Homosexual Propaganda Exposed

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
121

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

HETEROSEXUAL MEN CONSTANTLY THINKING ABOUT GAY SEX… [/quote]

I gotta admit that this is pretty damn strange. I know some completely flaming homos that don’t talk about gay sex as much as some of these guys on here do. In fact, they don’t talk about it much at all.

It’s like an OCD on here. [/quote]

What’s even stranger is the explicit terms they use. We have a collection of people on this forum who have frequently spelled out in graphic terms things related to gay sex and it is always the people who are most against it.

It doesn’t make much sense to me. Those most against something are the ones constantly talking about it AND discussing it in graphic descriptive terms which those who don’t really give a shit about it never do. A google site search could probably turn up some stuff that would get most people fired from work in these “type” of threads and they are almost always posted by the people who are vehemently anti homosexual.

Would this forum ever really talk about homosexuals if it wasn’t for those who are so “against” it?

I guess some straight guys come to fitness and bodybuilding boards and consistently talk about homosexuals having sex and start all sorts of threads about it. Not that there’s anything wrong with that…[/quote]

No, nothing wrong with that. Because if there was, they would be the first ones to point it out. And point and point and point and point… till they finally reached a pinnacle of raging righteousness, released in a rapturous…

Oh wait. Sorry about that, I was getting a little bit gay for a minute there.

124

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
As for birth rates, gays can have biological children…

[/quote]

Whoa. Dude.

Explain how THIS works. Please.
[/quote]

I think it’s got something to do with putting out a special kind of birdseed that storks love.

125

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
News flash: homosexuals want to gain acceptance as human beings in our society and are using “tactics” to do so; film at 11. [/quote]

I do accept homosexuals as human beings. I just don’t accept their behaviour and lifestyles.[/quote]

So what are your facts, logic and proof for not accepting their behavior and lifestyle?[/quote]

See related citations as well. There’s also the facts that they regularly bring up themselves of high suicide rates and drug use.[/quote]

So this is what you call good science? How can you seriously accept stuff like this and ignore things like global warming studies?[/quote]

Lol! [/quote]

This is a serious question. What exactly does a study on global warming have that makes it bullshit while at the same time this one being valid?[/quote]

You may think it’s a serious question but really it’s not. Global warming is a pseudo science like phrenology.
[/quote]

So if global warming is a pseudo science what do you call science based off a 30 year old survey with many flaws that was ignored by the actual scientific community?

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/faculty_sites/rainbow/html/facts_cameron_survey.html[/quote]

The article has nine pages of citations going up to 2009. The Camerons are only one of dozens of authors cited.[/quote]

The original link you posted was the abstract for a study published in 1989 (impossible for a real citation to be after that date). The related citations link are completely unrelated to that and are most likely based on search keywords that website uses to generate more views.

[/quote]

Well here’s an article citing more recent studies:

http://www.ncfamily.org/FNC/0707S3.html

References include studies by the CDC, the foundation for AIDS research, the medical institute for sexual health and the gay and lesbian medical association. Of particular concern is what is known as ‘bug chasing.’[/quote]

Ignoring the obvious biased site this comes from. Why do you care about what risky behavior these people engage in? Don’t you believe in a more free society?

126

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

HETEROSEXUAL MEN CONSTANTLY THINKING ABOUT GAY SEX… [/quote]

I gotta admit that this is pretty damn strange. I know some completely flaming homos that don’t talk about gay sex as much as some of these guys on here do. In fact, they don’t talk about it much at all.

It’s like an OCD on here. [/quote]

Funny, I was just thinking how OCD the crowd is who are arguing with SM. It’s the same ol’ bunch of folks that flock to these threads defending homosexuality like their very lives depended on it. They’re so eager and so passionate.

It’s uncanny.[/quote]

Maybe their life does depend on it just as much as the people who start the threads lives depend on starting them. What would one be without the other?

Boom Boom, ain’t it great to be crazy?

127

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

HETEROSEXUAL MEN CONSTANTLY THINKING ABOUT GAY SEX… [/quote]

I gotta admit that this is pretty damn strange. I know some completely flaming homos that don’t talk about gay sex as much as some of these guys on here do. In fact, they don’t talk about it much at all.

