodies] more than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
(26) For this cause God gave them up [paradidomai - surrendered them] unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use [phusikos chresis - natural sexual intercourse] into that which is against nature:
(27) And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use [phusikos chresis - natural sexual intercourse] of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet [full-blown devil spirit possession 24/7/365].
Romans 1:28-32
(28) And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
(29) Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
(30) Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
(31) Without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
(32) Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, NOT ONLY DO THE SAME, BUT HAVE PLEASURE IN THEM THAT DO THEM.
Exactly, Stanely.... God's Wo
March 12, 2007 - 08:55 ET byExactly, Stanely.... God's Word is Truth!
And I don't care what anyon
March 12, 2007 - 15:55 ET by Rupert CadellAnd I don't care what anyone says, they go after children.
Says who? Do you mean in a pedophilic way or in the sense that they try to convince children in schools that homosexuality is ok?
Either way, your phrasing indicates just how desperate you are to believe it, to satisfy your own prejudices, even though it's categorically untrue. Sorry Debra, your hateful attitude just doesn't square with the facts.
"I'm liberal, but to a degree; I want everyone to be free." -B. Dylan
Here here motherbelt
March 13, 2007 - 10:32 ET by SportPoliticsHere here motherbelt, exactly what I was thinking only well put.
I noted in the linked article the gays invaded the 2 named neighborhoods in question in the 60's, 70's and 80's. Now their little invasion is unravelling...
Oh well, it's a quagmire and they've screwed up the occupation. They have to get out, and they will, since it's being bought up around them. America is taking San Fran back !
roflmao
"If the Castro goes aw
March 12, 2007 - 05:56 ET by sarcasmo"If the Castro goes away as a gay neighborhood, there is nowhere else."
This guy sounds like he'd really-enjoy a short vacation in Key West...And mightn't this trend be a sign of decreased violent-bigotry against homosexuals by (probably latent-homosexual, IMO) right-wing thugs, and therefore a good thing?? (I'd been hoping they'd go the "Pink Pistols" route & get an instant .44-caliber version of this result, but regardless of how it was eventually accomplished, if there's less fear & violence it is a good thing.)
JMR
sarcasmo,Have you been to Key
March 12, 2007 - 07:39 ET by msh1973sarcasmo,
Have you been to Key West lately? We tried to take our kids down to see the beauty of the keys...we had to leave because it was like being in a gay pride parade. My kids were seeing things I sure wish they hadn't! Key West is a tourist area for everyone, but not after a certain time of day. As soon as the sunset "party" was over people with families had to head out.
I've heard it's pretty-gay
March 12, 2007 - 08:06 ET by sarcasmoI've heard it's pretty-gay around Halloween (they have a weeklong party called "Fantasy Fest" and the costumes range from elaborate to very-minimal!) but the last time I was down was about 5 years ago & not during Halloween. I really enjoy visiting "The Conch Republic." Every year they ceremonially secede, declare war on the United States & fire a cannon, immediately surrender, and then ask for money from the federal government. It's entertaining political/street theater, IMO. But for "family" vacations if you actually-care about avoiding homosexuals (I don't, obviously) it's probably a good idea to stop around Tavernier or Islamorada, but I'm curious...What horrible things did you see in Key West that most kids don't see on TV every day? The most I've seen down there is men kissing & holding hands, which to me is ho-hum.
JMR
Sarcasmo,Well we don't have c
March 12, 2007 - 08:16 ET by msh1973Sarcasmo,
Well we don't have cable tv so my kids don't see men kissing. Horrible things? How about grown men dressed up as women, one guy had the rear end of his pants cut out and his butt was hanging out. That might not be "horrible" in your book, but in my book that is "horrible" enough.
I forgot also that one weekend in June we took our kids (again) to DisneyWorld, unbeknownst to us it was "Gay" day at Disney World. Oh yea! Grown men wearing short shorts, tube tops and pink Minnie Mouse ears. Try explaining that to an eight year old.
You're right. In my book, i
March 12, 2007 - 08:29 ET by sarcasmoYou're right. In my book, it's just what they want to do, so I don't care when they do it or what they wear while they're doing it, etc. because they leave me alone. What gets me is that some conservatives seem to believe that homosexuals can just decide to be a homosexual. I don't think that's true, both because of the MZ twin-studies & brain-studies & things like having a lisp which seem to indicate something genetic just might be up. I'm sure, if it were possible, that extreme frustration with females would have no-doubt driven me there a couple of decades ago. :) I sure don't recall making any decision to want females instead of males sexually, it was just the natural thing for me. And when I was 8, I knew that homosexuals were out-there, but knowing it or seeing them didn't really make any difference to me.
JMR
sarc -- here's an interesti
March 12, 2007 - 08:47 ET by Jack Bauersarc -- here's an interesting choice.
What if it were discovered that sexuality was controlled by a certain brain chemistry that could be corrected in the baby (fetus) in the womb.
That a mother could have this medical procedure to her baby pre-birth (as it already done for many medical procedures) to ensure that her son would grow up as a heterosexual man.
It's absolutely the woman's right to choose, right?
