Why I don't like gays & why theyre ways should not become acceptable

Haha you're perception of reality seems like a bad television show.

Quite obvious you don't know a thing about actual gay people.

 

If you want a totalitarian state move to china.

The funny thing is you seem to actually believe you have control over other peoples lives. With that ideal you'll be very disappointed when no one bows down to you.

- - - Updated - - -

Then there are those "heterosexuals" that obsess over gay sex and what gay people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms.

 

You seem to think you know an awful lot about gay sex. Sure you're not gay?

 

That is done by a tiny minority of ignorant, bigoted, and sexually repressed homophobes (most of whom are likely to be religious nutters). Please don't judge the rest of us by the bile they spew.

 

Are you trolling on the abortion threads as well or just when it comes to this?

 

Thanks- good to hear. I was beginning to think this night be a place I'm not welcome. There are some truly horrific things being said by those people on this site.

 

No they don;t. There are plenty of guys who hit on girls even when it's clear they are not interested. You are just trying to make gays out to be worse than straight guys. I know plenty of gay men, and none of them have ever hit on me because they klnow I am not gay, but I know there are gay men out there who do, just like there are straight men that can't take no for an answer. But gays should not be singled out in general for some of them being morons.

 

I'm a gay man who also plays hockey in a local league. I'm out to all the guys and there are no issues at all. We're no different from anybody else. Most of us are pretty darn cool. People like the guy you are responding to are so afraid of anything different, they make us into monsters in their minds. I don't why people feel the need to do that.

 

The behavior of a typical Liberal/Progressive. As soon as people of your line of thinking are confronted with opposition to your ideology, you lash out ans start to insult the identity group(s) that the adversary(ies) belong to. Apply what you please to Islam and label Muslims and Islam as you please, it will cause me to budge nor blind of the issue of homosexuality.

 

You can think and believe anything you want. But this is the United States, not some Islamic country. In the US, everyone is deserving of the same rights, no matter what your religion says. You religion does not dictate to others how to live. You want that, I suggest that either move to an Islamist state, or if you're in one now, stay there. If you are in the US, you WILL abide by OUR laws. Otherwise, you'll face the consequences of your actions.

You have the right to believe anything your want. You don't have the right to force others to live by your religion's rules. I will NOT put up with that, not in the USA.

 

It is simple, homosexual groups such as GLBT have petitioned Congress, State and local governments to enact legislation labeling the act of homosexuality as acceptable, such as the various "gay" marriage acts and referendums that have been ballot issues in several of the many states of these United States. There are also school boards forcing elementary school children to read, books such as "Heather and her two mommies". We also have courts upholding the prtactices of teaching elementary school children about homosexuality; read this: http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/co...to_teach_homosexuality_to_elementary_student/
plus this: http://www.wnd.com/2011/07/319225/

These are not your children, so why should parents be forced to accept that school boards have decided to teach about the subject of homosexuality? This is an infringement on parental rights.
As to your claim of not being able to recruit for the purposes of homosexuality, that is asinine. How do you think gangs increase their numbers? Through recruitment just as other movements and organizations, so your argument against me stating as much is specious at best.
As to your posturing of "document or drop it" you have no power over anyone but yourself so I advise you to use different language when conducting rational and civil discourse.

Although at the beginning of the article the author says that there are no bodily risks to engaging in anal intercourse, the symptoms that the author listed, belies his or her attempts to refute the facts of anal, rectal, and intestinal damage caused by the act of anal insertion. Read for yourself:

link: http://sexuality.about.com/od/sexualhealthqanda/f/anal_sex_bad.htm

 

Why should kids not learn about the world and people around them? Oh that's right, so you can teach them to hate people you don't like.

 

Here are the health risks associated with anal intercourse or sodomy:

Believe what you wish but the facts are in and conclusive, anal intercourse or sodomy is a health risk and should be treated as such. This includes so-called heterosexual sodomy.

