Scott1010220…that was a hilarious post! I couldn’t agree more…call me all the heterosexual names you like! Denegrate me for enjoying sex with females! I can take it!! Straight bash me as much as possible!!
I fell asleep twice reading this thread but I got to the end anyway. I just felt like pointing out that in higher animals, like dolphins, Bonobo monkeys, chimpanzees, and humans, sex is also for bonding and social things not just for reproduction. That kind of takes something away from the “it’s unnatural” argument.
I think worrying overly much about who fucks who is a waste of time. I used to think it’d be cool if there were more gay guys so that there would be two or three chicks left for each of us straight guys but damn if some of those women aren’t lesbians. The two woman thing didn’t work out too well because they fight and it’s a hassle. So I’m back to just paying attention where my dick goes and leaving everyone else to steer theirs.
If God doesn’t like gays he’s got lightning and brimstone and shit to rain on them, he doesn’t need rednecks to take on the job. I know the one toothed Bubba’s feel better about wreaking God’s vengence but it’s really just their own hatred…you can smell it oozing out of them. Of course that could be the lack of hygiene too.
Ok everybody, I am here to piss you all off.
I have found that everything and anything I say will offend somebody or something at any time. Too many people are worried about what is out there, when it is actually not that important.
Too many people trying to be morality police. Trying to create a world of “New Speak” just like Orwell wrote about, but today we call it being politically correct.
People also need to know the difference between a little joke, and true bigotry. It use to be a bigot was a person who truly hated others, but now it is anybody who makes any unapproved statement. I recently heard people discussing another person who was obviously a bigot because he made fun of rap.
I know who my friends are because they are the ones who make fun of me the most.
One of the best things to happen to blacks (oops, African Americans, except the ones who aren?t,) was the tv show, Amos and Andy. Many people consider it a show that put black people in the worst light. But what actually happened is familiarity. People quit fearing black people because they saw them on tv.
A midget or dwarf is the wrong term, they want to be called Little People. Eskimo is also the wrong term, they want to be called Inuit. (Did I spell that right?)
And I want to be called Lord and Master. Unfortunately my wife won’t comply.
Homosexuals are welcome to be members of T-mag. Just remember I WILL make fun of you. And I expect you to make fun of me. Lets just not take it so seriously.
And I have said it before, I don’t understand why some men are gay, but I also don’t understand why many women are straight. If I were a woman, I would be a lesbian.
ZEB:
“The fact that you are able to misquote Holmes, believe it or not, is unimpressinve.”
I do not believe it is a misquote. In addition, don’t be so insecure when you encounter someone who knows more than you about a certain subject. Learn from them.
“The right of free speech is far greater than any nicety that may be applied by a well intended comment.”
Okay, but again, I don’t think we are discussing the government here. “Free Speech” only restrains the government from restricting your speech. You are not really discussing free speech; instead, you are in favor of open communication.
From an earlier post: “While you are pondering this, you might also inform me where in the United States constitution it states that people are not supposed to hurt each others feelings while exercising their right to free speech?”
This right is not as absolute as you pretend (or believe). For example, child pornograhpy is clearly a form of speech (pictures, movies, etc), yet child pornography is NOT a protected form of speech. This is despite the fact that the Constitution nowhere explicitly limits child pornography.
Second, aren’t you aware of the tort Inentional Infliction of Emotional Distress? That well litigated tort seems to directly contradict your argument regarding “hurt feelings”.
Third, in your understanding of free speech, how do you account for the Fighting Words doctrine, or the Obscenity doctrine?
I know you don’t want to get into a Con Law debate, but some of the things you are saying don’t sound correct to me, and I didn’t want to just let them go. Maybe I am wrong…
To be clear, I am not arguing people do not have the right to say these things. My intention with regard to you is to point out problems I see with your “free speech” argument.
P-Dog:
“In that same book you quoted, why dont you read about “men who lie with men” (fags) 1 Corinthians 6:9. See what the bible has to say about that…it’s all there. There are plenty there, the only one I could come up with of the top of my head…”
It is a bit tiresome pointing out all the things that go over your head. My point w/r/t the bible is that you should look at the larger meanings behind it- that is peace, love, acceptance and allowing God to judge. It is unfortunate you hunt around for the one or two (I will ignore your “plenty” comment) quotations, and ignore the larger meanings behind the Bible.