It’s like an OCD on here. [/quote]

Funny, I was just thinking how OCD the crowd is who are arguing with SM. It’s the same ol’ bunch of folks that flock to these threads defending homosexuality like their very lives depended on it. They’re so eager and so passionate.

It’s uncanny.[/quote]

Maybe their life does depend on it just as much as the people who start the threads lives depend on starting them. What would one be without the other?

Boom Boom, ain’t it great to be crazy?

[/quote]

The guy with more posts than everyone else in this thread combined (or close) and a ton of them on gays is calling other people OCD.

Man that is almost as good as the guy posting propaganda to complain about propaganda. Almost.

128

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
It does not logically follow that sex not capable of causing pregnancy is immoral.

Your argument is invalid because the conclusion is not entailed by the premises.

It is true that anal sex, for example, does not lead to pregnancy.

And yet that premise does not entail the conclusion that anal sex is immoral. You assume that sex not capable of leading to pregnancy is immoral.

As I predicted, you are wandering in circles, from assumed or asserted maxim to assumed or asserted maxim.

And the thing about assumed and asserted maxims is that they can be negated as simply as they are propounded: With an assumed and asserted refutation.[/quote]

I’ve already listed in point form why it’s immoral. I can only refer you back to those points. If you want to dispute my reasoning then quote the point and attempt to counter my argument. [/quote]

That’s exactly what I’m doing in the above post, which you quoted without addressing.

I am saying that your conclusion is not entailed by your premises, for the reasons outlined above. You are assuming your conclusion as a premise (also called begging the question): “Homosexual sex is immoral because it is sex that does not lead to procreation (i.e., it is homosexual sex) and that is immoral.” This is a fallacious argument.[/quote]

Firstly that was one reason amongst eight I provided. Secondly, homosexuality precludes heterosexual sex and child rearing. I’m contending that child rearing is a responsibility for adults and that to shun that responsibility in exchange for an unnatural, unhealthy sterile union is immoral.

129

Whats this about birthrates when there are food shortages and increased prices for basic foods these days? It’s possible that in the near future we could suffer starvation if we have issues with collapse in agriculture. It could come from lack of bees or that gmo’s become too toxic, or crops become vulnerable for some other reason with our tinkering.

Whats the use of procreation if we are going to overpopulate? Have you ever wondered if homosexuality might be some sort of natural normalizer for that in explaining survivability traits and genetic expressions of such?

Pretty weird to think about survivability without thinking about lack of resources and possible ways of coping with that problem.

130

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
As for birth rates, gays can have biological children. Beyond that, it is the responsibility of heterosexuals to procreate, and it is most certainly not the responsibility of government or society to force or shame anybody into doing such. As H Factor mentioned, that my neighbors are gay has no effect on my own heterosexual desire to have sex with women. Nor does it affect my plan to one day have children.

Or is the case being made that if we don’t condemn homosexuality, kids will be “turned” gay? As I’ve said many times before, if anybody is thinking along these lines, their heterosexuality is more tenuously balanced than they’d surely ever admit.[/quote]

Artificially inseminating a woman then giving the child to two gay men is a costly and unnecessary procedure that deprives a child of a mother.

131

[quote]Severiano wrote:
Whats this about birthrates when there are food shortages and increased prices for basic foods these days? It’s possible that in the near future we could suffer starvation if we have issues with collapse in agriculture. It could come from lack of bees or that gmo’s become too toxic, or crops become vulnerable for some other reason with our tinkering.

Whats the use of procreation if we are going to overpopulate? Have you ever wondered if homosexuality might be some sort of natural normalizer for that in explaining survivability traits and genetic expressions of such?

Pretty weird to think about survivability without thinking about lack of resources and possible ways of coping with that problem.

