Brokeback Propaganda

[ZEB]

[quote]Gleemonex wrote:
ZEB wrote:

I think there is in fact some attraction to women. Otherwise, they would not be able to perform the sex act.

It seems that they are attracted to both men and women!

Bi-sex-u-a-li-ty, common noun,
A sexual orientation characterized by aesthetic attraction, romantic love and sexual desire for both males and females. It is usually contrasted with homosexuality, heterosexuality, and asexuality.[/quote]

Oh darn! You forgot to keep up. We were not talking about bisexuals. Nope, the conversaion was about homosexuals and heterosexuals only.

In one case, between about 10% and 20%, according to prison rape statistics for the same United States you seem blindly focused on.

Oh darn! Lightning has struck again. We already talked about prisons etc. We were talking about purely hetersexual men who have never been incarcerated.

So you’re proposing that it’s impossible to perform sexually in the absence of preferrential romantic feelings? I’m sure thousands of sperm banks would be interested in any corroborating evidence you could provide.

Wow, three times lucky!

You are just not keeping up here jack.

Let me catch you up then in your next post you can actually sound like you know what’s happening:

You see, he already charged that and I shot it down. We are not talking about fantasy, alone in a room with a magazine…no, no…we are far and away beyond that sort of thing.

We are talking about a heterosexual man getting all naked and then instead of a beautiful woman walking through the door a big hairy man comes in.

You know what happens next?

NO ERECTION. NO SEX.

Inspite of the gay fantasies that forlife imagines…

There you are up to date now…no more looking stupid for you.

(thank me later)

[quote]Yes, it is odd that you’re attributing bisexuality to homosexuals. I’m not sure how true it is, though.
[/quote]

What’s even more odd is that you cannot keep up with this very basic conversation…

Not talking and never talked about bisexuals. (shaking head)

Come on (points to the previous threads) go read them and get back to me.

[forlife]

[quote]ZEB wrote:
If you are a “homosexual” man that means that you SHOULD only be attracted to men.

And…87% of homosexual men have had sex with women.[/quote]

Sexual orientation is not sexual behavior. See the “Just the Facts” quote provided several times in this thread.

Then again it could be because no normal heterosexual male finds another mans hairy butt attractive.

By “normal heterosexual male”, you do mean “heterosexual male raised in a culture similar to that prevalent in the U.S.” right?

Because I know you haven’t forgotten about all those societies I mentioned earlier, where the culture is more accepting, and the majority of men have sex with one another.

That “we” heterosexuals want to do something to help this situation should be welcomed.

Every major medical and mental health organization universally DECLAIMS REPARATIVE THERAPY, and concludes that it can be harmful to people. Thanks for your good wishes, but you’re not doing any good. To the contrary.

No my logic is not “flawed.”

Sorry, but saying your logic is not flawed doesn’t magically fix it. You actually have to correct the logical error.

One more time: When one heterosexual man is exposed to another man for sexual purposes that first man will indeed recoil at the very site of another man…much less be able to have sex with him!

In this case, your logical flaw is to focus on the reaction of a heteroexual man in a homophobic culture. To draw such a conclusion, you would need to look at the reaction of a heterosexual man in a culture that accepts homosesexuality (such as Sparta and those others I listed earlier).

So…you still cannot answer why 87% of all homosexal men have had sex with a female.

I’ve explained it, but you don’t want to hear the truth. The truth is that many gay men are motivated to try having sex with women due to cultural and religious imperatives.

[quote]Pay attention: IT WOULD BE PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR MOST HETEROSEXUAL MEN TO DO THIS!
[/quote]

Pay attention: YOU ARE NOT LOOKING AT HOW HETEROSEXUAL MEN WOULD RESPOND IN A CULTURE THAT EMBRACED HOMOSEXUALITY RATHER THAN REJECTING IT.

[Gleemonex]

[quote]

forlife wrote:
As evidenced by the rampant homophobia present in this thread? Lol.

ZEB wrote:
There you go name calling again. As soon as you lose a point or two you whip out the ole’ name calling.[/quote]

You’re accusing forlife of calling you a homophobia? L

You are going to have to wake up to reality. And that reality is that gay men are a very sick bunch of people. And I’m not talking about morality here.

They are very sick, yes. Homosexuals are very, terribly sick. In fact, they’re almost as sick as heterosexuals.

http://medilinkz.org/healthtopics/statistics/StatsAfrica2002.asp

-Glee

[Gleemonex]

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Gleemonex wrote:
ZEB wrote:

It’s the lifestyle (and the main gay act) that is killing them.

Which ‘main gay act’ – watching Will and Grace?

-Glee

LOL…good one![/quote]

Thanks! However, since you use the term ‘gay act’ in serious discussion, I’d honestly be interested in a definition.

