Call in gay tomorrow

[Goofball]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28118228/

DD and TSM, I hope you both enjoy your day off...

:laugh4:

On a serious note, I think it's an excellent idea...

[Tribesman]

I think its a stupid idea , just think how much money the televangelist channels will lose with their key staff missing .

[Vladimir]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28118228/

DD and TSM, I hope you both enjoy your day off...

:laugh4:

On a serious note, I think it's an excellent idea...

Have a super day!

[Crazed Rabbit]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28118228/

DD and TSM, I hope you both enjoy your day off...

:laugh4:

On a serious note, I think it's an excellent idea...

So the gay people are saying being gay is a sickness?

CR

[Ser Clegane]

So the gay people are saying being gay is a sickness?

CR

It seems more likely that, by using this phrase, they are taking a shot at people who claim it is a sickness

[Ronin]

you know who I feel sorry for?

the straight guy that gets sick with the flu tomorrow and calls in sick.

good luck living that one down :2thumbsup::laugh4:

[drone]

Guess there's no point in getting my hair cut tomorrow...

[Goofball]

Have a super day!

I believe you meant to say "Have a fabulous day!"

[Devastatin Dave]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28118228/

DD and TSM, I hope you both enjoy your day off...

:laugh4:

On a serious note, I think it's an excellent idea...

I'm spending my special day picking out new window treatments. My current one's are sooooooo 2007...:beam:

[Goofball]

I'm spending my special day picking out new window treatments. My current one's are sooooooo 2007...:beam:

I love that you actually said "window treatments.":painting:

[Hosakawa Tito]

Gives new meaning to the phrase "I got your back, sweet cheeks."

[ICantSpellDawg]

If gays left the work force during a recession that wouldn't be bad for anybody. I urge you all not to go into work tomorrow irrespective of your sexual fetishes.

[CrossLOPER]

fetishes
You don't know what that word means.

[KukriKhan]

You don't know what that word means.

http://bp3.blogger.com/_c4twH_sjx5o/RmRqHJQ5jVI/AAAAAAAAAR8/uP-gGVk1Pgw/s400/household_god.JPG <-----fetish; an object believed to have magical or spiritual powers; especially such an object associated with animistic or shamanistic religious practices.

*image used w/permission.*

[Louis VI the Fat]

Just to be sure, I went straight to work this morning!

[KukriKhan]

Just to be sure, I went straight to work this morning!

Q: Are you as hysterically funny in French as you are in English?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

If gays left the work force during a recession that wouldn't be bad for anybody. I urge you all not to go into work tomorrow irrespective of your sexual fetishes.

Yes, no one will notice the absense of ten percent of the workforce. Whater you may think of people's preferences you shouldn't detach yourself from reality.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Yes, no one will notice the absense of ten percent of the workforce. Whater you may think of people's preferences you shouldn't detach yourself from reality.

Well I can't guarantee you that 10% of the work force wouldn't show up - and one day wouldn't kill anybody. Let them do it.

I would be concerned if illegals left the country or stopped working in droves - If gays did the same thing it would open decent paying jobs up to people and then we wouldn't have to hear about all that nonsense anymore.

I speak of "fetishism" regarding homosexuality as the sexual interest in the "Male" object as it interferes with normal sexual function. I believe that normal sexual function is heterosexual/procreative and anything that interferes or diverts that interest in a sexual way without a physiological cause is a fetish.

[Ronin]

I speak of "fetishism" regarding homosexuality as the sexual interest in the "Male" object as it interferes with normal sexual function. I believe that normal sexual function is heterosexual/procreative and anything that interferes or diverts that interest in a sexual way without a physiological cause is a fetish.

I will agree with you that homosexuality is not "normal".......heterosexuality is.

but it is not a choice, it´s not something extra you do for extra kicks...it´s a sexual orientation, so I don´t think it can be called a fetish.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I will agree with you that homosexuality is not "normal".......heterosexuality is.

but it is not a choice, it´s not something extra you do for extra kicks...it´s a sexual orientation, so I don´t think it can be called a fetish.

I believe that it is a choice, but likely an unconscious one for some. Some people are sexually attracted to a number of things. Without data suggesting a physiological imperative I can only assume that they are a fetish.

We have clear evidence to suggest what genital function is biologically. There is no evidence to suggest a chemical imbalance, genetic pre-disposition or biological function to homosexuality.

There are associations that can be made; such as the younger the male child, the more likely it is that he will be a homosexual statistically - but this says nothing of cause/association.

There have been a few odd studies that come to strange conclusions - but those conclusions are never said to shed light on the physiological or genetic differences. Some say it happens in the womb/ others refute that.

