[quote]Mick28 wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:
Yes, but NOT AT THE SAME TIME. Maybe we should all be for more parades.
Yea, I get it. If we have enough parades…I’m talking around the clock, then they’d only have enough time to sleep and eat and they’d never ever hurt anyone of another race or religion.
WOW…what color is the sky in your little world? [/quote]
It appears to be blue. With patches of white. Yours?
[quote]I imagine that if a child asked me to explain what you’re describing, I would just shrug and say “I don’t know, I guess that’s just how they do things.” Same as I’d say about Amish people or extreme bodybuilders or anything else that was noticeably different from the norm.
Oh I see, then why don’t we have porno parades!
Then when little Jimmy asks Mommy what those two people are doing Mommy can just shrug and say “oh their just playing a little game of hide the salami.”
Right?[/quote]
If I encountered a porno parade I’d likely launch into a lecture on the objectification of women that would be so tedious to listen to, so absolutely miserably boring, that little Jimmy would probably be put off porn for the rest of his life. Meanwhile, though, I don’t think I’d be able to resist peeking at the parade, and I’d almost certainly want to go home afterward and see what little Jimmy’s dad was up to. Wouldn’t you want to look…just a little?
[quote]SO, let’s just have it all hang out, every sort of perversion, violence, and even hate groups as I suggested earlier…etc.
You know that’s one of the things that I could never understand about liberals like yourself (yes you’re a liberal stop running from it).[/quote]
You make a mistake when you pigeonhole me. My father is the son of poor, drunken immigrants, a high school dropout who wound up working his way through college nights while he worked days and became an insurance executive, blah blah blah, the American Story. My husband was another poor kid.
He started working for cash at a tennis center at age 12 and was able to learn to play tennis well enough to get to college on an athletic scholarship. He built a business manufacturing widgets that are not particularly enviro-friendly, but people want those widgets nonetheless. Blah blah blah, the American Story. I never, ever forget that capitalism butters my bread. So if I am anything, I am conservatism’s bitch.
In Washington, D.C. they have a museum full of pictures of tortured Jews. They show children in order to teach them about the consequences of hate. I haven’t been there, but I’ve heard it’s very moving. I’ve heard the same about Auschwitz and Dachau, which are open to visitors, and which also show pictures of tortured Jews. I haven’t gone, though I have considered it, because I think it would upset me too badly. Also, to be perfectly honest, because my husband didn’t want to listen to me be upset about it. (I think he’d rather hang out with me after I’ve attended the porno parade.)
Though I haven’t been to the Holocaust Museum or the concentration camps, if that kind of hate were to present itself in the streets of my town, I would face it, just like I go to work and face children who’ve been abused by the people they trusted. I hope that Junior will feel as I do; that hate like that is repugnant and dangerous and beneath contempt. I expect he will, because that’s what I’ll tell him.
[quote]LOL
No harm can be done when junior sees two men swallowing each others tongues…while groping their crotches.
Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee…
It’s funny in a way. Liberals want to imprison people for “hate speech” because it’s mean, nasty and vile. And yet a group of homosexuals kissing and groping each other…why that’s no problem at all. [/quote]
I’m not sure who you think you’re skewering here, but I don’t want to imprison anyone for speech of any kind. I’m sad when I see or hear mean or vile things, but I’m not so delicate that I think I need to be protected from them. But then for me, the same holds true of seeing people kiss.
I’m not so delicate that I need to be protected from it, and nor is my sexuality so precarious that I have anything to fear from it. As I said in an earlier post, I am afraid of bullies who are larger than me, but I’m not afraid of ideas. Perhaps I’m made of sterner stuff than you. Also, as the conservative that I am, I’m always aware that a government big enough to give me the things I want is big enough to take them away.
[quote]“It’s just an alternative lifestyle”
WAhahahaahhaha…
Thanks for the laugh Babe.[/quote]
Babe? Are you trying to diminish me, Mick? By calling me a girl?
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
. And yet a group of homosexuals kissing and groping each other…why that’s no problem at all.
No, actually, that isn’t a problem.
It doesn’t intrude on anyones rights or put anyone at a risk of danger. Its no more a problem then a man and a woman kissing and groping each other at Spring Break.