-Glee

[Gleemonex]

[quote]Gleemonex wrote:
Actually, I entered the thread by pointing out to stellar_horizon that he probably shouldn’t talk on behalf of black people:

stellar_horizon wrote:
I wasn’t talking on behalf of all black people.[/quote]

L Don’t worry stellar, I wasn’t attacking you. I was simply rectifying Zeb’s assertion that I only came on this threat to insult others. I think you and I squared away our little discussion a few dozen pages ago.

Have a good one,

-Glee

[stellar_horizon]

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Yes, I would be opposed to the acting out of homosexual thoughts because it is contrary to nature and the organs involved. I don’t believe that saying a rectum was not designed or evolved to have some guys zimmy in it is subjective. That is a biological fact.

forlife wrote:
Why does there have to be only one biological purpose? Your mouth wasn’t specifically designed for oral sex either, but that doesn’t stop a lot of straight guys from using it for that purpose

And of course, as I pointed out earlier, more straight men perform anal sex than gay men.
[/quote]
Then they also must repent. The bounds of lust must be controlled.

Most acts of sex are initiated by a sense of self-indulgence derived from pride (which also happens to be the root of all other sins, including those of sexual immorality).

The general chain progression of lust:
masterbation → oral sex → fornication → sodomy → fetishes, pedophilia, beastiality, possibly murder

Once the first act turned passion exhausts its power to self-indulge, the latter passions soon follow in the aformentioned order unless the individual involved comes to his “spiritual senses”. We know of the Roman emperor Nero whose homosexual lust could no longer be appeased; thus after sodomizing Roman slaves for many years, he resorted to having Roman prisoners dipped in tar and burned alive hanging atop ropes leading to his palace entrance as a means of sexual thrill & gratification - something humans today would commonly deem grotesque and despicable.

I’m sure a guy who enjoys golden showers, a mouthful of feces, and humps a goat for sexual satisfaction would also complain about society’s religious beliefs marring his personal habits.

Regardless of my religious convictions, some acts are just plain repulsive. It’s sad that we live in a society where sex is so misused and abused. Hollywood’s attempt to exalt sex between two like-gendered individuals is a clear example of this. I’ve even heard of serial killers being filled with a sexual rush during murders. How twisted & demented can the human mind become!

Peace be with all.

[ZEB]

forlife,

Truth time:

There is literally NOTHING on any of your posts that is even remotely in touch with reality.

forlifes twisted logic:

1. Gay men have sex with women and men and it’s all perfectly fine and natural. Zero contratidictions!

2. Heterosexual men have sex with women but can also have sex with men as well. He knows this because they have done it that way in a couple of ancient cultures.

3. forlife likes sex with men, women and watermelons.

4. 65% of all new HIV cases are homosexual men. And homosexuals also lead the way with just about every other sexually transmitted disease. They are further racked with emotional problems. But according to forlife it’s all safe and perfectly fine.

5. The rectum and anus are not built for sex.They are built to dispose of bodily waste. However, in forlifes world it is perfectly safe and clean to stick your penis in someones rectum.

6. In forlifes world being a Christian is bad and traditional values are for the suckers.

7. When a male has sex with a young boy he is not a homosexual pedophile. He is simply a pedophile. And just because there is a high amount (about 33% of sex crimes against boys) of sex crimes against boys by homosexuals, that means nothing! Remember, statistics do not matter in the twisted world of the politically correct.

8. The meaning of words can be manipulated so that anything and everything is allowed. “Prefer” means “orientation” which also means “choice.”

9. Because some cultures encouraged men to have sex with men that means that American heterosexual men want badly to have sex with other men.

10. Simply because every available statistic demonstrates that homosexuality (the act of anal sex) and the homosexual lifestyle (promiscuity) are dangerous does not mean that they really are dangerous. It’s just some sort of heterosexual/Chirstian trick.

There are literally 10 or so more “forlifeisms” that I could place on this post. But I know everyone will get the idea.

If forlife thinks (as he has stated) that the politically correct are going to win this culture war with the above logic…he is sadly mistaken!

Consider this one your first defeat!

[ZEB]

[quote]Gleemonex wrote:

You have not made even one cogent point since you entered the thread. Why don’t you hop up on forlifes shoulders and he can piggy back you out of here before you make a bigger fool of yourself…although that would be difficult to do!

[Gleemonex]

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Oh darn! You forgot to keep up.[/quote]

Physician, heal thyself.

We were not talking about bisexuals. Nope, the conversaion was about homosexuals and heterosexuals only.

No, you’re talking about men who are sexually attracted to both men and women. Those are known as bisexuals. Therefore, you’re. talking. about. bisexuals. I’m simply joining your conversation extant.

[quote]In one case, between about 10% and 20%, according to prison rape statistics for the same United States you seem blindly focused on.

ZEB wrote:
Oh darn! Lightning has struck again.[/quote]

If I may offer a piece of advice: don’t try being pithy unless you’re good at it.