 

Are you seriously asking this question?
It is not like learning about a different culture, religion, geographical area or location, countries, etc. Elementary school children are not the level of maturity where they can make rational independent decisions without the assistance of an adult. To think that elementary age children (five years or age to fifteen years of age) have the ability to comprehend what they are learning on an adult level is foolish. Children are children and should be treated as such. The children of the age range of elementary school have not had enough experience in day to day living outside of going to school, playing with friends, homework, and home affairs, this hardly prepares them to make mature decisions that will impact them for the rest of their lives. Even at the age of twelve when most children begin puberty, they are not responsible with experiences they go through with changing physical dynamics and you expect them to be able to adequately handle psychological/behavior matters? Surely you jest.

 

The truth is, most homophobes are ugly ass fat hicks who think so highly of themselves that they assume all gay guys have to be interested in them, and slo they assume that all gays want to flirt with them, but the fact is, no one, gay man, or straight woman wants to be anywhere near them.

 

I started arguing this subject on this site back in 2005. At the time it was very much, as you say, totally horrific, and full of references to "studies" by discredited "researchers" like Paul Cameron and the like. Honestly if the Family Research Council or the Traditional Values Coalition or any of the other socially conservative hate mongers posted anything negative about gay people you can bet your life such references would show up tens if not hundreds of times in any thread even loosely related to the subject.

Attempts to dissect the lies would often be lengthy and time consuming requiring long posts with exhaustive counter references. Even then you sort of knew that those you were arguing with would not be swayed because their minds were already made up. After all, if they think they can refute the APA the AMA the BMA the AAP and virtually all other medical and social scientists in the western world by saying: "Ah! Yes but World Net Daily says this..." then you, pretty much, know that reasoned discourse won't be on the table that day. However, far more people read these threads than ever participate in them and those are the minds I've always attempted to reach. As the overall perception of the argument grows and reading across other forums it seems that the type of arguments I've offered have also been echoed by other posters in other places and were encapsulated, pretty much verbatim, in the recent summary of the 2nd circuit court of appeals case re: DOMA

Thankfully, like that case, we've had a couple of other "put up or shut up' cases like Proposition 8 (which just would never have had a fair hearing at any time in the recent past) and then, as now, all those people who decried the "gay lifestyle" (many of whom have slipped back into it) had the opportunity to put all their "research" before the court to put an end to the progress off those uppity gays once and for all. Except none of them showed up so they lost.

During this recent period, I noticed the discourse here became a lot more civil. Those who didn't believe certain rights should be recognized for gay people at least tried to dress up their arguments in something resembling logic, policy and an understanding of law (probably because it's easy to say something on an internet forum in a vacuum but quite another when that same question is being, concurrently, considered by the highest courts in the land) but it seems, from a number of threads I've read recently, that we seem to be back to square one in the hate-fest.

I think this is the sound of chests thumping in defeat. If you listen carefully you can almost hear exactly where the ships are sinking.

 

Most of the things in your quotation are things that can be avoided by using condoms, of course. In fact protected anal sex is less risky of terms of tramsitting the HIV virus than unprotected vaginal sex, which many heterosexual men are all too willing to engage in when they are told that it's okay not to use them because of the pill/implant.

As someone else said, a gay couple can have monogamous sex without protection a million times over, and there is no risk of anyone contracting STD's. So there is nothing inherently risky about it in a certain setting.

 

I think Maori's point was to show that your little speech back there could have just as easily applied to Muslims if you replaced the word "homosexual/gay" with "Muslims". Didn't seem like lashing out to me. Although it's worth remembering - as I'm sure you are all too aware of - that many people do in fact look upon Muslims and Islam as advocating disgusting, despicable practices and there is an agenda they wish to impose on the rest of society. People point to Britain, where we actually have Sharia law courts where certain civil disputes can be referred to, as evidence for this agenda.

The point is I believe that idealistic posturing and silly rhetoric-laden speeches are pointless. It goes with saying that your little rant did nothing to advance this discussion.