To date - I don't think the government should ban things that are choice based if they are consensual on private property. I do think that we are jumping the gun declaring homosexuality to be as inherent as being black, Asian, female, male, or disabled.

[Lemur]

I believe that it is a choice, but likely an unconscious one for some. Some people are sexually attracted to a number of things. Without data suggesting a physiological imperative I can only assume that they are a fetish.
There's plenty of data about measurable hormonal differences between straight men and gay, if you'd care to do the reading.

If homosexuality is a choice, can you also pinpoint the moment when you decided to be straight? And if being with women is nothing more than a choice, could you just as easily abandon them and spend the rest of your life having sex with men?

[ICantSpellDawg]

There's plenty of data about measurable hormonal differences between straight men and gay, if you'd care to do the reading.

If homosexuality is a choice, can you also pinpoint the moment when you decided to be straight? And if being with women is nothing more than a choice, could you just as easily abandon them and spend the rest of your life having sex with men?

Lemur - heterosexuality is a biologically proven imperative. Genitalia has a clear function.

Homosexuals can't show why there's is biologically wrong. We've had this argument way too often. You don't see heterosexuality as any more inherent than homosexuality? Who are you kidding?

We don't understand the role of hormones much at all. We understand basic effect, but not always what causes increases or decreases. If there is a hormonal imbalance that doesn't mean that it isn't caused by something like habit or mood. I think that we have quite a bit more control over mood than we would like to believe. The tests that I believe you were referring to were of hormones in the womb affecting the determination.

Anyway:

The American Psychiatric Association reports "There are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology [cause or origin] for homosexuality." The APA further states "No specific psychosocial or family dynamic cause for homosexuality has been identified, including histories of childhood sexual abuse."

[Devastatin Dave]

If homosexuality is a choice, can you also pinpoint the moment when you decided to be GAY?

It was when I first met you, Sugar Turds...:yes:

[Ser Clegane]

The American Psychiatric Association reports "There are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology [cause or origin] for homosexuality." The APA further states "No specific psychosocial or family dynamic cause for homosexuality has been identified, including histories of childhood sexual abuse."

Interesting ... what I found on the Q&A page on homosexuality (http://www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.html#whatcauses) of the "American Psychological Association" is the following:


What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation?

There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.

So it seems your claims that is a "choice" are not really based on anything either. Or are you able to link to a direct statement (i.e. not from a third-party website that considers homosexuality to be an curable illness) of the American Psychiatric Association that supports the "choice" theory or claims that biological causes are definitely not responsible?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Interesting ... what I found on the Q&A page on homosexuality (http://www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.html#whatcauses) of the "American Psychological Association" is the following:



So it seems your claims that is a "choice" are not really based on anything either. Or are you able to link to a direct statement (i.e. not from a third-party website that considers homosexuality to be an curable illness) of the American Psychiatric Association that supports the "choice" theory or claims that biological causes are definitely not responsible?

Correct. I keep that opinion as a bulwark against those who seem to be winning the PR war with their "born that way" or "no choice" argument.

I have made my case that there is a biological argument suggesting that homosexuals are born with heterosexual functions and that, without evidence suggesting inherent homosexuality, the default position is that we are all heterosexuals.

I consider pedophiles fetishists because they are fixated on children for their sexual gratification, not on an individual basis, but simply because childhood innocence is the object. I am not calling homosexuality and pedophilia equal, but the attraction seems to not be evidently biological or conclusively hard wired.

[Devastatin Dave]

Interesting ... what I found on the Q&A page on homosexuality (http://www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.html#whatcauses) of the "American Psychological Association" is the following:



So it seems your claims that is a "choice" are not really based on anything either. Or are you able to link to a direct statement (i.e. not from a third-party website that considers homosexuality to be an curable illness) of the American Psychiatric Association that supports the "choice" theory or claims that biological causes are definitely not responsible?

Its "Bushes" fault. Pun intended.

[Rhyfelwyr]

If it wasn't a choice then no gay people would be able to turn straight, and yet they do.

[Ser Clegane]

If it wasn't a choice then no gay people would be able to turn straight, and yet they do.

I guess you also have some reliable evidence that the ability to "turn straight" is more than just some anecdotal observation but a rather common thing?
(I hope you know that being homosexual or heterosexual entails more than just having sex with a parther of the same or the opposite sex)

[Louis VI the Fat]

I think you just need some sex, Tuff. It's not good for a man to abstain voluntarily. It only leads to tension and frustration. In your case, the frustration has led to two things: addiction to pornography and aggressiveness towards gays.