We already talked about prisons etc. We were talking about purely hetersexual men who have never been incarcerated.

Alright, I’ll indulge you. How about Spartans?

[quote]So you’re proposing that it’s impossible to perform sexually in the absence of preferrential romantic feelings? I’m sure thousands of sperm banks would be interested in any corroborating evidence you could provide.

ZEB wrote:
Wow, three times lucky!

You are just not keeping up here jack.

Let me catch you up then in your next post you can actually sound like you know what’s happening:[/quote]

Don’t quit your day job.

You see, he already charged that and I shot it down. We are not talking about fantasy, alone in a room with a magazine…no, no…we are far and away beyond that sort of thing.

Why? You need to snap out of your cognitive dissonance and decide what the hell you’re talking about. Since the whole ‘propaganda in Brokeback Mountain’ thing was discounted, I’ve been talking about same-sex marriage. What are you talking about?

We are talking about a heterosexual man getting all naked and then instead of a beautiful woman walking through the door a big hairy man comes in.

Just like in Sparta. Got it.

[quote]You know what happens next?

NO ERECTION. NO SEX.[/quote]

Actually, it was traditional for Spartan women to dress as young boys on their wedding night in order to arouse their male partners enough to reproduce.

[quote]Inspite of the gay fantasies that forlife imagines…

There you are up to date now…no more looking stupid for you.

(thank me later)[/quote]

Let’s not, and say we did.

[quote]Yes, it is odd that you’re attributing bisexuality to homosexuals. I’m not sure how true it is, though.

ZEB wrote:
What’s even more odd is that you cannot keep up with this very basic conversation…[/quote]

There’s nothing basic about it. Every time your arguments are picked apart, you change your tack in order to maintain your cognitive dissonance. Fortunately for myself, the only thing I love more than a challenge is chasing down faulty logic

Now, MY position on the other hand is very very basic. People of the same sex should be allowed to marry, because there are no reasonable contraindications.

Not talking and never talked about bisexuals. (shaking head)

Let’s try this again: you decided to talk about people who are sexually attracted to both men and women. Can you guess what those are called?

-Glee

[Gleemonex]

[quote]ZEB wrote:
You have not made even one cogent point since you entered the thread.[/quote]

A strong statement.

Sadly, strong statements are usually the easiest to refute because they lack the flexibility of more reasonable assertions.

Therefore, I only have to present one cogent point, and you’re proven diametrically wrong.

Alright, let’s see the definition of “cogent” and “point”, to be sure we don’t mistake ourselves.

co-gent
Pronunciation: 'kO-j&nt
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin cogent-, cogens, present participle of cogere to drive together, collect, from co- + agere to drive – more at AGENT
1 : having power to compel or constrain
2 a : appealing forcibly to the mind or reason : CONVINCING b : PERTINENT, RELEVANT
synonym see VALID

point
Pronunciation: 'point
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, partly from Old French, puncture, small spot, point in time or space, from Latin punctum, from neuter of punctus, pp. of pungere to prick; partly from Old French pointe sharp end, from (assumed) Vulgar Latin puncta, from Latin, feminine of punctus, past participle – more at PUNGENT
[…]
1 a (1) : an individual detail : ITEM (2) : a distinguishing detail b : the most important essential in a discussion or matter c : COGENCY
[…]

Alright, now to find one…

[quote]Gleemonex wrote:

1. Adipose tissue is a practical and efficient source of bodily nutrition during times of famine or aerobic exertion.[/quote]

A blast from the past. Q.E.D.

You should really know better than to challenge my pedantry by now. Better luck next time.

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Why don’t you hop up on forlifes shoulders and he can piggy back you out of here before you make a bigger fool of yourself…although that would be difficult to do![/quote]

Because I don’t feel like it. Now, if you’re done whining like a bitch, care to act like a man and say something relevant?

-Glee

[forlife]

I’m disappointed in you, Zeb. But not surprised.

Still waiting to hear back on that compelling evidence against every major medical and mental health organization, whose scientific conclusions on homosexuality directly contradict YOUR religious biases.

You know, the evidence you promised to provide?

Of course, you don’t want to go there because you know that your words are shown to be a lie by the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the World Health Organization, the American Society of Social Workers, the Surgeon General, etc.

You don’t care about the truth. You only care about pushing your religious views on others.

[forlife]

[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
Then they also must repent. The bounds of lust must be controlled.[/quote]

You know, the thing I like about you is that you are at least logically consistent. Unlike Zeb, you apply the same standard to all people, regardless of their sexual orientation. That is something I can respect, at least from a logical perspective.

Once the first act turned passion exhausts its power to self-indulge, the latter passions soon follow in the aformentioned order unless the individual involved comes to his “spiritual senses”.