Though it may be possible to use Religion to justify a stance against homosexuality, it is clearly NOT possible to use the Bible to justify your hatred of anyone (including homosexuals), or to justify treating homosexuals in a bad manner.
While this is not the place to debate the Bible, I am interested in your thoughts about Biblical passages that were used to defend slavery? Also, do you follow all the instructions in tbe Bible (dietary restrictions, statements w/r/t women, etc) or do you just pick out the ones you think will justify your hatred of certain groups?
“So you if what you say is true, can I born with the preference to fuck sheep, and other farm animals?? or what if I prefer small children?? I mean come on, it’s not my fault, I was born that way right??”
This point has been addressed several times in this thread. The examples you provide are with people/animals that are not able to consent. Homosexuality is between two consenting adults.
“Other animals, that are concerned strictly with reproduction don’t or wouldn’t comprehend the subject.”
Other animals engage in homosexual behavoir.
“Reproduction, the continuation of life) requires a man and a woman. If everyone was gay, the entire civilization would end shortly after.”
Well, everyone is not gay. That is like saying if all people were sterile that would be the end of civilization. It may be true, but I am not sure what it proves.
Sex between two men will not produce a child. Nor would sex between two infertile heterosexuals. However, I doubt you think sex with between infertile heterosexuals is gross or unnatural nor do you hate infertile people.
So the reproduction argument is not the real reason behind your hatred.
In addition, why do you have sex with girls? Do you only do it to produce kids? I doubt it. You do it because it is an urge you feel. In fact, I bet you take steps to avoid producing kids…
“Now, where is your research to tell me how we (or actually you gays/gay supporters) will carry out reproduction which is necessary to continue on with life and human civilization without a woman??”
It’s funny how you only hate gay men. This is clear in your quote here (“without a woman” indicates you are only thinking of gay men) and your comments in another thread about how you would enjoy watching Cass with the guy’s GF.
More to the point, do you really think homosexuals want all of civilazation to be gay? Is that how you understand this argument? Really?
“You’re a disgrace to the real Patrick Bateman”
Let’s just say I am not surprised you saw the movie but haven’t read the book.
Knight,
Worn out? Come on, you stated that last time! What supplements are you taking?
Okay, I will then briefly summarize my points one last time.
-
I have no problem with someone being a homosexual as it is their right in the United States to do so.
-
I have no problem with anyone who wants to verbally attack such behavior as long as the verbal barrage does not allude to any physical violence or a threat to prevent the homosexual from practicing his belief.
-
There is no hard evidence that homosexuals are born that way. This does not mean that they are not born that way. However, a lack of evidence does not mean they are in fact born that way.
-
I believe that the word “homophobia” was created by someone, I suspect from the powerful gay lobby groups. It has no basis in fact as it has never been proven that there is any fear related to those who do not agree with the homosexual act or lifestyle. This does not mean that no one fears homosexual. It does mean that it has not been proven that the vast majority of those who criticise the lifestyle are afraid of them in any way!
I submit to you that “homorepugnancy” is a more accurate term simply based upon observation. I have never seen or heard of anyone who was afraid of a homosexual. I have, on the other hand, seen and heard many heterosxual males use terms such as “sickening” and “disgust” when describing the homosexual act.
-
To tolerate is not to accept. It is my belief that homosexuals want acceptance and merely claim they are looking for tolerance. Any good dictionary can point out the definition of each. They are quite different!
-
I strongly believe that free speech trumps any particular groups right to feel warm and fuzzy. Deep down I am sure you must agree with this one. The politically correct have an unrealistic view of America if they expect that certain words will not be used.
Knight:
[i]“I contend that “Homophobia” does not exist. And in fact has never existed. It has never been proven,”
It has never been proven. Therefore it does not exist.[/i]
Separate sentences. ZEB does not explicitly say that his first two sentences are based entirely or even in part upon the third. As I see it, the third is there merely to show that his contention has not already been proven wrong, that the possiblity it is true exists.
“I am suggesting, in the absence of contrary proof, that this could be a trait that is acquired during childhood.”
