Brokeback Propaganda

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
1086

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Oh wait…we did that and homosexuals still don’t seem to care. They are dying horrible deaths at a very rapid rate because they just can’t (as a group) seem to stick to one (or two or even three) partners.
[/quote]

Except, of course, that most new cases of HIV outside the U.S. are HETEROSEXUALS. I’ve pointed this out several times, and you continue to ignore it.

We do agree on the importance of safe sex education, though. Heterosexuals and homosexuals can BOTH benefit from it.

1087

[quote]forlife wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Look, a men and women were designed for EACH OTHER. The purpose of sex is procreation. The purpose is not lurid perverted pleasure.

Are you honestly claiming that you have never had sex, and that you will never have sex in the future, except for the purpose of procreation? Because that is the way you were “designed”?

Hell, AIDS may not even exist! Its just a re-classification of a bunch of other diseases, which gays get from their barbarous practices.

Tell that to the droves of heterosexuals getting the HIV virus. You do realize that outside of the U.S., the large majority of new HIV cases are HETEROSEXUALS, right?[/quote]

Did you go to the website? HIV is not the cause of ‘AIDs’. HIV is a benign virus, if it even exists. Some Nobel prize winning scientists think it may not even exist at all. Go to the website.

You are being conned. Homosexual lifestyle is killing gays, not AIDs. What is AIDs anyway? “Well, let’s lump all these illnesses together, create a mythical HIV virus, tell people they have it and its killing them.”
Its all a trick to make money and tax us.

1088

[quote]forlife wrote:

bisexuality refers to the orientation where people are equally fulfilled with either gender. Homosexuals are more fulfilled with people of their own gender, while heterosexuals are more fulfilled with people of the opposite gender. They are defined by what fulfills them, not by who they have sex with.[/quote]

You are now ditching your previous talk of “preference” by using the word “fulfilled.”

You think by removing the word preference which you introduced into this debate, and replacing it with the word fulfilled will actually help your cause?

I don’t think so. In fact, you have just stepped in it again!

Let me get this straight: if two men have sex that does not mean that they are bisexual, it just means that they were horny at the time and saw the opportunity.

Odd as I have never known any straight male to be “horny” and then decide that since his wife was not around that he would settle for the mailman who just happens to be sauntering up the walkway.

In forlifes world if that “horny man” goes for Cliff Claven (who is walking up the sidewalk) instead of his wife he’s not bisexual!

It’s just that the straight married guy is so horny that the uniform of that postal worker just happened to catch his attention. Cliff Claven is now looking mighty good folks!

And…since his wife isn’t around he bends the mailman over the living room couch and performs anal sex.

Quite a scneario forlife…

Can I take it a step further using your very own logic?

If it’s against the mailmans will that does not necessarily mean that it’s rape…because the straight male is not really a rapist and does not feel completely fulfilled when he has forced sex…

Yea…I think I’m starting to understand the world you live in.

When you, or the other 87% of men who claim homosexual status want to have sex and there is no man around a woman will do nicely. It’s just that the woman will not “fullfill” you as much as another man. But either way will do nicely!

While you can go either way (just like the other 87% of “homosexuals”, who are in reality bisexuals) it matters not because you like men better. Therefore, you are a homosexual.

Well here’s what I think:

First of all, is there any wonder after reading this mess why AIDS, STD’s and other disease is rampant in the homosexual community?

I also think that you are projecting your frame of mind on the rest of the world. You see, STRAIGHT MEN DON’T HAVE SEX WITH OTHER MEN!

Do you know what straight men want when they are “horny?”

Let me give you a clue: It’s not another hairy butt.

Furthermore, you have not proven that the typical American male does in fact desire and has sex with other men, as do those 87% of “homosexuals” who apparently claim as you do that either a man or a woman is just dandy, but men are a bit better.

Your posts are getting more and more bizarre, as we uncover more of your true feelings and projected thoughts of what you are like, and what you think the world is like.