The tragedy is, that human sex is by no means biologically intended just to procreate. It serves a crucial social function too. This is why human females, unlike apes, show no physical signs of fertility. Without a calendar, you wouldn't know. Because you shouldn't know, it could interfere with the biological need to engage in sex whenever a social situation calls for it. To say that sex biologically serves only procreation is as bizar as saying that all human interaction needs a business transaction. After all, why should anybody ever sit down to just talk to somebody else if it were not for an exchange of goods?

So you are engaging in deviant, unnatural sexual behaviour by limiting yourself to pro-creative sex. Instead of engaging in sex as a social act. Just like pedophiles do. I am not calling you and pedophiles equal, but the attraction seems to not be evidently biological or conclusively hard wired.


Or, the shorter version: sex is not all that important or heavyhanded. Not worth obsessing about. Just a way for two people to have some fun. Just do it, or at the very least let other consenting adults have their fun. What's it to us what other people do and it's a free country etcetera

[Devastatin Dave]

Back to the thread's subject, Buttom Busters' Hooky day has come and passed and the economic damage done seems to have only infected the hairdressing industry, some florist shops, and the stall usage in public restrooms. I guess we'll have to analyse the data in the coming weeks to figure out if this protest really did anything or went down.... in flames.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I think you just need some sex, Tuff. It's not good for a man to abstain voluntarily. It only leads to tension and frustration. In your case, the frustration has led to two things: addiction to pornography and aggressiveness towards gays.

The tragedy is, that human sex is by no means biologically intended just to procreate. It serves a crucial social function too. This is why human females, unlike apes, show no physical signs of fertility. Without a calendar, you wouldn't know. Because you shouldn't know, it could interfere with the biological need to engage in sex whenever a social situation calls for it. To say that sex biologically serves only procreation is as bizar as saying that all human interaction needs a business transaction. After all, why should anybody ever sit down to just talk to somebody else if it were not for an exchange of goods?

So you are engaging in deviant, unnatural sexual behaviour by limiting yourself to pro-creative sex. Instead of engaging in sex as a social act. Just like pedophiles do. I am not calling you and pedophiles equal, but the attraction seems to not be evidently biological or conclusively hard wired.


Or, the shorter version: sex is not all that important or heavyhanded. Not worth obsessing about. Just a way for two people to have some fun. Just do it, or at the very least let other consenting adults have their fun. What's it to us what other people do and it's a free country etcetera

So if homosexuality is a fetish than so is heterosexuality? I'm glad you wrote that, just so people know where you come from.

Genitalia has a clear function. What you choose to do with it outside of that function is your own business. I have a problem when people stick it someplace else and say that they were "born to do it". It is BS. It shouldn't be viewed any more seriously than saying someone was "born to rock and roll".

[Yoyoma1910]

It shouldn't be viewed any more seriously than saying someone was "born to rock and roll".



The Irony is that "Rock and Roll" began as and can still be used as a slang term for coitus.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So if homosexuality is a fetish than so is heterosexuality? I'm glad you wrote that, just so people know where you come from.

Genitalia has a clear function. What you choose to do with it outside of that function is your own business. I have a problem when people stick it someplace else and say that they were "born to do it". It is BS. It shouldn't be viewed any more seriously than saying someone was "born to rock and roll".

What about Gay Dolphin sex, Dolphin rape, fin jobs etc?

Blowhole penetration?

Homosexuality serves an important social function in all-male groups, you just have to look at modern prisons.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Homosexuality serves an important social function in all-male groups, you just have to look at modern prisons.

So does crime. Without it how would we ever fill our prisons?

[Devastatin Dave]

Blowhole penetration?



Now my nipples are erect.... Thats hot, where's Lemur?

[Lemur]

Be right there, give me a minute, just have to clean out my blowhole in preparation ...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So does crime. Without it how would we ever fill our prisons?

Dodge.

In a society with a low female:male ration homosexuality prevents the men from all killing each other to get to the women. It's been seen in monkeys.

The fewer females, the more homosexuality, and vice versa. in a certain tipe of marcupial the females engage in homosexual sex in order to entice males

(yes, seriously guys).

[KukriKhan]

I have 50 co-workers; 4 are self-proclaimed gay. They all showed up for work yesterday. I guess a steady paycheck was more important than... whatever it was that the boycott was supposed to prove.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

So does crime. Without it how would we ever fill our prisons?

Congress?

[Rhyfelwyr]

Animals also eat their children but it doesn't make it OK.

[drone]

I have 50 co-workers; 4 are self-proclaimed gay. They all showed up for work yesterday. I guess a steady paycheck was more important than... whatever it was that the boycott was supposed to prove.