(Note my added emphasis)
Again he is simply noting that his theory has the possibility of being true.
“MAY vs IS - this is a VERY important difference, the latter is a logical fallacy, the former is not.”
No, this is weakness in argument. If he prefaced every statement with ‘may’, I couldn’t possibly counter, because he hasn’t committed to either view.
Hardly a weakness, more an awareness of the limitations on what we can truly know. The sun MAY rise tomorrow - no one KNOWS for SURE that it will until it does.
One must not mindlessly hold to a single point of view to be able to hold a strong argument - an unwillingness to commit to either point of view in many cases reflects an open, objective mind.
As I noted before, quantifying the MAY is also important. (The sun rising is probably an unbackable favourite :P)Simply put, the more effort expended in a failed attempt to prove something is true, then greater the chances it MAY be false.
This of course will depend on the context and the difficulty of the theory being tested. If I want to prove there is a tyrannosaurus rex living in my toilet and fail to find one after searching for several minutes, one could rather confidently conclude that it is highly likely my theory is false.
On the other hand, if millions of people spend a millenium or two trying to prove the existence of god and have thus far failed to do so, the very nature of such an endeavour means that this does little to suggest they are wrong and one could not therefore confidently conclude anything either way in regards to the probability of god’s existence.
Pat,
I am well aware that there are liable and slander laws that prevent one from stating or writing anything that is untrue. I have no idea where you are going with this? You are so far off topic that I was considering not responding. However, I did not want to be rude.
Do you feel that their should be laws on the books that prohibit homosexual behavior from being criticized?
We have some current laws on the books that deal with “hate crimes”. I feel that these are some of the most foolish laws ever passed. I mean, ever hear of any “love crimes” being committed? Hence, we know that government is constantly being manipulated by one group or another. Its called politics!
Personally, I think it would be a pity if any such law were passed restricting the right to criticize certain behaviors, one of which is homosexuality.
I have no idea why you want to inject the topic of law into the discussion. My use of the term “free speech” is certainly adequate for the purposes of this discussion.
In your constitutional law stupor, you may have mistaken my confidence for insecurity. I am confident I do not want to discuss constitutional law in a debate that is largely about the right of one to openly criticize homosexual behavior.
I have no idea where you want to go witht this? I do not think you have injected anything new into the original debate. It seems that you are attempting to exapand it into a field where you apparently feel more comfortable. However, your odd shift reminds me of a story.
It seems a woman had lost her car keys. She was searching for them frantically in the kitchen. Her husband came along and asked, “what are you doing”? The woman said, “I am looking for my keys”. The husband asked, “where did you lose them”? The woman stated, “somewhere in the garage”. The Husband then asked, “why are you looking for them in the kitchen”? The woman replied, “because the light is better here”.
The “light” may be better for you in the kitchen of constitutional law, but the “keys” to this debate are found in the “garage” of a fair and open discussion regarding homosexuality.
But what about when the keys you lose in garage end up in the kitchen? Personally I blame those goddamn fat gay midgets, those fuckers are always up to something. Good call ZEB.
Serious question - Why does speaking out against something constitute hate? My other post was in just, but that does not mean that I hate homosexuals. I do not hate homosexuals. I think that they are wrong (on many diffent levels). If I should accept homosexuality as a valid lifestyle, then why can’t I be accepted for my oppinion that the homosexual lifesyle is wrong?
ZEB:
I did not want to get into Con Law either, but you were so off base in some of your comments that I felt the need to correct you.
“I am confident I do not want to discuss constitutional law in a debate that is largely about the right of one to openly criticize homosexual behavior.”
Good. Then stop talking about free speech. That is a constitutional right that restricts the government. For the last time, you don’t mean free speech; rather, you are in favor of open communication between individuals.
“I am well aware that there are liable and slander laws”
My post says nothing about slander/libel. Your lack of familiarity with the issues I mentioned indicates I misjudged your legal background (not meant to be an insult).
“You are so far off topic that I was considering not responding.”
I was responding directly to your arguments regarding free speech and the constitution. You explicitly mentioned the Constitution.
You will notice that I discussed the law with you only, not other posters. My responses to other posters dealt directly with homosexuality. That is because you were the only poster to hammer away at free speech and mention the constitution.