Both wrong in public. And I’ve never said otherwise.
[/quote]
But you’re not getting your lil neocon panties in a bunch over the latter, only the idea of the former. You are a homophobe and probably a closet homosexual yourself.
What, exactly, is harmful about two men kissing in public?
Some boys like boys. The fuck is so hard to explain about that?
And I’ve seen pigheaded neocon homophobes like yourself actually learn to accept when their child is gay.
[quote]
Keep in mind that will include moving out of mommy and daddy’s basement and finding a woman that will have you. Two things to look forward to you little nitwit.
lol[/quote]
Ouch that hurts so bad. No, really, I’m gonna go cut myself now.
Still talking about HIV? Both the highest proportion of the population and least amount of time to reach that level belong to homosexuals (True, we haven’t tested every possible way to divide a population, but this one is pretty big and is apparently politically relevant).
If anything, heterosexual women being the “fastest risers” this late in the game speaks to their (behavioral or otherwise) immunity to the disease.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
. And yet a group of homosexuals kissing and groping each other…why that’s no problem at all.
No, actually, that isn’t a problem.
It doesn’t intrude on anyones rights or put anyone at a risk of danger. Its no more a problem then a man and a woman kissing and groping each other at Spring Break.
Both wrong in public. And I’ve never said otherwise.
But you’re not getting your lil neocon panties in a bunch over the latter, only the idea of the former. You are a homophobe and probably a closet homosexual yourself. What, exactly, is harmful about two men kissing in public?
You are one very stupid little bastard…seriously.
First of all, this thread is about homosexuals, not heterosexuals. Do you understand why I have not mentioned heterosexuals?
[/quote]
When you said “both wrong in public” you were referencing both homosexuals AND heterosexuals. Hoss.
Homophobia is sort of a form of xenophobia. Since two men kissing is foreign to them, they fear it. You fear homosexuals, and your fear and resentment likely stem from fear that you yourself may indeed have homosexual tendencies.
Meanwhile heterosexuals flaunt themselves in public all the time. Ever seen a man and woman hold hands while they walk down the street?
No, you are just paranoid, so them acting as normal people (displaying affection towards one another) seems “obnoxious and in your face”. Fact is, they are being normal; when two people are intimate, its normal for them to display affection in public.
You would be a liar if you said that you didnt hold hands with, hug, or kiss your wife in public. So dont even try.
So what would you do, then? You’d look away and keep walking or driving. Why couldn’t you do the same about two men kissing, hmm?
No no, quite simple. You have an irrational fear and distain for homosexuals. You are a homophobe.
Its easy when you arent a bigot
If its genetic or not makes no difference.
So you’re afraid that your child might start getting the wrong ideas? That makes sense: You are a bigot and you want to raise bigot children because you think it will make them less likely to be gay.
Hate to break it to you, but your kid is going to be attracted to whoever they are attracted to. They may be straight, gay, bi, or asexual. Trying to instill homophobia in them isnt going to change it.
So? A few hundred years ago I’m sure 85% of all Americans thought black people were inferior. Did that make them right? If 85% of Nazi Germany thought Jews should be exterminated, did that make them right?
“I am a bigot. But thats ok because there are a LOT of bigots like me, and we cant all be wrong!!”
Idiot.
hahahaha. “see what the real world feels like”. Good one. Are there “real” gay people in your world? Are they subhuman? hahahah.
Awwww, what did your lil study say? That only weeny liberals raise fags and dykes, so as long as you beat the fag out of them when they’re little you wont have to worry about them being queers?
lol
You mean someone who will teach me to hate anyone who isnt like me and go along with popular opinion? No thanks, I’d rather use my brain.
You’re real tough to talk behind a computer. I’m more of a man then you’ll ever be. You are a racist, a homophobe, and a coward.
hahahahahahahahah
“Gasp. Writing this check to the government suddenly made me hate gay people! Oh no, my child might be gay, I’d better start teaching them bigotry now! Shit, wife is pregnant again, suddenly I’m blind to the racial problems in America! Oh how my mind has changed so vastly.”
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:
And liberals can’t come from poor beginnings? Think again.