I thought the USPS was on a "don't ask, don't tell" policy. :clown:

[KukriKhan]

I thought the USPS was on a "don't ask, don't tell" policy. :clown:

That's sooo 1998. :)

[Louis VI the Fat]

So if homosexuality is a fetish than so is heterosexuality? I'm glad you wrote that, just so people know where you come from.I am afraid that my point was much worse than this. Neither homosexuality nor heterosexuality is a fetish. Both are normal, natural sexual behaviour.

Unnatural, deviant sexual behaviour is to voluntarily abstain from sex while constantly obsessing about the sex lives of others.
Because this is so unnatural, it leads to frustrated urges that find a way out through porn addiction and hatred of others.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I am afraid that my point was much worse than this. Neither homosexuality nor heterosexuality is a fetish. Both are normal, natural sexual behaviour.

Unnatural, deviant sexual behaviour is to voluntarily abstain from sex while constantly obsessing about the sex lives of others.
Because this is so unnatural, it leads to frustrated urges that find a way out through porn addiction and hatred of others.

Give me a break.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Give me a break.Maybe if you make it a 'call in 'give me a break' day'.


Psychology recognises several motives for homophobia:


A variety of motivations underlie sexual prejudice. One way to understand those motives is to ask how a particular heterosexual's antigay attitudes benefit her or him psychologically.

[...]

Sexual prejudice can only serve an experiential function when a heterosexual has knowingly had personal contact with gay men or lesbians. For those who have not had such contact, sexual minority individuals are perceived more as symbols than as flesh-and-blood human beings. Whereas attitudes toward people with whom one has direct experience function primarily to organize and make sense of those experiences, attitudes toward symbols operate differently. Such attitudes help people to increase their sense of well-being or self-esteem by expressing important aspects of themselves – by declaring (to themselves and to others) what sort of people they are. Affirming who one is often is accomplished by distancing oneself from or even attacking people who represent the sort of person one is not (or doesn't want to be).

Three different attitude functions have been identified that serve these symbolic purposes.

Attitudes serving a value-expressive function enable heterosexuals to affirm their belief in and adherence to important values that are closely related to their self concepts.
When attitudes serve a social expressive function, expressing the attitude strengthens one's sense of belonging to a particular group and helps an individual to gain acceptance, approval, or love from other people whom she or he considers important (e.g., peers, family, neighbors).

Finally, attitudes serving a defensive function help the individual to reduce painful emotions and feelings (e.g., anxiety) that are triggered by gay people or homosexuality. These feelings may occur for a variety of reasons, possibly including the person's own psychological conflicts related to sexuality or gender. The defensive process occurs largely outside of the individual's awareness.



It is important to recognize the nexus between individual attitudes and sexual stigma. A particular manifestation of sexual prejudice can serve one or more of these functions only when the individual's psychological needs converge with the culture's ideology about homosexuality. Antigay prejudice can be value-expressive only when an individual's self-concept is closely tied to values that also have become socially defined as antithetical to homosexuality.
Above, and further in the link (http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/prej_func.html), you'll find repeated what I have crudely argued in this thread about your homophobia. Three points: I identified you as belonging to the first category. Your homophobia serves the first function:
Attitudes serving a value-expressive function enable heterosexuals to affirm their belief in and adherence to important values that are closely related to their self concepts.
The important value on which this psychological strategy is based in your case is your belief in abstination from sex until marriage.

The second point, is that this strategy is meaningful for you only because of your specific cultural context.

A particular manifestation of sexual prejudice can serve one or more of these functions only when the individual's psychological needs converge with the culture's ideology about homosexuality. Antigay prejudice can be value-expressive only when an individual's self-concept is closely tied to values that also have become socially defined as antithetical to homosexuality.
Or, it is because abstination is considered a positive within US Christian culture that your homophobia can function to strenghten your self-concept through this value system.
In short, gays are the antithesis of what you are, and so the worse gays are, the better you must be.

Thirdly, your homophobia is not based on extensive contact with gays, nor based on latent, repressed homosexual feelings.
The upside to this is that gays are mere symbols to you. The downside is that your homophobia is not based on gays, but on yourself. Gays are not a problem to you, you don't hate them, you hate them as symbol. They're spirits that haunt you, spirits though, that have been summoned by you yourself.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Maybe if you make it a 'call in 'give me a break' day'.


Psychology recognises several motives for homophobia:

Above, and further in the link (http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/prej_func.html), you'll find repeated what I have crudely argued in this thread about your homophobia. Three points: I identified you as belonging to the first category. Your homophobia serves the first function:
Attitudes serving a value-expressive function enable heterosexuals to affirm their belief in and adherence to important values that are closely related to their self concepts. The important value on which this psychological strategy is based in your case is your belief in abstination from sex until marriage.