It's an interesting ethical
March 12, 2007 - 09:13 ET by sarcasmoIt's an interesting ethical question, and a parental choice in this kind of case might imply the possibility of other choices conservatives might not find nearly as "correct." :) But if this hypothetical sexual-preference process suddenly existed, would it not put the lie to all of those who've claimed, vociferously (despite a distinct dearth of actual science...) that it's somehow "a choice"? And suppose bisexuality were also an option in this hypothetical selection-process, and further-suppose "correcting" THAT in the womb suddenly became very popular... It's still absolutely the woman's right to choose, right?
JMR
sarc, how about? In the natural state of things, sans tech...
March 12, 2007 - 09:18 ET by acaiguanasarc, how about? In the natural state of things, sans technology and medical knowledge, at what point does the woman, 'choose'?
:-)
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
It depends. In all cases of
March 12, 2007 - 09:33 ET by sarcasmoIt depends. In all cases of rape, for example, I'd say "never." But I'm much more-interested in the (IMO addle-brained) belief that homosexuals somehow deliberately-choose their sexual orientation. I think there's a lot of belief "for" it, but ever-increasing science "against" it, and I suspect that fact is causing considerable angst, so I don't particularly-want to go off on an abortion-choice bunny-trail. I instead want to cause people who need more angst, well, more angst. :) Which is why I altered Jack's hypothetical above just-slightly...
JMR
I'm just 'messing' with ya sarc.
March 12, 2007 - 09:36 ET by acaiguanaI'm just 'messing' with ya sarc.
I have known people who could not be 'hetro' if they had a rifle pointed at them.
So, I think there is a fundamental mutation going on. I know 'mutant' is a bad word to use when talking about humans.
Oh well...
At any rate, the whole topic is the subject of about a million books and a trillion words.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
I have too. And I don't con
March 12, 2007 - 09:45 ET by sarcasmoI have too. And I don't consider these people "wicked" just because of what they don't do in front of me. (I'm grateful for gay guys due to less-competition for females, but I really only 'understand' the lesbians, because IMO guys are disgusting.) In fact, because homosexuals are so-often not-left-alone, I find they're often easier to convince that leaving other people alone is a good-thing. I'll take any convert I can get.
JMR
The issue of being "born
March 12, 2007 - 12:49 ET by InsufficientContextThe issue of being "born gay" is kind of a hot button issue with most people and information opposing it is often overlooked or hard to find. The National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality is a good place to search.
This link http://www.narth.com/docs/innate.html in particular is interesting because it highlights prominent gay and lesbian advocates that argue against being born gay.
To the best of my knowledge this is also a secular organization.
It's an interesting link, b
March 12, 2007 - 13:41 ET by sarcasmoIt's an interesting link, but it's an advocacy-link. And I certainly agree with the conclusion of the article that unhappy homosexuals can go try to change themselves if they want to, but I think there's pretty-good evidence like the twin-study for at least SOME genetic component to all this (in part because I don't recall ever making the decision myself). If that's true, it has legal & policy implications.
JMR
proof that Gay Science is equ
March 12, 2007 - 14:12 ET by Conservative Voiceproof that Gay Science is equivalent with Global Warming science.
This issue of choice gets m
March 12, 2007 - 14:12 ET by The Wicked ConservativeThis issue of choice gets misrepresented in my opinion. I don't believe anyone stands up one day and says "I'm gay!" It's a matter of nurture vs nature to me. Something has happened in the life of the homosexual that has caused the attraction to the same sex and thusly yes I believe it can be cured. If it were genetic it would have extinguished itself long ago because it's an awefully hard gene to pass on seeing as same sex relationships can't produce offspring.
Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realizes that it bears a very close resemblence to the first.
- Ronald Reagan
All the ones I've talked-to
March 12, 2007 - 14:27 ET by sarcasmoAll the ones I've talked-to have said they knew before age 10 (and none reported or exhibited signs of child sexual abuse). I knew before age 10 that I'd like females, too. And if your genetic-extinguishing argument is truly correct, how do you explain all the homosexual rams, penguins, etc. on farms and in nature? Shouldn't they be just as "extinct" as the human gays & lesbians, instead of seeming to represent about the same percentage of the population as with the humans? :)
JMR
I didn't say they had to be
March 12, 2007 - 14:40 ET by The Wicked ConservativeI didn't say they had to be sexually abused. That would certainly be a life event that could push one in that direction. The lack of positive male role-models in many homes these days is a problem for one example. And just because one doesn't have a positive role-model or does get abused does not mean they will suddenly turn gay. I can't speak for the animal kingdom but I do know everytime there is a gay penguin hook-up it makes the news. This suggests it may just be rare enough to be worth mentioning.
And if your genetic-extinguishing argument is truly correct, how do you
explain all the homosexual rams, penguins, etc. on farms and in nature?
Shouldn't they be just as "extinct" as the human gays & lesbians,
instead of seeming to represent about the same percentage of the
population as with the humans?
Right back at you. If it's genetic how does it get passed on?
Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realizes that it bears a very close resemblence to the first.
- Ronald Reagan
Same way as I got blue eyes
March 12, 2007 - 14:57 ET by sarcasmoSame way as I got blue eyes, even though both of my parents have brown ones. It's recessive. Some genetic traits are just that-way. And I don't know about penguins, but it seems like rams (which, unlike the penguins, you'd think would have been artifically-encouraged by their human masters over hundreds of generations to reproduce!!! rather than exhibiting non-revenue-producing homosexual behaviors) still sometimes end up homosexual.