None of this is meant to be rude. You brought up a topic that you do not have sufficient background to debate. Now, you are pretending it was never an issue. Sometimes it is best to admit you are wrong and move on, but I realize this is difficult in life (and especially in internet arguments).
Let’s just leave it at that. The more interesting (and unsettled) debate concerns homosexuality.
Take care,
PB
Over and over again I’ve tried to state that this thread has been way overblown - go and read the original post, and my “corrections to it”
It was never about hate, though plenty of people have brought their hate to the table and flopped it out for everyone to see.
It was about word choice - and no, not some slippery slope Orwelian nightmare, rather the basic courtesy not to constantly use the words “fag, gay, queer, homo, and gay” in negative ways. In broad, exclusionary ways. That point was lost by, oh, about the 4th reply.
Apparently I am a nazi thought police gay militant blow job queen for saying so, according to all the smart folks lashing out in this thread.
.
Alot of different types of animals exhibit homosexual/bisexual behaivior… Including orgies lol Most of these are primates, and it “seems” as the brain becomes more complex with the species the more intricate & wild their mating becomes
http://www.libchrist.com/other/homosexual/natural.html
the link above is a religious site, which openly talks about homosexuality in humans & also has info on homosexuality in animals
I liked this site alot, mostly because it expresses how I felt about some things and was having a hard time articulating.
I think that this shouldnt turn into a hateful flaming thread, but bring understanding on both sides.
Lauren
Heterosexual(not gay) = Straight/Inline
Therefore,
Homosexual(gay) = Crooked/Offcoarse or wrong
Hence, if something is weird, not right, or taking a different and strange direction, it is now called “Gay”. I would like to name this process “English Evolution”.
Nobody is “Gay Bashing” when they say “This is gay” or “That is gay”. They are just acknowleging an evolution in their language.
That’s just what I think, though, and I could be wrong…
Attention To All,
When you cannot be beaten on the issues, bring a lawyer in to debate terminology! Pat Bateman is on the case.
I wrote numerous paragraphs on the topic of homosexuals. Pat writes back and reminds me of one sentence that she feels is technically wrong. I stated something on the order of free speech giving us the right to comment on various topics of the day.
Pat Bateman wants to make sure that we all know that technically “free speech only restrains the government from restricting our free speech”. As if it is difficult to imagine a powerful Gay lobby group approaching a particular symathetic senator to help draft a bill that may harm “free speech” regarding the mention of gays.
Thats not enough, she wants an apology for my horrible characterization of free speech. I am smiling from ear to ear at this point!
When I was debating Rumbach and Knight, it was an enjoyable trade. They had valid points and we exchanged ideas based upon our beliefs. Bring a lawyer into the conversation (or law student), and we are dragged into an argument about the precise meaning of certain phrases. And the exact definition of legal terms, which have other common usages.
Here is a definition for you Pat: What is the definition of " a shame"? A bus with 30 seats going over a cliff with only 29 lawyers aboard!
While, I never advocate death, or even torture, to any profesional group, including lawyers, Shakespeare was not so inclined:
“The first thing we should do is kill all the lawyers”.
i just saw rumbach on taxi cab confessions last night. rotflmfao
btw i heard in another thread rumbach is a mdogophobe.
ZEB:
Do you always behave so irrationally when you are shown to be incorrect? It seems my post were quite a blow to your ego. I apologize, because that was certainly not my intent.
It is unfortunate that we got off on this tangent. It could have been avoided if you admitted your mistake at the beginning. However, I realize that when arguing on the internet one feels like you most contest every point and never admit a mistake 
I do enjoy the debate on this thread re: homosexuality (and not only because I am on the winning side).
Take care,
PB
i just read that once the “gay gene” has been found in the human genome it will be deleted since it is an evolutionary end.lol
Pat,
Why is it that lawyers (and mothers) always want you to apologize? Are you both Pat? For the third, or is it fourth, time: My definition of free speech was fine for the purposes that it was used for. I made that clear.
I am not going to ask you for an apology for making as ass of yourself on this message board. Do you know why? Because you have free speech and are allowed to do things like that!
Now go chase an ambulance like a good little lawyer! You are starting to bore me. (Gone beyond smiling. Now I am out right chuckling).