The second point, is that this strategy is meaningful for you only because of your specific cultural context.
A particular manifestation of sexual prejudice can serve one or more of these functions only when the individual's psychological needs converge with the culture's ideology about homosexuality. Antigay prejudice can be value-expressive only when an individual's self-concept is closely tied to values that also have become socially defined as antithetical to homosexuality. Or, it is because abstination is considered a positive within US Christian culture that your homophobia can function to strenghten your self-concept through this value system.
In short, gays are the antithesis of what you are, and so the worse gays are, the better you must be.

Thirdly, your homophobia is not based on extensive contact with gays, nor based on latent, repressed homosexual feelings.
The upside to this is that gays are mere symbols to you. The downside is that your homophobia is not based on gays, but on yourself. Gays are not a problem to you, you don't hate them, you hate them as symbol. They're spirits that haunt you, spirits though, that have been summoned by you yourself.

Phobia is a fear. I am ideologically opposed to homosexuality because I believe it to be an ideological affiliation. I don't view communists, the religious or libertarians (for example) as born that way - but as an ideology. They are drawn to ideas due to different physical or emotional allure. Sexuality is clearly defined for most and I believe in inherent male/female relationships ( I think that monogamy is a choice, however). Homosexuality seems to be a lifestyle choice and an anarcho/existentialist one at that. I don't beleive that it is inherent and oppose it as an ideology.

People claim that I am wrong, because they don't accept that their view of homosexuality is equally based on opinion.

Yes, I believe that opinions are still viable as I believe homosexuality to be a sociological phenomenon.

[Louis VI the Fat]

People claim that I am wrong, because they don't accept that their view of homosexuality is equally based on opinion.You are not 'wrong'. You are perfectly sensible - within your own context. I neither look down on it nor wish you would believe otherwise. And other people have other value systems, and they are sensible within those.

It is just that...it starts to intrude on the freedom of others if gays are wished to be gone from the workforce, or compared to child molesters. They don't deserve this. You are the blissful majority. What would life be like for you if you were constantly accused of sexual deviance (as I have identified you here), of having an identity based on sexual fetishes, if people would cheer at the thought of 'people like you' to dissapear from the workforce during times of recession?

So, you know, live and let live. Be American about it. Let them be.

[Rhyfelwyr]

You are the blissful majority. What would life be like for you if you were constantly accused of sexual deviance (as I have identified you here), of having an identity based on sexual fetishes, if people would cheer at the thought of 'people like you' to dissapear from the workforce during times of recession?

Well I'm not representative of a blissful majority. Religion is stronger in Scotland than other parts of the UK and Europe, but that is largely because it is so tied to national identity rather than any zeal.

Here though, Christians get mocked wherever they go. Gays are equal, but Christians are not. An evangelical friend of mine, the only Christian at school I knew, had people running around making jokes about him and laughing at him just because he said he thought that homosexual couples shouldn't be allowed to raise children. Gay children are OK though and get to laugh with everyone else.

Gay people lack any sort of morality, the more they come out the closet the more it shows. The only gays I knew at my school kept talking about how many times the :daisy: themselves, how they have :daisy:-buddes, etc etc. And yet straight people (rarely) act like this. I can't even sit on a bench outside my Uni because last time I did some pedophile/gay sat down and starting asking inappropritate questions. And so I got up to go quickly and he started shouting to give him a :daisy:. I swear if he had moved towards me I would have picked up the nearst object and smashed his head in if it wouldn't have put me at risk of getting AIDS.

I don't care if this evidence counts as anecdotal, because its the reality and I've seen it too often to believe that it is not.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Here though, Christians get mocked wherever they go. Gays are equal, but Christians are not.

That does seem to be the reality. Where I grew up, went to school, and so on, and even when I went elsewhere in both of the countries I have spent most of my life in, it seems that Christians are always the ones who everyone else knocks down as intolerant, ignorant, hateful, corrupt, and rude - ironically, I have never once heard a Christian say anything of the sort - it all comes from militant atheists who seem to think Christianity is evil. Whenever I have heard a Christian preach his or her faith, they have not said anything to suggest that other religion is evil, and they have almost always backed off if someone didn't like what they were saying. In fact, in almost all cases, they generally kept their faith to themselves and their families. They were always very polite.

The teenaged militant atheists, on the other hand, were complete scumbags to every Christian they could find. But then, what can you expect from people who accept Holy Blood, Holy Grail as gospel, simply because they have an irrational hate of what it preaches against?