I know a good many people who work right no Wall Street who are as liberal as they come. [/quote]
Oh. Well, then, those people probably aren’t as conservative as me.
[quote] …if that kind of hate were to present itself in the streets of my town, I would face it, just like I go to work and face children who’ve been abused by the people they trusted. I hope that Junior will feel as I do; that hate like that is repugnant and dangerous and beneath contempt. I expect he will, because that’s what I’ll tell him.
That’s not at all the point is it?
Would you like to address the issue in your next post?[/quote]
Could you remind me what the issue was, please? I think I may have lost track. The point I was making was that there is horror in the world, and not looking at it doesn’t make it go away. In the case of the Nazis, awareness builds resolve.
[quote] But then for me, the same holds true of seeing people kiss.
Good for you, then have them kiss, grope and do other assorted sex in your neighborhood. I’d like to keep my parades innocent. I think parades are mostly for kids anyway, why do fags have to ruin it?
Oh that’s right…it’s what they do.[/quote]
Okay, no, I don’t want to see people “grope and do other assorted sex” in my neighborhood. But I feel that way about straights, too. Holding hands, standing close, arms around each other, a kiss at the airport…those things don’t bother me.
But the behavior you describe would gross me out no matter who was engaged in it, unless maybe they were attractive and straight and the whole thing was really prettily done. In which case, I might be kind of turned on. I’ve never come across that, though, so I can’t be sure. I have come across drunk people making out and groping non-prettily, and that I could have done without.
[quote]Stop with the “fear” bullshit lady. It’s not about fear, it’s about keeping tradition alive and well.
Why would anyone fear a couple of fags making out? But, on the other hand there’s plenty of reason to feel sick when you see it.
Simple.[/quote]
Again, unless it’s rather beautifully done, I’d just as soon not see anyone macking. So we agree, it’s just that I don’t limit my focus to gays, and so feel that looking away is the easiest handling of it. Since we’re not going to be able to legislate good taste across the board.
[quote]So…the idea of placing human beings in an oven and roasting them like a good old fashion Ham does not make you even a bit squeamish?
Oh that’s right you want Nazis to parade down the street…I forgot.
[/quote]
No, you’re right. The idea of that makes me squeamish as hell. It terrifies me. I guess what I’m trying to say, though, is that I already KNOW that there are sick, horrible people in the world who want to see others burn to death.
Not ever reading about a Neo-Nazi rally doesn’t make me any less aware that those horrors happened and could happen again if we’re not vigilant. Hearing that Neo-Nazis are rallying makes me more aware, more vigilant, in fact, that there are still sick monsters out there. Forewarned is forearmed, no?
[quote]Not at all, I just think you’re cute when you’re mad and I wanted to get you mad. Oops…I did it again…
And the point was that the disease rates for gay men are correlated with the partner rates of GAY men. Saying that lesbians have the same partner rate as HETEROSEXUAL men (lower than gay men) and have less disease rate only goes WITH my point, fool.[/quote]
[sarcasm]So, fewer gay men with fewer partners will lead to lower disease rates? Wow. I must be completely turned around on the subject. Maybe I truly am a fool…[/sarcasm]
[quote]You are claiming that there is no correlation between the number of sexual partners a certain group of people have and the risk of STDs within that group? Are you serious?
Let me spell it out for you: If you have sex with 1000 people, you have a greater risk of getting an STD than if you have sex with 10. Its really not that complicated. So, if gay men have an average of 100 partners in their lifetime, and straight men have an average of 20 in their lifetime, who will be at a greater risk to get (and spread) STDs? Gay men. Why? Because they have sex with more partners.
Why do I need to keep spelling this out for you?
Please cite this data that proves that having more sexual partners does not correlate to a greater risk of contracting an STD. I simply dont see how its possible.[/quote]
That’s not what I wrote. What I wrote left room for reality. Which is, even if you match a gay man and a straight man up by number of partners the straight man is less likely to contract a disease. Indicating that straight guys scoring like gay guys doesn’t necessarily lead to the same prevalence of disease.
To help you out, 10 straight partners isn’t as risky as 10 gay partners.
Wrt disease, I don’t care why straight men are keeping their numbers low any more than wrt auto accidents I care why motorists keep their speed low. In my experience, the analogy is apt because it is the sincere desire of the majority of motorists to drive in excess of the speed limit.