JMR
sarcasmo -
March 13, 2007 - 11:04 ET by SportPoliticsI am reading the link. Although not what you're arguing, I find massive error, as usual, in any public science poltical babble internet article/ first their 51% plus gay animal "scientific statement of fact":
[ Many domestic and wild animals engage in sexual activity with members of both the same and the opposite sex; a smaller number have eyes only for their own sex. ]
Then, after that unbelievable spew,we have the exceptions to the rule :
[ Scientists have studied the sex drive and sexual orientation of domesticated and wild rams. A heterosexual ram with a strong sex drive will mount either other males or ewes. However, a significant proportion of domesticated males -- up to 16 percent -- never mate with females during a breeding season, Perkins says. About 6 percent seem uninterested in any sexual activity. Another 10 percent are homosexual, choosing males even when females are available. Ewes rarely engage in such activities.]
Yeah, so we have the sex crazed maniac ram - never is there given a percentage (one or two percent perhaps)- because it would blow to smithereens the prior argument of a gay humping majority. Then we add 6 percent( NOT ! they don't do anything - thats not proven gay) to 'small' to win a mount, and 10 percent so mixed up their pumping the wrong thing. Then we have the one percent lesbo EWE - who almost single sexedly blows away the gay majority. So we get AT BEST - 10 percent confirmed gay only - a few overzealous anything with 2 legs - and a tiny ewe bit - FAR LESS THAN MOST - MANY AND MORE THAN NOT.
It's CRAP like that in an article, that is somehow supposed to actually have a scientific merit to it, that makes me give it a big fat F every time.
If lying about such a major thing as "most animals have been proven to be gay active" - is to be overlooked - I'm not the one to do it.
My reaction is to wish to find the moron who wrote the article, and beat the living daylights out of them while I explain exactly why they are wrong no matter what.Pounding them until it is clear to me that they absolutely understand their error. Now that might be a bit to 'testosteronic' - but strangely enough certainly according to the article believers, I have never mounted the same sex.
So, do I now need to agree that the very same article is correct when it quotes "the gay domesticated 10% of rams population " ...
I just don't. But, perhaps it's an argument for animal lovers who aren't left wing zealouts. It could be argued that penning up the rams has a neutering effect on them, much like the feminazis of the modern school system have been pushing, and now we see the population declines projected.
ps- I see the article's author is one Tina Adler - ASSUMING - and that's a big assumption - it's a female - the pounding would take a on a different set of characteristics than prior mentioned. What a SHI**Y article for "sciencenews.org"
I'm afraid I don't understa
March 13, 2007 - 11:17 ET by sarcasmoI'm afraid I don't understand your arguments, but if you feel they need to be augmented with violence then probably there's no need. I've been around farm animals more than a lot of people I know, so the article didn't bother or surprise me very much, because I've seen a lot of sexual weirdness, frankly. Anyway, I'd be more-interested in a conservative response to my other comment on this thread, regarding gays buying property privately on the open real estate market & then fixing it up being "stealing" somehow, while an eminent domain big-government landgrab across the nation & for the benefit of a monopoly is apparently at the same time ok, at least if it happens to homosexual nightclubs. Or maybe I'm somehow misreading you...
JMR
Oh you idiot
March 14, 2007 - 01:17 ET by SportPoliticsOh you idiot, read your own name. Just like bal, when it comes to the lies in your slanted doofus article, you cannot understand. Pretending to be a moron isn't your strong suit, unless you're stoned out of your gourd again.
Try adding 10% and few percent of crazed ram, and see if you come up with a number greater than 51%, ya dork. Your goofus link writer did. I suspect she's as stupid as you are. Better bail on collecting gold, you need help with math.
As far as the gay bays invading, you excused it because according to you they flee in groups from agressive beatings, but when they whined people were buying up "their city" - you didn't have a problem with them crying about what they did being done to them. Full support for total hypocrisy, the sarc idiot way.
If you don'tunderstand that, and want to focus on the stadium purchase as your bail out lamer cry, keep doing it, because it's the only pie that isn't flying into your idiot face.
It's amazing what a liar and idiot you become the moment your precious agenda is full of bs- like your link was. Yeah,of course you can't understand. Bal will console you and give you a hug, then you can fry out some more brain cells, and become more the babbling fool.
In the end, you can start a crybaby thread about the government purchasing land for stadiums, that has nothing to do with gay communities, ya lying crapster.
Liar, read your own post, y
March 14, 2007 - 01:25 ET by sarcasmoLiar, read your own post, you're still not even up to the 101 level of sarcasm. Then go read ALL of mine, I already said the homosexual who is against babies in his now-safe-from-thugs neighborhood is an idiot just like you are. You just don't like losing arguments to me. Again. Tough.
JMR
sarc...He is screwed up...in
March 14, 2007 - 01:34 ET by bigtimersarc...
He is screwed up...in more ways than one!
LMAO!