[ICantSpellDawg]

That does seem to be the reality. Where I grew up, went to school, and so on, and even when I went elsewhere in both of the countries I have spent most of my life in, it seems that Christians are always the ones who everyone else knocks down as intolerant, ignorant, hateful, corrupt, and rude - ironically, I have never once heard a Christian say anything of the sort - it all comes from militant atheists who seem to think Christianity is evil. Whenever I have heard a Christian preach his or her faith, they have not said anything to suggest that other religion is evil, and they have almost always backed off if someone didn't like what they were saying. In fact, in almost all cases, they generally kept their faith to themselves and their families. They were always very polite.

The teenaged militant atheists, on the other hand, were complete scumbags to every Christian they could find. But then, what can you expect from people who accept Holy Blood, Holy Grail as gospel, simply because they have an irrational hate of what it preaches against?

I once had a pretty good socialist teacher who taught about modern British History from 1750 or so to the present. One day, in a fit of anti-religious zealotry, she talked about how she has taught her young daughter to hate and avoid all things religious. She used the example that she and her daughter, walking in midtown Manhattan, stumbled across St. Patricks Cathedral - her daughter asked "mommy, what is that?".

Hahaha everyone laughed.

I raised my hand and said "so, effectively, you have taught your daughter to hate what she does not understand?". It irked her, but she continued to give me A's throughout the 3 semesters in which I took her class and we talked on a regular basis.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Boohoohoo. Those poor Christians. Opressed and persecuted in our society. All they want to do is to bully into submission fourteen year olds who struggle with the slow discovery of their minority sexuality. And for this we, the mean amoral minority, have been persecuting them for centuries by kindly suggesting they live and let live. ~:mecry:~:mecry: ~:mecry:

[ICantSpellDawg]

Boohoohoo. Those poor Christians. Opressed and persecuted in our society. All they want to do is to bully into submission fourteen year olds who struggle with the slow discovery of their minority sexuality. And for this we, the mean amoral minority, have been persecuting them for centuries by kindly suggesting they live and let live. ~:mecry:~:mecry: ~:mecry:

I just don't buy your narrative. The world is full of different narratives; yours is bizarre and alien to me on this issue.

[Devastatin Dave]

Boohoohoo. Those poor Christians. Opressed and persecuted in our society. All they want to do is to bully into submission fourteen year olds who struggle with the slow discovery of their minority sexuality. And for this we, the mean amoral minority, have been persecuting them for centuries by kindly suggesting they live and let live. ~:mecry:~:mecry: ~:mecry:

Your sarcastic sympothy makes me horny...

[Crazed Rabbit]

I am afraid that my point was much worse than this. Neither homosexuality nor heterosexuality is a fetish. Both are normal, natural sexual behaviour.

What? That's ridiculous.


Boohoohoo. Those poor Christians. Opressed and persecuted in our society. All they want to do is to bully into submission fourteen year olds who struggle with the slow discovery of their minority sexuality. And for this we, the mean amoral minority, have been persecuting them for centuries by kindly suggesting they live and let live.

What a strawman.

The thing is, it's now politically correct to make fun of Christians and vilify them, while the opposite holds true for homosexuals.

CR

[Incongruous]

Boohoohoo. Those poor Christians. Opressed and persecuted in our society. All they want to do is to bully into submission fourteen year olds who struggle with the slow discovery of their minority sexuality. And for this we, the mean amoral minority, have been persecuting them for centuries by kindly suggesting they live and let live. ~:mecry:~:mecry: ~:mecry:

Yes I agree, sometimes all this crap I hear about anti-christian fascistatheists is just plain rubbish.
But you have to concede that the current Dawkensian trend within popular atheism is slightly...
off.

I am now constantly prodded with questions and claims from newly discovered atheists at university (well ok they are mostly my chums), which I am theologically ill equipped to handle, and derided for producing such poor answers to such critical and much needed queries.

Atheists (well everyone) has J's witnesses, I have the followers of Dawkins.

[PBI]

What? That's ridiculous.

CR

Louis is quite correct, the evidence of homosexual behaviour being commonplace in nature is overwhelming.

Of course, the fact that homosexuality is entirely natural doesn't automatically make it a good thing. But those who try to argue homosexuality is an unnatural perversion have about as much leg to stand on as the church trying to argue the Copernican theory is unnatural. Trying to decide a priori what is and isn't "natural" rather than actually looking at what happens in nature is always going to be a recipe for disaster.

[Devastatin Dave]

This reminds me of a joke....