[/quote]

What you are describing is known as Malthusian theory. It’s been thoroughly discredited.

blogs.reuters.com/edward-hadas/2011/11/02/7-billion-reasons-why-malthus-was-wrong/

132

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
News flash: homosexuals want to gain acceptance as human beings in our society and are using “tactics” to do so; film at 11. [/quote]

I do accept homosexuals as human beings. I just don’t accept their behaviour and lifestyles.[/quote]

So what are your facts, logic and proof for not accepting their behavior and lifestyle?[/quote]

See related citations as well. There’s also the facts that they regularly bring up themselves of high suicide rates and drug use.[/quote]

So this is what you call good science? How can you seriously accept stuff like this and ignore things like global warming studies?[/quote]

Lol! [/quote]

This is a serious question. What exactly does a study on global warming have that makes it bullshit while at the same time this one being valid?[/quote]

You may think it’s a serious question but really it’s not. Global warming is a pseudo science like phrenology.
[/quote]

So if global warming is a pseudo science what do you call science based off a 30 year old survey with many flaws that was ignored by the actual scientific community?

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/faculty_sites/rainbow/html/facts_cameron_survey.html[/quote]

The article has nine pages of citations going up to 2009. The Camerons are only one of dozens of authors cited.[/quote]

The original link you posted was the abstract for a study published in 1989 (impossible for a real citation to be after that date). The related citations link are completely unrelated to that and are most likely based on search keywords that website uses to generate more views.

[/quote]

Well here’s an article citing more recent studies:

http://www.ncfamily.org/FNC/0707S3.html

References include studies by the CDC, the foundation for AIDS research, the medical institute for sexual health and the gay and lesbian medical association. Of particular concern is what is known as ‘bug chasing.’[/quote]

Ignoring the obvious biased site this comes from. Why do you care about what risky behavior these people engage in? Don’t you believe in a more free society?

[/quote]

If you’d read the links you would see that gay men are the main source of HIV infection to women. It’s a public health problem. And what is particularly disturbing is the trend of ‘bug chasing’ and ‘gift giving’ where gay men deliberately spread and contract HIV.

133

[quote]Severiano wrote:
Whats the use of procreation if we are going to overpopulate? Have you ever wondered if homosexuality might be some sort of natural normalizer for that in explaining survivability traits and genetic expressions of such?
[/quote]

This!

BTW. Looks like we got a good old fashioned liberal circle-jerk for once. Fitting With the topic actually :wink:

134

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
News flash: homosexuals want to gain acceptance as human beings in our society and are using “tactics” to do so; film at 11. [/quote]

I do accept homosexuals as human beings. I just don’t accept their behaviour and lifestyles.[/quote]

So what are your facts, logic and proof for not accepting their behavior and lifestyle?[/quote]

See related citations as well. There’s also the facts that they regularly bring up themselves of high suicide rates and drug use.[/quote]

So this is what you call good science? How can you seriously accept stuff like this and ignore things like global warming studies?[/quote]

Lol! [/quote]

This is a serious question. What exactly does a study on global warming have that makes it bullshit while at the same time this one being valid?[/quote]

You may think it’s a serious question but really it’s not. Global warming is a pseudo science like phrenology.
[/quote]

So if global warming is a pseudo science what do you call science based off a 30 year old survey with many flaws that was ignored by the actual scientific community?

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/faculty_sites/rainbow/html/facts_cameron_survey.html[/quote]

The article has nine pages of citations going up to 2009. The Camerons are only one of dozens of authors cited.[/quote]

The original link you posted was the abstract for a study published in 1989 (impossible for a real citation to be after that date). The related citations link are completely unrelated to that and are most likely based on search keywords that website uses to generate more views.

[/quote]

Well here’s an article citing more recent studies:

http://www.ncfamily.org/FNC/0707S3.html

References include studies by the CDC, the foundation for AIDS research, the medical institute for sexual health and the gay and lesbian medical association. Of particular concern is what is known as ‘bug chasing.’[/quote]

Ignoring the obvious biased site this comes from. Why do you care about what risky behavior these people engage in? Don’t you believe in a more free society?

[/quote]

If you’d read the links you would see that gay men are the main source of HIV infection to women. It’s a public health problem. And what is particularly disturbing is the trend of ‘bug chasing’ and ‘gift giving’ where gay men deliberately spread and contract HIV.
[/quote]

More than a third of women murdered around the world are killed by their partner, and they are six times more likely to be murdered by a partner than men who are victims of homicide. Maybe just having a marital partner is a public health problem for women.