Advice: GET HELP.

I’ll let the readers of this thread (if there are any left) read the remaining quotes from this very confused individual:

You can type in your own answers and post them. Or, you can just read the quotes and shake your head in disgust.

1.[quote]I think most gay men would tell you that they probably could have sex with women…[/quote]

2.[quote]Just like straight men probably could have sex with other men…[/quote]

3.[quote]Straight men could also choose to have sex with other men (and sometimes do).[/quote]

4.[quote]The sexual act is a choice.[/quote]

I have to comment on this final one as he once again admits that having sex with either gender is a CHOICE!

Yet, it is not a CHOICE for a straight male!

Reading his quotes will give you a good idea of what America is up against when the topic of gay marriage surfaces.

How can a homosexual man ever be happy with only one other man the rest of his life? They can’t even decide if it is another man that they are in the mood to choose?

Not born that way…

1089

[quote]forlife wrote:

Except, of course, that most new cases of HIV outside the U.S. are HETEROSEXUALS. I’ve pointed this out several times, and you continue to ignore it.

[/quote]

Of course most HIV cases are heterosexuals. There are 100x more heterosexuals than homosexuals, so it shouldn’t surprise anyone.

What is surprising is the % of homos having HIV is far greater than the % of heteros.

I’ve seen children who are able to grasp these simple concepts better than you.

1090

[quote]Gleemonex wrote:
terribleivan wrote:

It is very interesting that you try to defend homosexuality as normal because it has been practiced for a long time. Have you noticed that the civilizations in history that have been the strongest have fallen when homosexuality was at its peak? Greece? Rome? Sodom & Gommorah? It is not a healthy sexual activity, and it leads to worth things.

You’re going to have to back that up with proof. Until then, I call bullshit.

-Glee[/quote]

Greece, Rome, Sodom and Gommorah fell when sexual perversion was at its height - men having sex with men, animals, multiple partners. Diseases ran rampent.

Would it surprise you to know that Sodom and Gommorah were discovered? Many people have come to know and believe on God due to this evidence alone.

As far as research, don’t be lazy. Do it yourself. Just google and you’ll find the asnwers. Most people that practice dangereous things like homosexuality should at least research the problems with it first.

1091

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Odd as I have never known any straight male to be “horny” and then decide that since his wife was not around that he would settle for the mailman who just happens to be sauntering up the walkway.[/quote]

Have you ever been in a prison? Were you raised as a Spartan in Greece? Did you ever experiment with a friend as a teenager? Just because YOUR experience doesn’t reflect it, doesn’t mean that it is physically impossible to have sex with someone that doesn’t fit your orientation.

You still haven’t answered my question about how it was possible for the majority of Greek men to have sex with one another. Are you claiming that all of them were gay? Lol.

Here is a formal definition of sexual orientation, provided by the “Just the Facts Coalition”, which consists of the following medical and mental health organizations:

American Academy of Pediatrics
American Counseling Association
American Association of School Administrators
American Federation of Teachers
American Psychological Association
American School Health Association
Interfaith Alliance Foundation
National Association of School Psychologists
National Association of Social Workers
National Education Association

Hopefully people will read this definition, with which I fully concur, rather than taking your twisted intepretation of my words as actually reflecting my views:

[quote]Sexual orientation is one component of a person’s identity, which is made up of many other components, such as culture, ethnicity, gender, and personality traits. Sexual orientation is an enduring emotional, romantic, sexual, or affectional attraction that a person feels toward another person. Sexual orientation falls along a continuum. In other words, someone does not have to be exclusively homosexual or heterosexual, but can feel varying degrees of attraction for both genders. Sexual orientation develops across a person’s lifetime?different people realize at different points in their lives that they are heterosexual, gay, lesbian, or bisexual.