Wow. Of all the numbers that define my life it is undoubtedly one of the smaller ones. How sad that without even knowing it or any of the others, you would choose to use it to define people.
At this point, you’ve clearly dodged much of the issue in favor of ad hominem attacks (pointless ones at that). Maybe you should refrain from letting your prejudices and emotions get involved?
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Homophobia is sort of a form of xenophobia. Since two men kissing is foreign to them, they fear it. You fear homosexuals, and your fear and resentment likely stem from fear that you yourself may indeed have homosexual tendencies.[/quote]
Are you sure it’s not arachnophobia? Two people together…four eyes…eight appendages…
I think his fear and resentment of homosexuals may stem from the fact that he may truly, deep down, be a tarantula.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:
Could you remind me what the issue was, please? I think I may have lost track. The point I was making was that there is horror in the world, and not looking at it doesn’t make it go away. In the case of the Nazis, awareness builds resolve.
Yes, I like awareness, it’s a good thing. I was talking about forcing children to watch two perverts doing what they do.
See the difference? [/quote]
I do see, yes. Thank you. I did get off track it seems. How on earth did I get started on the Nazis, I wonder? Oh…was it when you brought up the Nazis and their photographs of tortured Jews? I think it was. Oh well, at any rate, we’re both on the same page now, which appears to be the question of whether or not to force children to watch two perverts doing what they do. Okay.
I’d say…no. We shouldn’t force children to watch two perverts doing what they do.
[quote] Okay, no, I don’t want to see people “grope and do other assorted sex” in my neighborhood.
…the behavior you describe would gross me out no matter who was engaged in it…
We agree.[/quote]
Oh good! So really, we both just prefer not to see people behaving tastelessly, right?
[quote]Again, unless it’s rather beautifully done, I’d just as soon not see anyone macking. So we agree, it’s just that I don’t limit my focus to gays, and so feel that looking away is the easiest handling of it. Since we’re not going to be able to legislate good taste across the board.
They told us (parents) to turn the channel when something objectionable came on when our young children were in the room.
When every other channel offered more of the same they told us to turn it off…
When radio became “Shock jocked” they told us to just turn the dial…
When billboards became risque they told us to look the other way…
Now again, the liberal banter is the same. Just look away.
Nope…I think this time we take a stand.
I don’t want gay parades in my City and I’ll fight to keep them out.
Let gays do what they do in private and no one will have to look away.[/quote]
Here again I read you to be saying that it’s not the gays, necessarily, but the overtly sexual behavior. That’s different. Why not focus yourself on overt sexuality, then?
[quote]No, you’re right. The idea of that makes me squeamish as hell. It terrifies me. I guess what I’m trying to say, though, is that I already KNOW that there are sick, horrible people in the world who want to see others burn to death.
And do you think it should by your decision when to tell your child about this type of sickness? Or should you depend on the timing of a City parade?[/quote]
Yes, it should be up to me when to tell them, but the world is a hard place sometimes.
[quote]Oh, Mick. Are you trying to break my spirit?
Not at all, I actually admire your spirit. It’s your liberal views that I don’t like so much.
[/quote]
Thanks. But you mean my conservative, small-government views, right?
And the point was that the disease rates for gay men are correlated with the partner rates of GAY men. Saying that lesbians have the same partner rate as HETEROSEXUAL men (lower than gay men) and have less disease rate only goes WITH my point, fool.
[sarcasm]So, fewer gay men with fewer partners will lead to lower disease rates? Wow. I must be completely turned around on the subject. Maybe I truly am a fool…[/sarcasm]
You are claiming that there is no correlation between the number of sexual partners a certain group of people have and the risk of STDs within that group? Are you serious?
Let me spell it out for you: If you have sex with 1000 people, you have a greater risk of getting an STD than if you have sex with 10. Its really not that complicated. So, if gay men have an average of 100 partners in their lifetime, and straight men have an average of 20 in their lifetime, who will be at a greater risk to get (and spread) STDs? Gay men. Why? Because they have sex with more partners.
Why do I need to keep spelling this out for you?