135

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
News flash: homosexuals want to gain acceptance as human beings in our society and are using “tactics” to do so; film at 11. [/quote]

I do accept homosexuals as human beings. I just don’t accept their behaviour and lifestyles.[/quote]

So what are your facts, logic and proof for not accepting their behavior and lifestyle?[/quote]

See related citations as well. There’s also the facts that they regularly bring up themselves of high suicide rates and drug use.[/quote]

So this is what you call good science? How can you seriously accept stuff like this and ignore things like global warming studies?[/quote]

Lol! [/quote]

This is a serious question. What exactly does a study on global warming have that makes it bullshit while at the same time this one being valid?[/quote]

You may think it’s a serious question but really it’s not. Global warming is a pseudo science like phrenology.
[/quote]

So if global warming is a pseudo science what do you call science based off a 30 year old survey with many flaws that was ignored by the actual scientific community?

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/faculty_sites/rainbow/html/facts_cameron_survey.html[/quote]

The article has nine pages of citations going up to 2009. The Camerons are only one of dozens of authors cited.[/quote]

The original link you posted was the abstract for a study published in 1989 (impossible for a real citation to be after that date). The related citations link are completely unrelated to that and are most likely based on search keywords that website uses to generate more views.

[/quote]

Well here’s an article citing more recent studies:

http://www.ncfamily.org/FNC/0707S3.html

References include studies by the CDC, the foundation for AIDS research, the medical institute for sexual health and the gay and lesbian medical association. Of particular concern is what is known as ‘bug chasing.’[/quote]

Ignoring the obvious biased site this comes from. Why do you care about what risky behavior these people engage in? Don’t you believe in a more free society?

[/quote]

If you’d read the links you would see that gay men are the main source of HIV infection to women. It’s a public health problem. And what is particularly disturbing is the trend of ‘bug chasing’ and ‘gift giving’ where gay men deliberately spread and contract HIV.
[/quote]

More than a third of women murdered around the world are killed by their partner, and they are six times more likely to be murdered by a partner than men who are victims of homicide. Maybe just having a marital partner is a public health problem for women.

[/quote]

SexMachine is gay as fuck. You know how I know? He’s been getting his ass pounded this whole thread, and you just blew a gigantic fucking load all over his face. NICE!

136

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
News flash: homosexuals want to gain acceptance as human beings in our society and are using “tactics” to do so; film at 11. [/quote]

I do accept homosexuals as human beings. I just don’t accept their behaviour and lifestyles.[/quote]

So what are your facts, logic and proof for not accepting their behavior and lifestyle?[/quote]

See related citations as well. There’s also the facts that they regularly bring up themselves of high suicide rates and drug use.[/quote]

So this is what you call good science? How can you seriously accept stuff like this and ignore things like global warming studies?[/quote]

Lol! [/quote]

This is a serious question. What exactly does a study on global warming have that makes it bullshit while at the same time this one being valid?[/quote]

You may think it’s a serious question but really it’s not. Global warming is a pseudo science like phrenology.
[/quote]

So if global warming is a pseudo science what do you call science based off a 30 year old survey with many flaws that was ignored by the actual scientific community?

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/faculty_sites/rainbow/html/facts_cameron_survey.html[/quote]

The article has nine pages of citations going up to 2009. The Camerons are only one of dozens of authors cited.[/quote]

The original link you posted was the abstract for a study published in 1989 (impossible for a real citation to be after that date). The related citations link are completely unrelated to that and are most likely based on search keywords that website uses to generate more views.

[/quote]

Well here’s an article citing more recent studies:

http://www.ncfamily.org/FNC/0707S3.html

References include studies by the CDC, the foundation for AIDS research, the medical institute for sexual health and the gay and lesbian medical association. Of particular concern is what is known as ‘bug chasing.’[/quote]

Ignoring the obvious biased site this comes from. Why do you care about what risky behavior these people engage in? Don’t you believe in a more free society?