Sexual behavior does not necessarily equate to sexual orientation. Many adolescents?as well as many adults?may identify themselves as homosexual or bisexual without having had any sexual experience. Other young people have had sexual experiences with a person of the same gender, but do not consider themselves to be gay, lesbian, or bisexual. This is particularly relevant during adolescence because it is a time for experimentation?a hallmark of this developmental period.[/quote]

I’ll just repeat that phrase for reinforcement:

Sexual behavior does not necessarily equate to sexual orientation.

You can continue to misportray my words all you like, but the above statement is from a large number of respected scientific and educational institutions.

Or are you going to “pull a Zeb” again, and try to claim that every one of those organizations is politically motivated, and thus their conclusions are worthless?

Earth to Zeb! Homosexuals are attracted to people of the same gender. The statistics you like to quote about gay men having sex with women are skewed, because they include men (like me) who were once in the closet and were trying to live the life of a heterosexual for religious or cultural reasons.

Get back to me on how many self-accepting gay men are still having sex with women. I don’t suppose you have any statistics on that, eh?

1092

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
You are being conned. Homosexual lifestyle is killing gays, not AIDs.[/quote]

Fascinating. So where is your scientific proof that the “homosexual lifestyle is killing gays”?

You still didn’t answer my question:

1093

[quote]terribleivan wrote:
What is surprising is the % of homos having HIV is far greater than the % of heteros. [/quote]

Again, if you truly cared about your fellow men (rather than being driven by a homophobic agenda), why aren’t you focusing your efforts where they will do the most good?

If you look at sheer numbers (and thus the total number of lives you could help through educating people on safe sex), you would have a far greater impact by looking at the heterosexual population.

Or is it that you don’t care so much about saving lives as you do about pushing a religiously motivated agenda?

From BBC News:
HIV heterosexual infections soar

[quote]For the first time, twice as many heterosexual than homosexual patients are now being told they have the disease.

Throughout the 1990s, most new cases of HIV infection occurred in gay men.

However, that situation changed in 1999 and heterosexual patients now account for a growing proportion of reported cases. [/quote]

From Irish Health:
HIV among heterosexuals increasing

[quote]The number of heterosexual people, particularly women, contracting HIV in Ireland is on the increase, new figures from the National Disease Surveillance Centre (NDSC) have shown.

According to the figures which cover the first six months of this year, 157 people were diagnosed with HIV, with heterosexuals accounting for 70% of cases. Of these, 80% were women.[/quote]

From eMedicine Consumer Health:

1094

[quote]terribleivan wrote:
Greece, Rome, Sodom and Gommorah fell when sexual perversion was at its height - men having sex with men, animals, multiple partners. Diseases ran rampent.
[/quote]

Heterosexuals were also having a lot of orgies. How do you know that these civilizations didn’t fall because of that?

Lol…how many times do we have to tell you that correlation doesn’t imply causation?

1095

Wasn’t Zeb’s argument about anal sex being dangerous? He then points to relevant authority to explain why.

Look, you can stick your thing into a lot of different holes, but … why would you? Whether someone is gay by nature, choice, whatever, you were created by God or nature to REPRODUCE. It’s part of life. To engage in sex when that is not at least part of the equation is simply wrong. It is unnatural.

Of course, sex is pleasureable. Its the way we are encouraged to reproduce. But do you really want to be a mindless animal, fucking anything that moves? If so, let’s go and live in caves then, and rape and pillage.

1096

[quote]forlife wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
You are being conned. Homosexual lifestyle is killing gays, not AIDs.

Fascinating. So where is your scientific proof that the “homosexual lifestyle is killing gays”?

You still didn’t answer my question:

Are you honestly claiming that you have never had sex, and that you will never have sex in the future, except for the purpose of procreation? Because that is the way you were “designed”? [/quote]

First of all, go read the site I listed.

Secondly, sex with your wife, with whom you have children, is fine. You have fulfilled what God (or nature, for you atheists)has chosen for you. Then, if you happen to have more children, great!

That’s a lot different than engaging in such bestial and degrading things that gays are doing.