Please cite this data that proves that having more sexual partners does not correlate to a greater risk of contracting an STD. I simply dont see how its possible.
That’s not what I wrote. What I wrote left room for reality. Which is, even if you match a gay man and a straight man up by number of partners the straight man is less likely to contract a disease. Indicating that straight guys scoring like gay guys doesn’t necessarily lead to the same prevalence of disease.
To help you out, 10 straight partners isn’t as risky as 10 gay partners.
[/quote]
True.
But why isnt it as risky?
Because the 10 gay partners probably had more partners themselves. Having sex with someone who has had sex with 10000 people is more risky than having sex with someone who has had sex with 3.
At this point we’re actually agreeing.
So we can agree that women (and how often they decline sex) are to thank for straight men being at lower risk of STDs. (just think about that next time you get turned down).
Strawman. I never “defined” anyone by the number of sexual partners they’ve had. The subject is risk of STDs, of course the number of sexual partners will come up.
If we were talking about economics, and we brought up the amount of money people make a year, would you accuse me of “defining” people based on that number?
[quote]
At this point, you’ve clearly dodged much of the issue in favor of ad hominem attacks (pointless ones at that). Maybe you should refrain from letting your prejudices and emotions get involved?[/quote]
Ok, fine. If my “prejudices and emotions” have blinded me to your point, please reiterate.
Are you suggesting that there is another reason, other than gay men having more partners, that gay men are at a higher risk for disease? If so, what is that reason?
Homophobia is sort of a form of xenophobia. Since two men kissing is foreign to them, they fear it. You fear homosexuals, and your fear and resentment likely stem from fear that you yourself may indeed have homosexual tendencies.
Yea, at least that’s the hope of the crowd you hang out with. In reality two men kissing make me sick. Now let me tell you what that is all about.
[/quote]
And Im sure seeing a black man kiss a white woman makes some people sick. Why should they care?
hahahahahhaahahha. Nature. Oh man, I love that one. “Homosexuality is unnatural!” Erm… nevermind that homosexuality has been documented in just about ever species on earth. Those animals are unnatural! Nevermind that other human societies have accepted homosexuality! They were being unnatural! Man plus woman = baby! Thats natural, thats the only way it can be, because humans are only intimate for procreation!"
Idiocy.
There isn’t anything to be “understood” past the fact that its not a matter of “nature”, its a matter of prejudice and bigotry. I suppose since black people have black babies and white people have white babies, its “unnatural” for a black person and white person to be intimate? Again, just bigotry.
Awww, are you trying to say I’ve sucked dick? Thats cute… you try to say you arent a bigot then accuse me of homosexual acts in an attempt to insult me. Good job dork.
And your point? So would you say that squirrels aren’t allowed to die anymore, because it makes you uncomfortable? Or that they have to die somewhere that you cant see, since they need to keep your fragile sensibilites intact?
I’m almost to the point of LOL’ing everytime I read the word “professor” from you.
You’re talking about homosexuals doing things that heterosexuals could do in public without any problems. That is bigotry.
Unless you’re also suggesting that men and women not kiss in public, your ideas are bigoted.
HAHAHAH. I was waiting for this one.
I like to call this the “If a man can love a man, why cant I rape my sister with a brick?!?!” argument. You cant come up with any reasonable arguments against homosexuality, so you have to bring in something else: pedophilia, rape, incest, or beastiality are usually the favorite picks for this one. Nevermind issues like consent; if one thing you think is disgusting is bad (like rape) then anything else you think is disgusting must be just as bad (gays). Laughable, retarded, classic neocon mislogic.
Actually, in many countries, its normal for two men who are friends to hold hands while walking. But I suppose you should go there and tell them that they are being “unnatural”. lol.
There is nothing unnatural about two people holding hands. Getting all bent out of shape over it just shows how badly you fear homosexuality.
Ok, so you have the choice not to look. So why not just turn away and not get all bent out of shape over it?
No. Then again, I wouldnt say “love” and “respect” are the exact same word, but its possible to “love and respect” someone. The same way you have “fear and distain” for homosexuals.
Your semantics games are weak, grandpa. There are elements of fear and elements of disgust in your view of and reaction to homosexuals/homosexuality.