Sarcasmo,We must agree to dis
March 12, 2007 - 16:01 ET by msh1973Sarcasmo,
We must agree to disagree on this topic.
the Harvey Milk Lesbian Gay B
March 12, 2007 - 06:28 ET by NoMoreClintonsthe Harvey Milk Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transexual Democratic Club
Hey, where do I sign up? Is there a Republican branch of this club?
Is that the Gayborhood?The
March 12, 2007 - 06:31 ET by Jack BauerIs that the Gayborhood?
Tim--why do you adopt PC term
March 12, 2007 - 06:33 ET by ncstevemTim--why do you adopt PC terms like 'gay'?
The correct term is homosexual or homosexuality.
Taking back the culture starts by taking back the language.
It should become a policy of NB.
It's not an 'affair' it's adultery. It's not 'humankind' it's mankind.
It's not an 'affair' it's adu
March 12, 2007 - 06:39 ET by NoMoreClintonsIt's not an 'affair' it's adultery
Actually, it's sodomy.
Actually, it's rectosexuality
March 12, 2007 - 06:57 ET by jonathanandersonActually, it's rectosexuality ... or, proctosexuallity ... or, analsexuality ... or, colosexuality ... or, sphinctosexuality ... whatever words you can use to illustrate the base nature of WHAT exactly it is that GETS THESE SOCIOPATHS SEXUALLY AROUSED.
NMC--I was speaking in genera
March 12, 2007 - 07:00 ET by ncstevemNMC--I was speaking in general terms and not referencing this article per se. Guess I should have clarified that.
The use of 'affair' is prevelant because it's an innocuous term
People need to be real clear
March 12, 2007 - 06:49 ET by stanleygoodspeedPeople need to be real clear on the depth of evil that homosexuality is ...
Romans 1:24-27
(24) Wherefore God also gave them up [paradidomai - surrendered them] to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves:
(25) Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the creature [ktisis - their own bodies] more than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
(26) For this cause God gave them up [paradidomai - surrendered them] unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use [phusikos chresis - natural sexual intercourse] into that which is against nature:
(27) And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use [phusikos chresis - natural sexual intercourse] of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet [full-blown devil spirit possession 24/7/365].
Romans 1:28-32
(28) And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
(29) Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
(30) Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
(31) Without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
(32) Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
And, as great as that depth is, God is still able and willing to save any homosexual who wants out of that lifestyle.
Isaiah 1:16-18
(16) Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil;
(17) Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow.
(18) Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.
Romans 10:9
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
1 John 1:9
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
Hey stanleygood... If I want to read the Bible, I'll read it.
March 12, 2007 - 08:20 ET by acaiguanaHey stanleygood... If I want to read the Bible, I'll read it.
We went through this about a month ago with some of our posters. Please stop this stuff. I don't appreciate it.
If you want to cite the Bible in your post, state your opinion in your own words and reference the bible in the traditional manner.
I do not appreciate being prosthelyzed and I certainly do not need your spreading your Gospel on this site.
Thanks in advance.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
aca - I agree with you. If
March 12, 2007 - 08:32 ET by Dee Bunkaca - I agree with you. If someone can't state their argument in their own terms then they shouldn't make it. Telling people that God says it's wrong is pointless because not everyone believes in God and we are free to practice our own religions.
I am more disturbed by the hate speech that I see on this thread above and below this comment by some good people. I wish that someone would moderate and warn them.
I have Dee, many times posted angst at this stuff.
March 12, 2007 - 08:35 ET by acaiguanaI have Dee, many times posted angst at this stuff.
It denegrates the site. Homosexual jokes and gratuitus remarks and quoting the Bible as spamming the site (which stanlygoodspeed is doing) are all marks of shallow minds.
And I notice stanleygood... is relatively new to the site - only 6 weeks. But this is out of control. And the the rest of my good buddies out there, we can make our arguments without demonstrating our distaste in a more clear and reasoned way.
thanks
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
hmm
March 12, 2007 - 08:49 ET by derbali've looked all over newsbusters and still can't find a rule that says no one can tell jokes or quote scripture. perhaps you would like to inform us as to what standards (your standards?) are appropriate for this site.
to be honest, the scripture thing really gets on my nerves, but i just scroll past it. i was raised in the pentecostal church and have long since gotten disillusioned with it, so yeah, people quoting hell fire and damnation gets on my nerves fast.
as far as jokes, whatever. i thought it was a tame joke, mine anyway. to me it's a more or less half serious joke. but that's just me.
and aren't you doing the same thing your'e accusing others of by claiming some of "us" have small minds? i'd like for you to tell me what makes you better than anyone else.
you're not, plain and simple. i bet if i go through the archives of this site, i'll find at least one instance where you did not conform to your own standards.
yeah, i'm calling you a hypocrite.
derbal - re-read my post.
March 12, 2007 - 08:53 ET by acaiguanaderbal - re-read my post.
Everyone goes over the line once in a while, even the great high exaulted one, acaiguana. But, there is a matter of taste.
Would you not agree?
And when someone spams the site with cut and past biblical quotes, that is out of line.
And when someone uses foul language to tell a tasteless joke with no relevance to the site's topic. That in my hypocritical brain is out of line.