1097

[quote]forlife wrote:
terribleivan wrote:
What is surprising is the % of homos having HIV is far greater than the % of heteros.

Again, if you truly cared about your fellow men (rather than being driven by a homophobic agenda), why aren’t you focusing your efforts where they will do the most good?

If you look at sheer numbers (and thus the total number of lives you could help through educating people on safe sex), you would have a far greater impact by looking at the heterosexual population.

Or is it that you don’t care so much about saving lives as you do about pushing a religiously motivated agenda?

From BBC News:
HIV heterosexual infections soar

For the first time, twice as many heterosexual than homosexual patients are now being told they have the disease.

Throughout the 1990s, most new cases of HIV infection occurred in gay men.

However, that situation changed in 1999 and heterosexual patients now account for a growing proportion of reported cases.

From Irish Health:
HIV among heterosexuals increasing

The number of heterosexual people, particularly women, contracting HIV in Ireland is on the increase, new figures from the National Disease Surveillance Centre (NDSC) have shown.

According to the figures which cover the first six months of this year, 157 people were diagnosed with HIV, with heterosexuals accounting for 70% of cases. Of these, 80% were women.

From eMedicine Consumer Health:

Some 90% of all new HIV infections occur in developing countries, such as in Africa and Asia, where the vast majority of cases are transmitted by sexual relations between men and women (heterosexual intercourse).

[/quote]

What’s the fascination with HIV? It probably doesn’t even exist. Just a new lib club to hit people with.

1098

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Whether someone is gay by nature, choice, whatever, you were created by God or nature to REPRODUCE. It’s part of life. To engage in sex when that is not at least part of the equation is simply wrong. It is unnatural.[/quote]

So you are opposed to infertile couples getting married or having sex? Clearly, reproduction would have nothing to do with their sex life.

1099

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
What’s the fascination with HIV? It probably doesn’t even exist. Just a new lib club to hit people with.
[/quote]

Tell that to your buddy Zeb.

Regardless, you entirely ignored my point, which is that if you are truly concerned about the health of your fellow men, why don’t you focus your efforts where you will do the greatest good? It is the HETEROSEXUAL population, which far and away has the larger number of health problems due to unsafe sex. By educating them, you would save far more lives than by focusing on the gay population, which by your estimate, only comprises 1-4% of the population.

Or could it be that you have a motivation for all this anti-gay rhetoric that goes beyond your concern for the health and well-being of your fellow man?

1100

[quote]forlife wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
What’s the fascination with HIV? It probably doesn’t even exist. Just a new lib club to hit people with.

Tell that to your buddy Zeb.

Regardless, you entirely ignored my point, which is that if you are truly concerned about the health of your fellow men, why don’t you focus your efforts where you will do the greatest good? It is the HETEROSEXUAL population, which far and away has the larger number of health problems due to unsafe sex. By educating them, you would save far more lives than by focusing on the gay population, which by your estimate, only comprises 1-4% of the population.

Or could it be that you have a motivation for all this anti-gay rhetoric that goes beyond your concern for the health and well-being of your fellow man?[/quote]

Really, please, go look at that website.

1101

HOLD ONTO YOUR SEATS T-Nation READERS!

Apparently, forlife is reversing his stance once again. Remember when he was using the word preference (as in sexual preference). Well, he left that word behind and went to the word fulfilled. He was making a case that “homosexual” men enjoy sex with females (go figure). But feel more fulfilled when they have sex with a man. According to him they can go either way! That’s how he explains the figure that 87% of all homosexual men have had sex with a female.

Ooookay…

Then in order to rationalize his actions and the actions of 87% of all “homosexual” men he tried to make an argument that ALL men are capable of having sex with a man and in fact most of them have!

(Yep that means you T-Men. Would you take on the mailman if your wife/girlfriend was not around. No, I didn’t think so. I guess that’s just his gay fantasy)

He just can’t get around to proving that nutty assumption. as that is a blantant lie used only to rationalize the actions of 87% of homosexual men, who seem to be so very horny that they will nail anything that moves!

