[quote]Headhunter wrote:
…
It was only when Christianity liberated humanity from prejudice
…
[/quote]
I have heard about christians, an ancient cult that has long been extinct where I live. It is said they live in small numbers in our midst but are afraid to speak up about their beliefs in fear of ridicule. They say knowledge of the world killed the most of them back in the day.
Maybe other christians around the world were luckier and escaped that horrible fate.
Lucky are the ones with christians still at work in their proximity liberating people from prejudice.
We’re talking about BIG names, names which would make the mistress immortal. Alas, if there ever was one.
I could even go one step further: Regarding advances in science and artistry, mankind can thank gays more then women, for varius reasons of course (though I don’t expect an outcry from female partisans here).
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
forlife wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Gay artists? You must be joking.
Lol…it’s interesting how many famous authors, musicians, inventors, etc. are gay. Maybe creative genius is the reason nature decided to keep the gays around in the gene pool.
What if one of those geniuses invented a device that would make them not be gay? Would the geniuses lose their abilities because they’re no longer getting reamed by the mailman?
A really good invention would be one that sterilizes gay men once they had sex with another man. Have it implanted at birth and the first time the guy gets it up the poop chute — SNIP!!! How cool would that be?
Better question:
If you would find yourself amidst an old warrior culture like feudal japan or the ancient celts, would you trade your heterosexuality for a far more convenient homo- respectively bisexuality?
Is that why those societies disappeared or were conquered? Becaus they became all homos? It seems logical.
[/quote]
Which society has survived, apart from the chinese (which is only slightly true), pray tell?
[quote]bigstu wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
What’s trollish about it? Don’t think it can happen? There actually is a Dutch Pedophile Party.
Bull. Proof.
I rarely agree with what Headhunter says, but I think he’s correct that there is a pedophile party (there’s one in the US called NAMBLA). However, I think his assumption that there presence is enough to change thinking is questionable.
Bill Clinton was a rapist. Who knows what else goes on?
I don’t seem to remember that particular rape case.
I’d bet that 50 years from now, bestiality and pedophaelia will be similar to how homosexual perverts are ‘cool’ now.
Pedophilia will never be mainstream. Bestiality will also never be accepted. Why? Because the idea of “consent” will always be there. Children can’t give informed consent, and animals can’t give consent. But a grown woman can give consent to be eaten out by another woman.
Good call, Makavali.
Headhunter, what do you mean by homosexual perverts being considered “cool”? Where do you get this stuff?[/quote]
A couple of points:
I thought Clinton settled the rape allegations with money.
Obama is not really black, he has a lot of different ancestry. So, he could become the first not completely white president. Also, he’s not really Christian.
He’s pretty well religiously open from what I�??ve read about him. He accepted a golden idle from some country in Asia and I�??ve heard him say there are many different paths to heaven in interviews. But I think you could consider him the first not wholly Christian candidate too.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Why don’t you just admit that you don’t know for sure that the 18 names you threw out there are gay?
[/quote]
As noted, people like Gertrude Stein and Oscar Wilde were unabashedly, openly, publicly gay. There is zero question about it. Others were closeted, but the best historical evidence indicates they were probably gay or bisexual.
Why is it so hard for you to admit that gays have made a contribution to society?
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
forlife wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
What if one of those geniuses invented a device that would make them not be gay?
Given that they’re geniuses, why would they want to do that?
To avoid be discriminated against? A lot of genius work never gets out because the creator (woman, gay, black, or whatnot) remains unknown. It was only when Christianity liberated humanity from prejudice that such individuals could freely express themselves.
[/quote]
Which is hilarious considering that that special kind of prejudice was re-introduced by the Christians.
[quote]forlife wrote:
If by “made shit up” you mean “listed people that were indisputably gay, or that historians agree were probably gay” then yes I “made shit up”.
[/quote]
If they didn’t come out and say they were gay, then yes - you are making shit up.
Like I said - it’s part of your campaign. That’s about the extent of your posting here at T-Nation: Gay campaigning.
If respected historians and academic references like the Encyclopedia Brittanica conclude someone was gay, I think they probably were. You’re welcome to use whatever standard makes sense to you.
To the point:
Do you think gays have contributed significantly to society or not?
[quote]forlife wrote:
If respected historians and academic references like the Encyclopedia Brittanica conclude someone was gay, I think they probably were. You’re welcome to use whatever standard makes sense to you.
To the point:
Do you think gays have contributed significantly to society or not?[/quote]
Are they capable of horrendous crimes, or not?
What the fuck difference does it make? I’ll tell you.
When you see Da vinci’s name - you see a gay guy. When most rational people see it, they see a genius. His sexual orientation has dick to do with it. So he liked it in the butt. Big fucking deal. We really need a campaign to let everyone know that? How does that help, or hurt your cause? He never admitted it, but the Encyclopedia Brittanica can say he was and that makes it fact? You are a sad little man.
Back on topic - there will never be an openly gay person elected president in my lifetime. As badly as you want it - no one really cares. And if someone is stupid enough to run with their sexual preference as part of their shtick - it just won’t happen.
Someone asked if homosexuality was nature’s way of eliminating inferior genetics. I responded by pointing out that gays have contributed to society, so it’s not likely we have “inferior genetics”, at least not any more or less than heteros.
Don’t paint it as promoting some gay agenda, or trying to win your approval. I don’t care what you think about gays, my intent was to address the “inferior genetics” argument.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Someone asked if homosexuality was nature’s way of eliminating inferior genetics. I responded by pointing out that gays have contributed to society, so it’s not likely we have “inferior genetics”, at least not any more or less than heteros.
Don’t paint it as promoting some gay agenda, or trying to win your approval. I don’t care what you think about gays, my intent was to address the “inferior genetics” argument.[/quote]
Well then, societal contributions have nothing to do with inferior, or superior. It’s simple genetics. Gays are not designed to procreate. It is a genetic kill switch. it has nothing to do with your worth. It is what it is.
Well then, societal contributions have nothing to do with inferior, or superior. It’s simple genetics. Gays are not designed to procreate. It is a genetic kill switch. it has nothing to do with your worth. It is what it is. [/quote]
C’mon, RJ. Mother Nature expressly kept Oscar Wilde around because the brutal, impersonal forces of natural selection needed him to write The Importance of Being Earnest.