:-)
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
are there tasteless posts h
March 12, 2007 - 09:03 ET by derbalare there tasteless posts here? absolutely. i agree wtih you. but wouldn't you agree with me that individuals set themselves up for criticism when they claim moral authority over others?
doing that scripture thing several times is annyoying in the least. should that individual be banned for doing it? i leave it up to the moderators of this site. i'd like to see it stopped personally. but at least it gets through here. go to moveon.org and post something they don't like or agree with, and it won't see the light of day.
i apologize for calling you a hypocrite, i'm sure you're not. i just bristle when things like this go on, on an open forum. and i think my joke fit along the topic. i could have done it without the foul language, but i think it fit. as i stated in my first post on the subject, homosexuals have long contended their lifestlye isn't defined by sex. because they were born that way. i say that's a lie, and this article proved it.
and lastly, i do agree there should be a certain level of decency here. and there is a certain "common knowledge" that states one should post "on topic". i promise not to tell jokes that don't pertain to the topic. if you'll promise you won't tell me i can't. :)
OK, derbal, I did use the word please in my original post. :-)
March 12, 2007 - 09:06 ET by acaiguanaOK, derbal, I did use the word please in my original post. :-)
If you conduct a search of the site you will see that I have a history of protesting those type of posts that I think reflect badly on the character of the site, not the expression of ideas. I don't remember saying no one had the right or "can't" do it. If people get out of the moderator's line, I have zero control over their decisions.
I'm just a humble poster.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
ok. i jumped the gun, i adm
March 12, 2007 - 09:11 ET by derbalok. i jumped the gun, i admit.
umm..ok, i agree with everything you said except one...
anyone who talks in the first person isn't "humble". :) you gotta agree with me there.
Yeah, I've been accused of that before. :-) ACA
March 12, 2007 - 09:13 ET by acaiguanaYeah, I've been accused of that before. :-) ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
Maybe everyone should just
March 12, 2007 - 09:14 ET by GeorgeTMaybe everyone should just calm down. If you don't like the Bible quotes, just ignore them. We all have equal rights to agree and disagree. As for me, the multiple postings of the Biblical quotes is just taking up more space than needed, a single post would have been sufficient. Just my thoughts on the subject.
georgeT - its called spamming the site.
March 12, 2007 - 09:22 ET by acaiguanageorgeT - its called spamming the site.
It's annoying, yes, but if you check the number of readers and posters to the site (published in the sidebar) you will note that we few are not the only people forming an impression of the site.
You are right, a single post would have been sufficient and cut and paste of the entire Bible is obnoxious. Just my thoughts on the subject.
If I want to be preached to I can find that nearly anywhere.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
I post Biblical quotes all th
March 12, 2007 - 11:46 ET by Dan The Man 2I post Biblical quotes all the time, but when I do I explain them and use them sparingly. The poster also posted multiple times which is annoying, even to a Bible thumper like me. So when you explain the scripture or place it in context it becomes acceptable as long as we dont abuse the privilige of being here.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark. -- save my gun, shoot a liberal.
Posting scrupture is spamming
March 12, 2007 - 12:32 ET by TruthMongerPosting scrupture is spamming?! Am I on the hufftard post by mistake...?
If you want to stop me you'll just HAVE TO BAN ME - and as an extra added bonus for y'all I prefer to let scripture speak on it's own - without adding of my own editorial comments : ) . . .
Don't worry truthmonger - all of your posts have been spam. ACA
March 12, 2007 - 12:37 ET by acaiguanaDon't worry truthmonger - all of your posts have been spam. ACA
No matter what you do...
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
Wow...good one......can't tak
March 12, 2007 - 15:18 ET by TruthMongerWow...good one...
...can't take the adult conversation then just stay out the kitchen, pea brain : ). Of course you ain't the first and you won't be the last:
http://www.news.uiuc.edu/news/02/1217censorship.html
Repeatedly posting anything i
March 12, 2007 - 12:38 ET by florida_chadRepeatedly posting anything is spamming IMO. Posting scripture isn't spamming, unless you are posting it again and again. Of course some people will protest ANY posting of scripture.
chad -- I think no reasonable person would object to some...
March 12, 2007 - 12:41 ET by acaiguanachad -- I think no reasonable person would object to some scripture, or Buddhist Monk's text, or Hindu chants or Muslim cites or such in the context of someone's expression of an idea.
But I didn't think this site was a forum to prosthelyze.
:-)
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
Stanley posted scripture 3 ti
March 12, 2007 - 12:48 ET by florida_chadStanley posted scripture 3 times. Once was a double post so he really only posted it twice. Do two scripture posts = prosthelyze? To me it does not. I just skipped over them. If he/she does this often and you two have been over this subject before, then I step out and apologize. If you are only talking about this thread today, then I wouldn't classify it as prosthelyze. You are free to disagree.
Actually, chad, he posted the same post twice in separate places
March 12, 2007 - 13:03 ET by acaiguanaActually, chad, he posted the same post twice in separate places.
Now, that is spamming. Go back and read the posts.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
Its the same exact post just
March 12, 2007 - 13:07 ET by florida_chadIts the same exact post just 4 minutes apart. I thought he did a double post by mistake.
Chad - huh?
March 12, 2007 - 13:11 ET by acaiguanaChad - huh?