Are we starting to see the real problem here?

It’s almost as if he is trying to blur the lines between what is right and what is wrong (relativism rears it’s ugly head again). And in this case what he thinks is right for him he projects onto the rest of the male population.

I wonder if all homsexuals do this? It would explain why some gay men seem to try to hit on men they know to be straight.

I’m very serious when I say that this has been a very revealing thread into the mind of a gay man.

We now understand each other better…I thought…

BUT WAIT Now he’s back taking the old line again that homosexual men are only attracted to other men.

(shaking head, yet again)

[quote]forlife wrote:
Earth to Zeb! Homosexuals are attracted to people of the same gender.[/quote]

Yes, that’s what I always thought. But if that’s the case then why did forlife say this on the previous post:

1.[quote]I think most gay men would tell you that they probably could have sex with women…[/quote]

2.[quote]Just like straight men probably could have sex with other men…[/quote]

3.[quote]Straight men could also choose to have sex with other men (and sometimes do).[/quote]

4.[quote]The sexual act is a choice.[/quote]

(Choice as in THEIR CHOICE. So much for the born that way claim.)

forlife, you’re entire argument is starting to become a joke with all but the most politically correct. And who cares what they think anyway, they’re not in touch with reality.

Before we move on to other areas, as I would like to do, why don’t you explain to the readers what you meant when you wrote the above four points. You know the ones you first thought were true but seem to be backing off of.

Seriously, just explain what you meant by those four comments, so that everyone can clearly understand.

I thank you.

1102

[quote]Gleemonex wrote:
Homosexual promiscuity is a terrible problem. We should try to correct it by enabling them to engage in formal monogamous unions or something.

-Glee

ZEB wrote:
Hey, I have an idea!

Let’s launch a nationwide campaign which informs everyone about the dangers of AIDS, STD’s and all of the other related sexual disease’s.[/quote]

Finally, some reason. Good idea. Let’s hear the rest of it.

Crap. I was wondering why that idea smelled of red herring.

So you agree that homosexual promiscuity is a problem. You’re a philanthropist, so you’re pro gray marriage. QED.

Alright, I’ll bite: What is the ‘real’ problem?

-Glee

1103

Well it looks like we are done here!

If sexual behavior or tendency is a choice, then gays can choose not to engage in gay sex.

Next topic…

1104

[quote]ZEB wrote:
He was making a case that “homosexual” men enjoy sex with females (go figure). But feel more fulfilled when they have sex with a man.[/quote]

Actually, I was answering YOUR ridiculous claim that it is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for straight men to have sex with other straight men. As you saw in the historical examples I provided, and in the “Just the Facts” quote from several leading medical and mental health organizations, it is indeed PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE. Once again, your blowhard propaganda is blown out of the water by scientific fact.

Stop putting words in my mouth. I never said that the majority of straight men would choose to have sex with other straight men. I only said it was physically POSSIBLE to do so. Just because culture encouraged the majority of Spartans to have sex with one another doesn’t mean we have that kind of culture today. However, it does mean that it is physically POSSIBLE. Maybe if I say that enough times it will register for you.

Sorry Zeb, but people aren’t as stupid as you make them out to be. If you think they will fall for your misportrayal of my words, you’re mistaken.

Once more, so it really sinks in this time: I was answering YOUR claim that it was physically IMPOSSIBLE for straight men to have sex with one another. Just because it is POSSIBLE doesn’t mean that most straight men choose to have sex with other men.

Do you see the difference now? It is also POSSIBLE for me to commit suicide right now just to avoid more of your antics, but (disappointing as it might be for you) I’m not going to choose that path.

[/quote]

1105

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Really, please, go look at that website.
[/quote]

Send Zeb to the website. He’s the one that keeps harping on HIV, not me.

I’m just wondering what your motivation is? If there is no HIV or AIDS, what is your beef with homosexuality?