 

This issue is another one for the knee-jerk reactionist idiots to get their panties in a twist about nothing. There are parents out there who actually think that teaching their children gay people exist and are able to get married (as in the case there in Massachusetts) is some form of brainwashing, or somehow trampling on their "religious freedom". Truly, it's amazing how far some people will stretch Constitutional freedoms in order to push their agenda

Gays exists. Same-sex marriage exists. Period. It's not going to make your children gay, the only thing that's going to confuse them is if the parents try to wrap them in cotton wool and blind them to something they are only going to end up finding out about when they see it on TV, on the news, or hear their classmates talking about it... it's not some dark, dirty disgusting secret that should be covered up. If your kid asks you why they saw two men or two women holding hands or kissing, why tell them anything other than the truth? That they LOVE eachother and are expressing that. You don't have to sexualize it.

 

This exact statement is a beautiful example of what is happening with another very hot topic right now.

 

I'm quite serious. If your kid is in a class with another who happens to have same sex parents, I think that your kid should be able to handle knowing that. It has nothing to do with teaching kids about sex. Or do you think the child with same sex parents should have to hide that fact to preserve your "religious freedom"? Should your child be harassing that child because of it? Sorry, but no.

And you have no Idea what you're talking about with this "recruiting" garbage. I can't make anyone gay any more than anyone can make me straight. It doesn't work that way. People are who they are. The sooner you realize this, the better off we'll all be.

 

Isn't that the truth?

I'm glad I'm here to help you sink some ships.

 

Oh, so you're an intolerant jerk? You don't know me basically at all, and yet all I have to say is "I am a homosexual male" and you already hate me. Very Christian of you.

Bull(*)(*)(*)(*). I respect your feelings. And you know what? I respect them so much, if I know who you are, I won't hit on you, even though I'd be fully within my rights to do so, just as you'd be fully within your rights to tell me to (*)(*)(*)(*) off, or to hit on my lesbian friend. And that's all I can promise. That's the reasonable thing. A gay man who respects your feelings will see that you feel a certain way about getting hit on by guys, and once they know that, they won't ever hit on you. The unreasonable thing to do would be to take that feeling and treat it like some universal missive - "I don't like getting hit on by gay guys, so nobody should ever have to be hit on by a gay guy". Hey, buddy, newsflash: some of us like getting hit on by gay guys. Yeah, even heterosexuals - it can be kind of an ego boost, even if you aren't interested.

Nobody said that, unless your definition of "harassment" is a conversation that goes something like this:

"Hey, you're pretty cute, can I get some digits?"
"I'm not gay."
"Oh, okay. *goes away*"
(in which case, the problem would be your definition of "Harassed" rather than anything the other guy did)

It seems like the kind of story someone would make up to make gays sound bad. That's a simple statement of fact. It might be true; that's kind of beside the point that it's certainly not the norm, and everyone agrees that that guy was out of line.

I never disregarded your feelings. But maybe it's time you shone that light on yourself? You are willing to categorize an entire swathe of humanity based on your experiences with one person. You will gladly disregard the freedoms of others if they make you feel uncomfortable. You have absolute disregard not just for our feelings, but our rights and humanity. Oh, and you make wild assumptions about me that are completely based in your own imagination and stereotypes. And you accuse us of being uncaring? You're a bigot, and need a shot of reality.

 

Splendid!

 

So I was right; it's about anal sex. So why aren't you busy opposing anal sex instead of homosexual sex? Does it bother you if two men masturbate each other then?

Read for yourself. It says: "There are tales of peoples asses falling out, people needing adult diapers for the rest of their lives, even people dying as the result of anal sex. I suppose it's true, any of these things could happen. But they don't happen because someone had anal sex, they happen because someone had dangerous anal sex. There's a difference....Anal sex, and anal play more generally, can be completely safe and have no bad effects on your body whether it's your first or 101st time."