To accomplish this feat, he would have to not only mistakenly waited 4 minutes after the first post, but mistakenly moved his reply comment to another part of the blog in reply. How long have you been posting here?
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
about a year
March 12, 2007 - 13:17 ET by florida_chadI didn't notice the time differences the first time. The two post appear directly next to each other on my screen. They way the comments are displayed on the screen depend on the settings you choose. If I would have noticed the time difference the first time I wouldn't have posted as I would have agreed he was spamming.
TM, when we quote scripture t
March 12, 2007 - 12:44 ET by Dan The Man 2TM, when we quote scripture to the people who need it the most, they will most likely dismiss it without an explanation or commetary. Remember to those of the world scripture means nothing but to the saved it means evrything. I also saw the scripture posted at least 3 times. Once would be enough, twice is too much and 3 times is annoying.
I think that was Ag's point is taht it was annoying the third time and served little purpose. The poster was in effect "Bible Thumping" us over the head.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark. -- save my gun, shoot a liberal.
Not by a long-shot Dan - he/s
March 12, 2007 - 15:42 ET by TruthMongerNot by a long-shot Dan - he/she/it wants scripture banned altogether completely and in totality - and of course I would expect that within the "diverse and enlightened" Christian-book-burning environment of today's typical American university...
But the idea of this on NB?
Until I am banned I will continue to quote ad nauseum. Holy scripture works on absolutely everyone, everytime, some way, according to His will, without exception...while it does absolutely nothing gathering dust in a book on some shelf...
But anyone here can be my guest and try to snuff out the word on NB - I will enjoy it all the more when the Holy Spirit kicks ass on that one : ) . . .
And what would Jesus say?
March 12, 2007 - 16:34 ET by Dan The Man 2And what would Jesus say? Jesus realized quoting scripture to peopel who dont know the prophets or the law of Moses is like throwing pearls before swine. Instead he preached in terms the common man could understand. He did not relinquish any of His message but communicated in terms they could understand and more importantly, accept.
So we must be all things to all people and realize that all mean dont understand scripture and the people who really need it will in fact be turned off by it and may be offended by it. Bible Thumping, you are a sinner and you are going to hell is not a good line to use until they understand why they are going to hell.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark. -- save my gun, shoot a liberal.
derbal - I do have to say I
March 12, 2007 - 09:37 ET by Dee Bunkderbal - I do have to say I was offended by the joke. I know that you didn't mean to be offensive and your joke alone would not have seemed that bad if there were not other hateful things being said before it.
Don't you agree that some of the things said were inappropriate?
well, i've already capitual
March 12, 2007 - 09:43 ET by derbalwell, i've already capitualted, and to tell you the truth, my mom really did raise me better than that.
People are conservative for
March 12, 2007 - 08:59 ET by The Wicked ConservativePeople are conservative for different reasons folks. Just because you don't believe in the Bible doesn't mean it isn't a part of Stanley's or my conservatism. If social conservatism isn't not why you participate on this site than this thread is probably not for you. Like it or not this nation was founded on Judeo Christian beliefs. And in my opinion the constant battle by social liberals to destroy and rewrite that part of history is why this nation is moving downhill.
Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realizes that it bears a very close resemblence to the first.
- Ronald Reagan
Wicked, either you miss my point or you just feel the need
March 12, 2007 - 09:03 ET by acaiguanaWicked, either you miss my point or you just feel the need to post.
If people want to prosthelyze, go to a Christian (or whatever) site and carry on. If people want to cite the Bible by quoting the entire text of it, go to a site that allows that with no protest. I'm protesting it.
If people want to make gratuitus anti-homesexual remarks and tell gratuitus anti-homosexual jokes using foul language, well, go to a site that allows no standard of either language or prejudice. I'd suggest a skinhead site.
But why you or I might be conservative or the foundation for our value system is irrelevant in getting a point across in the manners above.
That's the way I see it.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
If people want to make grat
March 12, 2007 - 09:41 ET by The Wicked ConservativeIf people want to make gratuitus anti-homesexual remarks and tell
gratuitus anti-homosexual jokes using foul language, well, go to a site
that allows no standard of either language or prejudice.
I agree that denegrates the site and gives the impression that we are a bunch of hate mongers.
Wicked, either you miss my point or you just feel the need to post.
I think I get your point... your conservatism (Libertarian I presume from you posts) has nothing to do with traditional values as I or Stanley may see them and you find the Bible irrelevant. So what I'm saying is if social conservatism is not your thing than combating the moral decline of America must not be your thing and finally I'm suggesting threads about homosexuality aren't directed toward your ilk since you apparently agree with the MSM on this one.
I'd suggest a skinhead site.
Now you're just arguing like a liberal. "If you disagree with me you just a racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe."
I'm honestly not trying to start a fight. I'm just saying Stanly has the right to post why he believes. Stanly please don't spam it though. I now bow out of the discussion and wish you well Aca.
Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realizes that it bears a very close resemblence to the first.
- Ronald Reagan
Wicked - I'm not trying to
March 12, 2007 - 09:50 ET by Dee BunkWicked - I'm not trying to fight either and have nothing against you. Aca may very well be a social conservative. You don't have to be religious to be one. Even if you did, Christianity is not about condemning and judging people. You can find passages in the Bible about eating too much and not taking care of your body being a sin and we are not going to call fat people evil.