Yep, two different meanings, and both apply. So I used both. Shocking, huh?
Um, no thanks.
Once again, you admit to fear of your own homosexual tendencies. Let me explain:
You’re worried that your kids seeing gay people “being gay” will influence them towards being gay themselves. Obviously, this means you believe that a persons sexuality CAN BE influenced in such a way as to get a straight person to “be gay”.
In going with this logic, it means that there is a chance that, given enough influence, YOU could also “try gay” (since sexuality, in your book, isnt predetermined but can be changed through influence). In other words, you believe, based on your own logic, that you could “choose” to be gay if you wanted to.
Could you? Not will you or should you, but COULD you choose to be gay IF you wanted to?
Could you have?
Plenty of homosexuals have good and happy (OH EM GEE ARE YOU SAYING GOOD AND HAPPY ARE THE SAME WORDS LOOK THEM UP CAUSE THEY HAVE DIFFERENT MEANINGS!!!111!ONE!!WON!!) lives. And more would have better and happier lives if it werent for bigots like you.
I can assure you, having children will not change my views of homosexuals or homosexuality. At all. I do not fear the chance of having a gay or lesbian child. Its a shame that you do. I pity your children.
No my analogy is just fine: You try to justify your bigotry by saying that the majority of people in America agree with you. I’m pointing out that there have been times when the majority of people in America (and Germany) have agreed on something we now know to be wrong.
Yes, its possible for 85% of Americans to be wrong.
Homosexuals choose to have sex with other consenting homosexuals. The same way heterosexuals choose to have sex with other consenting heterosexuals. We’re not talking about rapists or exibitionists or pedophiles or zoophiles here, we’re talking about homosexuals. Please, try to stay on track.
Again, when did you choose to be straight? Could you choose to be gay if you wanted to? And if sexuality isnt a choice for you, why do you assume it is a choice for others?
hahahahahaah. No such thing as a homophobe. Riiiiiiiight. Man, you need to get in touch with reality.
Hello, mick? Yes, this is planet earth. We’d sure like you to visit sometime.
Yeah, you can only guess. Keep guessing, dear.
Poor thing. Different people who make you feel all icky about yourself are exercising their rights. Boo hoo. Little neocon bitch. At least you can pat yourself on the back that a lot of other bigots feel the same way.
No, but if they try to say that THEY can do certain things (like hold hands or kiss in public) since they are straight, but gays cannot, well, then… they’d be bigots.
hahahaha. Again this “liberal school” idiocy. You just keep saying it, maybe one day it’ll magically become true.
LOL. Liberal hate lines. Here you are claiming that gays shouldnt be able to kiss in public (while its ok for straight people to do so). And I’m the one “spewing liberal hate”. You’re fucking funny.
As a human being, you deserve the very basic level of respect from me. Beyond that, I do not wish you well at all.
Hey Mick, I’ve just been sitting here reviewing the progress of our little debate and I thought I should let you know that I’m pretty sure I’m winning.
I know you’ll agree.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:
Oh good! So really, we both just prefer not to see people behaving tastelessly, right?
That’s fair commentary.
What two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home is none of my business…and I’m thankful for that.
Here again I read you to be saying that it’s not the gays, necessarily, but the overtly sexual behavior. That’s different. Why not focus yourself on overt sexuality, then?
Well, it seems that I jumped into the thread when it was on “gay parade” so to speak.
And since we were on the topic I stated my own feelings.
And by the way how many heterosexual parades do you see? That is heterosexuals flaunting themselves while parading down the street?
The funny part is that homosexual groups actually think that the “in your face” attitude endears them to middle America.
LOL…The more they parade around the less accepted that they become.
Stupid…very stupid strategy.
Don’t you think?
And do you think it should by your decision when to tell your child about this type of sickness? Or should you depend on the timing of a City parade?
Yes, it should be up to me when to tell them, but the world is a hard place sometimes.
If you actually think about it. The media has robbed parents of their own timing on plenty of things.
The silent majority should speak up more. Just as they did on the Mexican border issue a few weeks ago.
Very impressive.
Not at all, I actually admire your spirit. It’s your liberal views that I don’t like so much.
Thanks. But you mean my conservative, small-government views, right?