I was talking to a buddy of mine the other day and he told me he recently went to a gay bar-b-que. I asked him, how did you know it was a gay barb-que? He told me it was because the hotdogs tasted like :daisy:!!!!:laugh4:

[Ronin]

Actually Ron White called it a while ago....everyone is gay...it´s just to what extent are you gay :laugh4:


I told him, "We're all gay, man. It's just to what extent are you gay."
He says, "That's :daisy:, man, I ain't gay at all!"
I said, "Yes, you are and I'll prove it."
He says, "Fine, prove it."
I said to him, "All right- do you like porn?"
He says, "Yeah, I love porn, you know that."
I said, "Do you only watch two women doing it?"
He said, "Naw, I'll watch a man and a woman make love."
I said, "OK, do you want the guy to have a tiny, half-flaccid penis?"
He said, "Naw, man, I like big, hard, throbbing co- (stunned pause) I did not know that about myself."~:eek:

:wiseguy::laugh4:

[Goofball]

Gay people lack any sort of morality, the more they come out the closet the more it shows. The only gays I knew at my school kept talking about how many times the :daisy: themselves, how they have :daisy:-buddes, etc etc. And yet straight people (rarely) act like this. I can't even sit on a bench outside my Uni because last time I did some pedophile/gay sat down and starting asking inappropritate questions. And so I got up to go quickly and he started shouting to give him a :daisy:. I swear if he had moved towards me I would have picked up the nearst object and smashed his head in if it wouldn't have put me at risk of getting AIDS.

I don't care if this evidence counts as anecdotal, because its the reality and I've seen it too often to believe that it is not.

That was the biggest load of violent, hateful, bigoted, mean-spirited, ignorant crap I have heard since joining the .org.

A gay man hit on you and the only thing that stopped you from murdering him was that you were afraid his blood splashing on you would murder you back?

You, my man, are an ignorant, hateful, bordering on deranged bigot.

The fact that you call yourself a Christian makes this even more disgusting. Your statements above demonstrate that you are about as far as you can possibly be from being a true follower of Jesus' teachings.

Have a nice day.

[ICantSpellDawg]

That was the biggest load of violent, hateful, bigoted, mean-spirited, ignorant crap I have heard since joining the .org.

A gay man hit on you and the only thing that stopped you from murdering him was that you were afraid his blood splashing on you would murder you back?

You, my man, are an ignorant, hateful, bordering on deranged bigot.

The fact that you call yourself a Christian makes this even more disgusting. Your statements above demonstrate that you are about as far as you can possibly be from being a true follower of Jesus' teachings.

Have a nice day.

Call a Wahmbulance, Goof.

The is no need to harm anyone over their non-violent ideology, Ryf. :no:
Don't accept it, but don't abridge basic and widely agreed upon human rights.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Boohoohoo. Those poor Christians. Opressed and persecuted in our society. All they want to do is to bully into submission fourteen year olds who struggle with the slow discovery of their minority sexuality. And for this we, the mean amoral minority, have been persecuting them for centuries by kindly suggesting they live and let live. ~:mecry:~:mecry: ~:mecry:

Yup that's the stuff.

I do hope that was a joke. For myself I'm undecided on the whole sexuality issue but I'm fairly sure there are a LOT of things the Guy Upstairs is more worried about.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Call a Wahmbulance, Goof.

The is no need to harm anyone over their non-violent ideology, Ryf. :no:
Don't accept it, but under no circumstances abridge basic and agreed upon human rights.

Of course I would never harm anyone unless in self-defence. My point was if he had gotten up and chased after me. I'm pretty sure people could get arrested for the sort of things he was saying.

Or Goofball, maybe you are telling me that if some old pedophile tried to assault you then you would protest with non-resistance? :dizzy2:

And I don't hate homosexuals, I'm no better than someone who commits homosexual acts. But I will never say that I accept them (the acts, there's more to homosexuals than just their sexual orientation, but the minority of gays with an agenda consistenly try to polarise everyone).

Calling a Christian hateful is just becoming a repetetive bail-out for people who can't actually be bothered adressing the real issue. In the example I gave, my 'violence' referred to nothing other than self-defence, which would in turn have been a last resort measure.

Also PVC I agree there are much, much worse issuse in the world today. It's just the fact that homosexuality is being morally accepted that makes Christians uneasy.

[Goofball]

Of course I would never harm anyone unless in self-defence. My point was if he had gotten up and chased after me. I'm pretty sure people could get arrested for the sort of things he was saying.

Or Goofball, maybe you are telling me that if some old pedophile tried to assault you then you would protest with non-resistance? :dizzy2:

Sorry, but what gives you the impression that this person was a pedophile, other than the fact that gay-haters often use the words gay and pedophile interchangably in order to help others share in their hate?


And I don't hate homosexuals, I'm no better than someone who commits homosexual acts. But I will never say that I accept them (the acts, there's more to homosexuals than just their sexual orientation, but the minority of gays with an agenda consistenly try to polarise everyone).