[/quote]

If you’d read the links you would see that gay men are the main source of HIV infection to women. It’s a public health problem. And what is particularly disturbing is the trend of ‘bug chasing’ and ‘gift giving’ where gay men deliberately spread and contract HIV.
[/quote]

More than a third of women murdered around the world are killed by their partner, and they are six times more likely to be murdered by a partner than men who are victims of homicide. Maybe just having a marital partner is a public health problem for women.

[/quote]

If you’d read the links I posted you’d see that studies indicate domestic violence is far more common in homosexual relationships than heterosexual relationships. A study done in Canada says it’s twice as common.

137

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
News flash: homosexuals want to gain acceptance as human beings in our society and are using “tactics” to do so; film at 11. [/quote]

I do accept homosexuals as human beings. I just don’t accept their behaviour and lifestyles.[/quote]

So what are your facts, logic and proof for not accepting their behavior and lifestyle?[/quote]

See related citations as well. There’s also the facts that they regularly bring up themselves of high suicide rates and drug use.[/quote]

So this is what you call good science? How can you seriously accept stuff like this and ignore things like global warming studies?[/quote]

Lol! [/quote]

This is a serious question. What exactly does a study on global warming have that makes it bullshit while at the same time this one being valid?[/quote]

You may think it’s a serious question but really it’s not. Global warming is a pseudo science like phrenology.
[/quote]

So if global warming is a pseudo science what do you call science based off a 30 year old survey with many flaws that was ignored by the actual scientific community?

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/faculty_sites/rainbow/html/facts_cameron_survey.html[/quote]

The article has nine pages of citations going up to 2009. The Camerons are only one of dozens of authors cited.[/quote]

The original link you posted was the abstract for a study published in 1989 (impossible for a real citation to be after that date). The related citations link are completely unrelated to that and are most likely based on search keywords that website uses to generate more views.

[/quote]

Well here’s an article citing more recent studies:

http://www.ncfamily.org/FNC/0707S3.html

References include studies by the CDC, the foundation for AIDS research, the medical institute for sexual health and the gay and lesbian medical association. Of particular concern is what is known as ‘bug chasing.’[/quote]

Ignoring the obvious biased site this comes from. Why do you care about what risky behavior these people engage in? Don’t you believe in a more free society?

[/quote]

If you’d read the links you would see that gay men are the main source of HIV infection to women. It’s a public health problem. And what is particularly disturbing is the trend of ‘bug chasing’ and ‘gift giving’ where gay men deliberately spread and contract HIV.
[/quote]

More than a third of women murdered around the world are killed by their partner, and they are six times more likely to be murdered by a partner than men who are victims of homicide. Maybe just having a marital partner is a public health problem for women.

[/quote]

If you’d read the links I posted you’d see that studies indicate domestic violence is far more common in homosexual relationships than heterosexual relationships. A study done in Canada says it’s twice as common.
[/quote]

Maybe we just need to stamp out relationships in general. That would solve the domestic violence problem altogether.

138

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
If you’d read the links you would see that gay men are the main source of HIV infection to women. It’s a public health problem. And what is particularly disturbing is the trend of ‘bug chasing’ and ‘gift giving’ where gay men deliberately spread and contract HIV.
[/quote]

Is this something your really concerned about? I’ve never had this concern with women, maybe you are hanging around the wrong types if its an actual problem in your life.

So hypothetically if they ever find a cure for HIV you have no problems will gays and will stop making threads like this?

139

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
If you’d read the links you would see that gay men are the main source of HIV infection to women. It’s a public health problem. And what is particularly disturbing is the trend of ‘bug chasing’ and ‘gift giving’ where gay men deliberately spread and contract HIV.
[/quote]

Is this something your really concerned about? I’ve never had this concern with women, maybe you are hanging around the wrong types if its an actual problem in your life.

So hypothetically if they ever find a cure for HIV you have no problems will gays and will stop making threads like this?[/quote]

You’re an idiot. HIV is only one of more than a dozen STDs and STDs are only one reason amongst many that I oppose the normalisation of homosexuality.