If the only argument someone can make against something is that it's a sin - then it's not a very big one.
If the only argument someone
March 12, 2007 - 12:20 ET by contraryIf the only argument someone can make against something is that it's a sin - then it's not a very big one.
That's one of the funniest things I've seen posted here
Contrary - why? Because yo
March 12, 2007 - 13:24 ET by Dee BunkContrary - why? Because you agree with me or you don't? Hopefully it's because you agree that there are different levels of sin and that we all need to be concerned with our own rather than someone else's unless they hurt other people.
I had posted a nice and somew
March 12, 2007 - 15:50 ET by contraryI had posted a nice and somewhat lengthy reply, but somehow it wasn't posted. So to sum up:
From a orthodox protestant view the quote I referenced is kind of ironic as sin is the one thing to deny humanity life.
I agree for the most part that people should take care of the log in their eye first before noticing the twigs in others.
I am not a 'social' conserv
March 12, 2007 - 09:54 ET by sarcasmoI am not a 'social' conservative, but why does it follow that I don't care about the moral decline I've seen in my lifetime? I care deeply. I merely have different, non-big-government solutions to morality-problems & these proposed solutions tend to upset social conservatives, but they have yet to prove to me that bigger-government has helped morality so far, as they advocate even-bigger government...Fiscal conservatives like me have been ignored in the morality debate for the past 2 decades, and things have gone downhill during that time. Perhaps it's time to actually-listen to us, for once...
JMR
Sorry Sarc. It was unfair
March 12, 2007 - 10:51 ET by The Wicked ConservativeSorry Sarc. It was unfair of me to phrase it that way. For instance though I consider abortion a huge moral problem. Do I think we need big government solutions? No, murder is already illegal. I also believe the moral decline of American society is directly tied to the systematic removal of God from our culture (eg:
courthouses, nativity scenes, crosses on hills, prayer in schools) The solution is not to add laws but to leave things alone. Stop adding laws and "finding" provisions that don't exist in the constitution in order to justify behaviors.
Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realizes that it bears a very close resemblence to the first.
- Ronald Reagan
I disagree. Though the mora
March 12, 2007 - 13:12 ET by Conservative VoiceI disagree. Though the moral decline is influenced by those things...ie schools should allow prayer and a healthy discussion of morality that we can ALL agree on (ie not kill, family is better off if you wait until marriage and stay married, be nice and respect one another just to name a few) but the greatest influence on our young skulls of mush is not school (which can be counterbalanced with Church and family religion discussions) but the media. And before the libertarians attack me, I don't believe the government should regulate the media more than it already is. Rather I wish the media would regulate themselves. Kids just aren't that interested in civics as they are with what is cool. And liberals get all upset if the kid who plays Harry Potter smokes on stage, but applauds his artistic ability to simulate sex and dance all naked on stage. Personally I would rather have kids smoke than think that they need to do porn / sex to get ahead in their career. Shows are getting more and more rank.
Ok, I'm trying not to attac
March 12, 2007 - 13:35 ET by sarcasmoOk, I'm trying not to attack, I really-am, but...The budget of the FCC has grown during the Reagan Administration. Then the budget of the FCC grew further during the Bush1 Administration. Then the budget of the FCC grew bigger during the Clinton Administration. Then the budget of the FCC grew even-more during the Bush2 Administration. Given all that, can you understand why, when you claim: "I don't believe the government should regulate the media more than it already is," people like me might sincerely-doubt you'll actually-vote that way??? Some of us (like me, for example...) might even find such a claim unintentionally-funny...
JMR
First off government grows li
March 12, 2007 - 13:50 ET by Conservative VoiceFirst off government grows like cancer, it takes no effort to grow. Conversely it takes enormous amount of political capital to slow down growth (and that is called a cut, even though the overall size is increased). Even more political capital to make it actually smaller. President Reagan had a very liberal congress, and I think he did a pretty good job with what he had. The spending habits of President Bush Jr is pathetic, no argument there, he should be liberals best friend as he keeps offering more and more entitlement programs.
To me, it's no-excuse. And
March 12, 2007 - 13:59 ET by sarcasmoTo me, it's no-excuse. And I need a good FCC-growth spending-graph with which to illustrate just how bad the problem has gotten and generally further-annoy the worshippers of big-government around here, but sadly I don't have one. The FCC needs to go out of business entirely, and the US government need to get back to Constitutional principles instead. I've seen no political capital spent or effort made toward this ideal by the vast majority of politicians during the past 2 decades, and despite my efforts here I don't expect that to change...
JMR
Aca... have to agree with y
March 12, 2007 - 11:56 ET by Tim the EnchanterAca... have to agree with you here. There are numerous references to homosexuality in the Bible; it seems the most popular one here at the moment is St. Paul to the Romans- there are numerous Old Testament references, as well (Leviticus, the books of Kings, etc.). I guess the point you're trying to make to these people is that there are other ways of arriving at the same conclusion without having to bludgeon people with huge Bible quotes. Chapter and verse # are more than adequate for those who are curious. It's like the use of links- if someone is curious about the reference, they'll follow the link.
Also- I doubt that the "average" homosexual does not know what the Bible says already. Bible-thumping in many cases is off-putting- who likes to be preached to? It creates a defensive reaction, an adversarial relationship. If one is trying to get someone to stop a bad behavior, the first thing that needs to be done is to convince that individual of one's genuine concern for their well-being. Screaming Hell and damnation at them is not going to work; neither is poking fun at them. This stuff may be repulsive, but it's not funny.
Rectosexuality ... proctosexu
March 12, 2007 - 07:01 ET by jonathanandersonRectosexuality ... proctosexuallity ... analsexuality ... colosexuality ... sphinctosexuality ... THESE are the words that illustrate the base nature of WHAT exactly it is that GETS THESE SOCIOPATHS SEXUALLY AROUSED ... putting their DICK into another man's RECTUM.
One of the best ways to cure
March 12, 2007 - 07:16 ET by jonathanandersonOne of the best ways to cure a fag (a penitent homosexual, anyway) is to do what you do to a dog or a cat when they crap in the living room ... keep rubbing their noses in the mess they made until they learn to stop it.
hmm
March 12, 2007 - 07:37 ET by derbalam i the only one who notices that, for years homosexuals have claimed their "orientation" 'isn't about sex, yet in this article, that's what we see. their "orientatin" is all about sexual gratification. just wondering.
Next thing you know, there'll
March 12, 2007 - 07:47 ET by Dad GummitNext thing you know, there'll be a Boy Scout troop (Gasp!) moving in the local community center. They can help the old queens accross the road!
"Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical, liberal minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
TAG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
March 12, 2007 - 07:51 ET by CarpareusWhere's some langley pink singing scallops when a guy's hungry?
TAG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
BUCKOS-
everybody but Mean Gene is it.
he's busy.....
Carp
the world's most eat-un fish
March 12, 2007 - 08:00 ET by Carpareusthis has been a carp courtesy 7(seven)
uh,,,,dag nab it i seem to be running late
...
March 12, 2007 - 08:15 ET by Jack Bauer...
...
March 12, 2007 - 08:16 ET by Jack Bauer...
...
March 12, 2007 - 08:17 ET by Jack Bauer...
Jack put your weapon on singl
March 12, 2007 - 11:48 ET by Dan The Man 2Jack put your weapon on single shot, ;=}
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark. -- save my gun, shoot a liberal.
joke
March 12, 2007 - 08:11 ET by derbali'm sure you've all heard the joke about the homosexual who goes to the doctor, complaining of an aching butthole. dr examines him and says "ok, go home and eat a box of prunes, as many grapes as you can, take 5 ex lax pills, and 5 laxative suppositories, and drink plenty of water."
the homosexual says "but doctor, will that ease my pain?"
and the doctor says "no, but it'll show you what your asshole is meant to be used for"
old joke, thought i'd tell it anyway. :)
that was gross, and not neces
March 12, 2007 - 13:52 ET by Conservative Voicethat was gross, and not necessary, and totally ignores lesbians.
Liberal Bias
March 12, 2007 - 08:13 ET by navydocOnce again the left has shown that they are accepting of diversity so long as it agrees with their agenda only.
"Anti-LGBT violence can
March 14, 2007 - 03:59 ET by"Anti-LGBT violence can include threats, physical assault, battery, sexual assault, rape, torture, attempted murder, or murder. These actions may be caused by cultural, religious, or political mores and biases, though the extent to which these groups influence violence against LGBT individuals is an ongoing matter of debate." --source - history of 'bigoted' violence (Someone posted this link in a clear attempt to defend the homosexuals, as if they need more defending than others.)
That sounds like the same VIOLENCE that happens to ANY TYPE OF PEOPLE, not just homosexuals. And it is often done BY homosexuals, to children.
So, why do homosexuals think they deserve more protection under the law than other Americans? Our constitution guarantees us equal protection.
Hate crime laws are designed to make the penalty for crimes of hate against homosexuals worse than such crimes against heterosexuals. They are designed to have the threat of worse penalties for a hate crime against homosexuals than penalties for hate crimes against heterosexuals --hence, they are designed to give more protection to homosexuals than heterosexuals. And that is unconstitutional, as per the 14th amendment of the US Constitution, which states that we are all to have, "equal protection of the laws."
For those who will try to say that hate crime laws are designed equally, think again. They are not. If they were designed equally, there would be no call for them. Reason being? We already have laws on the books for 1st, 2nd, and 3rd degree murder. It is already a worse punishment for premeditated murder, than non-premeditated. It is already a worse punishment for non-premeditated murder, than for negligent homicide. Think about it.
Debra...
What are homosexuals going to do next? Are they going to claim that their violence towards heterosexuals is in response to heterosexuals not accepting them? Is that going to be the new 'insanity' plea?
Wake up people. The homosexual agenda will never draw a line. The homosexual agenda has no boundaries, no satisfaction, no limitations. Saying that the homosexual agenda could ever be satisfied, is like saying Satan could be happy some day with the number of souls following him --there is NO satisfaction for the wicked because the wicked hate beyond measure and therefore wish to destroy all that is good. Goodness is endless, therefore hate for goodness is also endless.