I know this is a common belief among fundamentalists, but I must disagree on a personal level. Homosexuality is no more “addictive” than heterosexuality. Maybe I just haven’t been out long enough yet. It’s been 2.5 years now, but I’m not looking at porn more often, having sex more frequently, or seeking more extreme sexual encounters. I’m perfectly happy with the vanilla sex that I enjoyed when I first came out

[ZEB]

[quote]Gleemonex wrote:

Every time your arguments are picked apart, you change your tack in order to maintain your cognitive dissonance.[/quote]

I have been very steadfast and consistent in my discussion. If you think otherwise point it out!

Fortunately for myself, the only thing I love more than a challenge is chasing down faulty logic

Don’t be so hard on yourself. You may not be making any sense but you have supplied comic relief.

People of the same sex should be allowed to marry, because there are no reasonable contraindications.

Did men marry men in Sparta? No I guess not. But you think it’s going to happen in America?

You might not want to buy into that. In fact check out the current Ohio bill which is actually going to take the right of adoption away from gay couples. This inspite of Rosie O’Donnell’s best efforts!

Gay Marriage is but a dream for the politically correct, (and from what I have read on this thread) the sexually confused.

Let’s try this again: you decided to talk about people who are sexually attracted to both men and women. Can you guess what those are called?

Wow…you really did not follow along did you?

forlife wanted to talk about men who were not homosexual and could have sex with other men.

I then said they are called “bisexual.” He then stated flatly that he was not talking about “bisexuals.” That was the last time the word “bisexual” was mentioned.

You see he was attempting to make a point about “heterosexuals” being attracted and thus being able to have sex with other men.

I know…I know…forlifes twisted logic is not easy to follow.

Hopefully you are up to date now. And I will not ask you to thank me as I know you are not ever going to do that.

[ZEB]

[quote]forlife wrote:
I’m perfectly happy with the vanilla sex that I enjoyed when I first came out :)[/quote]

Good example of number 10:

10. Simply because every available statistic demonstrates that homosexuality (the act of anal sex) and the homosexual lifestyle (promiscuity) are dangerous does not mean that they really are dangerous. It’s just some sort of heterosexual/Chirstian trick.

And everyone is perfectly happy…la la la la la…

[skor]

[quote]ZEB wrote:
10. Simply because every available statistic demonstrates that homosexuality (the act of anal sex) and the homosexual lifestyle (promiscuity) are dangerous does not mean that they really are dangerous. It’s just some sort of heterosexual/Chirstian trick.

And everyone is perfectly happy…la la la la la…
[/quote]

ZEB, homosexuality is NOT the act of anal sex.

[ZEB]

[quote]skor wrote:

ZEB, homosexuality is NOT the act of anal sex.[/quote]

I accept that.

But, also it is one primary method that homosexual men have sex.

And that is quite dangerous according to ALL available data.

[forlife]

[quote]ZEB wrote:
You see he was attempting to make a point about “heterosexuals” being attracted and thus being able to have sex with other men.
[/quote]

Not quite. I was addressing YOUR claim that it is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for straight men to have sex with one another. I proved to you that is not the case, in cultures that are not blatantly homophobic.

Still waiting for that compelling objective evidence that you promised, Zeb!

You know…the evidence that every major mental and medical health organization is politically biased, and thus their scientific conclusions about homosexuality are wrong.

Or were you just speaking out of your ass again?

[forlife]

[quote]ZEB wrote:
But, also it is one primary method that homosexual men have sex.

And that is quite dangerous according to ALL available data.
[/quote]

But let’s continue to ignore the fact that MORE HETEROSEXUALS PRACTICE ANAL SEX THAN HOMOSEXUALS, shall we?

[Lorisco]

[quote]forlife wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Yes, I would be opposed to the acting out of homosexual thoughts because it is contrary to nature and the organs involved. I don’t believe that saying a rectum was not designed or evolved to have some guys zimmy in it is subjective. That is a biological fact.

Why does there have to be only one biological purpose? Your mouth wasn’t specifically designed for oral sex either, but that doesn’t stop a lot of straight guys from using it for that purpose

And of course, as I pointed out earlier, more straight men perform anal sex than gay men.[/quote]

Your kidding, right? Crap doesn’t literally come out of your mouth like it does the rectum. And AIDS is not spread by kissing. You need to do some research if you don’t know the difference between the mouth and rectum.

[forlife]

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Your kidding, right? Crap doesn’t literally come out of your mouth like it does the rectum. And AIDS is not spread by kissing. You need to do some research if you don’t know the difference between the mouth and rectum.
[/quote]

I was addressing your argument that body parts have one specific biological function, and therefore it is wrong to use the body part for a different function. Heterosexuals do that all the time, you know.

If you want to talk about the chance of spreading disease, that’s a different issue. Of course, as I just said, more heterosexuals practice anal sex than homosexuals.