Calling a Christian hateful is just becoming a repetetive bail-out for people who can't actually be bothered adressing the real issue. In the example I gave, my 'violence' referred to nothing other than self-defence, which would in turn have been a last resort measure.

Also PVC I agree there are much, much worse issuse in the world today. It's just the fact that homosexuality is being morally accepted that makes Christians uneasy.

You misunderstood my post. I was not calling a Christian hateful. I was calling you hateful. I thought I made that clear. Your words in that post made it clear that you were anything but a Christian.

Even if he had gotten up and followed you, being as rude as you say he was being, it still would not have merited having his head smashed in, as you had proposed. You made that statement out of hate. Cowboy up and recognize it for what it is.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Oh, its so much muddier than you realise.

You see, there's no prohibition against homosexuality in the law of the New Testemant. The only references are in Paul and arguably Paul is in error because he refers too often to the Old Covenant (Testemant) which does not bind Christians.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Sorry, but what gives you the impression that this person was a pedophile, other than the fact that gay-haters often use the words gay and pedophile interchangably in order to help others share in their hate?

He looked about 65 and I must have been 17 or so? Maybe not technically a pedophile but obviously a very dodge character.


You misunderstood my post. I was not calling a Christian hateful. I was calling you hateful. I thought I made that clear. Your words in that post made it clear that you were anything but a Christian.

I see, you obviously know more about Christianity than me. Apparently Christians are not allowed to defend themselves, and if they do it's because they are filled with hate.


Even if he had gotten up and followed you, being as rude as you say he was being, it still would not have merited having his head smashed in, as you had proposed. You made that statement out of hate. Cowboy up and recognize it for what it is.

Self-defence, admittedly it would be a panic-driven reaction, but what can you do in these situations? If you honestly thought someone like that was going to assault you, what would you do? Thankfully this is all hypothetical, but for many people I suppose that won't prove to be the case.

[Prince of the Poodles]

That was the biggest load of violent, hateful, bigoted, mean-spirited, ignorant crap I have heard since joining the .org.

A gay man hit on you and the only thing that stopped you from murdering him was that you were afraid his blood splashing on you would murder you back?

You, my man, are an ignorant, hateful, bordering on deranged bigot.

The fact that you call yourself a Christian makes this even more disgusting. Your statements above demonstrate that you are about as far as you can possibly be from being a true follower of Jesus' teachings.

Have a nice day.

/lurkoff

Yep, it was hateful and stupid enough to drag me out of the darkness.

You, sir, are an idiot.

Not to mention your story sounds completely made up. I've never heard of anyone screaming out in a public area "give me a blow job!" or whatever sexual act was edited out.

/lurkon

[Rhyfelwyr]

/lurkoff

Yep, it was hateful and stupid enough to drag me out of the darkness.

You, sir, are an idiot.

Not to mention your story sounds completely made up. I've never heard of anyone screaming out in a public area "give me a blow job!" or whatever sexual act was edited out.

/lurkon

Yes I'm just a hateful fundamentalist, I'm afraid I don't have the intelligence to jump on the enlightened bandwagon.

And no it was not made up, although it does seem to have taken things somewhat OT.

EDIT: Ironic mispelling

[ICantSpellDawg]

/lurkoff

Yep, it was hateful and stupid enough to drag me out of the darkness.

You, sir, are an idiot.

Not to mention your story sounds completely made up. I've never heard of anyone screaming out in a public area "give me a blow job!" or whatever sexual act was edited out.

/lurkon

You meant to quote Ryf. Get your quotes right.

[Prince of the Poodles]

Yes I'm just a hateful fundamentalist, I'm afraid I don't have the intelligence to jump on the enlightened bandwagon.

If the shoe fits. Its not even about enlightened thought, as I doubt you will make it to such a level at this rate. Its about common decency.

You don't think young straight men brag about their sexual conquests or sleep around? You're very sheltered. What you wrote was incredibly hate-filled, and your Christianity deserves question.


And no it was not made up, although it does seem to have taken things somewhat OT.

I just find it hard to believe that someone screamed at you to perform a sex act on him in a public place. Its just too perfect. You are not even safe from the evil gay and his AIDS on a campus bench. Alas, this is the internet so I will have to take you at your word.


You meant to quote Ryf. Get your quotes right.

I was agreeing with Goofball. Try and keep up if you're going to correct people.

[CrossLOPER]

/lurkoff
It's.... it's YOU! I thought you left!

Hi!

[Banquo's Ghost]

This thread has developed quite a temperature, and consequently is calling in sick.

:closed: