|
Post by metrosensual on Dec 26, 2005 9:54:22 GMT -5
At least some people realise what I'm talking about. And LOL for the 'darling' and last line. Classic. If like homosexual sex and find it pleasureable please keep it to yourself, for most of us here, homosexual sex in disgusting and perverted. The rectum wasn't intended to be used for that purpose. Oh just shut up.
|
|
|
Post by stargazer on Dec 26, 2005 9:57:12 GMT -5
Homsexuality in animals is rare and is considered to be abnormal. www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3008I have never actually said that I'm gay. So I don't see how I was so 'quick in mentioning' it. I have never been with a man, but for some reason you took it upon yourself to think of me doing so.
|
|
|
Post by Planet Asia on Dec 26, 2005 9:59:09 GMT -5
deleted
|
|
|
Post by metrosensual on Dec 26, 2005 10:01:44 GMT -5
The rectal cavity is intended for defecation, not sex. If homosexual sex in natural, was aren't humans who are "born" homosexuals "equipped" for homosexual sex? Answers please! The objective of homosexual sex is not for procreation. That's like saying 'the mouth was made for consuming food and drink and vomiting only' but we all know that blow jobs exist.
|
|
|
Post by decadence on Dec 26, 2005 10:04:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Planet Asia on Dec 26, 2005 10:09:34 GMT -5
deleted
|
|
|
Post by Mike the Jedi on Dec 26, 2005 10:20:00 GMT -5
This thread is teh homo.
|
|
|
Post by decadence on Dec 26, 2005 10:25:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by decadence on Dec 26, 2005 10:34:48 GMT -5
Does Opposing "Gay Rights" = "Hating Gays Despite all rational evidence, gay militants accuse all who oppose their extremist agenda of "hating gays." We respond: "Gay rights" is simply fraudulent, irrational public policy. Since when is opposing the codification of fraud and irrationality "an act of hate?" Preventing fraud and irrationality is, or should be, among the primary responsibilities of good government. If gay extremists are angry at opponents for exposing their "civil rights" masquerade, surely the exposers of "gay rights" fraud ought not to bear blame for taking a stand in support of maintaining fair and equitable civil rights standards. In fact, sincere opponents of "gay rights" regret having had to recite litanies of unpleasant and embarrassing facts, arguments and concerns. We regret having to accuse gay militants of conducting campaigns on a level of hypocrisy, duplicity and deceit probably unprecedented in American political history. But we've raised issues absolutely critical to the decision America must make about special gay advantage legislation -- and made public information that simply cannot be dismissed as symptoms of so-called "homophobia," "homohatred" or "bigotry." Surely in a civilized society people can disagree politically without disagreeing hatefully. If not, the logical contrary to gay militants' insistence that all opponents to their agenda "hate gays" must be true: that "gay rights" advocates all hate their political opponents (a conclusion wich has perhaps more evidence to support it than gay extremists' name- callings). Calling names or merely attributing evil motives to opponents cannot establish -- or discredit-- truth. The Greek roots of the word homophobia mean "fear of men." Responsible opposition to granting protected class status on grounds of "sexual orientation" has nothing to do with fear or hatred of male or female genders, nor fear of "gayness." Why should we in any way fear people whose preoccupation with the sole, nebulous attribute of "sexual orientation" is so obsessive that it drives them to make only irrational claims, on none but specious grounds? How can we hate people whose identity is so fragile, and so totally defined by sexuality, that they are obviously terrified at what they imagine to be the slightest threat to its unbridled expression? Attributing negative characteristics to others without proof is the essence of bigotry. We have offered no proof of either hatred or bigotry toward gays. We think it is clear on which side of this issue the real bigotry lies. What accounts for gays' personal misery? Can their unhappiness be wholly blamed on a "repressive" straight society? Blaming others only for one's woes is characteristic of classic psychological denial. And supposed repression by straight society in no way satisfactorily explains the persistent misery of gays. Certainly not in our era, which has, in fact, been enormously tolerant of gay behavior. Gay militants themselves must accept responsibility for the consequences of their behavior. Whether gay extremists like it or not, sharing personal responsibility is the price all must pay who wish to exercise personal freedom in our society. We hope it is clear that, while gays in America should retain every fundamental right guaranteed to all citizens by the U.S. Constitution, "gayness" as defined by gay militants themselves does not afford a rational basis on which protected class status may be awarded; gays by their own admission are far too advantaged in every way to qualify for suspect status under established U.S. Supreme Court criteria; and gay militant arguments for protected or suspect status may be dismissed as rooted in non sequitur. We hope these findings will enable all Americans to make a fully rational choice on the volatile question of protected or suspect class status for gays. www.leaderu.com/marco/special/spc59.html
|
|
|
Post by stargazer on Dec 26, 2005 10:38:20 GMT -5
The rectal cavity is intended for defecation, not sex. If homosexual sex in natural, why aren't humans who are "born" homosexuals "equipped" for homosexual sex? Answers please! Homosexuality isn't inextricably bound to penetration of the rectum you know. There are homosexual couples who don't indulge in it for their own reasons, there are also straight couples(ie man and woman if this needed clarifying) who indulge in the practice. Given the incredibly large amount of straight people vs. gay people, I would say there are more hetero couple engaging in it. But back to my point - the only adaptation homosexual individuals need is the ability to love and desire their own sex. As rectal penetration is not solely linked to homosexuality(I'm also wondering how you are including lesbians in your theory?) there is no especial reason why homosexuals should be born with a vagina in their rectums.
|
|
|
Post by oubit on Dec 30, 2005 6:06:23 GMT -5
that actually grossly over representation and exaggeration. One of the Greek moderators actually destroyed this myth in one the threads a while back. Homosexuality was by no means limited to just Rome or Greece,many cultures practiced it and some still do by the way like some SSA tribes in Africa and Amerindians in South America. Even Celts and Norse had their tales of homosexual lust aswel. Homosexuality is limited in SSA peoples. "limited"? semgai.free.fr/doc_et_pdf/africa_A4.pdf
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Guard on Dec 30, 2005 6:46:32 GMT -5
Yep,it was by no means limited like Bass claimed to appease his mind set. I was reading some work and watched a few National Geographic and Discovery programs on Homosexuality throughout the world, which of coarse featured Sub-Saharan and other African peoples.
Also interesting like shown in that article, people like passing on the Homo dilemma to other foreign ethnic groups as if some disease. And how the once popular white man thought of the Naturist and Noble Savage where the untouched purity,how absurd...Just again shows agenda driven ignorance being used as fact. Or look at Rome and Greece,its one of biggest scapegoats used by the British and Western World for the past 300+ years,and even today is used as an example for Pro-Gay tolerance/Rights lobbyist groups.
Good and informative link
|
|
|
Post by blueskygod on Dec 30, 2005 15:38:00 GMT -5
for shizzle
|
|
|
Post by gelaye on Dec 30, 2005 17:52:55 GMT -5
i saw something on this board that was very interesting and well put!
''if homosexuality is considered unnatural, then everyone should take off their clothes, leave their homes, destroy all supermarkets and remove everything that humans have ever EVER even thought of creating (even fire) and live like animals......homosexuality is more natural than reading and writing'' - now i know homosexuality isnt natural in the sense that it is NORMAL and SUPPOSED TO BE but it IS natural in the sense that it is not some abomanation that was invented by humans so they could sin against God for the fun of it. It just randomly occurs (dont know what the % is) as a mishap, maybe to curb population growth. therefore we should not show contempt to gay people as the majority are born that way and aren't choosing to risk being shunned from society 'just for fun'. anyways, its not like theyre ever gonna take over the world and stop population growth forever!
|
|